Patna High Court
Shankar Dayal Singh vs The State Of Bihar on 4 April, 2025
Author: Rajeev Ranjan Prasad
Bench: Rajeev Ranjan Prasad
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL APPEAL (DB) No.998 of 2023
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-35 Year-1997 Thana- KARAHGAR District- Rohtas
======================================================
Shankar Dayal Singh Son Of Late Ramdhari Singh Resident Of Village -
Karup, P.S. - Kargahar, District - Rohtas
... ... Appellant/S
Versus
1. The State Of Bihar
2. Jhunna Kahar Son Of Late Jhuri Kahar Resident Of Village - Karup, P.S. -
Kargahar, District - Rohtas
3. Sunil Siingh @ Sunil Kumar Singh Son Of Sharma Singh Resident Of
Village - Karup, P.S. - Kargahar, District - Rohtas
4. Paddu Kahar Son Of Mundrika Kahar Resident Of Village - Karup, P.S. -
Kargahar, District - Rohtas
5. Ramprit Singh Son Of Late Sarvajeet Singh Resident Of Village - Karup,
P.S. - Kargahar, District - Rohtas
6. Ram Chandra Tiwari Son Of Ram Bachan Tiwari Resident Of Village -
Karup, P.S. - Kargahar, District - Rohtas
7. Krishna Singh Son Of Vikrama Singh Resident Of Village - Karup, P.S. -
Kargahar, District - Rohtas
8. Brajesh Kumar Singh Son Of Indrajeet Singh Resident Of Village - Karup,
P.S. - Kargahar, District - Rohtas
9. Damodar Singh Son Of Gulli Singh Resident Of Village - Karup, P.S. -
Kargahar, District - Rohtas
10. Baban Kahar Son Of Jhuri Kahar Resident Of Village - Karup, P.S. -
Kargahar, District - Rohtas
11. Jag Narayan Singh Son Of Phulan Singh Resident Of Village - Karup, P.S. -
Kargahar, District - Rohtas
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Appellant/s : Mr. Rajesh Kumar, Sr. Advocate
Manish Kumar Singh, Advocate
For the Respondent/s : Mr. Binod Bihari Singh, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJEEV RANJAN PRASAD
and
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SOURENDRA PANDEY
ORAL JUDGMENT
(Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SOURENDRA PANDEY)
Date : 04-04-2025
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.998 of 2023 dt.04-04-2025
Heard Mr. Rajesh Kumar, learned Senior Advocate
assisted by Mr. Manish Kumar Singh, learned Advocate on
behalf of the appellant and learned Additional Public Prosecutor
for the State.
2. The present appeal against the acquittal has been filed
on behalf of the appellant against the judgment of conviction
and order of sentence dated 07.07.2023 and 18.07.2023
respectively passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge
XLV, Rohtas at Sasaram passed in Sessions Trial no. 576 of
1997 (arising out of Karghar P.S. Case No. 35 of 1997 registered
under Sections 147, 148, 149, 307 and 302 IPC and Section 27
of the Arms Act) (herein after referred to as 'the impugned
judgment' and order respectively) the learned Trial Court has
acquitted the respondent nos. 2 to 11 from all the charges while
other co-accused namely Vishwanath Singh and Hanuman
Singh were held guilty of the offences under Sections 302302/34
IPC Raju Singh was found guilty of the offences under Sections
302 of IPC and they were sentenced to undergo RI for life and
fine of Rs. 50,000/-.
3. As per the prosecution case the informant/appellant
namely Shankar Dayal Singh has stated that on 07.03.1997 he
along with Mukhiya of his Panchayat, Nathuni Singh and
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.998 of 2023 dt.04-04-2025
Rameswaram Singh and other co-villager proceeded to see
Maha Shivratri Mela at 13:30 hours and reached the Mela site
at about 14 : 00 hours. He has further stated that his elder son
namely Sayendra Kumar Singh also accompanied them. It was
alleged that the informant along with his son was standing in the
mela and in the meantime his co-villagers namely Raju Singh,
having country made pistol in his hand, Vishwa Nath Singh
having double barrelled gun, Pradeep Kumar having country
made pistol, Hanuman Singh with country made pistol, Arun
Kumar Singh with country made pistol, Rampreet Singh with
rifle in his possession, Jhuna Kahar with country made pistol,
Baban Kahar with country made pistol, Paddu Kahar with
country made pistol, Brijesh Kumar Singh with country made
pistol, Sachan Singh with single barrel gun, Haridwar Singh
with gun, Damodar Singh with rifle, Sunil Kumar Singh with
double barrelled gun, Krishna Singh with rifle, Sharma Singh
with country made pistol, Ramachandran Tiwari with rifle, Shiv
Murat Singh empty-handed, Jag Narain Singh with double
barrelled gun, Phoolan Singh with double barrell gun came near
his son, Satyendra Singh and at the instigation of Hanuman
Singh and Vishwanath Singh, Raju Singh fired with his country
made pistol upon the chest of Satyendra Singh from a very close
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.998 of 2023 dt.04-04-2025
range. Thereupon, informant son fell on the ground and he
became senseless. It has been further alleged that Raju Singh
and other co-accused persons started firing indiscriminately,
resulting in death of an unknown person who was stated to have
died on the spot. It was further stated that the cartridge hit the
unknown person on his head, upon which his head had burst
open. All the accused persons were alleged to have fled while
the informant son was taken to Hospital at Sasaram for
treatment. The motive behind such incident is stated to be an
old enmity with the accused persons. On the basis of such
fardbeyan Karahgar P.S. Case No. 35 of 1997 dated 07.03.1997
was registered against twenty named persons for the offences
alleged under Sections 147, 148, 149, 307 and 302 IPC and
Section 27 of the Arms Act. Upon investigation, police
submitted charge sheet No. 92 of 1997 dated 20.07.1997 for the
offences under Sections 147, 148, 149, 307, 302 and 120B of the
IPC and Section 27 of the Arms Act against the respondent Nos.
