Patna High Court
Ram Suresh Yadav @ Langa Yadav @ Ram … vs The State Of Bihar on 8 July, 2026
Author: Chandra Shekhar Jha
Bench: Chandra Shekhar Jha
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL APPEAL (DB) No.1196 of 2018
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-121 Year-2011 Thana- RAJPUR District- Buxar
======================================================
Ram Suresh Yadav @ Langa Yadav @ Ram Suresh Singh Son of
Baliram Yadav, Resident of Village- Sarenja, P.S.- Rajpur, District-
Buxar.
... ... Appellant
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Respondent
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Appellant/s : Mr.Rajendra Narain, Sr. Advocate
Mr.Rashmi Bharti, Advocate
For the Respondent/s : Mr.Shashi Bala Verma, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BIBEK CHAUDHURI
and
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE CHANDRA SHEKHAR JHA
CAV JUDGMENT
(Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE CHANDRA SHEKHAR JHA)
Date : 08-07-2026
Heard Mr. Rajendra Narain, learned senior advocate
appearing on behalf of the appellant and Mrs. Shashi Bala
Verma, learned A.P.P. for the State.
2. The present appeal preferred under section 374(2) of
the Cr.P.C. against the impugned judgment of conviction dated
29.08.2018
and order of sentence dated 31.08.2018, passed by
learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, VI, Buxar
passed in S. Tr. No. 114 of 2016 arising out of Rajpur P.S. Case
No. 121 of 2011, whereby and whereunder the appellant was
convicted for the offences punishable under section 302 of the
Indian Penal Code (in short the “I.P.C.”) and ordered to undergo
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.1196 of 2018 dt.08-07-2026
2/46
rigorous imprisonment for life and also the fine of Rs. 25,000/-,
further ordered to undergo R.I. for three years for the offence
under section 27 of the Arms Act and fine of Rs. 1000/-. In
default of payment of fine, three months R.I. was awarded to the
appellant. The learned trial court ordered that all the sentences
shall run concurrently.
Brief case of the prosecution
3. The brief case of the prosecution as it speaks through
statement of Ramesh Rai (PW-3) that on 01.11.2011 at about
4:45 P.M., while he was returning to his home from his rice mill
and came at Sarenja main road, he saw Ram Suresh Yadav @
Langa Yadav (the appellant), son of Baliram Yadav, Ashok
Yadav, son of Baliram Yadav, both resident of village + Post –
Sarenja; Jitendra Yadav, son of not known (Hira Yadav);
resident of village – Kathtar. All three belonged to P.S. – Rajpur,
District – Buxar, and equipped with rifle in their hand, fired
upon his father Ranjeet Rai before him and further alleged that
Sanjay Yadav, son of not known, R/o – village Taranpur,
Hirdaya Yadav, son of not known, R/o – village Ekdar,
Ramashish Yadav, son of not known, R/o – village Maraniya,
Bihari Yadav, son of not known, R/o – village Taranpur, Umesh
Yadav, son of Dipa Yadav, R/o – village Jagpurva, all are of
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.1196 of 2018 dt.08-07-2026
3/46
Rajpur police station, District – Buxar and were equipped with
rifle in their hand, shouting to kill his father. It is also alleged
that Baliram Yadav, son of Ramdeo Yadav, resident of Rajpur,
district – Buxar, ordered to fire upon him and after firing, they
were fled away in western side, thereafter, he came to his home
and called his family members. The reason supplied behind the
occurrence is that in panchayat election, Mukhiya Sukhrajo
Devi defeated the wife of elder brother of the deceased, namely,
Shail Kumari Devi, and further reason was assigned that there
are litigation between the parties in Buxar court, which asked to
compromise forcibly. It is also stated that Mukhiya Sukhrajo
Devi, wife of Suresh Yadav @ Langa Yadav (the appellant) was
shouting on road as to kill his father so that Shail Kumari Devi
would not in position to contest panchayat election. The
aforesaid statement was read by the informant and found it
correct, he signed on the statement, in presence of his villagers
namely, Shashi Bhushan Rai (PW-1), Jatashankar Rai and
Brijmohan Rai (PW-7), son of Raghubansh Rai.
4. On the basis of said written information, Rajpur P.S.
Case No. 121 of 2011 dated 01.11.2011 was registered for the
offences punishable under sections 302/34 of the Indian Penal
Code and Section 27 of the Arms Act. After concluding
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.1196 of 2018 dt.08-07-2026
4/46
investigation, police submitted charge-sheet against the
appellant for the offences punishable under sections 302,
120B/34 of the I.P.C. and section 27 of the Arms Act vide
charge-sheet no. 03 of 2012. The learned jurisdictional
Magistrate after perusal of materials and records took
cognizance accordingly and after compliance of section 207 of
the Cr.P.C. committed this case to the court of sessions under
section 209 of the Cr.P.C. for its trial and disposal.
5. After commitment, learned trial court, upon perusal
of records and materials collected during investigation framed
charges against accused-appellant and explained the charges to
the accused/appellant in his vernacular language, which he
pleaded “not guilty” and claimed to be tried.
6. To substantiate its case, prosecution altogether
examined following 09 witnesses:
PW-1 – Shashi Bhushan Sharma
PW-2 – Umesh Rai
PW-3 – Ranjeet Rai (Informant of the case)
PW-4 – Dr. Anil Kumar Singh
PW-5 – Achyutanand Rai
PW-6 – Ranglal Chouhan
PW-7 – Brij Mohan Rai
PW-8 – Shyam Bihari Rai, and
PW-9 – Braj Kishore Singh
7. The prosecution has also produced following
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.1196 of 2018 dt.08-07-2026
5/46
documentary evidence:
Exhibit ‘1’ – Signature of informant on fard-e-
beyan
Exhibit 1/1 & 1/2 – Signature of Achyutanand Rai
and Ranglal Chouhan on the inquest report.
Exhibit ‘2’ – Post-mortem report.
Exhibit ‘3’ – Pages in FIR
Exhibit ‘4’ – Formal FIR
Exhibit ‘5’ – Inquest report of the deceased.
Exhibit ‘6’ – Seizure list of blood soil.
Exhibit ‘7’ – Sanha
Exhibit ‘8’ & 8/1 – F.S.L. Report.
8. After examination of prosecution witnesses and by
taking note of evidence as surfaced during trial, statement of
accused/appellant was recorded under Section 313 of the
Cr.P.C., which was denied by the appellant in totality by
claiming his complete innocence and false implication.
9. Upon perusal of the evidence surfaced during the
trial and hearing the parties, learned trial court convicted the
accused/appellant for the offences punishable under section 302
of the IPC and section 27 of the Arms Act and passed the order
of sentence as mentioned aforesaid. Being aggrieved with, the
present appeal has been preferred by the accused/appellant.
10. Hence, the appeal.
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.1196 of 2018 dt.08-07-2026
6/46
Argument on behalf of the appellant
11. Mr. Rajendra Narain, learned senior advocate
appearing on behalf of the appellant submitted that the appellant
was falsely implicated with the present case being husband of
the Sukhrajo Devi, who won election defeating the wife of elder
brother of the deceased. It is pointed out that as the wife of the
appellant was won the election, there was no occasion to
commit murder of brother-in-law of defeating candidate namely,
Shail Kumari Devi and, therefore, the motive as assigned
through FIR cannot be said convincing.
