Ajay Ram vs The State Of Bihar
2025 Latest Caselaw 4591 Patna

Patna High Court

Ajay Ram vs The State Of Bihar on 8 December, 2025

Author: Rajeev Ranjan Prasad

Bench: Rajeev Ranjan Prasad

     IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
                 CRIMINAL APPEAL (DB) No.451 of 2023
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-231 Year-2018 Thana- MAJHAULIA District- West Champaran
======================================================
Ajay Ram S/o Ramjee Ram Resident of Village- Parsa Mouze, P.S.-
Majhauliya, District-West Champaran

                                                                ... ... Appellant/s
                                     Versus
The State of Bihar

                                          ... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Appellant/s     :       Mr. Ashok Kumar Choudhary, Sr. Advocate
                                Mr. Baidya Nath Thakur, Advocate
                                Mr. Anil Kumar Tiwary, Advocate
For the Respondent/s    :       Mr. Dilip Kumar Sinha, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJEEV RANJAN PRASAD
        and
        HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SOURENDRA PANDEY
CAV JUDGMENT
(Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SOURENDRA PANDEY)

 Date : 08-12-2025
         Heard Mr. Ashok Kumar Choudhary, learned Senior

Advocate assisted by Mr. Baidya Nath Thakur and Mr. Anil Kumar

Tiwary, learned Advocates for the appellant and Mr. Dilip Kumar

Sinha, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.

            2. The present appeal arises out of the judgment of

conviction dated 01.02.2023 (hereinafter referred to as the

'impugned judgment') and the order of sentence dated 14.02.2023

(in short referred to as the 'impugned order') passed by the learned

District & Sessions Judge, West Champaran in connection with

Sessions Trial No. 09 of 2020, arising out of Majhauliya P.S. Case

No. 231 of 2018.
 Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.451 of 2023 dt.08-12-2025
                                           2/26




                    3. By the impugned judgment the appellant namely Ajay

       Ram has been convicted for the offences under Sections 354 and

       302 of the Indian Penal Code (in short referred to as the 'IPC') and

       has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year

       for the offence under Section 354 of the IPC, to pay a fine of Rs.

       1000/- and in default of payment of fine to further undergo

       rigorous imprisonment for one month and also has been sentenced

       to undergo simple imprisonment for life for the offence under

       Section 302 of the IPC, to pay a fine of Rs. 10,000/- and in default

       of payment of fine to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for

       one year.

                    Prosecution Case:

                    4. The prosecution case is based on the written

       application dated 11.06.2018 given by the informant (P.W. 1). In

       her written report, she has stated that on 10.06.2018 at 04:00 A.M.,

       when she was returning from the call of nature the appellant had

       tried to outraged her modesty. The informant, anyhow, managed to

       escape from the clutches of the appellant. The informant narrated

       the story before her husband and other family members. On the

       following day, the informant's husband and other family members

       went to tell the appellant as to why he did so. On this, nine accused

       persons started fighting with them. Sanjay Ram and Ramjee Ram
 Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.451 of 2023 dt.08-12-2025
                                           3/26




       caught hold of the informant's husband and the appellant gave a

       tamhauk (farsa) blow to him on his head. He fell down

       unconscious. Surendra Ram, Binay Ram, Babunti Devi, Uma Devi

       and Lalmuni Devi armed with stick, farsa, tenguli assaulted father-

       in-law and elder brother-in-law of the informant.

                    5. On the basis of the aforesaid written application,

       Majhauliya P.S. Case No. 231 of 2018 dated 11.06.2018 under

       Sections 341, 323, 324, 307, 376/511, 302 and 34 of the IPC was

       registered.

                    6. After completion of investigation, the Investigating

       Officer (I.O.) (P.W. 3) submitted charge-sheet being Charge-Sheet

       No. 395 of 2018 dated 27.09.2018 under Sections 341, 323, 324,

       307, 376/511, 302 and 34 of the IPC.

