Patna High Court
Mansi Yadav And Ors vs The State Of Bihar on 1 May, 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL APPEAL (SJ) No.19 of 2012
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-171 Year-2005 Thana- BIHIA District- Bhojpur
======================================================
1. Mansi Yadav and ORS. S/O Chait Yadav Resident Of Village- Englishpur,
Police Station- Behea, District- Bhojpur
2. Jag Mohan Yadav S/O Chait Yadav Resident Of Village- Englishpur, Police
Station- Behea, District- Bhojpur
3. Lalpati Yadav S/O Jag Mohan Yadav Resident Of Village- Englishpur,
Police Station- Behea, District- Bhojpur
4. Rampati Yadav S/O Jag Mohan Yadav Resident Of Village- Englishpur,
Police Station- Behea, District- Bhojpur
5. Nandji Yadav S/O Jag Mohan Yadav Resident Of Village- Englishpur, Police
Station- Behea, District- Bhojpur
6. Laldeo Yadav S/O Munsi Yadav Resident Of Village- Englishpur, Police
Station- Behea, District- Bhojpur
7. Rajnath Yadav S/O Lalan Yadav Resident Of Village- Englishpur, Police
Station- Behea, District- Bhojpur
... ... Appellant/s
Versus
The State Of Bihar
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Appellant/s : Mr. Bari S.R.P. Sinha, Senior Advocate
: Mr. Brajesh Prasad Gupta, Advocate
: Mr. Rahul Nath, Advocate
For the Respondent/s : Mr. A.M.P Mehta, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAMESH CHAND
MALVIYA
ORAL JUDGMENT
Date: 01-05-2025
Heard Mr. Baxi S.R.P. Sinha, learned counsel for
the appellants assisted by Mr. Brajesh Prasad Gupta, Advocate
and Mr. Rahul Nath, Advocate and Mr. A.M.P. Mehta, learned
counsel for the State.
2. The present appeal has been filed under
Section 374(2) of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.19 of 2012 dt.01-05-2025
2/27
(hereinafter referred as 'Cr.P.C') challenging the judgment of
conviction dated 20.12.2011 and order of sentence dated
22.12.2011
passed in Sessions Trial Case No. 195 of 2006/433
of 2006 arising out of Bihiya P.S. Case No. 171 of 2005 passed
by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-I, Bhojpur, Ara,
whereby and where-under the appellant has been convicted for
the offence punishable under Sections 304/149 of the Indian
Penal Code (hereinafter referred as 'IPC') and had been
sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 7 years under
Sections 304/149 of the IPC along with fine of Rs. 5,000 and on
non-payment of fine further sentenced to one-month rigorous
imprisonment.
3. As per the prosecution story, the informant
recorded his fardbeyan on 23.12.2005 at about 7.00 am, the
informant got information that Jagmohan Yadav, the accused,
was digging the foundation by laying bricks in spite of the
Panchayat. The informant was sitting at the well in front of
Shivrati Yadav's house when at 6.30 pm Jagmohan Yadav,
Moshi Yadav called the informant to the foundation land. The
informant said to Jagmohan Yadav and Moshi Yadav that
yesterday you people had agreed in the Panchayat, why are you
getting the work done today. On this Jagmohan Yadav and
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.19 of 2012 dt.01-05-2025
Moshi Yadav got angry and said that they will get it done from
there, let them do whatever they want to do. At the same time,
the informant's brother Vishwanath Singh came. When the
informant and Vishwanath Singh stopped the accused from
digging the foundation, Jagmohan Yadav, Manshi Yadav,
Rajnath Yadav, Lalpati Yadav, Ramapati, Nandji Yadav and
Laldev Yadav all together started throwing bricks, in which the
half of the brick hit Vishwanath Singh's head, due to which his
head got broken and Vishwanath Singh fell down on the spot.
He died while being taken for treatment.