12. It is further submitted by Mr. Narain that the
informant and other prosecution witnesses are not the eye
witness of the occurrence, rather they projected themselves as a
chance witness and, therefore, several material contradictions
were surfaced during the trial, which was completely
overlooked by the learned trial court while recording the present
impugned judgment of conviction.
13. In this context, Mr. Narain submitted that the
maximum witnesses including the informant are interested
witness being relative of the deceased and his family and
therefore their testimony cannot be said under the category of
“wholly reliable”, particularly when status of the informant and
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.1196 of 2018 dt.08-07-2026
7/46
witnesses claiming themselves as an eye witness appears
doubtful.
14. It is further argued by Mr. Narain that trial of rest
of the two accused was separated including the accused Ashok
Yadav and Jitendra Yadav as trial no. 97/2012, who specifically
alleged to fire upon the father of the informant. In this context, it
is submitted that almost same prosecution witnesses were
examined in the separate trial, who examined in the present
case, but considering the material contradiction and also the
ocular version of the prosecution witnesses not appears
corroborating the medical evidence qua gunshot injury, by
giving benefit of doubt, they were acquitted along with other co-
accused persons, who faced the trial.
15. Taking shelter of acquittal of Ashok Yadav and
Jitendra Yadav, who specifically alleged to fire upon the
deceased father of the informant, it is submitted by Mr. Narain
that one of the learned trial court who recorded the judgment of
acquittal, could not believe common intention and also unlawful
object and, therefore, on this score, the present conviction of the
appellant which was recorded through separate trial (S. Tr. No.
114/2016) by another Sessions Judge is bad in the eyes of law.
16. It is also argued by Mr. Narain that appellant
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.1196 of 2018 dt.08-07-2026
8/46
himself is a man of criminal background as he was involved in
some drug cases and therefore he might be killed by some other
persons but to settle the political rivalry and also the pending
litigation, the present false case was lodged against the appellant
and his family members.
17. In support of the submission, Mr. Narain, relied
upon the legal report of Hon’ble Supreme Court as available
through Punimati and Anr. Vs. State of Chhattisgarh and
Ors. reported in 2025 SCC OnLine SC 2866; Kannaiya Vs.
State of Madhya Pradesh reported in 2025 INSC 1246 = 2025
SCC OnLine SC 2270; Rajendra Singh and others Vs. State
of Uttaranchal reported in 2025 SCC OnLine SC 2148.
18. While concluding argument, it is submitted by Mr.
Narain that in view of aforesaid factual and legal aspects, it
cannot be said with sure that involvement of appellant in murder
of the father of the informant is doubtful and, therefore, he is
equally entitled for the benefit of doubt, to establish its case
beyond all reasonable doubt.
19. Mrs. Shashi Bala Verma, learned A.P.P. for the
Sate, while opposing the appeal, submitted that minor
contradictions are bound to be surfaced during the trial and,
therefore, on the basis of same, conviction recorded by the
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.1196 of 2018 dt.08-07-2026
9/46
learned trial court which is fully corroborated with ocular
evidence cannot be viewed with doubt
20. It is also submitted by learned A.P.P. that
allegation against this appellant is specific as to fire upon the
head of the father of the informant (PW-3) which appears
consistent throughout during the trial in the testimony of all
prosecution witnesses, which is also fully corroborated with the
medical evidence. The bullet was also recovered and sent for
forensic examination, which also corroborated the allegation.
21. Learned A.P.P. further submitted that acquittal of
other set of accused through different session trial is of no
relevancy qua appellant for the reason that in their given set of
facts after appreciating the evidence, the benefit of doubt was
extended to the other co-accused persons. Moreover, the
acquittal of co-accused persons is also challenged by the first
informant which is pending before this Court through separate
appeal bearing Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 1291 of 2018.
22. It is also submitted that motive behind the
occurrence was the political enmity and pending litigation
between parties, accordingly, there is no occasion to interfere
with the finding of the learned trial court which is based upon
the correct appreciation of evidence.
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.1196 of 2018 dt.08-07-2026
10/46
23. We have perused the trial court records carefully
and gone through the evidences available on record as also
considered the rival submissions as canvassed by learned
counsel appearing on behalf of the parties.
24. PW-1 is Shashi Bhushan Rai, who during trial
supported the date and time of the occurrence and deposed that
he was going towards road and when he came on pucca road
and proceeded towards tea stall of one Hardeo Chouhan, he saw
four motorcycles parked near to a Pakar tree. 8-10 persons were
stand there and were equipped with rifle. While he was taking
tea he saw that Ramesh Rai and his father were coming on
motorcycle. It was the first day of Chhath Puja and Chathvrati
were also going on road, in the meantime, motorcycle came
over there and he saw that appellant namely, Ram Suresh Yadav
@ Langa Yadav fired upon Ranjeet Rai, which hit on the back
side of his skull and immediately he fell down, whereafter
Ashok Yadav and Jitendra Yadav both fired on the chest of
Ranjeet Rai, one fire by each. Thereafter, Ashok Yadav and
Jitendra Yadav bolted their rifles to fire upon Ramesh Rai and
fired upon him, whereafter Ramesh Rai fled away. He named 8-
10 persons who were gathered over there as Ram Suresh Yadav
@ Langa Yadav, Ashok Yadav, Jitendra Yadav, Umesh Yadav,
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.1196 of 2018 dt.08-07-2026
11/46
Ramashish Yadav, Bihari Yadav, Hirdaya Yadav and Sukhrajo
Devi. The accused persons after occurrence made indiscriminate
firing and fled towards western side. He deposed that present
occurrence took place due to panchayat election rivalry. He
identified his signature on the fardbeyan of Ramesh Rai (PW-
3) , which upon his identification exhibited as Exhibit ‘1’. He
identified appellant before the accused as the same person who
fired upon Ranjeet Rai. He also said on his own during his
examination-in-chief that while he was coming for his
deposition, he was threatened by appellant in court gallery
saying that he would not remain alive.
24.1. Upon cross-examination, it was stated by him
that he is the resident of village Sarenja. His PACs godown is
near to the place of occurrence where he usually visit in
evening. He deposed that near to the place of occurrence, there
is a pond, where the ladies usually performed their rituals in the
evening of Chhatt Puja festival. He also stated that 3-4 persons
were also present at the tea shop who were not his co-villager.
His house is at the distance of 500-600 yards from the house of
the informant, namely, Ramesh Rai (PW-3). It was stated that as
per him the occurrence took place on middle of the road near to
Pakar tree, which is about 60-70 yards away from Sarenja
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.1196 of 2018 dt.08-07-2026
12/46
Mode. He also stated that in the western side of the shop of
Hardeo there is another tree stall of one Ram Nath Kurmi and in
southern side of the road there is a shop of Suresh Dhobi, saloon
of Rajendra Thakur, Betel shop of Chhattu Chourasiya, the shop
of Dipak Chouhan, Litti shop of Mukhtar Chouhan. It is further
stated that the informant is not his brother, but out of social
acquaintance he has brotherly relation. It is stated by him that he
saw Ramesh Rai after air firing, which created a rucus like
scene at the place of occurrence. He also got afraid and after
hearing the sound of firing the accused started flee away. He
saw the occurrence by hiding himself as he had no occasion to
flee away. It was stated by him that Umesh Rai (PW-2),
Achyutanand Rai (PW-5), Shyam Bihari Rai and Langru
Chouhan arrived at the place of occurrence after the occurrence.
