Patna High Court
Yamuna Singh And Ors vs The State Of Bihar on 8 July, 2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL APPEAL (DB) No.78 of 2019
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-113 Year-2015 Thana- DHANSOI District- Buxar
======================================================
1. SANTOSH SINGH, son of Yamuna Singh Resident of Village- Jeevpur,
P.S.- Dhansoi, District- Buxar.
2. Budhdev Singh, son of Yamuna Singh Resident of Village- Jeevpur, P.S.-
Dhansoi, District- Buxar.
... ... Appellant/s
Versus
THE STATE OF BIHAR
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
with
CRIMINAL APPEAL (DB) No. 58 of 2019
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-113 Year-2015 Thana- DHANSOI District- Buxar
======================================================
1. Yamuna Singh, son of Kawalpati Singh Resident of village-Jeevpur, P.S-
Dhansoi, District-Buxar
2. Rampravesh Singh, son of Kawalpati Singh Resident of village-Jeevpur, P.S-
Dhansoi, District-Buxar
3. Kawalpati Singh, son of Late Ramdhari Singh Resident of village-Jeevpur,
P.S-Dhansoi, District-Buxar
4. Harimuni Singh @ Tiwari Singh, son of Kawalpati Singh Resident of
village-Jeevpur, P.S-Dhansoi, District-Buxar
5. Anil Singh, son of Kawalpati Singh Resident of village-Jeevpur, P.S-
Dhansoi, District-Buxar
... ... Appellant/s
Versus
1. The State Of Bihar Bihar
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
with
CRIMINAL APPEAL (DB) No. 83 of 2019
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-113 Year-2015 Thana- DHANSOI District- Buxar
======================================================
GAUTAM SINGH @ MANTU SINGH, Son of Yamuna Singh Resident of
Village-Jeevpur, P.S.-Dhansoi
... ... Appellant/s
Versus
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.78 of 2019 dt.08-07-2026
2/39
The State of Bihar
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
with
CRIMINAL APPEAL (DB) No. 111 of 2019
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-113 Year-2015 Thana- DHANSOI District- Buxar
======================================================
1. BHARAT SINGH, son of Wakil Singh Resident of Village - Jiwpur, P.S. -
Dhansoi , Distt.- Buxar
2. Laxaman Singh, son of Wakil Singh Resident of Village - Jiwpur, P.S. -
Dhansoi , Distt.- Buxar
3. Wakil Singh, son of Ambika Singh Resident of Village - Jiwpur, P.S. -
Dhansoi , Distt.- Buxar
4. Ramji Singh, son of Wakil Singh Resident of Village - Jiwpur, P.S. - Dhansoi
, Distt.- Buxar
5. Ambika Singh, son ofLate Ramdhari Singh Resident of Village - Jiwpur, P.S.
- Dhansoi, Distt.- Buxar
6. Ramashankar Singh, son of Ambika Singh Resident of Village - Jiwpur, P.S.
- Dhansoi , Distt.- Buxar
... ... Appellant/s
Versus
THE STATE OF BIHAR
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
(In CRIMINAL APPEAL (DB) No. 78 of 2019)
For the Appellant/s : Mr. Ajay Kumar Thakur, Advocate
Mr. Pawan Kumar Singh, Advocate
Mr. Pranshu Singh, Advocate
For the Respondent/s : Mr. Abhimanyu Sharma, APP
(In CRIMINAL APPEAL (DB) No. 58 of 2019)
For the Appellant/s : Mr. Ajay Kumar Thakur, Advocate
Mr. Pawan Kumar Singh, Advocate
Mr. Pranshu Singh, Advocate
For the Respondent/s : Mr. Abhimanyu Sharma, APP
(In CRIMINAL APPEAL (DB) No. 83 of 2019)
For the Appellant/s : Mr. Ajay Kumar Thakur, Advocate
Mr. Pawan Kumar Singh, Advocate
Mr. Pranshu Singh, Advocate
For the Respondent/s : Mr. Abhimanyu Sharma, APP
(In CRIMINAL APPEAL (DB) No. 111 of 2019)
For the Appellant/s : Mr. Ajay Kumar Thakur, Advocate
Mr. Pawan Kumar Singh, Advocate
Mr. Pranshu Singh, Advocate
For the Respondent/s : Mr. Abhimanyu Sharma, APP
======================================================
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.78 of 2019 dt.08-07-2026
3/39
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BIBEK CHAUDHURI
and
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RANA VIKRAM SINGH
CAV JUDGMENT
(Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BIBEK CHAUDHURI)
Date : 08-07-2026
1. These batch of criminal appeals arise out of the
common judgment of conviction dated 29.11.2018 and order
of sentence dated 30.11.2018 passed by the learned Presiding
Officer, Fast Track Court-II, Buxar in Sessions Trial No. 296
of 2016, arising out of Dhansoi P.S. Case No. 113 of 2015
dated 21.11.2015 (G.R. No. 3158 of 2015). By the impugned
judgment, the learned trial court convicted all the 14 accused
persons (appellants herein) for the offences punishable under
Sections 147, 148, 341 and 302 read with Section 149 of the
Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as 'IPC') and
sentenced them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life
along with a fine of Rs. 1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh) each,
with default stipulation of further five years rigorous
imprisonment. They were, however, acquitted of the charge
under Section 504 IPC. All sentences were directed to run
concurrently.
2. During the pendency of these appeals, two
appellants have died. Accordingly, Criminal Appeal (DB) No.
