Ajay Singh vs The State Of Bihar
2025 Latest Caselaw 4714 Patna

Patna High Court

Ajay Singh vs The State Of Bihar on 12 December, 2025

Author: Anshuman

Bench: Anshuman

     IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
                  CRIMINAL APPEAL (DB) No.590 of 2018
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-249 Year-2015 Thana- BHABHUA District- Kaimur (Bhabua)
======================================================
Ajay Singh Son of Manu Singh @ Mannu Singh, Resident of Village-
Nawagaon, P.S.- Bhabhua, District- Kaimur.

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

                                          ... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Appellant/s     :      Mr. Baxi S.R.P. Sinha, Sr. Advocate
                               Mr. Raushan Abhishek, Advocate
                               Mr. Saurav Kr. Suman, Advocate
                               Mr. Braj Bhushan Mishra, Advocate
                               Mr. Prem Ranjan Kumar, Advocate
For the State           :      Mr. Abhimanyu Sharma, A.P.P.
                               Mr. Ram Nath Singh, Advocate
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BIBEK CHAUDHURI
                       and
        HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DR. ANSHUMAN
                CAV JUDGMENT
(Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BIBEK CHAUDHURI)

 Date : 12-12-2025

                This Criminal Appeal has been filed by the appellant

 Ajay Singh challenging the judgment of conviction dated

 16.04.2018

and the order of sentence dated 19.04.2018 passed

by the learned Sessions Judge, Kaimur at Bhabhua in Sessions

Trial No. 280 of 2015, arising out of Nawanagar Police Station

Case No. 85 of 2015. By the impugned judgment, the appellant

has been convicted under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code

and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life along with a

fine of Rs. 20,000, and in default of payment of fine, to suffer Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.590 of 2018 dt.12-12-2025

rigorous imprisonment for a further period of three months.

2. The prosecution case is based on the fardbayan of

the informant Buchun Singh recorded on 05.05.2015 at about

8:00 PM at Bhagwanpur, District Kaimur. According to the

informant, on the evening of the occurrence, he along with the

deceased, who was a retired Army personnel, was sitting near

the Hanuman Temple when the appellant Ajay Singh arrived and

after a verbal altercation, allegedly caught hold of the deceased

and inflicted multiple injuries with a sharp cutting weapon on

his abdomen, back and chest. The deceased fell on the spot and

was immediately taken for medical treatment but succumbed to

the injuries.

3. On the basis of the said fardbayan, Nawanagar P.S.

Case No. 85 of 2015 was instituted under Section 302 of the

Indian Penal Code and investigation was taken up. After

completion of investigation, charge-sheet was submitted against

the appellant. The case was committed to the Court of Sessions,

charge under Section 302 IPC was framed, and the appellant

pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.

4. During trial, the prosecution examined ten witnesses

including eyewitnesses and the doctor who conducted the post-

mortem examination. The prosecution also exhibited the Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.590 of 2018 dt.12-12-2025

fardbayan, inquest report, and post-mortem report. The

appellant was examined under Section 313 of the Code of

Criminal Procedure, in which he denied the allegations and

stated that the prosecution witnesses had falsely deposed against

him. No defence witness was examined on his behalf.

5. Upon consideration of the evidence on record, the

learned Sessions Judge recorded a finding of guilt and convicted

the appellant for the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC

and awarded the aforesaid sentence. Assailing the conviction

and sentence, the present Criminal Appeal has been preferred.

6. The prosecution examined ten witnesses in support

of the charge against the appellant. Out of them, PW-1 to PW-4

were cited as eyewitnesses to the occurrence. However, all four

turned hostile in the course of trial and did not support the

prosecution version. PW-5 also did not support the prosecution

case. Consequently, the conviction recorded by the trial court

rests substantially on the testimony of PW-6, the informant,

along with the corroborative value of medical and official

evidence. The depositions are examined in detail as follows.

7. PW-1 Bhim Paswan, who was projected as an

eyewitness to the incident, did not support the prosecution case

when examined before the trial court. He denied having Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.590 of 2018 dt.12-12-2025

witnessed the occurrence and stated that he could not identify

the assailant. He was declared hostile at the request of the

prosecution and cross-examined, but no material admission

could be elicited to suggest that he had seen the appellant

assaulting the deceased. His testimony therefore does not lend

any support to the prosecution case and does not advance the

charge alleged in the fardbayan. As an eyewitness turning

hostile, his evidence weakens the prosecution narrative, and his

hostility requires the court to scrutinize remaining evidence with

caution.

