Patna High Court
Vinod Kumar Singh @ Vinod Prasad vs The State Of Bihar on 13 October, 2025
Author: Sudhir Singh
Bench: Sudhir Singh, Rajesh Kumar Verma
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL APPEAL (DB) No.125 of 2020
In
SPECIAL LEAVE APPLICATION No.31 of 2019
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-93 Year-1989 Thana- SAHPUR District- Patna
======================================================
Vinod Kumar Singh @ Vinod Prasad, Son of Late Jagdish Singh, Resident of
Village - Laxmi Chak, P.S.- Shahpur, District- Patna
... ... Appellant/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar
2. Sushil Singh Son of Late Munglal Singh Resident of Village - Mauli Nagar,
P.S.- Maner, District- Patna
3. Ramjiwan Singh Son of Late Munglal Singh Resident of Village - Mauli
Nagar, P.S.- Maner, District- Patna
4. Kameshwar Singh Son of Late Parmanand Singh Resident of Village -
Laxmichak, P.S.- Shahpur (Danapur), District- Patna
5. Raj Kumar Singh Son of Sadhu Saran Singh Resident of Village -
Laxmichak, P.S.- Shahpur (Danapur), District- Patna
6. Mohan Singh Son of Late Ganauri Singh Resident of Village - Laxmichak,
P.S.- Shahpur (Danapur), District- Patna
7. Umesh Singh Son of Mohan Singh Resident of Village - Laxmichak, P.S.-
Shahpur (Danapur), District- Patna
8. Sarvjeet Singh Son of Late Rajendra Singh Resident of Village - Laxmichak,
P.S.- Shahpur (Danapur), District- Patna
9. Girija Nand Singh @ Girija Singh Son of Ramswroop Singh Resident of
Village - Laxmichak, P.S.- Shahpur (Danapur), District- Patna
10. Brajnandan Singh Son of Ramswroop Singh Resident of Village -
Laxmichak, P.S.- Shahpur (Danapur), District- Patna
11. Yadunandan Singh Son of Late Chhatri Singh Resident of Village -
Laxmichak, P.S.- Shahpur (Danapur), District- Patna
12. Lilu Singh @ Anil Singh Son of Yadunandan Singh Resident of Village -
Laxmichak, P.S.- Shahpur (Danapur), District- Patna
13. Pradeep Singh Son of Yadunandan Singh Resident of Village - Laxmichak,
P.S.- Shahpur (Danapur), District- Patna
14. Rajdeo Singh Son of Late Rajendra Singh Resident of Village - Laxmichak,
P.S.- Shahpur (Danapur), District- Patna
15. Ranjeet Singh Son of Late Rajendra Singh Resident of Village - Laxmichak,
P.S.- Shahpur (Danapur), District- Patna
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.125 of 2020 dt.13-10-2025
2/18
For the Appellant/s : Mr. Niranjan Kumar, Advocate
Mr. Gautam Sah, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Bipin Kumar, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUDHIR SINGH
and
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR VERMA
ORAL JUDGMENT
(Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUDHIR SINGH)
Date : 13-10-2025
The present criminal appeal has been preferred under
Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 against
the judgment of acquittal dated 29.03.2019 passed by the
learned Additional Sessions Judge-I, Danapur, Patna in Sessions
Trial No. 374 of 1990, arising out of Shahpur P.S. Case No. 93
of 1989, whereby Respondent Nos. 2 to 15 have been acquitted
by the learned Trial Court from the charge of Sections 148, 201
of the Indian Penal Code, accused Mohan Singh, Umesh Singh,
Sarvajeet Singh, Girja Nand Singh, Brajnandan Singh,
Yadunandan Singh, Lilu Singh, Pradeep Singh, Rajdeo Singh
and Ranjeet Singh from the charge of Section 302/149 IPC and
accused Sushil Singh, Ramjiwan Singh, Raj Kumar Singh and
Kameshwar Singh from the charge of Section 302 IPC and
Section 27 of the Arms Act.