58 of 2019 stands abated as against Appellant No. 3 therein,
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.78 of 2019 dt.08-07-2026
4/39
and Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 111 of 2019 stands abated as
against Appellant No. 5 therein. The appeals survive in respect
of the remaining appellants.
3. The prosecution case, as unfolded during trial, is
as follows:
(i) On 19.11.2015 at about 09:00 AM, the deceased
Subhash Singh was returning to his village after visiting his
agricultural field situated to the north of Village Jeevpur, P.S.
Dhansoi, District Buxar. When he reached near the drain
(Karaha Nala) adjacent to the paddy field of Vishwanath
Upadhyay, he was allegedly surrounded by 21 named persons.
According to the fardbeyan of the informant Dinesh Kumar
Singh (PW-4), cousin of the deceased, all the accused were
hiding in the paddy field. On the exhortation of accused
Yamuna Singh saying "Kill this bastard (Sale ko maro)",
accused Mantu Singh @ Gautam Singh assaulted the deceased
on his head with an axe/farsa, causing him to fall down.
Thereafter, accused Santosh Singh assaulted him on the leg
with a sword, accused Budhdev Singh assaulted him with a
spear, and the remaining accused assaulted him with lathis and
sticks with the common object to kill him.
(ii) The informant (PW-4), who claimed to be
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.78 of 2019 dt.08-07-2026
5/39
proceeding towards his own field on the southern road and
was at a distance of about 50 yards from the spot, witnessed
the occurrence. He raised an alarm, upon which villagers
including PWs 1, 2 and 3 gathered at the spot. Seeing the
villagers, the accused persons fled away. The injured Subhash
Singh was immediately taken to Sadar Hospital, Buxar for
treatment. After first aid, considering his serious condition, he
was referred to the Trauma Centre, BHU, Varanasi, where he
was admitted and treated. He remained unconscious
throughout the treatment and succumbed to his injuries on
05.12.2015
(after about 16-17 days).
4. The motive behind the occurrence, as alleged, is a
long-standing land dispute between the two parties, who
belong to the same extended family but are divided into
factions. Several cases were pending between them prior to
the incident.
5. On the basis of the fardbeyan of PW-4 (Ext.4),
recorded by Sub-Inspector, Islam Ahmed on 20.11.2015 at
about 04:20 PM at the Trauma Centre, BHU, Varanasi in
presence of witnesses Santosh Singh (PW-1) and Vijay Singh
(PW-3), Dhansoi P.S. Case No. 113 of 2015 was registered on
21.11.2015 under Sections 147, 148, 149, 341, 323, 307 and
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.78 of 2019 dt.08-07-2026
6/39
504 IPC. Section 302 IPC was added after the death of the
deceased vide order dated 07.12.2015.
6. Investigation was initially conducted by SI
Mungalal Singh (first Investigating Officer), who submitted
charge sheet No. 22/2016 dated 29.02.2016 against eight
accused persons. Thereafter, the second Investigating Officer,
Narendra Kumar Sinha (PW-6), then SHO of Dhansoi P.S.,
took over the investigation and submitted supplementary
charge sheet No. 107/2016 dated 31.08.2016 against seven
more accused persons. Cognizance was taken and the case
was committed to the Court of Sessions. Charges were framed
against the 14 accused persons on 25.08.2017, to which they
pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
7. In support of its case, the prosecution examined
seven witnesses:
a. PW-1 (Santosh Singh): Son of the deceased. He
claimed to have witnessed the occurrence while returning
from his field.
b. PW-2 (Ramanuj Singh): Relative of the deceased.
He also claimed to be an eye-witness.
c. PW-3 (Vijay Singh): Real brother of the deceased
and an eye-witness.
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.78 of 2019 dt.08-07-2026
7/39d. PW-4 (Dinesh Kumar Singh): Informant and
cousin of the deceased. He is the star witness who lodged the
fardbeyan.
e. PW-5 (Dr. Robin Kumar Dubey): Conducted the
post-mortem examination on 06.12.2015 at Lal Bahadur
Shastri Hospital, Ramnagar, Varanasi.
f. PW-6 (Narendra Kumar Sinha): Second
Investigating Officer.
g. PW-7: Formal witness.
8. Several documents were exhibited including the
fardbeyan (Ext.4), post-mortem report (Ext.2), inquest report
and other hospital papers (Ext.3 series), formal FIR (Ext.6),
etc.
9. The defence neither examined any witness nor
produced any documentary evidence. The statements of the
accused persons under Section 313 Cr.P.C. were recorded
wherein they denied the allegations and claimed to have been
falsely implicated due to previous land dispute and enmity.
10. The defence, as emerges from the trend of cross-
examination, statements under Section 313 Cr.P.C., and
arguments advanced by learned counsel for the appellants, is
one of total denial and false implication. The appellants have
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.78 of 2019 dt.08-07-2026
8/39
contended that no such occurrence took place in the manner
alleged by the prosecution. They claim to have been falsely
implicated due to pre-existing land dispute and deep-rooted
enmity between the two factions of the same extended family.
11. It is the specific case of the defence that several
cases were pending between the parties even prior to the
incident. The accused side had also filed cases against the
informant party, including Dhansoi P.S. Case No. 67/2015
(STR No. 100/2016) and a Miscellaneous Case in the High
Court. The defence has highlighted that the prosecution has
suppressed these counter-cases and the admitted enmity. It is
further submitted that the entire prosecution case is based on
interested and related witnesses belonging to one side of the
family dispute, and no independent witness from the village
has been examined despite the allegation that several villagers
had gathered at the spot on hearing the alarm.