8. PW-2, who was also projected as a direct

eyewitness present near the temple at the relevant time,

similarly did not support the prosecution case. He denied the

prosecution's suggestion that he had seen the appellant assault

the deceased. He was also subjected to cross-examination by the

prosecution under Section 154 of the Indian Evidence Act, but

no part of his former police statement was admitted, nor did he

confirm the version contained in the fardbayan. His cross-

examination yielded no material that could be used for

corroboration. PW-2's hostility affects the reliability of the

prosecution's claim that multiple persons had witnessed the

assault.

Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.590 of 2018 dt.12-12-2025

9. PW-3 and PW-4 were also examined as

eyewitnesses. Both turned hostile. Both denied having seen the

incident and did not support any part of the prosecution

narrative. The prosecution cross-examined them, but nothing

beneficial to the prosecution case emerged. PW-3 denied that he

had told the police that the appellant was the assailant. PW-4

similarly denied the earlier statement attributed to him. Their

collective hostility results in the collapse of the prosecution

claim that the occurrence was witnessed by more than one

person from close quarters.

10. PW-5, though present in the list of eyewitnesses,

stated that she had not seen the assault and was unable to

identify the assailant. She denied knowledge of the details of the

incident. She did not support any aspect of the prosecution

version relating to the assault by the appellant. Her testimony

therefore does not form any basis for corroboration.

11. PW-6 Buchun Singh, the informant and the only

witness who supported the prosecution version in material

particulars, stated that on 05.05.2015 at about 8:00 PM, he,

along with the deceased was sitting near the Hanuman Temple

when the appellant arrived and an exchange of words took

place. According to him, the appellant caught hold of the Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.590 of 2018 dt.12-12-2025

deceased and assaulted him repeatedly with a sharp cutting

weapon on his abdomen, chest and back, causing him to fall to

the ground. PW-6 identified the appellant in court. He stated that

the deceased was taken for medical help but succumbed to the

injuries. In cross-examination, PW-6 admitted that the incident

was sudden, following a verbal altercation. He denied the

suggestion that he had not seen the occurrence. The defence

sought to challenge his credibility by suggesting prior rivalry

and by pointing out that the other eyewitnesses did not support

his version. PW-6 denied allegations of tutoring. His evidence

stands alone as the primary foundation of the prosecution case.

However, it requires careful scrutiny, since the conviction based

solely on a single witness, particularly when all other

eyewitnesses have resiled, must be accepted only if his

testimony is wholly reliable, consistent and natural.

12. PW-7 Subedar Rajesh Kumar Singh supported

only formal aspects and proved procedural steps. He was not an

eyewitness and his deposition remained limited to seizure and

forwarding processes. Nothing material was elicited during

cross-examination.

13. PW-8 Dr. Kameshwar Nath Tiwary conducted the

post-mortem examination and found multiple incised wounds on Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.590 of 2018 dt.12-12-2025

the abdomen, chest and back of the deceased. He opined that the

injuries were ante-mortem, caused by a sharp-edged weapon,

and were sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause

death. The medical evidence corroborates PW-6's version

regarding the nature of the weapon and the severity of attack.

There was no challenge by the defence regarding the timing,

nature or cause of death, nor was any alternative explanation

offered. His evidence is consistent, reliable and independent.

14. PW-9 and PW-10 are the Investigating Officers.

They narrated the steps undertaken during the investigation,

including preparation of the inquest report, site inspection,

collection of statements under Section 161 of the Code of

Criminal Procedure, forwarding the body for post-mortem and

filing of the charge-sheet. Their depositions remained unshaken

during cross-examination. The defence did not demonstrate any

material irregularity in investigation or any contradiction

affecting the core of the case. However, their evidence serves

only as corroborative support and cannot replace substantive

eyewitness testimony.

15. The accused was examined under Section 313 of

the Code of Criminal Procedure, where the incriminating

circumstances were put to him. He denied the prosecution Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.590 of 2018 dt.12-12-2025

version and stated that he had been falsely implicated. He did

not provide any explanation regarding his presence at the place

of occurrence or the circumstances leading to the death of the

deceased. No defence witness was examined.

16. On a cumulative evaluation, the prosecution

evidence indicates that the four eyewitnesses originally relied

upon by the prosecution turned hostile, and PW-5 also did not

support the prosecution story. The case therefore rests

substantially on the sole testimony of PW-6. The law is well

settled that a conviction can be sustained on the testimony of a

single witness if the court finds it to be wholly reliable and

trustworthy, but where all independent witnesses have turned

hostile, the testimony of the sole witness must be scrutinized

with utmost caution. The hostility of PW-1 to PW-4 materially

weakens the prosecution claim of multiple eyewitness support.

