Patna High Court
The State Of Bihar vs Shashi Bhushan Pal on 5 May, 2025
Author: Sunil Dutta Mishra
Bench: Sunil Dutta Mishra
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
GOVT. APPEAL (DB) No.1 of 2024
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-487 Year-2022 Thana- JAGDISHPUR District- Bhojpur
======================================================
The State Of Bihar
... ... Appellant/s
Versus
1. Shashi Bhushan Pal SON OF SHRI HEERA LAL PAL Resident of Village
-Peelapur, P.S. - Jagdishpur, District - Bhojpur
2. INDRAJEET PAL @ AJEET PAL SON OF SHRI SHIV PERSON PAL
Resident of Village -Peelapur, P.S. - Jagdishpur, District - Bhojpur
3. RAMJEET PAL SON OF SHIV PERSON PAL Resident of Village
-Peelapur, P.S. - Jagdishpur, District - Bhojpur
4. AMARJEET PAL @ CHHOTU SON OF SHRI SHIV PERSON PAL
Resident of Village -Peelapur, P.S. - Jagdishpur, District - Bhojpur
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the State : Mr. Abhimanyu Sharma, A.P.P.
For the Respondent/s : Mr.
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE VIPUL M. PANCHOLI
and
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL DUTTA MISHRA
ORAL JUDGMENT
(Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE VIPUL M. PANCHOLI)
Date : 05-05-2025
The State has preferred the present appeal under Section
378(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter
referred to as the 'Code') against the judgment and order dated
10.01.2024
rendered by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-
IIIrd, Bhojpur at Ara in Sessions Trial No. 286 of 2023 (arising out
of Jagdishpur P.S. Case No. 487 of 2022) for the offences
registered under Section 307 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal
Patna High Court G. APP. (DB) No.1 of 2024 dt.05-05-2025
Code (hereinafter referred to as 'I.P.C.') to which, later on Section
302 of I.P.C was also added and under Section 27 of the Arms Act,
whereby the learned Trial Court has acquitted all the four accused
i.e. Respondent Nos. 1 to 4, who were facing the trial.
2. The prosecution story is based on the
fardbeyan of the informant, namely, Meera Kumari who has been
examined as PW-4 in course of trial. In her fardbeyan recorded on
01.10.2022 at 13:45 hours (afternoon) by one Pramod Kumar
Tiwari, Sub-Inspector of Police, Shastri Nagar Police Station, she
alleged that on 30.09.2022 at about 10:00 P.M. in the night, the
informant heard the sound of firing coming from the dalan and
when she went there, she saw (1) Amarjeet Pal @ Chotu (2)
Ramjeet Pal, (3) Indrajeet Pal, all three sons of Shiv Person Pal
and (4) Shashi Bhushan Pal, son of Heera Lal Pal were fleeing
away from the dalan. She further alleged that when the informant
went inside the dalan, she saw her father's elder brother was
restless and was in a pool of blood. When she shouted, the people
assembled there and they took him to Sadar Hospital, Ara for
treatment where after treatment he was referred to Paras Hospital,
Patna for better treatment. It is further alleged that the reason of
this occurrence is that eight days ago, when the work of boundary
wall of her dalan was going on, then Shiv Person Pal with his
Patna High Court G. APP. (DB) No.1 of 2024 dt.05-05-2025
three sons came there armed with lathi-danda and started abusing
and stopped the work. They had also threatened them of dire
consequences if they start the work of boundary wall. The
informant alleged that with an intention to usurp the land, the said
accused persons had shot at her elder father in his abdomen.
3. On the basis of the said fardbeyan, Jagdishpur
P.S. Case No. 487 of 2022 dated 01.10.2022 was initially
registered under Section 307/34 IPC and Section 27 of the Arms
Act but after death of the injured Hare Ram Pal, Section 302 IPC
has been added vide order dated 02.11.2022. The copy of FIR was
received in the court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Incharge
on 11.10.2022 i.e. after 10 days of the registration of the FIR.
