Patna High Court
The State Of Bihar vs Lamboo Sharma @ Munna Sharma @ … on 26 March, 2026
Author: Rajeev Ranjan Prasad
Bench: Rajeev Ranjan Prasad
DEATH REFERENCE No.1 of 2024
with
CRIMINAL APPEAL (DB) Nos.1150 of 2019, 1162 of 2019,
1185 of 2019, 1210 of 2019, 1246 of 2019, 1271 of 2019
and 1290 of 2019
INDEX
Sl. Contents Page
No. Nos.
1. Cause Title 01-04
2. Backdrop of Death Reference and 04-09
Criminal Appeals
3. Prosecution case as per F.I.R. 09-11
4. Investigation and Chargesheet 11-29
5. Framing of charges 29
6. Prosecution witnesses, exhibits and 29-41
material exhibits
7. Defence plea and defence witnesses 41-43
8. Trial Court findings 43-54
9. Submissions on behalf of Appellants 54-68
10. Submissions on behalf of State 68-70
11. Post-mortem reports findings of two 70-73
deceased and injury reports of
seventeen injured persons
12. Appreciation of circumstantial evidence 73-77
13. Whether evidence relating to the 77-85
deceased woman trying to give a bag to
the appellants is acceptable?
14. Whether prosecution succeeded in 85-86
establishing any previous meeting
between the deceased woman and
appellants?
15. Vital incriminating circumstance not put 86-89
in accused statement : Effect
16. Whether prosecution succeeded in 89-93
establishing mobile phone contact
between the deceased woman and
appellants?
17. Electronic evidence 93-110
18. Criminal Conspiracy 110-128
19. Escape of appellants Lamboo Sharma 128-131
and Akhilesh Upadhyay from judicial
custody
20. Whether recovery of articles at the spot 131-136
and from the appellants linked them
with the crime?
21. Appellant Lamboo Sharma 136-143
22. Appellant Shyam Vinay Sharma 143-144
23. Appellant Rinku Yadav 144-146
24. Appellant Md. Naim Miya @ Naim Miya 146-150
25. Appellant Md. Chand Miya @ Chand 150-152
Patna High Court D. REF. No.1 of 2024 dt.26-03-2026
2
Miyan
26. Appellant Anshu Kumar 152-156
27. Appellant Akhilesh Upadhyay 156-158
28. Conclusion 158-160
29. Concurring view of H.M.J. Rajeev Ranjan 160-174
Prasad
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
DEATH REFERENCE No.1 of 2024
(Arising out of PS. Case No.-24 Year-2015, Thana- ARA NAGAR, District- Bhojpur)
==================================================================
From Judgment dated 17.08.2019 and order dated
20.08.2019
passed by the 3rd Additional Sessions Judge,
Bhojpur, Ara and order dated 05.04.2023 passed by
Additional Sessions Judge-VIII, Bhojpur, Ara in Sessions Trial
Case No.35 of 2016
———————
The State of Bihar
-versus-
Lamboo Sharma @ Munna Sharma @ Sachidanand Sharma,
son of Samhaut Sharma, Resident of Piro, P.S.-Piro, District-
Bhojpur
……Condemned Prisoner/Accused
For Condemned Mr. Pratik Mishra
Prisoner/Accused: Advocate (Amicus Curiae)
———————
CRIMINAL APPEAL (DB) No.1150 of 2019
Shyam Vinay Sharma, son of late Awadhesh Rai @ Awadhesh
Sharma, Resident of Village- Chauri, P.S.- Chauri, District-
Bhojpur ...... Appellant
-versus-
The State of Bihar ...... Respondent
For Appellant: Mr. Ajay Kumar Thakur
Advocate
Mr. Prabhat Kumar Singh
Advocate
Mr. Ganesh Prasad Singh
Advocate
Patna High Court D. REF. No.1 of 2024 dt.26-03-2026
2
Mr. Anirudh Kumar Singh
Advocate
———————
CRIMINAL APPEAL (DB) No.1162 of 2019
Rinku Yadav, son of Lal Babu Yadav, Resident of Village-
Pawarganj Ara, P.S.- Ara Nawada, District- Bhojpur
…… Appellant
-versus-
The State of Bihar …… Respondent
For Appellant: Mr. Ravindra Kumar
Advocate (Amicus Curiae)
———————
CRIMINAL APPEAL (DB) No.1185 of 2019
Md. Naim Miya @ Naim Miya, son of late Amin Miya, Resident
of Village- Dharhara, Ara, P.S.- Ara (Town), District- Bhojpur
…… Appellant
-versus-
The State of Bihar ...... Respondent
For Appellant: Mr. Binay Kumar
Advocate
Md. Najmul Hodda
Advocate
---------------------
CRIMINAL APPEAL (DB) No.1210 of 2019
Lambu Sharma @ Munna Sharma @ Sachidanand Sharma,
son of Samhut Sharma, Resident of Village- Gandhi Chowk,
Piro, P.S.-Piro, District- Bhojpur
…… Appellant
-versus-
The State of Bihar …… Respondent
Patna High Court D. REF. No.1 of 2024 dt.26-03-2026
3
For Appellant: Mr Ajay Kumar Thakur
Advocate
Mr. Sadanand Roy
Advocate
———————
CRIMINAL APPEAL (DB) No.1246 of 2019
Md. Chand Miya @ Chand Miyan, son of late Amin Miya,
Resident of Village- Dharhara, Ara, P.S.- Ara (Town), District-
Bhojpur
...... Appellant
-versus-
The State of Bihar ...... Respondent
For Appellant: Mr. Ravindra Kumar
Advocate
---------------------
CRIMINAL APPEAL (DB) No.1271 of 2019
Anshu Kumar, son of Sri Kamleshwar Sharma, Resident of
Village- Karari, Post- Dhobaha Bazar, P.S.- Ara Muffasil,
District- Bhojpur
…… Appellant
-versus-
The State of Bihar ...... Respondent
For Appellant: Mr. Ravindra Kumar
Advocate
---------------------
CRIMINAL APPEAL (DB) No.1290 of 2019
Akhilesh Upadhyay @ Musa, son of late Gopal Upadhyay,
Resident of Village- Nonar, P.S.- Piro, District- Bhojpur
…… Appellant
Patna High Court D. REF. No.1 of 2024 dt.26-03-2026
4
-versus-
The State of Bihar ...... Respondent
For Appellant: Mr. Ravindra Kumar
Advocate
For State of Bihar: Ms. Shashi Bala Verma
(in all cases) Addl. Public Prosecutor
Mr. Ajay Mishra
Addl. Public Prosecutor
---------------------
CORAM:
HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
AND
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJEEV RANJAN PRASAD
——————————————————————————————
Date of Judgment : 26.03.2026
——————————————————————————————
CAV JUDGMENT
(Per: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE)
Backdrop of Death Reference and Criminal Appeals :
Death Reference No.01 of 2024 is the
reference under section 366 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973 (hereafter ‘Cr.P.C.’) which corresponds to
section 407 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita,
2023 (hereafter ‘BNSS’) submitted to this Court by the
learned Additional Sessions Judge-VIII, Bhojpur, Ara in
Sessions Trial Case No.35 of 2016 for confirmation of death
sentence imposed on Lamboo Sharma @ Munna Sharma
@ Sachidanand Sharma (hereafter ‘appellant Lamboo
Sharma’) vide judgment and order dated 05.04.2023 so
also the judgment and order dated 17.08.2019 passed by
the learned 3rd Additional Sessions Judge, Bhojpur, Ara in
Patna High Court D. REF. No.1 of 2024 dt.26-03-2026
5
Sessions Trial No.35 of 2016.
2. Criminal Appeal (DB) No.1150 of 2019 has been
filed by appellant Shyam Vinay Sharma, Criminal Appeal
(DB) No. 1162 of 2019 has been filed by appellant Rinku
Yadav, Criminal Appeal (DB) No.1185 of 2019 has been filed
by appellant Md. Naim Miya @ Naim Miya, Criminal Appeal
(DB) No.1210 of 2019 has been filed by appellant Lamboo
Sharma, Criminal Appeal (DB) No.1246 of 2019 has been
filed by appellant Md. Chand Miya @ Chand Miyan, Criminal
Appeal (DB) No.1271 of 2019 has been filed by appellant
Anshu Kumar and Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 1290 of 2019
has been filed by appellant Akhilesh Upadhyay @ Musa
challenging the judgment and order dated 17.08.2019
passed by learned 3rd Additional Sessions Judge, Bhojpur,
Ara in Sessions Trial No.35 of 2016.
3. The appellants Lamboo Sharma, Shyam Vinay
Sharma, Rinku Yadav, Md. Naim Miya @ Naim Miya, Md.
Chand Miya @ Chand Miyan, Anshu Kumar and Akhilesh
Upadhyay along with Narendra Kumar Pandey @ Sunil
Pandey, Vijay Sharma, Sanjay Sonar and Pramod Singh
faced trial in the Court of learned 3 rd Additional Sessions
Judge, Bhojpur, Ara in Sessions Trial Case No.35 of 2016 for
offences punishable under sections 302/34, 307/34, 326/34,
353, 115, 120(B) of Indian Penal Code (hereafter ‘I.P.C.’) and
sections 3, 4 and 5 of the Explosive Substances Act, 1908.
The appellants Lamboo Sharma and Akhilesh Upadhyay
Patna High Court D. REF. No.1 of 2024 dt.26-03-2026
6
were additionally charged under section 224 of I.P.C. and
appellant Lamboo Sharma was further charged under
sections 303 and 216 of I.P.C.
4. The learned trial Court i.e. 3rd Additional
Sessions Judge, Bhojpur, Ara vide judgment and order dated
17.08.2019 acquitted the accused persons Vijay Sharma,
Sanjay Sonar and Narendra Kumar Pandey @ Sunil Pandey
of all the charges, however, found the appellants Lamboo
Sharma, Shyam Vinay Sharma, Rinku Yadav, Md. Naim Miya
@ Naim Miya, Md. Chand Miya @ Chand Miyan, Anshu
Kumar, Akhilesh Upadhyay and accused Pramod Singh
guilty under various offences.
5. The appellants Shyam Vinay Sharma, Anshu
Kumar, Rinku Yadav, Md. Chand Miya @ Chand Miyan and
Md. Naim Miya @ Naim Miya so also accused Pramod Singh
were found guilty under sections 302, 307, 326, 353, 115/34
and 120(B) of I.P.C. and sections 3, 4 and 5 of Explosive
Substances Act. The appellant Akhilesh Upadhyay was
found guilty under sections 302, 307, 326, 353, 115/34,
120(B), 224 of I.P.C. and sections 3, 4 and 5 of Explosive
Substances Act. Appellant Lamboo Sharma was found guilty
under sections 302, 307, 326, 353, 115, 120(B), 224, 216,
303 of I.P.C. and sections 3, 4 and 5 of Explosive Substances
Act. All the convicted persons were sentenced to undergo
R.I. for 10 years and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- (five
thousand), in default, to undergo further imprisonment for
Patna High Court D. REF. No.1 of 2024 dt.26-03-2026
7
one year for the offence under section 307 of I.P.C. and
sentenced to undergo R.I. for 10 years and to pay a fine of
Rs.5,000/- (five thousand), in default, to undergo further
imprisonment for one year for the offence under section 326
of I.P.C., sentenced to undergo R.I. for 2 years for the
offence under section 353 of I.P.C., sentenced to undergo
R.I. for 10 years and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- (five
thousand), in default, to undergo further imprisonment for
one year for the offence under section 115 of I.P.C.,
sentenced to undergo R.I. for two years for the offence
under section 120(B) of I.P.C., sentenced to undergo R.I. for
7 years for the offence under section 3 of Explosive
Substances Act, sentenced to undergo R.I. for 10 years for
the offence under section 4 of the Explosive Substances Act
and sentenced to undergo R.I. for 3 years for the offence
under section 5 of the Explosive Substances Act.
6. The appellants Lamboo Sharma and Akhilesh
Upadhyay were sentenced to undergo R.I. for 2 years for the
offence under section 224 of I.P.C. and appellant Lamboo
Sharma was sentenced to undergo R.I. for 5 years and to
pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- (five thousand), in default, to
undergo imprisonment for one year for the offence under
section 216 of I.P.C.
7. All the convicted appellants and accused
Pramod Singh, except appellant Lamboo Sharma, were
sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a
Patna High Court D. REF. No.1 of 2024 dt.26-03-2026
8
fine of Rs.25,000/- (twenty-five thousand) each, in default,
to undergo further imprisonment for one year each for the
offence under section 302 of I.P.C.
8. The appellant Lamboo Sharma was sentenced to
death and to pay a fine of Rs.25,000/- (twenty-five
thousand), in default, to undergo imprisonment for one year
for the offence under section 302 of I.P.C. Since section 303
of I.P.C. was declared unconstitutional by the Hon’ble
Supreme Court, no punishment was awarded for such
offence.
The sentences awarded to all the appellants and
accused Pramod Singh were directed to run concurrently.
9. Though the accused Pramod Singh preferred
Criminal Appeal (DB) No.1356 of 2019, but since he died
during pendency of the appeal, the appeal stood abated as
per the order dated 01.07.2021.
10. So far as the appellant Lamboo Sharma is
concerned, Death Reference No.3 of 2019 was registered for
confirmation of the death sentence under section 366 of the
Cr.P.C. submitted to this Court by the learned trial Court.
Vide order dated 23.03.2023, this Court remanded the
matter to the learned trial Court on account of non-
compliance of the procedures laid down under sections
211(7), 236 and 298 of Cr.P.C. regarding previous
convictions with a further direction to the learned trial Court
to pass a fresh order regarding the sentence of the
Patna High Court D. REF. No.1 of 2024 dt.26-03-2026
9
appellant Lamboo Sharma. In the light of such order of this
Court, the learned trial Court framed the charge indicating
the previous convictions, but the appellant denied such
charges and some more documents i.e. warrants of
commitment were exhibited as Exts.25 and 26 and the
learned trial Court sentenced him to death and to pay a fine
of Rs.25,000/- (twenty-five thousand), in default, to undergo
imprisonment for one year under section 302 of I.P.C. with a
further direction that all the sentences awarded to the
appellant shall run concurrently vide order dated
05.04.2023.
Prosecution case as per F.I.R.:
11. The prosecution case, as per the first
information report lodged by Sub-Inspector Gauri Shankar
Pathak (P.W.33) before the Inspector Satyendra Kumar Shahi
(P.W.38), S.H.O., Ara Town Police Station at Civil Court
premises, Ara on 23.01.2025 at 1:35 p.m., in short, is that
on that day, approximately at about 11:25 a.m., a prisoner
van carrying prisoners from the District Jail, Ara, arrived
near the Court hazat (lock-up) for their appearance in the
Court. After the van stopped, a female prisoner was first
disembarked, followed by the other prisoners. A total
number of 37 prisoners, including one female prisoner, were
in the van. After the female prisoner was taken to the hazat,
when three male prisoners were being escorted towards the
Court hazat, a woman standing on the road, south to the
Patna High Court D. REF. No.1 of 2024 dt.26-03-2026
10prison van, detonated a bomb. The bomb blast caused
severe injuries to Constable no.696 Amit Kumar (hereafter
‘the deceased’) of the armed forces, who was on duty to
bring the prisoners from the jail to the Court so also to
Havildar Shivji Prasad Singh (P.W.31) and Constable no.84
Dwarika Prasad Pathak (P.W.11), both posted at Sadar Court,
Ara and fifteen to sixteen persons present in Court also
suffered severe injuries. The woman who detonated the
bomb and was approximately 30 years old also suffered
severe injuries on her face and the other parts of her body
got mutilated. Smoke from the bomb spread everywhere,
causing stampede and people started running hither and
thither and taking advantage of such chaos, two prisoners
i.e. appellant Lamboo Sharma and appellant Akhilesh
Upadhyay, who were the two male prisoners amongst the
three male prisoners disembarked from the prisoner van,
escaped. The unknown woman who detonated the bomb
died at the spot and the injured constable no.696 Amit
Kumar (deceased) who was sent to Sadar Hospital, Ara for
treatment, was also declared dead by the doctor. All the
other injured persons were immediately shifted to Sadar
Hospital, Ara for treatment. It is further stated in the F.I.R
that the name of the woman, who died in the bomb blast,
was not known to the informant. The woman used to come
to the Court previously when appellants Lamboo Sharma
and Akhilesh Upadhyay were coming to the Court for their
Patna High Court D. REF. No.1 of 2024 dt.26-03-2026
11Court appearances and she used to meet those two
appellants. The informant believed that the said woman
carried out the bomb blast to help the appellants Lamboo
Sharma and Akhilesh Upadhyay in escaping from the judicial
custody, in which she herself was also killed. The bomb
blast occurrence was the result of criminal conspiracy
carried out by the appellants Lamboo Sharma and Akhilesh
Upadhya and the deceased unknown woman and other
unknown accused persons helped the appellants Lamboo
Sharma and Akhilesh Upadhyay in escaping from judicial
custody. Prior to this bomb blast incident, in the year 2009,
appellant Lamboo Sharma with the help of other accused
persons, had also detonated a bomb in the Ara Court
premises in which one Advocate was killed and many others
got injured. In the 2009 bomb blast occurrence committed
in the Ara Court premises, appellant Lamboo Sharma was
sentenced to life imprisonment by the Court and some other
cases were also pending against him for trial before the
Court.
Investigation and Chargesheet:
12. After recording the first information report,
P.W.38, the S.H.O. sent it to Ara Town Police Station for
registration of the formal F.I.R. and he himself took up
investigation of the case. After receipt of the F.I.R., Ara Town
P.S. Case No.24 dated 23.01.2015 was registered under
sections 302, 307, 326, 224, 120(B) of I.P.C. and sections 3,
Patna High Court D. REF. No.1 of 2024 dt.26-03-2026
124 and 5 of the Explosive Substances Act, 1908 against the
appellants Lamboo Sharma, Akhilesh Upadhyay and
unknown persons.
On 23.01.2025, P.W.38, the I.O. seized articles
recovered at the place of occurrence at 14:15 hours in
presence of the witnesses, Vijay Kumar Gupta (P.W.29) and
Vishwanath Singh (P.W.16) and prepared seizure list. He
also seized a Micromax mobile set installed with a sim card
of mobile no. 8083172236, the blood of the unknown
deceased (female) spilled at the place of occurrence, a
white coloured mobile earphone, a torn note of five rupees,
a torn note of fifty rupees, two broken pieces of anklet like
silver, a rold gold yellow coloured chain worn in the neck of
the deceased (female), a broken piece of ear-rings like rold
gold and prepared the seizure list.
P.W.38, the I.O. sent a request letter to the
Special Intelligence Unit, Office of Superintendent of Police,
Bhojpur to find out the IMEI number of the recovered
mobile and the C.D.R. of the mobile number and name and
address of the holder. He recorded the statement of the
informant of the case, inspected the place of occurrence
and found the dead body of the deceased (female) on the
concrete road twenty meter south from the northern side
boundary wall and the head of the body was lying towards
west and the legs were lying towards east and the body
was lying facing downwards. The dead body was mutilated
Patna High Court D. REF. No.1 of 2024 dt.26-03-2026
13
and the blood was spilled on the ground and also on her
clothes. Holes were found at twelve places on the wall of
the Court Hazat caused due to bomb splinter and marks of
bomb splinter were also found on the wall by the side of the
Court verandah at seven places. A seizure list of the articles
recovered at the place of occurrence was prepared by the
I.O. The remnants of the bomb blasts were also found at the
place of occurrence which were seized by the experts of
Forensic Science Laboratory.
P.W.38, the I.O. recorded the statements of
some of the witnesses. The seized exhibits from the crime
scene were handed over to the I.O. by the team of experts
from the Forensic Science Laboratory, Patna and those were
marked as A, B, C, D, E, F, G, H, I, and J and a seizure list
was prepared. The inquest over the dead body of the
unidentified female found at the crime scene was
conducted by S.I. of Police Punam Kumari and the inquest
report copy was handed over to the I.O. The statements of
some more witnesses were recorded by the I.O. and the
unidentified female dead body was sent for post-mortem
examination to Sadar Hospital, Ara.
P.W.38, the I.O. received an information from
the secret source that the name of the unidentified female
who was killed in the bomb blast was Nagina Devi, W/o:
Hareram God, R/o: Shivpur Diyar, 82 Dera of Bhagi Ray,
Kotwali police station, District: Ballia, Uttar Pradesh. S.I. of
Patna High Court D. REF. No.1 of 2024 dt.26-03-2026
14police Dil Kumar Bharti was sent with armed force in a
police jeep to verify the name and address of the deceased
woman and after leaving the place of occurrence, the I.O.
reached at Sadar Hospital, Ara and there he recorded the
statements of some more witnesses. He came to know from
the police officials present at Sadar Hospital, Ara that a
total number of 18 persons had sustained injuries during
the course of occurrence. Some of the injured persons were
referred to P.M.C.H., Patna due to serious injuries and the
deceased, who was seriously injured in the incident, died
and his inquest report was prepared by S.I. of police
Jahangir Ansari.