In such circumstances, the court must assess whether PW-6's

testimony is free from exaggeration, consistent with the medical

version and not contradicted by circumstances on record, and

whether the occurrence was a result of sudden quarrel without

premeditation so as to attract Exception 4 to Section 300 IPC.

17. After registration of Nawanagar Police Station

Case No. 85 of 2015 on the basis of the fardbayan lodged by Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.590 of 2018 dt.12-12-2025

PW-6, investigation commenced and upon completion of

investigation, the Investigating Officer submitted charge-sheet

against the appellant under Section 302 of the Indian Penal

Code. The learned Chief Judicial Magistrate took cognizance of

the offence and after compliance of Section 207 of the Code of

Criminal Procedure, committed the case to the Court of

Sessions, Kaimur at Bhabhua for trial.

18. The case was registered as Sessions Trial No. 280

of 2015. The learned Sessions Judge framed charge under

Section 302 IPC against the appellant, to which he pleaded not

guilty and claimed trial. In support of the case, the prosecution

examined ten witnesses, including PW-6, the informant and

claimed eyewitness, PW-8, the doctor who proved the post-

mortem report, and PW-9 and PW-10, the investigating officers.

The accused was examined under Section 313 of the Code of

Criminal Procedure, wherein he denied the allegations and

claimed false implication. No evidence was adduced on behalf

of the defence.

19. Upon consideration of the evidence, the learned

Sessions Judge found that the prosecution had succeeded in

establishing the guilt of the appellant beyond reasonable doubt.

The trial court observed that the testimony of PW-6 was Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.590 of 2018 dt.12-12-2025

consistent, natural and trustworthy. The trial court held that

although PW-1 to PW-4 had turned hostile and PW-5 also did

not support the prosecution, the testimony of PW-6 remained

reliable and did not suffer from material infirmities. The trial

court placed reliance on the corroboration provided by the

medical evidence of PW-8, who confirmed that the injuries

sustained by the deceased were caused by a sharp-edged

weapon and were sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to

cause death. The trial court held that the defence had failed to

bring out any substantial contradictions during cross-

examination that could render PW-6 unreliable. The trial court

further noted that the appellant had offered no explanation when

examined under Section 313 CrPC regarding the incriminating

circumstances appearing against him.

20. The learned Sessions Judge therefore convicted the

appellant for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the

Indian Penal Code by judgment dated 16 April 2018 and

sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for life with fine of Rs.

20,000 by order dated 19.04.2018.

21. Aggrieved by the judgment of conviction and the

order of sentence, the present Criminal Appeal has been

preferred before this Court.

Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.590 of 2018 dt.12-12-2025

22. From the record and the arguments advanced, the

following points arise for determination:

a Whether the findings recorded by the trial court suffer from misappreciation of evidence, perversity, or illegality, particularly in view of the fact that PW-1 to PW-4, all projected eyewitnesses, turned hostile and did not support the prosecution case. b Whether the conviction of the appellant based substantially upon the sole testimony of PW-6, in the absence of corroboration by other eyewitnesses, can be sustained in law, and whether his testimony is wholly reliable.

c Whether the circumstances established on record indicate that the occurrence was a result of a sudden altercation without premeditation, so as to attract Exception 4 to Section 300 IPC and reduce the offence from Section 302 IPC to culpable homicide not amounting to murder.

d Whether the sentence imposed by the learned trial court requires interference.

23. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the

appellant submitted that the judgment of conviction and the

order of sentence passed by the learned Sessions Judge are

unsustainable in law and on facts, and that the same have

resulted in grave miscarriage of justice. It was contended that

the entire prosecution case suffers from material infirmities, and

that the trial court has failed to appreciate the evidence in its Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.590 of 2018 dt.12-12-2025

correct perspective. Learned counsel submitted that PW-1, PW-

2, PW-3 and PW-4, who were projected as eyewitnesses by the

prosecution, have all turned hostile during trial and have

categorically denied witnessing the occurrence, thereby

demolishing the prosecution version that several persons had

seen the incident. It was urged that PW-5 also did not support

the prosecution case and denied having seen the assault. In such

circumstances, the prosecution story is left solely dependent

upon the testimony of PW-6, the informant, who is an interested

witness.

