Patna High Court
Sunil Kumar vs The State Of Bihar on 17 October, 2025
Author: Anshuman
Bench: Anshuman
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL APPEAL (DB) No.128 of 2019
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-141 Year-2017 Thana- MUFFASIL District- West Champaran
======================================================
SUNIL KUMAR S/o Sri Paras Sharma village-Pokhanbhinda, P.S-Bettiah
Muffasil,
... ... Appellant/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
with
CRIMINAL APPEAL (DB) No. 196 of 2019
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-141 Year-2017 Thana- MUFFASIL District- West Champaran
======================================================
NAVNEEL NIRAJ Son of Late Rudal Sharma Resident of Village -
Ghorahiya, P.S.- Srinagar, distt.- West Champaran
... ... Appellant/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
(In CRIMINAL APPEAL (DB) No. 128 of 2019)
For the Appellant/s : Mr. Ramakant Sharma, Sr. Advocate
Mr. Vatsal Verma, Advocate
For the Respondent/s : Mr. Dilip Kumar Sinha, APP
(In CRIMINAL APPEAL (DB) No. 196 of 2019)
For the Appellant/s : Mr. Ramakant Sharma, Sr. Advocate
Mr. Vatsal Verma, Advocate
For the Respondent/s : Mr. Dilip Kumar Sinha, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BIBEK CHAUDHURI
and
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DR. ANSHUMAN
CAV JUDGMENT
(Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BIBEK CHAUDHURI)
Date : 17-10-2025
Both the Appeals are filed against the common
judgment passed in Sessions Trial No. 141 of 2017 corresponding
to G.R. No. 1638 of 2017 registered under Section 302/328/120B
of the IPC and Sessions Trial No. 551 of 2017 whereby and
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.128 of 2019 dt. 17 -10-2025
whereunder the appellants were convicted of offences under
Section 302/34 of IPC and they were sentenced to suffer
imprisonment for life and fine of Rs. 50,000/-, in default of
payment of fine further imprisonment for a period of two years.
2. The appellants, namely, Navneel Niraj and Sunil
Kumar have filed two separate appeals against the above
mentioned common judgment and order of conviction and
sentence being Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 196 of 2019 and Cr.
Appeal(DB) No. 128 of 2019.
3. We have heard both the appeals together and now
proceed to dispose of the appeals by the following judgment.
4. One Bhagmuni Devi made statement before the
Inspector of Police cum SHO, Mufassil P.S. of Bettiah in District
of West Champaran on 19th April, 2017 at about 11:30 A.M. that
there was a marriage ceremony of one of her neighbours, namely,
the son of Bahadur Sharma on 19 th April, 2017. On the previous
night all the male members of the family of the informant attended
"Barat" (Marriage party) of the bride-groom and left the village. In
the house there were only the female members including the
informant, her mother-in-law and her two daughters, namely,
Mamta Kumari aged about 24 years and Samta Kumari aged about
15 years. They returned to their house from the house of the
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.128 of 2019 dt. 17 -10-2025
neighbour of the informant at about 11.00 P.M. and went to sleep
in their room. At about 2:00 A.M. at night, the informant woke up
hearing a cry (बचाओ- बचाओ). She found that the sound was coming
from the eastern side room of their house. She rushed to the said
room and found both Mamta and Samta burning. The entire room
was under fire. She also saw under the flames of fire that appellant
Navneel Niraj and five others unknown persons were fleeing away
through the entrance door of the house. Then the informant and
others douse the fire and admitted them to M.J.K. Hospital,
Bettiah. From Bettiah Hospital, both the injured were referred to
Motihari Hospital. On the way to Motihari Hospital, Samta
Kumari died. Mamta Kumari was admitted to Motihari Hospital.
The informant also stated that accused Navneel Niraj wanted to
marry the daughter of the informant that is Mamta Kumari. Mamta
was not agreeable to marry him. Due to such reason Navneel
assaulted both the informant and deceased Mamta Kumari
previously with the help of a knife. Over the said issue a criminal
case being Bettiah Muffasil P.S. Case No. 71 of 2017 was
registered. After registration of the said case Navneel repeatedly
threatened the informant and her daughter Mamta and, lastly on
18th April, 2017, threatened the informant and Mamta that if he
was arrested in connection with the said case, he would terminate
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.128 of 2019 dt. 17 -10-2025
all of them by burning. Thus, the informant alleged that as a
criminal case was registered against Navneel Niraj, he along with
his five unknown associates, threw petrol inside the bedroom of
Mamta and Samta and set the room on fire, as a result of which
both of them received serious burn injury and Samta died. Few
days after registration of F.I.R., Mamta also succumbed to her
injury at Motihari Hospital.
5. The statement of Bhagmuni Devi was recorded by the
S.H.O. Bettiah Muffasil P.S. The said statement was treated as
F.I.R. On the basis of the said statement, formal F.I.R. was drawn
against Navneel Niraj and other unknown persons under Section
302/120B of the I.P.C. The S.H.O. of the concerned Muffasil P.S.
took up the case for investigation. Subsequent to his transfer his
successor in office took the charge of the investigation and on
conclusion of the investigation submitted chargesheet against four
accused persons, namely, Navneel Niraj, Amit @Golu, Shekhar
Kumar, Naveen Singh and, Sunil Kumar.
6. Since accused Shekhar Kumar @Vivek Kumar was
juvenile on the date of offence, his record was split up and sent to
the Juvenile Justice Board for trial. The remaining four accused
persons were charged for the offences under Sections 302/34,
326/34, 387/34 506/34 and 120B of the I.P.C. As the accused
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.128 of 2019 dt. 17 -10-2025
persons pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried when charge
was framed and explained to them, prosecution was called upon to
produce the witnesses to prove the charge.
7. During the trial, the prosecution examined as many as
ten witnesses. Among them, P.W.4 is the de facto complainant;
P.W.1 is the grandfather of the deceased; P.W.2 is their father; and
P.W.3 is the grandmother of the deceased. P.W.5, Jitendra Prasad,
was the SHO of Mufassil P.S., who recorded the initial statement
of the informant and treated it as the FIR. He was the first
Investigating Officer (I.O.) of the case. P.W.6 is the subsequent
SHO of Mufassil P.S. and served as the second I.O. of the case.
P.W.7, Dr. Kumar Mukund Prasad Parve, is the autopsy surgeon
who conducted the postmortem examination over the dead body of
the deceased Mamta. P.W.8, Dr. Vijay Kumar, conducted the
autopsy over the dead body of Samta. P.W.9, Ram Babu Sharma, is
the son of P.W.1, i.e., Laxman Thakur, and the uncle of the
deceased Mamta and Samta. P.W.10, Dr. Ashok Kumar Singh,
medically examined the appellant, Navneel Niraj, on 27 th April
2017 at about 5:25 PM.
8. Defence case as disclosed from the cross-examination
of the witnesses on behalf of the prosecution and examination of
the accused under Section 313 of the CrPC appears to be a
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.128 of 2019 dt. 17 -10-2025
complete denial of the prosecution's case. As many as four
witnesses including accused Navneel deposed during trial of the
case as defence witness. The accused persons took a specific plea
to the effect that they were falsely implicated in the case and they
were not present in the village on the date of occurrence. They
attended the "Barat" of a co-villager. They also took part in the
marriage ceremony of the said co-villager and danced with
orchestra. They were falsely implicated in this case due to grudge
and previous enmity between them and the de facto complainant.