P.W.38, the I.O. recorded the statements of
some injured persons who were admitted in Sadar Hospital,
Ara. Thereafter, he left Sadar Hospital, Ara with armed
forces at 12:10 a.m. on 24.01.2015 and reached at Piro and
conducted a raid against the appellant Lamboo Sharma, but
he was found to be absconding from the house. The I.O.
also verified the name and address of Lamboo Sharma and
obtained information about his family and relatives. He left
Piro and reached at village Nonar under Piro Hasan Bazar
Outpost and conducted a raid against the appellant
Akhilesh Upadhyay, but he was also found to be absconding
from the house. Thereafter, he verified his name and
address, received information about his relatives, friends
and his hiding places and left village Nonar and reached at
Patna High Court D. REF. No.1 of 2024 dt.26-03-2026
15Bihari Mill, Ara in the night and conducted raid in the house
of a relative of the appellant Lamboo Sharma, but the
appellant was not found there.
P.W.38, the I.O. left Bihari Mill and came to Ara
Town police station with the armed forces at 03:35 O’ clock
in the night of 24.01.2015 and when examined the mobile
numbers saved in the mobile phone of the deceased
recovered at the place of occurrence, it was found that two
mobile nos.8292500417 and 8271770107 were saved in
the name of Anshu and mobile no.9199282162 was in the
name of V.I.J and some mobile numbers were also saved in
others’ names. He left the police station and reached Sadar
Hospital, Ara and sent a request letter to the Deputy
Superintendent of Sadar Hospital to preserve the body
parts of the deceased for D.N.A. analysis safely for next
seventy-two hours.
P.W.38, the I.O. recorded the statements of
some injured persons at Sadar Hospital, Ara. He left Sadar
Hospital, Ara and reached at Civil Court, Ara, where he
recorded the statements of some more witnesses. Then he
left the Civil Court and reached at Sadar Hospital, where
information was received that the body of the deceased
constable was handed over to his family after post-mortem
examination for performing the last rites. The name,
address and C.D.R. of the holder of the mobile
no.8083172236 were obtained which was recovered from
Patna High Court D. REF. No.1 of 2024 dt.26-03-2026
16the unknown deceased woman and it was issued in the
name of Savitri Devi, W/o: Lalan Paswan, R/o: 38 Chanda,
Police Station: Koilwar, District: Bhojpur. On perusal of the
C.D.R. of the said mobile, it was found that from
09.12.2014 to 20.01.2015, the said mobile was in the area
of Khetari Mohalla which was falling in the tower location of
the District Jail, Ara and from 21.01.2015, the said mobile
phone was at Nawada Chowk, Ara and Godhna Road, on
23.01.2015 at Godhna Road, Ara and at 10:36 a.m. at
Maharaja Hata Katra and at 10:38 a.m., it was in the
location of K.G. Road, Ara, which is a tower adjacent to Civil
Court, Ara. Conversation took place from the said mobile
numbers between 22.01.2015 to 23.01.2015 on mobile
nos.7631105971, 7764939558 and mobile no.7654894198
and the C.D.R. was marked as Ext.6.
A request letter was given to the Special
Intelligence Unit to get the C.D.R., names and addresses of
the holders of the mobile nos.7631105971, 7764939558,
and 7654894198 on which conversation had taken place
from the mobile phone of the deceased (female). At the
same time, the I.O. (P.W.38) received information that after
verification of the deceased woman, S.H.O. Dil Kumar Bharti
had brought Soni Devi, W/o:- Satyendra Gaud, R/o:- Shivpur
Diera, 82 Bhagi Rai’s Dera, P.S.:- Kotwali, Balia, U.P.; Meera
Devi, W/o:- Shriram Gaud, R/o:- Shivpur Diera, 82 Bhagi
Rai’s Dera, Kotwali, Balia, U.P.; Munni Devi, W/o:- Sitaram
Patna High Court D. REF. No.1 of 2024 dt.26-03-2026
17
Gaud, R/o:- Shivpur Diera, 82 Bhagi Rai’s Dera, Kotwali,
Balia, U.P. and Maksudan Singh, S/o:- Late Kishunji Singh,
R/o:- Shivpur Diera, 82 Bhagi Rai’s Dera, Kotwali, Balia, U.P.
to Sadar Hospital, Ara for identification of the dead body.
Thereafter, the I.O. reached at Sadar Hospital, Ara and the
identification of the deceased was made as Nagina Devi,
W/o:- Hareram Gaud, R/o:- Shivpur Diera, 82 Bhagi Rai’s
Dera, Kotwali, Balia, U.P. The I.O. recorded the statement of
Soni Devi, daughter of the deceased at Sadar Hospital, Ara
and thereafter, the dead body of the deceased was handed
over to the visiting family members for last rites. The C.D.R.
and C.A.F. of mobile nos.7764939558, 7631105971 and
7654894198 were obtained, which were perused and
marked in the case diary. On perusal, it was found that the
mobile no.7631105971 has been taken in the name of
Sanjay Kumar, R/o:- Lakhanpura, Circle:- Dinara, District:-
Rohtas and the said mobile phone had been in the location
of Tower Jail Road, Ara, which was falling under the mobile
tower location of Ara Jail on 22.01.2015 and 23.01.2015.
There had been no communication from the said mobile
after 11:39 a.m. on 23rd January, 2015. The I.O. also verified
and obtained the C.D.R., name and address of the holder
and the C.D.R. was marked as Ext.6/1 and it was in four
pages. The last tower location time of the said mobile was
nearest tower of M.P. Bagh, Ara Civil Court, Ara at 11:39
a.m. and at 11:25 O’ clock, the location was near the tower
Patna High Court D. REF. No.1 of 2024 dt.26-03-2026
18of Jail road, Ara District Jail.
The C.D.R., name and address of the holder of
mobile phone no.7764939558, which was in four pages and
marked as Ext.6/2 was perused by the I.O. and it was found
that the said mobile had been issued in the name of Musa
Nat, S/o:- Jagdish Nat, 19 Maharaj Ganj, Devkali Buxar and
on 22nd January 2015, the said mobile phone was near the
tower area of Shakuntala Singh Gali, Post:- Nawada,
District:- Bhojpur, Mandal Jail, Ara.
The I.O. also perused the mobile phone
no.7654894198 and found that the SIM Card of the said
mobile phone had been issued in the name of Vijay Prasad,
S/o: Kunj Bihari Prasad, House No.107, Anaith Ara, District:
Bhojpur. On 21.01.2015, the said mobile phone was near
the tower area of Dharman Chowk, Sapna Cinema Road,
Shivganj. On 22nd January 2015, the said mobile phone was
near the tower area of Shivganj Ara Dharman Chowk. In the
C.D.R. received, on 23.01.2015, its tower number was
56976 and the same was marked as Ext.6/3 which was in
total eleven pages.
On 24.01.2015, after the death of deceased
Nagina Devi, the C.D.R. of the IMEI number was received
from her mobile set by the I.O. (P.W.38), perusal of which
revealed that another SIM Card of mobile no.8604361464
was used in the said mobile set, apart from the SIM Card
recovered along with the mobile phone from the place of
Patna High Court D. REF. No.1 of 2024 dt.26-03-2026
19occurrence which was used from 22nd December 2014 to
21st January 2015 in the location of Arjunpur Rajapur, Simri
police station, District:- Buxar and passed through the
tower location of Shahpur, District:- Buxar, Bihiya, District:-
Bhojpur on 21.01.2015 came into the tower location of
Sihghasan Market, Ara at 18:52 hours. The C.D.R. was
marked as Ext.E.
P.W.38, the I.O. conducted raids in villages
Sukhrauli, Khairhi and Nagari to trace out the accused
persons. After leaving Nagari, he conducted raid in
Kargahar, District: Rohtas, came to Ara and sent S.I. of
police Sunil Kant to conduct raid in Bahoranpur. Thereafter,
on the basis of secret information, he came to Dharhara,
Ara where appellant Vijay Sharma, resident of Gandhi
Chowk, Piro who was not named in the F.I.R. was caught
and his statement was recorded and he was arrested. The
I.O. left Dharhara with the arrested accused and came to
the police station and locked the appellant Vijay Sharma in
the police station hazat and went to Civil Court, Ara along
with S.I. of police Dil Kumar Bharti and lady constable to
record the statement of Soni Devi, the daughter of the
deceased Nagina Devi under section 164 of Cr.P.C. The
appellant Vijay Sharma was produced before the Court
under proper escort.
On 26.01.2015, the I.O. left the police station
and reached at Civil Court, Ara where he recorded the
Patna High Court D. REF. No.1 of 2024 dt.26-03-2026
20statements of witnesses i.e. S.I. of police Bhuneshwar
Prasad Sinha, Constable Yamuna Singh, Kameshwar
Chaudhary, Constable no.101 Nathuni Singh, Constable
no.91 Hiraman Ram, Constable no.72 Dinesh Kumar Singh
and Constable no.19 Keshwar Ram. The I.O. then left the
Civil Court and reached at D.I.U. office, where he obtained
the C.D.R. of the mobile phone no.7654894198 from 23rd
January 2015 to 25th January 2015 and perused it. The said
mobile number came into the location of Civil Court, Ara
passing through Mahavir Tola, Ara on the date and time of
occurrence and went into the tower location of east Uttar
Pradesh at 23:48 hours after the occurrence. The said
mobile phone had been in the tower location of Madhya
Pradesh regions on 24.01.2015 and on 25.01.2015 in the
tower location of Maharashtra regions. The C.D.R. was
marked as ‘F’.
P.W.38, the I.O. received the C.D.R. of mobile
phone number 7654895198 on 27.01.2015 and perused it
and it was marked as ‘G’. The said mobile phone had been
in the location of Sundarnagar, Chandanmira near Gajraj
Talkies, District:- Jaalna, Maharashtra on 25.01.2015.
On 30.01.2015, a request letter was sent by the
I.O. to the Court to issue warrant of arrest against the F.I.R.
named accused-appellants Lamboo Sharma and Akhilesh
Upadhyay. On 01.03.2015, the I.O. arrested the F.I.R. named
accused-appellant Akhilesh Upadhyay and recorded his
Patna High Court D. REF. No.1 of 2024 dt.26-03-2026
21statement at the police station in which he explained in
detail about the incident.
The I.O. also verified the names and addresses
of Anshu and Rinku Yadav, whose names appeared in the
confessional of appellant Akhilesh Upadhyay as Anshu
Kumar, S/o:- Kamleshwar Sharma, R/o:- Karari, P.S.:-
Mufassil, Dhobaha Outpost, District:- Bhojpur and Rinku
Yadav, S/o:- Lal Babu Yadav, R/o:- Powerganj, near Ganesh
Rice Mill, P.S.:- Ara Nawada, District:- Bhojpur, who often
used to visit the jail to meet appellant Lamboo Sharma and
deliver goods to him. Among them, appellant Rinku Yadav
was sent to jail along with appellant Lamboo Sharma in the
year 2008.
The I.O. took appellant Akhilesh Upadhyay on
police remand on 13.03.2015 and after interrogation, his
route of escape after the incident was established, in which
his journey to Varanasi by taking a train from Suremanpur
Railway Station, Ballia District, Uttar Pradesh was verified.
The I.O. sent the exhibits seized from the scene
of occurrence to Forensic Science Laboratory in the
prescribed format on 20.03.2015 for examination. On
24.03.2015, the appellants Anshu Kumar and Rinku Yadav,
who were not named in the F.I.R. as accused were arrested
near Park View Hotel, Ara, from whom a Nokia mobile set,
having two SIM Cards, in which mobile phone
no.8292500417 and mobile phone no.7562995706, one SIM
Patna High Court D. REF. No.1 of 2024 dt.26-03-2026
22Card having mobile no.8292704437 and a motorcycle
bearing registration no.BR-03C-2908 were recovered. The
I.O. also seized the register of Chaurasia Rest House which
showed the names of both the appellants.
The I.O. recorded the confessional statement of
appellant Anshu Kumar and basing on his statement, he
raided the house of appellant Shyam Vinay Sharma and
recovered a bullet holder, a rifle and a gun cleaner rod.
Basing on the same confessional statement, the I.O. raided
a scrap dealer shop (kabadi) in Dhobha Outpost and
recorded the statement of shopkeeper Butan Chaudhary.
The I.O. recorded the confessional statement of
appellant Rinku Yadav in which he had mentioned the name
of appellant Pramod Singh (dead). The statement of
appellant Shyam Vinay Sharma was also recorded. A
photocopy of appellant Anshu Kumar’s identity card issued
by the Election Commission of India was recovered from
Chaurasia Rest House. The deceased Nagina Devi’s name
was mentioned as Reena Devi in the register of Chaurasia
Rest House.
The I.O. obtained the post-mortem reports of
the deceased Nagina Devi and Constable Amit Kumar. He
received the C.D.R. of the phone recovered from the
appellant Anshu Kumar. Three SIM Cards were recovered
from him. He obtained the C.D.Rs. of all the three, which he
marked as ‘J’, ‘K’, and ‘I’ and in Court, those were marked
Patna High Court D. REF. No.1 of 2024 dt.26-03-2026
23
as Exts.11, 12 and 13 respectively.
From the C.D.R. of mobile/SIM Card recovered
from the appellant Anshu Kumar, it was revealed that one
SIM Card was taken in his father’s name, one in his own
name and one in the name of Lakhrano Devi. From the
location of the SIM Card of his father’s name, it was found
that at the time of incident, it was near the spot of incident
and there was talk to the phone of deceased Nagina Devi,
who had two SIM Cards and at that time she had talked on
both the SIM Cards. According to the I.O., on the date of
occurrence, the appellant Rinku Yadav used mobile phone
no.8540022698 through which he contacted appellant
Lamboo Sharma.
P.W.38, the I.O. obtained the C.D.R. of the
mobile phone no.8862964100 used by appellant Shyam
Vinay Sharma, which was issued in his own name. He
marked it as ‘L’ and ‘M’ in the case diary which were
marked as Exts.14 and 15 in Court respectively. From the
C.D.R. of this mobile phone number, it was revealed that on
the date of occurrence i.e. on 23.01.2015, calls were made
to the mobile phone no.8083172236 of deceased Nagina
Devi and on 04.09.2014, 07.09.2014 and 23.09.2014, calls
were made to the mobile phone no.7654894198 of
appellant Lamboo Sharma.
The I.O. submitted charge sheet no.65/15 dated
07.04.2015 under sections 303, 302, 307, 353, 326, 224,
Patna High Court D. REF. No.1 of 2024 dt.26-03-2026
24
120(B) of I.P.C. and sections 3/4 of the Explosive
Substances Act against the appellants Vijay Sharma and
Sanjay Sonar. The investigation proceeded against the
remaining accused persons i.e. appellants Lamboo Sharma,
Akhilesh Upadhyay, Nagina Devi, Rinku Yadav, Anshu
Kumar, Chand Miyan, Pramod Singh and Shyam Vinay
Sharma.
The register of Chaurasia Guest House which
was seized by the I.O. revealed that appellant Anshu Kumar
and Reena Devi were staying in that Rest House on 21 st
January 2015 and left the room at 10:10 a.m. on 23 rd
January 2015. The register was bearing the thumb prints of
appellant Anshu Kumar and Reena Devi @ Nagina Devi,
which the I.O. marked as ‘A1’ and ‘B1’ respectively and the
same was marked as Ext.16 in Court. The C.D.R. of the
appellant Lamboo Sharma, which the I.O. marked as ‘N’,
was marked as Ext.17 in Court.
A list of prisoners arriving from the jail on the
date of occurrence was obtained by the I.O. which showed
that 37 prisoners came from the jail on that day and 35
returned to jail and two prisoners namely, appellants
Akhilesh Upadhyay and Lamboo Sharma did not return.
P.W.38, the I.O. arrested appellant Chand Miyan
on 17.05.2015, from whom a mobile phone of Jivi Company
with SIM Card no.9198593370 and a Samsung mobile
phone with SIM Card no.7301204932 were recovered. The
Patna High Court D. REF. No.1 of 2024 dt.26-03-2026
25
confessional statement of Chand Miyan was recorded. The
Samsung and Jivi mobile phones were marked as Material
Exts.I and II respectively.
P.W.38, the I.O. recovered a Samsung Grand
Prime mobile phone bearing no.9471416384 and SIM Card
of 8102932486 and a Samsung mobile set with SIM Card at
the time of arrest of appellant Shyam Vinay Sharma on
20.05.2015, which were marked as Material Exts.III and IV.
Gun cleaner rod and Rifle cleaner rod recovered from the
appellant Shyam Vinay Sharma were marked as Material
Exts.V and Ext.VI respectively. The pull through and the
machine used for cleaning rifle barrel were marked as
Material Exts.VII and VIII respectively.
The mobile phone recovered from appellant
Anshu Kumar had two SIM Cards in it and one SIM Card
separately was also seized which was marked as Material
Ext.IX. The mobile phone set, white earphone, a torn five
rupee note, a torn fifty rupee note, a silver anklet, a yellow
chain worn around the neck of the deceased and a broken
rold gold earring recovered from the spot were collectively
marked as Material Ext.X.
The I.O. (P.W.38) sent the specimen signature of
appellant Anshu Kumar and the specimen signature on the
register recovered from Chaurasia Rest House to the expert
for examination.
The splinter recovered by the doctor from the
Patna High Court D. REF. No.1 of 2024 dt.26-03-2026
26
body of deceased constable Amit Kumar during post-
mortem examination was also sent by the I.O for
examination.
P.W.38, the I.O. filed supplementary charge
sheet No.165/15 under sections 303, 302, 307, 353, 326,
224, 120(B) of I.P.C. and sections 3/4 of the Explosive
Substances Act against appellants Akhilesh Upadhyay,
Anshu Kumar, Rinku Yadav and Pramod Singh and
continued the investigation against appellants Lamboo
Sharma @ Munna, Nagina Devi, Chand Miyan, Shyam Vinay
Sharma etc. He also obtained Aadhaar Card of the
deceased Nagina Devi. The daughter of the deceased
Nagina Devi identified the deceased and after
identification, her body was cremated.
On 24th June 2015, the Delhi Police Special Cell
informed the I.O. that they had arrested appellant Lamboo
Sharma. On 25th June 2015, the I.O. received appellant
Lamboo Sharma from Delhi Police and presented him in the
Court at Ara on 26th June 2015. On 2nd July 2015, the I.O.
recorded the confessional statement of Lamboo Sharma
and basing on the same, the names of accused persons
Sunil Pandey, Brajesh Singh and Chand Miyan’s brother
Nayeem came to fore.
As per the information given by the appellant
Lamboo Sharma, a raid was conducted at his residence in
Ludhiana, Punjab and a Samsung mobile phone with SIM
Patna High Court D. REF. No.1 of 2024 dt.26-03-2026
27
Card no.7084708365 was recovered. A slip of a shop called
Bengali Electronics, on the back of which mobile phone
no.9179520386 was written, a white colour box over which
Gamma Mobile was written and a slip of the carton on
which mobile no.9650244189 was written, a black colour
LED TV, a home theatre and four speakers were recovered.
The articles recovered from the residence of appellant
Lamboo Sharma i.e. LED TV and home theatre and
speakers were marked as Material Exts.XI and XII.
P.W.38, the I.O. obtained the C.D.R. of appellant
Sunil Pandey’s mobile no.9431455555, which was earlier
marked as ‘O’ and was marked in Court as Ext.18. He also
recovered a note with mobile no.9179520386 written on it
from the residence of appellant Lamboo Sharma in
Ludhiana. The tower location of this phone was found near
Lamboo Sharma’s residence in Ludhiana. This mobile phone
was used to call appellant Chand Miyan’s mobile
nos.7301204933 and 7301204932 and appellant Anshu
Kumar’s mobile number after the incident. This mobile
phone’s location was also found near the Central Jail,
Lucknow where Mukhtar Ansari was in jail. This location was
found near Lucknow Jail on three dates i.e. 22.02.2015,
17.03.2015 and 18.03.2015, the dates on which Mukhtar
Ansari was in Lucknow Jail, as confirmed by verification
from Lucknow Jail.
The C.D.Rs. of mobile nos.7301204933 and
Patna High Court D. REF. No.1 of 2024 dt.26-03-2026
28
7301204932 of appellant Chand Miyan were obtained,
which were earlier marked as ‘U’ and ‘V’ respectively and
the same were marked in Court as Exts.19 and 20
respectively.