4. On completion of investigation, police
submitted a chargesheet bearing Chargesheet No. 654 of 2022
dated 31.12.2022 against four accused persons, namely (1)
Amarjeet Pal, (2) Ramjeet Pal, (3) Indrajeet Pal, all three sons of
Shiv Person Pal and (4) Shashi Bhushan Pal, son of Heera Lal Pal.
After filing of the chargesheet, the learned Additional Chief
Judicial Magistrate-1st Court, Ara took cognizance of the offences
under Section 302 I.P.C. read with Section 34 and Section 27 of
the Arms Act. Finding that the offences are triable by the court of
Sessions, the records were committed to the court of Sessions vide
Patna High Court G. APP. (DB) No.1 of 2024 dt.05-05-2025
order dated 16.05.2023 whereafter Sessions Trial No. 286 of 2023
was registered.
5. On 08.08.2023, the charges were explained to
the accused persons, they denied the charges and claimed to be
tried. The learned trial court framed the charges against the
accused persons under Sections 302 and 34 I.P.C. and an
additional charge under Section 27 of the Arms Act. The accused
persons were put to trial.
6. In course of trial, the prosecution produced as
many as ten witnesses. They also produced some documentary
evidences which have been marked Exhibit '1' to '7/B'. The
defence did not produce any oral or documentary evidence. The
complete description of the prosecution witnesses and the exhibits
marked on behalf of the prosecution are being mentioned
hereunder in a tabular form:-
List of Prosecution Witnesses:-
P.W. 1 Soni Kumari
P.W. 2 Subhanti Devi
P.W. 3 Raj Kokil Pal
P.W. 4 Meera Kumari, Informant of this case
P.W. 5 Hewanti Kumari
P.W. 6 Durjan Pal
P.W. 7 Ravindra Kumar Pal
P.W. 8 Raj Kishor Singh
P.W. 9 Dr. Arvind Kumar Singh, doctor who conducted
autopsy of the deceased Hare Ram Pal
Patna High Court G. APP. (DB) No.1 of 2024 dt.05-05-2025
P.W. 10 Dr. Md. Kasim
List of Exhibits produced on behalf of the Prosecution:-
Exhibit '1' Signature of informant Meera Kumari on fardbeyan
Exhibit '2' Signature of informant Meera Kumari on protest
complaint petition
Exhibit '3' Signature of Ravindra Kumar Pal on fardbeyan as a
witness
Exhibit '4' Signature of S.H.O. Sanjeev Kumar at the
endorsement of fardbeyan
Exhibit '5' Signature of S.H.O. Sanjeev Kumar on formal F.I.R.,
Exhibit '6' Charge-sheet
Exhibit '7' Post-mortem report of the deceased Hare Ram Pal
Exhibit '7/A' Mark on post-mortem report by Dr. Arvind Kumar
Singh
Exhibit '7/B' Signature of Dr. Md. Kasim on post-mortem report.
7. Heard Mr. Abhimanyu Sharma, learned A.P.P.
for the appellant-State.
8. Learned A.P.P., at the outset, contended that the
informant Meera Kumari, niece of the deceased, had preferred
Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 198 of 2024 under Section 372 of the
Code, wherein the said appellant/victim challenged the very same
judgment and order rendered by the learned Trial Court. It is
submitted that the Coordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated
24.09.2024, after considering the entire evidence led by the
prosecution, dismissed the appeal filed by the informant/victim.
Learned A.P.P. has placed on record the order dated 24.09.2024
Patna High Court G. APP. (DB) No.1 of 2024 dt.05-05-2025
passed by the Coordinate Bench of this Court in Criminal Appeal
(DB) No. 198 of 2024.
9. We have perused the material placed on record
as well as the order dated 24.09.2024 passed by this Court in the
aforesaid Criminal Appeal preferred by the informant/victim. This
Court has discussed the evidence led by the prosecution in detail
and thereafter observed in Para-27 to 34 as under:-
"27. We find that while in her fardbeyan she has
stated that she shouted and thereafter the people assembled
but in her examination-in-chief, she has stated that prior to
her reaching there, her father had already reached there and
her sister and mother were there, they had gone there with the
food. This, in the opinion of this Court, is a material
improvement on the part of PW-4 in course of her evidence
and she has only tried to introduce her mother, sister and
father as witnesses to the occurrence.
