Patna High Court
Bipin Singh vs The State Of Bihar on 17 July, 2026
Author: Anil Kumar Sinha
Bench: Anil Kumar Sinha, Alok Kumar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL APPEAL (DB) No.210 of 1999
======================================================
Against the judgment of conviction, dated 18.05.1999 and the order of
sentence, dated 19.05.1999, passed, by Shri R. L. Sharma, Additional
Sessions Judge-V, Nalanda, in Sessions Trial No. 392 of 1988, arising out
of Chandi Police Station Case No. 134 of 1986
=======================================================
1. BIPIN SINGH S/O Late Baleshwar Singh R/O Vill.- Rampur, P.s.- Chandi,
Dist.- Nalanda.
2. Naresh Singh (Abated vide Hon'ble Court order dated 17-06-2026) S/O
Late Yadu Singh R/O Vill.- Rampur, P.S.- Chandi, Dist.- Nalanda.
3. Umesh Singh (Abated vide Hon'ble Court order dated 17-06-2026) S/O
Sri Ram Lagan Singh R/O Vill.- Rampur, P.s.- Chandi, Dist.- Nalanda.
4. Ambika Singh @ Amerika Singh (Abated vide Hon'ble Court order dated
17-06-2026
) S/O Late Saryug Singh R/O Vill.- Rampur, P.S.- Chandi, Dist.-
Nalanda.
5. Bhola Singh S/O Late Babu Lal Singh R/O Vill.- Rampur, P.S.- Chandi,
Dist.- Nalanda.
6. Umesh Mahto S/O Late Keshwar Mahto R/O Vill.- Akair, P.S.- Chandi,
Dist.- Nalanda.
… … Appellant/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
… … Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Appellant/s : Mr. Ajay Kumar Thakur
Mr. Imteyaz Ahmad
Mr. Purushottam Kumar
Mr. Pranshu
Mr. Shivam
Ms. Sushmita Mishra
For the State : Mr. Sujit Kumar Singh
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR SINHA
and
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK KUMAR
JUDGMENT AND ORDER
C.A.V.
(Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR SINHA)
Date : 17-07-2026
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.210 of 1999 dt.17-07-2026
2/50
The present appeal has been preferred against the
judgment of conviction, dated 18.05.1999, and the order of
sentence, dated 19.05.1999, passed by learned Additional Sessions
Judge-V, Nalanda, in Sessions Trial No. 392 of 1988, arising out of
Chandi Police Station Case No. 134 of 1986, whereby the
appellants, namely, Bipin Singh and Umesh Singh, were convicted
under Sections 302 and 148 of the Indian Penal Code; whereas the
appellant, Bhola Singh, was convicted under Sections 302 read
with Section 149, Section 147 and Section 342 of the Indian Penal
Code.
2. For the conviction under Section 302 of the Indian
Penal Code, the appellants, Bipin Singh and Umesh Singh, were
sentenced for life imprisonment and for the conviction under
Section 148 of the Indian Penal Code, they were sentenced to
undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months.
3. For the conviction under Section 302 read with
Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code, the appellant Bhola Singh
was sentenced for life imprisonment, for the charge under Section
147 of the Indian Penal Code, he has been sentenced to undergo
rigorous imprisonment for three months and for the charge under
Section 342 of the Indian Penal Code, he has been sentenced to
undergo rigorous imprisonment for one month.
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.210 of 1999 dt.17-07-2026
3/50
4. All the sentence were, however, directed to run
concurrently.
5. The prosecution case, as unfolded in the written report
of the informant, Kamlesh Kumar (PW 5), is that in the last night,
the brother of the informant, Sudhir Kumar was sleeping in his
cabin. Since it was very hot, the informant slept in the nearby
cabin of Anil Prasad. Some unknown persons injured the brother
of the informant, Sudhir Kumar, by knife blows with intention to
kill him. When alarm was raised, the informant and many of his
co-villagers gathered and found his brother in injured and
unconscious condition. The informant claimed that they neither
saw anybody assaulting nor identified and when they reached, all
the persons had fled away. Some villagers took the injured on a
tractor for his treatment to the Patna hospital.
6. On the basis of the aforesaid written report, Chandi
Police Station Case No. 134 of 1986, dated 12.05.1986, was
registered against the unknown accused persons for the offences
punishable under Sections 307/324 of the Indian Penal Code.
7. Upon completion of investigation, the police
submitted police report on 26.05.1992, finding the case untrue
against the appellants. However, differing with the police report,
learned Magistrate took cognizance for the offences punishable
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.210 of 1999 dt.17-07-2026
4/50
under Section 147/148/302/149 of Indian Penal Code, against the
accused persons on 09.11.1987. The case was committed to the
Court of Sessions on 10.08.1988.
8. Charges under Sections 148 and 302 of the Indian
Penal Code were framed against the appellants, Bipin Singh and
Umesh Mahto and charges 147, 302 read with 149 and 342 of the
Indian penal Code were framed against the appellant, Bhola Singh.
Charges were read over and explained to them in Hindi, to which
they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
9. The prosecution, in order to substantiate its case, has
examined eight witnesses and also exhibited some documents on
its behalf. List of prosecution witnesses and exhibits are being
mentioned hereunder in tabular form:-
List of Prosecution Witnesses :
Prosecution
Name of witness Description
witness no.
1. Anil kumar Villager
2. Ayodhya Prasad Villager
3. Bhageran Mahto Villager
Father of the
4. Ram Briksh Mahto
informant
5. Kamlesh Kumar Informant
6. Surendra Kumar Singh I.O
Doctor, who
Dr. Ram Krishna Pd.
7. conducted Post
Singh
mortem
8. Raja Ram Prasad Formal witness
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.210 of 1999 dt.17-07-2026
5/50List of Exhibits on behalf of the prosecution :
Date/attested
Exhibit No. Description of the Exhibit
by
Signature of PW4 on the
1 27.08.1993
objection petition
Signature of Informant on the
2 18.09.1993
petition
Signature of Informant on the
2/1 18.09.1993
objection petition
Signature of Informant on the
3. 18.09.1993
affidavit
4. Inquest report 21.02.1995
Session trial 392/1988, case
5 21.02.1995
diary from para 8 to 163
6. Post Mortem report 29.07.1995
7. Signature on written report 07.02.1998
8. Formal F.I.R 07.02.1998
10. After closure of the prosecution evidence, the
statement of the appellants were recorded under Section 313 of the
Code of Criminal Procedure on 23.03.1998. The appellants denied
all the incriminating circumstances against them and claimed to be
tried.
11. The defence has also examined Manohar Singh,
one of the Investigating Officers of this case in support of their
case.
12. Mr. Ajay Kumar Thakur, learned Counsel
appearing on behalf of the appellants, has, at the outset, submitted
that the basis of conviction of the appellants is based merely on
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.210 of 1999 dt.17-07-2026
6/50
presumption of guilt. The prosecution has failed to prove its case
beyond reasonable doubt inasmuch as the testimonies of the
prosecution witnesses not only suffer from material contradictions
and inconsistencies, but is also against the First Information
Report.
