[Cites 4, Cited by 0]
Patna High Court
Pramod Bhagat vs The State Of Bihar on 10 December, 2025
Author: Rajeev Ranjan Prasad
Bench: Rajeev Ranjan Prasad
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL APPEAL (DB) No.492 of 2023
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-260 Year-2019 Thana- MEHSI District- East Champaran
======================================================
Pramod Bhagat, Son of Raghubansh Bhagat, Resident of village - Tajpur
Bara, P.S.- Mehsi, District - East Champaran, Motihari.
... ... Appellant/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Appellant/s : Mr.Rajesh Kumar, Advocate
For the Respondent/s : Mr. Abhimanyu Sharma, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJEEV RANJAN PRASAD
and
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SOURENDRA PANDEY
ORAL JUDGMENT
(Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJEEV RANJAN PRASAD)
Date : 10-12-2025
Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned
Additional Public Prosecutor for the State as also perused the learned
trial court records.
2. This appeal has been preferred for setting aside the
judgment of conviction dated 18.03.2023 (hereinafter referred to as
the 'impugned judgment') and the order of sentence dated
21.03.2023 (hereinafter referred to as the 'impugned order') passed
by learned 21st Additional District and Sessions Judge, Motihari, East
Champaran (hereinafter referred to as the 'learned trial court') in
Session Trial No.727 of 2019 arising out of Mehsi P.S. Case No.260
of 2019.
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.492 of 2023 dt.10-12-2025
2/14
3. By the impugned judgment, the appellant has been
convicted for the offence under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code
(in short 'IPC'). By the order of sentence, he has been ordered to
undergo imprisonment for life with a fine of Rs.10,000/- under
Section 302 IPC and in default of payment of fine, he shall further
undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year.
4. The prosecution case is based on the written information
of one Pooja Devi (PW-4) who is the daughter-in-law of the deceased
and sister-in-law of the appellant. In her written information,
addressed to the officer in-charge of Mehsi police station, she has
alleged that on 02.09.2019 at about 8.30, her Bhaisur Pramod Bhagat
(the appellant) was quarreling with her father-in-law Raghubansh
Bhagat (the deceased). She has alleged that while the quarreling was
going on, her Bhaisur Pramod Bhagat picked up a 'Dab' which was
kept in the house and attacked on the leg and neck of her father-in-
law as a result whereof her father-in-law got injured and fell down.
He died later on. She has alleged that on her raising hulla, the local
people assembled and on seeing them, the accused Pramod Bhagat
fled away.
5. On the basis of the said written information, a formal FIR
giving rise to Mehsi P.S. Case No.260 of 2019 dated 02.09.2019 was
registered under Section 302 IPC by Awaneesh Kumar, SHO, Mehsi
Police Station. The endorsement made by the SHO on the written
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.492 of 2023 dt.10-12-2025
3/14
information has been proved and marked as exhibit-1. After
investigation, Police submitted chargesheet bearing Chargesheet No.
233 of 2019 dated 17.10.2019 against Pramod Bhagat under Section
302 IPC.
6. On the basis of this chargesheet, learned A.C.J.M.-VI,
Motihari vide order dated 08.11.2019 took cognizance under Section
302 IPC against this appellant. Charges were read over and explained
to the appellant in Hindi to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed
to be tried. Accordingly, vide order dated 10.01.2020 charges were
framed under Section 302 IPC.
7. In course of trial, the prosecution examined as many as
six witnesses and exhibited several documents to prove it's case. The
list of the prosecution witnesses and the list of exhibits are being
shown hereunder in tabular form:-
List of Prosecution witnesses
PW-1 Shiv Prasad
PW-2 Ramdhir Prasad
PW-3 Manish Devi
PW-4 Pooja Devi
PW-5 Mohammad Anas
PW-6 Dr. Sachidanand Singh
List of Exhibits on behalf of the Prosecution
Exhibit '1' Signature of the Informant on FIR
Exhibit '1/1' Signature of the SHO on FIR
Exhibit '2' Chargesheet
Exhibit '3' Inquest Report
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.492 of 2023 dt.10-12-2025
4/14
8. Thereafter, the statement of the appellant was recorded
under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (in short
'CrPC'). He took a plea that he was not present at the place of
occurrence. He also took a plea that he was innocent and had falsely
been implicated because of the Case No. 53 of 2016. The defence has
not adduced any oral or documentary evidence to prove it's case.
