Patna High Court
Vijay Singh And Anr vs The State Of Bihar on 9 May, 2025
Author: Mohit Kumar Shah
Bench: Mohit Kumar Shah
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL APPEAL (DB) No. 1313 of 2017
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-75 Year-2013 Thana- SIKARHATTA District- Bhojpur
======================================================
1. Vijay Singh
2. Abhimanyu Singh
Both Sons of late Sipahi Singh, Resident of Village-Panwari Mathiya, P.S.
Sikarahata, District-Bhojpur.
... ... Appellants
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Respondent
======================================================
with
CRIMINAL APPEAL (DB) No. 1312 of 2017
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-75 Year-2013 Thana- SIKARHATTA District- Bhojpur
======================================================
Sudama Singh, Son of Late Sipahi Singh, Resident of Village-Panawari
Mathiya, P.S. Sikharahata District-Bhojpur.
... ... Appellant
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Respondent
======================================================
Appearance:
(In CRIMINAL APPEAL (DB) No. 1313 of 2017)
For the Appellant/s : Mr. Prabhat Kumar Singh, Adv.
Ms. Priya, Adv.
For the State : Mr. Ajay Mishra, APP
(In CRIMINAL APPEAL (DB) No. 1312 of 2017)
For the Appellant/s : Mr. Sanjay Singh, Sr. Adv.
Mr. Parmatma Singh, Advocate
Mr. Rudrank Shivam Singh, Adv.
Mr. Praveen Kumar, Adv.
For the State : Mr. Ajay Mishra, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MOHIT KUMAR SHAH
and
HONOURABLE JUSTICE SMT. SONI SHRIVASTAVA
CAV JUDGMENT
(Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MOHIT KUMAR SHAH)
Date: 09-05-2025
The aforesaid appeals preferred under Section 374 (2) of
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.1313 of 2017 dt.09-05-2025
2/51
the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as
the "Cr.P.C."), arise out of the same judgment of conviction and
the order of sentence dated 25.8.2017 and 29.8.2017
respectively, passed in Sessions Trial No. 83 of 2014 (arising out
of Sikarahta P.S. Case No. 75 of 2013) by the learned Court of
2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Bhojpur at Ara (hereinafter
referred to as "the learned Trial Judge"), hence these Appeals
have been heard together and are being disposed off by the
present common judgment and order. By the said judgment, the
learned Trial Judge has convicted the Appellant No. 1 of the first
case and the sole appellant of the second case under Section 302
of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as "the
I.P.C.") while the Appellant No. 2 of the first case has been
convicted under Section 302/34 of the I.P.C. and all the
appellants of the aforesaid appeals have been sentenced to
undergo imprisonment for life with fine of Rs. 5,000/- and in
default of payment of the same, they have been directed to
undergo further three months simple imprisonment.
2. Short facts of the case are that on 4.11.2013 at 6:00 am,
fardbeyan of one Ramashish Singh @ Bhola Singh (P.W.3), son
of late Harakh Singh was recorded by the Sub-Inspector of
Police, Arun Kumar posted at Sikarahta Police Station at the
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.1313 of 2017 dt.09-05-2025
3/51
Sadar Hospital, Ara. In the fardbeyan, the informant (P.W.3) has
stated that his son Santosh Kumar Singh, aged about 35 years is
employed in military and had come to his house three days back.
He has also stated that land dispute is existing in between Vijay
Singh (Appellant No. 1 of the first case), Sudama Singh (sole
appellant of the second case), Abhimanyu Singh (Appellant No.
2 of the first case), Morang Singh @ Ranjeet Singh and the
informant and his son and on account of the same, quarrel had
taken place in between them on previous occasions as well. The
informant has further stated that on 3.11.2013 in the evening at
about 7:00 pm, his son Santosh Kumar Singh along with his
wife was lighting diya (earthen lamp) on the roof on the
occasion of Diwali. While Santosh Kumar Singh (deceased) was
lighting candle on the roof, all the aforesaid accused persons had
put a ladder from their roof to the roof of his house and had
come there, whereafter they had caught hold of the son of the
informant and slammed him on the ground and during the
course thereof, Sobin Singh, Arvind Singh and Ram Tawakya
Singh had also arrived on the roof. Thereafter, Vijay Singh
(Appellant No. 1) armed with bhala had assaulted and pierced
body of Santosh Kumar Singh and then Sudama Singh armed
with bhala had assaulted on the right thigh and left leg of
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.1313 of 2017 dt.09-05-2025
4/51
Santosh Kumar Singh and pierced the same, leading to lot of
blood oozing out from the body of the deceased. Then, Santosh
Kumar Singh was lifted and taken to a doctor, who said that he
would not be able to treat him, hence the deceased was taken to
Sadar Hospital, Ara where he died during the course of
treatment. The informant has further stated that the entire incident
was witnessed by Nawal Kishore Singh (P.W.7) and Hari
Mangal Singh (P.W.1), apart from the incident being witnessed
by other persons, which he would disclose upon being asked.
3. After recording of the fardbeyan, a formal F.I.R. bearing
Sikarahta P.S. Case No. 75 of 2013 was registered under Section
302/34 of the I.P.C. on 4.11.2013 at 8:15 am against the
appellants of both the aforesaid cases and Morang Singh, Sobin
Singh, Arvind Singh and Ram Tawakya Singh. After
investigation and finding the case to be true, the police had
submitted charge-sheet on 27.01.2014 against all the aforesaid
seven accused persons under Section 302/34 of the I.P.C. The
learned Trial Judge had then taken cognizance vide order dated
06.03.2014
against all the aforesaid accused persons except
Morang Singh. The case was then committed to the Court of
Sessions vide order dated 06.03.2014 and was numbered as
Sessions Trial No. 83 of 2014. Thereafter, the learned Trial
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.1313 of 2017 dt.09-05-2025
Court framed charges against the aforesaid appellants and three
other accused persons vide order dated 01.05.2014. As far as the
Appellant No. 1 of the first case and the sole appellant of the
second case are concerned, the learned Trial Court had framed
charges under Section 302 of the I.P.C. while it had framed
charges against the Appellant No. 2 of the first case and three
other accused persons under Section 302/34 of the I.P.C. During
the course of trial, the prosecution had produced eleven
witnesses. While P.W.1 Hari Mangal Singh (cousin brother of
the deceased), P.W.2 Jai Mangal Singh (neighbor and relative of
the deceased), P.W.3 Ramashish Singh @ Bhola Singh
(informant of the present case and father of the deceased) and
P.W.6 Reena Devi (wife of the deceased) are stated to be eye-
witnesses, P.W. 4 Saroj Singh, P.W.5 Nandji Singh and P.W. 8
Sushil Singh are witnesses to the seizure list. As far as P.W.7
Nawal Kishore Singh is concerned, he is not only related to the
deceased but is also witness to the fardbeyan, while P.W. 9 Dr.
Naresh Prasad is the Doctor, who had conducted postmortem of
the body of the deceased Santosh Kumar Singh and P.W. 11 Raj
Narain Chaudhary is an advocate clerk, who has identified the
two FSL reports (Exhibit 9 and 10).
4. The learned Senior Counsel for the sole appellant of the
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.1313 of 2017 dt.09-05-2025
second case has argued that none of the so-called eye-witnesses
i.e. P.W.1, P.W.2, P.W.3 and P.W.6 are actually eye-witness to
the alleged occurrence and in order to impeach their credibility
as eye-witnesses, he has submitted that as far as P.W. 3 is
concerned, he has stated in his fardbeyan that he was present on
the terrace, whereafter the accused persons had arrived on the
roof and then the accused namely, Vijay Singh and Sudama
Singh had assaulted the deceased. It is submitted that P.W. 3 has
stated in paragraph No. 1 of his examination-in-chief that he
was present there, however the same is not established from a
bare reading of the F.I.R. In paragraph No. 2 of his evidence,
P.W.3 has introduced a new assailant, namely, Sobin Singh, who
is stated to have assaulted the deceased and in paragraph No. 21,
P.W. 3 has stated that he was engaged in worshiping on the
ground floor of his house, whereas in paragraph No. 22 of his
cross-examination, P.W. 3 has stated that he had seen the
accused persons climbing the stairs. Thus, it is submitted by the
learned Senior Counsel for the appellant of the second case that
admittedly, the said witness i.e. P.W. 3 (informant) was not
present at the alleged place of occurrence where the accused are
alleged to have assaulted the deceased. In any view of the
matter, it is submitted that even if it is assumed although denied
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.1313 of 2017 dt.09-05-2025
that P.W.3 was present at the place of occurrence, it is intriguing
as to why he did not take any steps to restrain the accused
persons from assaulting the deceased. It has been pointed out
that P.W. 3 has also stated in his cross-examination that at the
time when he reached on the roof of his house, no assault was
taking place. The learned Senior Counsel for the appellant of the
second case has next referred to the evidence of P.W.6 Reena
Devi, wife of the deceased and has stated that in paragraph No.