2. The prosecution case, as per the fardbeyan of the
informant is that at 2:00 AM on 28.02.1989, when he was
sleeping with his brother Ruka Singh, Lal Babu Singh, Vijay
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.125 of 2020 dt.13-10-2025
3/18
Kumar Singh, Vinod Singh and Jhulan Singh in the hut near the
well in his field, all of a sudden, 15-20 persons armed with
country-made pistol, bhala, garasa and 'chhura' came near the
hut, out of them he identified Parmanand Singh, Kameshwar
Singh, Raj Kumar Singh, Mohan Singh, Umesh Singh, Rajendra
Singh, Ranjeet Singh, Sarvjeet Singh, Ramanand Singh, Girjan
Singh, Yadunandan Singh, Pradeep Singh, Lilu Singh @ Anil
Singh, Mahendra Singh, Sushil Singh, Ramjivan Singh and 2-3
unknown. Accused Kameshwar Singh, Raj Kumar Singh, Sushil
Singh and Ramjivan Singh had pistols in their hand, accused
Parmanand Singh had chhura and accused Ramanand Singh had
garasa and others had bhala in their hands. Accused Brijnandan
Singh ordered to kill, on which accused Kameshwar Singh and
Raj Kumar Singh fired on Ruka Singh and accused Ramjivan
Singh and Sushil Singh fired on Vijay Singh. Both of them
sustained firearm injuries and fell down. Thereafter, accused
Ramanand Singh assaulted Ruka Singh with garasa and accused
Parmanand Singh assaulted Vijay Kumar Singh with chhura.
Other accused persons assaulted with lathi fitted in bhala. They
threw both of them into well. The informant further alleged in
his fardbeyan that he had seen the occurrence from a little
distance because it was a moonlight night. When the accused
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.125 of 2020 dt.13-10-2025
4/18
persons saw them, they also chased them but somehow they
saved their life and reached their house. Accused persons also
came to their house and surrounded the house of the informant
and scolded Shankar Singh, Heeraman Singh and other persons
who were standing there. In the morning, the informant went to
police station and informed about the occurrence. The informant
has further stated that the reason behind the alleged occurrence
is the earlier pending case of land dispute with Parmanand
Singh, Kameshwar Singh and others.
3. On the basis of fardbeyan of the informant,
Shahpur P.S. Case No. 93 of 1989 was instituted under Sections
302/201/120
-B of I.P.C. and Section 27 of the Arms Act and
investigation was taken up by the police. The police after
investigation submitted charge-sheet against Respondent Nos. 2
to 15 and others and, accordingly, cognizance was taken.
Thereafter, the case was committed to the Court of Sessions.
Charges were framed against the accused persons to which they
pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
4. During the trial, the prosecution examined
altogether five witnesses i.e. PW1- Lal Babu Singh, PW2-
Vinod Kumar Singh, PW3- Dr. Md. Afzal, PW4- Braj Bihari
Singh and PW5- Pitambar Paswan. The prosecution has also
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.125 of 2020 dt.13-10-2025
produced certain documents which were marked as Exhibits i.e.
Ext.6- Certified copy of judgment passed in case no. 118 (c)/85,
Ext.7- Certified copy of order dated 18.05.1989 passed u/s 145
Cr.P.C., Ext.8- Certified copy of order dated 10.08.1997 passed
by Sri R.K. Ravidas, J.M., Dannpur, Ext.9- Certified copy of
F.I.R. of Shahpur P.S. Case No. 307/97 dated 18.07.1997,
Ext.10- Certified copy of application given by A.S.I. Dhanajay
Jha to the then A.C.J.M., Danapur to add some sections in
Shahpur P.S. Case No. 307/97 dated 18.07.1997, Ext.11-
Certified copy of an application dated 30.06.2006 given by
prosecution in the Court of Sri R.K. Ravidas, J.M., Danapur,
Ext.12- Certified copy of order-sheet dated 07.09.1994 of Case
no. 108 c2/94 of the Court of S.D.J.M., Danapur and Ext. 13-
Certified copy of complaint filed in the Court of the then
A.C.J.M., Danapur.
