Justice Arun Kumar Jha sets aside judgment by 1st Additional Sessions Judge -cum- Special Judge, Katihar in a case from 2010

A decision can be considered to be perverse only when there is some conscious violation of a rule of law or of procedure.

– In Kristamma Naidu vs. Chapa Naidu, 1894 ILR 17 Mad 410.

“It is, no doubt, true that if a finding of fact is arrived at by ignoring or excluding relevant material or by taking into consideration irrelevant material or if the finding so outrageously defies logic as to suffer from the vice of irrationality incurring the blame of being perverse, then, the finding is rendered infirm in law.”

-In H.B. Gandhi, Excise and Taxation Officer-cum-Assessing Authority vs. Gopi Nath, 1992 Supp (2) SCC 312 

“A broad distinction has, therefore, to be maintained between the decisions which are perverse and those which are not. If a decision is arrived at on no evidence or evidence which is thoroughly unreliable and no reasonable person would act upon it, the order would be perverse. But if there is some evidence on record which is acceptable and which could be relied upon, howsoever compendious it may be, the conclusions would not be treated as perverse."

– Justice R.F. Nariman referred to the decision in Kuldeep Singh vs. Commissioner of Police, (1999) 2 SCC 10 in Associate Builders v. Delhi Development Authority, (2015) 3 SCC 49.

In Md Amir Hussain vs. The State of Bihar & Anr. (2025), a criminal revision petition, Patna High Court's Justice Arun Kumar Jha delivered a 5-page long judgement dated September 1, 2025, wherein, he concluded: " For bringing a conviction, in a complaint case, it is settled proposition of law that the averment made in the complaint petition and the evidence of the complainant witnesses are to be read together. However, it is the evidence which would prove the case against the accused persons. Though the complaint petition is not expected to be encyclopedic in nature, not mentioning the name of the petitioner in the complaint petition and the complainant himself not naming the petitioner for any assault upon him, throws the whole issue open. Though this Court is not expected to go into the contentious issues and re-appreciation of the facts and evidence, still complete absence of the name of the petitioner in the complaint petition for participating in the occurrence dated 02.12.2010 and subsequent omission of the name of the petitioner in the evidence of the complainant, who deposed as C.W. 3, this Court is inclined to entertain the criminal revision petition as perversity is apparent on the face of record. Hence, the judgment and the order of conviction dated 08.03.2022 passed by learned 1st Additional Sessions Judge -cum- Special Judge, Katihar in Complaint Case No. 3427 of 2010 are set aside as against the petitioner. 7. Accordingly, the present criminal revision petition stands allowed." It was one of the 15 judgements delivered on September 1, 2025. 

The criminal revision petition was filed by the petitioner for setting aside the judgment and order of conviction, both dated March 8, 2022 passed by 1st Additional Sessions Judge -cum- Special Judge, Katihar in Complaint Case No. 3427 of 2010, CIS No. 3427 of 2010, whereby and whereunder the petitioner was convicted for the offence punishable under Section 323 of the Indian Penal Code and acquitted from other charges and the petitioner was released after due admonition under the provisions of Section 3 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958. The petitioner's counsel submitted that the petitioner faced the trial arising out of a complaint case of 2010 wherein the petitioner was made accused along with four other co-accused persons for the offences punishable under Section 323 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 3(1) (ii)(x)(xiv) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. He also submitted that the allegation against the petitioner and other co-accused persons was that they abused the complainant by taking his caste name and also assaulted him. There are two dates of occurrence, December 2, 2010 and December 11, 2010, respectively. In the first occurrence, the complainant had named Rafique Alam @ Kalu and Mustaque Alam, who abused the complainant and put him down on the earth and started pressing his neck. This occurrence took place on December 2, 2010. There was no mention of the name of the petitioner for abusing the complainant or for assaulting him. In the second alleged occurrence dated December 11, 2010, the complainant made averment that while a panchayati was being held, the complainant and other persons were assaulted by the petitioner and other co-accused persons. But the trial court disbelieved the second occurrence which was apparent from the impugned judgment but convicted the accused persons for the offence under Section 323 of the Indian Penal Code only. But the finding was perverse since the complainant did not name the petitioner for being involved in the occurrence of assault dated December 2, 2010 either in his complaint petition or in his deposition. 

The counsel further submitted that the trial court disbelieved the story of commission of offence under Sections 3(1)(ii)(x)(xiv) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. The evidence of the two witnesses was against the version of the complainant and the same could not be relied on for convicting the petitioner under Section 323 of the Indian Penal Code. There was no further corroborative evidence rather these witnesses were not eye witnesses and from perusal of their evidence it would appear that they were tutored witnesses of the employer of the complainant. 

The counsel pointed out that even from the evidence of the witnesses of the complainant, it came on record that the petitioner was only involved in 'panchayati' for bringing out an amicable settlement. Since the trial court disbelieved the story of assault during 'panchayati', nothing remained in the matter against the petitioner and considering the facts and circumstances, it was apparent that the impugned judgment by the 1st Additional Sessions Judge suffered from infirmity and the same could not be sustained against the petitioner. Justice Jha found the submission of the counsel convincing.

Patna High Court sets aside Trial Court's judgement of 2019 in a 1994 rape case from Muzaffarpur

In Haribabu Vs. State of Bihar, the division bench of Justices Vipul M. Pancholi and Ramesh Chand Malviya, concluded that "the prosecution has failed to prove the case against the appellant/accused beyond reasonable doubt, despite which the Trial Court has recorded the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence. As such, the same are required to be quashed and set aside." 