2 to 11 and 3 other
4. The learned jurisdictional Magistrate took cognizance
of the offences under Sections 147, 148, 149, 307, 302 and 120B
of the IPC and Section 27 of the Arms Act against the
respondent Nos. 2 to 11 and others and the case was committed
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.998 of 2023 dt.04-04-2025
to the Court of Sessions for trial. The accused persons pleaded
not guilty and claimed to be tried. The learned Additional
Sessions Judge II, Sasaram framed the charges under Sections
302/149 of IPC against the respondent Nos. 2 to 11 and others
and under Section 302 of the IPC against the accused Raju
Singh by order dated 24.04.2000.
5. The prosecution has altogether examined nine
witnesses and seven documents were marked exhibits. The list
of witnesses are provided hereunder :-
PW 1 Arun Kumar
PW 2 Virender Kumar Singh
PW 3 Nandeshwar Singh
PW 4 Amrendra Kumar Singh
PW 5 Rameshwaram Singh
PW 6 Abhay Singh
PW 7 Shanker Dyal Singh
PW 8 Shanker Kumar Jha
PW 9 Radhey Shyam Ram
6. The prosecution has produced several documents as
evidence which were marked exhibits and are as follows :
Exhibit 1 Signature of Birendra Kumar
Singh on carbon copy of
inquest report
Exhibit 2 fardbeyan
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.998 of 2023 dt.04-04-2025
Exhibit 3 Protest petition
Exhibit 4 P.M. Report
Exhibit 5 FIR
Exhibit 6 Inquest Report
Exhibit 7 Seizure lists
7. On the other hand defence has also examined three
defene witnesses namely :
DW 1 Biao Paswan
DW 2 Sri Sudama Ram
DW 3 Sunil Kumar Singh
8. However, the defence has not produced any
documentary evidence in support of their case :
Findings of the Trial Court
9. The learned Trial Court after analyzing evidence on the
record found that the accused persons namely Hanuman Singh,
Biswanath Singh and Raju Singh are acquitted of charges under
Sections 302/149 of IPC. However, the prosecution through its
evidence has proved that Raju Singh at the instigation of
Hanuman Singh and Biswanath Singh intentionally fired upon
Satyendra Kumar Singh with deadly firearm and caused an
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.998 of 2023 dt.04-04-2025
injury on his chest which resulted in his death. Taking the same
into account the leaned Trial Court has come to the conclusion
that prosecution has been successful in proving its case as well
as the charge under Section 302/34 of IPC against the accused
persons. The Trial Court held that accused Biswanath Singh and
Hanunman Singh are guilty of charges under Section 302/34 of
the IPC whereas accused Raju Singh was held guilty under
Section 302 of IPC and thereby convicted all the three.
10. With respect to the accused persons other than
Hanuman Singh, Raju Singh and Biswanath Singh, the learned
Trial Court took into account that prosecution witnesses have
stated that they also fired indiscriminately, however, there are
deviations, abrasions and discrepancy in the statement of
prosecution witnesses with respect to the manner of their firing.
Some of the witnesses have stated that all the accused persons
fired indiscriminately in air whereas some of the other witnesses
has stated otherwise. The learned Trial Court also took note of
the fact that there is no evidence attributing specifically against
any of the accused persons other than the above three accused
persons. The learned Trial Court has also observed in the
impugned judgment that some of the prosecution witnesses have
stated that 40 to 50 rounds of firing were made pointing at
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.998 of 2023 dt.04-04-2025
Satyendra Singh and the persons accompanying him at mela
place where more than 7,000 persons had assembled. However,
only two persons have been inflicted with solitary firearm injury
on the person of each of them. Therefore, the learned Trial Court
opined that the circumstances and consequences scream
otherwise. The learned Trial Court was of the opinion that if the
evidences are taken to be true, more persons who were
accompanying Satyendra Singh would have either been killed or
grievously injured by firearm injury. The learned Trial Court
also took into account that one of the prosecution witnesses have
stated that 4 -5 persons were injured in indiscriminate firing but
no such injury report was brought on record by the prosecution
and it was also not proved.
11. In such view of the matter, the learned Trial Court
held that the story of firing by 19-20 persons on huge gathering
create serious doubts.
12. The learned Trial Court also relying on the statements
of the prosecution witnesses held that if the accused persons
were firing in air then the prosecution story of the object of
killing Satyendra Singh also stands demolished.
13. The learned Trial Court taking into account that the
story of indiscriminate firing by 19-20 persons being not true,
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.998 of 2023 dt.04-04-2025
rather it was hypothetical and super-addition in order to settle
the old rivalry and inimical relation to implicate other persons
who had enmity with them.
14. Thus, taking the above view of the facts and
circumstances, the learned Trial Court came to a conclusion that
the prosecution has not been successful proving charges under
Section 302/149 of IPC against the accused persons other than
Hanuman Singh, Biswanath Singh and Raju Singh beyond all
reasonable doubts and therefore, they were entitled to get benefit
of doubt and accordingly the accused/respondents 2 to 11,
were held not guilty of charges under Section 302/149 of IPC.
Submissions on behalf of the appellant.
15. Learned Senior counsel appearing on behalf of the
appellant has assailed the impugned judgment on the ground
inter alia that the learned Trial Court failed to appreciate that
P.Ws 1 to 7 were consistent in their evidence and have all stated
that the accused/respondents 2 to 11 along with the three
accused who have been convicted, were variously armed and
were firing indiscriminately upon son of the informant namely,
Satyendra Kumar Singh.