5. The defence has also examined twelve witnesses
i.e. DW1- Deena Nath Sao, DW2- Nagendra Prasad, DW3-
Darbesh Paswan, DW4- Jagdambi Prasad Yadav, DW5- Baccha
Prasad Singh, DW6- Dilip Kumar, DW7- Rajesh Kumar Yadav,
DW8- Ravindra Kumar, DW9- Devnandan Singh, DW10-
Chandeshwar Rai, DW11- Sri Ganesh Prasad and DW12- Lali
Bhusan Ranjan. After closure of prosecution evidence, the
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.125 of 2020 dt.13-10-2025
statements of the accused persons were recorded under Section
313 Cr.P.C. and, after conclusion of trial, learned trial court has
acquitted the accused persons.
6. The learned trial court on the basis of materials
available on record, and the evidence produced before the court,
acquitted the accused persons observing that the prosecution has
not been able to substantiate the charge against the accused
persons beyond all reasonable doubts.
7. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted
that the learned trial court has failed to appreciate the evidence
of Dr. Md. Afzal (PW3) who had done the post mortem of the
dead body of the deceased and found several external and
internal injuries with sharp and blunt weapons sustaining bullet
and barud and opined that the death was caused on account of
haemorrhage and shock due to above injuries. He further
submits that the learned trial court has further failed to
appreciate the evidence of PW2, who is the sole surviving eye-
witness of the occurrence and fully supported the case of the
prosecution and also did not appreciate the circumstances
proving the brutal murder of two deceased at the same time by
the accused persons.
8. The learned counsel for the respondent-State
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.125 of 2020 dt.13-10-2025
submits that there is no perversity in the judgment of the learned
trial court, and the prosecution had failed to prove the guilt of
the accused before the learned trial court. Therefore, the order of
the learned trial court requires no interference in the present
case.
9. The sole question that requires consideration by this
Court is whether the impugned judgment of acquittal requires
any interference by this Court.
10. We have carefully perused the record of the case
and considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsel
for the appellants as well as the learned Additional Public
Prosecutor appearing for the State. Upon a meticulous
examination of the evidence, it appears that the prosecution case
rests primarily upon the testimony of PW2-Vinod Kumar Singh,
son of the informant and brother of one of the deceased, since
the informant himself had expired during the pendency of the
trial and his evidence could not be recorded. The death of the
informant deprived the prosecution of its most material witness.
11. From the record, it is evident that PW2 has not
been consistent in his narration of occurence. In his
examination-in-chief, he named the accused persons and
claimed to have seen them involved in the occurrence. However,
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.125 of 2020 dt.13-10-2025
his cross-examination reveals a marked departure from that
version. He admitted that, during investigation, he had not
disclosed the names of the accused to the police. This fact has
also been corroborated by the Investigating Officer (PW4), who
stated that PW2 never mentioned the names of the accused
during the course of investigation. It thus appears that for the
first time during trial, the witness introduced new facts and
implicated the accused amounting to a clear improvement in his
version. Such conduct of the witness renders his testimony
doubtful and unreliable.
12. Another serious flaw in the prosecution case is the
non-examination of independent witnesses, though several such
witnesses were admittedly available. The record shows that
persons like Shankar Singh, Heerman Singh, and Hiramal Singh
were said to have scolded the accused persons after the incident
and were present near the village. Their names find place in the
testimony of PW2, yet none of them were examined by the
prosecution. Even Jhulan, who was stated to have been sleeping
nearby and allegedly witnessed part of the incident, was not
produced before the Court. It is well-settled that where
independent witnesses, who are easily available and could have
thrown light on the actual occurrence, are not examined without
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.125 of 2020 dt.13-10-2025
any plausible explanation, creates a serious doubt regarding the
prosecution case. The failure to examine such witnesses,
especially when the principal witness is related to the deceased
and has given contradictory statements, further erodes the
credibility of the prosecution version. In Takhaji Hiraji v.