13. Learned Counsel has submitted that in the
written report of the informant (PW 5), the informant has stated
that he had neither witnessed the actual occurrence nor identified
any of the accused persons since before he, along with others,
reached the place of occurrence, the persons, who had assaulted
his brother, had fled away and as such, the First Information
Report was registered against unknown, though the appellants
were known to the informant from before. The names of the
appellants and others surfaced after ten to twelve days of the
occurrence inasmuch as only after 10-12 days of the occurrence,
the father of the informant (PW 4) emerged as the eye-witness to
the alleged occurrence, who claimed to have identified the
assailants in the light of a torch. Such belated claim of
identification constitutes a material improvement over the
prosecution’s earliest version and seriously undermines the
credibility and reliability of the prosecution case. There is nothing
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.210 of 1999 dt.17-07-2026
7/50
on record to show the earliest version of PW 4, i.e. father of the
informant.
14. Learned Counsel next submits that the persons
whose cabins or lands were situated adjacent to the place of
occurrence have not been examined during the trial. The non-
examination of such material witnesses also gives rise to adverse
inference against the prosecution case emerges during the trial. He
further submits that Investigating Officer has disclosed that no one
has claimed to identify the accused persons in the light of torch
before him and the torch was also not produced before him.
15. The doctor (PW7), who conducted the
postmortem has deposed that the cause of death is due to
infection. The doctor, who initially treated the brother of the
informant (PW 5) has not been examined during the trial.
16. Learned Counsel lastly submits that the manner,
source of identification and the place of occurrence has not been
established by the prosecution.
17. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances,
learned Counsel has submitted that the impugned judgment of
conviction and order of sentence are fit to be set aside as the
prosecution has miserably failed to prove its case beyond
reasonable doubts.
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.210 of 1999 dt.17-07-2026
8/50
18. In support of his submission, learned Counsel for
the appellants has placed reliance on the decisions of the Supreme
Court, in the cases of Durbal v. State of Uttar Pradesh, reported in
(2011) 2 SCC 676, Kapildeo Mandal v. State of Bihar, reported in
(2008) 16 SCC 99, Balakrushna Swain v. State of Orissa, reported
in (1971) 3 SCC 192, Jagjit Singh v. State of Punjab, reported in
(2005) 3 SCC 689, Ganesh Bhavan Patel v. State of Maharashtra,
reported in (1978) 4 SCC 371, Munuwa v. State of Uttar Pradesh,
reported in (2023) 1 SCC 714, Ram Narain Singh v. State of
Punjab (1975) 4 SCC 497, Punimati v. State of Chattisgarh,
reported in (2025) SCC OnLine SC 2866 and Vinobhai v. State of
Kerala, reported in (2025) SCC OnLine SC 178.
19. On the other hand, learned Additional Public
Prosecutor has submitted that the learned Trial Court, after
considering the evidence of the prosecution witnesses, defence
witness and exhibits available on record, has rightly convicted the
appellant inasmuch as during the course of investigation, the
names of appellants came up and the prosecution witnesses
examined during trial have duly supported the prosecution case,
and as such the impugned judgment of conviction and order of
sentence do not suffer from any legal infirmity or irregularity,
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.210 of 1999 dt.17-07-2026
9/50
warranting interference of this Court, the appeal, being devoid of
any merit, is fit to be dismissed.
20. I have heard learned Counsel for the parties
concerned and have perused the materials available on record,
including the Lower Court’s Record.
21. It would be apposite to discuss the
oral/documentary evidence as available on record to re-appreciate
the evidence for coming to just and proper decision.
22. PW 1, Anil Kumar, a co-villager of the
informant, in his examination-in-chief, has deposed that on
11.05.1986 between 10 and 11 PM, while he was sleeping in his
cabin along with the informant (PW 5), on hearing ther shouting
of Ram Briksh Mahto (PW 4) that “jan mar raha hai, jan mar
raha hai”, this witness ran towards his cabin and in the light of
torch, saw Bipin Singh, Naresh Singh, Umesh Singh, Rajendra
Singh, Amerika Singh, Bhola Singh, Keshwar Mahto and Umesh
Mahto, variously armed inside the cabin and were assaulting
Sudhir. By that time, Bhola Singh, Ayodhya Prasad, Indrajeet
Mahto, Bhageran Mahto and many people came there and the
accused persons fled away towards south-west.
23. This witness (PW 1) claimed to identify all the
accused persons, out of which, Bipin Singh, Rajendra Singh,
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.210 of 1999 dt.17-07-2026
10/50
Bhola Singh, Naresh Singh and Amerika Singh, were present in
the Court in the dock.
24. In his cross examination, PW 1 has stated that he
did not know that his grandfather, father and uncle were accused
in a case related to murder of Aitwari Mahto of his village and
they were convicted in that case. He further deposed that he did
not know that Bhola Singh, Rajendra Singh and Amerika Singh
were witnesses in that case. This witness has further deposed that
his cabin is located at the north-west corner and there was no
electricity in his cabin as the electricity connection was cut off for
the last many months.
25. This witness (PW 1) has deposed that the
informant (PW 5) is not related to him but he used to stay at his
cabin since they were friends and on the date of occurrence, they
were in the cabin from 7 PM and woke up on the shouting of Ram
Briksh and in the mean time, neither any one had come in his
cabin nor he went in the cabin of Ram Briksh. He went on hearing
the shouting. This witness has deposed that he did not show the
police the place of his sleeping and he had told the police that
Kamlesh was sleeping with him but when he woke up on hearing
the shouting, Kamlesh was not there.
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.210 of 1999 dt.17-07-2026
11/50
26. According to this witness, the cabin of Ram
Briksh is towards east-south of his cabin at a distance of about 75
Gaj and the door of the cabin of Ram Briksh is towards east. He
further deposed that he did not see anyone fleeing away nor did he
see anyone in the south as well as south-west direction.
27. This witness further deposed that he saw Sudhir
in unconscious condition and blood was oozing out of his mouth
and chest. After 5-7 minutes, Ram Chandra Mahto, Bhola Mahto,
Bhageran Mahto,Thakur Mahto etc. came, with whom he had no
talk.
28. This witness (PW 1) has deposed that he did not
know in how many cases, Sudhir had gone to jail and he also did
not know that Sudhir was caught with arms and ammunition in
Daniyawan. He further stated that he gave his statement to police
on 25.11.1986 and he said to police that around 10-11 PM in the
night, he was sleeping in his cabin. He does not remember as to
whether he told the police about existence of Kamlesh (PW5) with
him. This witness further deposed that he could not remember
whether he had told the police or not that when he reached near
the cabin of Ram Briksh, he saw inside the cabin after flashing the
torch. He told the police about kaakut and also told the police that
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.210 of 1999 dt.17-07-2026
12/50
when Bhola Mahto, Bhageran, Ayodhya Mahto and Indrajeet and
few other people came, the accused persons fled away.
29. This witness (PW 1) has denied the suggestion
advanced on behalf of the defence that due to enmity, he has
falsely implicated the accused persons and has falsely deposed.
30. PW 2, Ayodhya Prasad, a co-villager of the
informant, in his examination-in-chief, has deposed that on
11.5.86, at 10-11 PM, he, along with his father, was sleeping in his
cabin. They woke up on hearing the shouting of Ram Briksh
Mahto and reached near Ram Briksh Mahto, who was standing in
the field of Sukhu Mahto. In the light of torch, this witness saw
America Singh and Bhola Singh inside the cabin holding Sudhir
by his hands and legs and Bipin Singh with a kakut, Naresh Singh
with a knife, Umesh Singh with a bhujali, Rajendra Singh armed
with a fasuli, and Umesh Mahto with a katta were assaulting
Sudhir and Keshwar Mahto was standing there with a lathi, and
blood was oozing out of mouth and chest of Sudhir. He further
deposed that about one month prior to the occurrence, certain
equipment belonging to Bipin had been stolen, due to which there
was tension between Bipin and Sudhir and Ram Briksh Mahto,
father of Sudhir Singh, had removed Umesh Mahto from his job,
due to which also, Umesh Mahto had a grudge. This witness
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.210 of 1999 dt.17-07-2026
13/50
claimed that he knew all the accused persons, out of whom
America Singh, Bhola Singh, Naresh Singh, Umesh Mahto and
Rajendra Singh, were present in the dock of the court.