9. During trial of the case, the inquest report and
postmortem report of the deceased were marked as exhibits which
we propose to refer subsequently at the time of appreciation of
evidence of autopsy surgeon. The learned Sessions Judge, Bettiah
on due consideration of evidence on record held that charge under
Section 302/34 of the IPC was proved against the present
appellants and they were accordingly convicted and sentenced to
suffer imprisonment for life with fine and default clause.
10. Under the above background and premises, the
above-mentioned two appeals were filed.
11. Only point for consideration in these appeals is as to
whether the learned Sessions Judge, Bettiah was right in holding
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.128 of 2019 dt. 17 -10-2025
appellants guilty for committing offence under Section 302/34 of
the IPC on proper appreciation of evidence.
Evidence on Record.
12. PW-1, namely, Lakhan Thakur is the grand father of
deceased Mamta and Samta. He stated in his examination-in-chief
that on 19th April 2017 at night, he was present in the "Barat" of a
co-villager at village Varvatika. At that time, one Bhadur Rai
received information over his mobile phone that his
granddaughters, namely, Mamta and Samta received burn injuries
and they were taken to hospital. The witness along with other
villagers rushed to the hospital. In the hospital, the SHO of
Mufassil P.S. recorded a statement of Mamta in his presence.
Mamta told the police officer that she woke up from her sleep
immediately after some liquid material spilled upon her body. She
saw Navneel sitting on छजजा (Sunshade). She tried to raise hue
and cry but Navneel set the room on fire. As a result, both Mamta
and Samta received severe burn injuries. Samta died of burn
injuries. PW-1 put his signature as a witness to the statement of
Mamta recorded by the I.O. on 19.04.2017 at 04:30 PM in Mani
Hospital, Motihari. The witness was cross-examined on behalf of
the accused persons. Cross-examination of PW-1 made on behalf
of the Navneel Niraj is important and deemed to be recorded here.
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.128 of 2019 dt. 17 -10-2025
It appears from the cross-examination of PW-1 on behalf of the
Navneel that the witness attended the marriage party of the son of
one Bahadur Sharma of their village. The information regarding
the incident was received over phone by Bahadur Sharma, he
informed the same to PW-1. PW-1 immediately rushed to the
hospital by the motorcycle of his elder son. It is also stated by PW-
1 that the statement of Mamta was recorded in the Hospital at
about 3:30 AM at night. At that time, she was suffering with pain
and she was screaming. The witness also stated during his cross-
examination that police recorded the statement of victim Mamta in
presence of Medical Officer. He could not recollect whether the
statement of the victim was recorded on a white paper or a paper
having printed lines. Signature of PW-1 on the statement of the
deceased Mamta is marked as Exhibit-1. The witness also stated
that Mamta stated to police that accused Navneel was sitting on
the sun shade. It is also revealed from the cross-examination of
PW-1 that marriage of Mamta was settled with the son of one
Vidyarthi Thakur of village Manuawa and after settlement of
marriage a puja was performed in the house of PW-1. After
settlement of marriage, Navneel threatened Vidyarthi Thakur
saying that if Mamta's marriage was solemnized with his son, he
would kill all of them. The witness denied that he and his son
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.128 of 2019 dt. 17 -10-2025
proposed Mamta's marriage with Navneel, but Navneel declined
her to marriage. Out of grudge, a false case was registered against
Navneel.
13. PW-2 Ram Pravesh Thakur is the father of deceased
girls. It is found from his evidence that he also went to Manuapul
with the marriage party of a co-villager. At about 01:45 a.m. his
uncle Bahadur Thakur, received a phone call and informed him
that Mamta and Samta received burn injuries. PW-2 immediately
rushed to the hospital with his father and found his daughters in
burnt conditions on hospital bed. PW-2 stated that Navneel set
them on fire. Both the patients were referred to Motihari Hospital.
On the way to Motihari, Samta died. Police recorded the statement
of Mamta who told the police officer that Navneel sprinkled petrol
through the ventilator of the room where Mamta and Samta were
sleeping and set the room on fire. Mamta was subsequently
referred to Patna Medical College and Hospital, Patna and on the
way to Patna she also died. The witness stated that statement of
Mamta was recorded by the police in his presence. From his cross-
examination, it is ascertained that PW-2 came to know from the
police that his daughter received 80% burn injury on their persons.
He saw his daughters in injured condition in the hospital. He came
to know the names of the accused persons from his wife over
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.128 of 2019 dt. 17 -10-2025
mobile phone when he was in the marriage party. When his
daughters were examined medically, the doctor found them in
senses. In cross-examination, PW-2 also stated that his daughter
Mamta put her Right Thumb Impression (RTI) on her statement.
Her statement contained 10/12 lines. The witness read out the said
statement. It is further ascertained from cross-examination of PW-
2 that his daughters used to learn computer at Lal Bhadhur
Computer Training Institute. Mamta used to go to the said institute
alone. She had no training of Judo and Karate. With regard to
knowledge of Mamta in Judo and Karate, PW-2 had no
knowledge. Mamta used to take training of sewing at Harivatika
Chowk. PW-2 also stated during his cross-examination that his
younger daughter Samta had no love relation with any boy of their
village. PW-2 did not resist Samta from mixing with any boy of
the village. From the cross-examination of PW-2, we get the
topography of the place of occurrence. It is a room measuring
about 10 ft. x 10ft. with a verandah on the southern side. The room
was set on fire by the miscreants and his daughters received injury
being ablaze by fire. It is also found that the household articles like
trunk and other materials and a cot placed against the eastern side
wall were in the room. The cot was fully burnt and other articles of
the room was partly burnt. The witness stated that there was no
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.128 of 2019 dt. 17 -10-2025
container of kerosene oil or earthen pot in the said room. He also
stated that a fire was doused by water and the room became muddy
while dousing the fire.
14. P.W. 3 Tara Devi is the grand-mother of the deceased
girls. She stated in her evidence that the incident took place about
six months before the date when she deposed. At the time of
incident, she was sleeping. She heard cries of her grand daughters
for help. She went to their room and found that the whole room
was burnt. She also found both the appellants sitting on the terrace.
Seeing the witness, they jumped from the terrace and ran away.
While running away, Navneel Niraj covered his body by a towel.
The witness and others rescued the victims who were burning.