                    7. On the basis of the police report, cognizance was

       taken vide order dated 19.02.2019 under Sections 341, 323, 324,

       307, 376/511, 302 and 34 of the IPC against the accused/appellant

       Ajay Ram.

                    8. Charges were read over and explained to the

       appellant/Ajay Ram in Hindi to which he pleaded not guilty and

       claimed to be tried.
 Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.451 of 2023 dt.08-12-2025
                                           4/26




                    9. In course of trial, the prosecution examined as many

       as nine witnesses and exhibited several documents to prove the

       prosecution case.

                    List of Prosecution Witnesses:

                     P.W. 1    Kaushalya Devi
                     P.W. 2    Jagdeo Ram
                     P.W. 3    Shyam Bhadur Thakur
                     P.W. 4    Raghunath Ram
                     P.W. 5    Prabhu Ram
                     P.W. 6    Bohla Ram
                     P.W. 7    Dr. Sanjay Kumar
                     P.W. 8    Rabindra Ram
                     P.W. 9    Rajmati Devi



                    List of Exhibits on behalf of the Prosecution:

                     Ext.-01             Signature of witness Kaushalya Devi
                     Ext.-02/P.W. 3      Post-mortem report Prishthakan
                     Ext.-P-3/P.W. 3     Formal FIR
                     Ext.-P-4/P.W. 4     Charge-Sheet        No.   395/18   dated
                                         27.09.2018

Ext.-P-5/P.W. 7 Post-mortem report

10. The accused/appellant was examined under Section

313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure on 23.11.2022, wherein he

stated that all the allegations are false and that he is innocent.

Findings of the Learned Trial Court:

11. The learned Trial court has held that the three

prosecution witnesses, namely, Kaushalya Devi, Jagdeo Ram and

Prabhu Ram have all unanimously stated that it was Ajay Ram, Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.451 of 2023 dt.08-12-2025

who had assaulted Nagina Ram with farsa on his head and the

same is corroborated by the Doctor, who has held the head injury

to be the cause of death of Nagina Ram. The learned Trial Court

has also opined that there are serious contradictions in the

statements of the prosecution witnesses, as far as the accused

Sanjay Ram, Ramjee Ram and Vijay Ram are concerned. It has

been held that contrary to the statement of the prosecution

witnesses about injuries being received by Ramchandra Ram, no

injury report was brought on record to substantiate such claim. It

has been observed by the learned Trial Court that specific

allegations are upon Sanjay Ram, Surendra Ram and Vijay Ram to

have assaulted one Prabhu Ram with lathi, however, there is no

injury report of Prabhu Ram brought on record.

12. The learned Trial Court, with regard to the witnesses

being interested witnesses, has opined that only Kaushalya Devi

and Prabhu Ram are wife and brother respectively and it doesn't

stand to reason as to why they would falsely implicate anybody in

this case. It has gone on to held that the independent witness,

namely, Jagdeo Ram (P.W.2) has supported the prosecution case

and there is no material contradiction in the statements of the

prosecution witnesses and, therefore, there is no reason to

disbelieve their statements and thus, it has been held that only Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.451 of 2023 dt.08-12-2025

because the prosecution witnesses are close relatives their

evidence cannot be discarded.

13. The learned Trial Court has further held that the

fardbeyan (Exhibit-1) and the subsequent deposition of the

informant confirms, not only the time and date of the occurrence

but also the place of occurrence. The learned Trial Court has

observed that there has been no question put to the prosecution

witnesses with regard to the date, time and place of occurrence

and, therefore, the same has been established without any doubt.

14. The learned Trial Court, as far as the allegations

under Sections 376/511 of IPC were concerned, has held that from

the perusal of the evidences of the prosecution witnesses, the

allegations that the accused Ajay Ram would have raped the

informant does not arise and, therefore, the prosecution has not

been able to prove the charges under Sections 376 and 511 of the

IPC.