31. In the cross examination, this witness (PW 2) has
deposed that the entrance of the cabin of Ram Briksh was on the
eastern side. There was a well on the west side of the cabin. His
cabin is situated at a distance of 100-150 Gaj towards west-south
in the direction of South west from the cabin of Ram Briksh. He
further deposed that out of the eight accused persons of this case,
except Umesh Mahto and Keshwar Mahto, rest are of his village.
He further deposed that the houses of the accused persons are near
to his house. He further deposed that he did not know that any
case was going on between his father and accused Bhola Singh for
the passage. This witness has further deposed that he knew his co-
villager, Swarth Singh, but he did not know that his father is a
witness of a theft case of Swarth Singh, in which Naresh Singh
was an accused.
32. This witness (PW 2) has deposed that the police
had recorded his statement, in which he told the police that in the
night, at 10-11 PM, Ram Briksh Mahto raising an alarm and ran to
the place where Ram Briksh Mahto was standing. He also told the
police that Bhola Singh and America Singh were holding the
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.210 of 1999 dt.17-07-2026
14/50
hands and legs of Sudhir Singh. When this witness came out of his
cabin, he could see the west side of the cabin of Ram Briksh
Mahto and after flashing torch, he did not see anyone on the west
or south side of Ram Briksh Mahto’s cabin. Ram Briksh Mahto
was shouting, “Thief is assaulting Sudhir” and “The thief is killing
Sudhir.”
33. This witness (PW 2) has further deposed that
when he reached in the field of Sukhu Mahto, he also began
raising alarm and remained there and shouted for one minute.
During that time, he saw some people running towards west and
others running towards the south. No one ran in the direction
where this witness was standing. This witness (PW 2) found
Sudhir lying unconscious and drenched in blood. This witness has
claimed that he identified the persons who were fleeing and they
were the accused persons. Both, this witness and Ram Briksh
Mahto flashed their torches. Inside the room, he noticed blood
stains beneath the cot and there was no source of light, i.e. lantern
etc. in the room.
34. This witness (PW 2) has further deposed that he
did not know for how many years Umesh Mahto was working, but
two months prior to the occurrence, he was removed. This witness
did not know as to when the articles of Bipin Singh was stolen and
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.210 of 1999 dt.17-07-2026
15/50
whether any case was lodged for that theft, but Bipin had
suspicion upon Sudhir, due to which hot exchange of words had
taken place between them.
35. This witness has further deposed that it is not
correct that such incident had not taken place. He denied the
suggestion that accused persons had not assaulted Sudhir in the
cabin. It is also wrong that Ram Briksh Mahto was not present at
the place of occurrence at the time of incident. This witness has
also deposed that he did not know that Kamlesh had informed the
police about the occurrence against unknown.
36. PW 3, Bhageran Mahto, another co-villager of
the informant, in his examination-in-chief, has deposed that the
occurrence took place at about 9-10 PM, about seven years ago.
This witness was at his cabin when he heard shouting of Ram
Briksh and went to his cabin. He went to the field of Sukhu Mahto
and saw persons inside the cabin of Ram Briksh. Naresh Singh,
Bipin Singh, Amerika Singh, Bhola Singh, Rajendra Singh and
Umesh Singh were inside. He could not see what they were doing.
Keshwar Mahto and Umesh Mahto were outside the cabin. This
witness claimed to identify all the persons, out of whom Amerika
Singh, Naresh Singh, Rajendra Singh, Bhola Singh and Umesh
Mahto were present in the dock of the Court. This witness also
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.210 of 1999 dt.17-07-2026
16/50
claimed to identify the six persons inside the cabin in the light of
torch.
37. In the cross-examination, this witness (PW 3)
has deposed that since he had gone to Patna with Sudhir, he could
not say after how many days of the occurrence, police had come
in the village. This witness had not told the police that the
occurrence took place in the night at 9-10 PM. He did not told the
police that he went to the cabin of Ram Briksh on his shouting.
This witness also did not recollect whether he had told that he
entered into the field of Sukhu Mahto and saw the accused
persons inside the cabin. This witness also did not recollect
whether he had told that he had seen Umesh Mahto and Keshwar
Mahto outside the cabin. This witness also did not remember as to
whether he had told that he was having a torch and he identified
them in the torch light.
38. This witness (PW 3) was alone in his cabin,
which is situated south to the cabin of Ram Briksh. An alarm was
raised that “he is being assaulted.” This witness went with a torch
to the east of cabin but he did not meet anyone on the way. This
witness did not see anyone entering into the cabin of Ram Briksh.
After this witness, many villagers arrived, whose names he did not
remember. They reached five to ten minutes after his arrival. He
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.210 of 1999 dt.17-07-2026
17/50
remained in Sukhu Mahto’s field for about half an hour. After half
an hour, he entered the cabin of Ram Briksh. This witness has
denied the suggestion of the defence that he did not see anybody
inside the cabin.
39. PW 4, father of the deceased, Ram Briksh
Mahto, is the witness, on whose testimony the entire prosecution
case revolves around. This witness (PW 4) has deposed, in his
examination-in-chief, that on 11.05.1986, at 10:30 PM, he was in
his cabin along with his son (deceased) Sudhir. They were
irrigating their paddy field using a diesel engine. Sudhir slept
inside the cabin. This witness took a torch and went to see the
field. While this witness was in the field, he heard Sudhir shouting
that ‘Bipin Singh and Umesh Mahto were assaulting”. When came
near the cabin, this witness, in the light of torch, saw America
Singh and Bhola Singh holding the hands and legs of Sudhir and
Naresh Singh, by means of knife, Bipin Singh, by means of
garasi, Rajendra Singh, by means of fasuli and Umesh Singh, by
means of bhujali, were assaulting him. Umesh Mahto and
Keshwar Mahto were armed with lathis. The persons of nearby
cabins also arrived there. On hearing hulla, villagers also reached
there, and they witnessed the occurrence in the torch light. The
accused persons fled away from there.
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.210 of 1999 dt.17-07-2026
18/50
40. This witness (PW 4) took injured Sudhir to Patna
Medical College and Hospital for treatment, and the treatment
continued for 7 to 8 days, and then Sudhir died. This witness
returned to village when his another son, Kamlesh (the informant)
told him that Ram Snehi Singh, Dafadar, took him and lodged a
case against unknown. Kamlesh further told him that Ram Snehi
Singh did not allow him to mention the names of any of the
accused in the report and told him that if he would name them,
they would kill him also. This witness further disclosed that Ram
Snehi Singh is related to the accused persons by caste and is their
gotiya also, due to which he had done so.
41. This witness has further deposed that he had
filed a protest petition in the Hilsa court. This witness (PW 4)
proved his signature on the protest petition, marked as Exhibit 1.
The police was also in collusion with the accused persons, due to
which he had filed the protest petition.
42. This witness (PW 4) has also deposed that the
police had gone to Patna Medical College and Hospital and
recorded his statement. The statement was recorded by the Daroga
of Pirbahore Police Station. This witness has disclosed the names
of the persons whom he had named before the Court and had also
named those persons in the protest petition.