P.W.38, the I.O. submitted charge sheet
no.308/15 against the appellants Chand Miyan and Shyam
Vinay Sharma under sections 303, 302, 307, 353, 326, 224,
115, 216, 120(B) of I.P.C. and sections 3/4 of the Explosive
Substances Act and supplementary investigation continued
against Nagina Devi, appellant Narendra Kumar Pandey @
Sunil Pandey, Md. Nayeem Miyan @ Sahatu, Lamboo
Sharma @ Munna and Brajesh Singh.
The C.D.R. of mobile phone used by appellant
Lamboo Sharma with IMEI no.359375033668750 was
obtained from 01.10.2015 to 10.10.2015. The C.D.R. and
C.A.F. (Customer Acquisition Form) obtained were jointly
marked as ‘M 2’ and were marked in the Court as Ext.21.
The mobile phone used on 06.10.2015 and 07.10.2015
showed the phone no.8507159162. The recovered mobile
phone was the same mobile phone used by appellant
Lamboo Sharma and was recovered from Praveen Kumar in
Chapra, which was marked as Material Ext.XIII.
P.W.38, the I.O. subsequently submitted charge
sheet no.362/15 under sections 303, 302, 307, 353, 326,
224, 115, 216, 120(B) of I.P.C. and sections 3/4/5 of the
Explosive Substances Act against appellants Narendra
Patna High Court D. REF. No.1 of 2024 dt.26-03-2026
29
Kumar Pandey @ Sunil Pandey, Nayeem Miyan @ Sahatu,
Lamboo Sharma @ Munna Sharma.
The mobile phone recovered from the Ludhiana
residence of the appellant Lamboo Sharma was marked as
Material Ext.XIV and a number written on a small piece of
cardboard was marked as Material Ext.XV. Two receipts
which were produced were marked as Exts.XVI and XVI/A. A
cardboard box which was recovered which has IMEI number
on it was marked as Material Ext.XVII. Sixteen photographs
of the scene of occurrence were marked as Exts.X/I to
X/XVII for identification and C.D. of the scene of occurrence
was marked as Material Ext.XVIII.
Framing of charges:
13. After submission of charge sheet in different
phases, the case was committed to the Court of Session
also in different phases after complying due procedure. The
learned trial Court framed charges against the appellants
as well as co-accused persons as aforesaid and since all of
them refuted the charges, pleaded not guilty and claimed
to be tried, the Sessions trial procedure was resorted to
prosecute them and establish their guilt.
Prosecution witnesses, exhibits and material
exhibits:
14. In order to prove its case, the prosecution
examined thirty-nine witnesses.
P.W.1 Anadi Pingua was the Havildar who
Patna High Court D. REF. No.1 of 2024 dt.26-03-2026
30
produced the prisoners in the prisoners van from District
Jail, Ara in the Court on the date of occurrence and stated
that when some male prisoners started to get down from
the van, there was very loud sound which occurred on
account of bomb blast and smoke spread everywhere and
the deceased constable, P.W.11 Dwarika Prasad and P.W.31
Shivji Prasad Singh received injuries and one lady was
soaked with blood and her body was mutilated and the
injured persons were taken to the hospital and
subsequently he came to know about the death of the
deceased constable. He further stated that except two
persons who had come from jail in van, all others were sent
back to jail.
P.W.2 Vinod Kumar was the in-charge Hazat
Assistant who stated that on the date of occurrence, when
the prisoners van came near gate no.4 of Civil Court, Ara
and a woman got down from the van and was taken inside
the hazat, a bomb blast occurred and there was smoke all
around for which nothing could be visible and when the
smoke disappeared, he found that a woman was lying dead
on account of bomb blast and two prisoners namely
appellants Lamboo Sharma and Akhilesh Upadhyay
escaped and the deceased constable received injuries and
he was shifted to hospital but died. He further stated that
P.W.11 Dwarika Prasad Pathak and P.W.31 Shivji Prasad
Singh also sustained injuries on account of bomb blast.
Patna High Court D. REF. No.1 of 2024 dt.26-03-2026
31
P.W.3 Draupadi Devi was the constable who
stated that on the date of occurrence, she was on duty of
the hazat of Civil Court and after one female prisoner came
inside the hazat from the van the appellants Lamboo
Sharma and Akhilesh Upadhyay got down from the van and
all of a sudden, there was bomb blast and it became dark
for which some sepoys got injured, one female died and the
deceased constable being injured was sent for treatment
and he also died. The two appellants escaped during the
bomb blast.
P.W.4 Hiraman Ram was the constable who was
posted at Civil Court, Ara and he stated that on the date of
occurrence, he was standing by the side of the prisoner van
and a female prisoner got down first and then the other
prisoners got down from the vehicle and there was bomb
blast and darkness and after the disappearance of the
darkness, he found the deceased constable along with
P.W.11 Dwarika Pathak and P.W.31 Shivji Prasad Singh had
sustained on account of bomb blast and one lady was lying
on the floor. He further stated that the two appellants
Lamboo Sharma and Akhilesh Upadhyay escaped from the
custody.
P.W.5 Suresh Kumar Jha was the S.I. of police
who stated that on the date of occurrence, he was getting
the prisoners down from the van at gate no.4 of the Civil
Court, Ara and there were thirty-seven prisoners in the van
Patna High Court D. REF. No.1 of 2024 dt.26-03-2026
32
and after one woman prisoner alighted, the two appellants
Lamboo Sharma and Akhilesh Upadhyay and another got
down from the prisoners van and suddenly a loud blast
occurred and there was smoke and darkness and he found
the deceased constable was lying injured so also P.W.11
Dwarika Pathak and P.W.31 Shivji Prasad Singh and a
women was also lying there soaked with blood. He further
stated that the two appellants Lamboo Sharma and
Akhilesh Upadhyay escaped and he brought the deceased
constable to the hospital where he came to know about the
death of the deceased.
P.W.6 Butan Chaudhary stated that when he
was questioned by police regarding selling of the head of
the hand-pump, he told to have sold it to Anshu who
belonged to village Kadari.
P.W.7 Tetari Devi was the constable who stated
that she had taken a lady prisoner from jail and took her to
the hazat, when a bomb blast took place and there was
darkness and the deceased constable was taken to the
hospital and P.W.11 Dwarika Pathak and P.W.31 Shivji
Prasad Singh also got injured and one woman was soaked
with blood and several persons also sustained injuries.
P.W.8 Dimpal Kumari was the constable who
was on duty on the date of occurrence in the hazat of the
Court and brought one female prisoner from the van to the
hazat. She stated to have heard bomb blast sound and
Patna High Court D. REF. No.1 of 2024 dt.26-03-2026
33
there was smoke all around and she found one unknown
woman lying injured on the floor and the deceased
constable, P.W.31 Shivji Prasad Singh and some others
received injuries and the unknown woman died at the spot
and on account of bomb blast, the appellants Lamboo
Sharma and Akhilesh Upadhyay absconded and the
deceased constable died in Sadar Hospital.
P.W.9 Bhuwaneshwar Prasad Singh was the S.I.
of police who stated that on the date of occurrence from
the prisoners van one woman first got down and was taken
to the hazat and then three prisoners came down and when
one woman moved forward, the constable stopped her and
the bomb blasted and there was darkness all around. He
found P.W.31 was lying injured on the floor, one woman was
lying dead, some others also sustained injuries and two
prisoners ran away.
P.W.10 Dinesh Kumar Singh stated that on the
date of occurrence when the prisoners started getting down
from the prisoners van and the two appellants namely
Lamboo Sharma an Akhilesh Upadhyay got down, one
woman wanted to give a bag to the two appellants but the
constable removed her and then a bomb blast took place
and the two appellants managed to escape. He further
stated that some other persons received injuries and taken
to the hospital and the woman carrying the bag died at the
spot.
Patna High Court D. REF. No.1 of 2024 dt.26-03-2026
34
P.W.11 Dwarika Pathak was the police personnel
who was near the hazat on the date of occurrence and he
stated about the prisoners van arriving at the northern gate
and when the two male prisoners got down from the van
there was explosion of bomb for which he sustained injuries
and lost consciousness and when he regained
consciousness, he found eighteen persons lying on the
ground, the deceased constable was lying at the northern
gate and the body of a woman was lying mutilated. He
further stated that the injured persons were shifted to the
hospital and he came to know about the escape of the two
appellants Lamboo Sharma and Akhilesh Upadhyay.
P.W.12 Kameshwar Chaudhary was the Havildar,
who was on duty on the date of occurrence at the northern
gate of the Court and he stated that after a woman got
down from the prison van, when some male prisoners got
down and moved forward, there was bomb explosion and
there was darkness and after some time it was found that
the two appellants namely Lamboo Sharma and Akhilesh
Upadhyay had escaped.
P.W.13 Priya Shankar Mishra was the S.I. of
police who brought the prisoners on the date of occurrence
from the jail in the prison van and when the vehicle was
parked at northern gate and the prisoners were getting
down there was bomb explosion near the hazat for which
the area was engulfed in dust and smoke and he secured
Patna High Court D. REF. No.1 of 2024 dt.26-03-2026
35
the prisoners who had deboarded from the van back to the
van and took them to the jail and upon counting it was
found that the two appellants Lamboo Sharma and Akhilesh
Upadhyay were missing and when he came to the Court, he
found one woman lying dead and some constables and
members of public were also lying injured.
P.W.14 Keshwar Ram was the constable who
was on duty at the northern gate of the Court where the
prisoners deboarded from the van and he stated that after
the appellants Lamboo Sharma and Akhilesh Upadhyay
deboarded, a woman was standing there and a constable
started moving her away for which the woman fell down on
the ground and simultaneously there was bomb blast for
which the said woman died and some constables sustained
injuries and during the smoke the appellants Lamboo
Sharma and Akhilesh Upadhyay escaped.
P.W.15 Tarkeshwar Ojha was the police
personnel who was on duty at hazat on the date of
occurrence and he stated that at about 11:30 a.m., when
the prisoners van came and the appellants Lamboo Sharma
and Akhilesh Upadhyay got down from the van, one woman
who was sitting there started to give a bag to appellant
Lamboo Sharma but the deceased constable stopped that
woman from doing such thing and at that time the bomb
explosion took place and there was smoke all around and
the two appellants fled away and the deceased constable
Patna High Court D. REF. No.1 of 2024 dt.26-03-2026
36
sustained injuries and taken to Sadar Hospital where he
was declared dead and the woman who had the bomb also
died and two to three constables also sustained injuries. He
further stated that the woman who died was earlier coming
to meet appellant Lamboo Sharma.
P.W.16 Vishwanath Singh was the S.I. of police
and was posted at the lock-up of the Civil Court, Ara and he
stated that on the date of occurrence when the prisoners
van arrived, the constables stood in a line and after one
female prisoner was brought from the van, the appellants
Lamboo Sharma and Akhilesh Upadhyay got down from the
van and started moving towards lock-up. He further stated
that one woman tried to go towards the appellants Lamboo
Sharma and Akhilesh Upadhyay but she was stopped by the
deceased constable and then there was bomb explosion
and when the smoke got cleared, the deceased constable
was lying injured and the woman whom the deceased
constable had stopped, was lying dead and some general
public and some constables also received injuries and the
appellants Lamboo Sharma and Akhilesh Upadhyay fled
away. He further started about the seizure of some articles
at the place of occurrence and preparation of the seizure
list in his presence, in which he put his signature marked as
Ext.1.
P.W.17 Nathuni Singh was posted at the Civil
Court hazat (lock-up) and he stated about getting down of
Patna High Court D. REF. No.1 of 2024 dt.26-03-2026
37
some prisoners from the police van on the date of
occurrence and suddenly there was bomb explosion and
the appellants Lamboo Sharma and Akhilesh Upadhyay
absconding and the deceased constable along with some
others sustained injuries.
P.W.18 Prem Singh, P.W.19 Shashi Kant Ram,
P.W.20 Shambhu Ram, P.W.21 Mukesh Rai, P.W.22 Rakesh
Rai, P.W.23 Shivjee Rai, P.W.25 Bhikhari Thakur, P.W.29 Vijay
Kumar Gupta, P.W.32 Mahendra Prasad, P.W.35 Ajay Kumar
Rai and P.W.36 Ramakant Rai did not support the
prosecution case for which they were declared hostile.
P.W.24 Sukhu Chaudhary stated that he had
been to Court on the date of occurrence in connection with
his work and there was noise and it became dark and he
sustained injury on his legs and he was shifted to Sadar
Hospital in an ambulance.
P.W.26 Dhananjay Kumar Shrivastava was the
constable who was posted in the hazat of Civil Court, Ara
and he stated that on the date of occurrence when the
prisoners van arrived from jail and he was near the van,
after lady prisoners got down, the appellants Lamboo
Sharma and Akhilesh Upadhyay got down and one woman
was trying to enter the police cordon and wanted to give
something to appellant Lamboo Sharma but the deceased
constable pushed her and there was explosion of bomb for
which P.W.11 Dwarika Pathak, P.W.31 Shivji Prasad Singh
Patna High Court D. REF. No.1 of 2024 dt.26-03-2026
38
and some others got injured and were shifted to the
hospital and the woman who was trying to enter the police
cordon died at the spot. He stated that the deceased
constable also died and the appellants Lamboo Sharma and
Akhilesh Upadhyay fled away.
P.W.27 Dr. Kumar Jitendra was the Medical
Officer posted in Sadar Hospital, Ara who examined the
injured persons and prepared the injury reports which were
marked as Ext.2 to 2/17. He stated that the injuries
sustained by all the injured were caused due to bomb blast.
P.W.28 Dr. Shashi Shekhar Shashi was the
Medical Officer at Sadar Hospital, Ara who conducted post-
mortem examination over the dead body of the deceased
constable Amit Kumar on 23.01.2025 and noticed injuries
on different parts of the body and stated that the cause of
death was on account of cardio pulmonary arrest due to
blast injury. He also conducted the post-mortem
examination over the dead body of the deceased woman on
24.01.2015 and found various injuries on different parts of
the body and opined that the cause of death was on
account of blast injuries which led to cardio-respiratory
failure.
P.W.30 Laxman Prasad Chaurasia was the owner
of Chaurasia Rest House who stated that the police seized
the Identity Card of one Anshu Kumar who was staying in
his Rest House and so also the register of the Rest House
Patna High Court D. REF. No.1 of 2024 dt.26-03-2026
39
and prepared a seizure list.
P.W.31 Shivji Prasad Singh was the Havildar who
was performing his duty in Ara Court hazat on the date of
occurrence and he stated that after the prisoners vehicle
arrived, they stood in a line forming a circle for security and
after a female prisoner got down, three male prisoners also
got down and started moving and suddenly there was
explosion of bomb and darkness and he came to know
about the escaping of appellants Lamboo Sharma and
Akhilesh Upadhyay after the smoke got cleared. He further
stated about the deceased sustaining injuries due to bomb
blast and some public getting injured and being shifted to
Sadar Hospital for treatment and the unknown woman died
at the spot.
P.W.33 Gauri Shankar Pathak is the informant in
the case and he was in-charge of Court hazat on the date of
occurrence. He stated about the parking of the prisoners
vehicle coming from jail at northern gate of the hazat and
prisoners getting down from the van. He also stated about
the bomb explosion and one woman lying dead in a
mutilated condition and the deceased constable, P.W.11
Dwarika Pathak and P.W.31 Shivji Prasad Singh and some
others getting injured on account of bomb blast. He further
stated about two prisoners missing from the van when it
was counted reaching at the jail. He further stated about
the appellants Lamboo Sharma and Akhilesh Upadhyay
Patna High Court D. REF. No.1 of 2024 dt.26-03-2026
40
escaping during bomb blast. He proved the F.I.R. as Ext.4.
P.W.34 Ranjan Kumar Singh was the constable
who stated about the arrest of appellant Anshu Kumar,
seizure of SIM Cards and mobile phone from him so also a
motorcycle and is a witness to the seizure list and proved
his signature on it.
P.W.37 Anil Kumar was posted as Assistant
Superintendent in the District Jail, Ara and he stated that on
the date of occurrence a total of thirty-seven prisoners were
sent from District Jail, Ara to appear before the Sessions
and Sadar Court and he prepared the list of the prisoners
vide Ext.5. He further stated that the names of appellants
Lamboo Sharma and Akhilesh Upadhyay were included in
that list.
P.W.38 Satyendra Kumar Shahi was the Police
Inspector-cum-S.H.O. at Town Police Station, Ara who not
only recorded the first information report on the oral report
of P.W.33 Gauri Shankar Pathak and sent it for registration
to Ara Town Police Station but also investigated the case
and submitted charge sheet.
P.W.39 Noor Sultana was the Magistrate posted
at Civil Court, Ara who recorded the statement of one Soni
Devi under section 164 of Cr.P.C. and proved the said
statement as Ext.23.
The prosecution also exhibited some
documents.
Patna High Court D. REF. No.1 of 2024 dt.26-03-2026
41
Ext.1 is the signature on the seizure list, Exts.2
to 2/12 are the injury reports, Exts. 3 and 3/1 are the post-
mortem reports, Exts.1/1, 1/2 and 1/3 are the seizure lists.
Ext.4 is the signature on the F.I.R. Exts.1/4 to 1/6 are the
seizure lists, Exts.5,5/A are letters, Exts.6 to 6/3 are the
C.D.Rs., Exts.7 to 15 are the C.D.Rs, Ext.16 is the Chaurasia
Guest House Register Page No.36, Exts.17 to 21 are the
C.D.Rs., Exts.22 to 22/3 are the F.S.L. Reports and Ext.23 is
the statement of Soni Devi recorded U/s 164 of Cr.P.C.
The prosecution proved some material exhibits.
Material Exts.I, II are the two mobile phones of Samsung
and JIVI company recovered from appellant Chand Miyan,
Material Exts.III to VIII are the rifle, cleaning rod and other
items recovered from appellant Shyam Vinay Sharma,
Material Ext.IX is the mobile recovered from appellant
Anshu Kumar, Material Ext.X is the mobile set, ear phone of
white colour, a torn note of Rs.5, Rs.50, silver like anklet, a
broken chain (necklace) made up of rold gold worn around
the neck of the deceased, Material Exts.X/1 to X/16 are the
sixteen photographs taken at the scene of occurrence,
Material Ext.XI to XVIII are the L.E.D. T.V., Home Theatre,
mobile recovered from the rented house of appellant
Lamboo Sharma in Ludhiana and the boxes of mobile used
by him, two receipts and C.Ds.
Defence plea and defence witnesses:
15. The defence plea of appellant Lamboo Sharma
Patna High Court D. REF. No.1 of 2024 dt.26-03-2026
42was one of denial and it was pleaded that he did not know
the deceased woman and that after the bomb blast on the
date of occurrence, there was smoke filled in the Court
followed by stampede, for which he ran away from the
Court to save his life and came to Mumbai to earn his living
and that he was caught from Jaunpur and shown to be
arrested in Delhi.
The defence plea of the appellant Shyam Vinay
Sharma was that nothing was found during the search of
his house and the two mobile phones which were recovered
from him were not used to communicate with anyone.
The defence plea of appellants Rinku Yadav and
Anshu Kumar was one of complete denial.
The defence plea of appellant Md. Naim Miya
was one of denial, however he examined two defence
witnesses. D.W.1 Wasi Ahmad stated that he was having a
garage where the appellant Nayeem Miyan was a mechanic
and on the date of occurrence, the appellant Nayeem Miyan
had been to mosque to offer Friday prayers and before that
he was repairing vehicles in the garage. D.W.2 Mohd.
Sahabadullah was an assistant to the appellant Nayeem
Miyan in the garage of D.W.1 and he stated that on the date
of occurrence, the appellant was working with him in the
garage and he had not gone anywhere.
The defence plea of appellant Md. Chand Miyan
is that he travelled to Delhi on 19 th January 2015 by
Patna High Court D. REF. No.1 of 2024 dt.26-03-2026
43
Shramik Express and was arrested from Delhi and not from
Dharhara.
The defence plea of appellant Akhilesh Upadhay
was one of denial and it was pleaded that after the bomb
explosion, no one was seen getting out of the vehicle and
that he went to his village Piro.
Trial Court Findings:
16. The learned trial Court after assessing the
evidence on record in respect of co-accused Narendra
Kumar Pandey @ Sunil Pandey, Vijay Sharma and Sanjay
Sonar, has been pleased to acquit them holding as follows:
''58.....As far as the question of
involvement of the accused Narendra
Kumar Pandey @ Sunil Pandey, Vijay
Sharma and Sanjay Sonar in this case is
concerned, the name of Sunil Pandey came
up in the confessional statement of
Lamboo Sharma during investigation by
the I.O., in which Lamboo Sharma had said
that he had talked from his mobile to Sunil
Pandey on mobile no.9431455555 which
has been proved by the I.O. with C.D.R.