12. The defence has also raised serious doubts
regarding the manner of occurrence, pointing out that the
paddy field was allegedly waist-high, the distance of the
witnesses was around 50 yards, and visibility of specific overt
acts (including exact weapons used and parts of body
targeted) under such circumstances is highly improbable. It is
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.78 of 2019 dt.08-07-2026
9/39
contended that the first information was not promptly given to
the local police station despite the alleged gathering of
villagers, and the fardbeyan was recorded belatedly at a
distant hospital in Varanasi, giving sufficient time for
consultation and concoction.
13. The defence has further argued that the
investigation was defective. The first Investigating Officer,
who conducted the major part of the investigation including
spot inspection and recording of statements of most witnesses,
was not examined. This has caused serious prejudice to the
appellants as they could not effectively bring out
contradictions between the previous statements and the
evidence in Court. The second Investigating Officer (PW-6)
admitted that he had done almost nothing except recording
statements of two formal witnesses and submitting the
supplementary charge sheet.
14. With respect to the medical evidence, the
defence has submitted that the post-mortem report does not
conclusively support the use of sharp cutting weapons as
alleged, especially since the wounds were stitched and their
margins could not be opined upon by the doctor. The death
having occurred after a long gap of 16-17 days, during which
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.78 of 2019 dt.08-07-2026
10/39
the deceased remained unconscious, it is argued that the
intention to cause death or the knowledge that the injuries
were likely to cause death has not been established against all
the appellants, particularly those against whom only general
allegations of assault with lathis have been made.
15. The appellants have also highlighted the
defective examination under Section 313 Cr.P.C., wherein
omnibus and generic questions were put to all the accused
persons without distinguishing their individual roles, thereby
denying them a fair and proper opportunity to explain the
circumstances appearing against them in the evidence.
16. In short, the defence has prayed for acquittal of
all the appellants on the ground that the prosecution has
miserably failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt.
17. In view of the rival contentions raised by the
parties and the materials available on record, the following
points fall for determination in these appeals:
(i) Whether the prosecution has been able to prove
beyond reasonable doubt the occurrence of the alleged assault
on the deceased Subhash Singh on 19.11.2015 near Karaha
Nala adjacent to the field of Vishwanath Upadhyay in Village
Jeevpur, P.S. Dhansoi, District Buxar, in the manner as
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.78 of 2019 dt.08-07-2026
11/39described in the fardbeyan and evidence of the prosecution
witnesses?
(ii) Whether the appellants (or any of them) were
present at the place of occurrence and participated in the
assault on the deceased, and if so, to what extent and with
what role?
(iii) Whether the injuries caused to the deceased
Subhash Singh were sufficient in the ordinary course of nature
to cause death or were likely to cause death, and whether the
act of the appellants amounts to murder punishable under
Section 302 IPC or culpable homicide not amounting to
murder punishable under Section 304 IPC?
(iv) Whether the prosecution has proved the
existence of a common object among the appellants to cause
the death of the deceased so as to attract the provisions of
Section 149 IPC against all of them?
(v) Whether the trial is vitiated due to delayed
lodging and recording of the fardbeyan/FIR, non-examination
of the first Investigating Officer, defective investigation, or
defective examination of the accused under Section 313
Cr.P.C., and if so, whether such lapses have caused prejudice
to the appellants?
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.78 of 2019 dt.08-07-2026
12/39
(vi) Whether the conviction and sentence recorded
by the learned trial court against the appellants calls for any
interference by this Court, and if so, to what extent?
18. We have meticulously examined the lower court
records, the impugned judgment dated 29.11.2018, the
evidence of all prosecution witnesses, the exhibited
documents including the fardbeyan (Ext.4), post-mortem
report (Ext.2), and the submissions advanced by learned
counsel for the appellants and the State. The appeals involve
serious questions relating to appreciation of interested ocular
evidence, delayed FIR, medical corroboration, common object
under Section 149 IPC, and several procedural lapses. We
proceed to deal with each issue in detail.
19. Point No. (i): Whether the prosecution has
proved the occurrence as alleged?
(i) The foundation of the prosecution case is the
fardbeyan of PW-4 (Dinesh Kumar Singh), recorded on
20.11.2015 at about 04:20 PM at the Trauma Centre, BHU,
Varanasi. According to PW-4, on 19.11.2015 at around 9:00
AM, while he was proceeding north from the village towards
his field on the southern road, he saw the deceased Subhash
Singh coming from the north. When the deceased reached
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.78 of 2019 dt.08-07-2026
13/39
near Karaha Nala adjacent to Vishwanath Upadhyay’s paddy
field, all 21 accused, who were hiding in the field, surrounded
him. On the exhortation of Yamuna Singh (“Kill this
bastard”), Mantu @ Gautam Singh assaulted the deceased on
the head with an axe, causing him to fall. Santosh Singh then
assaulted on the leg with a sword, Budhdev Singh with a
spear, and the remaining persons with lathis and sticks. PW-4
raised an alarm. Villagers gathered and the accused fled. The
injured was taken first to Buxar Sadar Hospital and then to
BHU Varanasi, where he died on 05.12.2015.