They doused the fire from their body and they were sent to Bettiah
hospital. On the way to hospital, Samta died. Mamta was
medically treated. She gave her statement to the police. Due to
extensive burn Mamta could not put her signature on the statement
but she put her thumb impression. It is also ascertained from the
examination in chief of P.W. 3 that during investigation, police
conducted T.I.P of the suspects and the witnesses identified the
appellants in TIP. From the cross-examination of P.W. 3, it is found
that she and her grand daughters attended a marriage ritual named
Parchavan in the house of one of his neighbours on the date of
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.128 of 2019 dt. 17 -10-2025
occurrence. From his cross-examination topography of the P.O is
ascertained. On the north of the house of the deceased, there is a
house and land of one Dhruv Pandey, to its south is the house of a
blacksmith, to the east there is a house of appellant Sunil Kumar
and to the west is the house of one Pappu Thakur. She also stated
in her evidence that her house is constructed on one khatha of
land. There is no courtyard in her house. There are nine rooms in
the house. The witness was sleeping in north eastern room and her
grand daughters were sleeping in another room situated in the
opposite direction of the room of the witness. She stated in her
cross-examination that she heard sound of screaming for about
half an hour and came to the PO. The door of the room of her
daughters-in-law was closed from inside. She kicked the door of
the room for about five times and the door was opened. Then she
found the entire room ablaze. She tried to extinguish the fire with
water. After the fire was extinguished, she and her daughter-in-law,
P.W. 1 entered into the room. She found her grand-daughters lying
in a burnt condition. Their books and other reading materials were
also burnt. There dress materials were burnt, the electric wires in
the room were also burnt and entire bed and mosquitoes net were
burnt by fire. From further cross-examination, it is ascertained that
there is a ventilator in the room where the victims received burn
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.128 of 2019 dt. 17 -10-2025
injury. The circumference of the ventilator is six fingers wide.
During cross-examination, she also stated that her daughter-in-law
Mamta was not unconscious when she was taken to hospital by a
tractor driven by his father Ramprawesh Thakur. It is also learnt
from the cross-examination of P.W. 3 that marriage of Mamta was
fixed with a boy of a neighbouring village but the accused Navneel
got the said marriage cancelled.
15. P.W. 4 is the informant of the case. She corroborated
her statement which she made before the police in her examination
in chief. She stated that when she heard the scream of her girls, she
rushed to their room and saw that both her daughters were burning.
They received severe burn. There cloths were completely ablaze.
Her mother-in-law and sister-in-law extinguished the fire placing
dry cloths on the body of the victims. Both the girls were talking at
the time. They were taken to Motihari in an ambulance. Samta
died on the way to hospital. She identified her signature in the
fardebyan which is marked as Exhibit 2 during trial.
16. This Court finds from the cross-examination that her
daughters' statement was recorded in Motihari by the police.
Initially she stated that she was not in Motihari when her daughter
gave statement but subsequently she amended her statement and
stated that she was present in Motihari. She also stated that her
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.128 of 2019 dt. 17 -10-2025
daughter told the names of two accused persons and did not
mention the names of Navin Singh and Amit Kumar as her
assailants. From her cross-examination, it is further ascertained
that at around 2:00 A.M. at night when she was sleeping, she heard
a scream "Help Help". She heard a scream of her daughters,
Mamta and Samta seeking for help. Within two to four minutes,
she rushed to the southern side of room where Mamta and Samta
were sleeping. The door of the room of their daughters were closed
from inside. It was opened while they kicked on the door from
outside. Her mother-in-law and sister-in-law were also with her.
When she tried to extinguish the fire, her Saree and a little part of
her body also received burn injury. As soon as the door was
opened, both the girls came out their room while burning on the
southern side of the Baranda. Fire was doused from their body by
pouring water. The witness could not say who poured water on
their body. At that time, the girls were not unconscious. Her
husband took both the girls to the hospital by a tractor, then said
they were taken to the hospital by an ambulance. From her
evidence, it is also learnt that Mamta was a student of B.A. Class.
P.W. 4 and other family members forbid her from meeting anyone
outside. Mamta used to take training of martial arts and karate. She
used to go to Lal Bahadur Computer Centre to learn computer.
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.128 of 2019 dt. 17 -10-2025
After B.A. Part-1 examination her studies were stopped. Both the
girls was learning sewing during their life time. The Mukhiya of
the village named Umakant visited the house of the de facto
complainant on his own after the incident along with the police
officer on the following day of her return from Motihari.
17. P.W. 5 Jitendra Prasad was the SHO of Muffasil P.S.,
Bettiah on 19th of April, 2017. He recorded the fardebyan of
Bhagmuni Devi on 19th of April, 2017 at 11:30 A.M and accepted
the same as FIR. On the basis of the said statement made by P.W.
4, he registered Muffasil P.S. Case No. 141 of 2017 dated 19th of
April, 2017 under Sections 302, 328 and 120B of the IPC. The
fardebyan was marked as Exhibit 2 during trial of the case. Formal
FIR was recorded by one Firoz Ahmad which was marked as
Exhibit 4. P.W. 5 took the charge of investigation himself. After
recording fardebyan and considering the serious nature of offence,
he sent PSI Lal Kishore Gupta to the City Hospital for proper
medical treatment of both the injured girls. He came to know that
one of the daughters of the de facto complainant, namely, Samta
died. He prepared an inquest report over the dead body of Samta
which was marked as Exhibit 5.
18. From the cross-examination of P.W. 6, we get a clear
picture of the place of occurrence. The room where the above-
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.128 of 2019 dt. 17 -10-2025
named two girls were burnt is situated on the north eastern side.
The said room was having two windows - one on the north side
and another on the eastern side. Above the windows there is a
cemented terrace "Sunshade / छजजा". Above the छजजा /
cemented terrace, there was an open ventilator at a height of 3 feet
from the terrace / sunshade / छजजा. The said ventilator was not
covered by any material. Thus, any person can reach not only upto
but above the level of ventilator riding on the cemented terrace /
sunshade / छजजा constructed over the windows. It was also
affirmatively taken during cross-examination of P.W. 6 that after
climbing on the terrace, the petrol kept in the bottle was thrown in
the room through the ventilator and the fire was lit with a
matchstick, because of which both the both the sisters sleeping in
the room received burn injury and the serious incident happened.
An empty bottle, money and remains of burnt articles were seized
from inside the house under the instruction of the I.O by PSI Lal
Kishore Gupta in presence of witnesses, namely, Rambabu Sharma
and Pintu Sharma. The said seizure list is marked Exhibit 6.
Another empty bottle having little bent/curved was found on the
terrace. The said bottle was also seized by police. Carbon-copy of
another seizure list in respect of other burnt household articles was
marked as Exhibit 6/1. P.W. 6 recorded the statement of the
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.128 of 2019 dt. 17 -10-2025
witnesses as well as the statement of Mamta before her death. PSI
Lal Kishore Gupta recorded the statement of Mamta under the
instruction of P.W. 6. The said statement was marked as Exhibit 7.
It is also found from evidence that in course of investigation,
officers and members of staff of FSL examined the place of
occurrence. Nothing important is revealed from the cross-
examination of P.W. 5. P.W. 6 Ramesh Chandra Upadhyay is the
second Investigating Officer. He took up further investigation of
the case on 21st of April, 2017. In course of his part of
investigation, he first arrested accused Sunil Kumar on the basis
of his mobile tower location. From the possession of Sunil Kumar,
the mobile phone of accused Navneel Niraj was recovered. The
seizure list in respect of the mobile phone which was recovered
from Sunil Kumar was proved by P.W. 6 but it was not marked
Exhibit by the learned Trial Judge, for the reasons best known to
him. The investigating officer also ascertained from the accused
persons that they went to Reliance Petrol Pump and purchased
petrol in water bottles. After procurement of petrol, Shekhar and
Navneel rode a motorcycle to reach village Pokhar Bhinda.