(Ext.18) of both mobiles in which
conversation had taken place on
21.12.2014. No other evidence has been
produced in support of this statement. In
the context of this matter, the accused
Sunil Kumar Pandey has said in his
statement u/s 313 Cr.P.C. that that mobile
Patna High Court D. REF. No.1 of 2024 dt.26-03-2026
44was made available to him by Secretary,
Legislative Assembly which is used by his
P.A. He is a public representative and the
public used to talk to him to address their
problems and that he had not talked to
Lamboo Sharma. In this regard, it is also
noteworthy that Lamboo Sharma has also
said in his confessional statement that
Sunil Pandey has stated about extending
financial help in this plan, but no evidence
has been produced by the prosecution that
Sunil Pandey provided money to Lamboo
Sharma. In such circumstances, this
statement of Lamboo Sharma has not been
proved and that his confessional statement
has got no value in view of section 25 of
the Evidence Act. As far as the
conversation on mobile is concerned, it is
not clear whether there was any
conversation took place between Lamboo
Sharma and Sunil Pandey. In this way, only
on the statement of Lamboo Sharma and
on the basis of C.D.R. of his mobile phone,
the prosecution has not been able to prove
beyond all reasonable doubt that Sunil
Pandey was involved in the bomb
explosion. Thus, involvement of Sunil
Pandey in this crime could not be proved.
59. As far as the question of involvement
of Vijay Sharma and Sanjay Sonar in this
case is concerned, Vijay Sharma is the
sibling brother of Lamboo Sharma who
Patna High Court D. REF. No.1 of 2024 dt.26-03-2026
45used to come to meet him during his
production in the Court and Sanjay Sonar is
the friend of Vijay Sharma who used to
come with him some times in the Court
and on this basis, he has been arrayed as
an accused in the case. No P.Ws. has
proved that Vijay Sharma and Sanjay
Sharma have helped in this incident. There
is no evidence to make clear their
involvement in this case on the basis of
circumstantial evidence. P.W.38, Inspector
Satyendra Kumar Shahi has also not
brought any evidence against them in the
course of investigation as evidence has
been produced regarding the involvement
of other accused in this case before the
Court. In such circumstances, after making
them accused in this case just because
Vijay Sharma was the brother of the
criminal Lamboo Sharma and Sanjay Sonar
was the friend of Vijay Sharma, as no oral
or documentary evidence and absence of
circumstantial evidence, the prosecution
side has not been successful in proving the
charges against them. Therefore, there
appears to be no basis to hold them guilty
in this case.”
The learned trial Court has been pleased to
further hold as follows:
”57. As far as the question of
Patna High Court D. REF. No.1 of 2024 dt.26-03-2026
46
involvement of all the accused persons in
this case is concerned, it is noteworthy in
this regard that the accused Lamboo
Sharma and Akhilesh Upadhyay while
being under judicial custody, made the
plan to flee from judicial custody to commit
grievous crimes, for which they thought it
proper to create a chaotic situation by
exploding the bomb. In this regard, the
accused Anshu Kumar and Rinku Yadav
were given the responsibility of making the
bomb and delivering it within the Court
premises as these accused persons have
admitted. For making the bomb, they
purchased the head of hand pump from the
scrap dealer Butan Chaudhary and the
explosive material used in the preparation
of bomb was procured from Shyam Vinay
Sharma through the jailed accused Pramod
Singh. The woman Nagina Devi was made
ready to deliver the bomb in the Court and
she was not told that the object which she
was to deliver in the Court was a bomb
because had she been told so, she must
not have agreed to it. Therefore, the
accused persons carefully executed their
plan. After the incident, accused Chand
Miyan and Nayeem Miyan played important
role in the execution of the second plan by
the accused Lamboo Sharma and Akhilesh
Upadhyay. Chand Miyan arranged for their
stay in a temple at Varanasi and also gave
twenty thousand rupees to Lamboo
Patna High Court D. REF. No.1 of 2024 dt.26-03-2026
47
Sharma. In consequence of which, Lamboo
Sharma also lived at his brother’s place at
Jalana, Maharashtra and from there, he
came to stay at Ludhiana. Akhilesh
Upadhyay without informing him, left him
at Ludhiana and returned to Ara, where he
was arrested. After the arrest of Lamboo
Sharma, as per his statement before
police, LED TV, home theatre and its carton
were recovered from the house at Ludhiana
for perusal as material exhibits.
58. Therefore, the prosecution side on
the basis of the evidence of P.Ws. and
documents and circumstantial evidence
has been fully successful in proving that
these eight accused were involved in
fleeing of the accused from judicial custody
by causing a bomb blast at Civil Court, Ara,
in which constable Amit Kumar died, there
were life attempts on other constables and
common people and disturbance was
caused in judicial, administrative and
government work…..”
So far as the appellants Lamboo Sharma and
Akhilesh Upadhyay are concerned, it has been held as
follows:
”60. As far as the question of conviction
against the accused Lamboo Sharma and
Akhilesh Upadhyay u/s 224 I.P.C. is
concerned, in this regard, P.W.33 Gauri
Patna High Court D. REF. No.1 of 2024 dt.26-03-2026
48Shankar Pathak, who is the informant of
this case and was in-charge of the hazat of
Sessions Court has clearly said in his
evidence that when inmate van carrying
the undertrial prisoners came from District
Jail, Ara, at first a female inmate from that
van was taken to hazat and thereafter,
three inmates followed her towards hazat.
Suddenly the bomb blast took place and
out of three prisoners, one prisoner came
to hazat and the two prisoners fled away
from the Court premises. 37 inmates were
brought to the Court on that day, from
which except four inmates, all other
inmates were taken back to District Jail, Ara
due to bomb blast. At the Jail, the number
of prisoners was verified and two inmates
were found missing. The statement of this
witness has been proved by the evidence
of P.W.37 Anil Kumar, Deputy
Superintendent, District Jail, Ara as well as
letters Exts.5 and 5/A sent by District Jail,
Ara in this regard. From the arrest of the
two inmates later, it is clear that at the
time of the incident, the two inmates were
successful in fleeing from judicial custody
as per their plan. In this regard, the
prosecution has been able to prove the
charges. The submission of the defence
side that the two accused had fled away to
save their lives from bomb blast does not
appear to be true, as had they fled away to
save their lives, they should have produced
themselves in the District Jail, Ara, but they
Patna High Court D. REF. No.1 of 2024 dt.26-03-2026
49did not do so because they intended to
commit another crime by fleeing from
judicial custody and by hurting the dignity
of justice and administration, they had to
show that whatever they wanted to do,
they could to. Therefore, there is no force
in the argument of the defence side and
that the prosecution has fully proved the
charges against the accused.”
The learned trial Court further discussed the
evidence adduced by prosecution regarding recovery of
materials and documents on the basis of statements of
accused persons and held as follows:
“56. On the basis of whatever the
accused have stated in their statements
recorded u/s 313 Cr.P.C., it is not clear that
they did not take part in the incident,
because after the arrest of the accused,
the I.O. recorded their confessional
statements. On the basis of those
statements, raids were conducted, in which
materials and documents were recovered
which is proved by the seizure lists. In this
regard, it is noteworthy that the
confessional statements of the accused are
not admissible in view of section 25 of the
Evidence Act, but on the basis of such
confession, the materials recovered u/s 27
of the Evidence Act is admissible to that
extent.
In this case, the accused have
Patna High Court D. REF. No.1 of 2024 dt.26-03-2026
50confirmed in their confessions of having
collected the explosive materials for the
bomb blast. This has been confirmed by
other witnesses apart from their own
statements such as that the accused Anshu
Kumar and Rinku Yadav had bought the
head of hand pump from the scrap dealer
Butan Chaudhary which Butan Chaudhary
has proved by his evidence as P.W.6 before
the Court.
Similarly, it has been proved that the
deceased Nagina Devi and Anshu Kumar
lived in Chaurasia Rest House from
21.01.2015 to 10:10 a.m. on 23.01.2015.
This has been proved by Anshu Kumar in
his confessional statement as well as the
owner of rest house Laxman Chaurasia who
in his evidence has said that the police
recovered register from his rest house and
he had signed on the seizure list and the
photo copy of voter identity card of Anshu
Kumar was also recovered from his rest
house. On page 36 of that register, the LTI
of Anshu Kumar and Rina Devi @ Nagina
Devi were also available. Thus, on the basis
of recovered materials, the involvement of
the accused in the incident is proved.
In this case, the defence has put a
lot of emphasis on the fact that none of the
witnesses had seen none of the accused
throwing the bomb, but there is not much
force in their argument because it was a
conspiracy in which all the persons had a
Patna High Court D. REF. No.1 of 2024 dt.26-03-2026
51defined role and accordingly, each accused
had played their part. Thus, the presence
of the accused at the time of occurrence is
not necessary, because they had already
well-planned about committing the crime.
Therefore, the accused have played active
role in the bomb blast case.”
The learned trial Court disbelieved the defence
plea adduced by appellant Naim Miya with following
observations:
”54. The accused Naim Miya has
produced two witnesses Wasi Ahmad and
Md. Shahabdullah, who in their
examination have said that Naim used to
work as garage mechanic in the garage of
Wasi Ahmad which is located in Kheta Sarai
of Jaunpur district, Uttar Pradesh. On
23.01.2015, he was at the shop. No person
of Bihar had come to meet Naim in Kheta
Sarai. Md. Shahabdullah, who was assistant
of Nayeem has also confirmed this. But
during cross-examination by the
prosecution, the two witnesses have
admitted that Naim Miyan used to work in
the garage and they cannot tell who had
come to meet him at that time. Thus, Naim
Miyan has helped in this crime. This cannot
be denied on the basis of the evidence of
the defence witnesses.”
The learned trial Court has been further pleased
to hold as follows:
Patna High Court D. REF. No.1 of 2024 dt.26-03-2026
52“61. As far as the question of conviction of
the accused Lamboo Sharma under
sections 216 and 303 of I.P.C. is concerned,
in this regard, from the evidence of P.Ws., it
is clear that after his conviction, while
being in judicial custody, as a result of the
action taken as per his instructions, the
constable Amit Kumar was murdered as
well as due to bomb blast caused in court
premises in the year 2009, advocates
Vinay Tiwari and Yogendra Narayan were
murdered, in which he was sentenced to
life imprisonment by the competent Court,
as a result of which he was undergoing the
sentence in jail and while being in jail, to
flee away from judicial custody, in criminal
conspiracy with other accomplices, he
again caused a bomb blast, as a result of
which constable Amit Kumar and woman
Nagina were murdered. Therefore, the
prosecution has been successful in proving
charges under these two sections against
the accused Lamboo Sharma. The defence
side has not been able to produce any such
fact which casts doubt relating to their
involvement in the offences.”Though the appellant Lamboo Sharma was
sentenced to death by the learned trial Court at the first
instance and Death Reference No.3 of 2019 was registered
for confirmation of the death sentence under section 366 of
Cr.P.C. submitted to this Court by the learned trial Court, but
vide order dated 23.03.2023, this Court remanded the
Patna High Court D. REF. No.1 of 2024 dt.26-03-2026
53matter to the learned trial Court on account of non-
compliance of the procedures laid down under sections
211(7), 236 and 298 of Cr.P.C. regarding previous
convictions with a further direction to the learned trial Court
to pass a fresh order regarding the sentence of the
appellant Lamboo Sharma.
In the light of order dated 23.03.2023 of this
Court, the learned trial Court followed the due procedure
and vide order dated 05.04.2023, after considering the
manner in which the crime had been committed, the
motive behind the commission of crime and that the crime
committed by the appellant Lamboo Sharma was of socially
abhorrent nature, the magnitude of the crime in which two
persons were killed and sixteen got injured and that one of
the deceased was a police constable deployed on duty in
the Court premises and the other was a helpless woman
and further taking into account the aggravating
circumstances as well as mitigating circumstances, came to
hold that the bomb blast was caused in the ‘Temple of
Justice’ challenging the country’s judicial system and
governance attempting to create an atmosphere of fear in
society and that the appellant was already convicted
previously in a murder case and sentenced to life
imprisonment and further considering the facts and
circumstances, came to the conclusion that the case falls in
the category of ‘rarest of rare’ case and that any
Patna High Court D. REF. No.1 of 2024 dt.26-03-2026
54
punishment other than the death penalty would be
inadequate and accordingly, awarded death sentence
under section 302 of I.P.C. and a fine of Rs.25,000/- (rupees
twenty five thousand), in default of payment of fine, to
undergo one year of additional imprisonment. All sentences
awarded to the appellant Lamboo Sharma were directed
run concurrently with a further direction that the period
already spent in prison shall be adjusted.
Submissions on behalf of Appellants:
17. Mr. Pratik Mishra, learned Amicus Curiae
appearing on behalf of the condemned prisoner Lamboo
Sharma with all the emphasis in his command contended
that the evidence adduced by the prosecution regarding
the involvement of Lamboo Sharma in the crime is not
acceptable. According to the prosecution, on the date of
occurrence, the prisoner van came from the jail for
production of thirty-seven prisoners and the prisoners
started to deboard. Three witnesses i.e. P.W.10, P.W.15 and
P.W.26 have stated about a woman trying to give a bag to
the appellants Lamboo Sharma and Akhilesh Upadhyay, but
their evidence on this score appears to be contradictory
and even the story of bag was not there in the first
information report. He further argued that there is no
evidence that any of these two appellants attempted to
take the bag from the hands of the lady. He further argued
that incriminating circumstances as deposed to by the
Patna High Court D. REF. No.1 of 2024 dt.26-03-2026
55aforesaid three witnesses were not put to the appellant
Lamboo Sharma in the accused statement for seeking an
explanation and therefore, such circumstances could not
have been used against the appellant by the learned trial
Court and it should be excluded from consideration.
Reliance has been placed in the case of Sujit Biswas
-Vrs.- State of Assam reported in (2013) 12 Supreme
Court Cases 406, Indrakunwar -Vrs.- The State of
Chhattisgarh reported in 2023 SCC OnLine SC 1364,
Anand Ramchandra Chougule -Vrs.- Sidarai Laxman
Chougala and others reported in (2019) 8 Supreme
Court Cases 50. He further argued that there are
insufficient materials on record after the occurrence to
connect the appellant Lamboo Sharma with the crime in
question.
According to Mr. Mishra, learned Amicus Curiae,
the mobile phone which was seized lying near the deceased
by the I.O. at the scene of crime, was found to be intact and
the same was registered in the name of one Savitri Devi
and thus the link between the deceased woman and the
mobile phone could not be established. From the C.D.R. of
the mobile phone, it could be ascertained that on the
previous day of occurrence as well as on the date of
occurrence, calls were made to three mobile phones which
stood recorded in the names of one Sanjay Kumar, Musa
Nut and Vijay Prasad, however, none of them have been
Patna High Court D. REF. No.1 of 2024 dt.26-03-2026
56
examined by the prosecution to show that any of them had
got any link with the appellant Lamboo Sharma or any
other appellants. Even Savitri Devi who was the registered
owner of the mobile phone stated to be lying near the
deceased was also not examined to establish her link with
the deceased. According to the prosecution, from the
statement of one Soni Devi, the daughter of the deceased,
it could be ascertained that the name of the deceased lying
at the spot was Nagina Devi, however, the said Soni Devi
was not examined during trial even though her statements
were recorded during investigation. According to Mr. Mishra,
for the non-examination of vital and independent
witnesses, adverse inference should be drawn against the
prosecution. Reliance has been placed in the case of
Takhaji Hiraji -Vrs.- Thakore Kubersing Chamansing
and others reported in (2001) 6 Supreme Court
Cases 145.
Mr. Mishra, learned Amicus Curiae further
argued that electronic evidence in the form of C.D.R. and
tower location data of the mobile numbers is not admissible
in evidence as it does not bear the signature of any official
and no statement of the person from whom the C.D.R. was
obtained, was recorded and necessary certificate as
required under section 65B(4) of the Evidence Act which is
a pre-requisite for admissibility of electronic evidence, has
been brought on record. He placed reliance in the case of
Patna High Court D. REF. No.1 of 2024 dt.26-03-2026
57
Anvar P.V. -Vrs.- P.K. Basheer and others reported in
(2014) 10 Supreme Court Cases 473, Arjun Panditrao
Khotkar -Vrs.- Kailash Kushanrao Gorantyal and
others reported in (2020) 7 Supreme Court Cases 1.
He argued that even if any of the three mobile phones was
used from the tower location of Model Jail, Ara, but there is
no evidence that it was the appellant Lamboo Sharma who
was using the same.
Mr. Mishra further argued that the learned trial
court has relied upon the confessional statement of the
appellant as well as that of the co-accused persons against
him which cannot come within the definition of ‘evidence’
as per section 3 of the Evidence Act as well as section 30 of
the Evidence Act. He placed reliance in the case of
Haricharan Kurmi -Vrs.- State of Bihar reported in
A.I.R. 1964 Supreme Court 1184 and Surinder Kumar
Khanna -Vrs.- Intelligence Officer reported in (2018)
8 Supreme Court Cases 271. He argued that the
statement of the accused after arrest, whether confessional
or not, cannot fall within the ambit of section 10 of the
Evidence Act for the purpose of proving the existence of the
conspiracy and for the purpose of showing that he was a
party to it. Even if from the house of appellant, some
mobile phones were seized which were allegedly used after
the occurrence as per the C.D.Rs., but since after the
occurrence, the conspiracy got ceased, therefore, the
Patna High Court D. REF. No.1 of 2024 dt.26-03-2026
58
C.D.Rs. becomes irrelevant. He placed reliance in the case
of State of Gujarat -Vrs.- Mohd. Atik reported in
(1998) 4 Supreme Court Cases 351.
It is further argued by Mr. Mishra, learned
Amicus Curiae that there is lack of evidence relating to
criminal conspiracy and mobiles seized during investigation
of the case no way connect the appellant Lamboo Sharma
with the crime in question. Even though the appellant
Lamboo Sharma escaped from the Court premises after the
bomb blast, but that by itself would not be sufficient to hold
him guilty of the offences charged as mere absconding,
does not by itself, prove the guilt. He placed reliance in the
case of Matru @ Girish Chandra -Vrs.- The State of
U.P. reported in (1971) 2 Supreme Court Cases 75
and Chetan -Vrs.- State of Karnataka reported in
(2025) 9 Supreme Court Cases 31. It is further argued
that since the case against the appellant Lamboo Sharma is
based on circumstantial evidence and the circumstances
established by the prosecution do not form a complete
chain, the conviction of the appellant cannot be sustained.
He placed reliance in the case of Sharad Birdhichand
Sarda -Vrs.- State of Maharashtra reported in (1984)
4 Supreme Court Cases 116. He further argued that the
seizure lists were not exhibited during the trial but only
signatures of the witnesses in the seizure lists were marked
as exhibits and therefore, the seizure lists cannot be said to
Patna High Court D. REF. No.1 of 2024 dt.26-03-2026
59
have been proved and as such its contents cannot be
utilized against the appellant and it should be discarded in
toto.
According to Mr. Mishra, learned Amicus Curiae,
the evidence on record against the appellant might have
raised strong suspicion against him, but suspicion,
howsoever strong, cannot take the place of proof and
therefore, it is a fit case where benefit of doubt should be
extended in favour of appellant Lamboo Sharma.
18. Mr. Ajay Kumar Thakur, learned counsel for the
appellant Lamboo Sharma appearing in Criminal Appeal
(DB) No.1210 of 2019 in his own inimitable elegant style
contended that for the purpose of connecting the appellant
with the crime, the prosecution has tried to rely mainly on
two circumstances i.e. firstly, the appellant was in
possession of three mobile phones bearing
nos.7631105971, 7764939558 and 7654894198 and with
the help of the such phones, he allegedly talked with
various other persons including the deceased woman. From
the exhibits produced by the prosecution, mobile
no.7631105971 was in the name of one Sanjay Kumar,
mobile no.7764939558 was in the name of one Musa Nut
and mobile no.7654894198 was in the name of one Vijay
Prasad. The Customer Acquisition Form (CAF) of the mobile
number which was in the name of Sanjay Kumar indicated
that on the date of occurrence from the morning, it was not
Patna High Court D. REF. No.1 of 2024 dt.26-03-2026
60
only found moving outside the jurisdiction of tower location
of Ara jail road area, but in other tower location and even at
the time of occurrence, its tower location was not at Civil
Court, Ara.
Mr. Thakur, learned counsel further argued that
the tower location of the other two mobile numbers i.e.
7764939558 and 7654894198 which were registered in the
names of Musa Nut and Vijay Prasad respectively on the
date of occurrence i.e. 23.01.2025 were not produced by
the prosecution and it has been purposefully withheld. The
three mobile subscribers were not examined by the
prosecution during trial nor they have been arrayed as
accused in the case. Moreover, the C.D.Rs. produced by the
prosecution would show that the aforesaid three mobiles
were at three different places at the same day and time.