(ii) This version has been supported by PW-1 (son
of the deceased), PW-2 (relative), and PW-3 (brother of the
deceased). All four eye-witnesses have broadly corroborated
the assembly of the accused, the exhortation, the specific overt
acts by three main assailants, general beating by others, and
the subsequent events.
(iii) However, all the four eye-witnesses are closely
related to the deceased and belong to one faction of the
extended family which is locked in a long-standing land
dispute with the appellants’ side. PW-1 is the son, PW-3 is the
real brother, PW-4 is the cousin and informant, and PW-2 has
been described as an uncle/relative. It is an admitted position
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.78 of 2019 dt.08-07-2026
14/39
that several cases were pending between the two sides even
prior to the incident, and counter-cases had been filed by the
appellants’ side as well.
(iv) It is a settled principle of law that evidence of
related or interested witnesses cannot be discarded on the
ground of relationship alone, but when the prosecution case
rests entirely on such witnesses, the Court is required to
scrutinise their evidence with greater care and caution to rule
out the possibility of false implication or exaggeration due to
enmity. On the significance of interested witnesses in criminal
cases, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Hukam Singh v. State
of Rajasthan, reported in (2000) 7 SCC 490, noted that if
interested witnesses had seen the occurrence they would
certainly have the interest to bring the offenders of the murder
of their breadwinner to book. Normally the kith and kin of the
deceased, if they had seen the occurrence would not absolve
the real offenders and involve innocent persons in that murder.
Paragraph no. 7 of the said judgment is reproduced
hereinbelow:
“7. Bhupender Pal (PW 4) and Ram
Pyari (PW 5) were the two eyewitnesses
examined by the prosecution. The fact
that they were present at the scene of
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.78 of 2019 dt.08-07-2026
15/39occurrence could not be disputed nor has
the same been disputed by the accused.
They sustained injuries at the hands of
the assailants and the doctor who noted
such injuries had testified about them in
the Court as PW 9. The version spoken of
by PW 4 in court is substantially a
reiteration of the version which he
supplied to the police as early as 8.40
p.m. on the same night. That became the
basis for the FIR. The Sessions Court
refused to believe the testimony of those
witnesses on the erroneous perception
that they are “interested witnesses”. The
only premise for dubbing them as
“interested witnesses” is that they were
the kith and kin of the deceased. Why
should such witnesses be termed as
interested witnesses? If they had seen the
occurrence they would certainly have the
interest to bring the offenders of the
murder of their breadwinner to book.
Normally the kith and kin of the deceased,
if they had seen the occurrence would not
absolve the real offenders and involve
innocent persons in that murder. (Vide
Dalip Singh v. State of Punjab [(1953) 2
SCC 36 : AIR 1953 SC 364 : 1954 SCR
145 : 1953 Cri LJ 1465] , Guli Chand v.
State of Rajasthan [(1974) 3 SCC 698 :
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.78 of 2019 dt.08-07-2026
16/391974 SCC (Cri) 222] and Dalbir Kaur v.
State of Punjab [(1976) 4 SCC 158 : 1976
SCC (Cri) 527]”
(v) At the same time, the need for close scrutiny of
interested witnesses are also paramount. The discussion on
this point has been authoritatively summed up by the Hon’ble
Supreme Court in Rai Sandeep v. State (NCT of Delhi),
reported in (2012) 8 SCC 21. The relevant paragraph of the
said judgment is reproduced below:
“22 [Ed.: Para 22 corrected vide Official
Corrigendum No. F.3/Ed.B.J./48/2012
dated 18-8-2012.] . In our considered
opinion, the “sterling witness” should be
of a very high quality and calibre whose
version should, therefore, be
unassailable. The court considering the
version of such witness should be in a
position to accept it for its face value
without any hesitation. To test the quality
of such a witness, the status of the witness
would be immaterial and what would be
relevant is the truthfulness of the
statement made by such a witness. What
would be more relevant would be the
consistency of the statement right from
the starting point till the end, namely, at
the time when the witness makes the
initial statement and ultimately before the
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.78 of 2019 dt.08-07-2026
17/39court. It should be natural and consistent
with the case of the prosecution qua the
accused. There should not be any
prevarication in the version of such a
witness. The witness should be in a
position to withstand the cross-
examination of any length and howsoever
strenuous it may be and under no
circumstance should give room for any
doubt as to the factum of the occurrence,
the persons involved, as well as the
sequence of it. Such a version should
have co-relation with each and every one
of other supporting material such as the
recoveries made, the weapons used, the
manner of offence committed, the
scientific evidence and the expert opinion.
The said version should consistently
match with the version of every other
witness. It can even be stated that it
should be akin to the test applied in the
case of circumstantial evidence where
there should not be any missing link in
the chain of circumstances to hold the
accused guilty of the offence alleged
against him. Only if the version of such a
witness qualifies the above test as well as
all other such similar tests to be applied,
can it be held that such a witness can be
called as a “sterling witness” whose
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.78 of 2019 dt.08-07-2026
18/39version can be accepted by the court
without any corroboration and based on
which the guilty can be punished. To be
more precise, the version of the said
witness on the core spectrum of the crime
should remain intact while all other
attendant materials, namely, oral,
documentary and material objects should
match the said version in material
particulars in order to enable the court
trying the offence to rely on the core
version to sieve the other supporting
materials for holding the offender guilty
of the charge alleged.”
