Patna High Court
Varun Kumar Ravidas @ Barun Ravidas vs The State Of Bihar on 24 June, 2025
Author: Shailendra Singh
Bench: Mohit Kumar Shah, Shailendra Singh
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL APPEAL (DB) No.544 of 2018
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-120 Year-2016 Thana- KHAJANCHI HAT District- Purnia
======================================================
Varun Kumar Ravidas @ Barun Ravidas, Son of Sri Ram Bilas Ravidas,
Resident of Village- Milki, P.S.- K.Hat Maranga, District- Purnea.
... ... Appellant/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Appellant/s : Mr. Anshuman Jaipuriyar, Advocate
Ms. Anukriti Jaipuriyar, Advocate
Mr. Rajanikant Kumar, Advocate
For the State : Ms. Shashi Bala Verma, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MOHIT KUMAR SHAH
and
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHAILENDRA SINGH
ORAL JUDGMENT
(Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHAILENDRA SINGH)
Date : 24-06-2025
Heard Mr. Anshuman Jaipuriyar, learned counsel
appearing for the appellant assisted by Ms. Anukriti Jaipuriyar and
Mr. Rajanikant Kumar and Ms. Shashi Bala Verma, learned
Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.
2. The present criminal appeal has been filed by the
appellant Varun Kumar Ravidas @ Barun Ravidas against the
judgment dated 25.01.2018 passed in Sessions Case No. 333 of
2016, C.I.S. No. 340 of 2016, T.R. No. 200 of 2016 by the court of
the 5th Additional District and Sessions Judge, Purnea by which the
appellant has been convicted for the offence under Section 302 of
the Indian Penal Code (in short 'IPC') and vide order dated
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.544 of 2018 dt.24-06-2025
2/40
30.01.2018
which has also been challenged in this appeal the
appellant has been sentenced to undergo life imprisonment for the
said offence ( Section 302 of IPC) and by the same order a fine of
Rs. 5,000/- has been imposed upon him, in case of default in the
payment of said fine, he has been directed to undergo additionally
simple imprisonment for three months.
Prosecution Story:-
3. As per the informant namely, Jaymala Devi on
21.03.2014 ( the said date should be 21.03.2016 in view of the
evidences which will be discussed later and the same appears to be
a typographical error) her daughter namely, Sarita Devi, wife of
Pankaj Ravidas, resident of Milki village under Police Station- K.
Hat (Maranga), was assaulted by her daughter's father-in-law
namely, Ram Bilash Ravidas, brother-in-law namely, Barun
Kumar Ravidas (appellant) and Tetari Devi (mother-in-law) on
account of plucking maize (Bhutta) by the maternal grandson of
the informant and owing to that assault, her daughter remained
under treatment at Sadar Hospital, Purnea and on 26.03.2016 in
the afternoon, she got the information on her mobile phone that her
daughter had returned to her home. Thereafter, on 27.03.2016 at
about 4:00 P.M., she and her husband namely, Sarveshwar Ravidas
(deceased) went to her daughter's home to meet her where she
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.544 of 2018 dt.24-06-2025
stayed for about half an hour and after meeting her daughter, she
started retuning back but in the meantime, her daughter's father-in-
law (Ram Bilas Ravidas) came and inflicted a Garasa blow on her
daughter which caused an injury to her daughter's right hand and
that act of her daughter's father-in-law was resisted by her and her
husband then her daughter's father-in-law, Ram Bilas Ravidas, the
appellant Varun Kumar Ravidas and Tetari Devi, all three started
assaulting them by means of lathi, iron rod and Garasa. The
informant further alleged that her husband (deceased) was
assaulted on his head by an iron rod and due to that assault, her
husband became unconscious, upon seeing that her son-in-law
Pankaj Ravidas came to rescue them then the appellant inflicted an
iron rod blow on his head which caused head injury to her son-in-
law and thereafter, she, her husband, daughter and son-in-law were
taken to Sadar Hospital, Purnea with the help of villagers and
during the course of medical treatment her husband died.
The informant recorded her fardbeyan at Sadar Hospital
describing the aforesaid prosecution story and the same was
recorded by a Sub-Inspector Mukesh Kumar posted at Maranga
police station on 27.03.2016 at 23:45 hours, on that basis, the
formal FIR bearing K. Hat (Maranga) P.S. Case No. 120 of 2016
was registered for the offences punishable under Sections 341,
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.544 of 2018 dt.24-06-2025
323, 324 and 302 read with Section 34 of IPC against the
appellant, his parents Ram Bilas Ravidas and Tetari Devi which set
the criminal law in motion.
4. After the completion of investigation, vide
Chargesheet No. 75 of 2016 dated 23.06.2016, the police
chargesheeted the appellant and co-accused Ram Bilas Ravidas
and Tetari Devi for the offences under Sections 341, 323, 324 and
302/34 of IPC.
5. The appellant and the chargesheeted co-accused
persons jointly faced trial and they stood charged for the offences
under Sections 341, 323, 324 and 302 read with section 34 of IPC.
The charges were read over and explained to them in Hindi
language, to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
6. During the trial the prosecution examined altogether
seven prosecution witnesses who are as under :-
Sl. No. Name Relevancy
PW-1 Subodh Ravidas The witness claimed himself as an
eyewitness
PW-2 Rameshwar Das ,, ,, ,, ,, ,, ,, ,, ,, , ,, ,,
PW-3 Pankaj Kumar Ravidas ,, ,, ,, ,, ,, ,, ,, ,, , ,, ,,
PW-4 Sarita Devi ,, ,, ,, ,, ,, ,, ,, ,, , ,, ,,
PW-5 Jaymala Devi Informant
PW-6 Vijay Prasad Investigating Officer
PW-7 Dr. Ravi Baboo The doctor who conducted postmortem
examination on the dead body of the deceased
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.544 of 2018 dt.24-06-2025
7. The prosecution proved some documents in
documentary evidence and got them marked as exhibits which are
as under:-
Sl. No. Details of Exhibits and Documents
Ext. 1 Fardbeyan of the informant
Ext. 2 An endorsement made by the concerned police official on the
fardbeyan
Ext. 3 The signature of the then S.H.O. of P.S. concerned on formal FIR
Ext. 4 Inquest Report
Ext. 5 Postmortem report of the deceased
Ext. 6 Certified copy of the FIR and fardbeyan pertaining to K. Hat
(Maranga) P.S. Case No. 119/2016
8. After the completion of the prosecution's evidence,
the statements of the accused, including the appellant, were
recorded by the trial court under Section 313 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure ( in short 'Cr.P.C.') giving them an opportunity
to explain the circumstances appearing against them from the
prosecution's evidences in which they denied the said
circumstances and claimed themselves to be innocent. However,
neither the appellant nor the co-accused took any specific defence
in their statements regarding the charges and incriminating
evidences.