15. The learned Trial Court referring to the medical

reports has held that the deceased Nagina Ram had an injury on his

head measuring 5cm X 1cm and the Doctor (P.W.7) has stated that

the weapon was heavy and long. The learned Trial Court has

categorically held that the assault was made with all power on a

vital part of the body and the injuries sustained by the deceased Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.451 of 2023 dt.08-12-2025

was the cause of death of Nagina Ram and, therefore, the

prosecution has been able to prove the case under Section 302 of

IPC against the appellant (Ajay Ram) of causing the death of

Nagina Ram.

Submissions on behalf of the appellant:

16. Mr. Ashok Kumar Choudhary, learned Senior

counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant has submitted that

though a few witnesses have claimed themselves to be an

eyewitness, however, from the perusal of their evidence, it would

be evident that they are in fact not eyewitnesses, P.W.1, informant

in her evidence has stated that the appellant had given farsa blow

on the head of the deceased causing his death, however, the said

evidence does not find corroboration from the deposition of the

Doctor (P.W.7), who in his cross-examination has stated that the

injuries received by the deceased could have been caused by stone,

brick or any hard blunt substance. It has been submitted that the

Doctor had not found any sharp cutting injury on the body of the

deceased and the weapon used by the appellant is stated to be

farsa.

17. The learned Senior counsel has submitted that the

police during the course of investigation has not recovered the

weapon said to be used in the alleged incident and moreover, as Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.451 of 2023 dt.08-12-2025

per the contention of the informant that her bangles were broken

while she had gone to attend the call of nature, even the same has

not been collected or recovered by the police nor had the

informant given her broken bangles and mud stained clothes.

18. The learned Senior counsel emphatically stated that

five of the prosecution witnesses P.W. 2, 4, 6, 8 and 9 have stated

in their deposition that they were not examined by the police

during the course of investigation, however, they were brought as

witnesses directly in the trial.

19. The learned Senior counsel has further submitted

that the two independent witnesses, i.e., P.W.8 (Rabindra Ram) and

P.W.9 (Rajmati Devi) were declared hostile and they have not

supported the prosecution case. It has been pointed out that from

the same set of evidence with specific allegations upon Sanjay

Ram, Surendra Ram and Vijay Ram, the learned Trial court has

acquitted the three co-accused persons. The injured father-in-law,

namely, Ramchandra Ram has not been examined despite the fact

that he was allegedly assaulted by the appellant and others. In this

case no injury report of any of the injured persons were brought on

the record in order to substantiate the prosecution case of assault

on the other family members of the informant.

Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.451 of 2023 dt.08-12-2025

20. The learned Senior counsel appearing on behalf of

the appellant has also submitted that the witnesses are interested

witnesses. Kaushalya Devi and Prabhu Ram, happen to be the wife

and brother respectively of the deceased and, therefore, their

evidence should be considered with circumspection and case.

Taking into account the serious contradictions in their statements,

they being eyewitnesses becomes doubtful. It has, thus, been

submitted that in the peculiar facts of the case the prosecution has

not been able to prove the guilt of the appellant beyond all

reasonable doubt and, therefore, the impugned judgment and order

is fit to be set aside and the appellant be acquitted of all the

charges.

21. The learned Senior counsel for the appellant has

relied upon a few judgments rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme

Court and of this Hon'ble Court, in order to support the arguments

forwarded by him, which are Tulsiram & Ors. vs. State of

Madhya Pradesh reported in (2008) 17 SCC 13; Ganesh Datt vs.

State of Uttarakhand reported in (2014) 12 SCC 389; Gurmej

Singh & Ors. vs. State of Punjab reported in 1991 Supp (2) SCC

75; Megaram Rajak vs. the State of Bihar reported in 1985 BLJ

44 and Ram Singh vs. State of Uttar Pradesh reported in (2024) 4

SCC 208.

Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.451 of 2023 dt.08-12-2025

Submissions on behalf of the State:

22. Mr. Dilip Kumar Sinha, the learned Additional

Public Prosecutor for the State submits that from the evidences of

the prosecution witnesses, it would be clear that everybody has

specifically stated that it was Ajay Ram (appellant) who had given

a farsa blow on the head of the deceased causing an injury which

ultimately was the cause of his death. Learned Additional Public

Prosecutor has submitted that the wife and brother of the deceased

were eyewitness and they had categorically given the details of the

incident and minor contradictions with respect to the nature of

weapon used cannot be a ground to disbelieve the evidence of

these witnesses as they are rustic village persons.

23. The learned APP for the State has further submitted

that not only the ocular evidence but the postmortem report too

confirms the cause of death and the ante-mortem injuries found on

the body of the deceased, finds corroboration from the same and,

therefore, there is no occasion to disbelieve the factum of the

occurrence and the same being caused by the appellant (Ajay

Ram).

24. The learned APP has replied to the contention raised

on behalf of the appellant with regard to the witnesses being

interested witnesses and has stated that it cannot be a reason to Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.451 of 2023 dt.08-12-2025

disbelieve the evidence brought on behalf of the prosecution and if

the same is consistent and is being corroborated by the medical

evidence there is no reason to disbelieve such evidence only

because the witnesses are interested or immediate relatives of the

deceased.

25. It has lastly been submitted that from the evidence

on record, the charges levelled against the appellant have been

proved beyond all reasonable doubt and, therefore, the learned

Trial Court was justified in convicting the appellant for the

offences under Sections 354 and 302 of the IPC.

Consideration:

26. Having heard learned counsel for the appellant and

the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State and also on

perusal of the records, this Court finds that the most important

witness in the present case happens to be the informant (P.W.1),

who is the wife of the deceased. The informant in her written

report has stated that on 10.06.2018 at around 04:00 A.M. when

she had gone to attend the call of nature, the appellant tried to

outrage her modesty, however, she anyhow managed to free

herself and ran towards her house and informed her husband

(Nagina Ram), her father-in-law (Ramchandra Ram) and other

members of the family. She has further stated that at around 05:00 Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.451 of 2023 dt.08-12-2025

A.M. her husband and other members of the family, went to the

doors of the appellant, however, he had not returned by then and at

around 06:00 A.M., when the appellant was found, the husband of

the informant and her father-in-law inquired as to why the

appellant had done this to the informant, it is alleged that the other

named accused persons including the women family members of

the appellant all got enraged and started assaulting her husband

and father-in-law. She has alleged that accused Sanjay Ram and

Ramjee Ram caught hold of her husband while Ajay Ram

(appellant) gave a farsa blow on the head of her husband upon

which his head was ripped open and he fell down unconscious.

She has further alleged that the accused Surendra Ram, Vijay Ram

and other lady accused persons assaulted her father-in-law and

brother-in-law (HkSlqj) causing injury to them. She has stated that she

took her husband in an unconscious state to Majhauliya Hospital

from where the Doctor referred him to Bettiah and he was taken to

MJK Hospital at Bettiah and from there he was further referred to

Patna and where he was undergoing treatment.

27. The informant was examined as P.W.1 and during

her examination-in-chief she has reiterated what has been stated in

the fardbeyan and has further stated that the lady members of the

appellant's family assaulted even her and her "n;k nhu" causing Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.451 of 2023 dt.08-12-2025

damage to her eyes. She has further stated that upon hulla Bharat

Ram, Jagdeo Ram, Suresh Yadav, Raghunath Ram and Ramashray

Ram came and they took her husband to Majhauliya Hospital.

During her cross-examination, P.W.1 has stated that she is not

literate, however, she could make her signature. On query, she has

replied that she cannot tell as to who had drafted the application,

which was given to the police and she does not recall as to what

was written in the application. She has stated that during the

assault many people of the village had assembled. On specific

question with regard to the identification of the weapons, P.W.1

has categorically stated that she understand the difference between

a lathi, tangi and farsa. She has stated in Paragraph '46' that the

farsa was a small one which was tied to a lathi. P.W.1 has admitted

that she had not handed over her mud stained clothes or broken

bangles to the police.