Thakore Kubersing Chamansing, (2001) 6 SCC 145, the
Supreme Court held that non-examination of independent
witnesses available at the scene creates doubt on the veracity of
prosecution evidence, especially when the witnesses examined
are related to the deceased, as observed in Para-19 of the
judgment which reads as under:
"19. So is the case with the criticism
levelled by the High Court on the prosecution case
finding fault therewith for non-examination of
independent witnesses. It is true that if a material
witness, who would unfold the genesis of the
incident or an essential part of the prosecution case,
not convincingly brought to fore otherwise, or where
there is a gap or infirmity in the prosecution case
which could have been supplied or made good by
examining a witness who though available is not
examined, the prosecution case can be termed as
suffering from a deficiency and withholding of such
a material witness would oblige the court to draw
an adverse inference against the prosecution by
holding that if the witness would have been
examined it would not have supported the
prosecution case. On the other hand if already
overwhelming evidence is available and
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.125 of 2020 dt.13-10-2025
examination of other witnesses would only be a
repetition or duplication of the evidence already
adduced, non-examination of such other witnesses
may not be material. In such a case the court ought
to scrutinise the worth of the evidence adduced. The
court of facts must ask itself -- whether in the facts
and circumstances of the case, it was necessary to
examine such other witness, and if so, whether such
witness was available to be examined and yet was
being withheld from the court. If the answer be
positive then only a question of drawing an adverse
inference may arise. If the witnesses already
examined are reliable and the testimony coming
from their mouth is unimpeachable the court can
safely act upon it, uninfluenced by the factum of
non-examination of other witnesses. In the present
case we find that there are at least 5 witnesses
whose presence at the place of the incident and
whose having seen the incident cannot be doubted at
all. It is not even suggested by the defence that they
were not present at the place of the incident and did
not participate therein. The injuries sustained by
these witnesses are not just minor and certainly not
self-inflicted. None of the witnesses had a previous
enmity with any of the accused persons and there is
apparently no reason why they would tell a lie. The
genesis of the incident is brought out by these
witnesses. In fact, the presence of the prosecution
party and the accused persons in the chowk of the
village is not disputed. How the vanity of the
Thakores was hurt leading to a heated verbal
exchange is also not in dispute. Then followed the
assault. If the place of the incident was the chowk
then it was a sudden and not premeditated fight
between the two parties. If the accused persons had
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.125 of 2020 dt.13-10-2025
reached their houses and the members of the
prosecution party had followed them and opened the
assault near the house of the accused persons then it
could probably be held to be a case of self-defence
of the accused persons in which case non-
explanation of the injuries sustained by the accused
persons would have assumed significance. The
learned Sessions Judge has on appreciation of oral
and circumstantial evidence inferred that the place
of the incident was the chowk and not a place near
the houses of the accused persons. Nothing more
could have been revealed by other village people or
the party of tightrope dance performers. The
evidence available on record shows and that
appears to be very natural, that as soon as the
melee ensued all the village people and tightrope
dance performers took to their heels. They could not
have seen the entire incident. The learned Sessions
Judge has minutely scrutinised the statements of all
the eyewitnesses and found them consistent and
reliable. The High Court made no effort at
scrutinising and analysing the ocular testimony so
as to doubt, if at all, the correctness of the several
findings arrived at by the Sessions Court. With the
assistance of the learned counsel for the parties we
have gone through the evidence adduced and on our
independent appreciation we find the eyewitnesses
consistent and reliable in their narration of the
incident. In our opinion non-examination of other
witnesses does not cast any infirmity in the
prosecution case."
