Laxmeshwar Prasad Singh vs The State Of Bihar
2025 Latest Caselaw 4155 Patna

Patna High Court

Laxmeshwar Prasad Singh vs The State Of Bihar on 15 October, 2025

Author: Sudhir Singh

Bench: Sudhir Singh, Rajesh Kumar Verma

          IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
                      CRIMINAL APPEAL (DB) No.647 of 2024
         Arising Out of PS. Case No.-104 Year-2019 Thana- SURSAND District- Sitamarhi
     ======================================================
     Laxmeshwar Prasad Singh, male, aged about 73 years, Son of Late
     Bhavneshwar Prasad Singh, Resident of village.- Malahi, P.S.- Sursand,
     District- Sitamarhi, who is father of deceased and informant of this case.

                                                                      ... ... Appellant/s
                                           Versus

1.   The State of Bihar
2.   Rajan Pathak @ Ranjan Pathak, aged about 29 years, Male, Son of Manoj
     Pathak.
3.   Raju Kumar Thakur @ Raju Thakur @ Rajiv Kumar Thakur, aged about 24
     years, male, Son of Bechan Thakur
     Both are resident of village- Malahi , P.S.- Sursand, District- Sitamarhi.

                                               ... ... Respondent/s
     ======================================================
     Appearance :
     For the Appellant/s     :        Mr. Govind Mohan Thakur, Advocate
                                      Mr.Rajesh Kumar, Advocate
     For the Respondent/s    :        Mr.Sujit Kumar Singh, APP
     ======================================================
     CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUDHIR SINGH
             and
             HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR VERMA
     ORAL JUDGMENT

(Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUDHIR SINGH)

Date : 15-10-2025

The present criminal appeal has been preferred under

Section 372 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 against

the judgment of acquittal dated 21.03.2024 passed by the

learned 3rd Additional Sessions Judge, Sitamarhi in Sessions

Trial No. 318 of 2019 arising out of Sursand P.S. Case No. 104

of 2019, whereby Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 have been acquitted

from the charges of Sections 302/34 and 120B of Indian Penal Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.647 of 2024 dt.15-10-2025

Code and Sections 25(1B)(a), 26 and 27 of the Arms Act.

2. The prosecution case, in brief, is that on 07.04.2019

at about 06:30 PM, Abhinandan Singh @ Abhay Singh, brother

of the informant, was coming to his house on a motorcycle

through Polytechnic College. When his brother reached near the

bridge adjacent to the graveyard and Polytechnic College,

accused persons namely, Ranjan Pathak, Raju Kumar Thakur

and Ashish Pathak intercepted his motorcycle. It is alleged that

accused Ranjan Pathak fired at him causing injury on his chest

and in order to save his life, he ran away and went into the

house of Sindhu Rai. The police, on receiving information,

arrived at the house of Sindhu Rai and took him to the hospital,

but he succumbed to his injuries on the way.

3. It is further alleged that there was a love affair

between the informant's brother and one Ritu Pathak. She had

threatened the informant's brother a few days prior to the

occurrence to get him eliminated. When marriage negotiation of

Ritu Pathak with some other person was going on, the

informant's brother raised objection and out of annoyance, Ritu

Pathak, in conspiracy with the accused persons, got him killed.

4. On the basis of the written statement of the

informant, Sursand P.S. Case No. 104 of 2019 was instituted Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.647 of 2024 dt.15-10-2025

under Sections 302 and 120B of Indian Penal Code 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 and 3 and, accordingly, cognizance was

taken. Thereafter the case was committed to the Court of

Sessions. Charges were framed against the accused persons

under Sections 302/34 and 120B of Indian Penal Code and

Sections 25(1B)(a), 26 and 27 of the Arms Act, to which they

pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

5. During the trial, the prosecution examined

altogether 13 witnesses i.e. PW1- Sindhu Rai, PW2- Krishna

Kumar, PW3- Vijay Mandal, PW4- Ram Ashish Ram, PW5-

Krishna Devi, PW6- Yogendra Sah @ Nunu Sah, PW7- Ranjan

Kumar Kapar @ Feku Kapar, PW8- Laxmeshwar Kapar, PW9-

Shanti Devi, PW10- Murari Prasad, PW11- Dr. Abdul Wasid,

PW12- Sachin Kumar and PW13- Jitendra Kumar Singh. The

prosecution also produced several exhibits i.e., Ext. P1-

signature of PW1 on the seizurelist dated 08.04.2019, Ext. P2-

signature of PW5 on the seizurelist, Ext. P3- signature of the

informant Santosh Kumar (deceased) on the written report, Ext.