He also stated that after the occurrence informant fled away, but
he could not said that where he went, but he again noticed him
after 4-5 minutes at the place of occurrence. It was stated that
Daroga Jee (police) came somewhere between 7-8 P.M. on the
date of occurrence. He could not saw whether the body was seen
by Daroga Jee or not. Ramesh Rai was also present with him. At
the time of recording of statement, he said to stand at some
distance and when it was read over, he signed it. He denied the
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.1196 of 2018 dt.08-07-2026
13/46
suggestion that his statement with police was different. He
denied that his statement was recorded on 13.11.2011. He could
not remember that whether by that time post-mortem was
conducted upon the deceased or not and further denied that after
post-mortem he modulated the prosecution story. He affirmed
his statement that he said to police that he sit on daily basis at
his katra near to the place of occurrence and on the date of
occurrence he was coming on foot and as he was away about
100 yards east from the place of occurrence, he heard the sound
of 5-6 rounds of firing. He also affirmed his statement given
before police that the persons who were in crowd are Ram
Suresh Yadav @ Langa Yadav, Ashok Yadav, Baliram Yadav,
Sukhrajo Devi, Jitendra Yadav, Umesh Yadav, Sanjay Yadav,
Hari Yadav, Bihari Yadav etc. He also affirmed that he said to
police that Ashok Yadav and Jitendra Yadav came near to the
motorcycle whereafter Ram Suresh Yadav @ Langa Yadav
(appellant) fired upon the skull of Ranjeet Rai from his back and
also stated that Jitendra Yadav, Ashok Yadav, Ramashish Yadav,
Umesh Yadav, Ram Suresh Yadav, Bihari Yadav, Hirdaya Yadav,
Sukhrajo Devi fled towards western side after making firing. He
stated that the panchayat election was won by Sukhrajo Devi. It
was also stated by him that his father was murdered in 1996 and
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.1196 of 2018 dt.08-07-2026
14/46
he was the informant in that case, where the appellant and
Baliram Yadav was the accused. He could not say about the
outcome of that case. He denied the suggestion that out of
previous enmity and being close man of the informant, he
deposed falsely.
25. PW-2 is Umesh Rai. He is the brother of the
informant and also the son of the deceased. He also supported
the date and time of occurrence. He also claimed himself as an
eye witness of the occurrence saying that he was going to
Chhatt Ghat and as he came to Sarenja Mode, he saw that four
motorcycles were standing ahead 40-50 feets near to Pakar Tree,
where 9-10 persons were also standing equipped with arms. He
identified those persons as Ram Suresh Yadav @ Langa Yadav
(appellant), Ashok Yadav, Baliram Yadav, Jitendra Yadav,
Umesh Yadav, Hirdya Yadav, Bihari Yadav, Sanjay Yadav,
Ramashish Yadav and Sukhrajo Devi. He stopped at Mode itself
and saw that one bullet motorcycle is coming from eastern side,
on which his younger brother Ramesh Rai was at driver seat and
his father (deceased) was sitting as pillion rider and when they
came near to Langa Yadav (appellant), he fired upon him, but it
could not hit. By that time, motorcycle came closely, whereafter
Ashok Yadav and Jitendra Yadav stopped the motorcycle and
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.1196 of 2018 dt.08-07-2026
15/46
pulled his father from motorcycle, whereafter Langa Yadav
(appellant) fired on backside of his father. Subsequently,
Jitendra Yadav and Ashok Yadav also fired on his chest. He
deposed that blood started oozing from the body of his father
and he died on spot. His younger brother (informant) started to
flee away but it was said by Sukhrajo Devi (wife of the
appellant) to kill him also, whereafter all opened fire upon him.
After the occurrence, the accused persons fled away. He also
deposed that occurrence took place due to election rivalry. He
identified the appellant/accused during the trial.
25.1. Upon cross-examination, he stated that the
informant is his brother and the date of occurrence was the first
day of Chhath Puja. He also stated that a Chhath Ghat is
available near to the place of occurrencem where generally 200-
300 people gathered on the occasion of chhath Puja. It was
stated by him that the FIR was lodged in the night and in his
earlier statement he said that occurrence took place at 10:00
P.M. He could not remember whether he was talked with the
informant (PW-3) before the occurrence or not. He could not
remember that while deposing in session trial no. 97/2012, he
deposed that he met with Ramesh Rai before the occurrence. He
also named the shopkeepers whose shops are closed to the place
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.1196 of 2018 dt.08-07-2026
16/46
of occurrence. It was stated that the first firing was made from a
distance of 20-25 ft. It was also stated that after the first firing,
second firing was made with an interval of one minute. He
denied the suggestion that he could not made statement before
the police that Jitendra Yadav and Ashok Yadav pulled his father
from motorcycle. He also denied that he could not made
statement before police that Jitendra Yadav and Ashok Yadav
fired on the chest of his father and Sukhrajo Devi said to kill
him also. He affirmed that motive behind the occurrence is only
the election rivalry arising out of panchayat election. He denied
that his father was not smuggler of heroine and he was
convicted in any such case. He also denied that his father ever
captured the house of anyone. He denied the suggestion that no
such occurrence like present ever took place and also that his
father was not in inimical terms with appellant/accused.
26. PW-3 is Ramesh Rai. He is the informant of this
case and also the son of the deceased. He supported the date
and time of the occurrence as stated in the FIR. At the time of
occurrence, he was also returning to his home from his rice mill
along with his father and when he came to Sarenja Mode, he
saw that Ram Suresh Yadav @ Langa Yadav (appellant), Ashok
Yadav, Baliram Yadav, Jitendra Yadav, Umesh Yadav, Hirdya
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.1196 of 2018 dt.08-07-2026
17/46
Yadav, Bihari Yadav, Sanjay Yadav, Ramashish Yadav and
Sukhrajo Devi were equipped with rifle in their hand, when he
came near to them, Langa Yadav (appellant) fired upon him, in
the meantime, his motorcycle also came closely to them,
whereafter Ashok Yadav and Jitendra Yadav pulled his father
from the motorcycle and thereafter Ram Suresh Yadav @ Langa
Yadav fired on his skull from back, in his presence.
Immediately, after receiving bullet shot his father fell down,
whereafter Ashok Yadav and Jitendra Yadav fired on his chest.
All persons were making fire in the air. Sukhrajo Devi was also
standing near to the place of occurrence and shouting to kill
otherwise will again contest the election and when Langa Yadav
(appellant) bolted rifle to fire upon him, he fled away to his
home. He recorded his statement before police on same very
day. He identified his signature on fardbeyan, which upon his
identification, exhibited as Exhibit ‘1’. He also deposed that the
occurrence took place due to election rivalry. He identified the
appellant/accused in court.