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.210 of 1999 dt.17-07-2026
19/50
43. This witness (PW 4) has deposed that about one
month prior to the incident, some machinery parts were stolen and
Bipin Singh was accusing Sudhir for this theft for which, a dispute
arose between them and also had physical altercation. On that
occasion, Bipin Singh threatened Sudhir to kill him. This witness
(PW 4) had engaged Umesh Mahto for working in his field, but
before 6-7 days of the occurrence, Umesh Singh tried to grab his
land, due to which removed Umesh Mahto. Umesh Mahto
threatened Sudhir.
44. This witness has claimed that he identified the
accused persons. Rajendra Singh, Naresh Singh, Umesh Singh,
Bhola Singh, Bipin Singh and Keshwar Mahto are present.
45. In the cross-examination, this witness (PW 4)
has deposed that prior to the occurrence, he did not had any
personal knowledge of any case against the accused persons. This
witness (PW 4) has deposed that he could not say whether any of
his witnesses had any case with the accused or not. In the protest
petition or in his statement before the police, he had mentioned
that there was enmity between him and the accused persons. This
witness had filed the protest petition on 20.08.1986. At that time,
members of his family were with him in Patna. From 12.05.1986,
Arvind Mahto, Bhola Mahto, Ayodhya Mahto, Arjun Mahto and
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.210 of 1999 dt.17-07-2026
20/50
Anil Mahto were also with him at Patna. And all these persons
accompanied this witness while this witness had taken Sudhir to
Patna and lived there till Sudhir died. All these persons are
witnesses of this case.
46. This witness (PW 4) has further deposed that
before leaving for Patna, he had no discussion with the witnesses
about the occurrence. The statement of this witness (PW 4) was
recorded by the Daroga of Pirbahore Police Station and before
that, he had no discussion from witnesses about the occurrence.
This witness (PW 4) did not return to village till Sudhir was alive.
Kamlesh had come to Patna Hospital to see Sudhir one day after
he had reached there, but he had no discussion with him in Patna
about the occurrence. Kamlesh did not inform him in Patna that
he had lodged any case for the alleged occurrence. Kamlesh had
returned to the village one day before the death of Sudhir; whereas
this witness (PW 4), along with others, returned to village after
cremating the body of Sudhir.
47. On returning after cremation, this witness (PW
4), along with Kamlesh at his home that very day. Thereafter, he
and Kamlesh were went together to the Hilsa Court to file the
protest petition and on that very date, he had seen the written
report for the first time.
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.210 of 1999 dt.17-07-2026
21/50
48. This witness (PW 4) has further deposed that the
field of Sukhu Mahto was situated in the east of the cabin. He had
gone in his field which was situated towards north-east of cabin
and when he was alone at the north-weest corner of his field, he
heard the sound of his son, Sudhir. When this witness (PW 4) was
going to his field, he saw no one near the cabin. It was only after
he reached the south-west corner of the field, he heard the
shouting and from there, the cabin was not visible since it was a
dark night. On hearing Sudhir’s cries, he looked towards the cabin
but did not see anyone in the hut and within one or two minutes,
people came. When he reached in the field of Sukhdeo Mahto, he
still did not see anyone either in the shed near the cabin or towards
its east, north or south. He saw people running from the cabin.
They fled firstly towards south. There was no light inside the
cabin or outside in the shed. Though about 50 persons came there,
no one chased the persons. When he entered into the cabin, he
found Sudhir lying unconscious on the cot, seriously injured and
covered in blood. The door of the cabin was open. This witness
(PW 4) has further deposed that the persons who fled away
towards west-south direction, he did not see their faces, only their
back was visible.
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.210 of 1999 dt.17-07-2026
22/50
49. When this witness (PW 4) was in the field of
Sukhdeo Mahto, he was carrying a torch and he had disclosed this
fact to the Pirbahore Police as well as in the protest petition. This
witness (PW 4) has claimed to identified the accused in the light
of his own torch. He further told the police that Anil Mahto, Bhola
Mahto, Ayodhya Mahto, Bhageran Mahto and others had also
arrived carrying torches and saw the accused persons in the light
of their torches.
50. This witness (PW 4) has further deposed that the
villagers saw eight persons inside the cabin. As soon as the
torches were switched on, all of them ran out of the cabin and fled
away. This witness (PW 4) did not remember whether the blood
was found on the cot, beneath the cot, or in both places inside the
cabin.
51. This witness (PW 4) has also deposed that before
the occurrence, Sudhir was not an accused in Daniyawan Police
Station Case No. 277 of 1985 and had not gone to jail. There is no
other person in the village by the name of Sudhir, son of Ram
Briksh Mahto. No daughter-in-law of this witness (PW 4) has died
after consuming poison and he as well as Sudhir is not accused in
such case. This witness (PW 4) has deposed that he did not know
that Sudhir harassed the wife of Mahendra Paswan of Aker. He
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.210 of 1999 dt.17-07-2026
23/50
further deposed that it is not correct that due to illicit relation with
the daughter of Bhola, people had assaulted Sudhir and due to the
bad behaviour of Sudhir, Nazir Krishna Mohan Prasad had shifted
his daughters from the village and the son of Nazir had assaulted
Sudhir for his act of harassing them. This witness (PW 4) further
deposed that for the theft of the motor part of Bipin, Bipin held
Sudhir responsible for that. This witness (PW 4) has further
deposed that it is not correct that he had falsely implicated the
accused persons in connivance with the witnesses, he was not in
the cabin on that date, no one had saw the occurrence of assault,
due to which Kamlesh had registered a case against unknown and
during investigation, the case was found untrue and the accused
persons had not committed any offence.
52. PW 5, Kamlesh Kumar, is the informant of this
case. He, in his examination-in-chief, has deposed that on
11.05.1986, at 10:30 PM, he was at the cabin of Anil (PW 1) and
saw 7-8 persons going towards his cabin. He immediately ran to
the orchard and raised alarm that 7-8 persons had entered into his
cabin. From the orchard, he ran to the village. When he returned to
the cabin, his father (PW 4) informed him that Bhola Singh,
Umesh Singh, Rajendra Singh, America Singh, Naresh Singh,
Bipin Singh, Keshwar Mahto, and Umesh Mahto had assaulting
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.210 of 1999 dt.17-07-2026
24/50
Sudhir and saw his younger brother Sudhir lying unconscious in
injured condition, who was taken to the hospital. On the following
morning, Ram Snehi Singh, Dafadar, forcibly took him to Chandi
Police Station and told him to sign on a blank paper and when this
witness tried to overlook, he took his signature on a blank paper
after threatening him. This witness (PW 5) had identified his
signature, which was marked as Exhibit 2.
53. This witness (PW 5) had filed a protest petition
in the Hilsa Court and he identified his protest petition and his
signature over it, the signature of this witness (PW 5) on the
protest petition had been marked as Exhibit 2/1.Along with the
protest petition, he had also filed an affidavit, which bears his
signature, which he identified and was marked as Exhibit 3.
54. This witness (PW 5) has deposed that Ram Snehi
Singh is the gotia of accused Bipin, Bhola and Naresh Singh. He
identified the accused persons, namely, Umesh Singh, Bhola
Singh, America Singh, Rajendra Singh, Bipin Singh and Keshwar
Mahto, who were present in Court.