16. It has been submitted that the informant who was
examined as P.W 7 and is an eye witness, has stated in his
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.998 of 2023 dt.04-04-2025
evidence that while they were standing after visiting Mela his
co-villager Raju Singh, having country made pistol in his hand,
Vishwa Nath Singh having double barrelled gun, Pradeep
Kumar having country made pistol, Hanuman Singh having
country made pistol, Arun Kumar Singh having country made
pistol, Rampreet Singh having rifle in his possession, Jhuna
Kahar with country made pistol, Baban Kahar with country
made pistol, Paddu Kahar with country made pistol, Brijesh
Kumar Singh with country made pistol, Sachan Singh with
single barrel gun, Haridwar Singh with gun, Damodar Singh
with rifle, Sunil Kumar Singh with double barrelled gun,
Krishna Singh with rifle, Sharma Singh with country made
pistol, Ramachandran Tiwari with rifle, Shiv Murat Singh
empty-handed, Jag Narain Singh with double barrelled gun,
Phoolan Singh with double barrell gun came near his son,
Satyendra Singh, Hanuman Singh and Vishwa Nath Singh
ordered to kill Satyendra Singh upon which Raju Singh fired
from his country made pistol which hit Satyendra Singh on his
chest. P.W. 7 has further deposed that all the accused persons
started firing indiscriminately resulting in hitting one unknown
person on his head causing immediate death.
17. The leaned Senior counsel further submits that on
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.998 of 2023 dt.04-04-2025
perusal of the statements of witnesses 1 to 6 it would be clear
that all the witnesses have stated the same story and there is no
discrepancy or much deviation in their statements.
18. The learned Senior counsel on behalf of the appellant
has also emphasized on the fact that all the accused persons had
assembled at the 'mela' with the sole motive to eliminate
Satyendra Singh and since there was an indiscriminate firing an
unknown person who was a passerby, too received the shot on
his head resulting into his death.
19. The learned Senior counsel has also referred to the
deposition of P.W. 8 namely, Shankar Kumar Jha who was the
Medical Officer at Sadar Hospital, Sasaram and had conducted
the postmortem upon the deceased Satyendra Singh. He found
the injuries namely :
"1. Average built. Rigor mortise present in neck. Absence
in upper and lower limbs.
Injuries-
(i) Lacerated wound over left side of chest in forth inter
coastal space in mid clavicural line with black and
inverted margin 1"x3/4"x cavity deep (Wound of entry).
(ii) Lacerated wound over back on left side just below
scapular with averted margin 1"x1/4"x3/4"x cavity deep
(wound of exit). Both wound no. 1 and 2 communicating
with each other.
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.998 of 2023 dt.04-04-2025
2. On the same day at about at 9.35 P.M he conducted the
autopsy on the dead body of the unknown person and
found following injuries :-
"(1) Lacerated wound over vertex of skull with loss of
skin and bone was coming out 3-1/2"x3"x cavity deep.
Skin tag 2"x2" attached without wound.
Interior margin of wound with frontal level black and
inverted."
20. He has stated that considering the injury report and
the ocular evidences of P.Ws. 1 to 7 there is parity in the story of
injury being caused to Satyendra Singh and to the said unknown
person who was later identified as Ajay Roy.
21. The learned Senior counsel has further drawn the
attention of this Court towards the statement of P.W. 9 namely,
Radhe Shyam Ram who was the SHO of Karahgar Police
Station and had recorded the fardbeyan and proved the same.
The I.O. (PW.9) has stated to have recovered DBBL gun from
the house of Rajwansh Singh along with five live cartridges of
12 bore. There was an arms license also which was also seized.
He has further stated in his deposition that one rifle was seized
from the house of Ram Chandra Tiwary which was also made
part of the seizure list and all the seizure list have been marked
as Exhibit 7/1, 7/2 and 7/3. He has stated that he had recorded
the statements of Arun Kumar Singh, Abhay Singh, Rameshwar
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.998 of 2023 dt.04-04-2025
Singh, Ravinda Singh, Ramashish Tiwary, Bharat Singh etc who
have supported the prosecution case.
22. The learned Senior counsel has summarized his
argument stating that P.Ws 1 to 7 are all eye witnesses and they
all have consistently stated about all the named accused persons
who have been variously armed with deadly weapon and they all
had started firing indiscriminately resulting in the death of one
unknown person apart from the deceased Satyendra Singh, who
was shot at by Raju Singh. The learned counsel has stated that
PW 8, the Doctor and P.W. 9, the I.O of the case have fully
supported the prosecution case and therefore, the judgment
passed by the learned Trial Court acquitting the respondents 2 to
11 is wrong, manifestly erroneous and therefore, unsustainable
and therefore, it was prayed that this Court may set aside the
impugned judgment and pass a judgment of conviction and
order of sentence against the respondent Nos. 2 to 11.
Submissions on behalf of the State.
23. The appeal has been opposed by learned Additional
Public Prosecutor for the State. Mr. Bipin Bihari Singh the
learned Additional Public Prosecutor submits that on bare
perusal of the judgment, it would appear that there has been
deviations and discrepancy in the statement of prosecution
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.998 of 2023 dt.04-04-2025
witnesses with respect to the manner of their firing. The learned
APP has drawn the attention of this Court towards the fact that
some of the witnesses have stated that all the accused persons
were firing indiscriminately in air and almost 40-50 rounds of
firing was made, however, keeping in mind the place of
occurrence which was a 'mela' and more than 7000 persons had
assembled there no other person having been inflicted with any
injuries seems to be highly improbable which casts a shadow of
doubt on the prosecution story.