4 of her evidence, she has stated that her father-in-law had
arrived at the place of occurrence after she had raised hulla
(alarm). In paragraph No. 13, P.W. 6 has stated that when her
father-in-law had arrived at the place of occurrence, the accused
persons had fled away and then her father-in-law had disclosed
the name of the accused persons. Thus, it is submitted that the
names of accused persons have been introduced subsequently by
the father-in-law of P.W.6, hence the entire incident is doubtful.
In para No. 17, P.W. 6 has stated that she had seen her husband
when he had fallen down in the lane, thus, it is submitted that
even P.W. 6 cannot be stated to be an eye-witness.
5. The learned Senior Counsel for the appellant of the
second case has further referred to the evidence of P.W.1, Hari
Mangal Singh and has submitted that he has stated in his
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.1313 of 2017 dt.09-05-2025
evidence that he had seen the incident from the ground floor. As
far as P.W. 2 Jai Mangal Singh is concerned, it has been
submitted that in paragraph No. 8 of his evidence, he has stated
that he was on the roof of his house and it was a dark night. In
paragraph No. 9, P.W. 2 has stated that when he reached the
place of occurrence, he saw that the deceased had fallen down in
the lane. In paragraph No. 10, P.W. 2 has stated that after he
reached the place of occurrence, the other witnesses including
P.W. 7 Nawal Kishore Singh had arrived there. Thus, in nutshell
it is submitted that a bare perusal of the evidence of P.W.1,
P.W.2, P.W.3 and P.W.6 would show that they are not eye-
witnesses to the alleged occurrence.
6. The learned Senior Counsel for the appellant of the
second case has further submitted that if it is to be taken that
none of the witnesses are eye-witness to the alleged occurrence,
one would have to fall back on circumstantial evidence, which is
not present in the present case in view of the fact that even the
place of occurrence is uncertain and doubtful, inasmuch as no
blood soaked mud was seized from the roof and the same was
seized only from the lane. It is also submitted that the
prosecution has deliberately withheld Sri Arun Kumar, who had
prepared the seizure list (Exhibits-2 and 3) of the mud soaked
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.1313 of 2017 dt.09-05-2025
with blood and in case he would have been examined, the
defense would have got an opportunity to cross-examine him
and also put a question to him as to under what circumstances
the mud soaked with blood was not seized from the roof. It is
further submitted that from a bare perusal of the evidence of
P.W.3, as contained in paragraph No. 17 onwards, it is apparent
that it is an impossibility that the accused persons would have
climbed from their house to the roof over the second floor of the
house of the informant. It is next submitted by the learned
Senior Counsel that the Investigating Officer (P.W.10) has stated
in para No. 21 of his cross-examination that no blood was seized
from the roof or the stairs and in paragraph No. 28, he has stated
that at the time of seizing bhala, he had not written as to
whether bloodstains were present on the bhala or not.
7. The learned Senior Counsel for the appellant of the
second case has contended that the medical evidence and ocular
evidence are at variance, inasmuch as though it has been alleged
by the witnesses that the Appellant No. 1 of the first case and the
appellant of the second case had assaulted the deceased by
bhala and inflicted piercing injuries on the chest and thigh,
however a bare perusal of the postmortem report would show
that all the three injuries found on the chest and thigh/ leg are
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.1313 of 2017 dt.09-05-2025
lacerated injuries and no penetrating injuries have been found. It
is also submitted that on dissection the lungs have been found to
be lacerated, however no injury has been found on the ribs.
Thus, it is submitted that such kind of injuries cannot be caused
by spear. It is next submitted that the F.S.L report has been
exhibited by an advocate clerk, who has stated in his evidence
that neither the signatures were made on the F.S.L report by the
maker of the report in his presence nor the report was prepared
in his presence. Thus, it is submitted that such F.S.L. reports do
not have any evidentiary value. In such view of the matter, it is
submitted by the Ld. Senior Counsel that the Ld. Trial Court has
committed a grave error in convicting the appellant of the
second case U/s. 302 I.P.C., hence this Court is required to
interfere with the same and acquit the appellant of the 2nd case.
8. The learned counsel appearing for the appellants of the
first case, Sri Prabhat Kumar Singh, assisted by Ms. Priya, has
adopted the arguments advanced by the learned Senior Counsel
for the appellant of the second case and has submitted that the
appellants of the first case are also required to be acquitted.
9. The learned APP for the State, Sri Ajay Mishra has
submitted that neither the presence of the accused at the place of
occurrence is in doubt nor the place of occurrence is under a
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.1313 of 2017 dt.09-05-2025
cloud, as would be borne out from the evidence of witnesses,
which is consistent and there are no contradictions. The learned
APP for the State has also referred to the evidence of the
Investigating Officer i.e. P.W. 10 to submit that he has described
the place of occurrence to be the roof of the two-story concrete
house of the informant Ramashish Singh as also the adjoining
single-story house of the accused persons. It is also submitted
that P.W. 10 has stated in his evidence that upon inspecting the
place of occurrence, he had found blood spread over the roof of
the two storied house of the informant apart from blood having
been found all throughout the stairs upto the lane. It is
contended that much has been said by the appellants about
identification of the accused in view of the fact that occurrence
had taken place on a dark night, however the fact remains that
all the accused persons are relative of the informant and his
family members, hence identification was not a problem and
they could have been identified easily. The Ld. APP for the State
has submitted that there are no contradictions in the evidence of
the witnesses which in any view of the matter is consistent,
hence is required to be relied upon. Lastly, it is stated that there
is no discrepancy in between the medical evidence (postmortem
report) & the ocular evidence. Thus, it is submitted that no
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.1313 of 2017 dt.09-05-2025
interference is required in the impugned judgment of conviction
and sentence, passed by the learned Trial Judge.
10. Besides hearing the learned counsel for the parties, we
have minutely perused both the evidences i.e. oral and
documentary. Before proceeding further, it is necessary to
cursorily discuss the evidence.
11. P.W.1 Hari Mangal Singh is the neighbour and relative of
the deceased. He has stated in his deposition that the occurrence
dates back to 03.11.2013, evening of Diwali festival when he
was lighting diya (earthen lamp) on the floor of his house, while
the deceased Santosh Kumar Singh, his wife Reena Devi and
daughters were also lighting diya (earthen lamp) on the roof of
the house of Bhola Singh (informant). He has stated that on the
roof of the house of Bhola Singh, no railing is present and
therefore, the roof is clearly visible. P.W.1 has further stated that
he saw from the door of his house that Sudama Singh (appellant
of the second case), Abhimanyu Singh (Appellant No. 2 of the
first case), Vijay Singh (Appellant No. 1 of the first case),
Morang @ Ranjeet Singh, Arvind Singh and Sobin Singh had all
climbed on the roof of Santosh (deceased) by putting a bamboo
ladder, whereafter they had assaulted Santosh and had held the
hands & legs of Santosh. Thereafter, Vijay Singh had assaulted
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.1313 of 2017 dt.09-05-2025
the deceased over the upper portion of the chest near the neck by
bhala, Sudama Singh had assaulted the deceased by bhala on
the thigh of right leg and then Sobin Singh had assaulted the
deceased on the left thigh by garasa. P.W.1 has further stated in
his examination-in-chief that upon alarm being raised, co-
villagers had arrived there, whereafter Santosh was carried over
a cot and taken to Mopti Bazar but the Doctor had referred him
to Ara where the Doctor had declared Santosh to be dead. P.W.1
has further stated that the incident has taken place on account of
land dispute in between the parties. He had recognized the
accused persons standing in the dock. In cross-examination,
P.W.1 has stated that the deceased Santosh is his cousin brother
and his house is situated towards the east at 10 steps from the
house of Santosh. He has also stated that at the time of
occurrence, he was lighting diya (earthen lamp) outside his
house and his wife was not along with him.
