Patna High Court
Dumar Bin @ Domar Bin vs State Of Bihar on 21 July, 2026
Author: Alok Kumar
Bench: Anil Kumar Sinha, Alok Kumar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL APPEAL (DB) No.566 of 2000
======================================================
Against the Judgment of conviction dated 15.09.2000 and the order of
sentence dated 16.09.2000, passed Sri Diwakar Jha, 5 th Additional
Sessions Judge, Gopalganj in Sessions Trial No. 211 of 1996, arising out
of Barauli (Sidhwalia) P.S. Case No. 243 of 1995.
======================================================
Dumar Bin @ Domar Bin, Son of Balist Bin, Resident of Village - Khajuria,
P.S. Sindhwalia, District - Gopalganj.
... ... Appellant/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Appellant/s : Ms. Anukriti Jaipuriyar, Amicus Curiae
For the Respondent/s : Mr. Satya Narayan Prasad, A.P.P.
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR SINHA
and
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK KUMAR
C.A.V. JUDGMENT
(Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK KUMAR)
Date : 21-07-2026
Heard Ms. Anukriti Jaipuriyar, learned Amicus
Curiae for the Appellant and Mr. Satya Narayan Prasad, learned
counsel for the State.
2. The present appeal has been preferred against the
Judgment of Conviction dated 15.09.2000 and Order of
Sentence dated 16.09.2000 passed by the learned 5th Additional
Sessions Judge, Gopalganj, in Sessions Trial No. 211 of 1996
arising out of Sidhwalia P.S. Case No. 243 of 1995, whereby the
appellant was convicted for the offence punishable under
Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.566 of 2000 dt.21-07-2026
2/30
rigorous imprisonment for life and fine of Rs. 5000/- and in
default of payment to undergo R/I for one year.
3. The prosecution case, as unfolded in the
fardbayan of the informant, Dharamnath Singh alias Chiraiya
Das, son of Late Jamadar Singh, recorded at Sidhwalia Police
Station on 19.10.1995 at about 6:00 P.M., is that on 19.10.1995
at about 3:30 P.M., the informant reached his agricultural field
from the eastern side, while his brother, Paras Singh (deceased),
arrived at the field from the northern side. It is alleged that the
informant's Rahar crop was damaged by cattle. The informant
questioned the accused as to why they had destroyed the crop
and stated that he would not abandon his land on account of
their actions. Thereupon, it is alleged that the appellant, along
with the other co-accused persons, started assaulting the
informant with lathis at the instigation of co-accused Palita Bin.
It is further alleged that Algu Bin was the first to assault the
informant with a lathi, whereafter the remaining accused
persons also joined in the assault. The appellant inflicted a spear
blow on the abdomen of the informant's brother, Paras Singh,
causing him to fall on the field. Thereafter, Kanchan Bin
allegedly assaulted Paras Singh with lathi. The occurrence was
witnessed by Vishwanath Singh, Amresh Singh, Yogendra
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.566 of 2000 dt.21-07-2026
3/30
Singh, and other persons, who rushed to the place of occurrence.
Upon seeing other villagers were approaching, all the accused
persons allegedly fled from the place of occurrence. It is also
alleged that the informant's brother Paras Singh died on the field
at that time.
4. On the basis of the aforesaid fardbayan, Barauli
(Sidhwalia) P.S. Case No. 243 of 1995, dated 20.10.1995, was
registered against the present appellant along with other co-
accused persons for the offences punishable under Sections 147,
148, 149, 302 and 324 of the Indian Penal Code.
5. Upon completion of the investigation, the police
submitted charge-sheet no. 02/96 dated 12.01.1996 against the
present appellant along with other co-accused persons for the
offence punishable under Sections 147, 148, 149, 302 and 324
of the Indian Penal Code.
6. Thereafter, the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate
took cognizance of the offence and on 19.07.1996 and the case
was committed to the Court of Sessions. Upon commitment on
22.01.1997
, charges under Sections 147, 148, 149, 323 & 302
IPC were framed against the appellant and other eight co-
accused persons. The charges were read over and explained to
them in Hindi, to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.566 of 2000 dt.21-07-2026
4/30
be tried.