Accused Nanvin road the motorcycle of accused Golu. They
reached village Pokhar Bhinda to execute the crime. P.W. 6
collected CCTV footage recorded at the petrol pump and on
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.128 of 2019 dt. 17 -10-2025
perusal of which he ascertained that Golu, Navneel Niraj, Navin
and Shekhar went to Reliance Petrol Pump to purchase petrol. He
seized the motorcycle of Navneel Niraj which was allegedly used
for committing crime. The said seizure list is marked as Exhibit
6/3. After being arrested the accused Navneel Niraj was medically
examined, and the Medical Officer found burn injury also on the
body of Navneel Niraj. The Investigating Officer also collected
CCTV footage of the date of occurrence of Reliance Petrol Pump
and from the said CCTV footage presence of the accused persons
in the Petrol Pump for purchasing petrol was ascertained. It is
pertinent to note here that though the Investigating Officer
collected the CDR between Sunil Kumar and Navneel Niraj and
CCTV footage, no certification under Section 65 B of the Indian
Evidence Act was obtained by the I.O. Therefore, in the absence of
such certification, the above-mentioned pieces of evidence ought
not to have been considered by the Trial Court. From cross-
examination of P.W. 6, it appears that accused Navneel Niraj was
arrested on 26th of April, 2017 at about 12:35 P.M. from the Nepal
border. It was suggested during cross-examination that the victims
committed suicide by burning. The said suggestion was stoutly
denied by P.W. 6.
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.128 of 2019 dt. 17 -10-2025
19. P.W. 7 Kumar Mukund Prasad Parve held P.M.
examination over the dead body of deceased Mamta, aged about
24 years, daughter of Ramprawesh Sharma, Village Pokhar Bhinda
on 23rd of April, 2017 at 9:01 P.M. The following injuries were
observed on the body of the deceased:
"During PM examination the following anti mortem burn injuries
were detected on the body of the deceased external examination Foley
Catheter was empty.
In cannula left femoral present and two removed
(i) Superficial burn involving face and singeing of hairs,
chest back of right leg, left leg lower part,
perenial region and buttocks was burnt about 80%.
On dissection- Brain matter congested
Chest-Lungs congested.
Heart-Right chamber full, left- empty
Abdomen- All abdominal viscera like liver, spleen and kidney
were congested.
Stomach- Nil
Uterus and grand urinary bladder empty
Urinary bladder- Empty
Time elapsed-Since death and PM. held within 24 hours.
In my opinion- the cause of death was due to above noted bur
injuries, leading to shock caused by fire."
20. In his opinion, the cause of death was due to burn
injuries as a result of shock. In cross-examination the autopsy
surgeon admitted that generally no post mortem was done at night.
It is only done in broad day light. However, in the instant case,
post mortem was done at night under the special order of the
District Magistrate.
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.128 of 2019 dt. 17 -10-2025
21. P.W. 8 Dr. Vijay Kumar conducted the autopsy over
the dead body of Samta, Daughter of Ramprawesh Sharma, Village
Pokhar Bhinda on 19th of April, 2017 at about 11:20 A.M. On
examination, he found the following injuries on the person of the
deceased:-
"Dermo epidermal burn with blackening present all
over the body, except back, chest of illegible 6"x6' area.
Red inflamed area present at several places of the body.
Scalp, exhilary and pubic hair were partly.. sized.
On dissection-Trachea and lungs found congested.
Heart- Left side contained blood. Right side empty.
Abdominal Vesra- Like Hair, Spleen - Kidney congested.
The above noted inuries are ante mortem casued by fire
Death was due to asphyxia and shock as a result of
death time since death - within 12 hours from PM examination."
22. From his cross-examination, we find that the
deceased was brought and identified with P.W. 8 by the Chowkidar
of the village. The medical officer stated that he did not find any
smell of kerosene oil or petrol over the dead body of Samta.
According to the medical officer, the injuries received by Samta
was ante mortem in nature, caused by fire and she died due to
asphyxia and shock as a result of the injuries she received.
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.128 of 2019 dt. 17 -10-2025
23. P.W. 9 Rambabu Sharma is the son of P.W. 1
Laxman Thakur. Thus, he is the uncle of deceased Mamta and
Samta. He deposed on oath that on 19 th of April, 2017, at about
2:30 A.M., at night when he was attending a marriage party at
Manuapul, at that point in time Bahadur Sharma received a phone
call on his mobile regarding the incident. Immediately, he and one
Shriram Sharma returned to their house by a motorcycle and saw
that Mamta or Samta were being taken on a tractor on the way to
hospital. Both of them were burnt. Mamta told him that Navneel
Niraj and his four/five associates sprinkled petrol over their body
and set them in fire. They were subsequently referred to Motihari
hospital. On the way to the hospital Samta died. Mamta was being
treated at Motihari hospital but after three days of the occurrence
she succumbed to her injury. The witness also stated that the
incident took place because of the fact that Navneel wanted to
marry Mamta but she denied. Over the said incident, mother of
Mamta told Navneel not to disturb her daughter but Navneel
assaulted her. Bhagmuni Devi, the mother of Mamta lodged a
complaint in the local police station against Navneel Niraj. The
witness stated during the cross-examination that Mamta for the
first time stated the name of Navneel as the perpetrator of crime.
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.128 of 2019 dt. 17 -10-2025
On 19th of April, 2017 at about 4:00 A.M., she also made the same
statement implicating Navneel in the hospital.
24. P.W. 10 Dr. Ashok Kumar Singh, medically
examined accused Navneel on 27th of April, 2017 at about 5:25
P.M. He found the following burn injuries on his person:-
"(i) Dorsal & fractal aspect of on left forearm.
(ii) Dorsal aspect of left hand and finger illegible
(iii) Left side of face & left side of neck.
(iv) Rt forearm flexed aspect.
(v) Minial aspect of both eyes.
(vi) Beltoyed area of left arm and posterior aspect of
lower left arm.
(vii) Left scapular area percentage of burn 18%"
25. According to the medical officer, all the injuries in
the person of accused Navneel Niraj was caused due to burn,
superficial and simple in nature.
26. The accused persons were examined under Section
330 of the Cr.P.C. They denied their involvement in the alleged
occurrence. Accused Navneel Niraj also stated that he would
adduce evidence in support of his defence.
27. In all four witnesses were examined on behalf of the
defence. D.W. 1 Birendra Rao spoke of non-involvement of Golu
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.128 of 2019 dt. 17 -10-2025
and Navin Singh in the alleged incident. It is needless to say that
Golu and Navin Singh were acquitted and the State has not
preferred any appeal against the order of acquittal. Therefore,
evidence of D.W. 1 Birendra Rao, D.W. 2 Ambika Chaudhary do
not require to be discussed by us.
28. D.W. 3 Gulshan Kumar Sharma stated in his
evidence that on 18th of April, 2017, the accused Sunil Kumar went
to Manuapul in a marriage party with him. They stayed in the said
marriage ceremony till 4:00 A.M. They enjoyed songs and dance
in the said marriage.
29. D.W. 4 is Navneel Niraj himself. He stated in his
evidence that the mother of Mamta talked to him and his parents at
Hajarimal Dharmasalla and proposed to give Mamta in marriage
to Navneel. Navneel used to work as a trainer in the institute of
martial arts on the second floor of Tulsi Vastralay at Lal Bazar.