4. Further on the basis of fardbeyan of
informant, a formal FIR was registered in which is marked as
ext. 4 and the investigating officer, while continuing the
investigation against accused Lalpati Yadav in charge-sheet
number- 70 of 2006, submitted chargesheet against other 6 co-
accused, on the basis of which learned Chief Judicial Magistrate
took cognizance against 6 co-accused on dated 03.05.2006 and
the case of other accused except accused Lalpati Yadav was
committed to the Court of Sessions on dated 22.05.2006, which
was registered as Sessions Case No. 195 of 2006.
Supplementary charge-sheet number-133 of 2006 was
submitted by the investigating officer against the accused
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.19 of 2012 dt.01-05-2025
Lalpati Yadav and on the basis of that, the learned Chief
Judicial Magistrate took cognizance against him on 16.09.2006
and on 18.09.2006 the case was committed to the Court of
Sessions which was registered as Sessions Case No. 433 of
2006.
5. On behalf of prosecution altogether 6
witnesses were examined to substantiate the charges levelled
against the appellant, who are namely, PW-1 Pappu Kumar
Singh, PW-2 Ramchandra Singh, PW-3 Ram Naresh Singh,
PW-4 Vinod Kumar Singh, PW-5 Muran Ram and PW-6 Surya
Shekhar Lal. No one has been examined on behalf of the
accused/appellants.
6. PW-1 Pappu Kumar Singh in his examination-
in-chief stated that occurrence is of 23.12.2005 at about 08:30
am. He further stated that he was at his land and saw that all the
accused persons were arguing with the deceased and soon stated
throwing bricks and bats toward him. During this a brick struck
on the head of the deceased, due to which deceased's head got
injured and he fell down. After that accused flew away from the
place of occurrence. While he was taking deceased for medical
treatment along with Ashok Kumar, Ram Naresh Singh and
others. Soon after his elder brother informed the Bihiya P.S. and
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.19 of 2012 dt.01-05-2025
Deputy S.P. recorded their statement.
6.i. In his cross-examination, he stated that his
house is from 10-15 kattha away from the place of occurrence
and accused namely Jagmohan's house was located approx 10-
15 feet from the place of occurrence. He further stated that
Vinod Singh PW-4 is the cousin of my grandfather Vishwanath
Singh while Ramchandra Singh PW-2 is the elder brother of my
grandfather. He also stated that his house is about 250 yards
from the occurrence, on the south-east corner. In between are
the houses of several people. He was present at the place when
the alleged occurrence took place.
6.ii. He also stated that the police questioned
him regarding the occurrence and he did not tell the police that
he was at his home at the time of the occurrence and that he
went to the place of occurrence after hearing slight noise. He
said that the reason of occurrence was the construction of
house. He further said that about 10 minutes before the alleged
occurrence, his grandfather had a dispute with the accused
persons. At the time of the dispute, about 50 to 60 villagers had
reached at the place of occurrence but none of the villagers
(except relatives) present at the time of the occurrence as
witnesses in the present case. The occurrence took place on
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.19 of 2012 dt.01-05-2025
their land to the north east of the place of occurrence the
accused were making their cattle-trough. Our land on the north
of it is about two and a half feet lower than our land on the
south side.
6.iii. Presently the possession of cattle-trough is
with accused persons. He further said that the stone pelting
continued for about 10 to 15 minutes and around 250 bricks
thrown. He had shown the bricks to the S.I. and his grandfather
was fallen around 10-15 feet apart from the cattle-trough to the
north-east. His grandfather had told Ramnaresh Singh and
Binara Singh that the accused persons were constructing the
house against the panchayati. Both of them were present their at
the time of the incidence. There was blood on their body but
blood did not spill on the ground. my grandfather got injured
and fell down, 5-6 people carried him on a cot and took him for
treatment. We have no enmity with the villagers. He further said
that while he was carrying his grandfather, his shirt got stained
with blood but he did not show that shirt (blood stained) to the
police.
7. PW-2 Ramchandra Singh in his examination-
in-chief stated that Vishwanath Singh was murdered about two
years ago at about 8 to 9 am and at that time he was at home.