Findings of the Learned Trial Court
9. Learned trial court, after analysing the evidences on the
record, found that the accused person by means of 'Dab' assaulted
the father of the informant causing injury on his leg and neck as a
result of which he died on the spot. Learned trial court found that
PW-2 and PW-4 have wholly supported the prosecution case.
10. Learned trial court further found that the allegation
made by the informant in her written application as well as in her
evidence has been supported by the Inquest Report and post-mortem
report.
11. Learned trial court after considering all the facts and
circumstances of the case found that the prosecution has been able to
prove it's case against the sole accused, namely, Pramod Bhagat
beyond all reasonable doubts. Accordingly, learned trial court held
the appellant guilty of the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC.
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.492 of 2023 dt.10-12-2025
5/14
Submissions on behalf of the Appellant
12. Learned counsel for the appellant has assailed the
impugned judgment and order and submitted that the learned trial
court has committed grave error in convicting the appellant. Learned
counsel submits that there is no independent witness to the
occurrence. Learned counsel submits that there is no motive for
committing murder of the deceased. Learned counsel further submits
that PW-1, PW-2 and PW-3 have not supported the prosecution case.
Learned counsel submits that only the Informant (PW-4) has
supported the case and on the sole testimony of her evidence the
appellant has been convicted.
13. Learned counsel further submits that the I.O. (PW-5)
has not investigated the case properly. The I.O. has neither collected
the blood from the place of occurrence nor sent it to Forensic Science
Laboratory which proves that the deceased was not murdered at the
place of occurrence as alleged by the prosecution.
14. Learned counsel, therefore, submits that there is no
cogent, tangible and admissible evidence on the record to prove the
guilt of the appellant and the prosecution has miserably failed to
prove it's case beyond all shadows of reasonable doubt.
Submission of the State
15. On the other hand, learned Additional Public
Prosecutor for the State has opposed the appeal. Learned Additional
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.492 of 2023 dt.10-12-2025
6/14
Public Prosecution submits that the learned trial court after rightly
appreciating all the evidences available on the record convicted the
appellant by providing well reasoned judgment.
Analysis of the Evidences and Consideration
16. On behalf of the prosecution altogether six witnesses
were examined. Shiv Prasad (PW-1) and Ramdhir Prasad (PW-2) are
the independent witnesses of the village. PW-1 has stated in his
examination-in-chief that he was sleeping in his house. His wife told
him that someone has died in the village whereafter he had gone to
see and found that one person whose neck had been cut, had died.
His statement was recorded by police. The prosecution declared PW-
1 as a hostile witness whereafter he was cross-examined and his
attention was drawn towards the previous statement made before
police in which he had stated that on 02.09.2019 at about 8.30, the
informant and her gotani were soughting and calling the people
saying that their father-in-law has been killed by Pramod Bhagat. The
defence also examined this witness. PW-1 has stated in his cross-
examination by the defence that he had not seen any person cutting
the deceased, however, this witness has stated that he had gone to the
place of occurrence and found that the dead person was lying there.
17. Ramdhir Prasad (PW-2) has also stated in his
examination-in-chief that he had gone to the place of occurrence on
hulla where he had found the dead body of Raghubansh Bhagat. This
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.492 of 2023 dt.10-12-2025
7/14
witness has, however, stated that he was not aware as to who had
killed Raghubansh Bhagat. In his cross-examination, this witness has
stated that when he went to the place of occurrence, he had seen the
deceased person.
18. From the evidence adduced by PW-1 and PW-2, this
much is evident that they had gone to the place of occurrence, they
had seen the dead body at the place of occurrence. It has come in the
evidence of the I.O. (PW-5) that he had inspected the place of
occurrence and had prepared the inquest report (Exhibit-3) in course
of investigation. He has given the description of the place of
occurrence in his examination-in-chief and according to him, the
place of occurrence is the front side of the Pucca house which is
Sahan land and Darwaza of the deceased. At this place, Pramod
Bhagat had killed his father Raghubansh Bhagat by a sharp cutting
weapon. The I.O. (PW-5) had also collected the criminal antecedent
of the accused and found that he had one criminal antecedent which
he had recorded in the case diary. On perusal of Exhibit-3, it is found
that the inquest report was prepared on 02.09.2019 at 10 O' clock and
the place is that of the house of the deceased. The inquest report
(Exhibit-3) contains the observations of the I.O., according to which,
the death had taken place because of the injuries on the leg and neck
of the deceased by a sharp cutting weapon.