(vi) In the present case, several circumstances create
doubt regarding the reliability and probability of the ocular
account:
(a) All witnesses claim to have seen the detailed
assault from a distance of approximately 50 yards. The
accused were allegedly hiding in a waist-high paddy field near
a drain/ravine. The possibility of clearly identifying all 21
persons and observing specific weapon strikes (head with axe,
leg with sword, spear blows) from such a distance, while the
field had standing crop, appears to be highly improbable.
(b) The conduct of the witnesses is somewhat
uniform and open to question. None of them was allegedly
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.78 of 2019 dt.08-07-2026
19/39attacked despite witnessing a brutal group assault on their
close relative. PW-4 states that after being threatened, he ran a
short distance but remained standing and watched the entire
incident. Similar conduct is attributed to the other witnesses.
(c) Despite the alarm and alleged gathering of
villagers, no independent witness has been examined. In a
village setting where an incident of this nature is alleged to
have taken place in an open field, the non-examination of at
least some independent persons is a significant lacuna.
(d) While the broad occurrence of an assault on the
deceased cannot be completely disbelieved, the evidence of
PWs 1 to 4, being highly interested and lacking independent
corroboration, requires cautious appreciation. Their testimony
can be relied upon only to the extent it is natural, consistent,
and supported by medical evidence or other circumstances.
20. Point No. (ii): Participation of the Appellants
(i) Specific overt acts have been attributed only to
four persons: Mantu @ Gautam Singh (axe on head), Santosh
Singh (sword on leg), Budhdev Singh (spear), and Yamuna
Singh (exhortation). Against the remaining appellants, the
allegations are general and omnibus in nature, meaning
thereby that they assaulted with lathis and sticks and
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.78 of 2019 dt.08-07-2026
20/39
surrounded the deceased.
(ii) In cases involving a large number of accused,
the Court must be cautious in convicting persons on the basis
of general allegations. Participation of each accused must be
established by reliable evidence. The evidence on record falls
short of conclusively proving the presence and active
participation of every appellant with the requisite mens rea,
particularly for those against whom only general lathi blows
have been alleged.
21. Point No. (iii): Medical Evidence, Cause of
Death and Nature of Offence (Section 302 vs. Section 304
IPC)
(i) The medical evidence is provided by PW-5, Dr.
Robin Kumar Dubey, who conducted the post-mortem
examination on the dead body of Subhash Singh on
06.12.2015 at about 3:00 PM at Lal Bahadur Shastri Hospital,
Ramnagar, Varanasi. The external injuries noted were:
(a) Stitched wound over right parietal region of the
head (7 cm).
(b) Stitched wound in front of right leg (17 cm,
below knee) with fracture of both bones.
(c) Multiple abraded contusions over left leg with
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.78 of 2019 dt.08-07-2026
21/39fracture of both bones.
(d) On skull opening: Contusion on forehead and
right parietal region with underlying fractures.
(ii) The doctor opined the cause of death as coma
resulting from head injuries contributed by fractures of both
lower limb bones, leading to haemorrhage and shock. Internal
findings included subdural haematoma in the brain. The
deceased had been brought with plaster on both lower legs,
which was removed during examination.
(iii) In cross-examination, PW-5 made significant
admissions:
(a) Since the wounds were stitched, he could not
describe the margins and was unable to definitively opine
whether the injuries were caused by sharp cutting weapons or
hard blunt objects.
(b) He could not state whether the skull fracture was
caused by incised/cut wound or hard blunt substance.
(c) The death certificate from BHU Trauma Centre
(Ext.3/E) mentioned cardio-respiratory arrest.
(d) The deceased was admitted to the Trauma
Centre on 01.12.2015 (as per the PM report).
(iv) The post-mortem thus corroborates that the
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.78 of 2019 dt.08-07-2026
22/39deceased suffered head and leg injuries leading to his death.
However, the stitching of wounds (due to surgical intervention
at BHU) has materially affected the ability of the doctor to
link the injuries specifically to the sharp weapons alleged by
the prosecution (axe, sword, spear). This creates a reasonable
doubt regarding the exact nature and force of the weapons
used.
(v) Additionally, the deceased survived for
approximately 16-17 days after the incident and remained
unconscious throughout the treatment. While the injuries were
undoubtedly grievous and caused the death, the prolonged
survival period and the medical opinion raise questions about
whether every appellant (particularly those with only general
lathi allegations) had the intention to cause death or the
knowledge that their acts were likely to cause death in the
ordinary course of nature, as required under Section 300 IPC
for murder.
(vi) In view of the above, while the act of the
appellants caused the death of Subhash Singh, the case against
them is more appropriately covered under Section 304 Part-I
or Part-II IPC (culpable homicide not amounting to murder),
depending upon their individual roles and the evidence against
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.78 of 2019 dt.08-07-2026
23/39
them. Conviction under Section 302 IPC read with Section
149 IPC, therefore, cannot be sustained against all the
appellants.
22. Point No. (iv): Common Object under Section
149 IPC
(i) Section 149 IPC provides for vicarious liability
where an offence is committed by any member of an unlawful
assembly in prosecution of the common object of that
assembly. Mere presence in an unlawful assembly is not
sufficient; the prosecution must prove that each member
shared the common object.
(ii) In the present case, even if the presence of a
group and an assault is accepted, the common object to cause
death cannot be attributed uniformly to all 14 appellants.