9. The appellant did not give any evidence in his
defence.
10. The learned trial court acquitted the co-accused, Ram
Bilas Ravidas and Tetari Devi, of all the charged offences by the
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.544 of 2018 dt.24-06-2025
same impugned judgment. The appellant, Varun Kumar Ravidas,
has been acquitted of the charged offences punishable under
Sections 341, 323 and 324 read with Section 34 of IPC but he has
been convicted for the offence punishable under Section 302 of
IPC. He has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for
life with a fine of Rs. 5,000/-, as detailed in paragraph no. 2 of this
judgment.
11. While convicting the appellant for the offence under
Section 302 of IPC, the learned trial court placed reliance mainly
upon the evidence of the prosecution witnesses PW-1 to PW-5 and
deemed them to be eyewitnesses of the commission of the alleged
occurrence. The trial court also placed reliance upon the medical
evidence given by PW-7 deeming it as corroborative to the
allegation of murderous assault.
Submissions by the appellant's counsel:-
12. Mr. Anshuman Jaipuriyar, learned counsel appearing
for the appellant has argued that there are serious contradictions in
the evidence of the prosecution's witnesses with regard to the time
of occurrence, manner of occurrence and place of occurrence. In
the FIR, there is no specific allegation against the appellant but
later specific allegation of assault by using an iron rod on the head
of the deceased by the appellant, was levelled by the prosecution's
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.544 of 2018 dt.24-06-2025
witnesses which is not believable. As per the prosecution story, the
police did not register the FIR despite having got the knowledge of
the incident when the victims went to the police station and on the
next day from that date, the FIR was registered which creates a
strong probability of manipulation on the part of the police in
manufacturing a different prosecution story and further, the
prosecution failed to give any medical evidence to prove the
injuries on the body of the injured persons, other than the deceased
who are also said to have been assaulted by the accused including
the appellant by means of lathi, iron rod and garasa and only the
postmortem report of the deceased was exhibited by the
prosecution according to which, only one head injury was
sustained by the deceased, however, the details of the dimension
of the said injury was neither found and nor shown by the
prosecution and the same shows the exaggeration of the
prosecution story by the informant. Learned counsel has further
argued that on the alleged day of occurrence, on the body of Ram
Bilash Ravidas, father of the appellant, there were injuries as he
also remained under treatment at the same hospital between
27.03.2016 and 29.03.2016 and in this regard, the evidence of the
investigating officer is relevant but the injuries being present on
his person, were not explained by the prosecution which shows
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.544 of 2018 dt.24-06-2025
that the alleged occurrence did not take place in the manner as
shown by the prosecution party in the FIR and the same is
sufficient to cast a serious doubt upon the first version of the
prosecution and the informant did not come with clean hands
before the police and trial court. In fact, the deceased accidentally
fell down on the septic tank's rings and sustained head injury
resulting in his death and thereafter, a false story was fabricated by
the prosecution party on account of tensed relation in between both
the parties which had been running during the relevant period in
between them. It has been further submitted that the investigating
officer did not find any blood stain at the alleged place of crime,
he did not seize or recover the alleged weapons or instruments
which were allegedly used by the accused including the appellant
in assaulting the deceased and others and the statements of the
independent persons, co-villagers of the informant's daughter who
admittedly came at the place of occurrence upon hearing the hulla,
as per the prosecution story, were not recorded by the investigating
officer and all the witnesses of facts produced and examined by the
prosecution, are relatives of the deceased and highly interested in
the success of prosecution's case. It has been lastly submitted that
if the prosecution story is believed even then the alleged act of the
appellant does not fall in the purview of the offence of murder
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.544 of 2018 dt.24-06-2025
punishable under Section 302 of IPC as the evidence of the
prosecution witnesses clearly shows that the alleged occurrence
took place in the spur of moment and as per prosecution story, the
appellant inflicted only single iron rod blow on the head of the
deceased and he did not act in cruel manner and the deceased was
an old person at that time, so, the appellant's act will fall within
the purview of Part-II of Section 304 of IPC if the prosecution's
allegation is taken to be true.
In support of the above submissions the learned counsel has
placed reliance upon the following judgments of the Hon'ble Apex
Court:-
(i) Lakshami Singh and Ors. vs. State of Bihar
reported in (1976) 4 SCC 394, relevant referred paragraph is para
'12'
(ii) Mahendra Ram vs. State of Bihar reported in 2025
(1) BLJ (DB) 525, relevant referred paragraphs are para '11' and
'14'
(iii) Amar Yadav vs. State of Bihar reported in 2025
(1) BLJ (DB) 542, relevant referred paragraphs are para '20', '21'
and 22
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.544 of 2018 dt.24-06-2025
Submissions by the Respondent's counsel:-
13. On the other hand, Ms. Shashi Bala Verma, learned
APP appearing for the State has vehemently opposed this appeal
and argued that admittedly there was not good relationship
between the victim's daughter and the appellant. Some days before
the alleged occurrence, the informant's daughter had been
assaulted by the same accused, for which she remained under
treatment and when the deceased and his family members came at
the house of informant's daughter to meet her then the accused
including the appellant got infuriated and committed the alleged
occurrence resulting in death of the deceased. Though the co-
accused persons have been acquitted but in respect of the
allegation levelled against the appellant, all the prosecution
witnesses ( PW-1 to PW-5) remained fully consistent to the
allegation. Further, the medical evidence given by PW-7 as well as
Ext.-5, corroborates the allegation levelled against the appellant
and the investigating officer has revealed reasonable explanation
for not recording the FIR when the victims went to the police
station as at that time, the deceased was in serious injured
condition, so he was immediately sent to the hospital by the police
and on the next day the FIR was registered when the victim died.
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.544 of 2018 dt.24-06-2025
Learned APP has further argued that though the investigating
officer could not recover the alleged weapons but the said defect
cannot be deemed to be fatal to the prosecution's case, as the
ocular evidence of PW-1 to PW-5 is sufficient to substantiate the
prosecution's allegations concerning the appellant. Hence, there is
no merit in this appeal and the learned trial court has rightly
convicted and sentenced the appellant for the offence under
Section 302 of IPC.