55. In the cross-examination, this witness (PW 5)
has deposed that the cabin of Anil is north to his cabin and in that
cabin, only Anil and he was present. His own pump set was
working till 7 PM and after closing the pump set, this witness
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.210 of 1999 dt.17-07-2026
25/50
went to the pump set of Anil. This witness (PW 5) has further
deposed that he saw some persons going from west to east
towards his pump set from south of the pump set of Anil. He woke
up sometime ago but Anil was sleeping and he went to the village
through the orchard leaving Anil. On the way, he met Munna
Mahto, Sunil Kumar, and Veer Mani near his house and told them
that he had seen some people going towards his pump set.
Thereafter, all three of them accompanied him to the cabin where
he met with his father (PW 4) outside the cabin, in the field of
Sukhu Mahto and near his father, about 5-10 persons were there,
and he identified Nunu Mahto and Bhola Mahto among them.
This witness (PW 5), along with others, entered into the cabin and
found Sudhir unconscious drenched in blood. This witness (PW 5)
had a talk with his father in presence of the witnesses. This
witness (PW 5) had admitted that in the protest petition and the
affidavit, he had stated that after raising alarm, he went to the
village through the orchard and on returning to the cabin, his
father informed him the names of the accused and told him that
they were assaulting Sudhir Mahto. However, this particular fact
was not mentioned by him (PW 5) in the protest petition and the
affidavit.
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.210 of 1999 dt.17-07-2026
26/50
56. This witness (PW 5) has deposed that in the
night of the occurrence, he remained at his house and he did not
meet Ram Snehi Singh in the night and on the following morning,
Ram Snehi Singh met with him (PW 5) at about 8 AM. He cannot
say from where he came to meet me. He told Ram Snehi Singh
that Sudhir had been assaulted in the night, though he had not
witnessed the assault himself, but his father had witnessed it. Ram
Snehi Singh took him to the police station. He (PW 5) got the
protest petition prepared only after seeing the written report. In the
written report, it is mentioned that he had not witnessed the
occurrence and had also not identified any one. He (PW 5) does
not remember whether he wrote the entire written report by
himself or merely obtained his signature on it. It is not correct that
he had written the written report on his own accord and signed
over it. It is true that the written report is in his own handwriting
using the same pen and the same ink and bears his signature, and
that it was written by him.
57. This witness (PW 5) has further deposed that he
met with his father in Patna on 13.05.1986, but he did not
remember whether he told him (PW 4) that Ram Snehi Singh had
got the written report submitted at the police station. He did not
discuss this matter with anyone. He does not remember when his
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.210 of 1999 dt.17-07-2026
27/50
father returned from Patna and whether, before filing the protest
petition, he had informed his father that the written report had
already been submitted at the police station. His father (PW 4) had
also filed a protest petition but he did not say as to when the
protest petition was filed. There was no enmity with the accused
persons from before the occurrence. It is not true that on the date
of occurrence, he, along with his father, was not present in the
cabin.
58. This witness (PW 5) has further deposed that on
12.05.1986, on the basis of his written report, the police came to
the village but did not visit his cabin. Later on, he deposed that the
police did not come on 12.05.1986 and he did not remember when
the police came.
59. This witness (PW 5) has further deposed that it is
not true that on 12.05.1986, the police came to the village, to
whom he showed the place of occurrence. He did not remember
whether the police questioned him after registration of the case or
not.
60. This witness (PW 5) has further deposed that
Senior Police Officials had come to the village for investigation
and they found the case filed by them as true and also found the
statement of his father to be true.
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.210 of 1999 dt.17-07-2026
28/50
61. This witness (PW 5) has denied the suggestion of
the defence that the police had found the statement of his father as
untrue and filed final form. He again denied that he, in connivance
with the witnesses, had lodged a false case.
62. PW 6, Surendra Kumar Singh, is the second
Investigating Officer of this case. He, in his examination-in-chief,
has deposed that he took charge of investigation of this case on
18.05.1986. The inquest report of injured Sudhir Kumar was
received from Pirbahore Police Station, which revealed that
Sudhir Kumar died in the Patna Medical College and Hospital,
Patna itself. The inquest report was written and signed by A.S.I.
Bachcha Upadhyay of Pirbahore Police Station and the same was
marked as Exhibit 4. He went to the place of occurrence, recorded
the statements of witnesses and when he returned to the police
station, he came to know that Ram Snehi Singh, Dafadar, had
accompanied the informant, Kamlesh Kumar to the police station
and the informant Kamlesh Kumar wrote the written report. He
obtained the post-mortem report of the deceased and during the
investigation, he found sufficient evidence against the accused
persons. Due to his transfer, he handed over the further
investigation of the case to Manohar Singh (DW 1).
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.210 of 1999 dt.17-07-2026
29/50
63. This witness (PW 6) has deposed that paragraph
1 to 12 of the case diary is in the handwriting and signature of
A.S.I. Lakshman Dubey (first investigation officer of the case).
Paragraph 13 to 76 of the case diary is in his handwriting and
signature. Paragraph 76 to 150 is in the handwriting and signature
of A.S.I. Manohar Singh (DW 1). Paragraph 151 to 153 is in the
handwriting and signature of A.S.I. Ayodhya Nath and paragraph
154 to 163 is in the handwriting and signature of A.S.I. Nand
Kishore Rai. He recognized all the handwriting. Paragraph 1 to
163 of the case diary has been marked as Exhibit 5.
64. In the cross-examination, this witness (PW 6)
has deposed that the police report was filed in which the
occurrence was found to be true, but the accusation was found to
be false. The case was supervised by the senior officer, Deputy
Superintendent of Police and the Superintendent of Police.
65. This witness (PW 6) has deposed that before he
took charge of the case on 18.05.1986, the place of occurrence
was already inspected and restatement of the informant was also
recorded, but in investigation was conducted from 15.05.1986 to
17.05.1986. This witness got information of the death of Sudhir
Kumar on 24.05.1986 and before 24.05.1986, no accused had
been named before him by anyone and on 24.05.1986 itself, he got
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.210 of 1999 dt.17-07-2026
30/50
the fardbayan of the father of the deceased from Pirbahore Police
Station. On 25.05.1986, witnesses Anil Kumar, Bhola Mahto,
Ayodhya Prasad, Bhagiran Mahto and Indrajeet Mahto appeared
before him along with Ram Briksh Mahto, and their statements
were recorded by him on that date.
66. This witness (PW 6) has deposed that he did not
obtain any information regarding litigation between the parties.
On 13.10.1986, upon completion of investigation on all aspects,
the Deputy Superintendent of Police recommended submission of
Final Report treating the allegation against the accused as false.
Subsequently, the Final Report was filed showing the allegation as
false.
67. This witness (PW 6) has further deposed that he
did not inspect the places where the witnesses claimed to be
present in the night of alleged occurrence. Anil Kumar (PW 1) had
also not shown him the place where he was sleeping Anil Kumar
(PW 1) did not told him that Kamlesh (PW 5) was sleeping with
him. He stated that he slept in his cabin that night. PW 1 also did
not disclose before him that when he came to the cabin of Ram
Briksh, he looked inside by flashing the torch. PW 1 had also not
mentioned about Kkakut and upon the arrival of Bhola Mahto,
Bhageran, Ayodhya, Indrajeet and others, the accused fled away.
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.210 of 1999 dt.17-07-2026
31/50
68. This witness (PW 6) has further deposed that PW
2 did not show his cabin to him. PW 2 did not told him that he
rushed upon hearing hulla raised by Ram Briksh Mahto and
reached near the place where he was standing. PW 2 also did not
told him that Rambriksh was standing in the field of Sukhu Mahto
and Bhola Singh and America Singh were holding Sudhir by his
hands and legs. PW 2 did not told him that Umesh Mahto was
armed with a Katta; rather, he had told that Umesh Mahto was
carrying a lathi.