Specific overt acts of using deadly weapons have been
attributed only to a few. Against the others, the evidence is
general and omnibus. Given the interested nature of the
witnesses, the medical ambiguity, and the defective
investigation, the prosecution has failed to prove beyond
reasonable doubt that every appellant shared the common
object of causing the death of Subhash Singh. Section 149 IPC
cannot be pressed into service mechanically to convict all the
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.78 of 2019 dt.08-07-2026
24/39
appellants for the offence of murder.
23. Point No. (v): Procedural Lapses and
Prejudice to the Appellants
A. Delayed Recording of Fardbeyan/FIR
(i) The fardbeyan of PW-4 was recorded at the
Trauma Centre, BHU, Varanasi on 20.11.2015 at 04:20 PM,
i.e., more than 30 hours after the alleged incident. No prompt
information was given to the local Dhansoi Police Station
despite the alleged gathering of villagers. The formal FIR was
registered on 21.11.2015. Such delay in a serious case
involving specific allegations against a large number of named
persons gives rise to the possibility of consultation,
deliberation, and improvement. The explanation offered
(priority to treatment) is not entirely satisfactory when
weighed against the requirement of prompt lodging of
information in a cognizable offence. The Hon’ble Supreme
Court, in Thulia Kali v. State of T.N., reported in (1972) 3
SCC 393, explained the importance of prompt lodging of
F.I.R. The relevant paragraph of the said judgment is
reproduced below:
“12. It is in the evidence of Valanjiaraju
that the house of Muthuswami is at a
distance of three furlongs from the village
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.78 of 2019 dt.08-07-2026
25/39of Valanjiaraju. Police Station Valavanthi
is also at a distance of three furlongs
from the house of Muthuswami. Assuming
that Muthuswami PW was not found at
his house till 10.30 p.m. on March 12,
1970, by Valanjiaraju, it is not clear as to
why no report was lodged by Valanjiaraju
at the police station. It is, in our opinion,
most difficult to believe that even though
the accused had been seen at 2 p.m.
committing the murder of Madhandi
deceased and a large number of villagers
had been told about it soon thereafter, no
report about the occurrence could be
lodged till the following day. The police
station was less than two miles from the
village of Valanjiaraju and Kopia and
their failure to make a report to the police
till the following day would tend to show
that none of them had witnessed the
occurrence. It seems likely, as has been
stated on behalf of the accused, that the
villagers came to know of the death of
Madhandi deceased on the evening of
March 12, 1970. They did not then know
about the actual assailant of the
deceased, and on the following day, their
suspicion fell on the accused and
accordingly they involved him in this
case. First information report in a
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.78 of 2019 dt.08-07-2026
26/39criminal case is an extremely vital and
valuable piece of evidence for the
purpose of corroborating the oral
evidence adduced at the trial. The
importance of the above report can
hardly be overestimated from the
standpoint of the accused. The object of
insisting upon prompt lodging of the
report to the police in respect of
commission of an offence is to obtain
early information regarding the
circumstances in which the crime was
committed, the names of the actual
culprits and the part played by them as
well as the names of eyewitnesses present
at the scene of occurrence. Delay in
lodging the first information report quite
often results in embellishment which is a
creature of afterthought. On account of
delay, the report not only gets bereft of
the advantage of spontaneity, danger
creeps in of the introduction of coloured
version, exaggerated account or
concocted story as a result of deliberation
and consultation. It is, therefore, essential
that the delay in the lodging of the first
information report should be
satisfactorily explained. In the present
case, Kopia, daughter-in-law of
Madhandi deceased, according to the
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.78 of 2019 dt.08-07-2026
27/39prosecution case, was present when the
accused made murderous assault on the
deceased. Valanjiaraju, step-son of the
deceased, is also alleged to have arrived
near the scene of occurrence on being
told by Kopia. Neither of them, nor any
other villager, who is stated to have been
told about the occurrence by Valanjiaraju
and Kopia, made any report at the police
station for more than 20 hours after the
occurrence, even though the police
station is only two miles from the place of
occurrence. The said circumstance, in our
opinion, would raise considerable doubt
regarding the veracity of the evidence of
those two witnesses and point to an
infirmity in that evidence as would render
it unsafe to base the conviction of the
accused-appellant upon it.”
(ii) Further, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Meharaj
Singh v. State of U.P., reported in (1994) 5 SCC 188,
discussing the value and the effects in delay of lodging FIR,
held that, delay in sending special report to the Magistrate or
failure to send copy of the FIR to the Medical Officer along
with the dead body for post-mortem and absence of its
reference in inquest report can give rise to an inference that
the FIR had been anti-timed. The relevant paragraph of the
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.78 of 2019 dt.08-07-2026
28/39
said judgment is reproduced below:
“12. FIR in a criminal case and
particularly in a murder case is a vital
and valuable piece of evidence for the
purpose of appreciating the evidence led
at the trial. The object of insisting upon
prompt lodging of the FIR is to obtain the
earliest information regarding the
circumstance in which the crime was
committed, including the names of the
actual culprits and the parts played by
them, the weapons, if any, used, as also
the names of the eyewitnesses, if any.