26.1. Upon cross-examination, he stated that Umesh
Rai (PW-2) is his own brother. After the occurrence, he went to
his home, but he could not remember whether he talked with
anyone or not. He could not even say that who were present in
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.1196 of 2018 dt.08-07-2026
18/46
the house. It was stated that he returned to the place of
occurrence but could not stated about the time. He also stated
that he remembered everything regarding the occurrence and he
also made statement before the police that he was going on
motorcycle. He could not said to police anything about the
registration number of the motorcycle. There was no scratch on
the motorcycle. He affirmed to depose earlier also in separate
trial of this case, where he deposed that when he came near to
Sarenja Mode, then he saw the accused persons. It was also
affirmed that firing was made from 50 fts. It was also affirmed
by him that he stated through FIR, that when he came near to
accused persons, Ashok Yadav and Jitendra Yadav pulled his
father from motorcycle but he remain seated. It was stated that
at the time of first firing his father was sitting on the motorcycle
and before second firing he was pulled from motorcycle,
whereafter he had fled away. His father fell down immediately
after receiving the bullet shot and by that time he was sitting on
the motorcycle. It was stated that his father was accused in one
NDPS Case, where he was acquitted from the High Court. He
also supported the presence of Chhatvrati, where the occurrence
took place. It was stated that he saw Langa Yadav (appellant)
and other accused persons from a distance of 50 fts. It is further
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.1196 of 2018 dt.08-07-2026
19/46
stated that after the occurrence and before lodging FIR he met
with Shashi Bhushan Rai (PW-1), Umesh Rai (PW-2), Ranglal
Chouhan (PW-6), Suman Yadav, Baliram Yadav, Achyutanand
Rai (PW-5), Shyam Bihari Rai (PW-8). They all met with him at
the place of occurrence but he could not say that after passing
what time he met with them at the place of occurrence. He
remained at his house at about 10 minutes after the occurrence
and he could not say whether in between he met with Umesh
Rai (PW-2), Sourabh Rai (not examined), Abhishek Rai (not
examined). Upon drawing his attention, he could not say that he
deposed in another case related with same FIR qua another
accused persons that within said 10 minutes he met with
aforesaid persons. He could not say even the appellant was
engaged in Chhath Puja on that day. It was stated that after the
occurrence his motorcycle was seen by the Investigating Officer
and Superintendent of Police, but no paper related with
motorcycle was asked from him. He also stated that in the north
of place of occurrence there is Tea stall of Ram Nath, Betal
Shop of Panna Chourasiya, Litti Chokha of Hardeo Chouhan
and Fish Shop of Mukhtiyar Chouhan. In south, there is saloon
of Rajendra Thakur, betel shop of Chhathulal and fruit shop of
Dipak Chouhan. He could not remember whether these
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.1196 of 2018 dt.08-07-2026
20/46
shopkeepers made statement before police or not. He recorded
all his statement in FIR. He denied the suggestion that he did
not said in FIR that at the time of occurrence he was on
motorcycle. It was also stated that at the time of occurrence his
father was wearing cream colour Kurta of Matka fibre. He could
not say whether his cloth was seized by police or not. He denied
the suggestion that his father was a heroine smuggler and no
such occurrence took place as he deposed.
27. PW-4 is Dr. Anil Kumar Singh. He deposed that
on the date of occurrence i.e. 02.11.2011, he was posted as
Medical Officer at Sadar Hospital, Buxar and performed the
post-mortem examination on the dead body of deceased Ranjeet
Rai and found following anti-mortem injury, which are as under:
(i) Lacerated wound left lower chest 3″ x 1¼” x organ
deep with periphery of blackening with signing of heirs
with inverted margin.
(ii) Lacerated wound left right parietal region below
the costal margin 4½” x 2½” x skin deep with
blackening at its external end with fatty tissue
scattered over the margin.
(iii) Abrasion injury occipital region of skull in a
diameter of 4 ½” with inverted margin fracturing
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.1196 of 2018 dt.08-07-2026
21/46occipital temporal left parietals, sphnodial and nasal
bones with lacerated margin with blackening at its left
border brain matter found dram any out of the skull
cavity.
A bullet 1¼” length and a bare diameter of 9 mm was
recovered from the right chest cavity adhered to the
posterior wall collected, sealed and leveled and
handed over to the police personnel.
Body was brought and identified by constables Ram
Asheri Singh and Jag Narain Singh, Right Eye semi
closed left eye closed, small bleeding left nostrial and
left ear.
Rigor mortis present in all the 4 limbs.
I to IV cervical vertebra fractured. Brain &
Membranes – torn & anulged.
Larynx & Trachea – Severed at its upper end.
Lungs – Pale.
Heart – Both chambers empty.
Large vessels – Tributaries of carotids & Middle
meningeal artiry severed.
Peritoneum – Torn, punctured wound left dome of
diaphragm, O esophagus severed at its upper end.
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.1196 of 2018 dt.08-07-2026
22/46
Stomach – Semi digested food.
Liver – Pale
Spleen – congested.
Kidney – Pale
Bladder – Empty
other – N.A.D. (nothing abnormal detected)
Cause of death – Hemorrhage & shock caused by fire
arm injuries.
Time since death – between 4 to 24 hours.
28. It is further deposed by PW-4 that he has signed on
the post-mortem report and identified the same and upon his
identification, the report was marked as Exhibit ‘2’.
29. PW-5 is Achyutanand Rai. He is also supported
the date and time of the occurrence as 01.11.2011 and 4:45 P.M.
respectively. It was deposed by him that while he was returning
from Buxar, after taking medicine from his Jeep and going to
Sarenja, he saw rucus there and people were saying that his
brother Ranjeet Rai was killed by Langa Yadav (appellant)
gang. He found his brother dead. It was deposed that police
prepared inquest report of his dead brother, which he signed. He
also identified his signature over there. It was said that the
occurrence took place due to election related enmities.
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.1196 of 2018 dt.08-07-2026
23/46
29.1. Upon cross-examination, he stated that he
disclosed the name of persons to police, who said him about the
occurrence. He recorded his statement before police at about
8:30 PM on the date of occurrence and by that time, inquest
report was already prepared. It was also stated by him that one
of the female family members lost election in the hand of
Sukhrajo Devi (wife of the appellant), against which she also
filed appeal, which was rejected.
30. PW-6 is Ranglal Chouhan, who supported the
date and time of occurrence as mentioned in the FIR. At the
time of occurrence, he was standing on the Betel shop near to
place of occurrence and saw that Ram Suresh Yadav @ Langa
Yadav (appellant), Jitendra Yadav, Ashok Yadav and other
accused persons were standing there, equipped with rifle. He
also deposed that Ramesh Rai (PW-3) was coming from eastern
side along with his father on motorcycle. Langa Yadav
(appellant), Jitendra Yadav and Ashok Yadav stopped the
motorcycle and dragged Ranjeet Rai from motorcycle,
whereafter the appellant fired on the backside of the skull of
Ranjeet Rai by his rifle. Jitendra and Ashok Yadav also fired on
his chest. Sukhrajo Devi said to kill Ramesh Rai (informant).
Whereafter, everyone started to fire indiscriminately, but
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.1196 of 2018 dt.08-07-2026
24/46
Ramesh Rai fled away, whereafter the accused persons also fled
away in western side. He also supported by saying that the
occurrence took place in the background of enmities arising out
of panchayat election. He also signed the inquest report of
Ranjeet Rai. He identified the signature over the carbon copy,
which upon his identification exhibited as Exhibit 1/1A and
Exhibit 1/2. He identified the accused persons.