69. This witness (PW 6) has deposed that Bhageran
Mahto (PW 3) had not told that upon hearing hulla raised by Ram
Briksh, he went to the cabin and saw the accused persons from
there and he saw Umesh and Keshwar Mahto outside the cabin.
PW 3 had also not told that he was carrying torch, in which light,
he identified.
70. This witness (PW 6) has deposed that Ram
Briksh Mahto had told before him that he had dispute with the
accused, however, he later mentioned only about Umesh, with
whom he had land dispute. PW 4 had not told him that he had a
torch in his hand and Anil, Bhola, Ayodhya and Bhageran arrived
flashing torches, in which light, identified the accused persons.
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.210 of 1999 dt.17-07-2026
32/50
71. At this juncture, I would like to mention here
that the prosecution has not produced the doctor, who had firstly
examined the deceased, as a witness, in order to come to a finding
with regard to the weapon used and the intensity of the assault.
The prosecution has only examined the doctor who has conducted
the post mortem examination on the body of the deceased.
72. PW 7, Dr Shyam Krishna Prasad Singh, is the
doctor who conducted the post mortem examaintion on the dead
body of Sudhir on 18.05.1986 at 10 AM. PW 7 found following
ante mortem injuries:-
“1. Stitched wound of size 2” x 1″/2 x
nasal cartilage cut was found placed horizontally on
the middle of the nose.
2. Stitched wound of size 4″x1/2″x
mandible cut (completely) was found on the middle
of chin.
3. Stitched wound of size 1″x1/2″x
muscle deep was found on the anterior aspect of the
right shoulder.
4. Stitched wound of size 2½” x 1/2″ x
bone deep was found on the right clavicular region of
the chest placed horizontally.
5. Stitched wound of size 2½” x 1/2″ x
muscle deep was found placed horizontally on the
middle of upper part of the chest.
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.210 of 1999 dt.17-07-2026
33/50
6. Linear Stitched wound of size ½” x
1/2″ communicating to the wind pipe was found on
the front of neck. It was a surgical wound for
treatment.”
73. PW 7 has also found both the lungs congested,
liver enlarged and congested, spleen grossly enlarged and
congested and all the viscera were congested.
74. PW 7 has opined that the cause of death was due
to infection caused by above mentioned injuries. PW 7 has further
deposed that the opinion regarding the nature of weapon used
cannot be given due to surgical interference.
75. PW 8, Raja Ram Prasad, is a formal witness,
who has identified the endorsement on the written report in the
writing and signature of Sri L. Dubey (Laxman Dubey), which
was marked as Exhibit 7. This witness further identified the
handwriting and signature of the aforesaid Sri Laxman Dubey,
A.S.I., on the formal First Information Report, which was marked
as Exhibit 8.
76. In the present case, there were five investigating
officers, out of which the second investigating officer, Surendra
Kumar Singh, who had written the case diary from paragraph 13
to 76, was examined on behalf of the prosecution as PW 6. The
third investigating officer, Manohar Singh, who had written the
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.210 of 1999 dt.17-07-2026
34/50
case diary from paragraph 76 to 150, was examined on behalf of
the defence as DW 1.
77. DW1, in his examination in chief, has deposed
that on 21.07.1986, he took the charge of investigation of the
present case after transfer of the then Officer-in-Charge of the
police station, Sri Surendra Kumar Singh, who handed over to him
the case diary, the supervision note of the Deputy Superintendent
of Police, the First Information Report, the progress report
submitted to the Superintendent of Police, the post-mortem report
and other records relating to the case. This witness had gone
through the supervision note of the senior officers and had
followed his instructions.
78. This witness (DW 1) inspected the place of
occurrence and took statements of independent witnesses, namely,
Yogendra Prasad, Anil Kumar, Dilip Kumar, Narayan Mahto and
Saryu Mistri. This witness had perused the record of old enmity,
Chandi Police Station Case No. 4 (3) 75, in which he took the
statements of the witnesses, Siddheswar etc. and the accused of
this case, namely, Bhola Singh, Rajendra Singh, who show him
the records of T.S. No. 46 of 82, Siddheswar Mahto v. Kesho
Ram, in which the accused persons of this case were the witnesses
on behalf of Kesho Ram.
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.210 of 1999 dt.17-07-2026
35/50
79. This witness (DW 1) had also visited Daniyawan
Police Station and saw the records of Daniyawan Police Station
Case No. 287 of 1985, in which the deceased was named accused
person. This witness also visited the house of Keshwar Mahto and
found that he was suffering from paralysis and he could not
identify any person since his eye vision was bad.
80. This witness (DW 1) also took the statement of
Rajendra Singh and Rajendra Singh produced the documents
related to enmity and this old person was also found suffering
from paralysis and was stammering. This witness also met with
America Singh and found that he has lost his eye vision. This
witness conducted the investigation in accordance with the
directions/instructions of the Deputy Superintendent of Police and
found the allegation against the accused persons to be false. The
Deputy Superintendent of Police had directed that a final report be
submitted in the case. And after verification of the materials, the
Deputy Superintendent of Police again supervised the
investigation on 13.10.1986 and found the allegations to be false.
This witness has deposed that the entries in the case diary, from
paragraphs 76 to 150, are in his handwriting and after 24.10.1986,
he handed over the charge of investigation to Ram Pravesh Singh,
Officer-in-charge, Chandi Police Station.
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.210 of 1999 dt.17-07-2026
36/50
81. In the cross-examination, this witness (DW 1)
has deposed that he peruse the records of a case after taking
investigation of any case and perused the documents/records of
this case also and from perusal of the case records, he did not find
reliable evidence in support of the allegation levelled against the
accused persons. This witness further denied the suggestion that it
is not true that he is deposing falsely. After taking over the
investigation of this case, he did not go to the Court for examining
the record because he did not consider it necessary. He further
denied that it is not true that protest petition were filed against this
investigating officer (DW 1) and the Investigating Officer of this
case after DW 1. He further denied that he perused the
papers/documents and recorded the statement of the witnesses at
the instance of the accused persons. He further denied that the
investigation is faulty and in support of the accused persons.
82. This is a unique case in which the informant
(PW 5) himself has given a complete go-bye to his earlier version
of occurrence, turned towards a different angle and has deposed in
consonance with his father, Ram Briksh Mahto (PW 4), who was
no where mentioned in the First Information Report. In the
deposition, the informant (PW 5) has deposed that Ram Snehi
Singh, being the gotia of some of the accused persons, had taken
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.210 of 1999 dt.17-07-2026
37/50
his signature on a blank paper forcefully, but from the First
Information Report, it is crystal clear that not only the signature,
but the entire contents of the written report was written by the
informant, PW 5. The First Information Report was registered on
the following day of the occurrence in which he has stated that his
brother (deceased) was assaulted by unknown persons and he did
not identify any accused persons. In his deposition, PW 5, the
informant, has stated that when he reached near the cabin, his
father (PW 4) disclosed that Bhola Singh, Umesh Singh, Rajendra
Singh, America Singh, Naresh Singh, Bipin Singh, Keshwar
Mahto and Umesh Mahto had assaulting Sudhir; whereas PW 4,
father of PW 5, in his deposition, has stated, in paragraph 11, that
he had no talk with any of the witnesses with regard to the alleged
occurrence. PW 5 has further deposed that after closing the pump
set at 7 PM, he went near the pump set of Anil (PW 1); whereas
PW 4, father of this witness, has deposed in paragraph 18, that he,
after closing the pump set, went to his field. PW 5, in paragraph 8,
has deposed that he saw some persons going towards his pump
set, but instead of going to his cabin, he chose to go to his village
home and after returning from home, he met his father (PW 4)
who was standing in the field of Sukhu Mahto along with some
other persons. PW 5, in paragraph 13, has deposed that he had a
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.210 of 1999 dt.17-07-2026
38/50
talk with his father in presence of witnesses and his father had
disclosed the name of the accused persons, but this fact has
already been denied by his father (PW 4). PW 5 has deposed, in
paragraph 18, that he went to Patna on 13.05.1986 and stayed for
only one day in Patna; whereas PW 4, his father, has deposed, in
paragraph 12, that PW 5 return to village one day before the death
of Sudhir.