7. The prosecution in order to substantiate its case,
has examined as many as nine witnesses and 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. Yogendra Singh Villager
2. Bhagwat Singh Villager
3. Janak Singh Villager
4. Bishwanath Singh Villager
5. Bikram Singh Villager
6. Suresh Pandey Villager (Seizure list witness)
7. Dharamnath Singh Informant / Brother of the
deceased
8. Nilesh Kumar Singh Son of deceased
9. Dr. Shambu Nath Singh Doctor who conducted post-
mortem
List of Exhibits on behalf of the prosecution :
Exhibit No. Description of the Exhibit Date/attested by
1 Fardbayan 09.05.2000
2 Formal FIR 12.05.2000
3 Signature of witness on Seizure List 12.05.2000
4 Carbon copy of Post-Mortem Report 05.09.2000
8. After closure of the prosecution evidence, the
statement of the appellant was recorded under Section 313 of
the Code of Criminal Procedure on 08.09.2000. The appellant
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.566 of 2000 dt.21-07-2026
5/30
denied all incriminating circumstances appearing against him in
the prosecution evidence and claimed innocence.
Submission on behalf of Appellant
9. Learned Amicus Curiae, Ms. Anukriti Jaipuriyar,
appearing on behalf of the appellant, has, at the outset,
submitted that the judgment of conviction is against the weight
of evidence and has been rendered on mere presumption of
guilt. It is contended that the prosecution has failed to prove its
case beyond reasonable doubt, inasmuch as the testimonies of
the prosecution witnesses suffer from material contradictions
and inconsistencies.
10. It is further submitted that the conviction of the
appellant rests solely on the testimony of PW-8, who is the son
of the deceased and, therefore, an interested witness. The
testimony of PW-8 is replete with material contradictions and
inconsistencies and finds no corroboration from any
independent witness or other reliable evidence on record. In
such circumstances, PW-8 cannot be treated as a wholly reliable
or sterling witness, and it would be unsafe to sustain the
conviction solely on the basis of his uncorroborated testimony.
11. Learned counsel for the Appellant also submits
that although the FIR was instituted against nine accused
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.566 of 2000 dt.21-07-2026
6/30
persons, including the present appellant, eight of them have
been acquitted as the prosecution failed to establish their guilt
beyond reasonable doubt. The failure of the prosecution case
against the co-accused, coupled with the absence of
corroboration from independent witnesses, seriously undermines
the prosecution version. In the absence of any cogent or
distinguishing evidence against the appellant, his conviction on
the same set of evidence is wholly unsustainable and is liable to
be set aside.
12. It has, lastly, been submitted that the
Investigating Officer has not been examined in the present case.
The non-examination of the Investigating Officer has caused
serious prejudice to the defence, as the appellant has been
deprived of the valuable opportunity to prove material
contradictions and omissions, and effectively challenge the
fairness and legality of the investigation. It is also contended
that the prosecution has failed to establish any motive
attributable to the appellant.
13. In view of the aforesaid facts and
circumstances, it is submitted that the impugned judgment of
conviction and order of sentence is fit to be set aside as the
prosecution has miserably failed to prove its case beyond
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.566 of 2000 dt.21-07-2026
7/30
reasonable doubt.
14. Learned counsel for the Appellant relied on a
Judgment of Rai Sandeep @ Deepu v. State (NCT of Delhi),
reported in (2012) 8 SCC 21, wherein the Hon’ble Supreme
Court has well discussed the concept of “sterling witness” and
has held that where conviction is based solely on one witness,
his testimony must be of very high quality and should inspire
complete confidence. If the witness suffers from inconsistencies
or improbabilities, conviction cannot be sustained.
15. Referring to above Judgment, she argued that
P.W.8 Nilesh Kumar Singh, being the sole witness after all other
witnesses turned hostile, his testimony must satisfy the test of a
sterling witness. She further relied on a Judgment Vadivelu
Thevar v. State of Madras, reported in AIR 1957 SC 614,
wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court has discussed that
conviction can be based on testimony of a solitary witness, if
wholly reliable. She further argued that P.W.8, being the son of
deceased and unsupported by any independent witness requires
corroboration. She further relied on a Judgment in the case of
State of Rajasthan v. Kalki, reported in (1981) 2 SCC 752,
wherein it has been held that evidence of related witness
requires careful scrutiny. She also relied on a Judgment in the
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.566 of 2000 dt.21-07-2026
8/30
case of Behari Prasad v. State of Bihar, reported in (1996) 2
SCC 317 and Arvind Singh v. State of Bihar, reported in (2001)
6 SCC 407, wherein it has been held that non-examination of
the Investigating Officer causes serious prejudice. Finally, she
concluded her argument by relying on Judgment of Hon’ble
Supreme Court in the case of Muluwa v. State of Madhya
Pradesh, reported in AIR (1976) SC 989 and Sarwan Singh
Rattan Singh v. State of Punjab, reported in AIR (1957) SC
637, on an issue of suspicion, however strong, cannot take the
place of proof.