The same principle was reiterated in Hem Raj and
Others v. State of Haryana, (2005) 10 SCC 614, where the
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.125 of 2020 dt.13-10-2025
Court observed that withholding material witnesses without
plausible reason leads to an adverse inference under Section
114(g) of the Evidence Act, as observed in Para-9 of the
judgment which reads as under:
"9. Non-examination of independent
witness by itself may not give rise to adverse
inference against the prosecution. However, when
the evidence of the alleged eyewitnesses raises
serious doubts on the point of their presence at the
time of actual occurrence, the unexplained omission
to examine the independent witness Kapur Singh,
would assume significance. This Court pointed out
in Takhaji Hiraji v. Thakore Kubersing Chamansing
[(2001) 6 SCC 145 : 2001 SCC (Cri) 1070] : (SCC
p. 155, para 19)
"[I]f already overwhelming evidence is
available and examination of other witnesses would
only be a repetition or duplication of the evidence
already adduced, non-examination of such other
witnesses may not be material. In such a case the
court ought to scrutinise the worth of the evidence
adduced. The court of facts must ask itself --
whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, it
was necessary to examine such other witness, and if
so, whether such witness was available to be
examined and yet was being withheld from the
court. If the answer be positive then only a question
of drawing an adverse inference may arise. If the
witnesses already examined are reliable and the
testimony coming from their mouth is
unimpeachable the court can safely act upon it,
uninfluenced by the factum of non-examination of
other witnesses. In the present case we find that
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.125 of 2020 dt.13-10-2025
there are at least 5 witnesses whose presence at the
place of the incident and whose having seen the
incident cannot be doubted at all. It is not even
suggested by the defence that they were not present
at the place of the incident and did not participate
therein."
13. The evidence of the Investigating Officer (PW4)
further casts serious doubt on the fairness and thoroughness of
the investigation. He admitted that during investigation, PW2
had not named the accused persons. This shows that the
investigation lacked coherence and that the identification of the
accused was not spontaneous but an afterthought developed
during trial. The Court cannot base conviction on such
vacillating and improved statements. As held in Sharad
Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra, (1984) 4 SCC
116, every link in the chain of circumstances must be firmly
established before drawing any inference of guilt. In the instant
case, the prosecution has miserably failed to establish such a
consistent chain, as observed in Para-153 and 154 of the
judgment which reads as under:
"153. A close analysis of this decision
would show that the following conditions must be
fulfilled before a case against an accused can be
said to be fully established:
(1) the circumstances from which the
conclusion of guilt is to be drawn should be fully
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.125 of 2020 dt.13-10-2025
established.
It may be noted here that this Court
indicated that the circumstances concerned "must
or should" and not "may be" established. There is
not only a grammatical but a legal distinction
between "may be proved" and "must be or should
be proved" as was held by this Court in Shivaji
Sahabrao Bobade v. State of Maharashtra [(1973) 2
SCC 793 : 1973 SCC (Cri) 1033 : 1973 Crl LJ
1783] where the observations were made: [SCC
para 19, p. 807: SCC (Cri) p. 1047]
"Certainly, it is a primary principle that
the accused must be and not merely may be guilty
before a court can convict and the mental distance
between 'may be' and 'must be' is long and divides
vague conjectures from sure conclusions."
(2) the facts so established should be
consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the
accused, that is to say, they should not be
explainable on any other hypothesis except that the
accused is guilty,
(3) the circumstances should be of a
conclusive nature and tendency,
(4) they should exclude every possible
hypothesis except the one to be proved, and
(5) there must be a chain of evidence so
complete as not to leave any reasonable ground for
the conclusion consistent with the innocence of the
accused and must show that in all human
probability the act must have been done by the
accused.
154. These five golden principles, if we
may say so, constitute the panchsheel of the proof of
a case based on circumstantial evidence."
14. Having considered the totality of the evidence, it
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.125 of 2020 dt.13-10-2025
becomes apparent that the prosecution has not been able to
prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. The contradictions
between the investigation and trial versions, the non-
examination of material witnesses, the death of the informant,
and the hostility of witnesses collectively create serious doubts
regarding the prosecution story. The principle that the
prosecution must stand on its own legs, and that the benefit of
doubt must go to the accused, stands fully attracted here.