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.19 of 2012 dt.01-05-2025
The quarrel took place between Jagmohan Yadav and
Vishwanath Singh over excavation of plinth at his fields. Banti
Yadav and Jagmohan Yadav, Lalpati, Nandji, Ramapati,
Ramnath were excavating plinth into his fields. He and his
deceased brother Vishwanath Singh stopped them, upon which,
they started hurling bricks at us. The deceased Vishwanath
Singh was in front so a brick hit at the forehead of the deceased
Vishwanath Singh and he fell down there. We tied his forehead
with a gamchha and he died on his way to treatment. He further
stated that Vinod Kumar Singh PW-4 had given statement to the
police before him and finding it correct, he had put his
signature. He had also made my signature on the fardbeyan of
the witness and his signature is marked as Exhibit-1.
7.i. In his cross-examination, he stated that the
deceased Vishwanath Singh and he was separate and the place
of occurrence is the joint property of all four brothers. He
further stated that the house of the accused faces eastward.
Vacant land lies in front of their house. West of this vacant land
is cattle trough of the accused and east of the cattle trough, two
steps ahead, the accused were excavating plinth. East of the
cattle trough is his land. North of this, is the land of Vinoda
Singh. Again says that east of the cattle trough is gair-majaruah
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.19 of 2012 dt.01-05-2025
pit-like land which is about 10 to 15 hands approx 100 yards in
area. East of this land of Bihar Government is my land.
7.ii. After that he stated that the east of the
government land and east of the cattle trough is their land. That
land has been partitioned among their brothers. Again says that
this 14 kathas of land has not been partitioned and is vacant.
Earlier kiln was there in. Kiln belonged to Anant Singh. He
further said that 10 to 15 days before the occurrence, the
accused had excavated a plinth of about 10 feet. North of this,
the accused were trying to excavate more plinth. The accused
were excavating plinth into my land and the land of Vinod
Singh.
7.iii. On the day of the occurrence itself, they
were excavating plinth. North of the cattle trough, there are
three pillars of 1-1.5 feet height. Two pillars lie in the land of
Vinod and one is on the land of the deceased Vishwanath Singh.
Pillars had been erected two days before the occurrence. No
dispute occurred on the day on which the pillars were erected. A
panchayati had been conducted regarding the land two-four
days before the erecting of pillars. The plinth excavated was 1.5
feet deep and 7/8 long and 1.5 ft wide. The plinth had been
excavated east and north of the sitting place. The plinth had
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.19 of 2012 dt.01-05-2025
been excavated about three feet from the sitting place. The
feeding trough is five feet from the sitting place. The feeding
trough lies north-south. It is about 3.5 feet wide and 5/6 feet
long. It is not that the cattle trough is 10 feet east of the sitting
place of the accused and the feeding trough is about 25 feet
north-south long. North of the cattle trough is common road.
North of the common road is the land of Vinod Singh.
7.iv. At the time of hurling of bricks, he was at
home and his fields are adjacent and west to the fields of Vinod
Singh. Adjacent and south to this fields is the sitting place of
the accused. There were about 2-4 persons in the fields of Vinod
Singh whom he did not know. The well of Shivrati Yadav is
north to the house of the accused. There is (illegible) main road
to go to dam via the well. I had told the police that at the time
of the occurrence, he was at the well of Shivrati Yadav. There is
vacant land between the well of Shivrati Yadav and the cattle
trough but no house. The house of the accused is 10 steps west
of the well of Shivrati. The cattle trough is about 20 steps east
of the well of Shivrati. Bricks were being hurled in the east of
this cattle trough.