Submission on behalf of the Respondents
16. Per contra, learned Additional Public
Prosecutor, Satya Narayan Prasad, appearing on behalf of the
State, while opposing the appeal submitted that the learned trial
Court, after considering all the evidence and exhibits placed on
record, has rightly convicted the appellant, as the offences
alleged against the appellant appear to be serious in nature. It is
contended that the prosecution has succeeded in proving the
charges beyond all reasonable doubts. It is further submitted that
any apparent contradictions and inconsistencies in the testimony
of the prosecution witnesses are minor and trivial in nature,
which do not affect the core of the prosecution case or the
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.566 of 2000 dt.21-07-2026
9/30
overall credibility of the witness. Such discrepancies, it is urged,
are liable to be disregarded in the interest of justice. Learned
Additional Public Prosecutor placed reliance on the judgment of
the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Vadivelu Thevar v.
The State of Madras, reported in AIR 1957 SC 614, in which it
is held that “The Court unequivocally held that it is a well-
established rule that the court is concerned with the quality and
not the quantity of evidence, and that insisting on a plurality of
witnesses would indirectly encourage subornation of witnesses
and leave genuine crimes unpunished.” He further relied on the
judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Adalat
Yadav and Another v. State of Bihar, reported in 2026 INSC
403 in which it has been held that “the testimony of a single
injured eyewitness, if deemed of sterling quality, can seal a
conviction even without independent corroboration and even
where other alleged eyewitnesses have been discredited.”
17. It is, therefore, submitted that the impugned
judgment of conviction and order of sentence do not suffer from
any legal infirmity or irregularity warranting interference by this
Court in exercise of its appellate jurisdiction. The appeal is
devoid of any merit and fit to be dismissed.
Conclusion
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.566 of 2000 dt.21-07-2026
10/30
18. We have heard the parties and perused the
materials available on record as well as lower court records and
proceedings and also taken note of the arguments canvassed by
learned counsel appearing on behalf of the parties.
19. It would be apposite to discuss the
oral/documentary evidence as available on record to re-
appreciate the evidence for just and proper disposal of the
present appeal.
20. PW-1 Yogendra Singh (co-villager), in his
examination-in-chief, deposed that the occurrence had taken
place about four years prior to his deposition at around 3:30
p.m. He stated that he had just reached his house when he heard
that Paras Singh had died and Dharamnath Singh had sustained
injuries. The place of occurrence was the agricultural field of
Dharamnath Singh. He further stated that he had not witnessed
the assault. The witness was declared hostile at the request of
the prosecution.
21. In his cross-examination by the prosecution,
PW-1 stated that his statement had been recorded by the police.
He further deposed that he had only stated before the police that,
upon hearing the hula, he proceeded to the place of occurrence
where he found Dharamnath Singh lying injured and Paras
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.566 of 2000 dt.21-07-2026
11/30
Singh lying dead. He categorically denied having stated before
the police that he had witnessed the accused persons assaulting
Dharamnath Singh. He also denied having stated that accused
Domar Bind inflicted a spear blow on the abdomen of Paras
Singh, causing an injury on the left side of his stomach, or that
accused Kanchan Bind broke the spear and thereafter assaulted
the deceased with the broken spear, inflicting injuries which
resulted in his death. He further denied having stated before the
police that, on seeing the villagers approaching, the accused
persons fled from the place of occurrence. The witness denied
the suggestion that he was deliberately suppressing the truth.
The witness stated that he knew all the accused persons. He
identified the seven accused persons present in Court.
22. In his cross-examination by the defence, PW-1
stated that he reached the place of occurrence after 15 minutes.
He further deposed that he is a pattidar (agnate) of the deceased,
Paras Singh.