12. In paragraph No. 8 of his cross-examination, P.W.1 has
stated that he had made his statement before the police on the
second day of the incident in the morning. He has also stated
that he has not stated before the police that while he was making
preparation for worshiping, his wife had told him that hulla
(alarm) has been raised to the effect that quarrel has taken place
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.1313 of 2017 dt.09-05-2025
in between the family of Santosh and Vijay, Abhimanyu,
Sudama and others and that thereafter, he had gone running to
the house of Santosh and had seen Santosh to have fallen in the
lane on the ground floor of the house as also that the accused
persons were climbing down the stair of the house where the
incident had taken place. P.W.1 has also stated in his cross-
examination that he has stated before the police that he had
heard the noise of crying of Ramashish Singh (informant) and
his daughter-in-law from the roof and then he could understand
that some big incident has taken place. He has also stated that he
had seen Santosh having fallen down in the lane, after climbing
down the stairs of his house as also he was drenched with blood,
whereafter he had also gone there and raised an alarm. P.W.1 has
also stated that he had then put Santosh over the cot & taken
him for treatment to Mopti Bazar.
13. In paragraph No. 15 of his cross-examination, P.W.1 has
stated that he cannot say as to whether at the time of incident, it
was dark or light was present. In paragraph No. 16 of his cross-
examination, P.W.1 has stated that after he reached at the lane,
Jai Mangal Singh (P.W.2), Arun Singh, Budhrai Singh, Brijgopal
Singh, Baban Singh, Nand Kumar and others had arrived there.
He has further stated that Ramashish Singh (P.W.3), Nawal
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.1313 of 2017 dt.09-05-2025
Kishore Singh (P.W.7) and Reena Devi (P.W.6) had also come
there and then they had talked about the incident. In paragraph
No. 17 of his cross-examination, P.W.1 has stated that land
dispute is existing in between both the parties since before and
case is also going on. Although P.W.1 has stated in paragraph
No. 17 that upon being requested by the informant, he is giving
his evidence, however he has then explained that since he had
witnessed the incident, he is one of the witnesses to the present
trial. P.W.1 has also stated that he had seen two injuries inflicted
by bhala and one injury inflicted by farsa on the person of the
deceased. P.W.1 has stated in paragraph No. 21 of his cross-
examination that it is not a fact that he had not stated before the
Investigating Officer that he had seen from the door of his house
that Sudama Singh, Abhimanyu Singh, Vijay Singh, Morang @
Ranjeet Singh and Arvind Singh had climbed the house of
Santosh, caught hold of Santosh and assaulted him, whereafter
Vijay Singh had assaulted on the upper portion of the chest near
the neck by bhala and then Sudama had assaulted on the right
thigh of the leg of the deceased and then Sobin Singh had
assaulted over left thigh of the leg of the deceased by farsa.
14. P.W.2 Jai Mangal Singh is the neighbor and relative of the
deceased and he has stated in his deposition that the occurrence
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.1313 of 2017 dt.09-05-2025
dates back to 3.11.2013 at about 7:00-7:30 in the evening when
he was on the roof of his house and was lighting diya (earthen
lamp). He has stated that after he heard hulla (alarm), he saw
that Sudama, Vijay Singh, Abhimanyu Singh, Morang Singh,
Sobin Singh, Arvind Singh and Ram Tawakya Singh were
armed with bhala in their hands, while Sobin was armed with
farsa in his hand. Abhimanyu Singh, Arvind Singh, Morang
Singh and Ram Tawakya Singh had caught hold of the deceased
Santosh Kumar Singh, whereafter they had thrown him on the
ground and then Vijay and Sudama Singh started assaulting him
by bhala. He has also stated that assault took place on the roof
of the house of Santosh Kumar Singh. He has next stated that
Santosh Kumar Singh was assaulted near the neck and on his
thighs, whereafter he had got drenched with blood. He has also
stated that the accused persons had put a bamboo ladder and
climbed over the house of the deceased. After being assaulted,
Santosh had climbed down and had fallen down in the lane,
whereafter all the persons present there had taken Santosh to
Mopti Bazar where the Doctor did not treat the deceased, hence,
the deceased was taken to Sadar Hospital for the purposes of
treatment and while Santosh Singh was being taken to Ara for
treatment, he died on the way. He has stated that the accused
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.1313 of 2017 dt.09-05-2025
persons had given effect to the incident in question on account
of land dispute and other disputes amongst them. He had
recognized the accused persons present in the dock. In cross-
examination, P.W.2 has stated that the deceased is his cousin
brother. He has also stated in his cross-examination that at the
time when hulla (alarm) was raised he was on the roof of his
house and at that time, his son Manji Kumar Singh and his wife
Lalita Devi were also present at his house. He has next stated
that at about 7:00 pm in the evening, he had gone to light pip
and the night was dark since it was Krishna Paksha.
15. P.W.2 Jai Mangal Singh has also stated that after hearing
noise, he had come down from the roof along with his wife and
son. He has also stated that he had not heard any sound of firing.
He has also stated that while he was going to house of Santosh,
he had met 4-5 persons, namely Arun Singh, Nitesh Singh, Shiv
Mangal Singh, Saroj and Rajesh. While Nitesh and Arun had
reached there before him, the rest of the people had reached
after him. He has also stated that when he reached the place of
occurrence, he saw that the deceased was lying in the lane and
the body of the deceased was smeared with blood as also he had
seen two injuries on the person of the deceased. He has also
stated that after he had reached the place of
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.1313 of 2017 dt.09-05-2025
occurrence, some people, namely Bhuvneshwar, Awdhesh,
Ramdev and 5-7 other persons had arrived there including
Ayodhya Singh, Umesh Singh, Nawal Singh (P.W.7), Sushil
Singh (P.W.8) and others. He has also stated that the lane in
which the deceased had fallen down is 4 feet wide and it runs
from east to west direction. He has next stated that blood had
fallen down in the lane only at one place spreading over 1-1 ½
in palm length and width. P.W.2 has further stated in paragraph
No. 12 of his cross-examination that there is no railing present
over the roof of the house of the deceased, however 7 feet high
railing is situated over his roof. He has also stated that towards
the north of the place of occurrence, the house of the accused
persons are situated and towards south, the house of the
deceased is situated whereas towards the east, personal house of
P.W.2 is situated and towards the west, house of Budhram Singh
is situated. He has also stated that the place where the deceased
had fallen down is surrounded by the said houses. In paragraph
No. 14 of his cross-examination, P.W.2 has stated that police had
gone to the place of occurrence in his presence on 21.3.2013,
however, immediately thereafter, P.W.2 has stated that police
had gone on 21.11.2013. P.W.2 has also stated that he was
lighting diya (earthen lamp) on his roof top and other people
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.1313 of 2017 dt.09-05-2025
were also lighting diya (earthen lamp) at their homes.