7.v. About 200/250 bricks were hurled. Apart
from Vishwanath Singh, Vinod Singh and Ram Naresh Singh
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.19 of 2012 dt.01-05-2025
were hurt too. Binod Singh and Ram Naresh Singh were not
medically examined. Vishwanth Singh was about 15 feet east of
the feeding trough on his land when he got hurt. On being hit
with brick, Vishwanth Singh fell down there and blood would
have fallen there on about a span of land. Then we tied his
injury with gamchha (towel). He had shown the place of
occurrence to the S.I. At the time of the arrival of S.I., bricks
were lying on the place of occurrence. Bricks were not there on
the place where Vishwanath Singh had fallen down. The S.I.
had seen the blood lying on the land. He cannot tell whether he
had seized it or not.
8. PW-3 Ram Naresh Singh in his examination-
in-chief stated that the occurrence took place on 23.12.2005
around 7 to 8 am in morning. There was a scuffle going on
between Vishwanath Singh and Jagmohan Yadav regarding the
path of the lane. It was decided during the measurement that
Jagmohan Yadav would construct his house sparing 3 feet of
land. Jagmohan Yadav agreed to it initially but on the day of the
occurrence he backed out. Jagmohan Yadav, Munshi Yadav,
Lalpati Yadav, Ramanath Yadav, Lalten Yadav and Nanji Yadav,
all these persons were digging the foundation. Vishwanth Singh
and Bikki Singh forbade them to do so. On this the accused
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.19 of 2012 dt.01-05-2025
persons started pelting bricks. Vishwanath Singh was hit by a
brick after which he got injured and fell down. He died there
itself.
8.i. In his cross-examination, he stated that his
father and the deceased Vishwanath Singh are real brothers. He
have no share in the land over which the dispute occurred. The
accused already had a Nad Charan(cattle trough) on that land,
and Nad Charan was north-south. The Nad Charan was about
12 ft long. To the west of Nad Charan is the house of the
accused. The exit of this house is towards the north. In front of
the house of the accused there is only 5 ft hallow land. To the
north of 5 ft hallow land is the land of the deceased Vishwanath
Singh. It is not true that in front of the house of the accused, 20
feet vacant land is there, to the north of which was the Nad
Charan of the accused persons.
8.ii. At the time of the occurrence, there was no
hut to the east of the house of the accused persons. These days
the accused persons have erected a hut. He further stated that
two to four days before the alleged occurrence the accused had
erected their pillar on the north and the eastern side of Nad
Charan. Three pillars were north and three pillars were on the
eastern side. The pillars were constructed at night. No case was
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.19 of 2012 dt.01-05-2025
lodged against constructing pillars on the land of the deceased.
A Panchayati was held regarding construction of pillars on the
land of the deceased by the accused. He was not present on the
day of the Panchayati; hence he cannot say who all were present
during the Panchayati. The disputed land was measured by the
Amin. He was not present at the time of this measurement as
well. Hence, he cannot tell the name of the Amin.
8.iii. He also stated that he was present at the
crime scene at the time of the occurrence. There was a
commotion before the occurrence. He rushed to the crime scene
hearing that commotion. About 50 villagers were present at the
crime scene before he reached there. The commotion continued
for 10-15 minutes after he reached. The villagers who came to
the crime scene, among them are Prashuram Singh, Satyendra
Singh, the witnesses in this case.
8.iv. He further stated that before getting injured,
deceased Vishwanath Singh was on the south-east corner of his
land, which would just be situated to the north and east of Nad
Charan. Vishwanath Singh was alone at that time. Deceased
Vishwanath Singh was hit by a brick. 200-250 bricks must have
fallen there. There was a stampede after the deceased fell after
being hit by the brick. He along with Mantosh Kumar Singh,
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.19 of 2012 dt.01-05-2025
Pappu and Ashok, clung to the fallen deceased Vishwanath
Singh. Ashok and Mantosh are not the witnesses in this case
and the statement was made in front of the police on the day of
the occurrence and the day after. He have signed both the
statements. Before giving the statement to the Sub Inspector, he
did not say anything to any villager about being an eyewitness
to the occurrence.