28. This Court finds that PW-4 has claimed in her
examination-in-chief that her mother and sister had seen the
murder of her elder father (uncle). From her statement itself,
it is evident that she does not claim herself an eyewitness to
the occurrence. In her cross-examination, she has stated that
it takes ten minutes from her house in reaching to the dalan.
She has stated in paragraph '10' of her cross-examination
that when she started from her door, on way, Ramjeet Pal,
Indrajeet Pal, Amarjeet Pal and Shashi Bhushan Pal met her.
They had met her at a distance of 150 yards from her door
and she has further stated that when she reached at her dalan,
at that time four persons were there. Thus, her claim to have
seen the accused person fleeing from dalan does not inspire
confidence. She has stated that after her reaching to the
dalan, the villagers Radheshyam Pal, Jamuna Yadav, Kamlesh
Patna High Court G. APP. (DB) No.1 of 2024 dt.05-05-2025
Yadav and many other persons had assembled. This Court
finds that those co-villagers who have been named by PW-4
have not been examined in this case. Radheshyam Pal whose
house is adjacent to the dalan has not been introduced as a
witness in this case. PW-4 has stated that no one who is in the
boundary of the dalan had reached there. She had made a
phone call to police from mobile no. 9905794872. She has
stated that she and her younger father had taken her elder
father to Arah. When she reached Arah, she had not given any
information to her family members and they had also not
given any information as to whether Mukhiya, Sarpanch or
Police had come in the village. In paragraph '16' of her cross-
examination, she has stated that on the verandah, other male
persons used to sleep apart from her elder father but on that
day, nobody was there. She was suggested that this is a false
case and for that reason, the son, daughter-in-law and wife of
the deceased have not deposed. From the deposition of PW-4,
it would appear that she claims to have reached the place of
occurrence and on way she had heard the firing which was
not the case in the fardbeyan and for this reason, she was also
suggested by the defence that in her statement before police,
she had stated that after hearing sound of firing in the night,
she had gone to the dalan. She was suggested by the defence
that she was in female portion (Janani Kita) of the house in
the night of the occurrence.
29. This Court further finds from the evidence of
PW-1 who is the sister of PW-4 that she claims her presence
at the place of occurrence with her mother. She has stated that
she and her mother had hidden themselves behind the wall
and had seen the occurrence in which Shashi Bhushan Pal,
Amarjeet Pal and Indrajeet Pal said that the deceased was
sleeping, they ordered to kill whereon Amarjeet fired on her
elder father. PW-1 has stated that after the murder, she had
raised hulla, her father was coming after irrigating his field
had also heard the sound of firing and thereafter, Meera
Patna High Court G. APP. (DB) No.1 of 2024 dt.05-05-2025
Kumari (PW-4), Hewanti Kumari (PW-5) and her father (PW-
4) came and saw the accused persons. In her cross-
examination in paragraph '4', she has stated that in Janani
Kitta, female members are residing, male members stay at
dalan. On the date of occurrence, in the Janani Kitta, her two
sisters PW-5 and PW-4 were there. She was not there in the
Janani Kitta and on the date of occurrence, she was at her
dalan. She has stated that there is no main gate in her dalan.
In paragraph '8' of her cross-examination, PW-1 has stated
that after the occurrence, she and her mother raised hulla.
She has categorically stated that Meera Kumari (PW-4) who
had lodged the case had not raised hulla. On hulla, the
neighbours from the village had come there. She has admitted
in paragraph '11' of her cross-examination that her statement
is different from the statement of Meera Kumari. She was not
present when her sister had made the statement. In paragraph
'12' of her deposition, she has denied the suggestion that she
had told police that she was supporting statement of Meera
Kumari. She was also suggested that she had stated before
police that she heard the sound of firing when she was at some
distance from the dalan. From the evidence of PW-1, it is
clear that her testimony differs with the evidence of the
informant and she herself has denied the suggestion to have
made statement before police that she supported the statement
of the informant.