83. It is also relevant to mention here that in the
present case, two protest petitions were filed; one by the informant
of this case (04.06.1986) and another by the father of the
informant (20.08.1986).
84. Now, coming to the deposition of PW 1, Anil
Kumar, with whom the informant (PW 5) was sleeping in the
fateful night. This witness has deposed in paragraph 9 that the
distance between his cabin and the cabin of the informant was 75
Gaj and on hearing hulla, he woke up and rushed towards the
place of occurrence which is 75 Gaj away and till he reached the
place of occurrence, he did not see anyone fleeing and when he
was 10 feet away from the cabin of the informant, he saw PW 4
shouting. When this witness (PW 1) saw inside the cabin, in the
light of torch, Bipin Singh, Naresh Singh, Umesh Singh, Rajendra
Singh, Amerika Singh, Bhola Singh, Keshwar Mahto and Umesh
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.210 of 1999 dt.17-07-2026
39/50
Mahto, variously armed and were assaulting Sudhir. By that time,
Bhola Singh, Ayodhya Prasad, Indrajeet Mahto, Bhageran Mahto
and many people came there and the accused persons fled away
towards south-west. The accused persons were inside the cabin
and there was only one door for their exit, though no one tried to
save the deceased, when there were many persons, according to
PW 1 and other witnesses, and the accused persons were the co-
villagers, is also not trustworthy.
85. PW 2, in his deposition, has stated that on
hearing the shouting of Ram Briksh Mahto, he reached near Ram
Briksh Mahto, and in torch light, he saw America Singh and Bhola
Singh inside the cabin holding Sudhir by his hands and legs and
Bipin Singh, Naresh Singh, Umesh Singh, Rajendra Singh and
Umesh Mahto were assaulting Sudhir and Keshwar Mahto was
standing there with a lathi, and blood was oozing out of mouth
and chest of Sudhir. The cabin of this witness was about 150 Gaj
away from the cabin of the informant and still when this witness
reached the place of occurrence, he saw the accused persons
inside the cabin. It is the case of the father of the informant that he
was the first person who reached the place of occurrence and on
seeing him, the accused persons fled away, though this witness
(PW 2) after covering 150 Gaj by foot, still witnessed the accused
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.210 of 1999 dt.17-07-2026
40/50
persons inside the cabin is also not trustworthy and that too, when
the accused persons, who were well known to this witnesses, were
fleeing towards his cabin.
86. PW 3 has deposed that accused Keshwar Mahto
and Umesh Mahto were present outside the cabin; whereas PW 2
(alleged eye-witness) has stated that accused Umesh Mahto was
assaulting Sudhir and Keshwar Mahto was standing there with a
lathi, PW 1, PW 5 (informant) have stated that accused Keshwar
Mahto and Umesh Mahto were assaulting the deceased.
87. From a careful scrutiny of the depositions of
prosecution witnesses, there appears to be grave material
inconsistencies and omissions which are not merely minor
discrepancies casting a serious doubt on the credibility and
reliability of their testimony.
88. The evidence of PW 6, the Investigating Officer,
assumes considerable significance in this context. PW 6
categorically deposed that until 24.05.1986, no witness had turn
up and named any of the accused before him. He further stated
that Anil Kumar (PW 1), Bhola Mahto, Ayodhya Prasad (PW 2),
Bhageran Mahto (PW 3) and Indrajeet Mahto appeared before him
for the first time on 25.05.1986, when their statements were
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.210 of 1999 dt.17-07-2026
41/50
recorded. Prior thereto, none of them had disclosed any
information regarding the occurrence.
89. PW 6 further proved several omissions in the
previous statements of PW 4. According to him, PW 4 had not
stated during investigation that he was carrying a torch, Anil
Mahto, Bhola Mahto, Ayodhya Mahto and Bhageran Mahto had
arrived carrying torches, and they identified the accused in the
torch light. Likewise, PW 4 had not stated before the Investigating
Officer that Bhola Singh and America Singh were holding the
hands and legs of Sudhir; while the remaining accused assaulted
him. These omissions relate to the manner in which the accused
were allegedly identified and to the specific roles attributed to
each of them. They concern the substratum of the prosecution case
and cannot be characterized as minor discrepancies arising from
lapse of memory.
90. PW 6 also stated that the prosecution witnesses
Anil Kumar, Ayodhya Prasad and Bhageran Mahto had not made
several statements before him which they subsequently introduced
during their depositions before the Court, including their alleged
presence at the place of occurrence, the use of torchlight for
identification and the specific participation of the accused. These
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.210 of 1999 dt.17-07-2026
42/50
omissions lend support to the defence contention that material
improvements were made during trial.
91. It is well settled that every omission or
contradiction is not sufficient to discard the testimony of a
witness. However, omissions touching the identity of the
assailants, the source of identification, the attribution of individual
overt acts, and the very foundation of the prosecution case assume
a different character. In the present case, the omissions proved
through the Investigating Officer are not confined to peripheral
matters but relate to the core features of the prosecution version.
These omissions, read together with the admissions made by PW 4
and PW 5 in cross-examination, require the ocular testimony to be
evaluated with considerable caution.
92. In the face of the evidence of prosecution
witnesses, discussed above, there can be no escape from the
conclusion that the description of the occurrence, given by them
are not safe to place reliance upon inasmuch as the evidence of
these witnesses are nothing, but ad-mixture of half-truth and
untruth. This apart, the half-truth and untruth are so inextricably
mixed with each other that it is impossible to disengage the truth
from falsehood.
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.210 of 1999 dt.17-07-2026
43/50
93. From going through the testimony of the DW 1, who
was the third Investigating Officer of this case, it is admitted
position that both the parties were on litigation terms. The
deposition of this witness cannot be brushed aside only because he
is the defence witness.
94. Considering the fact that there was, admittedly,
enmity between the parties. Enmity is a double-edged weapon,
which cuts both ways. While enmity may be a reason for
committing an offence, such as, present one, enmity may also be a
reason for either falsely implicating an enemy as an accused or
roping in an enemy, who may be innocent.
95. In the circumstances indicated above, it was
impossible to place implicit reliance on the evidence of the
prosecution evidence. In the absence of any other evidence,
supporting the description of the occurrence given by the eye
witnesses, one has no option, but to hold that none of these
witnesses can be treated or held to be wholly reliable, and their
evidence would fall in the category of wholly unreliable.
96. It is trite that the witnesses, ordinarily, fall into three
distinct categories, namely, (i) wholly reliable, (ii) wholly
unreliable and (iii) neither wholly reliable nor wholly unreliable.