28. P.W.2 happens to be Jagdeo Ram, who has stated

that he was at his home when the incident occurred and he has

specifically stated that during the altercation the appellant (Ajay

Ram) assaulted the husband of the informant on his head with

farsa upon which he fell on the ground and thereafter his brother

and father of Nagina Ram were also assaulted by Sanjay. He has

Stated that the injured were taken to Majhauliya Hospital and from Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.451 of 2023 dt.08-12-2025

there they were referred to Bettiah and thereafter to Patna and

during the treatment at Patna the husband of the informant died

after two days of the occurrence. During his cross-examination,

P.W. 2 has stated that there were around five hundred people

assembled after the incident at the place of occurrence, however,

he cannot tell the names of those persons. He has stood by his

statement that there were hundreds of persons standing at the place

of occurrence along with him and the accused persons were all

carrying weapons in their hands while the villagers were not

carrying any weapon.

29. P.W.3, Shyam Bhadur Thakur, is the I.O. of the case,

who has stated that none of the injured had come to him and hence

he had not sent anybody to the Doctor for examination and

treatment. The I.O. during his cross-examination has admitted that

he had not recovered any weapon said to be used in the incident

and neither had he seized any blood stained tangi or talwar etc.

from or around the place of occurrence though he has stated that

during the course of investigation he had inspected the place of

occurrence and had entered about the same in the diary.

30. P.W. 7, Dr. Sanjay Kumar, was the Doctor who had

conducted the postmortem upon the deceased Nagina Ram. He, in

his examination-in-chief, has elaborated upon the ante-mortem Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.451 of 2023 dt.08-12-2025

injuries found during the postmortem examination and dissection

which are as follow:

"The following antemortem injuries were found on postmortem examination and dissection:-

(i) stitch wound- 4 cm. length present over mid portion of frontal area, 11 cm. from nasal bridge.

(ii) There was contusion of scalp, which present of extra vessed blood and blood clots under neath of scalp. Both frontal and both parietal area dark reddish in colour on incision with linear fracture on both side frontal bone- right side 0.5 cm and left side- 3.5 cm corresponding tronal suture was separated.

(iii) There was 5cm X 1cm common-united fracture of right side parieto-temporal bone V shaped and also linear fracture on left temporal parietal bone of skull 8cm in length.

(iv) There was 6cm X 4cm extra dural heamotoma present over vertex corresponding with sub-

dural heamotoma present both side cerebral surface and also blood clot present and base of brain.

6. Opinion (1) Cause of death was cranio cerebral damage resulting from head injury caused by hard and blunt force impact.

(ii) Time since death within 24 hours (approximate) prior to postmortem examination."

31. During his cross-examination, P.W. 7 has stated that

the type of injury sustained by the deceased can be caused by

stone, brick or any hard blunt substance. He has stated that from

the nature of injury, it can be said that the hard blunt substance was

heavy and large. He has further deposed that such type of injury

may be caused due to fall of any heavy substance like brick and

wood log and in Paragraph '12' of his cross-examination he has Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.451 of 2023 dt.08-12-2025

very categorically stated that "no sharp cutting injury was present

on the body of the deceased".

32. Another important witness, also stated to be an

eyewitness and who happens to be the brother of deceased,

namely, Prabhu Ram (P.W.5) has supported the prosecution case in

his examination-in-chief. However, in Paragraph '7' he has stated

that Ajay Ram (appellant) was carrying Kulhari in his hand while

Vijay Ram was having farsa. In Paragraph '8' of his examination-

in-chief he has categorically stated that Ajay Ram (appellant)