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.492 of 2023 dt.10-12-2025
8/14
19. In this case, Manisha Devi (PW-3) is the wife of the
appellant. On perusal of the written information, it would appear that
the said written information was prepared by Katib Kameshwar
Prasad and it bears signature of Manisha Devi also as a witness,
however, the signature of Manisha Devi on the written information
was not shown to PW-3 when she was examined in course of trial.
She was declared hostile on the prayer of the prosecution when she
took a stand that she did not know how Raghubansh Bhagat was
murdered. She also made a statement that her statement was not
recorded by police but the prosecution cross-examined her by
drawing her attention towards her previous statement made before
police in which she had supported the prosecution case. The defence
cross-examined PW-3. PW-3 has admitted that the accused happened
to be her husband, therefore, she identified him but in paragraph '6'
of her deposition in course of cross-examination by the defence, this
witness has made a statement that she did not know anything about
the occurrence. Apparently, she has been trying to save her husband
during trial.
20. Pooja Devi (PW-4) is the informant of this case and she
is the star witness on whom the whole prosecution case would rest. In
her examination-in-chief, she has stated that the occurrence is of
02.09.2019
. Her Bhaisur Pramod Bhagat and father-in-law
Raghubansh Bhagat were quarreling. In the meantime, her Bhaisur
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.492 of 2023 dt.10-12-2025
Pramod Bhagat picked up a 'Dab' and assaulted her father-in-law on
his leg and neck as a result whereof her father-in-law became injured,
fell down and died. She had submitted the written application at the
police station. She has identified her thumb impression on the written
application. In course of cross-examination, she has stated that at the
time of occurrence, she was inside her house and 15 minutes after the
occurrence she reached the place of occurrence and saw that her
father-in-law was being assaulted. In paragraph '4' of her cross-
examination, she has stated that Pramod Bhagat is her Bhaisur, he
had gone to earn outside and on the date of occurrence also he was
earning outside but then this witness has stated that she had seen him
assaulting her father-in-law. She has stated that her husband was
earning his livelihood in Delhi and she had no quarrel with Pramod
Bhagat on any earlier occasion. She has stated that Pramod Bhagat
used to have the quarrel with his father intermittently. She has also
stated that sometimes quarrel used to take place between Pramod
Bhagat and his wife. This witness has reiterated that on the date of
occurrence when she went to the place of occurrence, she had seen
the accused Pramod Bhagat assaulting her father-in-law on his neck
by 'Dab'. Her statement was recorded by police after the occurrence.
This witness was suggested by the defence that there used to be a
quarrel between Pramod Bhagat and her husband and for that reason
Pramod Bhagat has been falsely implicated but P.W. 4 denied this
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.492 of 2023 dt.10-12-2025
suggestion. On perusal of the evidence of PW-4, it appears that she
has supported the prosecution case, there is no material contradiction
in the evidence of PW-4 so as to disbelieve her or take away the
credit worthiness of this witness. She has fully withstood the test of
cross-examination. The defence has suggested to this witness that
there used to be a quarrel between her husband and the appellant and
for that reason he has been falsely implicated but this witness has
stated that her husband was living in Delhi to earn his livelihood. No
prior case between her husband and the appellant has been mentioned
by the defence. The defence did not suggest this witness that on the
date and time of occurrence, Pramod Bhagat was not at the place of
occurrence.
21. The I.O. Mohammad Anas has been examined as PW-5.
He has proved the handwriting and signature of the S.H.O. Awaneesh
Kumar on the written information as Exhibit-1. He has also proved
the handwriting and signature of the S.H.O. on the formal FIR, the
same has been marked Exhibit-1/1. PW-5 has proved his signature
and handwriting on the charge-sheet which has been marked Exhibit-
2. This witness has stated that the officer in-charge had given the
charge of investigation to him whereafter he had prepared the inquest
report (Exhibit-3) and had recorded the re-statement of the informant.