23. PW-2 Bhagwat Singh (co-villager), in his
examination-in-chief, deposed that the occurrence had occurred
about four years prior at about 3:00 p.m. He further stated that at
that time, he was at his house and did not witness the occurrence
himself. Upon receiving information about the incident, he
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.566 of 2000 dt.21-07-2026
12/30
arrived at the place of occurrence, where he found Paras Singh
was dead and Dharamnath Singh was in injured condition. He
stated that his statement was recorded by the police, wherein he
had also stated that he reached on the place of occurrence after
receiving information and saw the dead body of Paras Singh and
Dharamnath Singh in an injured condition. He further deposed
that he did not recognize any of the accused persons and did not
identify anyone present in Court.
24. In cross-examination, PW-2 stated that the
place of occurrence is situated at a distance of about 2
kilometers from his house.
25. PW-3 Janak Singh (co-villager), in his
examination-in-chief, deposed that he had no knowledge about
the occurrence of this case. He further deposed that on the date
of the incident, he was at Pipra Fair. The learned additional
public prosecutor submitted that the statement of PW-3 was not
recorded in the case diary. This witness was not cross-examined
by the defence.
26. PW-4 Bishwanath Singh (co-villager), in his
examination-in-chief, deposed that the occurrence had taken
place about four and a half years prior. He stated that he did not
remember the time of the occurrence. He further stated that on
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.566 of 2000 dt.21-07-2026
13/30
the date of the incident, he had gone to the Pipra fair to purchase
a bull and returned from the fair after two days. Upon his return,
he came to know that a quarrel had taken place between Paras
Singh and Bin people, and he heard that Paras Singh had died in
the said quarrel. He further deposed that he had not seen anyone
being killed, as he was not present on the date of the occurrence.
He further stated that he did not remember whether his
statement had been recorded by the police.
27. In cross-examination, PW-4 stated that he came
to know from the villagers that Paras Singh was dead.
28. PW-5 Bikram Singh (co-villager), in his
examination-in-chief, identified the signature and handwriting
of Rameshwar Mahto on the fardbayan, which was marked as
Exhibit-1. He also identified the handwriting and signature of
Ali Hussain, the then Station House Officer of Barauli Police
Station, which was marked as Exhibit-2.
29. In cross-examination, PW-5 stated that it was
not written in his presence.
30. PW-6 Suresh Pandey (co-villager), in his
examination-in-chief, deposed that on 19.10.1995 at 06:30 p.m.
Sub Inspector (Daroga ji) came to his village carrying a piece of
paper and asked him to sign it. He further stated that he signed
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.566 of 2000 dt.21-07-2026
14/30
the document. The witness identified his signature on the
seizure-list, which is marked as Exhibit-3. The witness was
declared hostile at the request of the prosecution.
31. In his cross-examination by the defence, PW-6
stated that he was some distance away from the place of
occurrence and went there only when the Sub-Inspector (S.I.)
called him. He further deposed that the seizure list had already
been prepared when he arrived, and he signed it. He further
stated that he could not tell the length of the stick or the other
seized article. He reached the place only after the incident had
already occurred.
32. PW-7 (Informant), in his examination-in-chief,
deposed that he had gone to inspect his agricultural field, where
he found the goats and cattle belonging to the accused persons
grazing in his Rahar crop. When he protested, the accused
persons surrounded him and started assaulting him. He further
stated that he became nervous and could not recognize any of
the accused persons. According to the informant when he was
beaten and he became unconscious. He stated that he could not
say who assaulted him or who assaulted the other. The
informant was declared hostile at the request of the prosecution.
33. In his cross-examination by the prosecution,
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.566 of 2000 dt.21-07-2026
15/30
PW-7 stated that he did not remember whether he had given
any statement to the police. He denied that he had stated before
the police that Algu Bind had assaulted Paras with a stick and
that the other accused had also assaulted him with sticks. He
further stated that he did not remember telling the police that
Domar Bind had struck his brother Paras in the stomach with a
spear or that Kanchan Bind had assaulted his brother with a
stick. He also did not remember informing the police that the
incident had taken place at about 3:00 p.m. PW-7 explained that
he was nervous. He denied the suggestion that he was
suppressing the truth in collusion with the accused.
34. In his cross-examination by the defence, PW-7
stated that the field where the incident occurred was situated at a
distance of about one to two bighas from his house. He deposed
that he and his brother Paras had not gone to the field together
and Paras did not have any enmity or strained relations with the
accused. He also stated that the houses of other persons
belonging to the accused’s locality were situated near the place
of occurrence.