The prosecution has not examined any person from the
service providers of the aforesaid three mobile numbers to
explain as to how if the three mobiles were in possession of
one person who was inside the jail, then at the same time
on the same day, how its tower locations could be found at
three different places and different mohalla. He argued that
since the tower location of none of the three mobiles on the
date and time of occurrence, was found within the tower
location of Ara Civil Court premises, the prosecution case
that those three mobiles were in possession of appellant
Lamboo Sharma and the deceased was contacting the
Patna High Court D. REF. No.1 of 2024 dt.26-03-2026
61
appellant in the aforesaid three mobile numbers is very
difficult to be accepted.
According to Mr. Thakur, learned counsel, when
the appellant was inside jail at the relevant point of time,
no evidence is forthcoming as to how those mobile phones
came into his possession and who gave those mobile
phones to him and on what date and the prosecution case
is totally silent on this vital aspect. He argued that since
none of the three mobile phones were recovered from the
possession of Lamboo Sharma, it is very difficult to accept
that the deceased woman was in contact with the appellant
from her phone in the three mobile phones whose
possession were allegedly with the appellant.
Mr. Thakur, learned counsel further argued that
the prosecution case that the deceased woman was trying
to meet appellant Lamboo Sharma in order to give
something to him when he got down from the prisoner van
is conspicuously silent in the first information report which
was lodged by an eye witness (P.W.33) to the occurrence.
Most of the witnesses who had seen the occurrence of
bomb explosion have also not stated about the deceased
woman trying to meet the appellant in order to give
something to him. None of the witnesses examined on
behalf of the prosecution has stated to have ever seen the
deceased woman in the company of the appellant or talking
Patna High Court D. REF. No.1 of 2024 dt.26-03-2026
62
with him. It is argued that when the prosecution has not
produced any evidence to establish any link between the
deceased woman with the appellant Lamboo Sharma save
and except the C.D.Rs. which are exhibited by the
prosecution but not admissible, the complicity of the
appellant cannot be said to have been established by the
prosecution beyond all reasonable doubt.
Mr. Thakur, learned counsel further argued that
two of the appellants who were stated to have escaped
from the Civil Court premises on the date of occurrence
were inside jail and there is no evidence that the other
appellants or the deceased woman were coming to meet
them during their confinement. There is also no evidence
that the appellant made any planning either for
manufacturing the bomb or asking anyone to send any
woman much less the deceased woman to come within Ara
Civil Court premises with the bomb and there is also no
evidence as to how the bomb was allegedly procured or
manufactured and therefore, the appellant should be given
benefit of doubt.
19. Mr. Ganesh Prasad Singh, learned counsel
appellant Shyam Vinay Sharma adopted the arguments
advanced by the learned counsel for other appellants in the
connected appeals and contended that the learned trial
Court held the appellant guilty mainly on the ground that
Patna High Court D. REF. No.1 of 2024 dt.26-03-2026
63
the explosive materials used in the bomb was procured
from the appellant, but except the confessional statement
of the appellant so also confessional statement of appellant
Rinku Yadav before the I.O. (P.W.38), there is no other
substantive evidence in that respect. He argued that
though the I.O. raided the house of the appellant on the
basis of the confessional statement of appellant Anshu
Kumar and recovered Samsung Grand Prime mobile with
mobile no.9471416384 and SIM card of 8102932486 and
another Samsung mobile set were recovered from him
including a bullet holder, a rifle cleaner rod and a gun
cleaner rod, but in absence of any clinching evidence on
record, the conviction of the appellant basing on
confessional statements before police is not sustainable in
the eyes of law and such recoveries alone would not justify
the conviction of the appellant and therefore, the appellant
should be given benefit of doubt.
20. Mr. Ravindra Kumar, learned Amicus Curiae
appearing for the appellant Rinku Yadav argued that even
though it is the prosecution case that the appellant used
mobile phone number 8540022698 in contacting appellant
Lamboo Sharma, but such phone stood recorded in the
name of one Vishal Kumar, who is neither an accused nor a
witness in the case. Calls were given from the mobile phone
of Vishal Kumar to three mobile numbers, but none of those
three mobile phones stood recorded in the name of Lamboo
Patna High Court D. REF. No.1 of 2024 dt.26-03-2026
64
Sharma. It is argued that no question has been put to the
appellant Rinku Yadav in his accused statement on this
aspect and therefore, it cannot be utilized against the
appellant. According to him, since in absence of
examination of the real owner of mobile phone, it could not
be proved that he had handed over his mobile phone to the
appellant Rinku Yadav for his use, it is difficult to accept
that there was any contact between the appellant Rinku
Yadav and appellant Lamboo Sharma and therefore, benefit
of doubt should be extended in his favour.
21. Mr. Binay Kumar, learned counsel appearing for
the appellant Md. Naim Miya contended that even though
no specific defence plea has been taken by the appellant in
his accused statement, however he examined two defence
witnesses to prove that he was a mechanic working in the
garage of D.W.1 Wasi Ahmad and he had not gone
anywhere on the date of occurrence and even though such
a plea has been disbelieved by the learned trial Court, but
in absence of any clinching evidence on record, merely
basing on the confessional statements of the two
appellants Lamboo Sharma and Akhilesh Upadhaya before
police after arrest, it was erroneously held that the
appellant and his brother Naim Miya arranged for the stay
and other facilities of those two appellants after their
escape from judicial custody and that the charges are
Patna High Court D. REF. No.1 of 2024 dt.26-03-2026
65
proved against him.
22. Mr. Ravindra Kumar, learned counsel appearing
for the appellant Chand Miyan contended that the
identification of the lady who died in the bomb blast at the
Civil Court premises during the occurrence as Nagina Devi
is doubtful. He further argued that neither there is direct or
indirect evidence of conspiracy by the appellant with the
other co-accused persons and therefore, it cannot be said
that the appellant had got any role to play in the escape of
two of the appellants from Ara Civil Court premises on the
date of occurrence. It is argued that though the learned
trial Court has observed that the appellant and his brother
Naim Miya arranged for the stay and other facilities of the
appellants Lamboo Sharma and Akhilesh Upadhaya after
their escape from judicial custody, which seems to be
based on confessional statements of those two appellants
before police after arrest which is not admissible and
therefore, it is a fit case where benefit of doubt should be
extended in favour of the appellant.
23. Mr. Ravindra Kumar, learned counsel appearing
for the appellant Anshu Kumar argued that the prosecution
has produced evidence that the appellant purchased head
of handpump from P.W.6, but there is no evidence as to how
such purchase, even if accepted for the sake or argument,
is relevant for the prosecution case. According to him, the
Patna High Court D. REF. No.1 of 2024 dt.26-03-2026
66
confessional statement of appellant Akhilesh Upadhyay
before police has been utilized by the learned trial Court to
come to the conclusion that the appellant Anshu Kumar
used to meet appellant Lamboo Sharma in jail and that he
had given him the SIM Card which was being used by the
deceased woman at the time of occurrence. When the jail
visit register has not been verified by the I.O. and the
confessional statement of an accused before police is not
admissible, according to the learned counsel, the learned
trial Court erred in placing reliance on such inadmissible
evidence. According to him, even if the prosecution case
that on the basis of the confessional statement of the
appellant, raid was conducted at the house of one Shyam
Vinay Sharma and some articles were seized, but those
were in no way connected with the crime in question and
moreover, the two witnesses to the seizure i.e. P.W.35 and
P.W.36 have not supported the prosecution case relating to
such seizure. The learned counsel argued that it is the
prosecution case that the appellant stayed with the
deceased woman at Chaurasia Guest House but there is no
clinching evidence in that respect except some entry made
in the register of the Guest House and seizure of Voter I.D.
Card of the appellant. He argued that in the register of
Chaurasia Guest House, one lady namely Reena Devi was
shown to be staying with the appellant from 21.01.2015 till
10:10 a.m. on 23.01.2015, however, it is not established
Patna High Court D. REF. No.1 of 2024 dt.26-03-2026
67
that the lady who died in the Civil Court premises on
account of bomb blast was the same lady who was staying
with the appellant at Chaurasia Guest House. He
emphatically contended that since the circumstantial
evidence appearing on record does not indicate that the
appellant hatched criminal conspiracy with the co-accused
persons to carry out the bomb blast and that it was done in
a pre-planned way, benefit of doubt should be extended in
favour of the appellant.
24. Mr. Ravindra Kumar, learned counsel appearing
for the appellant Akhilesh Upadhyay argued that there is no
evidence that the appellant was in touch with the deceased
woman even through mobile phone and no mobile phone
has been seized from the appellant. According to him, the
escape of the appellant after the bomb blast might be
spontaneous reaction, but it cannot establish the
ingredients of the offence under section 224 of I.P.C. He
further argued that the confessional statement of the
appellant recorded by the police is inadmissible and barred
under sections 25 and 26 of the Evidence Act. According to
the learned counsel, there is absence of any material to
show that there was any conspiracy between the appellant
Akhilesh Upadhyay with appellant Lamboo Sharma much
less any kind of conspiracy with other appellants even
though both of them were staying in one jail, came
together in prisoner’s van and also escaped together and
Patna High Court D. REF. No.1 of 2024 dt.26-03-2026
68
therefore, benefit of doubt should be extended in favour of
the appellant.
Submissions on behalf of State:
25. Ms. Shashi Bala Verma, learned Additional
Public Prosecutor being assisted by Mr. Ajay Mishra, learned
Additional Public Prosecutor supported the impugned
judgment and argued that the mobile phone was found
near the unknown dead body of a lady, who was later
identified as Nagina Devi and from such mobile phone, it
could be ascertained as to how the calls were made to
three mobile numbers on the previous day of occurrence as
well as on the date of occurrence. The electronic evidence
in the form of C.D.R. reveals that the deceased woman had
called several times from her mobile no.8083172236 on
mobile nos.8292500417 and 8271770107 from 09.12.2014
to 23.01.2025, either the calls were outgoing calls or
incoming calls which shows there was contact between the
deceased woman and appellant Anshu Kumar. She
emphatically contended that on perusal of the entire
C.D.R., it appears that the convict appellants were in touch
with each other through their mobile phones before the
occurrence and after the occurrence and therefore, the
criminal conspiracy is proved.
The learned Additional Public Prosecutor Ms.
Verma emphatically contended that the three mobile phone
Patna High Court D. REF. No.1 of 2024 dt.26-03-2026
69
numbers to whom the deceased was making contact was
operating within the tower location of jail road area, Ara
which is an incriminating material against the appellant
Lamboo Sharma who was lodged in Ara jail at the relevant
point of time.
The learned counsel argued that it is very
difficult to find out direct evidence in a case of criminal
conspiracy but the circumstantial evidence on record can
be utilized to prove such aspect. She argued that the
deceased woman was trying to come closer to hand over
something in a bag to the appellant Lamboo Sharma and
Akhilesh Upadhyay, however, she could not succeed on
account of the intervention of the deceased constable who
prevented her and due to pushes, she fell down and there
was bomb blast and therefore, the lady had come prepared
with bomb in a bag to hand it over to any of the two
appellants and the learned trial Court has rightly utilized
this vital circumstance against the appellants. She argued
that when other prisoners did not escape from the van, but
these two appellants got the chance to escape after the
bomb blast which shows that at their instance, the bomb
blast operation was carried out. The learned counsel argued
that number of witnesses present at the scene of
occurrence have been examined during trial and they have
deposed as to how the bomb blast took place and the two
appellants escaped and non-examination of few witnesses
Patna High Court D. REF. No.1 of 2024 dt.26-03-2026
70
and some discrepancies between the evidence of the
witnesses present at the spot cannot be a ground to
disbelieve the prosecution case in its entirety and in view of
the settled position of law that it is the quality of evidence
and not the quantity which is relevant, no interference is
called for in the impugned judgment. She further argued
that the appellant Lamboo Sharma was a history-sheeter
and he has been convicted in two cases under section 302
I.P.C. and one of such case was also bomb blast in which
the deceased were the advocates and the jail conduct of
the appellant is also not satisfactory and there is no chance
of reformation and therefore, the learned trial Court is quite
justified in imposing death sentence to him.
Post-mortem reports findings of two deceased and
injury reports of seventeen injured persons:
26. Adverting to the contentions raised by the
learned counsel for the respective parties, we find that the
date, time and place of occurrence is not disputed in this
case. The occurrence took place on 23.01.2015 at around
11:30 a.m. in the premises of Civil Court, Ara and on
account of bomb blast, several persons got injured, out of
which one lady who was later identified to be Nagina Devi
died at the spot and C/696 Amit Kumar, who received
serious injuries and shifted to the hospital also
subsequently died.
P.W.38, the I.O. who was posted as Police
Patna High Court D. REF. No.1 of 2024 dt.26-03-2026
71
Inspector -cum- S.H.O., Ara Town Police Station, District-
Bhojpur took steps for sending the female body for post-
mortem examination to Sadar Hospital, Ara after the
inquest was held.
P.W.28 Dr. Shashi Shekhar Shashi, the Medical
Officer attached to Sadar Hospital, Ara conducted post-
mortem examination over the dead body of C/696 Amit
Kumar on 23.01.2015 at 02:45 p.m. and noticed injuries on
different parts of the body and opined the cause of death to
be cardio pulmonary arrest after Hemopneumothorax at left
side of the lung due to blast injury and further opined that
the time since death was within six hours of the post-
mortem examination. The post-mortem report has been
marked as Ext.3.
The very same doctor (P.W.28) also conducted
post-mortem examination over the dead body of the
unknown lady on 24.01.2015 at 08:15 a.m. and noticed
serious injuries on different parts of the body and opined
the cause of death was on account of blast injuries on
multiple organs and due to cardio-respiratory failure and
further opined the time since death was within twenty-four
hours of the post-mortem examination. The post-mortem
report has been marked as Ext.3/1.
P.W.27 Dr. Kumar Jitendra, the Medical Officer in
Sadar Hospital, Ara examined the injured persons (i)
Patna High Court D. REF. No.1 of 2024 dt.26-03-2026
72
Havildar Shivjee Prasad (P.W.31); (ii) Dwarka Pathak
(P.W.11); (iii) Mukesh Rai (P.W.21); (iv) Sunil Kumar (v)
Bhikhari Thakur (P.W.25); (vi) Prem Singh (P.W.18); (vii)
Shukhu Choudhary (P.W.24); (viii) Thegu Chaudhary; (ix)
Shashikant Ram (P.W.19); (x) Pankaj Kumar; (xi) Lalmani
Devi; (xii) Gorakh Singh; (xiii) Samar Sushma; (xiv)
Shambhu Ram (P.W.20); (xv) Rakesh Rai (P.W.22); (xvi)
Shatrughan Sah; (xvii) Ram Dayal Paswan; (xviii)Poonam
Devi and noticed lacerated wounds on different parts of
their bodies.
The doctor prepared the injury reports of all the
above injured persons and those have been marked serially
as Exts.2 to 2/17. He opined that the injuries sustained by
the injured persons could be possible at about 11:25 a.m.
and the injuries were caused on account of bomb blast. In
the cross-examination, he has stated that he gave
treatment to the injured persons on the letter issued by the
police but not written the police case number in the
treatment papers and he submitted the injury reports to the
Deputy Superintendent from where the police received it.
He denied the suggestion given by the defence of preparing
false reports at the behest of the police.
The learned counsel for the appellants and the
learned Amicus Curiae have not challenged the evidence of
the doctors and their findings in the post-mortem reports
vide Exts.3 and 3/1 so also the injury reports vide Exts.2 to
Patna High Court D. REF. No.1 of 2024 dt.26-03-2026
73
2/17.
Thus, the prosecution has successfully
established that during course of occurrence, apart from
the two deceased persons, eighteen persons received
bomb blast injuries and they were treated at Sadar
Hospital, Ara.
Appreciation of circumstantial evidence:
27. Admittedly, there is no direct evidence that the
deceased woman caused the bomb blast in connivance
with the accused persons and the entire case of the
prosecution depends upon circumstantial evidence.
In the case of Sharad Birdhichand Sarda
(supra), a Bench of three Judges of the Hon’ble Supreme
Court, laid down certain cardinal principles for conviction on
the basis of circumstantial evidence and held that the
following conditions must be fulfilled before a case against
an accused can be said to be fully established:
(i) the circumstances from which the
conclusion of guilt is to be drawn should be
fully established;
(ii) the facts so established should be
consistent only with the hypothesis of the
guilt of the accused, that is to say, they
should not be explainable on any other
hypothesis except that the accused is
guilty;
(iii) the circumstances should be of a
conclusive nature and tendency;
(iv) they should exclude every possible
Patna High Court D. REF. No.1 of 2024 dt.26-03-2026
74hypothesis except the one to be proved;
and
(v) there must be a chain of evidence so
complete as not to leave any reasonable
ground for the conclusion consistent with
the innocence of the accused and must
show that in all human probability, the act
must have been done by the accused.
These five golden principles, according to the
Hon’ble Supreme Court, constitute the panchsheel of the
proof of a case based on circumstantial evidence.
In the case of Kishore Chand -Vrs.- State of
Himachal Pradesh reported in (1991) 1 Supreme
Court Cases 286, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held as
follows:
“4. The question, therefore, is whether the
prosecution proved guilt of the appellant
beyond all reasonable doubt. In a case of
circumstantial evidence, all the
circumstances from which the conclusion
of the guilt is to be drawn should be fully
and cogently established. All the facts so
established should be consistent only with
the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused.
The proved circumstances should be of a
conclusive nature and definite tendency,
unerringly pointing towards the guilt of the
accused. They should be such as to
exclude every hypothesis but the one
proposed to be proved. The circumstances
must be satisfactorily established and the
proved circumstances must bring home the
Patna High Court D. REF. No.1 of 2024 dt.26-03-2026
75offences to the accused beyond all
reasonable doubt. It is not necessary that
each circumstance by itself be conclusive
but cumulatively must form unbroken
chain of events leading to the proof of the
guilt of the accused. If those circumstances
or some of them can be explained by any
of the reasonable hypothesis then the
accused must have the benefit of that
hypothesis.”
In the case of Gambhir -Vrs.- State of
Maharashtra reported in (1982) 2 Supreme Court
Cases 351, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held as follows:
“9. It has already been pointed out that
there is no direct evidence of eye witness
in this case and the case is based only on
circumstantial evidence. The law regarding
circumstantial evidence is well-settled.
When a case rests upon the circumstantial
evidence, such evidence must satisfy three
tests: (1) the circumstances from which an
inference of guilt is sought to be drawn,
must be cogently and firmly established;
(2) those circumstances should be of a
definite tendency unerringly pointing
towards guilt of the accused; (3) the
circumstances, taken cumulatively, should
form a chain so complete that there is no
escape from the conclusion that within all
human probability the crime was
committed by the accused and none else.
The circumstantial evidence in order to
sustain conviction must be complete and
Patna High Court D. REF. No.1 of 2024 dt.26-03-2026
76
incapable of explanation of any other
hypothesis than that of the guilt of the
accused. The circumstantial evidence
should not only be consistent with the guilt
of the accused but should be inconsistent
with his innocence.”
In a case based on circumstantial evidence,
there is always a danger that conjecture or suspicion may
take the place of legal proof. The Court has to be watchful
and ensure that suspicion howsoever strong should not be
allowed to take the place of proof. A moral opinion,
howsoever strong or genuine and suspicion, howsoever
grave, cannot substitute a legal proof. A very careful,
cautious and meticulous appreciation of evidence is
necessary when the case is based on circumstantial
evidence. The prosecution must elevate its case from the
realm of ‘may be true’ to the plane of `must be true’.
The core principles which need to be adhered to
by the Court, while examining and appreciating
circumstantial evidence, have been strenuously discussed
by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Devi Lal
-Vrs.- State of Rajasthan reported in (2019) 19
Supreme Court Cases 447 in the following words:
“17…It has been propounded that while
scrutinising the circumstantial evidence, a
Court has to evaluate it to ensure the chain
of events is established clearly and
completely to rule out any reasonable
likelihood of innocence of the accused. The
Patna High Court D. REF. No.1 of 2024 dt.26-03-2026
77underlying principle is whether the chain is
complete or not, indeed it would depend
on the facts of each case emanating from
the evidence and there cannot be a
straitjacket formula which can be laid down
for the purpose. But the circumstances
adduced when considered collectively, it
must lead only to the conclusion that there
cannot be a person other than the accused
who alone is the perpetrator of the crime
alleged and the circumstances must
establish the conclusive nature consistent
only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the
accused.”
Keeping in view the ratio laid down in the
aforesaid decisions of Supreme Court, the evidence on
record needs to be analysed to see how far the prosecution
has proved the circumstances as enumerated by the
learned trial Court and whether the circumstances taken
together form a complete chain to come to the irresistible
conclusion that the appellants are the perpetrators of the
crime.