30.1. Upon cross-examination, he deposed that he
signed the inquest report on the next day and Achyutanand Rai
(PW-5) also signed with him. He made statement to police on
03.11.2011. He denied the suggestion that he never made
statement before police that Langa Yadav (appellant), Jitendra
Yadav and Ashok Yadav pulled Ranjeet Rai from motorcycle
and thereafter Ram Suresh Yadav @ Langa Yadav (appellant)
shot on the back of his head, whereafter, Jitendra and Ashok
Yadav fired on his chest. He could not name the shopkeeper of
the Betel shop, where he was standing. He affirmed that he
made statement before police that Ramesh Rai @ Pintu started
to flee away with motorcycle but it was pulled by back and
thereafter the firing was made, resultantly deceased fell down
from the motorcycle. He also stated that Ramesh Rai fled with
motorcycle and was fled in the same direction in which the
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.1196 of 2018 dt.08-07-2026
25/46
accused persons were fled away and by that time Ranjeet Rai
was lying on the road. He also affirmed that he made statement
before police that Sukhrajo Devi was shouting to kill Ramesh
Rai also. He denied the suggestion that he is deposing as the
deceased Ranjeet Rai was his accomplish in heroine smuggling
case. It was stated that while he was eating betel, no one was on
the road. He denied that the witnesses are known to Ranjeet Rai
being the person of same criminal profile.
31. PW-7 is Brij Mohan Rai. He was the younger
brother of the deceased Ranjeet Rai. He deposed that the
occurrence is of 01.11.2011. It was around 4:45 P.M. He
deposed that while he was going to rice mill by foot and reached
Sarenja Mode, he saw that Ram Suresh Yadav, Ashok Yadav,
Jitendra Yadav, Baliram Yadav, Umesh Yadav, Sukhrajo Devi,
Sanjay Yadav, Hirdya Yadav, Ramashish Yadav and Bihari
Yadav all equipped with rifle in their hand were standing. At the
same time, Ramesh Rai (informant) was coming with his elder
brother Ranjeet Rai (deceased) on motorcycle and when they
reached near to Pakar tree, Ashok Yadav and Jitendra Yadav
dragged Ranjeet Rai from motorcycle, whereafter Ram Suresh
Rai fired one shot on his skull and, thereafter, Ashok Yadav and
Jitendra Yadav each of them fired one bullet on his chest. He
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.1196 of 2018 dt.08-07-2026
26/46
deposed that Sukhrajo Devi, who was standing nearby, said the
accused persons to kill Ramesh Rai also. He further deposed
that after the occurrence Ramesh Rai fled away from there. He
deposed that the alleged occurrence took place due to panchayat
election. He stated that he identified the Ram Suresh Rai, Ashok
Rai and other accused persons.
31.1. Upon cross-examination, he disclosed that
police had taken his statement and he never said to police that
the time of occurrence was 5:00 P.M. and not 4:45 P.M. He
deposed to saw that as he reached near Pakar tree Ashok Yadav
and Jitendra Yadav took off, Ranjeet Rai from his motorcycle,
whereafter Ram Suresh Yadav shot at his skull and thereafter
Ashok and Jitendra shot at his chest and Sukhrajo Devi, who
was present there, ordered the accused persons to kill Ramesh
Rai (PW-3) also, thereafter Ramesh Rai fled away from the
place of occurrence by taking his motorcycle. PW-7 further
deposed that the distance between Sarenja Mode and Pakar tree
is about 70 feets and accused persons were standing at Sarenja
Mode. He deposed that he was the co-accused along with
Surendra Kumar Jaiswal, Ranjit Rai, Uchhatanand Rai,
Sachhitanand Rai, Ranglal Nonia, Umesh Chandra Rai, Manoj
Rai in the case of smuggling of Heroine. He deposed that he had
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.1196 of 2018 dt.08-07-2026
27/46
met with Ramesh Rai at 5:00 P.M. and told him that he has seen
the occurrence. He further stated that Sukhrajo Devi had
defeated his Bhabhi namely, Shail Kumari Devi in panchayat
election, against which they had filed appeal also. Lastly, he
deposed that the occurrence took place due to election disputes.
32. PW-8 is Shyambihari Rai. Who is the
Investigating Officer of this case. He deposed that on
01.11.2011, while posted as the Station House Officer of Rajpur
Police Station, he took over the investigation of Rajpur P.S.
Case No. 121 of 2016. Upon assuming charge, he first inspected
the place of occurrence situated at Sarenja Bazaar on the
northern side of the Buxar-Kochas main road. He stated that a
large quantity of blood was found scattered at the place of
occurrence and the surrounding soil was soaked with blood. He
further described the topography of the place of occurrence by
stating that the road at the relevant place runs from east to west
and, at a distance of about 10 feet south from the place of
occurrence on the road, the dead body of Chhathu Lal
Chaurasia, resident of Sarenja, was lying.
33. He further deposed that near the place of
occurrence there was a Betel Shop and Pakad tree. He stated
that Rajendra Thakur, resident of Sarenja, had a saloon there;
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.1196 of 2018 dt.08-07-2026
28/46
west of the saloon there is laundry and ironing shop of Suresh
Dhobi; and in east there is partly constructed house of Siddhi
Chauhan. He further stated that towards the north of the place of
occurrence there is a hut-like tea and snacks shop of one
Ramnath Kurmi, adjacent to which in the western side there was
Paan stall of Madan Keshari, whereas to the east of Ramnath
Kurmi’s tea stall there was the Paan stall of Madan Kasera.
Adjacent of which another “Pakad tree” and a hut-like litti and
fish shop belonging to Mukhtar Chauhan @ Sadhu is there. He
stated that he prepared the sketch map of the place of
occurrence.
34. The witness further stated that he seized the blood-
stained soil from the place of occurrence after preparing a
proper seizure list. He recorded the re-statement of the
informant and also recorded the statements of witnesses namely
Shashibhushan Rai, Brijmohan Rai, Ranglal Chauhan, Shyam
Bihari Rai, Umesh Rai and Sachchidanand Rai, all of whom
supported the prosecution case during investigation. He further
deposed that during the course of investigation, he found that
accused Ram Suresh Yadav @ Langa Yadav had criminal
antecedents involving five cases relating to murder and other
offences. He obtained the post-mortem report and sent the
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.1196 of 2018 dt.08-07-2026
29/46
blood-stained soil to the Forensic Science Laboratory for
examination.
35. Upon completion of investigation, finding the
occurrence to be true, he submitted charge-sheet against accused
Sanjay Yadav, Bihari Yadav, Hridaya Yadav and Ramashish
Yadav under Sections 302, 120-B/34 of the Indian Penal Code
and Section 27 of the Arms Act, while accused Ram Suresh
Yadav @ Langa Yadav, Ashok Yadav, Mukhiya Sukhrajo Devi
and Jitendra Yadav by showing them absconders.
36. The witness further proved the documentary
exhibits. He stated that the fardbeyan of the informant was
recorded by Shailendra Kumar Mandal, the then Sub-Inspector
of Rajpur Police Station, and endorsement thereon was made in
his handwriting and signature, which he identified. The
fardbeyan along with endorsement was marked as Exhibit-3.
