Patna High Court
Sunil Yadav vs The State Of Bihar on 11 February, 2025
Author: Alok Kumar Pandey
Bench: Alok Kumar Pandey
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL APPEAL (DB) No.937 of 2018
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-81 Year-2017 Thana- KASIMBAZAR District- Munger
======================================================
Sunil Yadav, Son of Lakhandev Yadav, Resident of Village- Navtoliya, Police
Station- Kasim Bazar, District- Munger.
... ... Appellant
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Respondent
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Appellant : Mr. Ashutosh Nath, Advocate
: Mr. Nishant Kumar Sinha, Advocate
For the Respondent : Mr. Sujit Kumar Singh, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE VIPUL M. PANCHOLI
and
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK KUMAR PANDEY
ORAL JUDGMENT
(Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE VIPUL M. PANCHOLI)
Date : 11-02-2025
The present appeal has been filed under Section 374(2)
of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred as
'Code') against the impugned judgment of conviction dated
08.06.2018 and order of sentence dated 13.06.2018, passed by
learned Additional District and Sessions Judge-IInd, Munger, in
Sessions Trial No.241 of 2017, arising out of Kasim Bazar P.S.
Case No.81 of 2017, whereby the concerned Trial Court has
convicted and sentenced the present appellant for the offences
punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and also
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.937 of 2018 dt.11-02-2025
2/24
imposed a fine of Rs. 2,000/- and, on failure to deposit the same,
the appellant shall serve simple imprisonment for three months.
Further, the appellant shall have to undergo three years of rigorous
imprisonment and fine of Rs. 2,000/- for the offence punishable
under Section 27 of the Arms Act and, in default of payment of
fine, he shall have to undergo simple imprisonment for three
months.
FACTUAL MATRIX:
2. The prosecution story, in a nutshell, is as under:-
2.1. Fard-beyan of Savita Devi, wife of Sushant Kumar
@ Fantush Yadav (deceased) came to be recorded on 15.04.2017 at
07:00 A.M. In the said fard-beyan, the informant has mainly stated
that her husband Fantush Yadav returned to house at around 01:00
A.M. in the night after watching day-night cricket match in the
village and called her to open the gate, when she opened the gate,
she saw that her elder brother-in-law (bhaisur) Sunil (appellant
herein) and Khabri were standing there having pistol and cartridge.
Sunil and Khabri shot at her husband in her presence. Her husband
died there. When she started weeping, Sunil closed her inside the
room and threatened her not to make noise else she and her
children will be killed. It is further state in the fard-beyan that
when she came out of the house after the door was opened,
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.937 of 2018 dt.11-02-2025
3/24
villagers and police were present there. Who opened the door, she
does not know. On the basis of the aforesaid fard-beyan given by
informant (Savita Devi), formal FIR came to be lodged in Kasim
Bazar Police Station at 09:30 A.M.
2.2. After registration of the F.I.R., the Investigating
Agency carried out the investigation and, during the course of the
investigation, the Investigating Officer recorded the statement of
the witnesses and collected the necessary evidence. Prior to that
inquest report was prepared on the spot and dead body of the
deceased was sent for conducting the post mortem. The
Investigating Officer arrested the accused/appellant herein and
thereafter filed the charge-sheet against the appellant/accused
before the concerned Magistrate Court. As the case was
exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions, the learned Magistrate
committed the same to the Sessions Court under Section 209 of the
Code, where the same was registered as Sessions Trial No.241 of
2017.
2.3. At the trial, the prosecution examined eight
witnesses and also produced documentary evidence. The defence
also examined three witnesses. Thereafter, further statement of the
accused was recorded under Section 313 of the Code and after
completion of the trial, the Trial Court passed the impugned
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.937 of 2018 dt.11-02-2025
4/24
judgment and order against which the appellant has preferred the
present appeal.
3. Heard Mr. Ashutosh Nath assisted by Mr. Nishant
Kumar Sinha, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. Sujit
Kumar Singh, learned APP for the Respondent-State.
SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE
APPELLANT:-
4. Mr. Ashutosh Nath, learned counsel for the appellant
referred the deposition of the prosecution witnesses as well as
defence witnesses. Learned counsel would mainly submit that the
prosecution has projected the informant (PW-4) as eye-witness.
However, in fact, she is not the eye witness to the incident in
question. Similarly, it has been contended that PW-3 is also not an
eye-witness to the occurrence, despite which the prosecution has
projected him as an eye-witness. In support of the said contention,
learned counsel referred to the fard-beyan and contended that in
the fard-beyan given by PW-4 (informant), there is no reference of
presence of PW-3, who is the brother of the informant. It is further
submitted that conduct of the informant, who is the wife of the
deceased, was unnatural. Though she was locked inside the house,
she did not cry for help and waited till morning, though, as per her
case, the incident took place during night hours at 01:00 A.M. It is
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.937 of 2018 dt.11-02-2025
5/24
further submitted that even conduct of PW-3, who has been
projected as an eye-witness, is also unnatural and, as per his
deposition, he was sleeping on the roof of the house and he saw
the occurrence, despite which he did not intervene nor he had
opened the lock of the door. It is also submitted that the present
appellant is the elder brother of the deceased and has been falsely
implicated by the informant due to land as well as household
dispute.
4.1. Learned counsel would further submit that
PW-1, who is an independent witness, has specifically stated in
para 2 of his deposition that the deceased was having enmity with
a number of persons and against him number of cases were
registered and, therefore, some other criminal has killed the
deceased and thereafter thrown his dead body in the village. It is
further submitted that the said witness has also stated that no blood
was found at the door of the deceased. It is contended that the said
witness has not been declared as hostile witness and no re-
examination was done by the prosecution. It is also submitted that
PW-2 is not an eye-witness to the incident in question. Similarly, it
has been contended that PW-3 was, though projected as eye-
witness, from the deposition given by the Investigating Officer
(PW-8), it is revealed that while giving the statement under
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.937 of 2018 dt.11-02-2025
6/24
Section 161 of the Code before the Police, the informant or the
said witness has not stated that PW-3 is an eye-witness to the
occurrence. It is also submitted that PW-5, who is the mother of
the deceased and the present appellant, has not supported the case
of the prosecution and she has turned hostile.
4.2. Learned counsel referred the deposition of PW-7
(Dr. Ajay Kumar Singh), who conducted the post mortem of the
dead body of the deceased. The said witness has specifically
narrated about the injury sustained by deceased and observed that
there was circular lacerated wound ½"x1/2" above the right eye
ball with charring around the wound of entry. Wound of entry had
inverted margin deep to cranium. At this stage, learned counsel has
referred para 8 of the cross-examination of the said witness and
submitted that charring mark will be caused around injury if
gunshot injury will be caused from some distance. At this stage,
learned counsel referred the deposition given by PW-4 (Sabita
Devi)/informant, more particularly para 12 of her cross-
examination and submitted that the informant, who is projected as
eye-witness, has specifically deposed before the Court that the
bullet was fired from point blank range. Learned counsel,
therefore, contended that medical evidence does not support the
version given by the so-called eye-witness, i.e., the informant.
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.937 of 2018 dt.11-02-2025
7/24
4.3. Learned counsel further submits that the
Investigating Officer (PW-8) has also admitted during cross-
examination that he did not find any blood stain/blood at the place
of occurrence. It is further submitted that the said witness has also
admitted that during the course of the investigation, statement of
the neighbours, Karelal Yadav and Devan Yadav were recorded,
and both the aforesaid persons have stated before the Investigating
Officer that deceased was having criminal antecedents and Sunil
Yadav (appellant) has not caused any injury to the said deceased
with fire-arm. It is contended that the Devan Yadav was examined
as PW-1 before the Court. However, he has specifically deposed
before the Court that somebody else has killed the deceased and
thrown his dead body in the village. It is further submitted that
Karelal Yadav has not been examined by the prosecution and,
therefore, the defence has examined him as DW-1. Learned
counsel referred to the deposition of DW-1, who has deposed in
favour of the present appellant.