assaulted with Kulhari on the head of Nagina Ram while Vijay

Ram gave a farsa blow on the shoulder from the back. He has

further stated that thereafter Ajay Ram (appellant), Sanjay Ram,

Mohan Ram, Ramjee Ram, Surendra Ram and Vijya Ram all

assaulted Nagina Ram and Kaushalya Devi with lathi. He has also

stated that Ramjee Ram had also assaulted him with lathi on his

back. He stated that his father, Ramchandra Ram was assaulted on

his wrist by Kulhari and on his chest by accused Surendra Ram

and thereafter by everybody. During his cross-examination, he has

stated that there were almost two hundred people assembled at the

place of occurrence, however, he cannot tell the name of those

persons. He has stated that since there was weapon being used at

the place of occurrence and, therefore, the people who had Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.451 of 2023 dt.08-12-2025

assembled there were watching it from a distance, however the co-

villagers were trying to pacify them.

33. P.W.6, Bohla Ram admittedly is not an eyewitness

and he has stated that he heard about the incident and that Nagina

Ram has received injuries and he was being treated at Patna and

thereafter he died during his treatment.

34. P.W.8, Rabindra Ram, is also a hearsay witness and

he has also stated that when he came to the place of occurrence he

saw that Nagina Ram was being taken upon a tempo and his head

had ripped opened and during his treatment he died. This witness

was, however, declared hostile at the request of the prosecution.

P.W.9 (Rajmati Devi) too was declared hostile at the request of the

prosecution.

35. We have very minutely perused the deposition of all

the witnesses and it appears that the informant, Kaushalya Devi,

who is the wife of deceased Nagina Ram was consistent in her

statement made in the FIR and also during her deposition during

the trial. We have observed that it was a case where several people

were variously armed and they all were assaulting the prosecution

side and it has been observed that P.W.1 in Paragraph '46' has

stated that the farsa was a small one and was tied to a lathi. P.W.1 Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.451 of 2023 dt.08-12-2025

has stated that Ajay Ram (appellant) had given a farsa blow which

ripped opened the head of her husband.

36. On conjoint reading of her statements, it is evident

that the farsa was tied to a lathi and her husband was assaulted by

the same causing a ripped injury on the head of her husband and,

therefore, the part of the lathi with force tied to a farsa have caused

a ripped injury on the head of the deceased and not a cut injury as

being suggested by the defence side.

37. This fact is also supported from the evidence of the

Doctor (P.W.7), who has stated that the hard blunt substance was

heavy and large. In fact, the Doctor has also stated that the type of

injury may be caused due to fall of any heavy substances like brick

and wood log.

38. We have seen that P.W.1 has stated that the farsa was

tied to a lathi and, therefore, what exactly hit the head of her

husband could not be stated specifically, however, the assault

causing an injury whereby the head of the deceased was ripped

open (फट गया). The other eyewitnesses have also used the same

connotation for the injuries sustained by the deceased, i.e., the

head of the deceased had ripped opened.

39. It is a known medical jurisprudence that when an

injury is caused even by a sharp edged weapon but with heavy Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.451 of 2023 dt.08-12-2025

force behind it, a lacerated or ripped injury can be caused and no

sharp cutting injury necessarily would occur.

40. We have perused the evidence of the witnesses and

from perusal of the same it would be evident that there was an

altercation and the witnesses have categorically stated that it was

Ajay Ram (appellant) who had assaulted on the head of the

husband of the informant upon which he fell down and, therefore,

there is no inconsistency as far as the fact of the appellant having

assaulted the deceased is concerned.

41. At this juncture, the reliance placed by the learned

Senior counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant on the

judgment in the case of Ganesh Datt vs. State of Uttarakhand

(Supra) seems misplaced as that was a case where the witnesses

had stated that the accused had fired shots with their pistol and

gun, however, no gun shot injury was found on the part of the

body of the deceased and, therefore, the Court had held that the

ocular evidence is totally inconsistent with the medical evidence

with respect to the assault and, therefore, had gone on to disbelieve

the evidence of the prosecution witnesses. However, in the present

case the witnesses might be interested or related witnesses,

however, the ocular testimony finds corroboration from the

injuries found by the Doctor during the postmortem. The number Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.451 of 2023 dt.08-12-2025

of injuries found upon the person of the deceased is completely

supported by the deposition of the witnesses, who have stated that

all the accused persons had assaulted and the injury caused by the

appellant proved to be fatal.