24. The learned APP has submitted that the learned Trial
Court was correct in forming an opinion that the story of firing
by 19-20 persons on huge gathering is seriously doubtful as the
prosecution story and the seizure list does not support each other
and the factum of indiscriminate firing is not proved. No
cartridge was found by the I.O. at the spot during the
investigation of the case.
25. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State
submits that specific allegation of firing was on Raju Singh
whose bullet had hit the son of the informant Satyendra Singh,
deceased. There is no specific allegation much less any
evidence against Respondent Nos. 2 to 11 of causing any injury
to either Satyendra Singh or the unknown person who was later
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.998 of 2023 dt.04-04-2025
identified as Ajay Roy.
26. The learned APP for the State has stated that P.W. 7 in
his evidence has deposed that 4-5 persons were injured during
indiscriminate firing. However, none of the said injured persons
were examined by the prosecution. The learned APP therefore,
has submitted that the respondents 2 to 11 were named in the
present case merely to settle the old rivalry and inimical relation
and therefore, all those persons who were on the side of
Hanuman Singh and his family or were very close to his family
have been implicated falsely in the present case and therefore,
the learned Trial Court has rightly appreciated the entire
evidence on record and concluded that the prosecution had
failed to establish it's case beyond all reasonable doubts as far as
the respondents no. 2 to 11 are concerned and has convicted the
other three accused persons namely Hanuman Singh, Vishwa
Nath Singh and Raju Singh for the charges under Section 302/34
of IPC and under Section 302 of IPC respectively.
Consideration
27. The present case is based upon the fardbeyan of the
Appellant given on 07.03.1997 wherein he has stated that while
he was at the 'Mela' along with his son, the 20 named accused
persons, all variously armed, approached near his son Satyendra
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.998 of 2023 dt.04-04-2025
Singh and on the instigation of Hanuman Singh and Vishwanath
Singh co-accused Raju Singh shot from his pistol hitting his son
on the chest. The informant has further alleged that the other
accused persons also started indiscriminate firing and one
unknown person too was hit on his head. On the said fardbeyan
formal FIR was drawn and registered as Karahgar PS No. 35 of
1997 dated 07.03.1997 for offenses under Sections 147, 148,
149, 307, 302 of IPC and Section 27 of the Arms Act against the
20 named accused persons.
28. PW 1, who is the own brother of the deceased and son
of the appellant, has stated that he too was at the place of
occurrence along with his father and elder brother and has seen
the named accused persons to be present there variously armed
and on the instigation of Hanuman Singh and Vishwanath Singh
Raju Singh shot upon his brother. He has further deposed that all
the criminals started firing indiscriminately hitting one unknown
person who was a bystander. He has deposed in his cross
examination that the accused persons was standing around 6 to 7
feet from him and he has recognition of each and every of them.
P.W 1 has also stated that there were around 6000 to 7000
people present at the relevant time at the 'Mela'. P.W 1 has
denied the suggestion that he was not present at the time of
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.998 of 2023 dt.04-04-2025
occurrence and had stated that the police arrived at the place of
occurrence after sometime of the incident.
29. In paragraph 5 of his deposition, P.W 1 has stated that
he is accused in criminal cases and his father is also an accused
in a case filed by the accused Vishwanath Singh. He has further
deposed that there were 2-3 cases lodged against his deceased
brother. PW 1 has stated that the distance between his village
and the 'Mela' was around 2 km and the accused persons were
going along with them to visit the 'Mela'. He further states that
there was no crowd on the way to the Mela. PW1, during his
cross-examination, has stated that when Satyendra Singh was
being shot there was around 40 to 50 rounds of firing made by
the accused persons. He has stated that firing continued for 10
minutes, however, he fled from the place of occurrence as soon
as Satyendra Singh was shot.
30. This PW1 has stated that the police had prepared an
inquest report of the deceased Ajay Rai and on such inquest
report his cousin brother Birendra Singh and his maternal uncle
Bharat Singh had put their signatures. This P.W 1 in his cross-
examination has stated that the indiscriminate firing was not
being made in air rather the same was pointed towards them.
31. P.W 2, Birendra Kumar Singh in his deposition has
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.998 of 2023 dt.04-04-2025
reiterated the version of PW1 and has supported the fact that all
the accused persons started indiscriminate firing and Satyendra
Singh was shot at by Raju Singh. PW2 has stated that the police
arrived at the place of occurrence after 8 to 10 minutes of the
incident and they took the injured for treatment. PW 2 has
identified and proved the two inquest reports prepared by the
police which was marked as exhibit 1 and 1/1. PW1 in his cross-
examination has supported the fact of around 6000 to 7000
people being there at the 'Mela' and has denied the suggestion
that he was not available there. PW 2 in paragraph 12 of his
deposition has stated that when the police had arrived Satyendra
Singh was alive and police had questioned Satyendra Singh and
had also taken his signature. PW2 claims to identify all the
accused persons.
32. PW 3 Nandeshwar Singh, in course of his
examination- in-chief has stated that the occurrence took place
on 07.03.1997 and he along with Shankar Dayal Singh
(appellant), Arun Singh, Satyendra Singh, Birendra Singh,
Rameshwaram Singh, Nathuni Singh Mukhiya proceeded to see
the fair and to offer puja to Shankar Bhagwan. PW3 has also
supported the prosecution case that on the instigation of
Vishwanath Singh and Hanuman Singh, Raju Singh took out his
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.998 of 2023 dt.04-04-2025
country made pistol and fired upon the chest of Satyendra Singh.