9. PW-4 Vinod Kumar Singh the informant in his
examination-in-chief stated that the occurrence took place on
23.12.2005 at about 8.30 AM. He was sitting in the east of
Shivrati Yadav 's house near his well. In the east of his well
Ramapati Yadav, Maithi Yadav were digging the foundation in
that land which was declared as Raja's land by Panchayat.
Methi Yadav called him on that land. He forbade them digging
foundation. The accused persons did not relent. At that time his
cousin Vishwanath Singh came there and he also forbade them
doing so. The accused persons did agreed with him too. He
further stated that then Methi Yadav, Jagmohan Yadav, Lalpati
Yadav, Ramapati Yadav, Nathuni Yadav, Rajnath Yadav began
to hit them with bricks. One brick directly hit Vishwanath
Yadav's head and thereafter he fell down and became
unconscious. They brought cot and took him to sadar hospital,
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.19 of 2012 dt.01-05-2025
Bihia. On their way to hospital, 15 to 20 minutes latter he died.
Apart from me Nageswar Yadav, Ganga JI, Parshuram Ji and all
villagers had seen this occurrence.
9.i. In his cross-examination, he stated that well
is in the north of the village and west of site. The houses of
Accused persons are in the south of the site. The land of the site
is Garmajarua aam and documented. The land is of their and
accused persons as per the document. The land of accused is to
the east of the land of Government of Bihar. The land of
accused persons adjacent south to his land. The Nad Charan
(cattle trough) of the accused falls in the land of Government of
Bihar. To the west of the Nad Charan is land on record. 20 feet
east to the Nad Charan is the land of Government of Bihar.
9.ii. He also stated that the disputed land has
been measured by the Amin. Amins of both the parties were
present in the measurement. He was present on the spot at the
time of measurement. Apart from him, Jagmohan Yadav,
Parshuram Singh, Shri Ram Singh, Jagesh Singh etc were also
present on the spot at the time of measurement. After the
measurement, it marks has been given to both the parties. The
accused had dig their foundation even before the measurement.
No written document of the measurement was prepared. It must
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.19 of 2012 dt.01-05-2025
have taken him one minute to reach the place of occurrence
from the well. He saw the occurrence with his own eyes.
9.iii. At the time of the occurrence, he was
standing two cubits west of the deceased. The accused were
around the deceased and the work of digging the foundation
was going on. The occurrence started with them telling the
accused with a request to dig a foundation according to the
Panchayati. Initially there was some discussion between both
the parties for two to four minutes, then the accused started
pelting bricks. While throwing bricks the accused were at a
distance of ten yards from us. The accused were throwing the
pieces of bricks which were brought for the foundation. While
throwing the bricks, a brick hit my back. He did not mention
about his injury in his statement given to the police. Apart from
him only Vishwanath Singh got injured while throwing bricks.
He saw only one injury on deceased Vishwanath Singh while
throwing bricks. The accused must have thrown 200 to 250
bricks. He did not state in his statement given to the police that
200 to 250 bricks were thrown by the accused.
9.iv. He further stated that his house is about 200
yards south of the Nad Charan (cattle trough) of Jagmohan
Yadav. There are many houses to the north of his house. The
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.19 of 2012 dt.01-05-2025
first house adjacent to the site of the occurrence is of accused
Jagmohan Yadav. Adjacent to the Nad Charan is the house of
Naai (name of caste who practice the profession of barber) to
the south. There are about 6-7 houses of Naai there. South of
the Naai is the house of Babu Saheb (officers). After ten to
twelve Bavu Saheb's houses is our house. Among the people
living near the site of the occurrence, none of the Naai and
Babu Saheb were witnesses in this case.
9.v. He further stated that two days before the
occurrence, piling was done at the site of the occurrence by
accused Jagmohan Yadav. Before piling, no panchayat was held
regarding the land. After piling, a panchayat was held regarding
the land. In the panchayat, Nageshwar Yadav, Vishwanath Singh
(deceased), he, Dashai Yadav (Village) and other persons were
present, he did not remember their names. At the time of the
panchayat, the disputed land was measured. The measurement
was done by an Amin of Dodhra and an Amin of Dawa. It is not
true that the disputed land was measured by the Amin on
17.12.2005 and a written document was prepared for the same.