42. Similarly, the reliance placed by the learned Senior

counsel for the appellant in the case of Ram Singh vs. State of

Uttar Pradesh (Supra) with regard to non-recovery of weapon of

the crime is concerned, the Hon'ble Apex Court in Paragraph '34'

has clearly observed that by non-recovery of the weapon of crime

itself would not be fatal to the prosecution case. The Hon'ble

Supreme Court has opined that "when there is a direct eyewitness

account which is found to be credible, omission to obtain basaltic

report and non-examination of basaltic expert may not be fatal to

the prosecution case.......". Taking a leaf out of the said

observations when we apply the same in the present case, we find

that though the weapon use in the crime was not recovered or

seized by the police, however, the nature of injury found on the

body of the deceased goes on to corroborate the eyewitness

account and, therefore, even if we take the evidence of the

informant alone the same can itself be sufficient to prove the

prosecution case. That answers another point raised about the case

being based on the evidence of seemingly interested witnesses. It Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.451 of 2023 dt.08-12-2025

is a settled law that it is the quality of evidence which is of

importance and not the quantity. We have seen that co-villagers

generally refrain from standing as witnesses in a dispute between

two families or persons to avoid any differences with either of

them.

43. It is relevant to note here that from perusal of the

records, we have found that the incident occurred on 10.06.2018

and the accused Sanjay Ram and Ajay Ram (appellant) had evaded

for 20 days and ultimately surrendered on 30.06.2018 and,

therefore, there were ample opportunity with them to dispose of

the weapon used in the crime and, therefore, no adverse inference

could be drawn merely because the weapon was not recovered or

seized by the police.

44. An important question with regard to the nature of

weapon and the nature of injuries has been raised by the learned

Senior counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant and he has

placed reliance upon the judgment of Gurmej Singh & Ors.

(Supra). In support of his arguments, Mr. Ashok Kumar chaudhary,

learned Senior Counsel has submitted that like the present case

even in the aforesaid case the appellant was alleged to be armed

with a Gandasi and he had given a blow with it on the chest of the

deceased and ordinarily a Gandasi blow would cause an incised Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.451 of 2023 dt.08-12-2025

wound whereas the deceased had no incised wound on his chest

and was stated to have caused by hard and blunt substance and,

therefore, the injury found on the chest could not have been

attributed to the said appellant, who stated to have used Gandasi.

45. The aforesaid contention made on behalf of the

appellant, prima facie, seems to be of some merit, however, as we

have already observed hereinabove P.W.1 had categorically stated

that the farsa was tied to a lathi and the farsa blow was given on

the head of the deceased, however, P.W.1 was neither questioned

with regard to the exact impact of the weapon given to her

husband nor any such specific question was put to the Doctor.

However, from perusal of the ante-mortem injuries and the opinion

of the Doctor about the head injury being caused by a heavy object

caused by force corroborates the ocular evidence of P.W.1 wherein

the head of the deceased had ripped open and had not received a

sharp cutting injury.

46. We, therefore, do not see any merit in such

submission, as already discussed above, it was on account of

heavy force used by the appellant in assaulting the deceased the

said injury was caused and which was ultimately the cause of his

death.

Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.451 of 2023 dt.08-12-2025

47. In view of such discussion made hereinabove, it is

seen that in the testimonies of the eyewitnesses or other witnesses,

the allegation was of assault by means of farsa, tangi and lathi

those allegations are being corroborated by the injuries received by

the deceased as per the statement of the Doctor (P.W.7), in this

regard, the testimony of eyewitness (P.W.1) is worthy to wholly

rely upon and its corroboration by medical evidence is enough to

prove the case and, therefore, non-recovery of weapon used in the

said crime would not lead to disbelieve the factum of the incident.