He further deposed that all the accused persons started firing
indiscriminately consequently an unknown person was also hit
by the alleged firing and he died on the spot. PW 3 in his
deposition has stated that the accused persons and the informant
are his agnates and earlier son of Hanuman Singh was murdered
and his agnates were accused in the said murder case. This PW 3
in his deposition has stated that around 50 rounds of firing was
made. He has stated that the firing was being made from one
direction and in this stampede there were around 5000 to 6000
people. However, he had fled away after the bullet had hit
Satyendra Singh. PW3 has also stated that he reached the place
of occurrence only when the police had arrived and Satyendra
Singh died after five minutes of his reaching to the said place.
33. PW 4, Amrandra Kumar Singh, in course of his
examination-in-chief has deposed the same fact as has been
stated by PW1 to PW 3. PW 4 in his cross-examination has
stated that there were around 5,000 to 10,000 persons in the fair.
He has stated that after Satyendra Singh was shot, he had seen
him alive and when the police had arrived, Satyendra Singh was
alive. PW4 has admitted that Vishnu Singh, Ram Preet Singh
and Hanuman Singh are own brothers while Pradeep Singh is
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.998 of 2023 dt.04-04-2025
son of Vishwanath Singh while Raju Singh is son of Ram Preet
Singh and Arun Singh is son of Hanuman Singh. The PW 4 has
admitted that he is an accused in the murder case of Arun Singh
who was son of Hanuman Singh, an accused in the present case.
34. PW 5, Rameshwar Singh has supported the evidence
of PW 1 to PW 4 on perusal of his deposition no contradiction
or inconsistency is found in so far as more reliable to
Respondent no. 2 to 11.
35. PW 6, Abhay Singh is stated to be an eyewitness who
had seen the occurrence while he was accompanying the
informant and others. PW 6 has also stated that when the
indiscriminate firing was being made he had fled and hid
himself. He has further deposed that all the accused persons
were firing one by one. When the firing started, there was a
stampede in the fair and everyone started running here and there.
36. PW 7 is the informant of the case and in course of his
examination-in-chief he has stated that the occurrence took
place on 07.03.1997 while he along with Nathuni Prasad Singh,
Rameshwar Singh and other villagers had gone to view the
Maha Shiv Ratri Mela. PW 7 in his deposition has reiterated the
fact of all the 20 named accused persons who were variously
armed with deadly weapons came near his son Satyendra Kumar
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.998 of 2023 dt.04-04-2025
Singh and on the instigation of Hanuman Singh and Vishwanath
Singh, Raju Singh shot Satyendra Kumar Singh on his chest
from his country made pistol. He has stated that all the accused
persons started firing indiscriminately resulting in an injury to
an unknown person present at the fair. The accused persons
thereafter, fled towards village Karup and after sometime police
party arrived at the place of occurrence and before they could
take Satyendra Kumar Singh to Sadar Hospital he breathed his
last. PW 7 has stated that his statement was recorded by the
police and he had signed the same and has identified his
signature signature. PW 7 has denied the suggestion that he had
not seen the occurrence and his son had died as his man had
fired which hit the unknown person and in retaliation his son
was shot dead.
37. PW8 is Dr. Shankar Kumar Jha who has conducted
the postmortem examination of the deceased Satyendra Singh.
In course of postmortem examination he has recorded as
under :-
":-Average built-Rigour mortise present in neck
and absent in upper and lower limbs."
Injuries:- 1. Lacerated wound over left side of chest in
forth inter coastal space in mid clavicural line with black
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.998 of 2023 dt.04-04-2025
and inverted margin 1"X3/4X cavity deep (wound of
entry). 2. Lacerated wound over back on left side just
below scapular with averted margin1"X1/4"X3/4" cavity
communicating with each other. On opening the chest:-
Left plural cavity full of blood. Left upper lobe lung
lacerated. Left ventricle ruptured. Fourth rib infornatand
8 rib on back of left side found fractured. Right chamber
of heart empty. Right lung intact and pale.
18. Opening the skull:- Meninges pale, brain normal. On
opening abdomen:- Liver, spleen, kidneys intact and pale.
Bladder contains urine of 15 M.L. Stomach contains semi
digested food about 02 ounce. Small intestine contained
fluid and gas. Large intestine contains gas and faecal
matter. Death, in my opinion:-Occurred due to shock and
hemorrhage as a result of injury over chest caused by fire
arms. Time since death: about Six hours." This reports is
in my pen and signature and same is exhibited as Ext.-4.
38. On the same day another postmortem was conducted
at 9.35 PM of an unknown person aged about 20 years and the
following injuries were found :-
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.998 of 2023 dt.04-04-2025
"1. Lacerated wound over vertex of skull with loss
of skin and bone with brain matter coming out 3-1/2"X3"
cavity deep. Skin tag 2"X2" attached with posterior
margin of wound. Interior margin of wound with frontal
level black and inverted. On dissection of skull"-
Remaining parts of both parietal and frontal bone found
fractured. Brain extensively lacerated. On opening the
chest-Both lungs intact and normal. Both chamber of
heart contains blood. On opening the abdomen- Liver,
spleen, kidneys intact and normal. Bladder contains urine
about 15 ML. Stomach contains semi digested food about
02 ounce. Small intestine contains fluid and gas. Large
intestine contains gas and feces. Average built. Rigor
mortise present in neck. Absence in upper and lower
limbs. Death, in my opinion:- Occurred due to injury to
brain as a resnjt of injury over skull caused by fire arm.
Times since death-about six hours. This P.M. report is
also my pen and signature and same is marked as Ext.
4/1."