16. P.W.3 Ramashish Singh @ Bhola Singh is the informant
of this case and is the father of the deceased. He has stated in his
deposition that on 3.11.2013, the occurrence had taken place at
about 7:00 in the evening on which day Diwali festival was
being celebrated and at that time his son Santosh Kumar along
with his wife and children were lighting diya (earthen lamp) and
he was also present there. He has also stated that his son used to
work in military and he had come to his home on leave. P.W.3
has further stated that the accused persons, namely Vijay Singh,
Sudama Singh, Sobin Singh, Arvind, Lalan Singh, Abhimanyu
Singh and Ram Tawakya Singh had put ladder on the northern
side of the house and climbed over the house. Accused Vijay
Singh, Sudama Singh and Sobin were holding bhala in their
hand. Thereafter, four accused persons, namely, Abhimanyu
Singh, Lalan Singh, Arvind, Ram Tawakya Singh and Morang
had caught hold of the son of the informant, whereafter Vijay
Singh had assaulted over the upper portion of the chest of his
son by bhala and then Sudama Singh had assaulted his son on
his right leg and then Sobin had assaulted his son on the knee of
his left leg by bhala (spear). P.W.3 has further stated that after
being assaulted, blood started oozing out from the body of his
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.1313 of 2017 dt.09-05-2025
son and when his daughter-in-law went to save him, the accused
persons had pushed her. Thereafter, they had brought down the
deceased and then he had become unconscious as also blood
was oozing out. The people present there, had then put the
deceased on a cot and taken him to Bazar for treatment and the
Doctor present at Mopti Bazar had referred the deceased for
treatment to Ara Sadar, however before reaching Ara Sadar
Hospital, the son of P.W. 3 died on the way.
17. P.W.3 Ramashish Singh has also stated that the accused
persons have killed his son on account of land dispute. He has
next stated that his fardbeyan was recorded on 4.11.2013 at
Sadar Hospital by the police personnel at about 6:00 am in the
morning and the same was written by the police personnel. He
has also stated that the fardbeyan was read over to him and after
finding the same to be correct, he had put his signature over the
same, which he has identified and the same has been marked as
Exhibit 1. The fardbeyan also bears the signature of witness
Nawal Kishore Singh (P.W.7), which P.W. 3 has identified and
the same has been marked as Exhibit 1/A. P.W.3 had recognized
the accused persons present in the dock. P.W.3 in his cross-
examination has stated that Nawal Kishore Singh is the son of
his cousin brother, namely, Ram Keshwar Singh and at the time
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.1313 of 2017 dt.09-05-2025
his fardbyan was being written, Nawal Kishore Singh was
present at the police station. Nawal Kishore Singh was present
at the time fardbeyan was read over to P.W.3 and he had also
gone to the hospital from the village. He has next stated that all
the persons had talked amongst themselves about the
occurrence. He has next submitted that it had taken two hours to
reach Ara Sadar Hospital from the village. He has stated that the
distance to Mopti Bazar from his village is about .75 kilometer.
18. In paragraph No. 10 of his cross-examination, P.W.3 has
stated that they had reached Mopti Bazar at about 7:30 in the
evening and it had taken about 10-15 minutes to reach there.
Thereafter, they had hired a vehicle to go to Ara and while going
to Ara, 2-3 police stations were situated on the way and after
reaching ahead of Garhani, his son stopped breathing. He has
next stated that police station and Primary Health Centre is
situated at Garhani and before Garhani, Hospital and Police
Station are also situated at Piro. He has stated that from Garhani,
they had directly gone to Ara Sadar Hospital but they had not
returned back to their home and had reached Ara Hospital at
about 9-9:30 in the night. He has also stated that on the said day,
he had disclosed about the incident to the Officer-in-Charge. In
paragraph No. 12 of his cross-examination, P.W.3 has stated that
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.1313 of 2017 dt.09-05-2025
at the time of going to the Hospital at Piro, he had got his son
examined but the Doctor had not prescribed any medicine and
they had stayed there for about 10-15 minutes, while he was
crying, however he cannot say as to whether any documentation
was made. In para No. 15 of his cross-examination, P.W.3 has
stated that land dispute and criminal cases are going on with the
accused persons from before.
19. In Paragraph No. 17 of his cross-examination, P.W.3 has
stated that he has got only one house in which some part is
single story and some part is double story and the house is north
facing. In paragraph No. 18 of his cross-examination, P.W.3 has
stated that the accused persons, namely Arvind Singh and
Sudama Singh live towards northern side of his house and all
the accused persons stay in one house. He has also stated that
the house of the accused persons is north facing and their door
opens towards the northern side and there is no way to come out
from the southern side of the house of the accused persons. In
paragraph No. 19 of his cross-examination, P.W.3 has stated that
in between his house and the house of the accused persons, there
is a lane, which is two hand length wide. He has stated that the
house of the accused persons is single story and his house is
situated towards the northern side, which is two story and there
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.1313 of 2017 dt.09-05-2025
are two rooms on the second floor. In paragraph No. 20 of his
cross-examination, P.W.3 has stated that the roof of both the
rooms situated on the roof is 5 feet heigh. He has also stated that
they used bamboo ladder to climb on the roof situated towards
the upper portion of the house, which is straight towards
northern side and no space has been left on the northern side. In
paragraph No. 21 of his cross-examination, P.W.3 has stated that
deceased Santosh Singh was lighting candle on his roof and he
was lighting candle on the second floor. He has next stated that
firstly, he was lighting candle on the second floor. He has also
stated that the deceased Santosh along with his wife was lighting
candle. P.W.3 has next stated that both the daughters of Santosh
were lighting crackers while P.W.3 was worshiping on the
ground floor of his house.
20. In paragraph No. 22 of his cross-examination, P.W.3 has
stated that he had himself seen the accused persons climbing by
ladder on the roof. He has stated that he had climbed on the
second floor by bamboo ladder. He has also stated that his
ladder was positioned on the eastern side. He has next stated that
the accused persons had used ladder to climb from their house
one by one and at that time, he was present on the roof of his
two storied house. He has stated that firstly, Sudama had arrived
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.1313 of 2017 dt.09-05-2025
on the roof. He has also stated that since the ladder of the
accused persons had been erected at a distance, he could not see
the same and the same was at a distance of 10 feet. P.W. 3 has
also stated that when he reached on the roof he saw Santosh
Singh lighting candle and when he went on the roof, he had seen
the accused persons, however when he had reached on the roof,
assault was not taking place. P.W.3, upon being asked that when
he heard hulla (alarm), whether he felt that assault is taking
place on the roof, to which he had said yes. In paragraph No. 34
of his cross-examination, P.W.3 has stated that Santosh had
fallen down on the roof at a distance of 5 feet towards the
northern side of the ladder. He has also stated that when the
accused persons had fled away, the deceased was taken down
with the help of the co-villagers and during the course thereof,
his hand, kurta and dhoti had also become stained with blood.
21. In paragraph No. 36 of his cross-examination, P.W.3 has
stated that it is not a fact that he had not stated before the police
that when his daughter-in-law went to save his son, the accused
persons had pushed her and thereafter, they had brought down
the son (deceased) of P.W.3. He has also stated that he had made
a statement before the police to the effect that his son (deceased)
had climbed down on his own and had fallen down in the lane.
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.1313 of 2017 dt.09-05-2025
In paragraph No. 39 of his cross-examination, P.W.3 has stated
that all the accused persons were related to him.
22. P.W.4 Saroj Singh is a seizure list witness, who has signed
the seizure list prepared by the police on 3.11.2013 at about 8:30
in the night regarding blood-soaked mud and he has identified
his signature made over the same, which has been marked as
Exhibit-2. He has also stated that on 4.11.2013, the police had
recovered bhala (spear) at about 9:30 am in the day time from
the chhajja of the hayhut and thereafter, its seizure list was
prepared over which he had also made his signature, which he
has identified and the same has been marked as Exhibit-2/1. He
has also stated that Sushil Singh had also made his signature
over the same. He has also identified the signature of Sushil
Singh made over the aforesaid two seizure lists, which have
been marked as Exhibit-3 and 3/1.
23. P.W.5 Nandji Singh is the witness of the seizure list of the
bamboo stairs and he has stated in his deposition that the police
personnel had seized the bamboo ladder from the house of
Sudama at about 10:00 am in the morning on 4.11.2013 and
prepared a seizure list over which he had put his signature,
which he has identified and the same has been marked as
Exhibit-4. He has also stated that the seizure list also bears the
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.1313 of 2017 dt.09-05-2025
signature of another witness, namely, Jai Mangal Singh (P.W.2)
and he has identified his signature, which has been marked as
Exhibit-4/A. He has also stated that the deceased is his uncle. In
paragraph No. 3 of his deposition, P.W.4 has stated that the
length of the ladder is about five hands long.