Consideration and Analysis of the Evidences:-
14. We have heard both the sides, perused the judgment
and order impugned, gone through the evidences and statement of
the appellant available on the record of the trial court and also have
given our thoughtful consideration to the aforesaid submissions
advanced by both the sides.
15. At first, we would like to discuss the evidence of the
prosecution's witnesses in a brief manner to find out the substance
in the aforesaid submissions advanced by both the sides as well as
to find the sustainability of the trial court's conclusion with regard
to the conviction of the appellant for the offence of murder under
Section 302 of IPC.
16. Prosecution witnesses PW-1, PW-2, PW-3, PW-4 and
PW-5 claimed themselves to have witnessed the entire occurrence
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.544 of 2018 dt.24-06-2025
and they are said to be eyewitnesses of the commission of the
alleged assault resulting in death of the informant's husband
(hereinafter referred to as 'deceased').
17. PW-1, Subodh Ravidas, son of the informant,
deposed in his examination-in-chief that on 27.03.2016 at about
4:30 p.m. he went to Milki, the village of his sister Sarita Devi,
along with his father Sarweshwar Ravidas (deceased), mother
Jaimala Devi and brother-in-law Rameshwar Ravidas to see his
sister as his sister's father-in-law Ram Bilash Ravidas, mother-in-
law Tetari Devi and Varun Ravidas (appellant) had assaulted his
sister on 21.03.2016. After meeting his sister and her husband, they
were about to return back then the said in-laws including the
appellant, out of whom, the father-in-law was equipped with
garasi, mother-in-law was equipped with lathi and the appellant
was having an iron rod, came and exhorted to kill him while saying
that it was he who had lodged a case against them at the police
station. Thereafter, his sister's father-in-law Ram Bilash Ravidas
inflicted a garasi blow on her sister Sarita Devi. When his father
went to save his sister then the appellant inflicted an iron rod blow
on the head of his father, causing serious head injury to his father.
Consequently, his father became unconscious and started bleeding
and when his sister's husband (Pankaj Ravidas) tried to save them
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.544 of 2018 dt.24-06-2025
then the appellant inflicted an iron rod blow on his head, resulting
in head injury to him. The witness further deposed in his
examination-in-chief that his father died at Sadar Hospital, Purnea
in the night at about 11:00 p.m. during the course of medical
treatment and the Daroga Ji ( S.H.O.) came in the hospital and did
necessary paper work near the dead body and on the basis of
fardbeyan of his mother, the case was registered. He further
deposed that his sister's marriage with Pankaj Ravidas took place
in the year 2012 and after 2 - 2.5 years of the marriage, his sister
and her husband were separated by the accused and her in-laws and
the accused were not interested to give them any share in the land
due to which a dispute was prevailing in between them. He further
stated that before the commission of the alleged occurrence of the
present matter, the accused had quarreled with his sister and her
husband for which a police case had been lodged at K. Hat
Maranga police station on 27th. PW-1 was cross-examined at length
in respect of all the relevant facts and he has stated in paragraphs
nos. 7, 8, 9, 10 and 11 of his cross-examination that the alleged
occurrence took place at the door of Pankaj Ravidas (husband of
the sister of this witness) and according to him, the appellant, his
father and mother used to abuse his sister and her husband and on
the day of alleged occurrence, he and his parents went to his
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.544 of 2018 dt.24-06-2025
sister's home to meet her and he himself witnessed the occurrence.
At the time of the commission of the occurrence, the appellant was
present at the place of occurrence with an iron rod and his father
and mother were armed with garasa and lathi and at that time his
sister and her husband were having nothing in their hands.
According to this witness, initially the accused started a dispute
with his sister and her husband but during the course thereof, first
garasi blow was inflicted by Ram Bilash Ravidas (father of the
appellant) causing injury on the hand of his sister and then his
father intervened to save his sister but he sustained injury and at
that time, his mother was with him who also witnessed the
occurrence. He further stated that upon hearing the hulla
neighboring people arrived at the place of occurrence. On being
cross-examined, he stated that the appellant inflicted an iron rod
blow on the head of his father and that rod was 20 mm thick and
2.5 - 3 feet long. The witness denied the suggestion that in the
alleged occurrence, the appellant's father and mother also sustained
injuries. He also denied the suggestion put forth by the defence that
his father sustained injury on account of falling down on the septic
tank's ring while intervening. In this way, the evidence of this
witness remained fully corroborative to the allegations levelled
against the appellant, as well as with regard to the other relevant
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.544 of 2018 dt.24-06-2025
facts such as the tensed relation between the deceased's daughter
and the accused including the appellant during the relevant period,
the presence of the appellant and his relatives and the weapons
used in assaulting etc.
18. Prosecution witness PW-2, Rameshwar Das who is
stated to be the son-in-law of the informant has deposed that the
alleged occurrence took place on 22.03.2016 at about 4:30 p.m. He,
along with his father-in-law (deceased), mother-in-law (informant)
and brother-in-law (Subodh Ravidas) went to the village of Sarita
Devi who is his sister-in-law to meet her because the appellant and
his parents had assaulted Sarita Devi on 21.03.2016. After having
met her, they were going to return back and went some steps away
then the appellant equipped with an iron rod, Ram Bilash Ravidas
equipped with a garasi and Tetari Devi equipped with a lathi asked
them to return back and said that they would make his sister
understand and thereafter, appellant's father Ram Bilash Ravidas
inflicted a garasi blow on Sarita Devi, causing a cut injury on her
leg and then her husband intervened to save her but appellant's
father-in-law inflicted a garasi blow upon him also causing head
injury to him and when the deceased intervened to save them then
the appellant inflicted an iron rod blow on his head resulting in
serious injury being inflicted on his head. He further deposed that
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.544 of 2018 dt.24-06-2025
at first they took the victim to the police station from where they
went to the Sadar Hospital where during the course of treatment,
the victim died and Daroga Ji (officer in-charge) came to the
hospital and prepared the necessary papers. Regarding these facts,
the witness was cross-examined at length on behalf of the
appellant. In his cross-examination, the witness stated that
regarding the factum of Sarita being hospitalized, he got the
information in the morning of 21st March, 2016 then he left his
home at 6:00 p.m. and reached out to the hospital at 6:30 p.m. and
at that time, the informant's daughter Sarita Devi was talking and
her condition was good and thereafter, he returned back. He further
stated that after Sarita Devi returned from the hospital, they went to
her home at about 3:00 p.m. and at that time, his brother-in-law,
father-in-law and mother-in-law were with him and he met his
father-in-law and mother-in-law at Milki Chowk and they all went
to see Sarita and stayed there for 10-15 minutes and at that time,
Sarita Devi told them about the ill treatment being meted out to her
by her father-in-law and mother-in-law, whereafter they asked her
to adjust herself and at that time, they did not talk with her father-
in-law and mother-in-law. He further stated that when they were
returning back from Sarita's house and were hundred steps away
from her home, the appellant and his mother Tetari Devi shouted
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.544 of 2018 dt.24-06-2025
and said that how long they would come to save her (Sarita). He
further deposed that the appellant's father Ram Bilash Ravidas
inflicted a garasi blow on Sarita which caused a cut injury on her
shoulder, whereafter she started crying and at that time, they were
standing on the road and upon hearing her cry, her husband rushed
to her and at that time, the nearby people were also watching. He
denied the suggestion that no one assaulted the deceased rather he
himself fell down on a pillar and tank which resulted in his death.