35. The conviction was based on the deposition of
Nilesh Kumar Singh (PW-8), who happens to be the son of the
deceased. In his examination-in-chief he stated that the incident
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.566 of 2000 dt.21-07-2026
16/30
occurred about five years ago at 3.30 P.M. on Thursday. At the
time of the incident, this witness was at his home. He stated that
his uncle Dharamnath Singh and his father had gone to inspect
the fields. At that time the Bind brothers, including Palita Bind,
Algu Bind, Shiv Bind, Dumar Bind, Kanchan Bind, Siraman
Bind and Daroga Bind exchanged hot words and began beating
his father and uncle. He stated that when there was a hulla, he
went there to inspect. He further stated that he saw Dumar hit
his father with a spear and Kanchan hit his father with the back
of the spear, and others were beating his uncle with sticks. On
receiving information, the police reached there, noted the report
and left the place. He also stated that his father died as a result
of beating. After his death, the villagers came there. This
witness recognized all the accused present and claimed to
identify them. He also stated that he told the Police that the
accused fled away after seeing the villagers. The distance
between the farm and his house is about 200 yards. There are
five or six houses between the farm and his house. He further
stated that his farm is after the houses of Sona Lal Manjhi,
Urethi Bind, Saral Bind and Mati Laal Bind. He also stated that
his statement was recorded by the police at the site of the
incident, one or two hours after the incident. He also stated that
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.566 of 2000 dt.21-07-2026
17/30
when he arrived, the accused had already beaten his father and
uncle. The other villagers were not present. He stated that his
father died and his uncle fell unconscious.
36. In his cross-examination, P.W. – 8 stated that he
had no enmity with the accused before the incident, and the area
where the incident occurred is his land. There was no dispute
over this land. He stated that his uncle and father went to ask the
accused at 3.30 P.M.; he did not accompany them. Later on, he
heard a hulla from both sides ten minutes after their departure.
He further stated that he was grazing buffalo nearby and heard
the hulla of his uncle and father, and then he ran towards that
site. He was empty-handed. At that time his uncle had fainted
and his father had died after the beating. He further narrated that
his father did not bleed. His uncle had a fracture in his ankle. He
also stated that when he went to save them, the accused persons
did not beat him. The spear moved from the left side of his
uncle. The first injury was from the spear. He further stated in
his cross-examination that he did not know whether his father
tried to stop the spear when it was thrown, as he had gone there
later. He also stated that he had not seen the spear on the land
but had seen the stick.
37. P.W.9 the Medical Officer, who conducted
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.566 of 2000 dt.21-07-2026
18/30
Postmortem examination on the dead body of Paras Singh,
indicated that death was caused due to shock and hemorrhage as
a result of caused by a sharp pointed and penetrating weapon
such as Bhala and found the following ante mortem injuries:
(1) Abrasion 1″ X 1/2″ over middle on right leg on
lateral side.
(2) Abrasion 1/2″ X 1/2″ over forehead in its
middle near hair line.
(3) Sharp penetrating wound 2/3″ X 1/2″ X deep
into abdominal cavity situated within 10 th and 11th
rib in mid axillary line on left side.
On dissection the witness found abdominal cavity
full of blood and blood clots and spleen punctured and inter
costal space between 10th and 11th rib punctured. The witness
stated that these injuries corresponded to injury no.3. The
witness opined that, according to the doctor, the time elapsed
since death was 24 hours. The witness identified his writing and
signature on the Postmortem report marked Ext.4.
38. In this case all the independent eyewitnesses
namely Bishwanath Singh (PW-4), Yogendra Singh (PW-1) and
Amresh Singh (not examined) failed to support the prosecution.
The PW-1 turned hostile, PW-4 denied his presence and stated
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.566 of 2000 dt.21-07-2026
19/30
he was away from village and Amresh Singh was not examined.
39. Having carefully examined the entire
evidence available on record and giving thoughtful
consideration to the rival submissions made by the Learned
Amicus Curiae for the Appellant and Learned APP for the State,
this Court finds that a quarrel had taken place in the agricultural
field of PW7 in the afternoon of 19.10.1995, which resulted in
the death of Paras Singh, brother of the informant (PW7), due to
injury caused to a vital part of the body.
The most important point for consideration is as to
whether the prosecution has been able to prove beyond
reasonable doubt that the present appellant was the one who
caused the death of Paras Singh, the brother of the informant
(PW7).