He further deposed that the formal F.I.R. was in the handwriting
of constable Arun Kumar Srivastava bearing his signature,
which was marked as Exhibit-4. He also identified the inquest
report prepared by the then Sub-Inspector Jagnarayan Singh
Yadav in his handwriting and signature, which was marked as
Exhibit-5. He further identified the seizure list relating to
seizure of blood-stained soil prepared in the handwriting and
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.1196 of 2018 dt.08-07-2026
30/46
signature of Sub-Inspector Shubhnarayan Tiwari, bearing his
own signature as well, which was marked as Exhibit-6.
36.1. In his cross-examination, he stated that on
01.11.2011 he was present at Rajpur Police Station, where he
received the fardbeyan recorded by Shailendra Kumar Mandal.
He admitted that among the witnesses named in the F.I.R.,
namely Shashibhushan Rai, Umesh Rai, Achutanand Rai and
Ranglal Chauhan, only Shashibhushan Rai had signed the
fardbeyan and their signatures are indicative of the fact that the
informant had given the statement in their presence. The witness
further deposed that he recorded Station Diary Entry No. 1 on
01.11.2011 and Diary Entry No. 2 on 02.11.2011. He stated that
in paragraph 27 of the case diary he recorded the statement of
Shashibhushan Rai and in paragraph 26 he again recorded the
statement of Ramesh Rai. He further stated that investigation
was initiated on the basis of the F.I.R. and the occurrence report.
According to him, the inquest report was prepared in paragraph
2 of the case diary and the same bear signatures of Ranglal
Chauhan and Achutanand Rai. He further stated that the dead
body was lying about 15-16 feet east of Sarenja Mod near a
Pakad tree. He admitted that he had not explained the scale or
meaning of “one foot” in the sketch map. He denied the
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.1196 of 2018 dt.08-07-2026
31/46
suggestion that the body was lying at a distance of 60-70 yards
and reiterated that it was lying only 15-16 feet away. He further
stated that though it was not mentioned in the F.I.R. that
deceased and informant was coming on motorcycle, but same
was subsequently mentioned during investigation. The witness
deposed that after receiving the F.I.R., he inspected/visited the
place of occurrence and thereafter left for the house of the
informant at about 20:35 hours, reached there at about 23:35
hours and left at about 23:55 hours after completing the writings
of case diary on 01.11.2011. He further stated that on
02.11.2011 he conducted raids at the houses of accused Ram
Suresh Yadav, Ashok Yadav, Sukhrajon Devi and Baliram
Yadav. Thereafter, he went to Atta village at about 2:10 A.M., to
Ekhtar at about 3:41 A.M., and to Madhanian at about 4:15
A.M., before returning to the police station. He again visited
Sarenja village at about 7:10 A.M., inspected the place of
occurrence, prepared the sketch map and also prepared the
seizure list. He further admitted that after inspecting the place of
occurrence he again recorded the statement of Ramesh Rai. He
stated that in paragraph 2 of the case diary, the name of the
assailant was not mentioned and that the information recorded
therein was based on hearsay. He expressed inability to state
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.1196 of 2018 dt.08-07-2026
32/46
whether an F.I.R. could be instituted solely on the basis of
hearsay information. The witness further stated that paragraphs
1 and 2 of the case diary were written in his own handwriting.
According to him, the fardbeyan was received at the police
station at about 8:10 P.M., though the statement itself had been
written at about 4:00 P.M. He admitted that no progress had
taken place in the case between 8:00 P.M. and 10:10 P.M. He
also admitted that the case diary did not mention whether any
police personnel were present at the place of occurrence
between 9:00 P.M. and 10:10 P.M. He further stated that
paragraph 3 of the F.I.R. mentioned that the dead body was
lying on the Buxar-Kochas main road near Sarenja Mode. The
witness further stated that Ramnath Kurmi had merely stated
before him that there was an election-related dispute between
the parties. He also deposed that Shashibhushan Rai had stated
in paragraph 27 of the case diary that he used to visit his Katra,
situated about 100-150 yards east of the place of occurrence,
almost every evening and sit there for some time, and that he
had heard that such Katra belonged to Shashibhushan Rai. He
further admitted that Shashibhushan Rai had not stated before
him that Ashok and Jitendra came near to motorcycle, and Ram
Suresh Yadav @ Langa Yadav fired at the deceased from behind
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.1196 of 2018 dt.08-07-2026
33/46
on his skull, or that Sanjay Yadav, Ramashish Yadav, Hridaya
Yadav and Jitendra Yadav fled away under firing. He also
admitted that Umesh Rai was not a named witness in the F.I.R.
and that Umesh Rai had not stated in paragraph 34 of the case
diary that Jitendra and Ashok had pulled his father from the
motorcycle and shot him in the chest, nor that Raju had exhorted
others by saying, “What are you waiting for, shoot him too.” He
further admitted that the F.I.R. did not contain any statement of
Ramesh Rai to the effect that while he was travelling on a
motorcycle with his father, Ashok Yadav and Jitendra Yadav
came there and made his father get down from the motorcycle
while he himself was sitting on it. He further stated that he had
recorded the statement of Nandlal Chauhan in paragraph 29 of
the case diary. According to him, Nandlal Chauhan had not
stated before him that Langa Yadav, Ashok and Jitendra had
made the deceased dragged from the motorcycle, and Ram
Suresh Yadav fired at the back of his head, that Jitendra and
Ashok fired at his chest, or that when Ramesh Rai @ Pintu
attempted to flee with the motorcycle, he was dragged from it
and shot at. He further admitted that Nandlal Chauhan had not
stated that after occurrence accused persons fled away with
motorcycle while Sukhrajon Devi was exhorting them to kill
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.1196 of 2018 dt.08-07-2026
34/46
Ramesh Rai as well. The witness further deposed that
paragraph 24 of the case diary related to inspection of the place
of occurrence and that such inspection was conducted on the
day following the occurrence. He stated that he did not find any
sign of trampling upon the blood lying at the place of
occurrence and that he had seized the blood-stained soil
therefrom. He further stated that he did not know whether the
deceased Ranjit Rai, Brijmohan Rai, Achutanand Rai and
Ranglal Chauhan had ever been arrested in a heroin case at
Rajpur Police Station. He also expressed ignorance as to
whether the post-mortem examination of the deceased had been
conducted on the orders of the District Magistrate. Lastly, he
denied the suggestion that the place of occurrence as stated by
him was incorrect.
37. PW-9 is Brajkishore Singh, an Assistant Sub-
Inspector of Police, deposed to produce station diary of Rajpur
Police Station containing entries from 25.09.2011 to 26.11.2011,
before the court. He stated that the station diary entry dated
01.11.2011 recorded at 17.05 hours, lodged on the basis of
rumour, which was in the handwriting of the then Station House
Officer , Sub- Inspector V. Prasad, whose handwriting and
signature was identified by him. The said station Diary entry
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.1196 of 2018 dt.08-07-2026
35/46
was marked as Exhibit 09.
38. The witness further deposed that the police force
had left the Police Station on the basis of information received
through rumours communicated by some person. He also stated
that the “Sanha entry” did not contain the name of any accused.