39. P.W 9 is the I.O of the case and in course of his
examination-in-chief he has stated that he was the Officer-in-
Charge of Kargahar Police Station and had recorded the
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.998 of 2023 dt.04-04-2025
fardbeyan of Shankar Dal Singh at village Pahari and has
identified the signature and handwriting which has been proved
as Exhibit 2. He has further stated that he had sent the fardbeyan
to Police Station to register the formal FIR and he himself took
up the investigation.
40. P.W. 9, in his deposition has given the details of the
place of occurrence and has stated that the dead body of an
unknown person who was identified as Ajay Rai was found
around 20 gaj away from the temple and from that place at a
distance of 8 gaj Satyendra Kumar Singh was found in injured
state. He has stated that Satyendra Kumar Singh was sent for
treatment to Sasaram, he had prepared the inquest report of
Satyendra Kumar Singh and identified the same in his pen and
signature. He has also identified the inquest report of Ajay Rai
which was also prepared in his pen and signature and both the
reports were marked as Exhibit 6 and Exhibit 6 /1.
41. P.W.9, has further stated that he had recorded the
statement of witnesses namely, Arun Kumar Singh, Abhay
Singh, Rameshwar Singh, Ravindra Singh, Ramashish Tiwari,
Bharat Singh etc. and after preparing the inquest report he had
sent the dead bodies for conducting the postmortem
examination. He has obtained three bullet like materials from
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.998 of 2023 dt.04-04-2025
Doctor T.M. Singh and seized the same. He has identified the
seizure list in his pen and signature and on the same day he
seized double barrel gun and five live cartridges of 12 bore from
the house of Raj Bansh Singh. He has stated that he prepared the
seizure list of seized arms and identified the same as Exhibit
7/1. He has stated that he also seized a bullet motorcycle and has
prepared a seizure list and had also seized a rifle from the house
of Ramchand Tiwari and had prepared a seizure list for the
same. Lastly, he has submitted that upon completion of the
investigation the occurrence being found true, he had submitted
the charge sheet against the accused persons under Sections 147,
148, 149, 307, 302, 120(B) of Indian Penal Code and Section 27
of Arms Act.
42. The defence has also examined 3 witnesses and
among them DW 1, Sri Biao Paswan, who was the Sarpanch of
Babhani Panchayat in 1997 has stated that Satyendra Singh had
fired and then hulla was raised that one boy from village-Ladvi
had died due to the shot fired by Satyendra Singh. D.W.2, Sri.
Sudama Ram has deposed that he was present in the Mela and at
around 1.30 PM he heard sounds of firing and learnt that a boy
of Laduni village is dead. He has stated that there was
indiscriminate firing being made between villagers of Laduni
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.998 of 2023 dt.04-04-2025
village and Karup village and after a few minutes another man
was shot dead, who was Satyendra Singh from Karup village.
D.W 2 has denied the suggestion that he is well acquainted with
Vishwanath Singh. D.W. 2 has also denied the suggestion that
Satyendra Singh was done to death by Raju Singh. D.W. 3 in his
deposition has stated that firing was being exchanged between
two groups belonging to Karup village and Laduni village. D.W.
3 has stated that he did not see as to who had fired upon the two
persons, who were shot dead. D.W. 3 has stated that he was
personally present there at the Mela. He has further deposed that
he is not an agnate of Hanuman Singh and has denied the
suggestion that he was not present at the place of occurrence and
has also denied that he was an agnate of Vishwanath Singh and
is making false deposition at the behest of the accused persons.
43. On careful examination and scrutiny of the entire
evidence on record, it appears that in this case the prosecution is
trying to implicate all the persons acquainted with the family of
Hanuman Singh and has given names of altogether 20 persons
as an accused in this case. All of them barring one have been
shown with an arm/weapon in his hand which has been
meticulously detailed not only in the first version of the
informant but also in his re-statement as well as during the
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.998 of 2023 dt.04-04-2025
evidence by all prosecution witnesses, who are either relatives
of the accused Hanuman Singh or his agnates.
44. This Court is of the view that even if the statement
that all the accused persons were armed with deadly weapons of
different kinds is taken into consideration, it is very peculiar
that only two firearm injuries were reportedly caused i.e. one on
the chest of Satyendra Kumar Singh and the other hitting an
unknown person on his head. If at all the accused persons had an
intention to kill Satyendra Kumar Singh as also his other family
members when all the accused persons would be armed with
deadly weapons, there would have been more injuries to either
the family members of Satyendra Singh or to people who were
there at the 'Mela' in large numbers. The story of indiscriminate
firing seems improbable as no person other than the two
namely, Satyendra Kumar Singh and Ajay Rai have received any
injury.
45. This Court also takes note of paragraph number 10 of
the cross examination of PW1 wherein he has stated that the
distance between his village and the fair was 2 kilometers and
they had gone on their feet along with the accused persons to the
'Mela. This PW has admitted that in route to the fair there were
lonely places which could have been a safe heaven for the
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.998 of 2023 dt.04-04-2025
accused persons to kill the informant and his son. PW 1 has also
stated that accused persons had been firing pointing towards
them and they were not firing in the sky. PW 2 in his cross-
examination in paragraph No. 5 has stated that two or three
cases have been pending in between the family members of
Vishwanath Singh and his family. He has also stated that he is an
accused in a case instituted by the family member of
Vishwanath Singh. In paragraph No. 6 of his cross-examination
he has stated that Shankar Dal Singh is brother of his father who
is an accused in a murder case instituted by Vishwanath Singh.
Thus, it is evident that the accused persons were in inimical
terms with the informant's family.