30. This Court finds from the evidence of Subhanti
Devi (PW-2) that in her examination-in-chief though she has
supported the prosecution case on similar line but in
paragraph '10' of her cross-examination, she has
categorically stated that she had not seen any occurrence.
From her deposition it is evident that the claim of the
informant (PW-4) that her mother had seen the occurrence is
not supported by her mother (PW-2). PW-2 has stated that the
deceased was her bhaishur, he has three sons namely
Rabindra Pal, Munna Pal and Deepak Pal. On the date of
Patna High Court G. APP. (DB) No.1 of 2024 dt.05-05-2025
occurrence, her daughter and daughter-in-law were not there.
She was suggested that there was no enmity between the
accused and the informant which this witness has denied. It is
evident from her evidence that this witness has stated that she
was cleaning utensils at the hand pump. She has herself stated
that she had not seen any occurrence.
31. Learned counsel for the appellant has relied
upon the evidence of PW-1, PW-2 and PW-4 as according to
him, the whole prosecution case rests upon their evidence, the
trial court has noticed the inconsistencies and contradictions
in the evidence of these witnesses. This Court has too pointed
out the contradictions hereinabove. We are of the considered
opinion that the learned trial court has not committed any
error in appreciating the evidence of PW-1, PW-2 and PW-4.
In our opinion, these witnesses were not present at the place
of occurrence, the occurrence took place in the night hours at
10:00 pm. The female members of the family were living in the
Janani Kitta and the distance between Janani Kitta and the
dalan is said to be a ten minutes walk, therefore it was not
only the darkness of night, the claim of the prosecution
witnesses that they had seen the accused persons from some
distance would not be believable. Neither the source of
identity has been stated by the prosecution witnesses nor the
source of light has at all been mentioned either by the I.O. or
these prosecution witnesses.
32. We have noticed from the postmortem report of
the deceased that the Doctor (PW-9) has found as many as
five injuries on his body and those were on different parts of
the body. The injuries noticed by PW-9 are being reproduced
hereunder for a ready reference:-
"(1) Stitched wound 26 cm long
along with 11 stitches (Metallic)
present on front of abdomen at mid
line, 4 cm below xiphisternum.
Patna High Court G. APP. (DB) No.1 of 2024 dt.05-05-2025
(2) Stitched wound 4 cm long
alongwith 3 stitches present on lt.
side of abdomen, 8 cm lateral to
injury no.1.
(3) Stitched septic wound 5 cm long
along with 3 stitches present on Rt.
side of abdomen, 12 cm lateral to
injury no.1
(4) Stitched wound 5 cm long along
with 4 stitches present on mid back,
15 cm above from sacral region.
(5) Septic wound 6 cm x 4 cm
present on lower back at sacral
region. Pus, slough present in
wound."
33. In his cross-examination, PW-9, who is a
Child Specialist Doctor, has stated that he cannot say
anything about the age of the injury, he cannot say that what
kind of bullet it was and whether the injury was grievous or
not may be said only by the doctor who had conducted the
operation. PW-9 has further stated that he cannot say that
what kind of injury it was and whether it was caused by short
gun or long gun. He has stated that he had not found any
pellet of the bullet and the cause of death was septicemia. PW-
9 is a child specialist of SPM Civil Hospital, Lucknow. We
have noticed that the deceased was firstly taken to Sadar
Hospital, Ara and then he was being treated for 16-17 days in
the Paras Hospital at Patna but curiously enough the medical
papers of the treatment given to the deceased in Sadar
Hospital, Ara and Paras Hospital, Patna have been withheld
by the prosecution. The doctors of Sadar Hospital and Paras
Hospital have not been examined in this case. From the
postmortem report it is not clear as to what kind of injuries
Patna High Court G. APP. (DB) No.1 of 2024 dt.05-05-2025
was suffered by the deceased and whether those were firearm
injuries.