It is not the case that after the measurement on 17.12.2005, the
land was demarcated by two Amins and on the alleged day of
the occurrence, the accused were laying foundation on the land
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.19 of 2012 dt.01-05-2025
belonging to them.
9.vi. He also stated that at the time of the
occurrence, there was stone pelting for about 15 minutes. The
stone pelting was from west to east. The SI did not confiscate
even a single stone from the place of occurrence. He did not get
the information that the inspector found about 250 bricks
thrown between the house of accused Jagmohan Yadav and Nad
Charan after the occurrence. When Vishwanath Singh got
injured, he was standing to the west of Nad Charan and was
talking to the accused. Ten to twelve men were standing near
Vishwanath Singh. During the pelting, the first brick hit
Vishwanath Singh, after which the people standing near him ran
away from there. He did not know the name of the persons who
were standing near Vishwanath Singh at that time. However, all
of them were my co-villagers.
10. PW-5 Muran Ram in his examination-in-
chief stated that the postmortem report of Vishwanath Singh,
which is in the handwriting and signature of Dr. Om Prakash
Sinha, and which he identify. Dr. Om Prakash Sinha had died.
The postmortem report is marked Exhibit- 3.
10.i. In his cross-examination, he stated that he
have no personal knowledge of anything written in the
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.19 of 2012 dt.01-05-2025
postmortem report.
11. PW-6 Surya Shekhar Lal in his examination-
in-chief stated that he was posted as Sub-Inspector in Bihiya PS
in 2005. On 23.12.2005, in Englishpur, he had written the
fardbeyan of this case as stated by the complainant Vinod Singh
on the dictation of the SHO R.N. Chaudhary, which is in his
handwriting and signature of the SHO, which was signed by the
complainant Vinod Singh after reading it. The fardbeyan is
marked Exhibit-1/3. On the basis of the fardbeyan, the formal
FIR of this case lodged, which was in the handwriting of the
then literate constable Krishna Singh and signature of SHO
R.N. Chaudhary which is marked as Exhibit-2. He further stated
that as per the orders of the SHO, he started investigation of the
case. During investigation, he inspected the place of occurrence.
11.i. There is about 8.5 ft rural road towards east
of pucca house of Jagmohan Yadav, north of two under
construction house. With an intention to forcefully encroach this
very road, Jagmohan was digging foundation. In that, four
pillars of about 1/2 ft have been cast at the foundation place.
Towards the west side of this under construction house, the
accused Vishwanath Singh was forbidding it, where the accused
persons were said to be gathered. To the east of the place of
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.19 of 2012 dt.01-05-2025
occurrence 8ft Gairmajarua Aam low lying area, to the west-
house of the accused Jagmohan Yadav and rural road, to the
north- potato field and to the south is pucca residential house of
Dinanath Thakur. He inquired the complainant witnesses
Ramchandra Singh, Ramkumari Devi, Pappu Kumar Singh,
Radhakishan Yadav, Sonaru Yadav, Saryug Yadav, Prithvi
Yadav, Ramnaresh Singh, Satyendra Singh about the
occurrence.
11.ii. He also stated that he prepared the inquest
report of the deceased Vishwanath Singh in the presence of
Ramnaresh Singh and Parshuram Singh, which is in his
handwriting and signature and the witnesses also put their
signature on it. This is the carbon copy of the same inquest
report. It is marked as Exhibit- 3. Upon finding the occurrence
correct, he submitted the charge-sheet. The entire case diary is
marked as Exhibit- 4.