46. At this juncture, it is relevant to observe that the kith
and kin of the deceased are the main witnesses, their presence at
the time and place cannot be doubted. However, their evidence
has to be scrutinized with greater caution especially in the
background of enmity that gripped the two factions i.e. the
appellant and the informant. We have observed that the eye
witnesses whose evidence is on record are closely related to the
deceased and the independent witnesses whose presence at the
spot has been established were neither examined nor the so
called injured persons have come forward to depose before the
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.998 of 2023 dt.04-04-2025
learned Trial Court. This according to us, makes it unsafe to act
on the testimony of these interested witnesses as regards
involvement of Respondents no. 2 to 11 in the present case.
47. As already observed above, P.W. 1, P.W. 2, P.W 3 and
P.W 4 have all stated that there was criminal case pending
between the parties. It is relevant to refer the judgment in case of
Shiv Shankar Pandey & Ors. Vs. the State of Bihar reported
in (2002) 7 SCC 229 wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has
held that when the witnesses are closely related persons and
there is a history of bitter enmity between the deceased and the
accused persons the evidences should be scrutinized with greater
care and circumspection as there was every possibility of
exaggeration and embellishment. The Hon'ble Supreme Court
has also taken note of the point and has observed thus "....The
anxiety on the part of the prosecution to implicate as many
members of the opposite faction as possible is quite apparent.
Unfortunately, the evidence of material witnesses especially that
of PW10, had not been critically and carefully examined by both
the Courts despite the fact that the witnesses were prone to
exaggerate or distort the facts in view of enmity and close
relationship. The crucial aspects, as discussed above, escaped
the attention of the High Court."
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.998 of 2023 dt.04-04-2025
48. In the present case, we have already noted that the
allegation of firing upon Satyendra Kumar Singh with a deadly
firearm was at Raju Singh at the instigation of Hanuman Singh
and Vishwanath Singh. However, the allegation on other
accused persons (Respondents no. 2 to 11) is of indiscriminate
firing resulting in death of an unknown person. In this
background and going by the evidence on record, reasonable
doubt arises on the veracity of the prosecution version that the
Respondents no. 2 to 11 armed with weapons went to the scene
of occurrence with a view to kill or injure the son of the
informant namely, Satyendra Singh.
49. We also take note of the situation that when the
informant and his son were being surrounded by armed persons,
in presence of large number of visitors in the fair ('Mela') the
informant could not have noticed meticulously who all were
armed and with which weapon. This was a case where the
informant has named more than 13 persons along with the
weapons they were carrying. It also does not stand to reason as
to no other person there had received a single injury despite
indiscriminate firing by19 -20 persons. No fired cartridge has
been seized by I.O. from the place of occurrence. Further, the
prosecution witnesses have also stated that as soon as Satyendra
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.998 of 2023 dt.04-04-2025
Kumar Singh was fired upon by Raju Singh they ran for safety
and returned only when the accused persons had fled away.
Thus, their deposition does not entail confidence as regards
involvement of R-2 to R-11.
50. PW 3, in course of his examination-in-chief, has
stated that the accused persons and the informant are his agnates
and earlier Arjun Singh son of Hanuman Singh was murdered
and a case with regard to the said incident is still pending. He
has admitted that in that case his neighbours and agnates were
the accused.
51. PW 4 in course of his examination, in paragraph 15
has stated that he has no knowledge as to when did the murder
of Arjun Singh son of Hanuman Singh took place. However, he
has admitted that he is an accused in the murder of Arjun Singh.
52. PW 6 in course of his examination-in-chief has not
named the accused Jag Narayan Singh while the other
prosecution witnesses have taken the name of Jag Narayan
Singh. He has further stated that Satyendra Singh had given
evidence in kidnapping case of a child, therefore, he was
murdered. Even PW 6 has admitted that Arjun Singh son of
accused Hanuman Singh was murdered and he is an accused in
the said case.
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.998 of 2023 dt.04-04-2025
53. One of the most startling fact was revealed by PW 2
that the police had reach the place of occurrence prior to the
death of Satyendra Singh and the police had taken his statement
and had also obtained his signature. However, the concerned
Police Officer was not examined nor any such statement of
Satyendra Singh, which could have been a dying declaration
have been brought on record.
54. We have observed that almost all the prosecution
witnesses have stated that one Nathuni Singh, Mukhiya of the
Panchayat had also gone along with them to the Maha Shiva
Ratri 'Mela' and he was an independent witness. However,
surprisingly he has not been examined by the prosecution for
the reason best known to them. Non-examination of this
independent witness has led to drawing of adverse inference to
the prosecution case, as his evidence would have been very
important looking at the fact that all the other prosecution
witnesses are family members of the informant.
55. We take a leaf out from the judgment rendered by the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Takhaji Hiraji vs
Thakore Kubersing Chamansing & Ors reported in (2001) 6
SCC 145 wherein it has been held that "if a material witness,
which would unfold the genesis of the incident or an essential
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.998 of 2023 dt.04-04-2025
part of the prosecution case, not convincingly brought to fore
otherwise, or where there is a gap or infirmity in the prosecution
case which could have been supplied or made good by
examining a witness which though available is not examined,
the prosecution case can be termed as suffering from a
deficiency and withholding of such a material witness would
oblige the Court to draw an adverse inference against the
prosecution by holding that if the witness would have been
examined it would not have supported the prosecution case."
56. In the present case there are witnesses whose presence
at the place of the incident and whose having seen the incident
cannot be doubted as would be evident from the deposition of
the various prosecution witnesses, PW 1, PW 2, PW 3, PW 4,
PW 5 and PW 7 have all stated the presence of Mukhiya,
Nathuni Singh along with the prosecution party at the place of
occurrence.