24. P.W.6 Reena Devi is the wife of the deceased and
daughter-in-law of the informant and she has stated in her
deposition that the occurrence dates back to one year and ten
days i.e. 3.11.2013 at about 7:00 pm in the evening when she
along with her daughter and husband was lighting candle on the
roof and at that time all the accused present in the Court, namely
Vijay Singh, Sudama Singh, Ram Tawakya Singh, Sobin Singh,
Arvind Singh, Mannu Singh and Morang Singh had arrived on
the roof by putting a ladder from their roof. Vijay Singh,
Sudama Singh and Sobin Singh were armed with bhala and they
had thrown Santosh Singh on the ground and had engaged in
scuffle. Thereafter, Arvind, Morang and Abhimanyu Singh had
also engaged in scuffle with the husband of P.W.6. P.W.6 has
next stated that Vijay Singh had assaulted her husband on side of
chest by bhala (spear) and then Sobin Singh had assaulted him
by garasa, whereafter Sudama Singh had assaulted her husband
by bhala on his thigh. P.W.6 has next stated that she had then
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.1313 of 2017 dt.09-05-2025
raised an alarm (hulla), whereafter his father-in-law Bhola Singh
had arrived there and then the accused persons had pushed her
resulting in her falling down, whereupon the accused persons
had climbed down the ladder and had jumped and fled away.
The husband of P.W.6 was then taken for treatment in an injured
condition to hospital at Mopti Hospital where he was referred
for better treatment by the Doctor to Ara Sadar Hospital where
he died. She has also stated that since there was land related
dispute with the accused persons, the accused persons have
killed her husband. She had recognized the accused persons
present in the dock except Ram Tawakya Singh.
25. In paragraph No. 13 of her cross-examination, P.W.6 has
stated that when her father-in-law had arrived upon alarm being
raised, all the accused persons had fled away and thereafter, her
father-in-law had disclosed the name of the accused persons. In
paragraph No. 14 of her cross-examination, P.W.6 has stated that
accused Ram Tawakya Singh stays at Badki Kharao and he was
not able to resolve the land dispute in between the parties, hence
his name was also given in the case pertaining to the instant
occurrence. In para No. 17 of her cross-examination, P.W.6 has
stated that on the day of occurrence, crackers were being busted,
however she was not busting cracker and she had
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.1313 of 2017 dt.09-05-2025
climbed down from the roof after five minutes and had come
down at about 7:05 pm and while she was downstairs, she heard
hulla about killing of her husband and her husband had fallen in
the lane where she had seen him, whereafter she had become
unconscious & had regained consciousness after 2 days. She has
also stated that she has not seen any injury on the body of her
husband, however her father-in-law had seen the injury and told
her about it. She has also stated in her cross-examination that
her father-in-law had disclosed about the entire incident to her.
26. P.W.7 Nawal Kishore Singh is relative of the deceased
and is a witness to the fardbeyan. P.W.7 has stated in his
deposition that the occurrence dates back to 3.11.2013 at about
7:00 in the evening, while he was lighting candle at the door of
his house and at that time, he heard alarm regarding assault,
whereafter he saw that a ladder had been erected from the roof
of Vijay Singh to the roof of Santosh Singh. He has also stated
that after he heard about killing and running of some persons, he
stopped in the lane itself and he saw that Morang Singh had
jumped from the roof and Sudama Singh, Vijay Singh, Arvind
Singh, Abhimanyu Singh, Sobin Singh and Tawakya Singh were
climbing down the ladder as also Sudama Singh, Vijay Singh
and Sobin Singh were holding bhala in their hand while other
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.1313 of 2017 dt.09-05-2025
accused persons were holding bhala and barchha (spear like
weapon) in their hand. P.W.7 has further stated that he had heard
Santosh Singh, his father and wife from the roof and had seen
that father and wife of Santosh Singh were holding him as also
bringing him down from the roof and during the course thereof,
Santosh Singh fell at the door of his house. He has also stated
that he had seen injuries on the chest, right thigh and left knee of
Santosh Singh. He has also stated that Santosh was smeared
with blood and blood was falling from his body. He has stated
that after Santosh had fallen down, he saw that Nitesh, Arun,
Shiv Mangal, Hari Mangal, Jai Mangal etc. had loaded Santosh
over a cot and taken him to Mopti from where he was taken to
Ara via Piro and then Santosh had died. He has also stated that
land dispute is existing in between the parties. He had identified
the accused persons standing in the dock.
27. In paragraph No. 13 of his cross-examination, P.W.7 has
stated that it is not a fact that Ram Tawakya Singh had not
arbitrated in between the parties properly and that is why he has
been made an accused. In para No. 15 of his cross-examination,
P.W.7 has stated that at about 6:30 in the evening, he along with
his sister, brother, wife and children were lighting candle and he
had continued lighting candle for about half an hour. He has
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.1313 of 2017 dt.09-05-2025
next stated that it takes about 1-2 minute to come from the door
of his house to the place of occurrence and when he reached at
the place of occurrence, the occurrence was taking place and he
had remained at the place of occurrence for three seconds.
28. In paragraph No. 16 of his cross-examination, P.W.7 has
stated that when he had gone to the place of occurrence, he did
not go up and he had not seen any injury upon him, however
after five minutes at about 7:00 pm, he had seen injury and at
that time, Santosh was lying in the lane. In paragraph No. 17 of
his cross-examination, P.W.7 has stated that after he had reached
the place of occurrence, Chandrama, Budhram Singh, Arun,
Saroj and other co-villagers had arrived there. He has also stated
that he had seen three injuries on the body of Santosh and when
he had seen the injuries, Santosh had fallen down and blood was
oozing out from his body. In paragraph No. 20 of his cross-
examination, P.W.7 has stated that except the accused persons,
he is not on inimical terms with anyone. He has also stated that
in his presence, bhala was recovered from the place of
occurrence, however he has again stated that bhala was
recovered away from the dead body. In paragraph No. 27 of his
cross-examination, P.W.7 has stated that when he reached in the
lane then he saw that Santosh Singh had come from his house to
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.1313 of 2017 dt.09-05-2025
the lane and had fallen down in front of the door of his house
and blood was oozing out in substantial quantity.
29. P.W. 8 Sushil Singh is witness to the seizure list of the
blood-soaked mud. In his deposition, he has stated that the
occurrence dates back to 3.11.2013 at about 7:00-8:00 in the
evening and on the day of occurrence at about 8:30 pm in the
night, the police had seized the blood-soaked mud from the
place of occurrence and had prepared a seizure list on which he
had put his signature as a witness, which he has identified and
the same has been marked as Exhibit-3. He has further stated
that the police had also seized a bhala from the hay hut of
Sudama Singh on 4.11.2013 at about 9:30 am and had prepared
a seizure list over which he had made his signature, which has
already been exhibited as Exhibit-3/1 previously.
30. P.W.9 Dr. Naresh Prasad is the Doctor, who had
conducted postmortem of the dead body of the deceased Santosh
Kumar Sigh at Sadar Hospital Ara on 4.11.2013 at about 11:30
am where he was posted as Medical Officer on duty. He had
found the following ante mortem injuries:-
"Rigor mortis was present & the following injuries were
found:-
(1). Lacerated wound over the upper part of chest left
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.1313 of 2017 dt.09-05-2025
side 1 ½" x 1" x 3" deep with soakage of cloth with
blood.
(2). Lacerated wound over the right thigh size 11/2" x
1" x 4 inch deep.
(3). Lacerated wound over the left knee size 1"x1"x 2"
deep.
On dissection of the dead body of the deceased, Dr.
Naresh Prasad had come to the following findings:-
Skull-brain and meninges are pale.
Chest- there is blood and blood clot found over the left
side of chest cavity, lungs lacerated. Rest is normal.
Heart- Pale and empty.
Abdomen- All viscera are pale. Stomach contains pasty
material.
Bladder contain 2ml of residual urine.