Delay in lodging the FIR often results in
embellishment, which is a creature of an
afterthought. On account of delay, the FIR
not only gets bereft of the advantage of
spontaneity, danger also creeps in of the
introduction of a coloured version or
exaggerated story. With a view to
determine whether the FIR was lodged at
the time it is alleged to have been
recorded, the courts generally look for
certain external checks. One of the checks
is the receipt of the copy of the FIR, called
a special report in a murder case, by the
local Magistrate. If this report is received
by the Magistrate late it can give rise to
an inference that the FIR was not lodged
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.78 of 2019 dt.08-07-2026
29/39at the time it is alleged to have been
recorded, unless, of course the
prosecution can offer a satisfactory
explanation for the delay in despatching
or receipt of the copy of the FIR by the
local Magistrate. Prosecution has led no
evidence at all in this behalf. The second
external check equally important is the
sending of the copy of the FIR along with
the dead body and its reference in the
inquest report. Even though the inquest
report, prepared under Section 174 CrPC,
is aimed at serving a statutory function, to
lend credence to the prosecution case, the
details of the FIR and the gist of
statements recorded during inquest
proceedings get reflected in the report.
The absence of those details is indicative
of the fact that the prosecution story was
still in an embryo state and had not been
given any shape and that the FIR came to
be recorded later on after due
deliberations and consultations and was
then ante-timed to give it the colour of a
promptly lodged FIR. In our opinion, on
account of the infirmities as noticed
above, the FIR has lost its value and
authenticity and it appears to us that the
same has been ante-timed and had not
been recorded till the inquest proceedings
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.78 of 2019 dt.08-07-2026
30/39were over at the spot by PW 8.”
B. Non-examination of the First Investigating
Officer
(i) The first IO conducted the major part of the
investigation including spot inspection, recording of
statements of most witnesses, and submission of the first
charge sheet. He was not examined on the ground that he had
become paralysed and bedridden (supported by Exhibit-7).
Non-examination of an IO is not per se fatal to the prosecution
case, and depends on the facts of each case. The same was
held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Behari Prasad v. State
of Bihar, reported in (1996) 2 SCC 317. Paragraph 23 of the
said judgement is reproduced hereinbelow:
“23. It, however, appears to us that the
entire case diary should not have been
allowed to be exhibited by the learned
Additional Sessions Judge. In the facts of
the case, it appears to us that the
involvement of the accused in committing
the murder has been clearly established
by the evidences of the eyewitnesses. Such
evidences are in conformity with the case
made out in FIR and also with the
medical evidence. Hence, for non-
examination of Investigating Officer, the
prosecution case should not fail. We may
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.78 of 2019 dt.08-07-2026
31/39also indicate here that it will not be
correct to contend that if an Investigating
Officer is not examined in a case, such
case should fail on the ground that the
accused were deprived of the opportunity
to effectively cross-examine the witnesses
for the prosecution and to bring out
contradictions in their statements before
the police. A case of prejudice likely to be
suffered by an accused must depend on
the facts of the case and no universal
strait-jacket formula should be laid down
that non-examination of Investigating
Officer per se vitiates a criminal trial.
These appeals, therefore, fail and are
dismissed. The appellants who have been
released on bail should be taken into
custody to serve out the sentence.”
(ii) It is also well settled that it does not dent the
prosecution case where no material contradictions are shown.
In Ram Dev v. State of U.P., reported in 1995 Supp (1) SCC
547, the Hon’ble Supreme Court stressed on the desirability of
the prosecution to produce the IO. In paragraph 7 of the said
judgment, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held as hereunder:
“7. Before parting with the judgment, we
would however like to observe that the
prosecution did not examine Bharat Lal
Sharma, Sub-Inspector, who was the
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.78 of 2019 dt.08-07-2026
32/39investigating officer of the case. It was
desirable for the prosecution to produce
the investigating officer at the trial
notwithstanding the fact that the various
documents which were to be proved by
the investigating officer were accepted by
the defence as genuine documents and
were not disputed. However, the non-
examination of the investigating officer
does not in any way create any dent in the
prosecution case much less affect the
credibility of the otherwise
trustworthiness of the oral testimony of
the eyewitnesses which we have
accepted.”
(iii) The position is otherwise where the withheld IO
was the one who conducted the substantive investigation and
his absence deprives the defence of testing crucial aspects of
the prosecution case.
(iv) Here, the explanation for his non-examination
is on record, but the defence has been deprived of the
opportunity to cross-examine him on crucial aspects such as
objective findings at the spot, contradictions/omissions in the
previous statements of PWs 1-4, and reasons for dropping
some named accused. This is precisely the kind of lacuna
that’s treated material. The second IO (PW-6) admitted that he
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.78 of 2019 dt.08-07-2026
33/39
had done virtually nothing except recording statements of two
witnesses and filing the supplementary charge sheet. In such
circumstances, prejudice to the defence is apparent, and an
adverse inference under Section 114, Illustration (g) of the
Evidence Act must be drawn against the prosecution for
withholding the best available evidence on the investigation.
C. Defective Examination under Section 313
Cr.P.C.
The examination of the accused persons under
Section 313 Cr.P.C. was highly unsatisfactory. Generic and
omnibus questions appear to have been put to all the
appellants without distinguishing their individual roles or
specifically confronting them with the incriminating
circumstances appearing in the evidence. This has denied the
appellants a fair and meaningful opportunity to explain the
evidence against them. In a case involving multiple accused
with varying degrees of alleged participation, such a defective
examination causes prejudice and vitiates the conviction to
that extent. Reliance on this point may be placed by referring
to the decision of the hon’ble Supreme Court, in Maheshwar
Tigga v. State of Jharkhand, reported in (2020) 10 SCC 108.