It all began on October 4, 1994, the victim was sleeping on a mat spread on the ground in a hut facing north when Hari Babu, son of Bujhu Lal, came with a pistol in his hand and put it on her neck and asked her to keep quiet, otherwise she would be killed. Thereafter, he gagged her mouth with his hand and after removing her saree and saya, forcefully inserted his penis into her private part. She kept moving her hands and legs. Meanwhile, semen got discharged from his penis, which fell on her private part, thigh and the cloth. After this, she raised alarm and on her alarm, her mother Surji Devi asked as to what happened. She started making a noise that Hari Babu is running away after abusing her. Many people of the village like Anat Paswan, Janak Paswan, Yogendra Paswan, Dukha Paswan etc. also saw him running away after the incident. After filing of the F.I.R., the investigating agency carried out the investigation and, during the course of investigation, the Investigating Officer recorded the statement of the witnesses and collected the relevant documents and thereafter filed the charge-sheet against the accused. As the case was exclusively triable by the Special Court (SC/ST) Act, the case was committed to the Court of Special Judge (SC/ST) Act where it was registered as Trial No. 206 of 2015.

Yogesh Chandra Verma, the appellant's the senior counsel submitted that the case of the prosecution rests on the deposition given by the victim, P.W.1. However, there are major contradictions in the deposition given by her and other witnesses and, therefore, the version given by the victim is not required to be believed. It is also contended that P.W.3, who is the mother of the victim, has stated in her examination-in-chief that she has seen the accused fleeing away from the house in the light of the earthen lamp. She has further deposed that the victim did not inform her anything. Thereafter, on the next day, she went to the police station along with her daughter. There is a delay of two 24 hours in lodging the F.I.R. wherein the present appellant has been falsely implicated. It is submitted that though the victim had identified the accused appellant and other family members and more than 40 persons had gathered immediately at the place after the occurrence and had seen the accused fleeing away from the place of incident. It is apparent that the respondent, the victim was not represented by her own counsel. The version of Manjha Devi, the victim, P.W.1 was submitted by Sadanand Paswan, the Spl. P.P.

The Court observed that "when a conviction can be based on the sole testimony of the prosecutrix, the Courts also have to be extremely careful while examining this sole testimony. If the evidence of the victim inspires confidence, it must be relied upon without seeking corroboration of the aforesaid statement in material particulars. It can further be said that if the version given by the prosecutrix is unsupported by any medical evidence or the whole surrounding circumstances are highly improbable and belie the case set up by the prosecutrix, the Court shall not act on the solitary evidence of the prosecutrix."

It further noted that "if the deposition given by the prosecutrix is carefully examined, we are of the view that the version given by the victim raises doubt and does not inspire confidence. We have already discussed that even medical evidence does not support the version given by the victim. There is a delay of 24 hours in lodging the F.I.R., for which no explanation was given by the prosecution. Thus, we are of the view that simply relying upon the deposition given by the prosecutrix, in the facts and circumstances of the present case, the appellant cannot be convicted or awarded sentence."

Notably, the incident took place in the year 1994. As per the provision prevalent at the relevant point of time with regard to Section-376 of I.P.C., the minimum sentence prescribed for the said offence was 7 years. In the present case, the Trial Court, relying upon the said provision, sentenced the appellant imprisonment for 7 years. However, Section- 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 provides that where the punishment prescribed for the offence under I.P.C. is 10 years or more years then life imprisonment can be awarded. The Court observed that "In the present case, sentence provided in I.P.C. under Section-376 at the relevant point of time was 7 years and, therefore also, the Trial Court has committed grave error while imposing sentence of life imprisonment under Section- 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989."

The judgement reads: "the impugned judgment of conviction dated 06.02.2019 and order of dated 13.02.2019 passed by learned 11th A.D.J.-cum-Spl. Judge (SC/ST) Act, Muzaffarpur in connection with Trial No.206/2015, G.R. No.1096/1994, arising out of Sahebganj P.S. Case No. 91 of 1994 dated 05.10.1994 are quashed and set aside and the appellant is acquitted of the charges levelled against him by the learned Trial Court. Since the appellant, namely, Haribabu @Hari Babu Prasad is in jail, he is directed to be released from jail custody forthwith, if his presence is not required in any other case." It was authored by Justice Vipul M. Pancholi. 

At para 16 of the judgement, the caste of Manjha Devi, the victim, P.W.1 is recorded. It reads: "She is a Dusadh by case which is called Harijan", unmindful of Supreme Court's instructions.

In its order dated January 10, 2024, Supreme Court has passed an order in Shama Sharma Vs. Kishan Kumar (Transfer Petition (C) No.1957 of 2023) observing that the caste of the parties need not be mentioned in the memo of parties. Its direction reads as as under:
“10. Before parting with this matter, we have noted with surprise that the caste of both the parties has been mentioned in the memo of parties, besides their other details. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that if the memo of parties as filed before the courts below is changed in any manner, the Registry raises an objection and in the present case as the caste of both the parties was mentioned before the court below, he had no option but to mention their caste in the Transfer Petition.
11. We see no reason for mentioning the caste/religion of any litigant either before this Court or the courts below. Such a practice is to be shunned and must be ceased forthwith. It is therefore deemed appropriate to pass a general order directing that henceforth the caste or religion of parties shall not be mentioned in the memo of parties of a petition/proceeding filed before this Court, irrespective of whether any such details have been furnished before the courts below. A direction is also issued to all the High Courts to ensure that the caste/religion of a litigant does not appear in the memo of parties in any petition/suit/proceeding filed before the High Court or the Subordinate Courts under their respective jurisdictions.
12. The above directions shall be brought to the notice of the members of the Bar as well as the Registry for immediate compliance. A copy of this order shall be placed before the Registrar concerned for perusal and for circulation to the Registrar Generals of all the High Courts for strict compliance.” Supreme Court of India has issued a circular dated February 7, 2024 (F.No. 3/Judl./2024) in this regard.