P.W.9 had opined that the time elapsed since death is 6 to
24 hours before examination and the cause of death is
hemorrhage and shock leading to death as a result of above
noted injuries caused by penetrating pointing weapon. P.W.9 has
stated in his deposition that he had prepared the postmortem
report in his writing and had signed the same, which he has
identified and the same has been marked as Exhibit-5. In his
cross-examination, P.W. 9 has stated that all the injuries found
on the body of the deceased are not penetrating wound. He has
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.1313 of 2017 dt.09-05-2025
also stated in his cross-examination that left lung was lacerated
and ribs covering left lung were not injured. In paragraph No. 9
of his cross-examination, P.W. 9 has stated that it is wrong to say
that none of the injuries or any injury was not caused by
penetrating arms and it is correct that lacerated wound may be
caused by hard and blunt substance.
31. P.W. 10 Sunil Kumar Jaiswal is the Investigating Officer
of this case and he has stated in his deposition that on 4.11.2023,
he was posted as S.H.O. of Sikarahta Police Station. He has also
stated that he had registered P.S. Case No. 75 of 2013 on the
basis of fardbeyan of Ramashish Singh @ Bhola Singh and had
assumed investigation of the case. He has also stated that
fardbeyan was scribed by J.S.I. Arun Kumar. He has recognized
the writing of Arun Kumar, which has been marked as Exhibit-6.
P.W.10 has further stated that during the course of investigation,
he had recorded the restatement of the informant, whereafter he
had gone to the place of occurrence and had inspected the place
of occurrence. He has stated that the place of occurrence is
situated near Banwari Mathia under the Sikarahta Police Station.
P.W.10 has also stated that the informant Ramashish Singh @
Bhola Singh has two story pacca house with a roof and adjacent
to it, roof of new pacca single story house is situated. One door
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.1313 of 2017 dt.09-05-2025
of both the houses face towards north and opens in the lane. He
has also stated that the FIR named accused persons had killed
Santosh Kumar Singh in the evening of Diwali festival at about
7:00 pm on the roof of the old two storied house of the informant.
32. P.W.10 has further stated that during the course of
inspection of the two storied house of the informant, he had
found blood spread over the roof and the blood had also fallen
all through the staircase up to the lane. He has also stated that
there is a distance of 3-4 feet in between the house of the
informant and that of the accused persons. P.W.10 has also
described the bhala used in the occurrence and has stated that
the bhala was recovered from the thatched / hay hut of the
accused, which was hidden there and the seizure list was
prepared by J.S.I. Arun Kumar. The said seizure list is in the
writing of Arun Kumar, which has also been signed by him and
the same has been identified by P.W.10 and marked as Exhibit-7.
P.W.10 has also stated that mud soaked with blood and bamboo
ladder from the house of the accused persons was also recovered
and the seizure list of the blood-soaked mud was prepared by
the J.S.I. Arun Kumar, which is in his writing and has also been
signed by him, which P.W.10 has identified and the same has
been marked as Exhibit-7/1. P.W.10 has also stated that the
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.1313 of 2017 dt.09-05-2025
seizure list of ladder is in his writing and has been signed by
him, which he has identified and the same has been marked as
Exhibit-7/2.
33. P.W. 10 Sunil Kumar Jaiswal has also stated that on
4.11.2013 itself, he had recorded the statement of Nawal
Kishore (P.W.7). On 5.11.2013, he had recorded the statement of
witness Hari Mangal Singh (P.W.1). On 6.11.2013, he had given
an application before the Court for sending the seized blood-
soaked mud and bhala to FSL, Patna. On 18.11.2013, he had
sent the seized exhibits to the FSL, Patna for examination.
P.W.10 has also stated that during the course of investigation, he
had examined witness Reena Devi (P.W.6), Jai Mangal (P.W.2)
and Arun Kumar (not examined). P.W. 10 is also stated to have
received the postmortem report of the deceased Santosh Kumar
Singh. P.W.10 has stated that the inquest report of the deceased
Santosh Kumar Singh was prepared at Sadar Hospital, Ara by
J.S.I. Arun Kumar, which has been prepared in his handwriting
as also it has been signed by him, and the same has been
identified by P.W.10, which has been marked as Exhibit-8. P.W.
10 is also stated to have taken photographs of the place of
occurrence, ladder etc., which have been marked as 'X' to
'X/11' series for identification. P.W.10 has also stated that the
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.1313 of 2017 dt.09-05-2025
formal F.I.R. is in his writing, which he has identified and the
same has been marked as Exhibit-9. He has also stated that he
had filed charge-sheet under Section 302/34 against the
appellants and other accused persons on the basis of the
fardbeyan, statement of the witnesses, inspection of the place of
occurrence, articles seized from the place of occurrence and
postmortem report. In his cross-examination, P.W.10 has stated
that prior to registration of the formal F.I.R. on 4.11.2013, he
had not received written information of the occurrence,
however, oral information was received at 7:30 pm on 3.11.2013
and he had gone to the place of occurrence on the same day at
7:30 pm after receiving information about the occurrence.
34. In his cross-examination in paragraph No. 12, P.W.10 has
stated that he had recorded the statement of Hari Mangal Singh
(P.W.1) on 5.11.2013 and the said witness had stated before him
that while worshiping was going on, his wife told him that hulla
is being raised and quarrel is taking place in between Santosh,
accused persons and others, whereafter P.W. 1 had rushed to the
lane, where he saw the accused persons, namely Vijay, Sudama
Singh, Tawakya Singh etc. climbing down the ladder in the lane
and fleeing away. P.W.10 has further stated that P.W.1 had not
stated before him that upon hearing the crying and shout of
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.1313 of 2017 dt.09-05-2025
Ramashish Singh and his daughter-in-law, he understood that
some big occurrence has taken place and that he had seen
Santosh Singh being brought down and falling in the lane,
smeared with blood. P.W.10 has also stated that P.W.1 did not
state before him that thereafter, P.W.1 had gone there, put
Santosh Singh over the cot and taken him to Mopti Bazaar and
that he had seen from the door of his house that Sudama Singh,
Abhimanyu Singh, Vijay Singh, Arvind and others had climbed
the roof of the house of Santosh and all had caught hold of
Santosh as also had assaulted him after catching hold of his
hands and legs and Vijay Singh had assaulted Santosh by bhala
over the upper portion of his chest near the neck and Sudama
had assaulted Sanotsh on the thighs of left leg, whereafter Sobin
Singh had assaulted by farsa on the left leg of Santosh.
35. P.W.10 has further stated that Ramashish Singh (P.W.3)
has stated before him that when his daughter-in-law tried to save
Santosh then the accused persons had pushed her, however P.W.
3 has not stated that afterwards they had brought his son down.
In paragraph No. 20 of his cross-examination, P.W.10 has stated
that the house of the accused persons is situated towards eastern
side of the house of Ramashish Singh. He has also stated that
after the lane, the single-story house of the accused persons is
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.1313 of 2017 dt.09-05-2025
situated towards the northern side. In Paragraph No. 21 of his
cross-examination, P.W. 10 has stated that he had prepared the
sketch map of the place of occurrence in which he had not
mentioned about bloodstains being present at any place of
occurrence. He has also stated that he had not seized blood from
the roof or ladder. In paragraph No. 25 of his cross-examination,
P.W.10 has stated that the height of the second floor from the
first floor of the house of Ramashish Singh is 5 feet. He has also
stated that he did not find any ladder to climb on the second
floor. In para No. 27, P.W. 10 has stated that he had received the
postmortem report on 13.11.2013. In para No. 28, P.W.10 has
stated that at the time of seizing bhala, he had not mentioned as
to whether bloodstains were present over the same or not.
36. P.W. 11 Raj Narain Chaudhary is an advocate clerk, who
has proved the F.S.L. reports dated 5.8.2014 and 10.7.2015
respectively, which have been marked as Exhibit-9 and 10. In
his cross-examination, P.W.11 has stated that neither the
aforesaid F.S.L. reports were prepared in his presence nor
signatures were made over the same in his presence.
37. After closing the prosecution evidence, the learned Trial
Court recorded the statement of the appellants on 05.04.2016
under section 313 of the Cr.P.C. for enabling them to personally
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.1313 of 2017 dt.09-05-2025
explain the circumstances appearing in the evidence against
them, however, they claimed themselves to be innocent.