Mamta used to come to the said institute after her mother proposed
to give her in marriage to Navneel. Police described Mamta as his
student and tarnished his image in the profession and the pious
relationship "Guru and Sisya". The accused stated on oath that
Mamta was never her student. The accused also stated that
Bhagmuni Devi and her family members started visiting the
institute of the accused very often after the proposal of marriage of
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.128 of 2019 dt. 17 -10-2025
the accused with Mamta was given. In course of time, a love
relationship was developed between Navneel and Mamta.
Subsequently, however, the mother of Mamta decided otherwise
and refused to give Navneel's marriage to Mamta. She also tried to
commit murder of Navneel by offering him poisonous food. On 2 nd
of December, 2017, Navneel was admitted to M.J.K. hospital,
Bettiah. On 19th of January, 2017, Navneel was assaulted with the
help of a knife by Ramprawesh Sharma. All such offences were
committed to separate Mamta from Navneel. They also filed a
false case against the accused which was registered as Muffasil
P.S. Case No. 71 of 2017.
30. This is all about the evidence adduced by the parties
in the Trial Court.
31. Mr. Ramakant Sharma, learned Senior Advocate for
the appellant Navneel Niraj, at the outset, submits that in the
instant appeal, identification of the accused / appellant is
absolutely doubtful. The incident took place at dead hours of night
on 19th of April, 2017. The deceased Mamta allegedly made a
statement after she received an 80 % burn injury that she woke up
from her sleep when some liquid was being sprinkled upon her
body through the ventilator and saw the accused Navneel Niraj
standing on the sunshade above the window and sprinkling some
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.128 of 2019 dt. 17 -10-2025
watery material on the body of her and her sister through the
ventilator which remained open. She could identify Navneel
through the said ventilator and immediately thereafter Navneel set
fire in the room where the deceased were sleeping with the help of
matchstick.
32. It is vehemently contended by Mr. Sharma that at
dead hours of the night it was not possible for deceased Mamta to
identify the appellant. It is ascertained from the evidence of Tara
Devi, P.W. 3 who is the grand-mother of the deceased girl that she
heard the scream of the said two girls while they were burning for
half an hour and came to the P.O and found that Navneel and other
four persons were sitting on the sunshade above the window.
33. Mr. Sharma raised a pertinent question as to whether
it is possible for the miscreants to sit and wait for about half an
hour after setting the room, where the deceased were sleeping, on
fire. No prudent person shall believe that the accused persons, after
committing the offence, would wait at the place of occurrence for
half an hour only for the purpose of their identification.
34. Thus, prosecution hopelessly failed to prove
identification of the appellants in committing the offence.
35. Therefore in the absence of identification, this is a
case purely of circumstantial evidence.
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.128 of 2019 dt. 17 -10-2025
36. The learned Senior Advocate on behalf of the
appellants submits that a case based on circumstantial evidence
can only be proved on legal inferences. The circumstances from
which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn should be fully
established. The circumstances should be of a definite tendency
unerringly pointing towards the guilt of the accused. In a case of
circumstantial evidence, it is the duty of the prosecution to prove
that the circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is drawn
should be fully proved and such circumstances must be conclusive
in nature. Moreover, all the circumstances should be complete and
there should be no gap left in the chain of evidence. Further the
proof circumstances must be consistent with the hypothesis of the
guilt of the accused and totally inconsistent with his innocence.
37. Coming to the instant case, it is submitted by the
learned Senior Counsel on behalf of the appellant Navneel that in
the background of the fact that there is no direct evidence against
the appellants committing offence for which they were charged.
Prosecution was under obligation to prove the chain of
circumstances which is consistent with the guilt of the accused and
fully inconsistent with the claim of their innocence.
38. In the instant appeal, it has been pointed out by the
learned Senior Counsel that a gruesome incident involving the
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.128 of 2019 dt. 17 -10-2025
committing murder of two girls by burning, when they were
sleeping took place in a village on 19 th of April, 2017 but the
Investigating Officer failed to produce any independent witness
who corroborated the evidence of the witnesses on behalf of the
prosecution.
39. Secondly, it is pointed out by the learned Senior
Counsel that all the witnesses on behalf of the prosecution, beside
the Medical Officers and two numbers of I.Os, are close relatives
of the deceased.
40. Thirdly, it is established from the statement of the
informant as well as the evidence of the witnesses that the relation
between accused Navneel and the family members of the deceased
were inimical. The informant previously registered a case against
the appellant alleging assault to her and her daughter Mamta
against the appellant.
41. In view of such circumstances, false implication of
the appellants cannot be ruled out.
42. The learned Senior Counsel on behalf of the
appellant submits the basic cannon of criminal administration of
justice saying that the accused persons were not under obligation
to prove their innocence in a criminal trial. It is for the prosecution
to prove beyond any shadow of doubt the charge against the
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.128 of 2019 dt. 17 -10-2025
accused persons. The appellant himself deposed during trial of the
case as D.W. 4. He stated that mother of Mamta proposed his
marriage with Mamta. After such proposal, Mamta used to come to
his martial art training institute. A love relation was established
between them. Subsequently the mother of Mamta did not want
her daughter's marriage with the accused. Under such backdrop, it
may also be a fact that Mamta was not agreeable to break her
relation with Navneel and she and her sister were victims of
honour killing.
43. The learned Senior Counsel on behalf of the
appellant next submits that in order to prove involvement of the
appellants, the Investigating Officer submitted a Compact Disc
(C.D) and Call Details Report (CDR) to show that the principal
accused purchased petrol from Reliance Petrol Pump on the date
of occurrence and a conspiracy was hatched over mobile phone
among the accused persons. However, the electronic records of
CCTV footage and CDR are not admissible in evidence in the
absence of proper certification under Sub-Section 4 to Section 65B
of the Indian Evidence Act.
44. It is further pointed out by the learned Senior
Counsel on behalf of the appellant that the salesman of Reliance
Petrol Pump was also not examined by the I.O. to ascertain the fact
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.128 of 2019 dt. 17 -10-2025
as to whether the appellants purchased petrol from the said petrol
pump on 18th of April, 2017. The I.O. stated in his evidence that
one PSI, namely, Lal Kishore Gupta recorded the statement of
Mamta Kumari on 19th of April, 2017 at 4:30 P.M. PSI L.K Gupta
had not been examined during trial. It is pointed out by the learned
Senior Counsel for the appellant that the Trial Court committed a
grave error in relying on the statement of Mamta Kumari because
of the fact that firstly it was written by a police officer and not by a
Judicial or Executive Magistrate. The I.O. did not make any
requisition for appointment of a Judicial or Executive Magistrate
for recording dying declaration of the victim. Secondly, it was
recorded in presence of the grand-father and father of the victim
and there was chance of tutoring by them and thirdly and most
importantly no certification was taken from the Medical Officer to
show that the victim was physically fit and mentally alert and
orientated to make such statement.
45. Under such circumstances, it is the consistent view
of the Hon'ble Apex Court that such statement cannot be accepted
as voluntarily dying declaration of the victim and the on the basis
of such statement, a person cannot be held guilty.
46. It is also submitted by the learned Senior Counsel for
the appellant that the Investigating Authority did not collect the
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.128 of 2019 dt. 17 -10-2025
initial injury report of Mamta Kumari. In the absence of such
document, it is not possible to ascertain as to whether either the
victim or the patient party made any statement before the Medical
Officer regarding history of assault.