He had also recorded the statement of the witnesses Manisha Devi,
Rajnarayan Chaurasia, Ranvijay Prasad and Shiv Prasad. He had
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.492 of 2023 dt.10-12-2025
inspected the place of occurrence. In his cross-examination, PW-5
has stated that he reached the place of occurrence on 02.09.2019
itself, he had found there the blood marks and the dead body where
blood had fallen but he had not sent the blood for forensic test. This
witness has stated that the place of occurrence was informed to him
in the village by the informant. He was suggested that the accused
had assaulted his wife and he had gone to jail. PW-5 has shown his
unawareness with regard to the date on which the appellant had
assaulted his wife and when he had gone to jail.
22. We have noticed that even though in this case, no
independent witness is an eye witness of the occurrence but P.W. 1
and P.W. 2 have stated about the immediate circumstance present at
the place of occurrence. Considering that the place of occurrence is
the house of the deceased no independent witness may be present in
the house at the time of occurrence. PW-4 has no reason to be
inimical with her Bhaisur, we find no reason to disbelieve PW-4.
23. We have further found that Dr. Sachidanand Singh (PW-
6) who was posted at Sadar Hospital, Motihari as Medical Officer on
02.09.2019 had conducted autopsy on the dead body. He had found
the following injuries on the body of the deceased:-
"(i) Clothes were smeared with blood. All structures
in neck on back right side and front of neck were
sharply cut including spinal cord, spin, neuro
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.492 of 2023 dt.10-12-2025
vascular bundle, muscles, wind pipe except tag of
skin of left side.
(ii) Incised wound over left knee 5"x3"x bone deep.
(iii) Incised wound over the upper part of front of
chest right side 3"x 1"x 1 ½ with cutting of right
clavicle.
(iv) Brain and meninges were pale. Lungs were pale.
Heart chambers were empty. Abdominal viscera
were intact but pale. Stomach contained semi
digested food.
In my opinion the death was caused by sharp edged
substance.
Cause of death:- Hemorrhage and shock caused
within 24 hours."
PW-6 has proved the postmortem report which was prepared by
him, in his handwriting and on his identification, the postmortem
report has been marked Exhibit-4. This witness has stated that he had
found three injuries on the body of the deceased and according to
him, the injuries found on the body of the deceased may be caused by
Garasi.
24. On perusal of the evidence of the doctor (PW-6) and the
postmortem report (Exhibit-4), we find that the medical evidence
fully corroborates the prosecution case. The ocular evidence of the
informant (PW-4) finds full support from the medical evidence.
25. We have noticed that in his statement under Section 313
Cr.P.C., the appellant took a plea of alibi saying that he was not
present at the place of occurrence at the time of occurrence but it is
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.492 of 2023 dt.10-12-2025
evident from his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. that the plea of
alibi taken by him is only a vague plea. He has not disclosed the
place where he was present at the time of occurrence whereas the
prosecution witnesses are consistent that after the occurrence, the
informant and her gotani had raised hulla whereafter the local people
started assembling and on seeing them the appellant fled away.
Further in his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. this witness has
referred to Case No.53 of 2016 and has stated that because of the said
case, he has been falsely implicated. We have found that the Case
No.53 of 2016 was registered against the appellant for alleged
demand of dowry. It is for this reason, the I.O. has stated that the
appellant has got one criminal antecedent which is recorded in the
case diary. The appellant has, therefore, failed to explain the
incriminating circumstances which were brought to his notice by the
prosecution.
26. In the kind of materials present on the record, we find
that the learned trial court has rightly appreciated the prosecution
case and the evidences available on the record. The reasoning and
rationale provided by the learned trial court in paragraph '16' of the
impugned judgment are based on the evidences available on the
record which we have duly discussed hereinabove.
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.492 of 2023 dt.10-12-2025
27. In our considered opinion, the impugned judgment and
the order of the learned trial court are not suffering from any
infirmity. No interference is required.
28. This appeal has no merit. It is dismissed accordingly.
29. Let a copy of this judgment together with the trial court
records be sent down to the learned trial court.
(Rajeev Ranjan Prasad, J)
(Sourendra Pandey, J)
arvind/-
AFR/NAFR
CAV DATE
Uploading Date 12.12.2025
Transmission Date 12.12.2025
