Sanjay Kumar vs The State Of Bihar

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA 2025 INSC 287 CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1398 OF 2015

SANJAY KUMAR ..... APPELLANT(S)

VERSUS

STATE OF BIHAR & ORS. ..... RESPONDENT(S)

O R D E R

We have heard the learned counsel appearing for the

appellant, Sanjay Kumar, at some length, who has drawn our

attention to the depositions of the eye-witnesses, namely, Sanjay

Kumar (the appellant and informant/complainant), who had deposed as

PW-8 and Kalam, who had deposed as PW-7, and the other witnesses,

namely, Dinesh Prasad (PW-6) and Krishna Chandra Dubey (PW-10), the

investigating officer.

As per the case of the prosecution, respondent no. 5, Megnath

Koiri, was detained at the spot itself after three intruders had

entered into the shop and one of them fired at the father of the

informant/complainant, that is, the deceased, Ishwar/Ishwer

Chander. Respondent No. 5, Megnath Koiri, had in the said

occurrence, suffered injuries and was arrested after the police

reached the spot.

Signature Not Verified

It is pointed out to us that the impugned judgment dismissed Digitally signed by Deepak Guglani the appeal preferred by the appellant/informant/complainant, Sanjay Date: 2025.02.28 16:38:01 IST Reason:

Kumar, on the very first day, without even calling for the trial

1 Court records.

The impugned judgment refers to the statement under Section

164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 1, made by respondent

No. 5, Megnath Koiri, which was not produced in the Court. It also

records that the version given by Sanjay Kumar (PW-8) is not

corroborated by other staff members, without noticing the

deposition of Dinesh Prasad (PW-6) in his cross-examination by the

prosecutor, after he was declared hostile.

Learned counsel for the appellant submits that even Ashok

Kumar Bhattacharya (PW-3) did accept that he had seen the deceased

tumbling down on the chair outside and that one person was

apprehended. It is highlighted that there was a long delay in the

trial and as a result, they could not identify respondent No. 5,

Megnath Koiri, who was apprehended at the spot. However, the fact

that respondent No. 5, Megnath Koiri, was apprehended at the spot,

as per the learned counsel, cannot be debated or doubted in view of

the depositions of the appellant, Sanjay Kumar (PW-8) and the

investigating officer, Krishna Chandra Dubey (PW-10).

Another reason noted by the High Court, to dismiss the appeal

in limine, was that respondent No. 5, Megnath Koiri, was acquitted

in the trial relating to the offence under the Arms Act, 1959 2. It

is also stated that the ballistic report of the pistol allegedly

recovered from respondent No. 5, Megnath Koiri, was not produced in

the Court.

In our opinion, the present case had to be decided on the

1For short, “CrPC.” 2For short, “1959 Act.”

2 basis of the evidence adduced before the trial Court in the

chargesheet(s) in question. The judgment of acquittal for the

offence under the 1959 Act would be based upon the evidence led in

the said case. Reference, in this regard, as to the relevancy of

judgments, can be made to Sections 40 to 44 of the Indian Evidence

Act, 18723. This aspect has not been considered by the High Court.

The failure of the investigation or prosecution is an aspect which

the Court has to consider after weighing the depositions of the

eye-witnesses.

The learned counsel for the appellant, Sanjay Kumar, referred

to Section 391 of the Cr.P.C. as well as Section 165 of the 1872

Act.

As we are inclined to pass an order of remand in the present

case, we are not inclined to delve deeper into the matter. We,

accordingly, set aside and quash the impugned order dated

03.07.2013 passed by the High Court, dismissing the appeal

preferred by the appellant/informant/complainant, Sanjay Kumar, in

limine. Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 573/2013 shall, accordingly,

stand revived on the file of the High Court to its original number.

The High Court will issue notice in the appeal and decide the same

on merits and in accordance with law.

We clarify that the observations made in this order are for

the disposal of the present appeal. The High Court shall

independently examine the material and the evidence on record and

form its own opinion, while deciding the appeal.

To cut short the delay, parties are directed to appear before

3For short, “1872 Act.”

3 the High Court in the aforesaid appeal on 24.03.2025. As it is an

old matter, the appeal may be heard and decided by the High Court

as expeditiously as possible.

The present appeal is disposed of.

The original records of the Trial Court/High Court shall be

sent back immediately.

Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.

................CJI.

(SANJIV KHANNA)

..................J. (SANJAY KUMAR) NEW DELHI;

FEBRUARY 27, 2025.

4