4.4. Learned counsel submitted that there are major
contradictions, discrepancies and inconsistencies in the deposition
of the prosecution witnesses and, in fact, the prosecution has
miserably failed to prove the manner of occurrence, place of
occurrence and the time of occurrence, despite which the Trial
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.937 of 2018 dt.11-02-2025
8/24
Court has recorded the order of conviction against the present
appellant. It is submitted that the appellant is in custody for more
than seven years. Learned counsel, therefore, urged that impugned
judgment and order be quashed and set aside and the present
appeal be allowed.
SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE STATE:-
5. On the other hand, learned APP for the
Respondent-State has opposed the request made by learned
counsel for the appellant. Learned APP would mainly submit that,
in the present case, there are two eye-witnesses to the incident in
question and both have supported the case of prosecution. It is
submitted that presence of informant (PW-4), who is the wife of
the deceased, was natural during night hours at the place of
occurrence. She has specifically narrated the manner in which the
incident took place. The same has been supported by her brother,
i.e., PW-3, who was also present in the house. The said witness has
also supported the version given by PW-4. Learned APP thereafter
contended that from the medical evidence, i.e., deposition of PW-7
(Doctor), it is revealed that the cause of death is fire-arm injury
and the Doctor found two bullet injuries on the dead body of the
deceased. Learned APP, therefore, urged that the medical evidence
also supports the case of the eye-witness and merely because there
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.937 of 2018 dt.11-02-2025
9/24
are minor contradictions and minor discrepancies in the deposition
of the prosecution witnesses, the entire story put forward by the
prosecution may not be discarded. Learned APP submitted that
Trial Court has, after considering the entire evidence of the
prosecution, rightly passed the impugned judgment of conviction
and order of sentence as the prosecution has proved the guilt of the
accused beyond reasonable doubt and, therefore, the Trial Court
has not committed any error. Hence, this Court may not interfere
with the impugned judgment.
DISCUSSION WITH REGARD TO THE
DEPOSITION OF THE PROSECUTION WITNESSES:-
6. At this stage, we would appreciate the evidence given
by the witnesses. PW 1, who is an independent witness, in his
deposition has mainly deposed that many cases were going on
against deceased Fantush Yadav and he was on inimical terms with
many persons. Criminals have killed the deceased and thrown his
dead body in the village. He has, in his cross-examination,
deposed that he had not seen blood at the door of the house of the
deceased.
7. PW 2, Sachin Kumar, who is full brother of the
deceased, is apparently a hearsay witness as he came to know from
the wife of deceased that the shot fired by Sunil Yadav hit the head
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.937 of 2018 dt.11-02-2025
10/24
of the deceased and that fired by Khabri Yadav hit the waist of the
deceased. In his cross examination he has deposed that he was not
aware about the fact as to at whose house deceased went to watch
T.V. and that the deceased was a notorious criminal and cases of
murder, loot and rape were going on against him. He saw the dead
body of the deceased lying on a chowki (wooden cot) in the
morning when he came. The police had already arrived when he
came there.
8. PW 3, Vikram Kumar, who is the brother of the
informant and brother-in-law of the deceased, has deposed in his
examination-in-chief that at the time of occurrence he was
sleeping on the roof and when deceased came and knocked the
door, he awoke and saw that Sunil Yadav (appellant) and Khabri
Yadav, both fired at Fantus Yadav and Fantush Yadav fell down
and died. He has deposed that he put his signature on the inquest
report as a witness. In his cross-examination, he has deposed that
he was present at the house of the deceased by chance as he
missed his train for Bhagalpur and stayed at the house of the
deceased. He has deposed that he had gone with his brother-in-law
(the deceased) to watch the match. He has deposed that blood was
spread at the place of occurrence and that police had not collected
blood from the place of occurrence in his presence. He has further
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.937 of 2018 dt.11-02-2025
11/24
deposed that he was aware about the cases pending against the
deceased, but he does not know how many times he had been to
jail and the nature of cases pending against the deceased.