He deposed in his cross-examination that after the occurrence, they
firstly went to the police station with the deceased by a tempo
along with his mother-in-law, brother-in-law and his wife (Sarita)
where they stayed for 15 minutes and then they were asked to go to
the hospital.
19. Regarding the manner of occurrence, alleged act of
the appellant, time and place of occurrence, PW-3, PW-4 and PW-5
testified almost on similar lines, similar to the evidence of the
aforesaid witnesses and they were also cross-examined at length on
behalf of the accused including the appellant. In cross-examination
PW-3, Pankaj Kumar Ravidas deposed that at the time of
commission of the alleged occurrence, he was present at his home.
On that day, his father-in-law, mother-in-law, brother-in-law and
husband of his sister-in-law came to his home to meet his wife,
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.544 of 2018 dt.24-06-2025
where they stayed for 2-3 hours. After about 3 hours the father-in-
law and mother-in-law of PW-3 had come out of the house for
going back to their home and had travelled ten steps from the house
when the occurrence took place. The evidence of this witness is
very important as he is the real brother of the appellant and his
presence at the time of the commission of the alleged occurrence at
the alleged place, was very natural as his house is said to be
situated at some steps away from the house of the appellant and he
revealed that on the alleged date and time of occurrence, he was
present at his home. PW-3 has denied the suggestion that his father-
in-law (deceased) died due to falling down on a septic tank's ring.
He has also stated that at the time of the alleged occurrence, the
villagers residing at nearby places had also arrived at the place of
occurrence but he could not recall their names and on the alleged
day of occurrence, his father (appellant's father) did not sustain any
kind of injury.
20. PW-4, Sarita Devi who is the daughter of the
deceased, has stated in her examination-in-chief that the accused
had assaulted her on 21.03.2016 and after gaining knowledge about
the said incident, her parents, brother and brother-in-law came to
see her on 27.03.2016 and after having met her, while they were
about to return back then her father-in-law Ram Bilash Ravidas,
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.544 of 2018 dt.24-06-2025
mother-in-law Tetari Devi and brother-in-law Varun Ravidas
(appellant) started abusing them as also said that they would kill
the deceased as he comes again and again. She has further stated
that her father-in-law was having a garasa in his hand, mother-in-
law was having lathi and the appellant was having an iron rod,
whereafter her father-in-law inflicted a garasa blow upon PW-4,
which resulted in a cut injury on her right hand and when her
husband came to rescue her then the appellant inflicted an iron rod
blow on his head which caused head injury to him and thereafter,
his father was assaulted with iron rod on his head resulting in him
falling down and becoming unconscious. In her cross-examination,
PW-4 has stated that the appellant and his parents had separated her
from the family as also had asked her to bring 3 to 4 lakh rupees
from her parents, however since the said demand could not be
fulfilled by her, she was ousted by them from their house,
whereupon she was living in a house made of straw. She has further
stated in her cross-examination that the accused had assaulted her
on 21.03.2016 for which K.Hat (Maranga) P.S. Case No. 119/2016
was also lodged regarding which she informed her parents on
23.03.2016. On 27.03.2016, her parents etc. came to her home at
about 3:00 to 4:00 p.m. She has further stated that her parents, her
brother and brother-in-law stayed at her home for about half an
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.544 of 2018 dt.24-06-2025
hour and after meeting her, they came out of her home and had
gone just ten hands away from her home, when the occurrence took
place and at that time she was also along with them. She has
further stated that all three accused came to her home and at that
time, she and her parents did not say anything to them and her
father-in-law, Ram Bilash Ravidas was armed with garasa, who
inflicted a garasa blow on her head and while escaping from that
blow, she sustained injury on her hand and at that time, her parents
and brother etc. were on the road and she cried, whereafter firstly
her husband came who was also assaulted by the accused by using
an iron rod resulting in him sustaining head injury. She has further
stated that the appellant was having an iron rod in his hand and
upon hearing hulla, her father rushed to save her then the accused
said that her father should be killed. She further stated in paragraph
no. 16 of her cross-examination that her father was assaulted by all
the three accused and the appellant assaulted her father with an iron
rod. In this way, the evidence of this witness fully supports the
prosecution's allegation concerning the appellant and her evidence
remained consistent to the relevant facts emerging from the
prosecution story, such as the presence of the appellant, the means
which was used by him in assaulting the deceased, the arrival of the
informant, deceased, informant's son and son-in-law at the house of
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.544 of 2018 dt.24-06-2025
informant's daughter to meet her on account of an incident of
assault having taken place previously with the informant's
daughter, for which she remained under treatment and also with
regard to the tensed relation existing in between the appellant's
family and the daughter of the deceased.
21. Similar evidence like the aforesaid witnesses was
given by the informant, i.e., Jaimala Devi (PW-5) and except some
minor contradictions which are ignorable, we do not find any
reason to disbelieve her evidence.