Whether evidence relating to the deceased woman
trying to give a bag to the appellants is acceptable?:
28. It is the prosecution case that on 23.01.2015,
when the prisoner van came from District Jail, Ara carrying
thirty-seven prisoners including the appellants Lamboo
Sharma and Akhilesh Upadhyay to Ara Court premises for
their production in different Courts and the prisoners
Patna High Court D. REF. No.1 of 2024 dt.26-03-2026
78
started deboarding, a woman tried to proceed towards the
two appellants and she was obstructed and then the bomb
blast incident took place.
P.W.33, the informant has stated in his evidence
that first of all a female constable came out with a female
prisoner when the prisoner van was parked at the northern
gate of the hazat and then two to three prisoners followed
her and a prisoner entered the hazat and in the meantime,
the bomb exploded.
In the first information report, which was lodged
by an eye witness (P.W.33), there is no mention that the
deceased woman either was carrying any bag with her or
she tried to proceed to give anything to anyone, even
though it is mentioned therein that when three male
prisoners got down from the van and proceeded towards
hazat, at that time a lady who was standing on the
southern side of the road exploded a bomb. Of course, the
F.I.R. is not the encyclopaedia or be all and end all of the
prosecution case. It is not a verbatim summary of the
prosecution case. Whether non-mentioning of some
material facts would be fatal or not depend on the facts and
circumstances of each case.
Three witnesses who have stated about the
conduct of the deceased woman in trying to hand over
something which she was carrying to both the appellants
are P.W.10 Dinesh Kumar Singh, P.W.15 Tarkeshwar Ojha
Patna High Court D. REF. No.1 of 2024 dt.26-03-2026
79
and P.W.26 Dhananjay Kumar Srivastav.
P.W.10 has stated that on 23.01.2015 at about
11:25 a.m., while he was in Ara Court hazat, the prisoner
van entered in Court and prisoners started to get down
from the van. At first, a female prisoner alighted and moved
and thereafter, out of the male prisoners, Lamboo Sharma
and Upadhyay (appellants) got down. He further stated that
a woman tried to give a bag which she was carrying to both
the appellants, but the constable removed her and the
bomb which was in the bag exploded. He further stated
that both the appellants managed to escape when the
smoke spread and that some people got injured and were
taken to the hospital where one died and the woman
carrying the bag also died at the spot.
In the cross-examination, P.W.10 has stated that
at the time of incident, he was at the gate of hazat which
was surrounded and that they were getting down the
prisoners. He further stated that he was outside at the time
of blast and hearing the sound, he ran a step away towards
west. He further stated that the darkness lasted for ten
minutes and in the darkness, it was not visible as to who
ran and who did not. He further stated that the deceased
constable Amit Kumar was talking and pushing the
deceased woman and had forcefully restrained her and the
woman fell down on being pushed. He further stated that
the van was parked adjacent to the gate and only one
Patna High Court D. REF. No.1 of 2024 dt.26-03-2026
80
prisoner could come out of the van and the prisoners
started getting down after five minutes of the vehicle got
parked.
Mr. Pratik Mishra, learned Amicus Curiae
appearing on behalf of the condemned prisoner Lamboo
Sharma, argued that so far the role of deceased woman is
concerned, the evidence adduced by P.W.10, P.W.15 and
P.W.26 is not consistent. Though P.W.10 has stated that a
woman tried to give the bag that she was carrying to both
the appellants Lamboo Sharma and Upadhyay, P.W.15 has
stated that when the two appellants Lamboo Sharma,
Akhilesh Upadhyay and another got off from prisoners’ van,
a woman who was sitting there, started giving a bag to
Lamboo Sharma, but a constable named Amit (deceased) of
Armed Force stopped the woman to do so and the bomb
exploded at that time. P.W.26 on the other hand has stated
that when the two appellants Lamboo Sharma, Akhilesh
Upadhyay and another got down from prisoners’ van, a
woman was trying to enter the police cardon but the
constable Amit (deceased) pushed her and at the same
time, the bomb exploded. He further stated that the said
woman wanted to give it to appellant Lamboo Sharma.
According to Mr. Mishra, the discrepancies go to the root of
the matter and fails to establish any kind of link between
the appellants Lamboo Sharma and Akhilesh Upadhyay on
the one hand and the deceased woman on the other.
Patna High Court D. REF. No.1 of 2024 dt.26-03-2026
81
Ms. Shashi Bala Verma, learned counsel for the
State on the other hand contended that while appreciating
the evidence, the Court must not attach undue importance
to minor discrepancies. The discrepancies which do not
shake the basic version of the prosecution case are to be
ignored. The discrepancies which are due to normal errors
of perception or observation should not be given any
importance. The errors due to lapse of memory may be
given due allowance.
In the case of Bharwada Bhoginbhai
Hirjibhai -Vrs.- State of Gujarat reported in (1983)
3 Supreme Court Cases 217, it is held as follows:
“5…..We do not consider it appropriate or
permissible to enter upon a reappraisal or
reappreciation of the evidence in the
context of the minor discrepancies
painstakingly highlighted by the learned
Counsel for the Appellant. Overmuch
importance cannot be attached to minor
discrepancies. The reasons are obvious:
(i) By and large a witness cannot be
expected to possess a photographic
memory and to recall the details of an
incident. It is not as if a video tape is
replayed on the mental screen.
(ii) Ordinarily it so happens that a witness
is overtaken by events. The witness could
not have anticipated the occurrence which
so often has an element of surprise. The
Patna High Court D. REF. No.1 of 2024 dt.26-03-2026
82mental faculties therefore cannot be
expected to be attuned to absorb the
details.
(iii) The powers of observation differ from
person to person. What one may notice,
another may not. An object or movement
might emboss its image on one person’s
mind, whereas it might go unnoticed on
the part of another.
(iv) By and large people cannot accurately
recall a conversation and reproduce the
very words used by them or heard by
them. They can only recall the main
purport of the conversation. It is unrealistic
to expect a witness to be a human tape-
recorder.
(v) In regard to exact time of an incident,
or the time duration of an occurrence,
usually, people make their estimates by
guess work on the spur of the moment at
the time of interrogation. And one cannot
expect people to make very precise or
reliable estimates in such matters. Again, it
depends on the time-sense of individuals
which varies from person to person.
(vi) Ordinarily a witness cannot be
expected to recall accurately the sequence
of events which takes place in rapid
succession or in a short time span. A
witness is liable to get confused, or mixed
up when interrogated later on.
(vii) A witness, though wholly truthful, is
liable to be overawed by the court
atmosphere and the piercing cross-
Patna High Court D. REF. No.1 of 2024 dt.26-03-2026
83
examination made by the counsel and out
of nervousness mix up facts, get confused
regarding sequence of events, or fill up
details from imagination on the spur of the
moment. The sub-conscious mind of the
witness sometimes so operates on account
of the fear of looking foolish or being
disbelieved though the witness is giving a
truthful and honest account of the
occurrence witnessed by him-Perhaps it is
a sort of a psychological defence
mechanism activated on the spur of the
moment.”
We find that even though other witnesses
including the injured persons like P.W.11, P.W.18, P.W.19,
P.W.20, P.W.21, P.W.22, P.W.24, P.W.25 and P.W.31 were
examined to prove the occurrence, but except P.W.11,
P.W.24 and P.W.31, the other injured witnesses have not
supported the prosecution case and they were declared
hostile by the prosecution. There is nothing in the evidence
of these three injured witnesses P.W.11, P.W.24 and P.W.31
that any lady was trying to enter the police cardon and
came forward to give any bag to the appellants Lamboo
Sharma and Akhilesh Upadhyay and that she was pushed
by the constable Amit (deceased) and then the bomb got
exploded. There is no evidence that any of these two
appellants gave any kind of sign, signal, gesture to the lady
or they tried to move towards the lady to receive the said
bag. When the two appellants and another got down from
Patna High Court D. REF. No.1 of 2024 dt.26-03-2026
84
prisoner van and in the police cordon, all of them were
proceeding ahead towards Court hazat and there is no
evidence of the two appellants passing any sign, signal,
gesture or talking to the lady nor they even tried to move
towards the lady to receive the said bag and the woman
was stopped while trying to enter the police cordon, how
then the witnesses P.W.10, P.W.15 and P.W.26 came to know
that the deceased woman was trying to give the bag to the
appellants Lamboo Sharma and Akhilesh Upadhyay. The
possibility of their speculation on this aspect cannot be
ruled out and law is well settled that speculation,
conjecture, surmises or suspicion by a witness holds no
evidentiary value in a Court of law.
The I.O. (P.W.38) stated to have noticed a
Micromax mobile set, white colour mobile ear phone, a torn
note of five rupees, a torn note of fifty rupees, two broken
pieces of anklet like silver, a rold gold yellow colour chain in
the neck of the deceased and a broken piece of earring and
blood of the deceased woman spilled at the place of
occurrence, which were seized by him as per seizure list,
but his evidence is silent that he noticed any fragmented,
charred or remnants of any bag and even though scientific
officials also visited the spot immediately, they have not
found any such thing. The story of bag is not there even in
the F.I.R. which creates doubt that the bag containing bomb
was carried by the deceased woman to the spot.
Patna High Court D. REF. No.1 of 2024 dt.26-03-2026
85
Thus, we are of the view that there is no cogent
evidence on record that on the date of occurrence, in the
Ara Court complex, the deceased woman was trying to give
any bag containing bomb to the appellants Lamboo Sharma
and Akhilesh Upadhyay.
Whether prosecution succeeded in establishing any
previous meeting between the deceased woman and
appellants?:
29. In the first information report lodged by P.W.33,
it is stated that the unknown woman used to come to the
Court previously when the appellants Lamboo Sharma and
Akhilesh Upadhyay were coming to the Court for their Court
appearances and was meeting them. However, while
deposing in Court, the evidence of P.W.33 is completely
silent in that respect. Therefore, the F.I.R. story that the
deceased unknown woman was previously coming to the
Court and meeting the two appellants cannot be accepted.
Law is well settled as held in the case of Utpal
Das and others -Vrs.- State of West Bengal reported
in (2010) 6 Supreme Court Cases 493 that the first
information report does not constitute substantive
evidence. It can, however, only be used as a previous
statement for the purpose of either corroborating its maker
or for contradicting him and in such a case, the previous
statement cannot be used unless the attention of the
witness has first been drawn to those parts by which it is
proposed to contradict the witness.
Patna High Court D. REF. No.1 of 2024 dt.26-03-2026
86
In the case in hand, the prosecution has not
drawn the attention of P.W.33 to the parts of F.I.R. where he
had mentioned about the deceased woman coming to the
Court previously on the Court appearance days of the two
appellants and meeting them. Therefore, the recital made
in the F.I.R. cannot be used as substantive evidence.
Moreover, none of the witnesses examined on behalf of the
prosecution has stated that any such woman was coming to
the Court previously and meeting both the appellants on
the dates of their production.
Similarly, there is no evidence that the
deceased woman was coming to the jail where both the
appellants were lodged to meet them. The I.O. (P.W.38) has
stated that he has not mentioned in the case diary that he
inspected jail register.
Thus, the prosecution has not succeeded by
adducing cogent evidence in establishing any previous
meeting between the deceased woman and appellants
either in jail or in Court complex.
Vital incriminating circumstance not put in accused
statement : Effect:
30. The circumstance as deposed to by P.W.10,
P.W.15 and P.W.26 that the deceased woman was trying to
handover the bag to the appellants Lamboo Sharma or
Akhilesh Upadhyay has not been put to any of them in their
accused statements recorded under section 313 of Cr.P.C.
Patna High Court D. REF. No.1 of 2024 dt.26-03-2026
87
In the case of Sujit Biswas (supra), it has been
held that in a criminal trial, the purpose of examining the
accused under section 313 of Cr.P.C., is to meet the
requirement of principles of natural justice. The accused
may be asked to furnish some explanation as regards the
incriminating circumstances associated with him and the
Court must take note of such explanation. It is further held
that the circumstances which were not put to the accused
in his examination under section 313 of Cr.P.C., cannot be
used against him and it must be excluded from
consideration.
In the case of Indrakunwar (supra), it has
been held that the object of section 313 of Cr.P.C. is to
enable the accused to explain any circumstances appearing
in the evidence against him. The intent is to establish a
dialogue between the Court and the accused and this
process benefits the accused and aids the Court in arriving
at the final verdict, which is not a matter of procedural
formality but based on cardinal principle of natural justice.
It is further held that the circumstances that are not put to
the accused while recording the statement under the
section 313 of Cr.P.C. are to be excluded from consideration
and the Court is obligated to put, in the form the questions,
all incriminating circumstances to the accused so as to give
him an opportunity to articulate his defence. Non-
compliance with the section may cause prejudice to the
Patna High Court D. REF. No.1 of 2024 dt.26-03-2026
88
accused and may impede the process of arriving at a fair
decision.
In the case of Ganesh Gogoi -Vrs.- State of
Assam reported in (2009) 7 Supreme Court Cases
404, relying upon the earlier decision in the case of
Basavaraj R. Patil and Ors. -Vrs.- State of Karnataka
reported in (2000) 8 Supreme Court Cases 740, it was
held that the provisions of section 313 of Cr.P.C. are not
meant to nail the accused to his disadvantage but are
meant for his benefit. The provisions are based on the
salutary principles of natural justice and the maxim ‘audi
alteram partem’ has been enshrined in them. Therefore, an
examination under section 313 of Cr.P.C. has to be of
utmost fairness.
In the case of Shaikh Maqsood -Vrs.- State
of Maharashtra reported in (2009) 6 Supreme Court
Cases 583 and Ranvir Yadav -Vrs.- State of Bihar
reported in (2009) 6 Supreme Court Cases 595, the
Hon’ble Supreme Court held that it is the duty of the trial
court to indicate incriminating material to the accused.
Section 313 of Cr.P.C. is not an empty formality. An
improper examination/inadequate questioning under
section 313 of Cr.P.C. amounts to a serious lapse on the
part of the trial Court and is a ground for interference with
the conviction.
We are of the humble view that since the
Patna High Court D. REF. No.1 of 2024 dt.26-03-2026
89
prosecution is utilizing the evidence of these three
witnesses i.e. P.W.10, P.W.15 and P.W.26 regarding the
attempt made by the unknown woman to hand over a bag
to the appellants Lamboo Sharma and Akhilesh Upadhyay
against these two appellants, which is a vital circumstance,
the learned trial Court was required to put this
circumstance, in the form of questions to these two
appellants seeking for their explanation. Since the same
has not been done, we are of the view that it has actually
and materially prejudiced them and has resulted in the
failure of justice as it has deprived them in giving their
explanation. Thus, in view of the settled law, we are not
able to use such particular circumstance against any of
them and it must be excluded from consideration.
Whether prosecution succeeded in establishing
mobile phone contact between the deceased woman
and appellants?:
31. The I.O. (P.W.38) seized a Micromax mobile set
installed with a SIM card of Aircel company i.e. 8083172236
which was lying at a close distance from the deceased but
was intact from the spot after the occurrence.
Though the prosecution has tried to connect the
Micromax mobile set with the deceased, but the I.O. himself
has stated that he verified the mobile number of Micromax
mobile set and found it was registered in the name of one
Savitri Devi. The I.O. further stated that on perusal of the
Patna High Court D. REF. No.1 of 2024 dt.26-03-2026
90
C.D.R. of mobile no.8083172236, it transpired that it was in
touch/conversing on 22.01.2015 and 23.01.2015 (date of
occurrence) on three mobile numbers i.e. 7631105971,
7764939558 and 7654894198 which were in the names of
Sanjay Kumar, Musa Nut and Vijay Prasad respectively. The
prosecution has neither examined Savitri Devi nor any of
the three mobile phone subscribers during trial.
At the spot, on the date of occurrence, nobody
had seen the deceased talking to anyone over mobile
phone. The daughter of the deceased namely Soni Devi,
whose statement was recorded both under sections 161
and 164 of Cr.P.C., who could have thrown light on the use
of mobile no.8083172236 by her mother was withheld by
the prosecution and not examined in Court. The learned
trial Court however utilised the statement of Soni Devi
recoded under section 164 of Cr.P.C. marked as Ext.23 by
P.W.39, the Judicial Magistrate against the appellants.
Law is well settled that the statement of a
witness recorded under section 164 Cr.P.C. is not
substantive evidence. Substantive evidence is one which is
given by witness in Court on oath in presence of the
accused. Statement of a witness under section 164 of the
Code is recorded in absence of accused and as such it is
not substantive evidence. The statement of a witness under
section 164 Cr.P.C. is recorded being sponsored by the
investigating agency. During course of trial, if the witness
Patna High Court D. REF. No.1 of 2024 dt.26-03-2026
91
does not support the prosecution case and declared hostile
by the prosecution then the prosecution with the
permission of the Court can confront his previous statement
made before the Magistrate to him. A statement recorded
under section 164 Cr.P.C. can be used either for
corroboration of the testimony of a witness under section
157 of the Evidence Act or for contradiction thereof under
section 145 of the Evidence Act. In case of State of Delhi
-Vrs.- Shri Ram reported in A.I.R. 1960 S.C. 490, it is
held that the statements recorded under section 164 of the
Code are not substantive evidence in a case and cannot be
made use of except to corroborate or contradict the
witness. An admission by a witness that a statement of his
was recorded under section 164 of the Code and that what
he had stated there was true would not make the entire
statement admissible, much less could any part of it be
used as substantive evidence. In case of Baij Nath Sah
-Vrs.- State of Bihar reported in (2010) 6 Supreme
Court Cases 736, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that a
statement under section 164 of the Code is not substantive
evidence and can be utilized only to corroborate or
contradict the witness vis-a-vis statements made in Court.
In other words, it can be only utilized as a previous
statement and nothing more.
The evidence on record clearly indicates that
when the bomb blast took place, there was darkness and
Patna High Court D. REF. No.1 of 2024 dt.26-03-2026
92
nothing was visible in the darkness for about ten to fifteen
minutes and the people were running hither and thither to
save their lives. In such a scenario, merely because the
Micromax mobile phone set was lying nearer to the body of
the deceased intact, it is very difficult to accept that the
deceased woman was the user of such mobile phone. When
material witnesses who could have thrown light that the
deceased had got any link with such Micromax mobile have
been withheld, adverse inference can be drawn against the
prosecution.
In the case of Takhaji Hiraji (supra), it has
been held that it is true that if a material witness, who
would unfold the genesis of the incident or an essential part
of the prosecution case, not convincingly brought to fore
otherwise, or where there is a gap or infirmity in the
prosecution case which could have been supplied or made
good by examining a witness who though available is not
examined, the prosecution case can be termed as suffering
from a deficiency and withholding of such a material
witness would oblige the Court to draw an adverse
inference against the prosecution by holding that if the
witness would have been examined, it would not have
supported the prosecution case. The Court of facts must
ask itself as to whether in the facts and circumstances of
the case, it was necessary to examine such other witness,
and if so, whether such witness was available to be
Patna High Court D. REF. No.1 of 2024 dt.26-03-2026
93
examined and yet was being withheld from the Court. If the
answer be positive, then only a question of drawing an
adverse inference may arise.
There is no evidence on record that Savitri Devi
in whose name the mobile number was registered which
was lying near the deceased woman or the three mobile
subscribers namely Sanjay Kumar, Musa Nut and Vijay
Prasad were not available to be examined. Had they been
examined, Savitri Devi could have thrown light as to how
her mobile phone set was lying nearer to the deceased
woman at the spot and whether she had handed over the
same for the use of the deceased. Similarly, the three
mobile subscribers would have thrown light as to in whose
possession mobile SIM cards were there for its use.
We are of the view that an essential part of the
prosecution case, which could have been proved by
adducing the evidence of the aforesaid four witnesses has
not been done. The examination of such witnesses was
very crucial to establish the link between the deceased
woman and the appellants in the facts and circumstances
of the case. Therefore, we are constrained to draw adverse
inference against the prosecution for withholding such
important witnesses.
Electronic evidence:
32. Mr. Mishra, learned Amicus Curiae argued that
the electronic evidence in the form of call detail records
Patna High Court D. REF. No.1 of 2024 dt.26-03-2026
94(CDR) and tower location data of the mobile numbers which
were produced by the prosecution are not admissible in
evidence in absence of requisite certificate under section
65(4) of Evidence Act.
Ms. Shashi Bala Verma, learned counsel for the
State on the other hand contended that the learned trial
Court has rightly placed reliance on the electronic
evidence.