38. The Trial Court upon appreciation, analysis and scrutiny
of the evidences adduced at the trial has found the aforesaid
appellants guilty of the offences and has sentenced them to
imprisonment and fine, as stated above, by its impugned
judgment and order.
39. We have perused the impugned judgment of the learned
Trial Court, the entire materials on record and have given
thoughtful consideration to the rival submissions made by the
learned counsel for the appellants as well as the learned APP for
the State. The first and foremost aspect, which is required to be
adjudged is as to whether any ocular evidence is available on
record to prove the guilt of the appellants for the offences with
which they have been charged. The prosecution has led the
evidence of P.W.1 Hari Mangal Singh, P.W.2 Jai Mangal Singh,
P.W.3 Ramashish Singh @ Bhola Singh and P.W.6 Reena Devi
as eye-witnesses to the alleged occurrence and based on the
same, the learned Trial Judge has convicted the appellants
whereas the appellants have primarily taken the defense that the
said witnesses are not eye-witnesses and actually none of the
prosecution witnesses have witnessed the commission of the
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.1313 of 2017 dt.09-05-2025
alleged occurrence. In this regard, we find upon perusal of the
evidence of the prosecution that as far as P.W.4 Saroj Singh,
P.W.5 Nandji Singh, P.W.8 Sushil Singh and P.W.11 Raj Narain
Chaudhary are concerned, they are either witnesses to the
seizure list or have identified the two FSL reports but have not
stated anything about the alleged occurrence in their deposition.
40. P.W.9 is Dr. Naresh Prasad who had conducted the
postmortem examination of the dead body of the deceased
Santosh Kumar Singh. As far as P.W.7 Nawal Kishore Singh is
concerned, he is admittedly not an eye-witness, inasmuch as he
has stated in his evidence that after he had heard about killing of
the deceased he had stopped in the lane where he saw that the
father and wife of the deceased were holding and bringing down
the deceased from the roof whereafter, the deceased fell at the
door of his house, apart from the fact that P.W.2 Jai Mangal
Singh has stated that after he had reached the place of
occurrence he found the deceased lying in the lane and
thereafter, P.W.7 Nawal Kishore Singh and P.W.8 Sushil Singh
had arrived there, hence obviously P.W.7 Nawal Kishore Singh
is not an eye-witness to the alleged occurrence. P.W.10 Sunil
Kumar Jaiswal is the Investigating Officer of the present case,
hence obviously he is not an eye-witness to the alleged
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.1313 of 2017 dt.09-05-2025
occurrence nor he claims to be so. Hence, we are left with P.W.1
Hari Mangal Singh, P.W.2 Jai Mangal Singh, P.W.3 Ramashish
Singh @ Bhola Singh and P.W.6 Reena Devi. As far as P.W.1
Hari Mangal Singh is concerned, he has though stated in his
examination-in-chief that he had seen from the ground floor of
his house that the accused persons had climbed the roof of the
house of the deceased by putting a ladder and then the Appellant
No.1 of the first case, the sole appellant of the second case and
Sobin Singh had assaulted the deceased by bhala (spear) and
garasa on chest and thighs, however in his cross-examination,
he has stated that he had stated before the police that he heard
the noise of crying of Ramashish Singh @ Bhola Singh
(informant) and his daughter-in-law from the roof and then he
could understand that some big incident has taken place,
whereafter he went in the lane in question and saw that the
deceased had fallen down there after climbing down the stairs of
his house and was drenched with blood but P.W.10 Sunil Kumar
Jaiswal (Investigating Officer), upon being confronted with the
statement of P.W.1 Hari Mangal Singh, has stated that he had
recorded the statement of P.W.1 Hari Mangal Singh on
5.11.2013, however P.W.1 had not stated before him that upon
hearing the cry and shouting of Ramashish Singh @ Bhola Singh and his
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.1313 of 2017 dt.09-05-2025
daughter-in-law, he understood that some big occurrence has
taken place, whereafter he had seen Santosh Kumar Singh being
brought down, who then fell in the lane as also P.W.1 had not
stated before him that the appellants and others had climbed the
roof of the house of Santosh, they had caught hold of him and
assaulted him badly by bhala (spear) & farsa. Thus, we find that
material contradictions have been elicited by the defense, as far
as P.W.1 Hari Mangal Singh is concerned, hence he can neither
be stated to be an eye-witness nor is a trustworthy witness.
41. Now coming to P.W. 2 Jai Mangal Singh, he has stated in
his evidence that he was on the roof of his house, it was a dark
night and after hearing noise he had come down from the roof
and while going to the house of the deceased he had met 4-5
persons and when he reached at the place of occurrence, he
found the deceased lying in the lane. Thus, P.W.2 Jai Mangal
Singh is also apparently not an eye-witness. As regards P.W.3
Ramashish Singh (informant), he has stated in his evidence that
he was worshiping on the ground floor while the deceased and
his wife were lighting candle on the second floor as also he has
stated that when he reached the roof, assault was not taking
place. In fact, P.W.6 Reena Devi has also stated in her evidence
that when her father-in-law arrived on the roof all the accused
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.1313 of 2017 dt.09-05-2025
persons had fled away and then he had disclosed the names of
the accused. Thus, P.W.3 Ramashish Singh @ Bhola Singh
(informant) has also not witnessed the alleged occurrence. Now
coming to P.W.6 Reena Devi, she has herself stated in her
evidence that she had come down from the roof at 7:05 pm and
when she was downstairs, she heard hulla (alarm) regarding
killing of her husband and him having fallen in the lane,
whereafter she had gone there and seen her husband having
fallen in the lane, whereupon she became unconscious and
regained consciousness after two days and the entire incident
was disclosed to her by her father-in-law, hence P.W.6 Reena
Devi is also not an eye-witness to the alleged occurrence. Thus,
all the aforesaid witnesses i.e. P.W.1 Hari Mangal Singh, P.W.2
Jai Mangal Singh, P.W.3 Ramashish Singh & P.W.6 Reena Devi
are definitely not eye-witnesses to the alleged occurrence.
42. Now coming to the issue as to whether the place of
occurrence itself has been established or not, we find that it is
the case of the prosecution that the occurrence took place on the
roof of the house of the informant but P.W.1 Hari Mangal Singh
had found the deceased lying in the lane, after he had arrived
there upon being told by his wife that alarm is being raised to
the effect that quarrel is taking place in between the deceased
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.1313 of 2017 dt.09-05-2025
and the accused persons, while P.W.2 Jai Mangal Singh has also
stated to have reached the place of occurrence after hearing
noise / hulla and had found the deceased lying in the lane, apart
from P.W.6 Reena Devi having also stated in her evidence that
when she was downstairs she heard hulla about killing of her
husband and he having fallen down in the lane, whereafter she
went there and saw that her husband was lying in the lane and
even, P.W.7 Nawal Kishore Singh had found the deceased to
have fallen at the door of his house in the lane, although P.W.3
Ramashish Singh @ Bhola Singh has stated in his evidence that
he had himself seen the accused persons climbing on the roof by
means of a ladder and there the deceased was assaulted by the
accused persons, however in his cross-examination he has stated
that he was worshiping on the ground floor and after hulla being
raised when he reached the roof, assault was not taking place
and in fact, P.W.6 Reena Devi has stated in her evidence that her
father-in-law had arrived there after all the accused persons had
fled away. Moreover, P.W.10 Sunil Kumar Jaiswal (Investigating
Officer) has admitted that no blood was either seized from the
roof or the ladder. Thus, neither there is any ocular nor
documentary evidence nor any corroborative evidence to prove
the claim of the prosecution that the place of occurrence is the
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.1313 of 2017 dt.09-05-2025
roof of the house of the informant, much less the roof of the
second floor of the house of the informant, hence we are of the
view that the prosecution has failed to establish the place of
occurrence, as has been described in the prosecution's story, thus
the same is fatal to the case of the prosecution. It is a well
settled law that proving the place of occurrence is material and
failure of the prosecution to prove the same is fatal to the case of
the prosecution. Reference in this regard be had to a judgment
rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Syed Ibrahim
vs. State of A.P., reported in (2006) 10 SCC 601, paragraph no.