47. The evidence of P.W. 5 and P.W. 6 suggests that the
place of occurrence was investigated by a team from the Forensic
Science Laboratory (FSL). No FSL report is produced to prove as
to whether the room where the victim was sleeping was set on fire
by petrol or any other inflammable object. According to the I.O.,
the FSL team seized two empty bottles of water in which petrol
was brought. But the said bottle or the seized matchbox was not
examined to ascertain as to whether there was any impression of
fingers on the bottle or the matchbox.
48. Learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the
appellants has raised serious doubts regarding the statement which
the prosecution sought to treat as the dying declaration of Mamta
Kumari. It is submitted that Mamta's statement was recorded both
in Bettiah and Motihari. The statement at Motihari was recorded
three days after the occurrence. During this period, the victim had
the opportunity to meet her family members, creating every
possibility of tutoring.
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.128 of 2019 dt. 17 -10-2025
49. Moreover, the said statement was recorded by a
police officer in the presence of the victim's grandfather and
father, further increasing the likelihood of tutoring. From the
alleged statement, it appears that a medical officer was present at
the time of recording. However, the police officer who recorded
the statement did not obtain a certificate from the medical officer
to ascertain whether the victim was physically fit and mentally
oriented to give such a long and coherent statement.
50. In support of his contention, Mr. Sharma, learned
senior counsel for the appellants refers to an unreported decision
of this Court dated 30th August, 2024, in Criminal Appeal (DB)
No. 1271 of 2017, titled as Saurav Sharma and Anr. v. State of
Bihar.
51. In the aforesaid decision, there was no eyewitness to
the incident, and the prosecution's case rested on two dying
declarations given by the deceased. Upon examination of the dying
declarations, it was revealed to the Court that Kamla Devi (the
deceased) told each of the witnesses a different version of the
incident with regard to the manner of occurrence. The said
witnesses did not see the appellants at the place of occurrence or
fleeing from it.
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.128 of 2019 dt. 17 -10-2025
52. In that decision, there was also no certification from
the medical officer who was allegedly present at the time of
recording the so-called dying declaration of deceased. Thus, from
the evidence produced by the prosecution, it does not appear on
record whether the deceased was in a fit state of mind to make a
declaration. Moreover, there is no endorsement from the doctor
that the patient was conscious when her statement was recorded by
the police.
53. Learned senior counsel for the appellants submits
that in the case of Uttam v. State of Maharashtra, reported in
(2022) 8 SCC 576, the Hon'ble Supreme Court laid down certain
principles that the Court must consider while dealing with a case
based on a dying declaration. Paragraph 14 of the said judgment is
relevant and is quoted below:
"14. In Paniben v. State of
Gujarat [Paniben v. State of Gujarat, (1992) 2
SCC 474 : 1992 SCC (Cri) 403] , on
examining the entire conspectus of the law on
the principles governing dying declaration,
this Court had concluded thus : (SCC pp. 480-
81, para 18)
"18. ... (i) There is neither rule of law nor of
prudence that dying declaration cannot be acted upon
without corroboration. (Munnu Raja v. State of
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.128 of 2019 dt. 17 -10-2025
M.P. [Munnu Raja v. State of M.P., (1976) 3 SCC 104 :
1976 SCC (Cri) 376] )
(ii) If the Court is satisfied that the dying
declaration is true and voluntary it can base conviction
on it, without corroboration. (State of U.P. v. Ram Sagar
Yadav [State of U.P. v. Ram Sagar Yadav, (1985) 1 SCC
552 : 1985 SCC (Cri) 127] ; Ramawati Devi v. State of
Bihar [Ramawati Devi v. State of Bihar, (1983) 1 SCC 211 :
1983 SCC (Cri) 169] .
(iii) This Court has to scrutinise the dying
declaration carefully and must ensure that the
declaration is not the result of tutoring, prompting or
imagination. The deceased had opportunity to observe
and identify the assailants and was in a fit state to make
the declaration. (K. Ramachandra Reddy v. Public
Prosecutor [K. Ramachandra Reddy v. Public Prosecutor,
(1976) 3 SCC 618 : 1976 SCC (Cri) 473] .)
(iv) Where dying declaration is suspicious it
should not be acted upon without corroborative
evidence. (Rasheed Beg v. State of M.P. [Rasheed
Beg v. State of M.P., (1974) 4 SCC 264 : 1974 SCC (Cri)
426] )
(v) Where the deceased was unconscious and
could never make any dying declaration the evidence
with regard to it is to be rejected. (Kake Singh v. State of
M.P. [Kake Singh v. State of M.P., 1981 Supp SCC 25 :
1981 SCC (Cri) 645] )
(vi) A dying declaration which suffers from
infirmity cannot form the basis of conviction. (Ram
Manorath v. State of U.P. [Ram Manorath v. State of U.P.,
(1981) 2 SCC 654 : 1981 SCC (Cri) 581] )
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.128 of 2019 dt. 17 -10-2025
(vii) Merely because a dying declaration does
not contain the details as to the occurrence, it is not to be
rejected. (State of Maharashtra v. Krishnamurti
Laxmipati Naidu [State of Maharashtra v. Krishnamurti
Laxmipati Naidu, 1980 Supp SCC 455 : 1981 SCC (Cri)
364] .)
(viii) Equally, merely because it is a brief
statement, it is not to be discarded. On the contrary, the
shortness of the statement itself guarantees truth.
(Surajdeo Ojha v. State of Bihar [Surajdeo Ojha v. State
of Bihar, 1980 Supp SCC 769 : 1979 SCC (Cri) 519] .)
(ix) Normally the court in order to satisfy
whether deceased was in a fit mental condition to make
the dying declaration look up to the medical opinion. But
where the eyewitness has said that the deceased was in a
fit and conscious state to make this dying declaration,
the medical opinion cannot prevail. (Nanhau
Ram v. State of M.P. [Nanhau Ram v. State of M.P., 1988
Supp SCC 152 : 1988 SCC (Cri) 342] )
(x) Where the prosecution version differs
from the version as given in the dying declaration, the
said declaration cannot be acted upon. (State of
U.P. v. Madan Mohan [State of U.P. v. Madan Mohan,
(1989) 3 SCC 390 : 1989 SCC (Cri) 585] .)"
54. In Sardar v. State of U.P., reported in (1954) 2 SCC
214, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has cautioned on the question of
appreciation of dying declaration in the following paragraph: -
"15. It is settled law that it is not safe to
convict an accused person merely on the evidence
furnished by a dying declaration without further
corroboration because such a statement is not made on
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.128 of 2019 dt. 17 -10-2025
oath and is not subject to cross-examination and
because the maker of it might be mentally and physically
in a state of confusion and might well be drawing upon
his imagination while he was making the declaration"
55. In Jan Mohammad and Anr. Vs. State of Bihar
reported in 1953(1) SCC 5, the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed
in paragraph 11 as under:-
"11. The other statement was recorded by
Sub-Inspector Bikram Singh. We do not agree with the
appellants' counsel that it is not admissible in evidence,
for, in our opinion, it clearly comes under Section 32(1) of
the Evidence Act. But its value as a piece of evidence is a
different matter altogether. While we are far from
suggesting that a police officer is disqualified by any
rules of law from recording a dying declaration in
exceptional circumstances where resort to a Magistrate
or other responsible officer would mean such delay as
might prevent the declaration being taken down at all,
we are not satisfied why in this case, if reasonable efforts
had been made, a Magistrate in the town of Gaya could
not have been secured to record the dying declaration.