48. The Hon'ble Supreme Court on several occasions has

retreated that non-recovery of the weapons cannot be considered

fatal to the case of prosecution, if there is consistent medical and

ocular evidence. In the case of State of Rajasthan vs. Arjun

Singh & Ors. reported in (2011) 9 SCC 317, the Hon'ble Supreme

Court held as under:

"18. As rightly pointed out by the learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the State that mere non- recovery of pistol or cartridge does not detract the case of the prosecution where clinching and direct evidence is acceptable. Likewise, absence of evidence regarding recovery of used pellets, bloodstained clothes, etc. cannot be taken or construed as no such occurrence had taken place. As a matter of fact, we have already pointed out that the gunshot injuries tallied with medical evidence. It is also seen Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.451 of 2023 dt.08-12-2025

that Raghuraj Singh and Himmat Raj Singh, who had died, received 8 and 7 gunshot wounds respectively while Raj Singh (PW 2) also received 8 gunshots scattered in front of left thigh. All these injuries have been noted by the doctor (PW 1) in his reports, Exts. P- 1 to P-4."

(Emphasis supplied)

49. In Nankaunoo vs. State of Uttar Pradesh reported

in (2016) 3 SCC 317, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that where

in light of unimpeachable oral evidence is corroborated by the

medical evidence, non-recovery of murder weapon does not

materially affect the case of prosecution. Any omission on the part

of the Investigating Officer cannot go against the prosecution's

case. Story of the prosecution has been examined de hors such

omission by the investigating agencies.

50. The present case is based on ocular evidence and the

Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that the ocular evidence is the

basic evidence unless there are reasons to doubt in. In the case of

Shahaja @ Shahajan Ismail Mohd. Shaikh vs. State of

Maharashtra reported in (2023) 12 SCC 558 the Hon'ble Court

has held thus:

"30. To put it simply, in assessing the value of the evidence of the eyewitnesses, two principal considerations are whether, in the circumstances of the case, it is possible to believe their presence at the scene Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.451 of 2023 dt.08-12-2025

of occurrence or in such situations as would make it possible for them to witness the facts deposed to by them and secondly, whether there is anything inherently improbable or unreliable in their evidence.

In respect of both these considerations, the circumstances either elicited from those witnesses themselves or established by other evidence tending to improbabilise their presence or to discredit the veracity of their statements, will have a bearing upon the value which a court would attach to their evidence. Although in cases where the plea of the accused is a mere denial, yet the evidence of the prosecution witnesses has to be examined on its own merits, where the accused raise a definite plea or puts forward a positive case which is inconsistent with that of the prosecution, the nature of such plea or case and the probabilities in respect of it will also have to be taken into account while assessing the value of the prosecution evidence.

31. There is nothing palpable or glaring in the evidence of the two eyewitnesses on the basis of which we can take the view that they are not true or reliable eyewitnesses. Few contradictions in the form of omissions here or there is not sufficient to discard the entire evidence of the eyewitnesses."

(Emphasis supplied)

51. Thus, from the aforesaid discussion, we do not have

any doubt in our minds that the present appellant was armed with a

deadly weapon and had assaulted the deceased upon his head with

the same and ultimately the injury caused by the appellant was the Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.451 of 2023 dt.08-12-2025

reason behind the death of the said person and, therefore, he has

rightly being held guilty of causing murder of Nagina Ram, the

husband of the informant, and therefore, the appeal is without any

merit and the same stands dismissed.

52. Let the trial court's records along with a copy of this

judgment be sent down to learned trial court.

(Sourendra Pandey, J)

Rajeev Ranjan Prasad, J:

(Rajeev Ranjan Prasad, J) krishna/manoj-

AFR/NAFR                NAFR
CAV DATE                27.11.2025
Uploading Date          08.12.2025
Transmission Date       08.12.2025