57. In the present facts of the case, it was necessary to
examine such independent witnesses on two counts (i) all the
prosecution witnesses who were present at the place of
occurrence has stated the name of this person namely, Nathuni
Singh to be present there and (ii) the rest of the prosecution
witnesses were interested and inimical witnesses. In such view
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.998 of 2023 dt.04-04-2025
of the matter, non-examination of Mukhiya Nathuni Singh will
draw adverse inference against the prosecution.
58. We will also like to refer at this stage a judgment
rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Vijay
Singh @ Vijay Kr. Sharma vs. State of Bihar reported in 2024
(6) BLJ SC 36 wherein a consideration was being made with
regard to the objection against the testimonies of the eye
witnesses that none of the eye witness is an independent witness
of fact. We would like to reproduce para 24 of the said judgment
as under :
"24. The second limb of the objection
against the testimonies of the eye witnesses
is that none of the eye witnesses is an
independent witness of fact. Ordinarily, there
is no rule of law to discard the testimonies of
the witnesses merely be-cause they were
known to the victim or belonged to her
family. For, an offence may be committed in
circumstances that only the family members
are present at the place of occurrence in
natural course. However, the present case
does not fall in such category. In the facts of
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.998 of 2023 dt.04-04-2025
the present case, the natural presence of the
eye witnesses at the place of occurrence is
under serious doubt, as discussed above, and
for unexplained reasons, the naturally
present public persons were not examined as
witnesses in the matter. The non-examination
of natural witnesses such as Doman Tenti,
Daso Mistry, Soordas, Kumud Ranjan Singh
and many other neighbours who admittedly
came out of their houses to witness the
offence, coupled with the fact that the
projected eye witnesses failed to explain
their presence at the place of occurrence,
renders the entire version of the prosecution
as improbable and unreliable. The eye
witnesses, being family members, were
apparently approached by PW18 who in-
formed them about the incident and later,
their versions were fabricated to make the
case credible. Notably, when the version put
forth by the interested witnesses comes under
a shadow of doubt, the rule of prudence
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.998 of 2023 dt.04-04-2025
demands that the independent public
witnesses must be examined and
corroborating material must be gathered.
More so, when public witnesses were readily
available and the offence has not taken place
in the bounds of closed walls."
59. As can be gathered from the aforesaid judgment, it is
clear that despite the fact that there was thousands of persons
available at the place of occurrence, for unexplained reasons,
the naturally present public persons were not examined as
witnesses in the present case. The non- examination of natural
witness like the Mukhiya, Nathuni Singh and other by-standars
coupled with the fact that the prosecution witnesses 1 to 7 have
very mechanically detailed the entire incident renders the
prosecution case as against Respondents no. 2 to 11 unreliable.
60. We have also taken note of the statement of PW 7
who happens to be the informant of the case, made in
paragraph No. 8 of his cross-examination where he has stated
that in the indiscriminate firing 4-5 persons got injured and he
has even stated that son of Ramji Singh, son of Sah Ji and a
relative of Vijaya Sinha were injured in the occurrence.
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.998 of 2023 dt.04-04-2025
However, we observe that none of the injured persons have
been examined in this case.
61. In our opinion, the learned Trial Court has
correctly came to a finding that the prosecution has not been
able to prove their case as far as respondent Nos. 2 to 11 are
concerned as no specific role has been assigned to the said
accused persons in commission of the said crime and their
presence at the place of occurrence with an object to kill
Satyendra Singh and also their participation in the alleged
occurrence with an object to kill Satyendra Singh becomes
highly improbable and thus, the said accused
persons/respondents nos. 2 to 11 were given the benefit of
doubt as the prosecution was not successful in proving the
charges under Section 302/149 of IPC.
62. In an appeal against acquittal the principles which are
required to be kept in mind are reiterated in the case of H.D.
Sundara vs. State of Karnataka reported in (2023) 9 SCC 581
Paragraph '8' thereof is being reproduced here under :-
"8. In this appeal, we are called upon to consider
the legality and validity of the impugned judgment1
rendered by the High Court while deciding an
appeal against acquittal under Section 378 of the
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short
"CrPC"). The principles which govern the exercise
of appellate jurisdiction while dealing with an appeal
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.998 of 2023 dt.04-04-2025
against acquittal under Section 378 CrPC can be
summarised as follows:
8.1. The acquittal of the accused further
strengthens the presumption of innocence;
8.2. The appellate court, while hearing an appeal
against acquittal, is entitled to reappreciate the
oral and documentary evidence;
8.3. The appellate court, while deciding an
appeal against acquittal, after reappreciating the
evidence, is required to consider whether the
view taken by the trial court is a possible view
which could have been taken on the basis of the
evidence on record
8.4. If the view taken is a possible view, the
appellate court cannot overturn the order of
acquittal on the ground that another view was
also possible; and
8.5. The appellate court can interfere with the
order of acquittal only if it comes to a finding
that the only conclusion which can be recorded
on the basis of the evidence on record was that
the guilt of the accused was proved beyond a
reasonable doubt and no other conclusion was
possible."
63. In our view, the acquittal of accused
persons/respondents 2 to 11 needs no interference.
64. It is made clear that we are appreciating the evidence of
the prosecution witnesses in relation to Respondents no. 2 to 11
and no part of the observation made in this judgment shall be
used in the matters relating to the convicts of this case.
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.998 of 2023 dt.04-04-2025
65. The appeal is dismissed.
66. Let a copy of the judgment be communicated to the
learned trial Court and the records of the trial Court be sent back
if not required in any other case.
(Rajeev Ranjan Prasad, J)
(Sourendra Pandey, J)
Prakash/-
AFR/NAFR AFR
CAV DATE
Uploading Date 29.04.2025
Transmission Date 29.04.2025