Conclusion
39. Having heard learned counsel appearing on behalf
of the parties and upon perusal of evidence/material available on
the record, it appears to us that the first and foremost issue
which is required to be examined is whether PW-1, PW-2, PW-3
(informant), PW-5, PW-6 and PW-7 are chance and independent
witnesses to the occurrence or their presence at the place of
occurrence is doubtful. It is also to be examined that whether
their testimony to be discarded being interested witness to the
occurrence as they are relatives or in inimical terms with the
appellant/accused.
40. In this context, it would be apposite to refer the
testimony of PW-1 who categorically stated that PW-2 namely,
Umesh Rai and PW-5 namely, Achyutanand Rai came at the
place of occurrence after the occurrence i.e. after the alleged
murder. In view of same, testimony of PW-2 and PW-5 claiming
themselves as eye witnesses to the occurrence and claimed their
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.1196 of 2018 dt.08-07-2026
36/46
presence during the occurrence as a matter of chance at Sarenja
Mode, which is the place of occurrence appears doubtful.
41. Now, coming to the testimony of PW-1, it can be
gathered safely that he also claimed as an eye witness of the
occurrence and claimed their presence near to the place of
occurrence as a matter of chance. It appears that he is the
signatory of fardbeyan/FIR along with PW-3. In FIR, PW-3
being informant of the case, nowhere mentioned that he was
coming on motorcycle along with his deceased father, rather he
stated that he was returning to his home from his Rice-Mill and
as he came to Sarenja main road, he saw a gathering of 8-9
persons equipped with fire-arm and appellant including two
accused persons namely, Jitendra Yadav and Ashok Yadav fired
on his father. It is also stated thereof that Baliram Yadav ordered
to fire upon the informant (PW-3). Threat was also advanced by
co-accused Sukhrajo Devi, who won the panchayat election,
where family member of the informant namely, Shail Kumari
Devi was defeated. It is also stated that litigation is pending
between the parties prior to the occurrence, which was asked to
withdraw by the appellant/accused and his family members.
42. In the background of this statement of FIR, PW-1
stated that he was taking tea at the Tea Stall and the informant
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.1196 of 2018 dt.08-07-2026
37/46
was coming along with his father on motorcycle. Without saying
anything, first firing was made by this appellant/accused in air.
He straightway stated that the appellant/accused fired upon
Ranjeet Rai which hit on the backside of his skull, whereafter he
fell to the ground immediately, whereafter Ashok Yadav and
Jitendra Yadav fired one by one each on Ranjeet Rai. He also
stated that Ashok Yadav and Jitendra Yadav bolted their rifles to
fire upon PW-3 contrary to the statement made in FIR. This fact
appears completely improved over the statement in FIR. He
could not denied the statement of fardbeyan of PW-3 as he
identified his signature over there. He also affirmed his
statement given to police that he heard about 5-6 round of firing,
when he was at the distance of about 100 yards from the place
of occurrence. From the case of prosecution, it appears that it is
a case where maximum of four firing was alleged to made. One
firing by this appellant which was made in air, missed the target,
second firing was made by this appellant only when the
deceased came near to him, which hit to the back of his head
and the third and fourth firing was made by the co-accused
Ashok Yadav and Jitendra Yadav, one firing by each, which hit
on the chest of the deceased. Thus, by taking note of his
improved version contrary to the FIR and also that he was in
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.1196 of 2018 dt.08-07-2026
38/46
inimical terms with accused/appellant, his presence as chance
witness appears doubtful at the place of occurrence.
43. PW-3/informant for the first time, testified before
the court that he was coming alongwith his father on the
motorcycle. He stated that the appellant Langa Yadav bolted
rifle to fire upon him, whereafter he fled away from the place of
occurrence. This statement of PW-3 is an improved version as
no such statement was made in the FIR. It also appears that
immediately after the occurrence, he fled away from the place of
occurrence and went to his home. An Attention was also drawn
to him regarding his statement which is the basis of FIR, but he
said that it was Ashok Yadav and Jitendra Yadav who pulled his
father from the motorcycle. He was remained seated there and
first firing could not hit his father and he was pulled from
motorcycle before second firing, whereafter he had fled away.
44. All such aforesaid contradictions were put to PW-8
by defence, who is the Investigating Officer of this case, as to
whether any such statements were made by PW-3, during
investigation, which was denied and said that no such statement
was made by him during investigation, which makes his
credibility doubtful.
45. It was vehemently argued by learned counsel
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.1196 of 2018 dt.08-07-2026
39/46
appearing for the informant that medical evidence appears in
full corroboration with ocular evidence as one gunshot injury
was found in the back of the head of the deceased and two
gunshot injuries were found on the chest. PW-4 who is a doctor
and conducted post-mortem upon deceased categorically stated
that injury no. 2 is not the entry wound of bullet.
46. In terms of clear cut deposition of PW-4, specific
case of prosecution becomes doubtful as almost all prosecution
witnesses including informant (PW-3) testified that co-accused
Ashok Yadav and Jitendra Yadav each fired one bullet on the
chest of his father when he fell to the ground after receiving first
bullet injury in the back of his skull fired by appellant/accused.
Obviously, this testimony also support that the firing was made
from the very close range while the father of informant was
lying on the ground. In such circumstances, the missing of bullet
injury does not arise. Having all probability to hit the chest of
the deceased, finding of only one gunshot injury makes a
serious doubt qua prosecution case to the extent that the
informant (PW-3) was the eye witness of the occurrence.
47. PW-6 and PW-7 also testified their presence near to
the place of occurrence as a matter of chance. Both of them
claimed eye witness to the occurrence. He stated that at the time
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.1196 of 2018 dt.08-07-2026
40/46
of occurrence he was standing at the Betel shop near to the place
of occurrence. He stated that this appellant along with Jitendra
Yadav and Ashok Yadav stopped the motorcycle and dragged
Ranjeet Rai from motorcycle. Sukhrajo Devi said to kill Ramesh
Rai (PW-3). Whereafter, everyone started to fire
indiscriminately upon PW-3 but he fled away. He is the witness
of the inquest report also.
48. In the aforesaid context, it would be apposite to
reproduce para 13 of Punimati‘s case (supra), which reads as
under:
“13. It is a well-settled law that merely because the
witness is an interested or related witness, his/her
deposition cannot be discarded. Further, deposition of such
witnesses is required to be scrutinized closely. As such, we
have closely scrutinized the deposition given by PW-4,
who is the mother of the deceased. As observed
hereinabove, there are material contradictions in her
deposition regarding the manner in which the incident
took place and with regard to which the information about
the incident was given by her granddaughter.”
49. It would further be apposite to reproduce para 58
of Kannaiya‘s case (supra), which reads as under:
“58. In this regard, reference my be made to the decision
of this Court in Pankaj v. State of Rajasthan [(2016) 16
SCC 192], wherein it was emphasised that when the
genesis and manner of the incident itself are doubtful,
conviction cannot be sustained. The Court held as under: –
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.1196 of 2018 dt.08-07-2026
41/46“25. It is a well-settled principle of law that when the
genesis and the manner of the incident is doubtful, the
accused cannot be convicted. Inasmuch as the
prosecution has failed to establish the circumstances
in which the appellant was alleged to have fired at the
deceased, the entire story deserves to be rejected.