11.iii. In his cross-examination, he stated that he
handed over the charge of the investigation on 23.12.05 at 12.30
pm. At about 13.40, he reached at the village (Englishpur) of
the occurrence and inspected it. He did not remember the time
when he inspected it. He found four pillars about 1/2 feet high
at the place of occurrence. Towards the west of the place of
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.19 of 2012 dt.01-05-2025
occurrence, there is cattle trough of the accused persons and 50
yards west from there lies the house of Jagmohan Yadav. he did
not find any brick at the place of occurrence. He did not find
any objectionable (suspicious) articles at the place of
occurrence. He did not find any evidence of encroaching the
road (digging foundation) to the north of the place of
occurrence.
12. Learned counsel on behalf of the appellants
submits that the impugned judgment of conviction and order of
sentence are not sustainable in the eye of law or on facts.
Learned trial Court has not applied its judicial mind and
erroneously passed the judgment of conviction and order of
sentence and from perusal of the evidences adduced on behalf
of the prosecution it is crystal clear that the prosecution's case
is false and fabricated and the case is filed due to enmity
between the appellants and the informant as they had land
dispute attributed between the parties. He further submitted that
highly interested witnesses have been examined by the
prosecution as the prosecution case is not being supported by
any independent witnesses. He next submits that non
examination of the doctor who conducted the postmortem has
highly prejudiced the prosecution case. Learned counsel further
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.19 of 2012 dt.01-05-2025
submitted that PW-6 Investigating Officer did not mention
anything in his statement regarding deceased condition when he
reached at the place of occurrence neither did, he seized
anything from the place of occurrence nor he prepared seizure
list in this regard.
12.i. In the case of Harbeer Singh vs Sheeshpal
and Ors. reported in AIR 2016 SC 4958 held that where the
prosecution was not able to prove its case beyond all reasonable
doubts and since the eyewitnesses were interested in the
complainant and hence, unreliable. He further contends that as
per the postmortem report deceased was a 70 years old man
who had a lacerated wound on the skull of the right forehead
that was caused by hard and blunt object which doesn't show
that the deceased had sustained any grievous injury that may
have caused his death and the medical evidence does not
support the prosecution case. The informant and appellant are
the pattidar and have land dispute with each other which
generate a high chance that the informant has involved
appellants in this case with intention to seek revenge from
them. During the course of investigation, police stated that the
bricks and stone were thrown from both the sides and from the
place of occurrence, neither any pieces of bricks were found nor
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.19 of 2012 dt.01-05-2025
any stains of blood was there.
12.ii. Alternately, it is submitted that there was
no intention on the part of the appellants to cause the death of
the victim or such bodily injury, to him, that would be sufficient
to cause death. The occurrence occurred suddenly, on a trivial
issue. There was no premeditation on the part of the appellants.
The testimony of the eye witnesses does not indicate that the
appellants used any weapons or that he continued to assault the
deceased even after he had collapsed. it is humbly stated and
submitted that informant implicated the appellants with the
mala fide intention. The appellants are the simple persons in the
village. The appellants have suffered few months in jail before
regarding the present case. He further submitted that the
evidence available on record are insufficient to substantiate the
charges leveled against the appellants and the prosecution has
failed to prove the complicity of the appellants in connection of
offence for which he has been charged. So, the appellants
should have been acquitted from the conviction as sentenced
against them.
13. However, learned APP for the State defends
the impugned judgment of conviction and the order of sentence
submitting that there is no illegality or infirmity in the
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.19 of 2012 dt.01-05-2025
impugned judgment and order of sentence, because prosecution
has proved its case against the appellant beyond all reasonable
doubts. In view of the aforesaid statements and the evidence on
record, learned trial Court has rightly convicted the appellant
and the present appeal should not be entertained.
14. At this stage, I would like to appreciate the
relevant extract of entire evidence led by the prosecution before
the Trial Court. I have thoroughly perused the materials on
record as well as given thoughtful consideration to the
submissions advanced by both the parties.