11 whereof is reproduced herein below:-
"11. In the background of principles set out above
............. He has indicated four different places to be the
place of occurrence. In his examination-in-chief he stated
that the occurrence took place in his house. In the cross-
examination he stated that the incident took place at the
house of his wife, the deceased's mother. This is a very
important factor considering the undisputed position and
in fact the admission of PW 1 that he and his wife were
separated nearly two decades ago, and that he was not on
visiting terms with his wife. Then the question would
automatically arise as to how in spite of strained
relationship he could have seen the occurrence as alleged
in the house of his wife. That is not the end of the matter.
In his cross-examination he further stated that the
incident happened in the small lane in front of the house
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.1313 of 2017 dt.09-05-2025
of his wife. This is at clear variance with the statement
that the occurrence took place inside the house where
allegedly he, the deceased, his son, PW 2 and daughters,
PWs 3 and 6 were present. That is not the final say of the
witness. He accepted that in the FIR (Ext. P-1) he had
stated the place of occurrence to be the house of the
deceased. Though the FIR is not a substantive evidence
yet, the same can be used to test the veracity of the
witness. PW 1 accepted that what was stated in the FIR
was correct. When the place of occurrence itself has not
been established it would not be proper to accept the
prosecution version."
43. As far as medial evidence is concerned, we find from a
bare perusal of the postmortem report that all the three ante
mortem injuries found on the dead body of the deceased are
lacerated wounds and no incised / penetrating injury has been
found, especially the ribs covering the left lung have also not
been found to have been injured, thus apparently the injuries
suffered by the deceased are not attributable to any sort of
assault made upon the deceased by bhala (spear) or garasa.
Thus, apparently the ocular evidence led by the prosecution is
totally at variance with the medical evidence, which amounts to
a fundamental defect in the case of the prosecution, hence in
such cases ocular evidence is required to be disbelieved,
especially in view of the fact that the evidence led by the
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.1313 of 2017 dt.09-05-2025
prosecution goes to suggest that Appellant No. 1 of the first case
had assaulted the deceased by bhala and caused piercing injury
on his body whereas the sole appellant of the second case had
also assaulted the deceased by bhala on his right thigh and left
leg causing piercing injuries, however on the contrary the
medical evidence, as aforesaid makes the ocular testimony
improbable. Reference in this connection be had to a judgment
rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of
Gangabhavani vs. Rayapati Venkat Reddy & Ors., reported in
2013 (15) SCC 298, paragraphs no. 11 and 12 whereof are
reproduced herein below:-
"11. It is a settled legal proposition that where the
evidence of the witnesses for the prosecution is totally
inconsistent with the medical evidence or the evidence of
the ballistics expert, it amounts to a fundamental defect in
the prosecution case and unless it is reasonably explained
may discredit the entire case of the prosecution. However,
the opinion given by a medical witness need not be the
last word on the subject. Such an opinion is required to be
tested by the court. If the opinion is bereft of logic or
objectivity, the court is not obliged to go by that opinion.
After all an opinion is what is formed in the mind of a
person regarding a particular fact situation. If one doctor
forms one opinion and another doctor forms a different
opinion on the same facts, it is open to the Judge to adopt
the view which is more objective or probable. Similarly, if
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.1313 of 2017 dt.09-05-2025
the opinion given by one doctor is not consistent or
probable, the court has no liability to go by that opinion
merely because it is given by the doctor.
"34. ... 'it would be erroneous to accord undue
primacy to the hypothetical answers of medical
witnesses to exclude the eyewitnesses' account which
had to be tested independently and not treated as the
"variable" keeping the medical evidence as the
"constant" '.
35. Where the eyewitnesses' account is found
credible and trustworthy, a medical opinion pointing
to alternative possibilities cannot be accepted as
conclusive. The eyewitnesses' account requires a
careful independent assessment and evaluation for
its credibility, which should not be adversely
prejudged on the basis of any other evidence,
including medical evidence, as the sole touchstone
for the test of such credibility."
(Vide Ram Narain Singh v. State of Punjab [(1975) 4
SCC 497], State of Haryana v. Bhagirath [(1999) 5
SCC 96], Abdul Sayeed v. State of M.P. [(2010) 10
SCC 259], SCC p. 273, paras 34-35
and Rakesh v. State of M.P. [(2011) 9 SCC 698] )
12. Thus, the position of law in cases where there is a
contradiction between medical evidence and ocular
evidence stands crystallised to the effect that though the
ocular testimony of a witness has greater evidentiary
value vis-à-vis medical evidence, when medical evidence
makes the ocular testimony improbable, that becomes a
relevant factor in the process of the evaluation of
evidence. However, where the medical evidence goes so
far that it completely rules out all possibility of the ocular
evidence being true, the ocular evidence may be
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.1313 of 2017 dt.09-05-2025
disbelieved."
44. Thus, taking into account an overall perspective of the
entire case, emerging out of the totality of the facts and
circumstances, as indicated hereinabove and having perused the
entire evidence on record, we find that the prosecution witnesses
i.e. P.W.1 Hari Mangal Singh, P.W.2 Jai Mangal Singh, P.W.3
Ramashish Singh @ Bhola Singh and P.W.6 Reena Devi, who
claim themselves to be eye-witnesses of the alleged occurrence
are apparently not eye-witnesses to the alleged occurrence, in
light of the analysis of their evidence in the preceding
paragraphs herein above, apart from the fact that the case as set
up by the prosecution to the effect that the occurrence took place
on the roof of the house of the informant has not stood
established from the evidence led by the prosecution, as is
apparent from the discussion made hereinabove and moreover,
the ocular evidence is wholly inconsistent with the medical
evidence and the medical evidence completely rules out the
possibility of the ocular evidence led by the prosecution
pertaining to infliction of injuries upon the deceased by bhala
(spear) and garasa being true leading to fundamental defect in
the case of the prosecution and the same being rendered
improbable, hence we find that the prosecution has failed to
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.1313 of 2017 dt.09-05-2025
prove beyond all reasonable doubts the commission of the
offence by the appellants. Therefore, we find that the learned
Trial Judge has committed a gross error in holding that the
prosecution has produced reliable and cogent evidence in
support of the charges framed against the aforesaid appellants
and has proved the case beyond all reasonable doubts by the
testimonies of P.W. 1 to P.W.7 and P.W.9, as corroborated by the
documentary evidences. Thus, in the facts and circumstances as
discussed hereinabove and for the foregoing reasons, we are of
the view that there are compelling reasons in the present case,
which necessitates that the appellants of the aforesaid two
appeals be given the benefit of doubt.
45. Accordingly, we find that the findings of conviction
recorded by the learned Trial Court, in our opinion, is not
sustainable and requires interference. Therefore, the judgment of
conviction dated 25.8.2017 and the order of sentence dated
29.8.2017, passed by the learned Court of 2nd Additional
Sessions Judge, Bhojpur at Ara, in Sessions Trial No. 83 of 2014
(arising out of Sikarahta P.S. Case No. 75 of 2013) are set aside.
The appellants of the aforesaid two appeals are acquitted of the
charges levelled against them.
46. The Appellant No. 1 of the first case i.e. Criminal Appeal
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.1313 of 2017 dt.09-05-2025
(DB) No. 1313 of 2017, namely Vijay Singh and the sole
appellant of the 2nd case i.e. Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 1312 of
2017, namely Sudama Singh, who are in custody are directed to
be released from jail forthwith unless required in any other case.
47. As far as the Appellant No. 2 of the first case i.e. Criminal
Appeal (DB) No. 1313 of 2017, namely Abhimanyu Singh, is
concerned, he is already on bail, hence he is discharged from the
liability of his bail bonds.
48. Accordingly, the aforesaid two appeals i.e. Criminal
Appeal (DB) No. 1313 of 2017 and Criminal Appeal (DB) No.
1312 of 2017 stand allowed.
(Mohit Kumar Shah, J)
(Soni Shrivastava, J), I agree.
(Soni Shrivastava, J)
Ajay/-
AFR/NAFR AFR
CAV DATE 21.03.2025
Uploading Date 09.05.2025
Transmission Date 09.05.2025