34. In the light of the discussions made
hereinabove, as we have noticed that the prosecution
witnesses are not consistent with regard to their presence at
the place of occurrence and the description of the place of
occurrence given by the prosecution witnesses particularly
PW-4 differs with the description given by the I.O. (PW-8), we
find it important to take note of the inordinate delay in
lodging of the FIR and then sending it to the court of learned
jurisdictional Magistrate. It is evident that the FIR has been
lodged after the son of the deceased reached Patna. The
prosecution kept on waiting for his arrival and for that reason
the Jagdishpur Police Station did not record any fardbeyan or
FIR on its own even though information with regard to the
occurrence was given by PW-4 through her mobile phone. The
prosecution kept on deliberating with regard to the names
which are to be given in the FIR and only after deliberation,
the fardbeyan was recorded on 01.10.2022 at 13:45 hours.
The FIR was registered on 22:10 hours but then it was sent to
the jurisdictional court only after ten days. We find from the
last page of the formal FIR that there is a specific column
meant for giving the date and time of dispatch of FIR to the
jurisdictional court, it is the requirement of Section 157
CrPC. No information has been mentioned in this column in
the formal FIR. We are reminded of the judgment of the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Meharaj Singh (supra)
(paragraph '12') which reads as under:-
"12. FIR in a criminal case and
particularly in a murder case is a vital and valuable
piece of evidence for the purpose of appreciating the
evidence led at the trial. The object of insisting upon
prompt lodging of the FIR is to obtain the earliest
information regarding the circumstance in which the
crime was committed, including the names of the
Patna High Court G. APP. (DB) No.1 of 2024 dt.05-05-2025
actual culprits and the parts played by them, the
weapons, if any, used, as also the names of the
eyewitnesses, if any. Delay in lodging the FIR often
results in embellishment, which is a creature of an
afterthought. On account of delay, the FIR not only
gets bereft of the advantage of spontaneity, danger
also creeps in of the introduction of a coloured version
or exaggerated story. With a view to determine
whether the FIR was lodged at the time it is alleged to
have been recorded, the courts generally look for
certain external checks. One of the checks is the
receipt of the copy of the FIR, called a special report
in a murder case, by the local Magistrate. If this report
is received by the Magistrate late it can give rise to an
inference that the FIR was not lodged at the time it is
alleged to have been recorded, unless, of course the
prosecution can offer a satisfactory explanation for the
delay in despatching or receipt of the copy of the FIR
by the local Magistrate. Prosecution has led no
evidence at all in this behalf. The second external
check equally important is the sending of the copy of
the FIR along with the dead body and its reference in
the inquest report. Even though the inquest report,
prepared under Section 174 CrPC, is aimed at serving
a statutory function, to lend credence to the
prosecution case, the details of the FIR and the gist of
statements recorded during inquest proceedings get
reflected in the report. The absence of those details is
indicative of the fact that the prosecution story was
still in an embryo state and had not been given any
shape and that the FIR came to be recorded later on
after due deliberations and consultations and was then
ante-timed to give it the colour of a promptly lodged
FIR. In our opinion, on account of the infirmities as
noticed above, the FIR has lost its value and
Patna High Court G. APP. (DB) No.1 of 2024 dt.05-05-2025
authenticity and it appears to us that the same has
been ante-timed and had not been recorded till the
inquest proceedings were over at the spot by PW 8."
10. When inquired, learned A.P.P., under the
instruction, submitted that the said appellant/informant/victim has
not challenged the order dated 24.09.2024 passed by this Court in
the aforesaid Criminal Appeal till today. Thus, when the same
judgment and order rendered by the learned Trial Court has not
been interfered by this Court and when the said order has attained
finality, we are of the view that the present appeal is also required
to be dismissed. We have also independently examined the
evidence led by the prosecution and we are of the view that the
learned Trial Court has not committed any error while passing the
impugned judgment and order.
11. Accordingly, the present appeal stands
dismissed.
(Vipul M. Pancholi, J)
(Sunil Dutta Mishra, J)
Sachin/-
AFR/NAFR
CAV DATE N.A.
Uploading Date 06.05.2025
Transmission Date 06.05.2025