15. In view of the above discussion, we are of the
considered opinion that the prosecution has failed to establish
the guilt of the appellants beyond reasonable doubt. The learned
Trial Court has rightly appreciated the evidence and recorded
acquittal, which calls for no interference by this Court. The
contradictions in the testimony of PW2, coupled with non-
examination of independent witnesses and death of the
informant, have rendered the prosecution story wholly
unreliable.
16. We find that the findings recorded by the learned
Trial Court do not suffer from any illegality and perversity. In a
criminal case, it is incumbent upon the prosecution to prove the
guilt of the accused beyond the shadow of all reasonable doubts.
Wherever, any doubt is cast upon the case of the prosecution,
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.125 of 2020 dt.13-10-2025
the accused is entitled to the benefit of doubt.
17. In criminal appeal against acquittal what the
Appellate Court has to examine is whether the finding of the
learned court below is perverse and prima facie illegal. Once the
Appellate Court comes to the finding that the grounds on which
the judgment is based is not perverse, the scope of appeal
against acquittal is limited considering the fact that the legal
presumption about the innocence of the accused is further
strengthened by the finding of the Court. At this point, it is
imperative to consider the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme
Court in the case of Mrinal Das vs. State of Tripura (2011) 9
SCC 479, Paragraphs 13 & 14 of which reads as under:
"13. It is clear that in an appeal against
acquittal in the absence of perversity in the
judgment and order, interference by this
Court exercising its extraordinary
jurisdiction, is not warranted. However, if
the appeal is heard by an appellate court, it
being the final court of fact, is fully
competent to reappreciate, reconsider and
review the evidence and take its own
decision. In other words, the law does not
prescribe any limitation, restriction or
condition on exercise of such power and the
appellate court is free to arrive at its own
conclusion keeping in mind that acquittal
provides for presumption in favour of the
accused. The presumption of innocence is
available to the person and in criminal
jurisprudence every person is presumed to
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.125 of 2020 dt.13-10-2025
be innocent unless he is proved guilty by the
competent court. If two reasonable views are
possible on the basis of the evidence on
record, the appellate court should not
disturb the findings of acquittal.
14. There is no limitation on the part of the
appellate court to review the evidence upon
which the order of acquittal is found and to
come to its own conclusion. The appellate
court can also review the conclusion arrived
at by the trial court with respect to both facts
and law. While dealing with the appeal
against acquittal preferred by the State, it is
the duty of the appellate court to marshal the
entire evidence on record and only by giving
cogent and adequate reasons set aside the
judgment of acquittal. An order of acquittal
is to be interfered with only when there are
"compelling and substantial reasons" for
doing so. If the order is "clearly
unreasonable", it is a compelling reason for
interference.........."
18. In the case of Ghurey Lal versus State of Uttar
Pradesh reported in (2008) 10 SCC 450 in Paragraph 75, the
Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed as under:
"75. The trial Court has the advantage of
watching the demeanour of the witnesses who
have given evidence, therefore, the appellate
court should be slow to interfere with the
decisions of the trial court. An acquittal by
the trial court should not be interfered with
unless it is totally perverse or wholly
unsustainable."
19. Thus, an order of acquittal is to be interfered with
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.125 of 2020 dt.13-10-2025
only for compelling and substantial reasons. In case, if the order
is clearly unreasonable, it is a compelling reason for
interference. But where there is no perversity in the finding of
the impugned judgment of acquittal, the Appellate Court must
not take a different view only because another view is possible.
It is because the trial Court has the privilege of seeing the
demeanour of witnesses and, therefore, its decision must not be
upset in absence of strong and compelling grounds.
20. In view of the above, we do not find any illegality
and perversity in the findings recorded by the Trial Court.
21. Accordingly, the present appeal is dismissed.
22. Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand
disposed of.
(Sudhir Singh, J)
(Rajesh Kumar Verma, J)
Rajesh/-
AFR/NAFR NAFR
CAV DATE NA
Uploading Date 17.10.2025
Transmission Date 17.10.2025