When the evidence produced by the prosecution has
neither quality nor credibility, it would be unsafe to
rest conviction upon such evidence. After having
considered the matter thoughtfully, we find that the
evidence on record in the case is not sufficient to bring
home the guilt of the appellant. In such circumstances,
the appellant is entitled to the benefit of doubt.”
(Emphasis Supplied)
50. Admittedly, the occurrence took place on first day
of Chhath Puja in a busy market place where witnesses claimed
their presence as a matter of chance on Betel shop or Tea Stall,
but they could not disclose the name of peoples present over
their and as such appears failed to explain adequately their
presence at place of occurrence.
51. In this context, it would be apposite to reproduce
para 26 of Rajendra Singh‘s case (supra), which reads as
under
26. This Court, in several decisions, while considering
the evidentiary value of a chance witness, has held that
the deposition of a chance witness whose presence at
the place of incident is doubtful should be discarded,
or at least be treated with great caution and close
scrutiny. Such a chance witness must adequately
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.1196 of 2018 dt.08-07-2026
42/46
explain his presence at the place of incident, which has
not been satisfactorily done in the instant case.
52. In the present case, all the prosecution witnesses are
either immediate family members or are in admitted inimical
terms with the informant. The occurrence admittedly took place
in the backdrop of Mukhiya Panchayat election. Therefore,
possibility of false implication of accused cannot be ruled out
outrightly. Further, the inconsistency regarding exact manner of
occurrence, positioning of witnesses and the participation of
accused qua crime in question was also overlooked by the
learned trial court. In this context, it would be apposite to
mention that allegation of firing appears to be general as per
fardbeyan of the informant, but while deposing before the court,
the informant raised specific allegation of firing against the
accused/appellant. It also appears from the FIR that he arrived at
the place of occurrence alone but to set a new theory while
deposing before the court he added that he was coming towards
the place of occurrence with his father, where the accused
persons were assembled including the appellant, on motorcycle,
where his deceased father was a pillion rider. These two major
important improvements qua occurrence and involvement of
appellant makes their testimony doubtful as much not “wholly
reliable” being “interested witness”.
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.1196 of 2018 dt.08-07-2026
43/46
53. In this context, it would be apposite to reproduce
para 32 & 33 of legal report of Hon’ble Supreme Court as
available through Nand Lal v. State of Chhattisgarh reported
in (2023) 10 SCC 470, which reads as under:
32. Undisputedly, the present case rests on the evidence of
interested witnesses. No doubt that two of them are injured
witnesses. This Court, in Vadivelu Thevar v. State of Madras
[Vadivelu Thevar v. State of Madras, 1957 SCC OnLine SC
13 : 1957 SCR 981 : AIR 1957 SC 614] , has observed thus :
(AIR p. 619, paras 11-12)
“11. … Hence, in our opinion, it is a sound and well-
established rule of law that the court is concerned with
the quality and not with the quantity of the evidence
necessary for proving or disproving a fact. Generally
speaking, oral testimony in this context may be
classified into three categories, namely:
(1) Wholly reliable.
(2) Wholly unreliable.
(3) Neither wholly reliable nor wholly unreliable.
12. In the first category of proof, the court should have
no difficulty in coming to its conclusion either way — it
may convict or may acquit on the testimony of a single
witness, if it is found to be above reproach or suspicion
of interestedness, incompetence or subornation. In the
second category, the court equally has no difficulty in
coming to its conclusion. It is in the third category of
cases, that the court has to be circumspect and has to
look for corroboration in material particulars by reliable
testimony, direct or circumstantial.”
33. It could thus be seen that in the category of “wholly
reliable” witness, there is no difficulty for the prosecution to
press for conviction on the basis of the testimony of such a
witness. In case of “wholly unreliable” witness, again, there
is no difficulty, inasmuch as no conviction could be made on
the basis of oral testimony provided by a “wholly unreliable”
witness. The real difficulty comes in case of the third
category of evidence which is partly reliable and partly
unreliable. In such cases, the court is required to be
circumspect and separate the chaff from the grain, and seek
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.1196 of 2018 dt.08-07-2026
44/46further corroboration from reliable testimony, direct or
circumstantial.
54. It would further be apposite to reproduce para 22 of
the legal report of Hon’ble Apex Court as available through
Khema alias Khem Chandra and Others Vs. State of Uttar
Pradesh reported in (2023) 10 SCC 451, which reads as under:
“22. We are conscious that on the ground of minor
inconsistencies, the evidence of Inder (PW 2) cannot be
brushed aside. However, it is to be noted that there are
material improvements in his evidence. His evidence
therefore is required to be scrutinised with greater caution
and circumspection. It is further to be noted that even
according to the prosecution, there is previous enmity
between the accused and the deceased. As held by this Court
in Ramashish Rai v. Jagdish Singh [Ramashish Rai v.
Jagdish Singh, (2005) 10 SCC 498 : 2005 SCC (Cri) 1611] ,
previous enmity is a double-edged sword. On one hand, it
provides motive to the crime and on the other, there is a
possibility of false implication.”
55. This Court is conscious that the occurrence
resulted in loss of human life and that criminal law must
respond sensitively to such grave offences. Yet, the solemn duty
of a constitutional court is to ensure that conviction rests on
legal proof i.e. proof of guilt/charge beyond reasonable doubt
and, therefore, the trajectory of charge as raised against
appellant/accused starting from “may be true” must be rest on
“must be true” as to secure the conviction and if any doubt
surfaced during the trial, the benefit of doubt must be extended
to the accused/appellant.
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.1196 of 2018 dt.08-07-2026
45/46
56. In the present case, despite occurrence took place
at busy market place, non-examination of independent
witnesses, rather of interested witness, non-explanation qua
presence of these witnesses at the place of occurrence being
chance witnesses, previous enmity arising out of local
panchayat election collectively creates a doubt qua conviction
of accused/appellant by the learned trial court as same appears
not appreciated in view of settled legal propositions of Hon’ble
Supreme Court, as discussed aforesaid.
57. In view of the facts and circumstances, as discussed
above, we arrived upon conclusion that conviction and sentence
of the appellant-accused cannot be said to be sustainable in the
eye of law.
58. Accordingly, extending the benefit of doubt as the
prosecution has failed to answer several important aspects
during trial as to connect the appellant-accused with crime in
question beyond reasonable doubts, hence, impugned judgment
of conviction dated 29.08.2018 and order of sentence dated
31.08.2018 passed by learned Additional District and Sessions
Judge, VI, Buxar in connection with Sessions Trial No. 114 of
2016 arising out of Rajpur P.S. Case No. 121 of 2011 is hereby
set-aside.
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.1196 of 2018 dt.08-07-2026
46/46
59. The appellant, namely, Ram Suresh Yadav @ Langa
Yadav is acquitted of the charges levelled against him by the
learned trial court. He is directed to be released forthwith, if his
presence is not required in any other case.
60. The appeal stands allowed.
61. Let a copy of this judgment alongwith the Trial
Court Records be sent to the learned Trial Court forthwith.
(Chandra Shekhar Jha, J.)
Bibek Chaudhuri, J.:- I agree.
Rajeev/- (Bibek Chaudhuri, J.) AFR/NAFR AFR CAV DATE 07.05.2026 Uploading Date 08.07.2026 Transmission Date 08.07.2026