22. PW-7 is the Doctor, who conducted the postmortem
examination of the dead body of the deceased and he has stated that
upon external examination, he found a stitched wound on the head
of the deceased and according to him, the cause of death of the
deceased was due to hemorrhage and shock as a result of the said
head injury caused by hard and blunt substance. Though the
appellant has taken the defence that the deceased fell on a septic
tank's ring and sustained head injury and in this regard reference
has been made to the statement of PW-7, as mentioned in
paragraph no. 3 of his examination in which he has simply stated
that the head injury of the deceased was possible if he had fallen on
a hard and blunt substance. However, regarding this defence,
neither there is any evidence on record nor the appellant succeeded
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.544 of 2018 dt.24-06-2025
in eliciting any fact by cross-examining the aforesaid prosecution
witnesses to support his defence and these witnesses fully denied
the suggestion put forth by the appellant with regard to the said
defence and the medical expert (PW-7) simply revealed the
probability of infliction of head injury, in case the deceased had
fallen on a hard and blunt object.
23. From the evidence of the prosecution's witnesses as
discussed above, it is clearly evident that during the relevant time
when the occurrence had taken place, good relation was not
existing in between the informant's daughter and the appellant on
account of a past incident of assault and they were living separately
but their houses were situated near to each other and the factum of
medical treatment undergone by the informant's daughter some
days before the commission of the alleged occurrence of the
present matter at Sadar Hospital, has not been denied by any of the
prosecution's witnesses and in this regard, Ext.-6 pertaining to K.
Hat (Maranga) P.S. Case No. 119/2016 lodged by the daughter of
the informant is also relevant. Further, the appellant has not
brought on record any material or evidence to rebut the said
medical treatment of the informant's daughter, thus, there was
reason for the informant, her husband (the deceased), her son and
son-in-law to come and meet the informant's daughter who had
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.544 of 2018 dt.24-06-2025
been discharged from the hospital just few days before the
commission of the alleged occurrence as also all the prosecution's
witnesses remained fully consistent for the said cause as well as
their arrival at the house of the informant's daughter to meet her.
All the aforesaid witnesses stated that after meeting the informant's
daughter, when they were about to return back and had stepped out
of the house of the informant's daughter and had moved some steps
away from the house then the accused including the appellant came
and committed marpit (assault) with the prosecution party
including the deceased. Though with regard to the allegation of
assaulting the informant's daughter by the father of this appellant
by garasa, the prosecution has failed to give any medical evidence
but merely by this fact, the allegation of assaulting the deceased by
the appellant by using an iron rod, cannot be disbelieved mainly in
the presence of medical evidence which fully corroborates the said
allegation.
24. While referring to the observation made by the
Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Lakshmi Singh and Ors. vs.
State of Bihar reported in (1976) 4 SCC 394 in paragraph no. 12
thereof, the learned counsel for the appellant has vehemently
argued that on the alleged day of occurrence, the appellant's father
was under treatment at the same hospital where the deceased was
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.544 of 2018 dt.24-06-2025
taken for treatment and the appellant's father remained under
treatment for three days which is sufficient to show that there were
injuries on his person and the same have not been explained by the
prosecution. In this regard, the evidence of the Investigating
Officer (PW-6) is relevant and further the failure of the prosecution
to offer any explanation in that regard makes the prosecution story
doubtful and the prosecution has concealed the genesis of the
occurrence and revealed a different story due to which the appellant
is entitled to get the benefit of doubt. The relevant paragraph of the
aforesaid cited judgment is being reproduced as under : -
"12...The trial court as well as the High Court wholly
ignored the significance of the injuries found on the
appellants. Mohar Rai had sustained as many as 13 injuries
and Bharath Rai 14. We get it from the evidence of PW 15
that he noticed injuries on the person of Mohar Rai when he
was produced before him immediately after the occurrence.
Therefore the version of the appellants that they sustained
injuries at the time of the occurrence is highly probabilised.
Under these circumstances the prosecution had a duty to
explain those injuries ... In our judgment the failure of the
prosecution to offer any explanation in that regard shows
that evidence of the prosecution witnesses relating to the
incident is not true or at any rate not wholly true. Further
those injuries probabilise the plea taken by the appellants.
This Court clearly pointed out that where the prosecution
fails to explain the injuries on the accused, two results follow: (1)
that the evidence of the prosecution witnesses is untrue; and (2)
that the injuries probabilise the plea taken by the appellants. The
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.544 of 2018 dt.24-06-2025
High Court in the present case has not correctly applied the
principles laid down by this Court in the decision referred to
above. In some of the recent cases, the same principle was laid
down. In Puran Singh v. State of Punjab [(1975) 4 SCC 518 : 1975
SCC (Cri) 608] which was also a murder case, this Court, while
following an earlier case, observed as follows: [SCC p. 531 : SCC
(Cri) p. 621, para 20]
In State of Gujarat v. Bai Fatima [(1975) 2 SCC 7 : 1975 SCC
(Cri) 384] one of us (Untwalia, J.) speaking for the Court, observed
as follows: [SCC p. 13 : SCC (Cri) p. 390, para 17]
In a situation like this when the prosecution fails to explain
the injuries on the person of an accused, depending on the facts
of each case, any of the three results may follow:
(1) That the accused had inflicted the injuries on the
members of the prosecution party in exercise of the right of self-
defence.
(2) It makes the prosecution version of the occurrence
doubtful and the charge against the accused cannot be held to
have been proved beyond reasonable doubt.
(3) It does not affect the prosecution case at all.
The facts of the present case clearly fall within the four-
corners of either of the first two principles laid down by this
judgment. In the instant case, either the accused were fully
justified in causing the death of the deceased and were protected
by the right of private defence or that if the prosecution does not
explain the injuries on the person of the deceased the entire
prosecution case is doubtful and the genesis of the occurrence is
shrouded in deep mystery, which is sufficient to demolish the
entire prosecution case.It seems to us that in a murder case, the
non-explanation of the injuries sustained by the accused at about
the time of the occurrence or in the course of altercation is a very
important circumstance from which the court can draw the
following inferences:
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.544 of 2018 dt.24-06-2025
(1) that the prosecution has suppressed the genesis and
the origin of the occurrence and has thus not presented the true
version;
(2) that the witnesses who have denied the presence of the
injuries on the person of the accused are lying on a most material
point and therefore their evidence is unreliable;
(3) that in case there is a defence version which explains
the injuries on the person of the accused it is rendered probable
so as to throw doubt on the prosecution case.