24. It was further submitted that the conviction of the

appellant based exclusively on the testimony of PW-6, in the

absence of corroboration from any independent eyewitness, is

unsafe and contrary to settled principles of law. Learned counsel

argued that the testimony of PW-6 suffers from material

contradictions and improvements, and that his presence at the

place of occurrence is doubtful. It was submitted that PW-6

himself admitted that the incident arose suddenly after an

exchange of words, without any prior enmity or motive, and

therefore the case at best falls under Exception 4 to Section 300

IPC, attracting conviction under Section 304 Part I or II and not

Section 302 IPC.

Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.590 of 2018 dt.12-12-2025

25. Learned counsel further submitted that the medical

evidence does not conclusively establish intention to cause

death and that the prosecution has failed to prove the chain of

circumstances beyond reasonable doubt. It was also argued that

in the absence of any recovery of weapon from the appellant

and in view of the failure of independent witnesses to support

the prosecution case, the benefit of doubt ought to be given to

the appellant. It was therefore urged that the conviction recorded

by the learned trial court deserves to be set aside and the

appellant entitled to acquittal, or in the alternative, the offence

be converted to culpable homicide not amounting to murder and

the sentence accordingly modified.

26. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing on

behalf of the State supported the judgment of conviction and

submitted that the prosecution has succeeded in proving the

charge against the appellant beyond reasonable doubt. It was

contended that the testimony of PW-6 is natural, consistent and

trustworthy, and stands corroborated by the medical evidence of

PW-8 and the steps taken during investigation by PW-9 and PW-

10. It was submitted that the defence has not been able to point

out any material contradiction or inconsistency in the evidence

of PW-6, and that merely because other eyewitnesses turned Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.590 of 2018 dt.12-12-2025

hostile, the evidence of PW-6 cannot be discarded if it inspires

confidence. Learned counsel argued that hostility of witnesses is

a common circumstance in criminal trials, and that their

evidence can be relied upon to the extent it supports the

prosecution.

27. It was further submitted that the injuries inflicted

on the deceased were on vital parts of the body, multiple in

number, inflicted by a sharp-edged weapon, and were sufficient

in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. Therefore, the

act of the appellant falls squarely within the ambit of murder

and does not attract Exception 4 to Section 300 IPC. It was

argued that the sentence imposed by the learned trial court is

justified and calls for no interference.

28. On perusal of the Lower Court Record, it appears

that the learned Trial Judge framed charge against the appellant,

namely, Ajay Singh along with one Manu Singh, Ramesh

Kumar Singh, Sanjay Singh and Shivji Singh under Section

302/34 of the I.P.C. Again on the same day, separate charge was

framed against the appellant under Section 302 of the I.P.C.

Therefore, at the time of framing of charge, the learned Trial

Judge was not prima-facie satisfied as to whether murder of

Bigau Singh was committed by four accused persons in Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.590 of 2018 dt.12-12-2025

furtherance of their common intention or if the alleged offence

was a solitary act on the part of the appellant alone. The

impugned judgment shows that except the appellant, all other

accused persons were acquitted of the charge under Section

302/34 of the I.P.C. Therefore, it appears to the learned Trial

Judge that the prosecution failed to establish common intention

of the accused persons, who were acquitted upon trial alongwith

the appellant and the offence was committed alone by the

appellant.

29. We have already stated that P.W.-1, P.W.-2, P.W.-

3, P.W.-4 & P.W.-5 were declared hostile by the prosecution.

P.W.-6 Buchun Singh was the informant of this case.

30. From the evidence of the hostile witnesses as

well as the informant, the alleged offence was committed on

05.05.2015 at about 08:00 P.M. in front of a Hanuman Temple

of the village. As per the evidence of the informant as well as

the statement made in the Fardbeyan, on the date and time of

occurrence Bigau Singh came out of the temple performing

'Aarti' of the Deity. At the time of performance of Aarti, one

Bhim Paswan and Kedar Paswan were present. There was a cot

lying in front of temple, Bigau sat on the cot and the informant

was standing by his side. At that point of time appellant and Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.590 of 2018 dt.12-12-2025

accused Shivji Singh came there and started abusing Bigau

Singh with filthy language. The informant rebutted them for

abusing Bigau Singh. At this, Ajay Singh brandished a knife

towards the informant and threatened to kill him. The informant

fled toward the temple. Shivji Singh caught hold of Bigau Singh

by one hand and pressed his mouth by another hand. He

instructed Ajay to assault the deceased. Seeing this, the

informant, Bhim Paswan, Kedar Paswan, Kheru Paswan,

Sitaram Paswan and Prem Shila Devi raised hue and cry. Other

villagers, namely, Manu Singh, Rakesh Singh, Sanjay Singh

were also standing. On being instructed by Shivji, Ajay gave as

many as eight blows with the help of knife all over his body

then they fled away. The informant and other villagers

immediately took Bigau to District Hospital at Bhabhua, the

Medical Officer examined and declared him dead, then they

brought the dead body of Bigau and had kept the body at the

place of occurrence.