There are other infirmities besides. The declaration was
not recorded in the language of the deceased, and
apparently not taken down as it was given. It was elicited
in answer to questions, but the questions put have not
been noted. The learned Judges say that the Sub-
Inspector might have been in a hurry to hear the full
statement of Nizamuddin, who was nearing his end. But
that is precisely the reason why he should have
immediately proceeded to write down to the dictation of
Nizamuddin without lengthy interrogations. Indeed, it
would have taken less time if the statement had been
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.128 of 2019 dt. 17 -10-2025
recorded verbatim. Nizamuddin, it must be remembered,
did not die till an hour or so later. Gobind Singh, the only
other witness to the declaration is not a man of any
status. He was a nurse getting Rs 28, and he states that
he arrived when Nizamuddin had already started making
the statement."
56. Almost similar observation was made by the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in paragraph no. 3 of Laxman v. State of
Maharashtra, reported in (2002) 6 SCC 710.
57. It is needless to say that wounds of Burns of the
body's surface have complex pathological effects which can
influence numerous body functions even shortly after the accident
and which may have severe consequences for the affected patients.
The expression "burn disease" describes the pathophysiological
condition which patients develop, even when only small areas of
the body are affected by burns. The body is subject to
multifactorial damage, as a result of the sudden release of
vasoactive mediators from the burned body parts, including kinins,
prostaglandins, catecholamines, and glucocorticoids. Loss of skin
integrity leads to loss of body temperature and in turn to increased
energy consumption. Disorders of capillary integrity ("capillary
leak syndrome") lead to volume displacement into the
extravascular space. These changes can result in immune
deficiency. Systematic complications like hypovolemia shocks,
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.128 of 2019 dt. 17 -10-2025
organ failure (specially, lungs, kidneys and liver) sepsis and
hypermetabolic state. Though, the learned senior counsel on behalf
of the appellants submits that so-called dying declaration of
deceased Mamta Kumari was taken after three days of occurrence,
but it was actually recorded on 19th April 2017 at 4:30 PM in the
CCU of Mani Hospital, Motihari. In such medical condition, the
deceased would not be in physical and mental condition to make
such coherent statement as produced by the prosecution in Exhibit-
7.
58. It is no longer res integra that the actual statement of
the patient is required to be recorded. PW-1, Laxman Thakur, who
was present at the time of recording the dying declaration, stated in
his evidence that his granddaughter, Mamta, was screaming in pain
and continuously talking. Under such circumstances, no coherent
statement like Exhibit-7 could have been made by the victim.
Therefore, we are not in a position to rely on the so-called dying
declaration of Mamta Kumari.
59. Learned Advocate on behalf of the State, on the
other hand, submits that the prosecution has been able to prove the
charge against the appellants beyond any shadow of doubt. Even if
the dying declaration is discarded, the chain of circumstances is so
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.128 of 2019 dt. 17 -10-2025
closely interlinked that it leads only to the hypothesis of the
appellants' guilt and is inconsistent with their innocence.
60. Let us now consider the circumstantial evidence
adduced during trial of the case by the witnesses on behalf of the
prosecution.
61. According to the prosecution, the incident took place
on 19th April, 2017, at about 2:00 a.m. at night. It is also not in
dispute that the unmarried daughters of the informant were
sleeping in a room. The said room was set on fire which caught the
daughters of the informant. They received severe burn injuries.
Younger daughter, namely, Samta Kumari died on the way to the
hospital, while Mamta Kumari died at Motihari Hospital after
three days of the occurrence.
62. The informant gave her statement on 19 th April 2017
at 12:15 PM. On the basis of the said statement, formal FIR was
lodged by Jitendra Prasad. The FIR has been marked as Exhibit-2.
The informant narrated the incident in her statement. She also
stated that accused Navneel wanted to marry her daughter Mamta
Kumari but she did not agree to marry her. Over the said dispute,
the appellant Navneel assaulted the informant and her daughter
Mamta. He also threatened to kill them. Over the said incident, the
informant made a complaint and on the basis of her complaint,
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.128 of 2019 dt. 17 -10-2025
Bettiah Mufassil P.S. Case No. 71 of 2017 was registered. On 18th
April, 2018, Navneel threatened the informant and her daughter
saying that if he was arrested, he would burn them alive. The said
fact was corroborated by the informant in her evidence.
63. Learned counsel on behalf of the appellant, Navneel,
vehemently argued that the informant and her mother-in-law
reached the place of occurrence half an hour after hearing the
scream of the deceased. The said argument seems to have no basis
because, in cross-examination itself, PW-4 stated she was sleeping
in her room at about 2:00 o'clock at night when she heard a voice
saying "help-help" coming from her daughters' room. Within two
to four minutes, she reached in front of the room and their
daughters. Her mother-in-law and sister-in-law also followed her.
All of them kicked the door of her daughters' room; the lock of the
room from inside was broken, and they found that the entire room
was burning, including her daughters.
64. I have stated that PW-3 came to the place of
occurrence with PW-4. PW-3 is the grandmother of the deceased.
While she was proceeding towards the room of the deceased, she
saw Navneel and Sunil jump to the ground from the sunshade
(छजजा) and flee from their house. Navneel covered his body with
the help of a "Gamchha" (towel). While she was describing the
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.128 of 2019 dt. 17 -10-2025
said fact, the witness was crying. Thus, while considering the
evidence of PW-3 and PW-4 together, the argument of the learned
senior counsel for the appellants that other members of the house
reached the place of occurrence after half an hour falls flat.
65. It was taken during cross-examination on behalf of
Navneel that he wanted to marry Mamta. PW-4 did not accept such
a proposal from Navneel. For that reason, Navneel had previously
assaulted PW-4 and Mamta. She lodged a complaint at the local
police station, and a case was registered against him. As a result of
such grudge and the institution of a criminal case against Navneel,
he sprinkled petrol in the room where PW-4's daughters were
sleeping and set the room on fire. Thus, the motive of the
appellant, namely Navneel, was not challenged but rather affirmed
during cross-examination, and we have no hesitation in holding
that the motive of the appellant to commit such an offence was
proved.
66. In a case based on circumstantial evidence, motive is
one of the important circumstances which the prosecution is
obliged to prove. That Navneel wanted to marry Mamta was also
proved from his own evidence. He stated that he fell in love with
Mamta. PW-4 and her family members tried to separate them, so
she allegedly tried to kill Navneel by offering sweets mixed with
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.128 of 2019 dt. 17 -10-2025
poison. After taking the sweets, Navneel became ill and was
hospitalized. However, no documents were produced by the
appellant in support of such evidence regarding his hospitalization.
On the contrary, he admitted in his examination-in-chief that PW-4
made a complaint against him at the local police station, on the
basis of which Mufassil P.S. Case No. 71 of 2017 was registered.
Thus, the motive of the appellant to commit the crime was proved.