It is quite interesting that PW7, who also happens
to be the informant and the brother of the deceased, and the one
who was present at the site of the incident, was declared hostile
at the request of the prosecution.
PW-7 (Informant), in his examination-in-chief, had
stated that he became nervous and could not recognize any of
the accused persons. According to the informant when he was
beaten and he became unconscious. He stated that he could not
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.566 of 2000 dt.21-07-2026
20/30
say who assaulted him or who assaulted the other. In his cross-
examination by the prosecution, PW-7 stated that he did not
remember whether he had given any statement to the police. He
denied that he had stated before the police that Algu Bind had
assaulted Paras with a stick and that the other accused had also
assaulted him with sticks
40. It is important to consider whether PW-8 (son
of the deceased), admittedly the sole witness against the
appellant, can be considered a sterling witness, when he himself
contradicts his own statements in this case, having stated in his
testimony that he arrived later at the place of incident and
further stated that he did not see the spear at the place of
incident but saw a stick. Further, his testimony is not
corroborated by the informant PW-7, or by the seizure-list
witnesses. Here, it is important to note that a “sterling witness”
is a credible, trustworthy and consistent witness whose
testimony is so reliable that a Court can accept it without any
corroboration. This indicates that quality rather than quantity of
the testimony matters. For a witness to be considered a “sterling
witness”, the testimony must meet great judicial standards. The
unimpeachable consistency, the confidence in answering
defence questions, and the independent and unbiased nature are
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.566 of 2000 dt.21-07-2026
21/30important. On perusal of the deposition of PW-8, it is quite clear
that there are material contradictions and inconsistencies in his
statements. Specially, in respect to where he was when the
incident took place.
The Hon’ble Apex Court in Rai Sandeep @ Deepu
vs State Of NCT Of Delhi (2012 (8) SCC 21), in para has 22
held that,
“In our considered opinion, the ‘sterling
witness’ should be of a very high quality and
caliber 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 Court. 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
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.566 of 2000 dt.21-07-2026
22/30of 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 everyone 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 similar such tests to be applied, it can
be held that such a witness can be called as
a ‘sterling witness’ whose version 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
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.566 of 2000 dt.21-07-2026
23/30particulars 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.”
(Emphasis Supplied)
On the touchstone of the above principle, when we
test the version of PW-8’s deposition, it is unfortunate that the
said witness has failed to satisfy most of the tests mentioned
above. The deposition of PW-8 suffers from material
contradictions and inconsistencies. Since PW-8, being the son of
the deceased, is an interested witness, his testimony must be
examined with greater caution.
Further in Krishan Kumar Malik v. State of
Haryana (AIR 2011 SUPREME COURT 2877) in respect of
the offence of gang rape under Section 376 (2) (g), IPC, it has
been held as under in paras 31 and 32:
“31. No doubt, it is true that to hold an
accused guilty for commission of an offence
of rape, the solitary evidence of the
prosecutrix is sufficient provided the same
inspires confidence and appears to be
absolutely trustworthy, unblemished and
should be of sterling quality. But, in the case
in hand, the evidence of the prosecutrix,
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.566 of 2000 dt.21-07-2026
24/30showing several lacunae, which have
already been projected hereinabove, would
go to show that her evidence does not fall in
that category and cannot be relied upon to
hold the appellant guilty of the said offences.
32. Indeed there are several
significant variations in material facts in her
Section 164 statement, Section 161 statement
(CrPC), FIR and deposition in court. Thus,
it was necessary to get her evidence
corroborated independently, which they
could have done either by examination of
Ritu, her sister or Bimla Devi, who were
present in the house at the time of her
alleged abduction. The record shows that
Bimla Devi though cited as a witness was
not examined and later given up by the
public prosecutor on the ground that she has
been won over by the appellant.”
(Emphasis Supplied)
41. It is relevant to state here that the I.O. was not
examined in this case, the consequences of it is that the
contradiction u/s 161 of Cr.P.C. could not be proved, defense
lost valuable right of confronting the PW, place of occurrence
could not be proved, seizure and investigation could not be
verified, this leads to a serious prejudice to the defense coupled
with the fact when most of the eye-witnesses have turned out to
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.566 of 2000 dt.21-07-2026
25/30
be hostile and conviction was based on a sole witness that too an
interested witness.