Adverting to the contentions, it is found from
the evidence of P.W.38, the I.O. that he sent a request letter
to Special Intelligence Unit, Office of Superintendent of
Police, Bhojpur to find out IMEI numbers of recovered
mobile sets and CDR of mobile numbers and names and
addresses of the holders of the mobile phones. He has
further stated that the request letter was given to the
Special Intelligence Unit to get the CDR and names and
addresses of the holders of mobile nos.7631105971,
7764939558 and 7654894198 on which conversation had
taken place from the mobile number of the deceased
woman. However, the I.O. has stated in the cross-
examination that the CDR does not bear the signature of
any official and that no statement was recorded from the
person from whom the CDR was obtained. Neither any
Nodal Officer of the telecom (service provider) nor any
person occupying responsible official position in relation to
the operation of the relevant device has been examined in
Patna High Court D. REF. No.1 of 2024 dt.26-03-2026
95
this case. According to the learned Amicus Curiae Mr.
Mishra, the certificate under section 65-B(4) of the
Evidence Act which is a pre-requisite for admissibility of
electronic evidence has not been brought on record and
therefore, the electronic documents brought on record by
the prosecution by way of exhibits are completely
inadmissible.
At this juncture, it is relevant to refer to some of
the provisions of the Evidence Act. Section 59 of the
Evidence Act states that all facts, except the contents of
documents or electronic records, may be proved by oral
evidence. As per section 3 of the Evidence Act, the
expression ‘electronic records’ shall have the meaning as
assigned in the Information Technology Act, 2000 (hereafter
‘2000 Act’). Section 2(ta) of 2000 Act defines ‘electronic
record’ which means data, record or data generated, image
or sound stored, received or sent in an electronic form or
micro form or computer generated micro fiche. Section 61
of the Evidence Act states that the contents of documents
may be proved either by primary or by secondary evidence.
Section 62 of the Evidence Act defines ‘primary evidence’
as meaning the documents itself produced for the
inspection of the Court. Section 63 of the Evidence Act
speaks of the kind or types of ‘secondary evidence’ by
which documents may be proved.
Section 65 of the Evidence Act is very
Patna High Court D. REF. No.1 of 2024 dt.26-03-2026
96
important and it states that secondary evidence may be
given of the existence, condition or contents of a document
in certain cases which have been enumerated under
clauses (a) to (g) of such section. Whereas ‘existence’ goes
to ‘admissibility’ of a document, ‘contents’ of a document
are to be proved after a document becomes admissible in
evidence. Section 65A of the Evidence Act speaks of
‘contents’ of electronic records being proved in accordance
with the provisions of section 65B. Section 65B of the
Evidence Act speaks of ‘admissibility’ of electronic records
which deals with ‘existence’ and ‘contents’ of electronic
records being proved once admissible into evidence.
Section 65B(1) opens with a non-obstante clause, and
makes it clear that any information that is contained in an
electronic record which is printed on a paper, stored,
recorded or copied in optical or magnetic media produced
by a computer shall be deemed to be a document, if the
conditions mentioned in the section are satisfied in relation
to the information and computer in question and shall be
admissible in any proceedings, without further proof of
production of the original as evidence of any contents of
the original or of any fact stated therein of which direct
evidence would be admissible. The deeming fiction is for
the reason that ‘document’ as defined by section 3 of the
Evidence Act does not include ‘electronic records’. Section
65B(2) of the Evidence Act refers to the conditions that
Patna High Court D. REF. No.1 of 2024 dt.26-03-2026
97
must be satisfied in respect of a computer output, and
states that the test for being included in conditions 65B(2)
(a) to 65(2)(d) is that the computer be regularly used to
store or process information for purposes of activities
regularly carried on in the period in question. The
conditions mentioned in sub-sections 2(a) to 2(d) must be
satisfied cumulatively.
So far as sub-section (4) of section 65 of the
Evidence Act is concerned, the learned Amicus Curiae has
relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in
the case of Anvar P.V. (supra) concerning the admissibility
of electronic evidence, wherein it is held as follows:
“15. Under Section 65B(4) of the Evidence
Act, if it is desired to give a statement in
any proceedings pertaining to an electronic
record, it is permissible provided the
following conditions are satisfied:
(a) There must be a certificate which
identifies the electronic record containing
the statement;
(b) The certificate must describe the
manner in which the electronic record was
produced;
(c) The certificate must furnish the
particulars of the device involved in the
production of that record;
(d) The certificate must deal with the
applicable conditions mentioned under
section 65B(2) of the Evidence Act; and
(e) The certificate must be signed by a
Patna High Court D. REF. No.1 of 2024 dt.26-03-2026
98person occupying a responsible official
position in relation to the operation of the
relevant device.
16. It is further clarified that the person
need only to state in the certificate that
the same is to the best of his knowledge
and belief. Most importantly, such a
certificate must accompany the electronic
record like computer printout, Compact
Disc (CD), Video Compact Disc (VCD), pen
drive, etc., pertaining to which a statement
is sought to be given in evidence, when the
same is produced in evidence. All these
safeguards are taken to ensure the source
and authenticity, which are the two
hallmarks pertaining to electronic record
sought to be used as evidence. Electronic
records being more susceptible to
tampering, alteration, transposition,
excision, etc. without such safeguards, the
whole trial based on proof of electronic
records can lead to travesty of justice.
17. Only if the electronic record is duly
produced in terms of section 65B of the
Evidence Act, would the question arise as
to the genuineness thereof and in that
situation, resort can be made to section
45-A – opinion of examiner of electronic
evidence.”
The learned Amicus Curiae has further placed
reliance upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court
in the case of Arjun Panditrao Khotkar (supra), wherein
it is held as follows:
Patna High Court D. REF. No.1 of 2024 dt.26-03-2026
99“52. We may hasten to add that section
65B does not speak of the stage at which
such certificate must be furnished to the
Court. In Anvar P.V. (supra), this Court did
observe that such certificate must
accompany the electronic record when the
same is produced in evidence. We may
only add that this is so in cases where such
certificate could be procured by the person
seeking to rely upon an electronic record.
However, in cases where either a defective
certificate is given, or in cases where such
certificate has been demanded and is not
given by the person concerned, the Judge
conducting the trial must summon the
person/persons referred to in section
65B(4) of the Evidence Act, and require
that such certificate be given by such
person/persons. This, the trial Judge ought
to do when the electronic record is
produced in evidence before him without
the requisite certificate in the
circumstances aforementioned. This is, of
course, subject to discretion being
exercised in civil cases in accordance with
law, and in accordance with the
requirements of justice on the facts of each
case. When it comes to criminal trials, it is
important to keep in mind the general
principle that the accused must be
supplied all documents that the
prosecution seeks to rely upon before
commencement of the trial, under the
relevant sections of the Code of Criminal
Patna High Court D. REF. No.1 of 2024 dt.26-03-2026
100
Procedure.
xx xx xx
54. It is pertinent to recollect that the
stage of admitting documentary evidence
in a criminal trial is the filing of the charge-
sheet. When a criminal court summons the
accused to stand trial, copies of all
documents which are entered in the
charge-sheet/final report have to be given
to the Accused. Section 207 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure, which reads as follows,
is mandatory. Therefore, the electronic
evidence, i.e. the computer output, has to
be furnished at the latest before the trial
begins. The reason is not far to seek; this
gives the accused a fair chance to prepare
and defend the charges levelled against
him during the trial. The general principle
in criminal proceedings therefore, is to
supply to the accused all documents that
the prosecution seeks to rely upon before
the commencement of the trial. The
requirement of such full disclosure is an
extremely valuable right and an essential
feature of the right to a fair trial as it
enables the accused to prepare for the trial
before its commencement.
xx xx xx
60. It may also be seen that the person
who gives this certificate can be anyone
out of several persons who occupy a
‘responsible official position’ in relation to
the operation of the relevant device, as
also the person who may otherwise be in
Patna High Court D. REF. No.1 of 2024 dt.26-03-2026
101
the ‘management of relevant activities’
spoken of in sub-section (4) of section 65B.
Considering that such certificate may also
be given long after the electronic record
has actually been produced by the
computer, section 65B(4) makes it clear
that it is sufficient that such person gives
the requisite certificate to the “best of his
knowledge and belief” (Obviously, the word
“and” between knowledge and belief in
section 65B(4) must be read as “or”, as a
person cannot testify to the best of his
knowledge and belief at the same time).
61. We may reiterate, therefore, that the
certificate required under section 65B(4) is
a condition precedent to the admissibility
of evidence by way of electronic record, as
correctly held in Anvar P.V. (supra), and
incorrectly “clarified” in Shafhi
Mohammed (supra). Oral evidence in the
place of such certificate cannot possibly
suffice as section 65B(4) is a mandatory
requirement of the law. Indeed, the
hallowed principle in Taylor v. Taylor (1876)
1 Ch.D. 426, which has been followed in a
number of the judgments of this Court, can
also be applied. Section 65B(4) of the
Evidence Act clearly states that secondary
evidence is admissible only if lead in the
manner stated and not otherwise. To hold
otherwise would render section 65B(4)
otiose.
xx xx xx
84. But section 65B(1) starts with a non-
Patna High Court D. REF. No.1 of 2024 dt.26-03-2026
102
obstante clause excluding the application
of the other provisions and it makes the
certification, a pre-condition for
admissibility. While doing so, it does not
talk about relevancy. In a way, sections
65A and 65B, if read together, mix-up both
proof and admissibility, but not talk about
relevancy. Section 65A refers to the
procedure prescribed in section 65B, for
the purpose of proving the contents of
electronic records, but section 65B speaks
entirely about the pre-conditions for
admissibility. As a result, section 65B
places admissibility as the first or the
outermost check post, capable of turning
away even at the border, any electronic
evidence, without any enquiry, if the
conditions stipulated therein are not
fulfilled.”
In the case of Chandrabhan Sudam Sanap
-Vrs.- The State of Maharashtra reported in (2025) 7
Supreme Court Cases 401, the Hon’ble Supreme Court
held as follows:
“55. A two-Judge Bench in a referral order
reported in Arjun Panditrao Khotkar v.
Kailash Kushanrao Gorantyal and
Ors. : (2020) 3 SCC 216 referred the
following question to a larger bench:
“3. We are of the considered opinion
that in view of Anvar P.V. : (2014) 10
SCC 473, the pronouncement of this
Court in Shafhi Mohammad : (2018) 2
SCC 801 needs reconsideration. With
Patna High Court D. REF. No.1 of 2024 dt.26-03-2026
103the passage of time, reliance on
electronic records during investigation
is bound to increase. The law therefore
needs to be laid down in this regard
with certainty. We, therefore, consider
it appropriate to refer this matter to a
larger Bench. Needless to say that
there is an element of urgency in the
matter.”
56. The reference came to be answered in
the judgment in Arjun Panditrao Khotkar v.
Kailash Kushanrao Gorantyal and Ors. :
(2020) 7 SCC 1 The relevant portions of
which are as under:
45. Thus, it is clear that the major
premise of Shafhi Mohammad : (2018)
2 SCC 801 that such certificate cannot
be secured by persons who are not in
possession of an electronic device is
wholly incorrect. An application can
always be made to a Judge for
production of such a certificate from
the requisite person under section 65-
B(4) in cases in which such person
refuses to give it.
46. Resultantly, the judgment dated
3.4.2018 of a Division Bench of this
Court reported as Shafhi Mohd. v.
State of H.P. : (2018) 5 SCC 311, in
following the law incorrectly laid down
in Shafhi Mohammad : (2018) 2 SCC
801, must also be, and is hereby,
overruled.
47. However, a caveat must be
Patna High Court D. REF. No.1 of 2024 dt.26-03-2026
104
entered here. The facts of the present
case show that despite all efforts
made by the respondents, both
through the High Court and otherwise,
to get the requisite certificate under
section 65B(4) of the Evidence Act
from the authorities concerned, yet
the authorities concerned wilfully
refused, on some pretext or the other,
to give such certificate. In a fact-
circumstance where the requisite
certificate has been applied for from
the person or the authority concerned,
and the person or authority either
refuses to give such certificate, or
does not reply to such demand, the
party asking for such certificate can
apply to the court for its production
under the provisions aforementioned
of the Evidence Act, Code of Civil
Procedure or Code of Criminal
Procedure. Once such application is
made to the court, and the court then
orders or directs that the requisite
certificate be produced by a person to
whom it sends a summons to produce
such certificate, the party asking for
the certificate has done all that he can
possibly do to obtain the requisite
certificate…..”
xx xx xx
52. We may hasten to add that section
65-B does not speak of the stage at
which such certificate must be
Patna High Court D. REF. No.1 of 2024 dt.26-03-2026
105
furnished to the Court. In Anvar P.V. :
(2014) 10 SCC 473, this Court did
observe that such certificate must
accompany the electronic record when
the same is produced in evidence. We
may only add that this is so in cases
where such certificate could be
procured by the person seeking to rely
upon an electronic record. However, in
cases where either a defective
certificate is given, or in cases where
such certificate has been demanded
and is not given by the person
concerned, the Judge conducting the
trial must summon the person/persons
referred to in section 65B(4) of the
Evidence Act, and require that such
certificate be given by such
person/persons. This, the trial Judge
ought to do when the electronic record
is produced in evidence before him
without the requisite certificate in the
circumstances aforementioned. This is,
of course, subject to discretion being
exercised in civil cases in accordance
with law, and in accordance with the
requirements of justice on the facts of
each case. When it comes to criminal
trials, it is important to keep in mind
the general principle that the accused
must be supplied all documents that
the prosecution seeks to rely upon
before commencement of the trial,
under the relevant sections of the
Patna High Court D. REF. No.1 of 2024 dt.26-03-2026
106
xx xx xx
56. Therefore, in terms of general
procedure, the prosecution is
obligated to supply all documents
upon which reliance may be placed to
an accused before commencement of
the trial. Thus, the exercise of power
by the courts in criminal trials in
permitting evidence to be filed at a
later stage should not result in serious
or irreversible prejudice to the
accused. A balancing exercise in
respect of the rights of parties has to
be carried out by the court, in
examining any application by the
prosecution under sections 91 or 311
Code of Criminal Procedure or section
165 of the Evidence Act. Depending on
the facts of each case, and the court
exercising discretion after seeing that
the accused is not prejudiced by want
of a fair trial, the court may in
appropriate cases allow the
prosecution to produce such certificate
at a later point in time. If it is the
accused who desires to produce the
requisite certificate as part of his
defence, this again will depend upon
the justice of the case – discretion to
be exercised by the court in
accordance with law.
xx xx xx
61. We may reiterate, therefore, that
Patna High Court D. REF. No.1 of 2024 dt.26-03-2026
107the certificate required under section
65-B(4) is a condition precedent to the
admissibility of evidence by way of
electronic record, as correctly held in
Anvar P.V. : (2014) 10 SCC 473 and
incorrectly “clarified” in Shafhi
Mohammad : (2018) 2 SCC 801. Oral
evidence in the place of such
certificate cannot possibly suffice as
section 65-B(4) is a mandatory
requirement of the law. Indeed, the
hallowed principle in Taylor v. Taylor
[Taylor v. Taylor, (1875) LR 1 Ch D
426], which has been followed in a
number of the judgments of this Court,
can also be applied. Section 65-B(4) of
the Evidence Act clearly states that
secondary evidence is admissible only
if led in the manner stated and not
otherwise. To hold otherwise would
render Section 65-B(4) otiose.
xx xx xx
73. The reference is thus answered by
stating that:
73.1. Anvar P.V. : (2014) 10 SCC 473,
as clarified by us hereinabove, is the
law declared by this Court on section
65-B of the Evidence Act. The
judgment in Tomaso Bruno v. State of
U.P. : (2015) 7 SCC 178, being per
incuriam, does not lay down the law
correctly. Also, the judgment in Shafhi
Mohammad : (2018) 2 SCC 801 and
the judgment dated 3.4.2018 reported
Patna High Court D. REF. No.1 of 2024 dt.26-03-2026
108
(2018) 5 SCC 311, do not lay down the
law correctly and are therefore
overruled.
73.2. The clarification referred to
above is that the required certificate
under section 65-B(4) is unnecessary if
the original document itself is
produced. This can be done by the
owner of a laptop computer, computer
tablet or even a mobile phone, by
stepping into the witness box and
proving that the device concerned, on
which the original information is first
stored, is owned and/or operated by
him. In cases where the ‘computer’
happens to be a part of a ‘computer
system’ or ‘computer network’ and it
becomes impossible to physically
bring such system or network to the
Court, then the only means of
providing information contained in
such electronic record can be in
accordance with section 65B(1),
together with the requisite certificate
under section 65B(4). The last
sentence in para 24 in Anvar P.V. :
(2014) 10 SCC 473 which reads as
“…if an electronic record as such is
used as primary evidence under
section 62 of the Evidence Act…”is
thus clarified; it is to be read without
the words ‘under section 62 of the
Evidence Act’…”. With this
Patna High Court D. REF. No.1 of 2024 dt.26-03-2026
109clarification, the law stated in para 24
of Anvar P.V. : (2014) 10 SCC 473 does
not need to be revisited.”
57. This judgment has put the matter
beyond controversy. In view of the above,
there is no manner of doubt that certificate
under section 65B(4) is a condition
precedent to the admissibility of evidence
by way of electronic record and further it is
clear that the Court has also held Anvar
P.V. (supra) to be the correct position of
law.”
In the case in hand, even though the
prosecution has exhibited Call Detail Record (CDR) of the
mobile phones seized during investigation to prove the
essential metadata like timestamp, call details which
includes duration, type (incoming, outgoing, missed),
source/destination numbers and device identifiers but since
there is no signature of any official, there is no certificate as
required under section 65B(4) of the Evidence Act nor any
nodal officer of the service provider or any responsible
officer in relation to the operation of the relevant device
has been examined in this case, in view of the settled
position of law as discussed above, the CDR cannot be
legally admissible.
In this case, it is nonetheless the duty of the
prosecution, when found that the requisite certificate is
missing in the CDR available in the charge sheet, ought to
have applied before the Court making a prayer for
Patna High Court D. REF. No.1 of 2024 dt.26-03-2026
110
summoning a person occupying a responsible official
position in relation to the operation of the relevant device
or the management of the relevant activities (whichever is
appropriate) referred to in section 65B(4) of the Evidence
Act to produce the requisite certificate on CDR and after it
is so produced, a copy thereof should have been furnished
to the accused persons before commencement of the trial
so that there would not have been any kind of prejudice to
the accused persons since the certificate under section
65B(4) is a condition precedent to the admissibility of the
evidence by way of electronic record.
Accordingly, we accept the contention raised by
the learned Amicus Curiae that all the CDRs exhibited by
the prosecution are not admissible in evidence.
Criminal Conspiracy:
33. In order to prove criminal conspiracy, the
prosecution has relied upon two types of evidence: (i)
electronic evidence and (ii) confessional statements of the
appellants before the I.O. (P.W.38) after their arrest.
We have already held that the electronic
evidence in the case is not admissible in absence of lack of
certificate as required under section 65B(4) of the Evidence
Act and absence of any steps taken by the prosecution to
summon the person/persons referred to in section 65B(4) of
the Evidence Act to produce the requisite certificate on
CDR.
Patna High Court D. REF. No.1 of 2024 dt.26-03-2026
111
Now, it is to be seen whether basing on
confessional statements of the appellants before the I.O.
(P.W.38) after their arrest, it can be said that the
prosecution has proved the criminal conspiracy.
‘Criminal conspiracy’ has been defined in
section 120-A of the Indian Penal Code which states that
when two or more persons agree to do or cause to be
done,- (i) an illegal act, or (ii) an act which is not illegal by
illegal means, such an agreement is designated a criminal
conspiracy”. It is, therefore, plain that meeting of minds of
two or more persons for doing or causing to be done an
illegal act or an act by illegal means is sine qua non of
criminal conspiracy. It is manifest that the meeting of minds
of two or more persons for doing an illegal act or an act by
illegal means is sine qua non of the criminal conspiracy but
it may not be possible to prove the agreement between
them by direct proof. Nevertheless, existence of the
conspiracy and its objective can be inferred from the
surrounding circumstances and the conduct of the accused.
But the incriminating circumstances must form a chain of
events from which a conclusion about the guilt of the
accused could be drawn. It is well settled that an offence of
conspiracy is a substantive offence and renders the mere
agreement to commit an offence punishable even if an
offence does not take place pursuant to the illegal
agreement.
Patna High Court D. REF. No.1 of 2024 dt.26-03-2026
112
The gist of the offence of conspiracy lies, not in
doing the act, or effecting the purpose for which the
conspiracy is formed, nor in attempting to do them, nor in
inciting others to do them, but in the forming of the scheme
or agreement between the parties. Agreement is essential.
Mere knowledge, or even discussion, of the plan is not, per
se, enough. The Court must enquire as to whether the two
persons are independently pursuing the same end or they
have come together in the pursuit of the unlawful object.