9. PW-4, Savita Devi, who is the wife of the deceased
and the informant, has deposed in her examination-in-chief that the
incident took place in the night of 14.04.2017. She was sleeping in
her house and her husband had gone to watch a cricket match. On
his return, her husband called her to open the gate, when she
opened the gate, she saw that her elder brother-in-law (bhaisur)
Sunil (appellant herein) was standing there having pistol and
cartridge. Sunil and Khabri shot at her husband in her presence.
Her husband died there. When she started weeping, Sunil closed
her inside the room and threatened her not to make noise else she
and her children will be killed. She has further deposed that when
she came out of the house after the door was opened, villagers and
police were present there. Who opened the door she could not tell.
She has deposed that Sunil killed her husband because of dispute
for land and other house-hold issues and to get the house vacated.
In reply to the question put forth by the court as to who purchased
the house from which they are being ousted, she replied that the
land over which the house is constructed was purchased by her
father-in-law.
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.937 of 2018 dt.11-02-2025
12/24
9.1. In her cross-examination, PW-4 has deposed that
her husband and her brother-in-law (devar) had purchased a
Scorpio vehicle and she does not know that a case of selling liquor
was lodged against her husband in 2016. She deposed that the shot
was fired at the entrance of courtyard and not at the door of the
room. She has deposed that her husband was caught hold of and
shot from point blank range. Both the accused fired shot in front of
her and harsh sound of firing of shot was caused. After being hit
by the shot, her husband fell down at the door and died
instantaneously. When she started weeping, the accused persons
closed her inside the house. Blood oozed out of the wound and
spread on the earth upto 2-3 steps. She has deposed that the clothes
of the deceased were soaked with blood and a hole was also
caused in the clothes because of the bullet. She came out of the
room before arrival of her parents. The gate was opened by
someone and when she came out, villagers, her father-in-law,
mother-in-law and the police had arrived. She has deposed that at
the time of occurrence, she and her brother, both went to open the
door.
10. PW-5, Parmila Devi, who is the mother of the
deceased and the present appellant, has not supported the case of
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.937 of 2018 dt.11-02-2025
13/24
the prosecution and has been declared hostile at the instance of the
prosecution.
11. PW 6, Balkrishan Yadav, was posted as Inspector of
Police-cum-S.H.O. He has deposed in his examination-in-chief
that on receipt of the information that someone has been killed, he
reached at the place of occurrence and recorded the fard-beyan of
the wife of the deceased and also obtained the signature of the
witnesses. He also prepared the inquest of the dead body of the
deceased and obtained signatures of the witnesses.
12. PW-7, Dr. Ajay Kumar Singh, the doctor, who has
conducted the post-mortem examination of the dead body of the
deceased, has found following injuries during post-mortem
examination of the dead body of the deceased:-
"(I) Rigor Mortis was present both
in upper and lower limbs.
(ii) Deceased having bilateral
scrotal-Swelling.
(iii) Circular lacerated wound ½
centimeter x ½ centimeter above the right
eyeball with charring around the wound of
entry, wound of entry had inverted margin
deep to cranium.
On dissection- The cranial cavity
was full of blood, brain matter was lacerated
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.937 of 2018 dt.11-02-2025
14/24
and bullet was recovered from the cranial
cavity frontal bone fractured.
(iv) Wound of entry through the right
iliac crest, circular lacerated wound ½
centimeter x ½ centimeter over the right iliac
crest."
12.1. PW-7 has deposed in his cross-examination that
charring mark will be caused around injury if gunshot injury will
be caused from some distance.