The omission on the part of the prosecution to explain the
injuries on the person of the accused assumes much greater
importance where the evidence consists of interested or inimical
witnesses or where the defence gives a version which competes in
probability with that of the prosecution one. In the instant case,
when it is held, as it must be, that the appellant Dasrath Singh
received serious injuries which have not been explained by the
prosecution, then it will be difficult for the court to rely on the
evidence of PWs 1 to 4 and 6, more particularly, when some of
these witnesses have lied by stating that they did not see any
injuries on the person of the accused. Thus neither the Sessions
Judge nor the High Court appears to have given due consideration
to this important lacuna or infirmity appearing in the prosecution
case. We must hasten to add that as held by this Court in State of
Gujarat v. Bai Fatima [(1975) 2 SCC 7 : 1975 SCC (Cri) 384] there
may be cases where the non-explanation of the injuries by the
prosecution may not affect the prosecution case. This principle
would obviously apply to cases where the injuries sustained by the
accused are minor and superficial or where the evidence is so
clear and cogent, so independent and disinterested, so probable,
consistent and creditworthy, that it far outweighs the effect of the
omission on the part of the prosecution to explain the injuries.
The present, however, is certainly not such a case, and the High
Court was, therefore, in error in brushing aside this serious
infirmity in the prosecution case on unconvincing premises."
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.544 of 2018 dt.24-06-2025
25. After having gone through the evidences, we find no
substance in the aforesaid contention of the appellant's counsel.
Although it has come in the evidence of the investigating officer
that the appellant's father was under medical treatment at the
concerned hospital between 27.03.2016 and 29.03.2016 but there is
nothing to show the reason for which the appellant's father
remained under medical treatment and the same can be deemed to
be in the special knowledge of the appellant which could have been
easily proved by adducing the relevant medical papers of his
father's treatment but in this regard, no step was taken by the
appellant. Further, it is not the defence of the appellant that the
appellant's father was assaulted by the prosecution party during the
relevant time of commission of the alleged occurrence nor in this
regard, any supporting fact was revealed by any of the prosecution
witnesses either in his/her examination-in-chief or cross-
examination and there might be many reasons for medical
treatment of the appellant's father during the relevant period of the
occurrence at the concerned hospital and furthermore, if the
appellant's father had been assaulted by the prosecution party
during the same time of the commission of the alleged occurrence
then definitely some legal action would have been taken by them
but no such action was taken, which also goes against the
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.544 of 2018 dt.24-06-2025
appellant's said defence. Accordingly, the principle laid down by
the Hon'ble Apex Court in the aforesaid judgment does not help the
appellant in any manner.
26. The appellant's counsel has vehemently argued that
the investigating officer did not find any blood spot or stain on the
alleged place of occurrence. His evidence clearly indicates that he
did not seize any relevant material, such as, blood stained clothes
of the victims, who are relatives of the deceased and are said to
have been assaulted by the accused including the appellant.
Furthermore, the alleged garasa, iron rod and lathi which were
allegedly used in assaulting the victims, were also not recovered by
the investigating officer during the course of investigation. It has
been further submitted that from the evidence of prosecution's
witnesses, it is clearly evident that the deceased was first taken to
the police station when he was in injured condition by his relatives
including the informant but the police did not take any pain to
lodge an FIR despite having got the information of the commission
of the alleged occurrence, so on these aspects, the investigation
conducted in the present matter remained completely faulty which
goes against the prosecution. After having gone through the
evidences particularly, the evidence of investigating officer (PW-6),
we find no force in the aforesaid argument. Though, the
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.544 of 2018 dt.24-06-2025
investigating officer did not find any blood stain at the place of the
alleged occurrence where the assault with the victims took place, it
is not the case of the prosecution that the investigating officer
visited and inspected the place of occurrence immediately after the
registration of the FIR. So, the delay in inspecting the place of
occurrence might be a reason for not finding the blood stains at the
crime scene. So far as the recovery of the weapons or instruments
allegedly used by the accused in assaulting the deceased and others
is concerned, though the evidence of the investigating officer
shows that no recovery of these articles was made by the I.O. and
on this aspect, the investigating officer remained negligent and
also, some negligence took place on the part of the concerned
police officials in not registering the FIR at the time when the
victims along with others had reached at the police station. In this
regard, there is some explanation as according to the evidence of
prosecution witnesses, the deceased who was in an injured
condition at that time, was asked to be taken to the hospital first
which might have been the reason for non registration of the FIR at
that time. However, in view of the ocular testimony of the material
witnesses of the prosecution in the present matter as discussed
above, the defects in the investigation as pointed out by the
appellant's counsel, do not appear to be so fatal to the prosecution,
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.544 of 2018 dt.24-06-2025
so as to make the prosecution story to be completely unbelievable.
It is a settled principle of law that it would not be right to acquit an
accused person solely on account of defective investigation.
However, in cases of defective investigation, the court has to be
circumspect in evaluating the evidence and in this regard, the
observation made by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of
Dhanaj Singh @ Shera and Ors. vs. State of Punjab reported in
(2004) 3 SCC 654 is important and the relevant paragraphs nos. 5,
6, 7 and 8 are being reproduced as under:-
" 5. In the case of a defective investigation the court
has to be circumspect in evaluating the evidence. But it
would not be right in acquitting an accused person solely
on account of the defect; to do so would tantamount to
playing into the hands of the investigating officer if the
investigation is designedly defective. (See Karnel Singh v.
State of M.P. [(1995) 5 SCC 518 : 1995 SCC (Cri) 977] )
6. In Paras Yadav v. State of Bihar [(1999) 2 SCC
126 : 1999 SCC (Cri) 104] it was held that if the lapse or
omission is committed by the investigating agency or
because of negligence the prosecution evidence is required
to be examined dehors such omissions to find out whether
the said evidence is reliable or not, the contaminated
conduct of officials should not stand in the way of
evaluating the evidence by the courts; otherwise the
designed mischief would be perpetuated and justice would
be denied to the complainant party.
7. As was observed in Ram Bihari Yadav v. State of
Bihar [(1998) 4 SCC 517 : 1998 SCC (Cri) 1085] if
primacy is given to such designed or negligent
investigation, to the omission or lapses by perfunctory
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.544 of 2018 dt.24-06-2025
investigation or omissions, the faith and confidence of the
people would be shaken not only in the law-enforcing
agency but also in the administration of justice. The view
was again reiterated in Amar Singh v. Balwinder Singh
[(2003) 2 SCC 518 : 2003 SCC (Cri) 641] . As noted in
Amar Singh case [(2003) 2 SCC 518 : 2003 SCC (Cri)
641] it would have been certainly better if the firearms
were sent to the Forensic Test Laboratory for comparison.