P4- formal FIR, Ext. P5- attested copy of inquest report, Ext.

P6- seizure lists dated 07.04.2019 prepared by PW10, Ext. P7- Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.647 of 2024 dt.15-10-2025

seizure lists dated 08.04.2019 prepared by PW10, Ext. P8-

attested copy of postmortem report prepared from the original

report, Ext. P9- signature of PW12 on the attested copy of the

inquest report, Ext. P10- signature of PW13 on the inquest

report and Ext. P11- certified copy of charge sheet (final form)

of Sursand PS Case No. 13 of 2021. The defence has neither

examined any oral or documentary evidence. After closure of

prosecution evidence, the statements of the accused persons

were recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. and after conclusion of

trial, learned trial court has acquitted the Respondent Nos. 2 and

3.

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

miserably failed to bring home the guilt of the accused persons

under Sections U/s 302/34, 120B IPC and U/s 25(1B)(a), 26, 27

of the Arms Act, beyond shadow of all reasonable doubts. In

such circumstances, the above named accused persons are not

held to be guilty of having committed any of the offences as

referred to above and hence, they are liable to be acquitted of

the charges levelled against them.

7. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.647 of 2024 dt.15-10-2025

learned trial court failed to consider the evidence of PW9 who

had supported the 'last seen theory' and the motive for

commission of instant crime was because of a love affair. It was

further submitted that though PW1 to PW7 have, during the

trial, turned hostile, but they have fully supported the

prosecution version under section 161 Cr.P.C. The deceased,

during investigation, had specifically stated the name of the

assailant before PW1, PW3 and PW5. The place of occurrence

has also been established by the Investigating Officer. But the

learned trial court acquitted the respondent Nos. 2 and 3 holding

that the prosecution has miserably failed to bring home the guilt

of the accused persons. Hence, the judgment of acquittal is not

sustainable.

8. The learned counsel for the State 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. We have heard the counsel for the appellant and the

State, and have also gone through the records of the case.

10. The sole question that requires consideration by

this Court is whether the impugned judgment of acquittal Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.647 of 2024 dt.15-10-2025

requires any interference by this Court.

11. From a perusal of the First Information Report, it

is evident that the informant, who is none other than the brother

of the deceased, claims to have witnessed the occurrence.

However, the FIR itself records that the informant was at his

residence at the time of the incident. There is no explanation in

the FIR or in any other material on record as to how he reached

the place of occurrence and under what circumstances he

witnessed the alleged assault. The unexplained presence of the

informant at the scene of crime creates serious doubt about the

veracity of his claim.

12. The record reveals that during the pendency of the

trial, the informant expired and hence could not be examined

before the Court. As a result, his claim of being an eye-witness

remains untested by cross-examination. The FIR, by itself,

cannot be treated as substantive evidence. It can be used only to

corroborate or contradict the maker under Section 157 or 145 of

the Evidence Act. In absence of the informant's deposition, the

foundational version of the prosecution remains unproved.

13. The prosecution has examined PW1 to PW7 as

witnesses to the occurrence. However, PW1, in whose house the

informant allegedly took shelter during the occurrence, has Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.647 of 2024 dt.15-10-2025

categorically denied such claim and was declared hostile.

Likewise, PW's 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7 have also turned hostile and

failed to support the prosecution case. It is well settled that the

evidence of a hostile witness is not to be rejected in toto but

must be accepted to the extent it is found to be credible.