67. We have already noted that PW-9, Ram Babu
Sharma, is the uncle of the deceased. On 19th April, 2017, he
attended the marriage party of a co-villager. At the party, he
learned from Bahadur Sharma that Mamta and Samata had
received burn injuries while they were sleeping in their room. He
and one Sri Ram Sharma immediately rushed to their village.
Upon reaching his house, he saw that Mamta and Samata were
lying on a tractor, about to be taken to the hospital. At that time,
Mamta told him that Navneel and his 4/5 associates had sprinkled
petrol on them and thrown a lighted matchstick over their bodies,
resulting in severe burn injuries. This part of the evidence was not
challenged during the cross-examination of PW-9, Ram Babu
Sharma. Even if this statement is not recorded as a dying
declaration, it is relevant under Section 6 of the Evidence Act.
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.128 of 2019 dt. 17 -10-2025
68. In the instant case, the effective issue is as to
whether the appellant committed the murder of the daughters of
PW-4 by burning. The test of the admissibility of evidence as part
of the res gestae is:
(a). Whether the act, declaration, or exclamation is so
interwoven or connected with the principal fact or event, which it
characterizes, as to be regarded as a part of the transaction itself;
and
(b). Also, whether it clearly negates any principal motive
or purpose to manufacture testimony. When the above evidence of
PW-9 was not challenged in cross-examination, the question of
manufacturing testimony by a severely injured person does not
arise. Therefore, the evidence of PW-9 that Mamta told him the
name of the appellant, Navneel, as her assailant, is admissible on
the principle of res gestae, though PW-9 did not witness the
incident.
69. During the cross-examination of PW-1, namely
Laxman Thakur, it was suggested that Mamta had a love
relationship with a boy from the village, which he denied. In cross-
examination, it was again affirmed that he had talked to one
Vidyarthi Thakur of Village Manuawa regarding the marriage of
Mamta with his son. However, Navneel threatened Vidyarthi
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.128 of 2019 dt. 17 -10-2025
Thakur and his family members with death by firing if his son
tried to marry Mamta. Thereafter, Vidyarthi Thakur refused to
marry his son to Mamta.
70. The above piece of evidence revealed during the
cross-examination of PW-1 is another circumstance against the
appellant, Navneel.
71. We are not unmindful of the fact that the prosecution
failed to produce the CCTV footage of the Reliance Petrol Pump
and the Call Detail Records between Navneel and other persons.
The prosecution also failed to submit the FSL report of the seized
bottles and matchbox. These are serious lapses on the part of the
prosecution.
72. Though the learned senior counsel for the appellants
did not specifically argue, we are of the view that we shall be
failing to discharge our duty if we do not mention that all the
witnesses to the incident are close relatives of the deceased; not a
single villager or neighboring person from the place of occurrence
came forward to depose in support of the prosecution's case. In
this regard, one should remember that, indisputably, the residents
of the locality were not in the village as they attended the marriage
party of a co-villager. Therefore, the female relatives are the most
natural witnesses who deposed in this case about the incident. PW-
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.128 of 2019 dt. 17 -10-2025
1, PW-2, and PW-9 are the grandfather, father, and uncle of the
deceased girls, respectively, who came subsequent to the incident
from village Manuawa. Naturally, they deposed about what had
happened prior and subsequent to the deceased girls being burnt by
fire.
73. It is consistently held by the Hon'ble Apex Court
that merely because the witnesses are relatives, it cannot be a
ground to discard the testimony of such witnesses. The only
requirement is that the testimonies of such witnesses have to be
scrutinized with greater caution and circumspection.
74. Perusal of the above-named witnesses would reveal
that, though they have been thoroughly cross-examined, their
evidence in examination-in-chief remained unshaken. In that view
of the matter, relying on a very recent decision in the case of Hare
Ram Yadav v. State of Bihar, reported in (2025) 1 SCC 339, we
do not find any reason to discard the testimony of such witnesses.
On the same point, we may refer to another judgment of the
Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of State of A.P. v. S. Rayappa,
reported in (2006) 4 SCC 512.
75. Now, the question that arises for consideration is
whether, due to the lapses in investigation, the accused persons are
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.128 of 2019 dt. 17 -10-2025
entitled to get the benefit of doubt. From the above discussion, we
find the following circumstances:
(i) Navneel had a crush over Mamta
(ii) Mamta's marriage was settled with the son of one
Vidyarthi Thakur.
(iii) Navneel threatened Vidyarthi Thakur and his family
members asking them not to fix his son's marriage with Mamta.
(iv) Mamta did not want to marry Navneel.
(v) Over the same issue, Mamta and her mother was also
assaulted by Navneel and Muffasil P.S. Case No. 71 of 2017 was
registered against him.
(vi) On 19th April, 2017 most of the villagers of village
Pokhar Bhinda went to another village to attend a marriage party.
(vii) All male members of the house of Mamta also
attended the said marriage party.
(viii) The room where Mamta and Samata were sleeping
was set on fire at about 2:00 a.m. in the night.
(ix) Mamta woke up as soon as some watery liquid fell
on her body. She saw Navneel through the ventilator.
(x) After the room was set on fire, both the girls started
screaming. Hearing their cries for help, PW-4 (Bhagmuni Devi),
PW-3 (Tara Devi), and the sister-in-law of Bhagmuni Devi rushed
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.128 of 2019 dt. 17 -10-2025
to the place of occurrence within 2-4 minutes. Tara Devi saw
Navneel and some other persons fleeing from their house.
(xi) Navneel was arrested on 26th April, 2017, from the
Indo-Nepal Border
(xii) No explanation has been offered by Navneel as to
why he was at the Indo-Nepal Border on 26th April, 2017.
(xiii) From the autopsy surgeon's report, it is proved that
both Mamta and Samata died due to shock resulting from severe
burn injuries.
(xiv) Navneel was medically examined on 27th April,
2017, and the medical officer found old, healed superficial burn
injuries on different parts of his body. The medical officer opined
that the said injuries were about five days old. The time of the
injuries found on Navneel's body almost tallies with the date of the
incident.
76. Taking together the above-mentioned circumstances,
we arrive at an irresistible conclusion that the appellant, Navneel,
is the person who committed the murder of two innocent
unmarried girls by setting them on fire. We do not find sufficient
evidence against the appellant, Sunil Kumar.
77. As a result, the order of conviction and sentence
passed against the appellant, Navneel Niraj, is affirmed.
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.128 of 2019 dt. 17 -10-2025
Accordingly, Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 196 of 2019 is dismissed on
contest.
78. As we do not find sufficient material against Sunil
Kumar in Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 128 of 2019, the order of
conviction and sentence passed against him for the offence under
Section 302/34 of the IPC is hereby set aside. The appellant, Sunil
Kumar, is acquitted of the charges and shall be set at liberty. The
appellant, namely Sunil Kumar, is discharged from the liabilities
of the bail bond and sureties. Accordingly, Criminal Appeal (DB)
No. 128 of 2019 is allowed on contest.
(Bibek Chaudhuri, J)
I agree.
Dr. Anshuman, J :
( Dr. Anshuman, J)
suraj/uttam/-
AFR/NAFR NAFR
CAV DATE 08.10.2025
Uploading Date 17.10.2025
Transmission Date 17.10.2025