But the report of the ballistic expert would be in the nature
of an expert opinion without any conclusiveness attached
to it. When the direct testimony of the eyewitnesses
corroborated by the medical evidence fully establishes the
prosecution version, failure or omission or negligence on
the part of the IO cannot affect the credibility of the
prosecution version.
8. The stand of the appellants relates essentially to
acceptability of evidence. Even if the investigation is
defective, in view of the legal principles set out above, that
pales into insignificance when ocular testimony is found
credible and cogent. Further effect of non-examination of
weapons of assault or the pellets, etc. in the background of
defective investigation has been considered in Amar Singh
case [(2003) 2 SCC 518 : 2003 SCC (Cri) 641] . In the
case at hand, no crack in the evidence of the vital
witnesses can be noticed."
27. Learned counsel for the appellant has further argued
that in the instant matter, all the non-official witnesses of the
prosecution are relatives of the deceased and they were highly
interested in the success of the prosecution's case. As per the
evidence of prosecution witnesses, co-villagers and neighbours of
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.544 of 2018 dt.24-06-2025
the daughter of the informant also reached at the place of
occurrence upon hearing hulla, but none of them were examined by
the investigating officer nor any of them was produced as a witness
before the trial court. Though in this matter all the material
witnesses of facts are relatives of the deceased and as per their
evidence, the neighbours of the informant's daughter also reached
at the place of occurrence during the course of occurrence and at
the relevant period but as per evidence of investigating officer,
none of them agreed to record his/her evidence. It came in the
evidence of the prosecution's witnesses that the informant's
daughter and the accused are close relatives having the relationship
of daughter-in-law and in-laws and at the time of commission of
the alleged occurrence, good relation was not prevailing in between
them. Six days before the occurrence of the present matter, an
occurrence of assault had taken place with the informant's daughter
by the same accused of the present matter. So, in view of this
circumstance, particularly, in view of bad matrimonial relation in
between the informant's daughter and her in-laws, the co-villagers
of the informant's daughter might not have come forward before
the investigating officer, however, despite not producing and
examining the said co-villagers, the prosecution witnesses PW-1 to
PW-5 appear to be trustworthy. The evidence of PW-3 can be
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.544 of 2018 dt.24-06-2025
deemed to be most reliable as he happens to be the real brother of
the appellant. Further, since the alleged occurrence took place near
the house of the informant's daughter, so, the presence of PW-4 at
the alleged place of occurrence, was quite natural and we find a
justifiable reason for the presence of other witnesses (PW-1, PW-2
and PW-5) for coming to the house of informant's daughter as they
had come there to meet the informant's daughter who had remained
under treatment on account of alleged assault which had been
committed with her by the same accused just some days before the
commission of the alleged occurrence. Moreover, a related witness
cannot be said to be an interested witness merely by virtue of being
a relative of a victim and the evidence of such witness cannot
automatically be discarded by labeling him as an interested
witness, particularly in an offence which has been witnessed by a
close relative of the victim whose presence on scene of crime was
natural. In this regard, we would like to refer to the principles laid
down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Laltu Ghosh vs.
State of West Bengal, reported in (2019) 15 SCC 344, paragraphs
nos. 12, 14 and 15 whereof, containing relevant observations, are
being reproduced as under:-
" 12. As regards the contention that the eyewitnesses are
close relatives of the deceased, it is by now well-settled
that a related witness cannot be said to be an "interested"
witness merely by virtue of being a relative of the victim.
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.544 of 2018 dt.24-06-2025
This Court has elucidated the difference between
"interested" and "related" witnesses in a plethora of cases,
stating that a witness may be called interested only when
he or she derives some benefit from the result of a
litigation, which in the context of a criminal case would
mean that the witness has a direct or indirect interest in
seeing the accused punished due to prior enmity or other
reasons, and thus has a motive to falsely implicate the
accused (for instance, see State of Rajasthan v. Kalki [State
of Rajasthan v. Kalki, (1981) 2 SCC 752 : 1981 SCC (Cri)
593] ; Amit v. State of U.P. [Amit v. State of U.P., (2012) 4
SCC 107 : (2012) 2 SCC (Cri) 590] and Gangabhavani v.
Rayapati Venkat Reddy [Gangabhavani v. Rayapati Venkat
Reddy, (2013) 15 SCC 298 : (2014) 6 SCC (Cri) 182] ).
14. In criminal cases, it is often the case that the offence is
witnessed by a close relative of the victim, whose presence
on the scene of the offence would be natural. The evidence
of such a witness cannot automatically be discarded by
labelling the witness as interested. Indeed, one of the
earliest statements with respect to interested witnesses in
criminal cases was made by this Court in Dalip Singh v.
State of Punjab [Dalip Singh v. State of Punjab, (1953) 2
SCC 36 : 1954 SCR 145 : AIR 1953 SC 364 : 1953 Cri LJ
1465] , wherein this Court observed: (AIR p. 366, para 26)
"26. A witness is normally to be considered
independent unless he or she springs from sources which are
likely to be tainted and that usually means unless the witness
has cause, such as enmity against the accused, to wish to
implicate him falsely. Ordinarily, a close relative would be the
last to screen the real culprit and falsely implicate an innocent
person."
15. In case of a related witness, the Court may not treat
his or her testimony as inherently tainted, and needs to
ensure only that the evidence is inherently reliable,
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.544 of 2018 dt.24-06-2025
probable, cogent and consistent. We may refer to the
observations of this Court in Jayabalan v. State (UT of
Pondicherry) [Jayabalan v. State (UT of Pondicherry),
(2010) 1 SCC 199 : (2010) 2 SCC (Cri) 966] : (SCC p.
213, para 23)
"23. We are of the considered view that in cases
where the court is called upon to deal with the evidence of the
interested witnesses, the approach of the court while
appreciating the evidence of such witnesses must not be
pedantic. The court must be cautious in appreciating and
accepting the evidence given by the interested witnesses but the
court must not be suspicious of such evidence. The primary
endeavour of the court must be to look for consistency. The
evidence of a witness cannot be ignored or thrown out solely
because it comes from the mouth of a person who is closely
related to the victim.""
Accordingly, we find no force in the aforesaid contention of
the appellant's counsel.