31. Subsequently, the police officer came to the place

of occurrence and recorded his statement. The said statement

was treated as the F.I.R. and marked Exhibit-1 during Trial.

Police prepared inquest report over the dead body of the

deceased. The informant and one Sita Ram Sinha put their Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.590 of 2018 dt.12-12-2025

signature on the inquest report. His signature on the inquest

report is marked as Exhibit-1/1.

32. It is contended by the learned Advocate on behalf

of the appellant that as per the statement of the informant, the

deceased was alive when he was taken to Bhabhua district

hospital. It appears from the evidence of other witnesses that

Bhabhua Police Station is situated adjacent to the hospital on

common boundary wall. He raised a question, as to why no

report was lodged immediately after the victim was declared

dead by the Medical Officer.

33. The learned Advocate for the appellant has raised

a doubt over the prosecution case containing, inter-alia, that

when an injured is brought to the hospital and is found dead

otherwise than in normal circumstances, dead body is not

released by the hospital authority before the postmortem

examination. It is the duty of the medical officer, who found

him dead after medical examination to inform the police

authorities immediate as to the death of the the patient so that

police can take up appropriate action by commencing

investigation.

34. In the instant case, prosecution failed to give any

explanation as to how the dead body of Bigau Singh was handed Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.590 of 2018 dt.12-12-2025

over to the informant and others after the Medical Officer

declared him dead.

35. Consequently, the learned Advocate for the

appellant has raised a pertinent question that there was chance

of the witnesses on behalf of the prosecution to inflict

postmortem injuries on the dead body of Bigau Singh.

36. The learned Advocate for the appellant submits

that the prosecution case suffers from a number of infirmities.

According to the prosecution, the incident was firstly informed

at the nearest outpost and the police officer attached to the

outpost recorded the fact in the diary. The said General Diary

Entry (lugk) was not produced during trial.

37. The name of Shivji Singh under whose

instruction, the deceased was reportedly assaulted was not

named in the F.I.R.. Therefore, it is contended on behalf of the

appellant that the informant manufactured and concocted a false

story and tried to implicate the accused Shivji Singh in the

instant case. He also draws our attention to the F.I.R. where he

stated that Ajay Singh, Manu Singh, Ramesh Singh and Sanjay

Singh committed murder of Bigau Singh assaulting him with the

help of his niece. Admittedly, involvement of Manu Singh,

Ramesh Singh and Sanjay Singh was not proved during trial and Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.590 of 2018 dt.12-12-2025

they were acquitted. No appeal was preferred by the State

against the impugned judgment.

38. Under such circumstances, the present appellant

ought to have been acquitted by the Trial Court.

39. In support of his contention, the learned

Advocate for the appellant refers to a decision of the Hon'ble

Supreme Court in the case of Javed Shaukat Ali Qureshi Vs.

State of Gujarat, reported in 2023INSC 829.

40. After appreciation of evidence, the Hon'ble

Supreme Court held in the above-mentioned decision in

paragraph No.15 :-

"15. When there is similar or identical evidence of eyewitnesses against two accused by ascribing them the same or similar role, the Court cannot convict one accused and acquit the other. In such a case, the cases of both the accused will be governed by the principle of parity. This principle means that the Criminal Court should decide like cases alike, and in such cases, the Court cannot make a distinction between the two accused, which will amount to discrimination."

41. When the appellant and other four accused

persons were charged under Section 302/34 of the I.P.C., and

other four accused persons were acquitted by the Trial Court Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.590 of 2018 dt.12-12-2025

based on the same evidence, the appellant cannot be held guilty.

42. Accordingly, the appeal succeeds and the

judgment of conviction dated 16.04.2018 and the order of

sentence dated 19.04.2018 passed by the learned Sessions

Judge, Kaimur at Bhabhua in Sessions Trial No. 280 of 2015,

arising out of Nawanagar Police Station Case No. 85 of 2015, is

set aside.

43. The appellant, accused No.1-Ajay Singh is

acquitted of the offences alleged against him, under Section 302

of the I.P.C. Accordingly, the accused be released at once.

(Bibek Chaudhuri, J)

Dr. Anshuman, J : I agree.

( Dr. Anshuman, J) mdrashid/-

AFR/NAFR                NAFR
CAV DATE                21.11.2025
Uploading Date          12.12.2025
Transmission Date       12.12.2025