However, in the present case, the prosecution has not been able

to extract any material portion from the cross-examination of

these witnesses which could lend support to the prosecution

version. In State of Rajasthan v. Bhawani and Another, (2003)

7 SCC 291, the Supreme Court observed in para 10 of judgment

which reads as under:

"10. The fact that the witness was declared hostile by the Court at the request of the prosecuting counsel and he was allowed to cross-examine the witness, no doubt furnishes no justification for rejecting en bloc the evidence of the witness. But the court has at least to be aware that prima facie, a witness who makes different statements at different times has no regard for truth. His evidence has to be read and considered as a whole with a view to find out whether any weight should be attached to the same. The court should be slow to act on the testimony of such a witness and, normally, it should look for corroboration to his evidence..."

14. The prosecution has failed to establish any motive

behind the alleged crime. In cases where direct evidence is weak

or doubtful, motive assumes great evidentiary value. The

complete absence of motive renders the prosecution story Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.647 of 2024 dt.15-10-2025

further improbable.

15. PW9, the mother of the deceased, has claimed

herself to be a witness to the circumstance of "last seen."

However, her version in Court materially differs from that of the

informant, who is the brother of the deceased. While PW9

deposed that the deceased was at home, received calls but did

not respond, and that the accused thereafter came to the house

and took him to the Chowk for refreshment, where she later

heard sounds of gunfire, the informant in the FIR has alleged an

entirely different sequence that the deceased was returning

home on a motorcycle when the accused met him near the

bridge and shot him there. Such a significant divergence

between the statements of two closest family members

regarding the place, time, and manner of occurrence creates a

serious dent in the prosecution case. Hence, this contradiction

cannot be treated as inconsequential and strikes at the very

foundation of the prosecution case.

16. The Investigating Officer (PW10), in his

deposition, admitted that the statements of PW1 and his family

members were not recorded during investigation. This omission

is significant because PW1 is claimed to be a material witness

by the informant. Such an investigative lapse not only reflects a Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.647 of 2024 dt.15-10-2025

perfunctory approach but also undermines the fairness and

completeness of the investigation.

17. It appears from the record that the alleged

occurrence took place near the Polytechnic College.

Surprisingly, no independent witness from the locality or the

college was examined by the prosecution. In such

circumstances, withholding of natural witnesses without

explanation gives rise to an adverse inference under Section

114(g) of the Evidence Act. In Takhaji Hiraji v. Thakore

Kubersing Chamansing and Others, (2001) 6 SCC 145, the

Supreme Court observed that "non-examination of material

independent witnesses, particularly when they are available,

leads to an inference that their evidence would have been

unfavourable to the prosecution, 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 Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.647 of 2024 dt.15-10-2025

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 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 Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.647 of 2024 dt.15-10-2025

the accused persons had 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."

18. In the totality of the facts and circumstances, this

Court finds that the prosecution case suffers from multiple

infirmities namely; doubtful presence of the informant at the

place of occurrence, absence of his testimony due to death, all Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.647 of 2024 dt.15-10-2025

material witnesses turning hostile, contradiction between family

witnesses, lack of motive, major lapses in investigation, and

non-production of independent witnesses. The cumulative effect

of these deficiencies renders the prosecution version wholly

unreliable and insufficient to bring home the guilt of the accused

beyond reasonable doubt.

19. Accordingly, this Court finds that the prosecution

has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. The

accused is entitled to the benefit of doubt and consequent

acquittal.

20. 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,

the accused is entitled to the benefit of doubt.

21. 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 Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.647 of 2024 dt.15-10-2025

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 read 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 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 Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.647 of 2024 dt.15-10-2025

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.........."

22. In the case of Ghurey Lal v. 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."

23. Thus, an order of acquittal is to be interfered with

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.

24. In view of the above, we do not find any illegality

or perversity in the findings recorded by the trial court.

25. Accordingly, the present appeal is dismissed. Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.647 of 2024 dt.15-10-2025

26. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed

of.

(Sudhir Singh, J)

(Rajesh Kumar Verma, J) Sujit/-

AFR/NAFR                NAFR
CAV DATE                NA
Uploading Date          17.10.2025
Transmission Date       17.10.2025