15. On deeply studied and scrutinized all
evidences, it is evident to note that PW-1 in his cross-
examination stated that he was present at the place of
occurrence when the alleged occurrence took place whereas in
his further cross-examination he did not tell the police that he
was at his home at the time of the occurrence and that he went
to the place of occurrence after hearing slight noise. PW-1
further stated that at the time of the dispute, about 50 to 60
villagers had reached at the place of occurrence but none of the
villagers (except relatives) present at the time of the occurrence
as witnesses in the present case. He had shown the bricks to the
S.I. but S.I in his deposition stated that he had not found
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.19 of 2012 dt.01-05-2025
anything from the place of occurrence. PW-1 further stated that
while he was carrying his grandfather, his shirt got stained with
blood but he did not shown or given that shirt (blood stained) to
the police.
15.i. Further, PW-2 in his deposition stated that
about 200/250 bricks were hurled and apart from Vishwanath
Singh, Vinod Singh and Ram Naresh Singh were hurt too.
Binod Singh and Ram Naresh Singh were not medically
examined which creates lacuna in the prosecution story as to
why these witnesses who got injured along with the deceased
were not examined. He had shown the place of occurrence to
the S.I and at the time of the arrival of S.I., bricks were lying on
the place of occurrence but the Investigating officer in his
deposition stated that he found nothing on the place of
occurrence which shows contradictions among the depostions
given by the prosecution witnesses. PW-3 in his examination-
in-chief stated that deceased died at the place of occurrence
itself after sustaining injury on his forehead whereas other
prosecution witnesses stated that the deceased died on the way
for his treatment.
15.ii. PW-4 in his deposition claims that while
throwing the bricks, a brick hit his back but he did not mention
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.19 of 2012 dt.01-05-2025
about his injury in his statement given to the police and stated
that apart from him only Vishwanath Singh got injured while
throwing bricks. PW-6 Investigating officer in his deposition
stated that towards the west of the place of occurrence, there is
cattle trough of the accused persons and 50 yards west from
there lies the house of Jagmohan Yadav whereas PW-1 stated in
his deposition that the cattle trough is towards the north-east
direction. He did not find any objectionable (suspicious) articles
at the place of occurrence. He did not find any evidence of
encroaching the road (digging foundation) to the north of the
place of occurrence which clearly shows that the prosecution
has failed to prove its story beyond shadow of all reasonable
doubt.
16. Further prosecution has failed to prove the
injury sustained by the victim as neither any medical report has
been exhibited nor any medical practitioner has been examined
during the course of the trial as it was fatal since he could have
adduced the expected evidence and his non-examination creates
a material lacuna in the effort of the prosecution to nail the
appellants and there are many contradictions in the depositions
of the prosecution witnesses, thereby creating reasonable doubt
in the prosecution case and the learned trial Court failed to
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.19 of 2012 dt.01-05-2025
scrutinize the evidence brought on record regarding
deficiencies, drawbacks and infirmities crept during course of
trial and passed the impugned judgment in complete ignorance
of criminal jurisprudence. Moreover, there are discrepancies
regarding the sequence of events and the presence of
individuals at the place of occurrence. Considering this fact,
prosecution has failed to establish this case beyond shadow of
all reasonable doubt therefore, in such circumstances, it may not
be proper to convict the appellants/accused on the materials
available on record. Hence, the judgment of conviction and
order of sentence in this present matter is fit to be set aside.
17. Hence, the Judgment of conviction dated
20.12.2011 and order of sentence dated 22.12.2011 in Sessions
Trial Case No. 195 of 2006/433 of 2006 arising out of Bihiya
P.S. Case No. 171 of 2005 passed by the learned Additional
Sessions Judge-I, Bhojpur, Ara is set aside and the
accused/appellants are acquitted from the charges leveled
against them. As the appellants are on bail, they are discharged
from liability of their bail bond.
18. Accordingly, this appeal stands allowed.
19. Office is directed to send back the trial court
records and proceedings along with a copy of this judgment to
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.19 of 2012 dt.01-05-2025
the trial court, forthwith, for necessary compliance, if any.
(Ramesh Chand Malviya, J)
Harshita/-
AFR/NAFR NAFR
CAV DATE N/A
Uploading Date 06.05.2025
Transmission Date 06.05.2025