28. Now, we have to examine the important aspect of
the trial court's approach in convicting the appellant for the offence
under Section 302 of IPC in context of the relevant circumstances
emerging from the prosecution's evidences. In an offence of
unnatural death a single blow resulting in such death may entail
conviction under Section 302 of IPC and in some cases under
Section 304 of IPC and in some cases under Section 326 of IPC,
thus, the question with regard to the nature of offence has to be
determined on the facts and in the circumstances of each case, the
nature of injury on the body part upon which such injury has been
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.544 of 2018 dt.24-06-2025
inflicted, the weapon used, the circumstances in which the injury
has been caused and also the manner in which such injury has been
inflicted, are all relevant factors which may go to determine the
required intention or knowledge of the offender and the offence
committed by him. In this regard, we would like to refer to the
judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court passed in the case of Muthu
vs. State by Inspector of Police Tamil Nadu, reported in (2009)
17 SCC 433, wherein the conviction under Section 302 of IPC by
the trial court was converted into second part of Section 304 of IPC
and while arriving at the said conclusion the Hon'ble court took
into account the fact that the occurrence had taken place in a
sudden fight and in the heat of passion by a sudden quarrel without
the accused having taken undue advantage or acted in a cruel
manner. The relevant observations made in the paragraphs nos. 14,
16 and 17 are being reproduced as under:-
" 14. In our opinion, throwing waste and rubbish inside
the house or shop of somebody is certainly a grave and
sudden provocation. Everyone wishes to keep his premises
neat and clean, and is likely to lose his self-control in such a
situation. The incident in question occurred in a sudden fight
and a heat of passion by a sudden quarrel without the
appellant having taken undue advantage or acted in a cruel or
unusual manner. Hence the appellant is entitled to the benefit
of Exceptions 1 and 4 and the case comes under Section
304IPC.
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.544 of 2018 dt.24-06-2025
16. In our opinion on the facts of the case the act
committed was done with the knowledge that it is likely to
cause death but without any intention to cause death or cause
such bodily injury as is likely to cause death. Hence the
offence comes under Part II of Section 304IPC.
17. For the reasons given above, the sentence awarded
by the courts below is substituted by the sentence of five
years' simple imprisonment and any period of incarceration in
jail which the accused has already undergone shall be
deducted from the aforesaid period of five years. The
judgments of the courts below are modified accordingly and
the appeal stands disposed of."
29. Now, we come to the factual aspects of this matter.
It has come in the evidence of the prosecution's witnesses that the
informant's daughter was married to the real brother of this
appellant and after lapse of some period of the marriage the relation
between the informant's daughter and her in-laws deteriorated and
the informant's daughter and her husband were separated from the
joint family of the appellant by the accused though informant's
daughter and her in-laws were residing at the place situated nearby
during the relevant time. It has also come in the evidence that just
six days before the commission of the alleged occurrence, the same
accused of the present matter had assaulted the informant's
daughter for which she remained under treatment at the Sadar
Hospital and regarding that incident K.Hat (Maranga) P.S. Case
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.544 of 2018 dt.24-06-2025
No. 119/2016 had also been registered by the informant's daughter,
FIR's certified copy (Ext.-6), whereof was also produced by the
prosecution before the trial court. When the informant's daughter
returned back from the hospital, then the deceased, PW-1, PW-2
and PW-5 came to the house of PW-4, daughter of the informant to
see and meet her and the said previous incident of assault as well as
medical treatment of PW-4 was a justifiable reason for their
coming at the house of PW-4 which is said to be the place of
occurrence and as per the evidence of prosecution's witnesses upon
seeing them, the accused including the appellant got infuriated and
came with alleged weapons and firstly started abusing them and
thereafter, assaulted them with garasa, iron rod and lathi. This
story clearly shows that the alleged occurrence took place in the
spur of moment and the same does not appear to have been
committed in a planned manner and the material prosecution
witnesses deposed that only single blow, by using an iron rod, was
inflicted by the appellant on the head of the deceased, which also
gets corroborated from the postmortem report of the deceased as
only head injury was found on the body of the deceased which was
opined by the medical expert (PW-7) as being the main cause of
death of the deceased. Hence, in view of the circumstances in
which the alleged occurrence took place, and in the light of a single
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.544 of 2018 dt.24-06-2025
blow having been inflicted by using an iron rod, by the appellant on
the head of the deceased, who was seventy years old at that time, as
is apparent from the postmortem report, the previous tense relation
in between both the parties during the relevant period apart from
the fact that a previous FIR had been lodged by PW-4 against the
accused as also the circumstance regarding the accused being
infuriated upon seeing the parental relatives of PW-4 who had
come to see and meet her (PW-4) on the alleged date and time of
occurrence, we find it justful for bringing the case of prosecution
within the ambit of Section 304 Part-II of IPC rather than Section
302 of IPC.
Conclusion:-
30. For the reasons discussed above and in view of the
evidences available on the record of trial court, we find no
illegality in the conclusion of the trial court in holding the appellant
to be responsible for the death of the deceased. However, the
conviction under Section 302 of IPC does not seem appropriate in
context of the relevant circumstances which have been discussed
above. We find sufficient materials to modify the conviction of the
appellant under Part-II of Section 304 of IPC. Accordingly, the
appellant's conviction is modified for the offence punishable under
Part-II of Section 304 of IPC. The appellant has undergone and
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.544 of 2018 dt.24-06-2025
served a period of more than nine years in jail, which is sufficient
to meet the ends of justice in view of the background of the
appellant's family as well as his age at the time of the commission
of the alleged occurrence. Accordingly, the impugned order of
sentence dated 30.01.2018 is modified to the period of sentence
already undergone by the appellant.
31. Accordingly, the present criminal appeal stands
disposed of with the aforementioned modification in the impugned
judgment of conviction dated 25.01.2018 and the order of sentence
dated 30.01.2018, passed by the learned court of 5 th Additional
District & Sessions Judge, Purnea in Sessions Case No. 333 of 2016.
32. The appellant is directed to be released forthwith if his
custody is not required in any other criminal case.
33. Let the Lower Court Records (LCR) and a copy of
this judgment be sent immediately to the trial court as well as the jail
authority concerned for information and needful compliance.
(Mohit Kumar Shah, J)
(Shailendra Singh, J)
maynaz/-
AFR/NAFR AFR
CAV DATE NA
Uploading Date 16.07.2025
Transmission Date 16.07.2025