In this regard it is important to discuss here the
case of Chhote Lal v. Rohtash and Others, [2023 INSC 1072],
in which the Hon’ble Apex Court upheld the High Court’s
acquittal, affirming that the testimony of a sole eyewitness —
particularly one who is an interested witness with demonstrated
enmity against the accused — must be examined with the
greatest caution, and if material discrepancies are found, it
cannot qualify as evidence of sterling quality”. The relevant
portion i.e., para 13 of the said judgment is reproduced as
below;
“It may not be out of context to mention that
the appellant/complainant, a sole
eyewitness, happens to be the most
interested witness being the father of the
deceased and having long enmity with the
group to which the accused persons belong,
therefore, his testimony was to be examined
with great caution and the High Court was
justified in doing so and in doubting it so as
to uphold the conviction on his solitary
evidence”.
(Emphasis Supplied)
42. Because of the nature of evidence, which is
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.566 of 2000 dt.21-07-2026
26/30
available on record, the least, which ought to have been done by
the learned Trial Court, was to accord the benefit of reasonable
doubt to the appellant inasmuch as I am clearly of the view that
in the light of the evidence on record, which I have discussed
above, it was not proper to convict the appellant. The benefit of
such a situation ought to have been given to the appellant. The
Infirmities in the Prosecution’s Case which Lead to Reasonable
Doubt are flaws that fail to meet the “beyond a reasonable
doubt” standard. “Beyond a reasonable doubt” is the ultimate
standard of proof in the legal system. It means that the
prosecution must prove guilt conclusively, such that no
reasonable or rational person could arrive at another explanation
based on the evidence.
43. The ultimate benchmark of “beyond a
reasonable doubt” upholds the presumption of innocence in the
legal system that we follow. The presumption of innocence is
the absolute bedrock of a fair criminal justice system. It protects
individuals from wrongful, arbitrary imprisonment by requiring
the State to bear the burden of proof and to establish guilt
beyond a reasonable doubt, rather than placing the burden on
the accused to prove his innocence. It is pertinent to discuss here
the landmark judgment of Kali Ram v. State of Himachal
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.566 of 2000 dt.21-07-2026
27/30
Pradesh, (1972) 2 SCC 808, which is a cornerstone of Indian
criminal jurisprudence for its emphasis on the ‘presumption of
innocence’ and ‘the strict standard of proof in criminal trials’,
and hence one of the most celebrated judgments on the ‘benefit
of doubt’ and the ‘presumption of innocence’ in Indian legal
history. The said judgment was rendered by a three-Judge Bench
of the Hon’ble Apex Court, wherein, in para 25, the Court held
that:
“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
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.566 of 2000 dt.21-07-2026
28/30the 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
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
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.566 of 2000 dt.21-07-2026
29/30at the same time reject evidence which is ex
facie trustworthy on grounds which are
fanciful or in the nature of conjectures”.
(Emphasis Supplied)
44. Applying the above principle to the facts of the
case in hand, I find that the deposition of PW-8 cannot be taken
as gospel truth on its face value, and in the absence of any other
supportive evidence, there is no scope to sustain the conviction
and sentence imposed on the appellant.
45. In the result, this appeal succeeds. The
impugned conviction of the appellant by the judgment, under
appeal, and the consequential sentence, passed under the
impugned order, are hereby set aside. The appellant is held not
guilty of the offence, which he stand convicted of, and is
acquitted of the same under benefit of doubt. The Appellant is
acquitted of the offences alleged against him. The Appellant is
on bail, therefore, he is discharged from the liabilities of his bail
bonds.
46. I put on record words of appreciation for the
able assistance rendered by Ms. Anukriti Jaipuriyar, learned
Amicus Curiae, to this Court in arriving at the proper conclusion
for deciding the instant appeal. We direct the High Court Legal
Services Authority to pay an amount of Rs. 10,000/- to Ms.
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.566 of 2000 dt.21-07-2026
30/30
Anukriti Jaipuriyar, learned Amicus Curiae, for service rendered
by her.
47. The Registry is directed to return the Lower
Court’s Record forthwith along with a copy of this Judgment.
(Alok Kumar, J.)
Anil Kumar Sinha, J.:- I agree.
(Anil Kumar Sinha, J.)
Manish Kumar
AFR/NAFR AFR
CAV DATE 23.06.2026
Uploading Date 21.07.2026
Transmission Date 21.07.2026