13. PW-8, Pankaj Kumar Raut, the Investigating
Officer, has deposed in his examination-in-chief that after taking
up the charge of investigation, he went to the place of occurrence
and recorded the detailed description of the boundaries of the place
of occurrence. He recorded the re-statement of the informant and
the statement of the witnesses and made raids for apprehending the
accused, who were found absconding. He made entries of the
criminal antecedents of the deceased in the case-diary.
13.1. In para 4 of his cross-examination, PW-8 has
deposed that during the course of investigation, he had recorded
the statement of the neighbours and two persons, namely, Karelal
Yadav and Devan Yadav. They stated that the deceased was a
criminal and Sunil Yadav did not fire bullet in the incident in
question. He has further deposed that all together 12 criminal cases
with regard to the offence of extortion, murder, dacoity and Arms
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.937 of 2018 dt.11-02-2025
15/24
Act were pending against the deceased. He has deposed that he did
not find any wound on the waist of the deceased. He deposed that
witness Vikram Kumar did not tell that the occurrence took place
in his presence or that he was present at the place of occurrence
when the incident took place. He deposed that he did not make
entry in the case diary with regard to presence of blood at the place
of occurrence, though subsequently he deposed that blood was
spread at the place of occurrence, however, he did not make entry
to that effect in the case diary. He has deposed that neither in the
FIR nor in her re-statement the informant stated that on the date of
incident the brother of informant was there with her in the house.
He has further deposed that it did not come to light that any
dispute with regard to property was there between both the parties.
He denied the suggestion that the investigation is faulty.
14. DW-1, Karelal Yadav, has deposed in his
examination-in-chief that the deceased was killed by the side of
the railway-track. At around 4 AM, an uproar about killing of the
deceased spread in the village and the dead body was brought by
the villagers at the door of the house of the deceased. It was being
discussed by the villagers that the deceased has been killed by the
miscreants and his dead body was dumped by the side of the
railway track. He has further deposed that the deceased was a
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.937 of 2018 dt.11-02-2025
16/24
notorious criminal and had been to jail in connection with several
cases. On arrival of the in-laws of the deceased, case was lodged
against Sunil (appellant herein).
15. DW-2, Shankar Kumar Yadav, and DW-3, Manoj
Kumar, too have deposed that the deceased was a notorious
criminal and had been to jail on many occasions and he was killed
by unknown criminals.
OBSERVATION AND REASONING:-
16. We have considered the entire evidence led by the
prosecution and re-appreciated the same. From the evidence led by
the prosecution, it would emerge that, as per the fard-beyan given
by the informant (PW-4), who is the wife of the deceased, the
incident took place at 01:00 A.M., i.e., during night hours when
the deceased came to the house after watching the day-night
cricket match. When he came near to the house and asked his wife,
i.e., the informant, to open the door, at that time, the present
appellant along with another accused, namely, Sunny Kumar, who
were waiting at the said place, started firing from their country-
made pistol and, in the said incident, the deceased sustained two
injuries, one near the eye and another on the waist. It is, therefore,
revealed that, as per the case of PW-4, the incident took place
during night hours at 01:00 A.M. It would further reveal from the
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.937 of 2018 dt.11-02-2025
17/24
fard-beyan that it was recorded at 07:00 A.M. in the morning. The
explanation given by the informant in the fard-beyan with regard
to delay in lodging the FIR is that threats were administered by the
accused and she was locked inside the room and, therefore, she
could not inform the Police or neighbours or relatives immediately
and somehow she opened the door in the morning and found the
villagers and the Police. Thus, from the aforesaid, it transpires that
there is a delay of six hours in lodging the FIR, though the
informant has projected herself as an eye-witness. At this stage, it
is required to be observed that there is no reference of PW-3
Vikram Kumar, who is the brother-in-law of the informant, at the
place of occurrence. If the deposition of PW-3 is carefully
examined, it is revealed that in Para 1 itself, the said witness
deposed that the incident took place at 11:30 P.M. in the night.