If the witness is wholly reliable, his evidence can be implicitly
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.210 of 1999 dt.17-07-2026
44/50
relied upon and such a witness’s testimony can be made basis for
conviction of an accused. Similarly, when a witness is found to be
wholly unreliable, no reliance can at all be placed on his evidence
and his evidence has to be rejected outright. When, however, a
witness is found to be neither wholly reliable, nor wholly
unreliable, his evidence cannot be accepted as true unless his
evidence is found to have been corroborated by some credible
independent evidence, direct or circumstantial.
97. In the facts and attending circumstances of the
present case, I am of the view that the prosecution has failed, in
the light of the discussion of the evidence on record, to bring
home the charges against the appellants beyond all reasonable
doubt.
98. In the result and for the foregoing reasons, this
appeal is allowed. The impugned conviction of the appellants and
the sentences passed against them by the judgment and order,
under appeal, are hereby set aside. The appellants are held not
guilty of the offence, which they stand convicted of.
99. Since the appellants are on bail, their bail bonds are
hereby cancelled and their sureties shall stand discharged.
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.210 of 1999 dt.17-07-2026
45/50
100. Registry shall, forthwith, send a copy of this
judgment and order to the learned trial Court along with the
Lower Court Records.
(Anil Kumar Sinha, J.)
(Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR SINHA)
1. I am in respectful agreement with all the conclusions
reached by the learned senior brother Anil Kumar Sinha, J. This
concurring note is to express my view that our criminal justice
system is designed not only to punish the guilty, but equally to
ensure that individuals against whom a case is not proven ‘beyond
reasonable doubt’ are not convicted based on conjecture, suspicion,
or incomplete evidence. In criminal law, there is no room for the
‘preponderance of probabilities’. In this context, it is important to
discuss some of the judgments which are relevant for the purpose
of understanding our criminal justice system.
2. Among these, one of the most celebrated landmark
judgments on the “benefit of doubt” and the “presumption of
innocence” in Indian legal history is that of a three-Judge Bench of
the Hon’ble Apex Court in Kali Ram vs. State of Himachal
Pradesh (1972) 2 SCC 808, wherein, in para 25, the Apex Court
held that:
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.210 of 1999 dt.17-07-2026
46/50“Another golden thread which runs
through the web of the administration of justice in
criminal cases is that if two views are possible on the
evidence adduced in the case, one pointing to the guilt
of the accused and the other to his innocence, the view
which is favourable to the accused should be adopted.
This principle has a special relevance in cases
wherein the guilt of the accused is sought to be
established by circumstantial evidence. Rule has
accordingly been laid down that unless the evidence
adduced in the case is consistent only with the
hypothesis of the guilt of the accused and is
inconsistent with that of his innocence, the Court
should refrain from recording a finding of guilt of the
accused. It is also an accepted rule that in case the
Court entertains reasonable doubt regarding the guilt
of the accused, the accused must have the benefit of
that doubt. Of course, the doubt regarding the guilt of
the accused should be reasonable; it is not the doubt
of a mind which is either so vacillating that it is
incapable of reaching a firm conclusion or so timid
that is hesitant and afraid to take things to their
natural consequences. The rule regarding the benefit
of doubt also does not warrant acquittal of the
accused by report to surmises, conjectures or fanciful
considerations. As mentioned by us recently in the
case of State of Punjab v. Jagir Singh 1974 3 SCC
227 a criminal trial is not like a fairy tale wherein one
is free to give flight to one’s imagination and phantasy.
It concerns itself with the question as to whether the
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.210 of 1999 dt.17-07-2026
47/50
accused arraigned at the trial is guilty of the offence
with which he is charged. Crime is an event in real life
and is the product of interplay of different human
emotions. In arriving at the conclusion about the guilt
of the accused charged with the commission of a
crime, the Court has to judge the evidence by the
yardstick of probabilities, its intrinsic worth and the
animus of witnesses. Every case in the final analysis
would have to depend upon its own facts. Although the
benefit of every reasonable doubt should be given to
the accused, the Courts should not at the same time
reject evidence which is ex facie trustworthy on
grounds which are fanciful or in the nature of
conjectures”.
(Emphasis Supplied)
3. Another important judgment in this regard is that of
Anand Ramachandra Chougule v. Sidarai Laxman Chougule
(2019) 8 SCC 50, wherein, in para 10, the Hon’ble Supreme Court
held that:
“The burden lies on the prosecution to
prove the allegations beyond all reasonable doubt. In
contradistinction to the same, the accused has only to
create a doubt about the prosecution case and the
probability of its defence. An accused is not required
to establish or prove his defence beyond all
reasonable doubt, unlike the prosecution. If the
accused takes a defence, which is not improbable and
appears likely, there is material in support of such
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.210 of 1999 dt.17-07-2026
48/50defence, the accused is not required to prove anything
further. The benefit of doubt must follow unless the
prosecution is able to prove its case beyond all
reasonable doubt.”
(Emphasis Supplied)
4. Further, in para 11, it was held that:
“The fact that a defence may not have been
taken by an accused under Section 313, Cr.P.C. again
cannot absolve the prosecution from proving its case
beyond all reasonable doubt. If there are materials
which the prosecution is unable to answer, the
weakness in the defence taken cannot become the
strength of the prosecution to claim that in the
circumstances it was not required to prove anything.
In Sunil Kundu v. State of Jharkhand , (2013) 4 SCC
422, this Court observed:
“28…When the prosecution is not
able to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt it
cannot take advantage of the fact that the
accused have not been able to probabilise their
defence. It is well settled that the prosecution
must stand or fall on its own feet. It cannot draw
support from the weakness of the case of the
accused, if it has not proved its case beyond
reasonable doubt.”
(Emphasis Supplied)
5. Lastly, in a recent judgment, namely, Goverdhan &
Anr. V/s State of Chhattisgarh 2025 INSC 47, the Hon’ble
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.210 of 1999 dt.17-07-2026
49/50
Supreme Court has reiterated that reasonable doubt must not be an
abstract or speculative doubt, but one based on reason, logic, and
the totality of the evidence on record. The relevant portion of the
aforementioned judgment is reproduced below:
“21. It will be relevant to discuss, at this
juncture, what is meant by “reasonable doubt”. It
means that such doubt must be free from suppositional
speculation. It must not be the result of minute
emotional detailing, and the doubt must be actual and
substantial and not merely vague apprehension. A
reasonable doubt is not an imaginary, trivial or a
merely possible doubt, but a fair doubt based upon
reason and common sense as observed in Ramakant
Rai v. Madan Rai, (2003) 12 SCC 395 wherein it was
observed as under :
“24. Doubts would be called
reasonable if they are free from a zest for
abstract speculation. Law cannot afford any
favourite other than the truth. To constitute
reasonable doubt, it must be free from an overly
emotional response. Doubts must be actual and
substantial doubts as to the guilt of the accused
persons arising from the evidence, or from the
lack of it, as opposed to mere vague
apprehensions. A reasonable doubt is not an
imaginary, trivial or a merely possible doubt; but
a fair doubt based upon reason and common
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.210 of 1999 dt.17-07-2026
50/50sense. It must grow out of the evidence in the
case.”
(Emphasis Supplied)
6. In view of the above, I must conclude that the
prosecution has failed, in the present case, to bring home the
charge against the appellants beyond reasonable doubt.
(Alok Kumar, J.)
Prabhakar Anand/-
AFR/NAFR AFR CAV DATE 25-06-2026 Uploading Date 17-07-2026 Transmission Date 17-07-2026