The Court summarised the principles of the standard of proof
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.78 of 2019 dt.08-07-2026
34/39
on which the accused are to be examined. The relevant
paragraphs of the said judgment are reproduced below:
“8. It stands well settled that
circumstances not put to an accused
under Section 313 CrPC cannot be used
against him, and must be excluded from
consideration. In a criminal trial, the
importance of the questions put to an
accused are basic to the principles of
natural justice as it provides him the
opportunity not only to furnish his
defence, but also to explain the
incriminating circumstances against him.
A probable defence raised by an accused
is sufficient to rebut the accusation
without the requirement of proof beyond
reasonable doubt.
9. This Court, time and again,
has emphasised the importance of putting
all relevant questions to an accused
under Section 313 CrPC. In Naval
Kishore Singh v. State of Bihar [Naval
Kishore Singh v. State of Bihar, (2004) 7
SCC 502 : 2004 SCC (Cri) 1967] , it was
held to be an essential part of a fair trial
observing as follows: (SCC p. 504, para
5)
“5. The questioning of the
accused under Section 313 CrPC was
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.78 of 2019 dt.08-07-2026
35/39done in the most unsatisfactory manner.
Under Section 313 CrPC the accused
should have been given opportunity to
explain any of the circumstances
appearing in the evidence against him. At
least, the various items of evidence, which
had been produced by the prosecution,
should have been put to the accused in
the form of questions and he should have
been given opportunity to give his
explanation. No such opportunity was
given to the accused in the instant case.
We deprecate the practice of putting the
entire evidence against the accused put
together in a single question and giving
an opportunity to explain the same, as the
accused may not be in a position to give a
rational and intelligent explanation. The
trial Judge should have kept in mind the
importance of giving an opportunity to
the accused to explain the adverse
circumstances in the evidence and the
Section 313 examination shall not be
carried out as an empty formality. It is
only after the entire evidence is unfurled
the accused would be in a position to
articulate his defence and to give
explanation to the circumstances
appearing in evidence against him. Such
an opportunity being given to the accused
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.78 of 2019 dt.08-07-2026
36/39
is part of a fair trial and if it is done in a
slipshod manner, it may result in
imperfect appreciation of evidence.”
24. Point No. (vi): Final Conclusion on
Conviction and Sentence
(i) Taking an overall view of the matter, this Court
is of the firm opinion that the prosecution has succeeded in
proving that an assault took place on the deceased Subhash
Singh in which the appellants were involved, causing injuries
that ultimately led to his death. However, due to the interested
nature of the eye-witnesses, lack of independent
corroboration, delayed FIR, medical ambiguity regarding the
nature of weapons, defective investigation, non-examination
of the first IO, and defective Section 313 Cr.P.C. examination,
the prosecution has failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt
that all the appellants shared the common object to cause the
death of the deceased so as to attract liability under Section
302 read with Section 149 IPC.
(ii) The conviction of the appellants under Sections
147, 148 and 341 IPC is upheld. Their conviction under
Section 302 read with Section 149 IPC is altered to Section
304 Part-I read with Section 149 IPC for the appellants
against whom specific overt acts have been proved, and to
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.78 of 2019 dt.08-07-2026
37/39
Section 304 Part-II read with Section 149 IPC for the
remaining appellants. The sentence is reduced to the period
already undergone by them, subject to payment of fine (if not
already paid). The appellants shall be released forthwith if not
required in any other case.
25. Conclusion:
(i) In view of the detailed discussion above, these
criminal appeals are partly allowed with the following
conclusions:
(ii) The conviction of all the surviving appellants
under Sections 147, 148 and 341 of the Indian Penal Code is
upheld.
(iii) The conviction of the appellants under Section
302 read with Section 149 IPC is set aside. Instead, their
conviction is altered as under:
(a) Against whom specific overt acts of using
deadly weapons (axe, sword, spear) have been attributed
(Mantu @ Gautam Singh, Santosh Singh, Budhdev Singh, and
Yamuna Singh): Section 304 Part-I read with Section 149 IPC.
(b) For the remaining appellants (against whom
only general allegations of assault with lathis/sticks have been
made): Section 304 Part-II read with Section 149 IPC.
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.78 of 2019 dt.08-07-2026
38/39
(iv) The sentence is modified accordingly. The
appellants are sentenced to the period already undergone by
them in custody (with set-off under Section 428 Cr.P.C.),
subject to payment of the fine of Rs. 1,00,000/- (Rupees One
Lakh) each, if not already paid. In default of payment of fine,
each appellant shall undergo further rigorous imprisonment
for two years. Sentence for payment of fine shall run
separately.
(v) The appeals of the two deceased appellants stand
abated.
(vi) The appellants shall be released forthwith from
custody, provided payment of fine be made by them, if not
required in connection with any other case.
(vii) The fine amount, if realized, shall be paid as
compensation to the legal heirs of the deceased Subhash Singh
under Section 357 Cr.P.C.
(viii) The impugned judgment of the trial court
stands modified to the extent indicated above. The trial court
shall take necessary steps for compliance and release of the
appellants.
(ix) Let a copy of this judgment be sent to the
learned trial court along with the lower court records for
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.78 of 2019 dt.08-07-2026
39/39
necessary action.
(Bibek Chaudhuri, J)
Rana Vikram Singh, J: I agree.
(Rana Vikram Singh, J)
skm/-
AFR/NAFR NAFR CAV DATE 24.06.2026 Uploading Date 08.07.2026 Transmission Date 08.07.2026