Thus, there is difference with regard to the time of occurrence in
the deposition of so-called two eye-witnesses. It is further revealed
from the record that even the conduct of PW-3, who has projected
himself as an eye-witness, was not natural. As per his case, he was
sleeping on the roof and he has specifically deposed that he had
seen that Sunil Yadav (appellant) and another person Khabri
Yadav, both started firing and caused fire-arm injury to Fantus
Yadav, despite which he did not intervene or try to save his
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.937 of 2018 dt.11-02-2025
18/24
brother-in-law. Further, as per the case of PW-4 (informant), the
accused locked her inside the house. However, if PW-3 was
present at the place of occurrence then it appears that he also did
not try to help and open the lock of the door. At this stage, we
would like to refer the deposition given by PW-8 (Investigating
Officer) who has specifically admitted in para 6 of his cross-
examination that witness Vikram Kumar did not state that he had
seen the incident nor he had disclosed that he was present at the
place of occurrence. Thus, from the aforesaid evidence led by the
prosecution, it can be said that PW-3 cannot be termed as an eye-
witness and, for the first time, he has deposed before the Court that
he has seen the incident in question.
16.1. If the deposition given by PW-1 (Devan Yadav),
who is an independent witness, is carefully examined, he
specifically stated in para 2 of the deposition that a number of
cases were lodged against the deceased Fantush Yadav and number
of persons were having enmity with him and, therefore, some
criminals have killed Fantush Yadav and thereafter thrown the
dead body in the village. In para 3 of the said deposition, he has
further stated that he had not seen any blood at the door of the
deceased. It is relevant to note, at this stage, that the said witness
has not been declared hostile and the prosecution did not re-
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.937 of 2018 dt.11-02-2025
19/24
examine the said witness. It is also relevant to observe that PW-1
is an independent witness.
16.2. At this stage, we would once again like to refer the
deposition given by PW-8, Investigating Officer, who has admitted
in para 4 of his cross-examination that during the course of
investigation, he had recorded the statement of the neighbours and
two persons, namely, Karelal Yadav and Devan Yadav. They stated
that the deceased was a criminal and Sunil Yadav did not fire
bullet in the incident in question. It is pertinent to observe that
prosecution did not examine independent witness Karelal Yadav
though his statement was recorded by the Police under Section 161
of the Code. Therefore, the defence had examined the said person
as DW-1. DW-1 has specifically stated in his examination-in-chief
that Fantush Yadav was killed near the railway track and at 04:00
AM in the morning, village people came to know about the same
and thereafter his dead body was brought to the Darwaza of house
of the deceased.
16.3. PW-2 is not an eye-witness to the incident in
question and he is a hearsay witness. He came to know about the
incident from the informant, who is his Bhabhi.
16.4. PW-3, though has been projected as an eye-
witness, he is, in fact, not an eye-witness to the occurrence in
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.937 of 2018 dt.11-02-2025
20/24
question. The said witness has also admitted in para 14 that a
number of cases were registered against his deceased brother-in-
law and he remained in jail in some of the cases.
16.5. PW-4 (Savita Devi), the informant, has
specifically admitted during the cross-examination that the
appellant fired from point blank range. However, at this stage, if
deposition given by PW-7, Doctor, who had conducted the post-
mortem of the dead body of the deceased, is carefully examined, it
is revealed that in paragraph 3 of his deposition, he has deposed
that he found circular lacerated wound ½ centimeter x ½
centimeter above the right eyeball with charring around the wound
of entry, wound of entry had inverted margin deep to cranium.
16.6. Thus, from the aforesaid finding recorded by the
Doctor, it can be said that the doctor found charring around the
wound of entry. If paragraph 8 of the cross-examination of PW-7 is
carefully seen, it is revealed that the said witness has specifically
admitted that if a gunshot injury is caused by touching the skin of
the injured/deceased, then it will be burnt and if gunshot injury is
caused from some distance, then charring mark will be caused
around the injury. In the present case, as observed hereinabove, the
Doctor found charring around the wound of entry. That means, the
gunshot injury has been caused from some distance. However, as
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.937 of 2018 dt.11-02-2025
21/24
per the case of the so-called eye-witness (PW 4), the firing was
made from point blank range. Thus, we are of the view that the
medical evidence does not support the version given by the
informant.
16.7. At this stage, it is also relevant to observe that, as
per the opinion given by the Doctor, death was caused within 24
hours. From the post-mortem report, it transpires that the doctor
received the dead body at 09:30 A.M. and commenced the post-
mortem at 10:45 A.M. At this stage, we may recall that, as per the
case of the informant, the incident took place during night hours at
01:00 A.M. Thus, on this aspect also, the medical evidence does
not corroborate the version given by the so-called eye-witness,
PW-4.
16.8. PW-8, the Investigating Officer, has admitted
during cross-examination that there is no reference in the case
diary with regard to the blood at the place of occurrence. Thus, it
transpires that blood was not found at the place of occurrence.
Even if blood was present at the place of occurrence, the
Investigating Officer did not collect the blood or blood stained soil
from the place of occurrence.
16.9. It is relevant to observe, at this stage, that the so-
called fire-arm used by the appellant at the time of occurrence has
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.937 of 2018 dt.11-02-2025
22/24
not been seized by the Investigating Agency. There is no
recovery/discovery of the murder weapon in the present case.
16.10. Thus, from the aforesaid evidence led by the
prosecution, it can be said that PW-3 and PW-4 are near relatives
of the deceased and they have been projected as eye-witnesses.
However, from the other evidence led by the prosecution, it can be
said that the incident took place at some other place and thereafter
the dead body was brought to the door of the deceased. There is a
delay of more than six hours in lodging the FIR by the informant,
who has projected herself as an eye-witness. PW-3, who is the
brother-in-law of the deceased and though he was present at the
place of occurrence and sleeping on the roof and seen the
occurrence in question, he did not inform anybody during the night
hours nor the door of the room, in which the informant was locked
by the accused, was opened by him, as per the version given by the
informant in the fard-beyan. Thus, deposition given by near
relative of the deceased, who have projected themselves as eye-
witnesses, is not trustworthy and reliable, hence, the same is
required to be discarded. Independent witness, PW-1, has
specifically stated that the deceased was having criminal
antecedents and number of cases have been registered against him,
the said aspect has been admitted by PW-3. DW-1, though is a
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.937 of 2018 dt.11-02-2025
23/24
charge-sheet witness, he has not been examined by the
prosecution. Even medical evidence does not support the version
given by PW-4.
16.11. Looking to the aforesaid aspects, we are of the
view that the prosecution has failed to prove the place of
occurrence, the manner of occurrence and the time of occurrence
and thereby miserably failed to prove the case against the
appellant. Thus, when the prosecution has failed to prove the case
against the appellant beyond reasonable doubt, we are of the view
that the Trial Court has committed grave error while passing the
impugned judgment of conviction and the order of sentence and,
therefore, interference is required in the impugned judgment and
order passed by the Trial Court.
CONCLUSION:-
17. Accordingly, impugned judgment of
conviction dated 08.06.2018 and order of sentence dated
13.06.2018
, passed by learned Additional District and Sessions
Judge-IInd, Munger, in Sessions Trial No.241 of 2017, arising out
of Kasim Bazar P.S. Case No.81 of 2017, are quashed and set
aside.
18. The appellant is acquitted of the charges
levelled against him by the learned Trial Court. He is directed to
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.937 of 2018 dt.11-02-2025
be released from jail custody forthwith, if his custody is not
required in any other case.
19. The present appeal stands allowed.
(Vipul M. Pancholi, J.)
(Alok Kumar Pandey, J.)
Gaurav Kumar-
Pawan/-
AFR/NAFR NAFR
CAV DATE N.A.
Uploading Date 15.02.2025
Transmission Date 15.02.2025