The former does not render them conspirators, but the
latter does. It is, however, essential that the offence of
conspiracy requires some kind of physical manifestation of
agreement.
Section 10 of the Evidence Act reads as follows:
“Where there is reasonable ground to
believe that two or more persons have
conspired together to commit an offence or
an actionable wrong, anything said, done
or written by any one of such persons in
reference to their common intention, after
the time when such intention was first
entertained by any one of them, is a
relevant fact as against each of the
persons believed to be so conspiring, as
well for the purpose of proving the
existence of the conspiracy as for the
purpose of showing that any such person
was a party to it.”
Section 10 of the Evidence Act, has been
Patna High Court D. REF. No.1 of 2024 dt.26-03-2026
113
deliberately enacted in order to make such acts and
statements of a co-conspirator admissible against the
whole body of conspirators, because of the nature of the
crime. A conspiracy is hatched in secrecy and it may be
difficult to adduce direct evidence of the same. The
prosecution more often relies upon circumstantial evidence
to prove the same. The prosecution may often rely on
evidence of acts of various parties to infer that the things
were done in reference to their common intention.
Therefore, it is not feasible for the prosecution to connect
each isolated act or statement of one accused with the acts
or statements of the others, unless there is a common
thread linking all of them together. Ordinarily, in a criminal
case, one person cannot be made responsible for the acts
or statements of another. It is only when there is evidence
of a concerted action in furtherance of a common intention
to commit a crime, that the law has introduced this rule of
common responsibility, on the principle that everyone
concerned in a conspiracy is acting as the agent of the rest
of them. As soon as the Court has reasonable grounds to
believe that there is identity of interest or community of
purpose between a number of persons, any act done, or
any statement or declaration made, by any one of the co-
conspirators is, naturally, held to be the act or statement of
the other conspirators, if the act or the declaration has any
relation to the object of the conspiracy. Otherwise, stray
Patna High Court D. REF. No.1 of 2024 dt.26-03-2026
114
acts done in darkness in prosecution of an object hatched
in secrecy, may not become intelligible without reference to
the common purpose running through the chain of acts or
illegal omissions attributable to individual members of the
conspiracy.
The evidence receivable under section 10 of the
Evidence Act of ‘anything said, done, or written, by any one
of such persons’ (i.e. conspirators) must be ‘in reference to
their common intention’.
In the case of Mohammed Atik (supra), it is
held as follows:
”14…..It is well-neigh settled that section
10 of the Evidence act is founded on the
principle of law of agency by rendering the
statement or act of one conspirator binding
on the other if it was said during
subsistence of the common intention as
between the conspirators. If so, once the
common intention ceased to exist any
statement made by a former conspirator
thereafter cannot be regarded as one
made “in reference to their common
intention.” In other words, a post-arrest
statement made to a police officer,
whether it is a confession or otherwise,
touching his involvement in the conspiracy,
would not fall within the ambit of Section
10 of the Evidence Act.
15. Privy Council has held so in Mirza Akbar
-Vs.- King Emperor : AIR 1940 PC 176. The
relevant observations of Lord Wright are
Patna High Court D. REF. No.1 of 2024 dt.26-03-2026
115the following:
“This being the principle, their
Lordships think the words of Section
10 must be constructed in
accordance with it and are not
capable of being widely construed
so as to include a statement made
by one conspirator in the absence of
the other with reference to past acts
done in the actual course of
carrying out the conspiracy, after it
has been completed. The common
intention is in the past. In their
Lordships’ judgement, the words
‘common intention’ signify a
common intention existing at the
time when the thing was said, done
or written by the one of them.
Things said, done or written while
the conspiracy was on foot are
relevant as evidence of the common
intention, once reasonable ground
has been shown to believe in its
existence. But it would be a very
different matter to hold that any
narrative or statement or confession
made to a third party after the
common intention or conspiracy
was no longer operating and had
ceased to exist is admissible against
the other party. There is then no
common intention of the
conspirators to which the statement
can have reference. In their
Patna High Court D. REF. No.1 of 2024 dt.26-03-2026
116
Lordships’ judgement Section 10
embodies this principle. That is the
construction which has been rightly
applied to Section 10 in decisions in
India, for instances, in Emperor -Vs.-
Ganesh Raghunath Vaishampayan :
55 Bombay 839 and Emperor -Vs.-
Abani Bhushan Chuckerbutty : 38
Cal 169 . In these cases, the
distinction was rightly drawn
between communications between
conspirators while the conspiracy
was going on with reference to the
carrying out of conspiracy and
statements made, after arrest or
after the conspiracy has ended, by
way of description of events then
past.”
(Emphasis supplied)
16. A three-Judge Bench of this Court has
also said in Sardul Singh Caveeshar and
others -Vs.- The State of Bombay : 1957
CriLJ 1325:
“The principle underlying the
reception of evidence under Section
10 of the Evidence Act of the
statements, acts and writings of one
co-conspirator as against the other
is on the theory of agency. The rule
in Section 10 Evidence Act, confines
that principle of agency in criminal
matters to the acts of the co-
conspirator within the period during
which it can be said that the acts
Patna High Court D. REF. No.1 of 2024 dt.26-03-2026
117were ‘in reference to their common
intention’ that is to say, ‘things said,
done or written, while the
conspiracy was on foot’ and ‘in
carrying out the conspiracy’. It
would seem to follow that where,
the charge specified the period of
conspiracy, evidence of acts of co-
conspirators outside the period is
not receivable in evidence.”
(Emphasis supplied)
17. Thus, the principle is no longer res
integra that any statement made by an
accused after his arrest, whether as a
confession or otherwise, cannot fall within
the ambit of Section 10 of the Evidence
Act…”
The learned trial Court has been pleased to
hold that there was a conspiracy in which all the accused
persons had a defined role and accordingly, each accused
had played their part. It was further held that the presence
of the accused at the time of occurrence is not necessary,
because they had already well-planned about committing
the crime and therefore, the accused have played active
role in the bomb blast.
Such a finding by the learned trial Court seems
to be based on confessional statements of the accused
persons before police after their arrest.
While going through the evidence of the
Investigating Officer (P.W.38), we found that he arrested the
Patna High Court D. REF. No.1 of 2024 dt.26-03-2026
118
appellant Akhilesh Upadhyay, the F.I.R. named accused on
01.03.2015 and recorded his confessional statement and
what the said appellant stated, has been mentioned in
detail in paragraph nos.21 and 22 of the deposition of the
witness. Similarly, P.W.38 also arrested appellants Anshu
Kumar and Rinku Yadav on 24.03.2015 near Park View
Hotel, Ara and further stated about the recording of
confessional statement of appellant Anshu Kumar and what
the said appellant stated, has been mentioned in detail in
paragraph nos.26 and 27. The I.O. further stated about
recording the confessional statements of appellants Rinku
Yadav and Shyam Vinay Sharma and what the said
appellants stated, has been mentioned in detail in
paragraph no.28. Similarly, after receiving information from
Delhi Police Special Cell on 24.06.2015 about the arrest of
appellant Lamboo Sharma, the I.O. received the appellant
on 25.06.2015 from Delhi Police and presented him in the
trial Court, Ara on 26.06.2015. He recorded the
confessional statement of appellant Lamboo Sharma on
02.07.2026 and what the said appellant stated, has been
mentioned in detail in paragraph nos.43 and 46 of his
evidence. Most peculiarly, the learned trial Court has not
only recorded the confessional statements of the aforesaid
appellants before police after their arrest in detail in the
evidence of P.W.38 but also placed reliance on such
confessional statements in arriving at the conclusion that
Patna High Court D. REF. No.1 of 2024 dt.26-03-2026
119
the prosecution has successfully established the charges
against the appellants.
Section 25 of Evidence Act states that
confession to Police Officer shall not to be proved as
against a person accused of any offence & Section 26 of
the Evidence Act states that confession by an accused
while in police custody unless it being made in the
immediate presence of a Magistrate, shall not be proved
against him. The object of making a provision in Section 27
of the Evidence act was to permit certain portion of the
statement made by an accused to a Police Officer
admissible in evidence whether or not such statement is
confessional or non-confessional. That bar against
admissibility would stand lifted if the statement distinctly
relates to a discovery of fact. Recovery or even production
of object by itself need not necessarily result in discovery of
a fact. The fact discovered within the meaning of the
section is not equivalent to the object recovered but the
fact embraces the place from which the object is recovered
& the knowledge of the accused as to it.
In the case of Bheru Singh -Vrs.- State of
Rajasthan reported in (1994) 2 Supreme Court Cases
467, it is held as follows:
“16. A confession or an admission is
evidence against the maker of it so long as
its admissibility is not excluded by some
provision of law. Provisions of Sections 24
Patna High Court D. REF. No.1 of 2024 dt.26-03-2026
120to 30 of the Evidence Act and of Section
164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure deal
with confessions. By virtue of the
provisions of Section 25 of the Evidence
Act, a confession made to a police officer
under no circumstance is admissible in
evidence against an accused. The section
deals with confessions made not only when
the accused was free and not in police
custody but also with the one made by
such a person before any investigation had
begun. The expression “accused of any
offence” in Section 25 would cover the
case of an accused who has since been put
on trial, whether or not at the time when
he made the confessional statement, he
was under arrest or in custody as an
accused in that case or not. Inadmissibility
of a confessional statement made to a
police officer under Section 25 of the
Evidence Act is based on the ground of
public policy. Section 25 of the Evidence
Act not only bars proof of admission of an
offence by an accused to a police officer or
made by him while in the custody of a
police officer but also the admission
contained in the confessional statement of
all incriminating facts relating to the
commission of an offence.”
In the case of Indra Dalal -Vrs.- State of
Haryana reported in (2015) 11 Supreme Court Cases
31, while analysing the provisions under sections 25 and 26
of the Evidence Act, it is held that the philosophy behind
Patna High Court D. REF. No.1 of 2024 dt.26-03-2026
121
the provision is acceptance of a harsh reality that
confessions are extorted by the police officers by practicing
oppression and torture or even inducement and, therefore,
they are unworthy of any credence. The provision
absolutely excludes from evidence against the accused a
confession made by him to a police officer. This provision
applies even to those confessions which are made to a
police officer who may not otherwise be acting as such. If
he is a police officer and confession was made in his
presence, in whatever capacity, the same becomes
inadmissible in evidence. This is the substantive rule of law
enshrined under this provision and this strict rule has been
reiterated countlessly by the Supreme Court as well as the
High Courts. It is further held that the word ‘confession’ has
nowhere been defined. However, the courts have resorted
to the dictionary meaning and explained that incriminating
statements by the accused to the police suggesting the
inference of the commission of the crime would amount to
confession and therefore, inadmissible under this provision.
It is also defined to mean a direct acknowledgment of guilt
and not the admission of any incriminating fact, however
grave or conclusive. Section 26 of the Evidence Act makes
all those confessions inadmissible when they are made by
any person, whilst he is in the custody of a police officer,
unless such a confession is made in the immediate
presence of a Magistrate. Therefore, when a person is in
Patna High Court D. REF. No.1 of 2024 dt.26-03-2026
122
police custody, the confession made by him even to a third
person, that is other than a police officer, shall also become
inadmissible.
In the impugned judgment, the learned trial
Court has utilized the confessional statement of the
accused/co-accused as follows:
”…..The deceased woman had come to the
Court premises from there (Chaurasia Rest
House) at the instance of Lamboo Sharma.
This is also proved by the confessional
statement of Lamboo Sharma…”(para 52)
xx xx xx
”When explosive was required to make
bomb, at the instance of the jailed accused
Pramod Singh, Shyam Vinay Sharma made
it available which Shyam Vinay Sharma has
himself admitted in his confessional
statement.”(para 52)
xx xx xx
”That Lamboo Sharma was acquainted
with the deceased woman Nagina Devi has
been confirmed by Lamboo Sharma in his
statement himself.”(para 52)
xx xx xx
”In this case, the accused have confirmed
in their confessions of having collected the
explosive material for the bomb blast……It
has been confirmed that the deceased
Nagina Devi and Anshu Kumar lived in
Chaurasia Rest House from 21.01.2015 to
10:10 a.m. on 23.10.2015. This has been
Patna High Court D. REF. No.1 of 2024 dt.26-03-2026
123
proved by Anshu Kumar in his confessional
statement……”(para 56)
Even if there is no evidence on record, but
basing on the confessional statement of accused before
police after arrest or confessional statement of co-accused
after arrest, the learned trial Court has come to the
following finding:
”Since the bomb was hidden with the
woman Nagina Devi and she herself
switched the bomb on, no people could see
that the bomb was thrown upon or how the
bomb blasted.”
Since the confessional statement made by theappellants to the I.O. (P.W.38) after their arrest is hit by
section 25 of the Evidence Act and not admissible, a post-
arrest statement made to a police officer, whether it is a
confession or otherwise, touching his involvement in the
conspiracy, would not fall within the ambit of Section 10 of
the Evidence Act, therefore the learned trial Court erred in
placing reliance on the same and utilising it against the
appellants.
The learned trial Court should not have also
utilized the confessional statement of co-accused against
the appellants in view of the ratio laid down in the case of
Haricharan Kurmi (supra), wherein it has been held as
follows:
”11. The question about the part which a
confession made by a co-accused person
Patna High Court D. REF. No.1 of 2024 dt.26-03-2026
124can play in a criminal trial, has to be
determined in the light of the provisions of
sec. 30 of the Act. Section 30 provides that
when more persons than one are being
tried jointly for the same offence, and a
confession made by one of such persons
affecting himself and some other of such
persons is proved, the Court may take into
consideration such confession as against
such other person as well as against the
person who makes such confession. The
basis on which this provision is found is
that if a person makes a confession
implicating himself, that may suggest that
the maker of the confession is speaking the
truth. Normally, if a statement made by an
accused person is found to be voluntary
and it amounts to a confession in the sense
that it implicates the maker, it is not likely
that the maker would implicate himself
untruly, and so, sec. 30 provides that such
a confession may be taken into
consideration even against a co-accused
who is being tried along with the maker of
the confession. There is no doubt that a
confession made voluntarily by an accused
person can be used against the maker of
the confession, though as a matter of
prudence criminal courts generally require
some corroboration to the said confession
particularly if it has been retracted. With
that aspect of the problem, however, we
are not concerned in the present appeals.
When sec. 30 provides that the confession
Patna High Court D. REF. No.1 of 2024 dt.26-03-2026
125of a co-accused may be taken into
consideration, what exactly is the scope
and effect of such taking into
consideration, is precisely the problem
which has been raised in the present
appeals. It is clear that the confession
mentioned in sec. 30 is not evidence under
sec. 3 of the Act. Section 3 defines
“evidence” as meaning and including –
(1) all statements which the Court permits
or requires to be made before it by
witnesses, in relation to matters of fact
under inquiry; such statements are called
oral evidence;
(2) all documents produced for the
inspection of the Court;
11a. Such documents are called
documentary evidence. Technically
constructed, this definition will not apply to
a confession. Part (1) of the definition
refers to oral statements which the court
permits or requires to be made before it;
and clearly, a confession made by an
accused person is not such a statement; it
is not made or permitted to be made
before the court that tries the criminal
case. Part (2) of the definition refers to
documents produced for the inspection of
the court; and a confession cannot be said
to fall even under this part. Even so,
section 30 provides that a confession may
be taken into consideration not only
against its maker, but also against a co-
accused person; that is to say, though such
Patna High Court D. REF. No.1 of 2024 dt.26-03-2026
126
a confession may not be evidence as
strictly defined by section 3 of the Act, it is
an element which may be taken into
consideration by the criminal court and in
that sense, it may be described as
evidence in a non-technical way. But it is
significant take like other evidence which is
produced before the Court, it is not
obligatory on the court to take the
confession into account. When evidence as
defined by the Act is produced before the
Court, it is the duty of the Court to consider
that evidence. What weight should be
attached to such evidence, is a matter in
the discretion of the Court. But a Court
cannot say in respect of such evidence that
it will just not take that evidence into
account. Such an approach can, however,
be adopted by the Court in dealing with a
confession, because section 30 merely
enables the Court to take the confession
into account….”
xx xx xx
”14. The statements contained in the
confessions of the co-accused persons
stand on a different footing. In cases where
such confessions are relied upon by the
prosecution against an accused person, the
Court cannot begin with the examination of
the said statements. The stage to consider
the said confession statements arrives only
after the other evidence is considered and
found to be satisfactory. The difference in
the approach which the Court has to adopt
Patna High Court D. REF. No.1 of 2024 dt.26-03-2026
127
in dealing with these two types of evidence
is thus clear, well-understood and well-
established.”
”16…….As we have already indicated, it
has been a recognised principle of the
administration of criminal law in this
country for over half a century that the
confession of a co-accused person cannot
be treated as substantive evidence and
can be pressed into service only when the
court is inclined to accept other evidence
and feels the necessity of seeking for an
assurance in support of its conclusion
deducible from the said evidence..”
In the case of Surinder Kumar Khanna
(supra), it is held as follows:
”13. In the present case, it is accepted that
apart from the aforesaid statements of co-
accused, there is no material suggesting
involvement of the appellant in the crime
in question. We are thus left with only one
piece of material that is the confessional
statements of the co-accused as stated
above. On the touchstone of law laid down
by this Court, such a confessional
statement of a co-accused cannot by itself
be taken as a substantive piece of
evidence against another co-accused and
can at best be used or utilized in order to
lend assurance to the Court.
14. In the absence of any substantive
evidence, it would be inappropriate to base
the conviction of the appellant purely on
Patna High Court D. REF. No.1 of 2024 dt.26-03-2026
128the statements of co-accused.”
In view of the settled position of law, theconfession of a co-accused person cannot be treated as
substantive evidence against another co-accused and it can
only be pressed into service when the Court is inclined to
accept other evidence and feels the necessity of seeking
for an assurance in support of its conclusion deducible from
the said evidence.
In the case in hand, since the other evidence
i.e. the CDR exhibited by the prosecution are not admissible
in evidence as per the reasons given above and thus, the
same cannot be taken into account to establish any link
between the appellants Lamboo Sharma and Akhilesh
Upadhyay with the other appellants so also any link
between the deceased woman with any of the appellants
and to establish the criminal conspiracy between the
appellants to commit the crime.
Thus, we are of the humble view that the
prosecution has miserably failed to establish that there was
any criminal conspiracy between the accused persons and
that the appellants in connivance with each other had set
up the deceased woman to commit bomb blast in the Court
premises which facilitated the escape of the two appellants
from judicial custody.
Escape of appellants Lamboo Sharma and Akhilesh
Upadhyay from judicial custody:
34. As per the evidence of P.W.37, Assistant
Patna High Court D. REF. No.1 of 2024 dt.26-03-2026
129Superintendent, District Jail, Ara on 23.01.2015, a total of
37 prisoners were sent from District Jail, Ara to appear
before the Sessions and Sadar Court and he had prepared
the list of prisoners in which he had put his signature which
has been marked as Ext.5. In the said list, though the
names of both the appellants Lamboo Sharma and Akhilesh
Upadhyay were there but they did not return to jail on that
day.
Number of witnesses have also stated that after
the bomb blast when there was darkness, two of the
prisoners namely appellants Lamboo Sharma and Akhilesh
Upadhyay escaped.
As per the evidence of the I.O., appellant
Akhilesh Upadhyay was arrested on 01.03.2015 whereas
appellant Lamboo Sharma was arrested by Delhi Police
Special Cell on 24.06.2015 and he received appellant
Lamboo Sharma from Delhi Police on 25.06.2015 and
presented him in the trial Court in Ara on 26.06.2015.
According to the learned counsel for the
appellants Lamboo Sharma and Akhilesh Upadhyay, the
conduct of both these appellants in absconding cannot be
the sole basis of their conviction under various offences
including one under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
The learned counsel argued that the appellants might have
apprehended that the bomb blast was made to eliminate
them and therefore, they fled away to save their lives. In
Patna High Court D. REF. No.1 of 2024 dt.26-03-2026
130
fact, in the accused statement recorded under section 313
of Cr.P.C., the appellant Lamboo Sharma stated that there
was smoke filled in the Court, followed by stampede and he
ran to save his own life. Similarly, appellant Akhilesh
Upadhyay stated that after the explosion, no one was seen
getting out of the vehicle and it was dark and he went to
his village Piro.
According to the learned counsel, mere
absconding does not, by itself, prove the guilt of the
appellants. Reliance has been placed in the case of Matru
(supra), wherein it has been held that mere absconding by
itself does not necessarily lead to a firm conclusion of guilty
mind. Even an innocent man may feel panicky and try to
evade arrest when wrongly suspected of a grave crime.
Such is the instinct of self-preservation. The act of
absconding is no doubt a relevant piece of evidence to be
considered along with other evidence but its value would
always depend on the circumstances of each case.
Normally, the courts are disinclined to attach much
importance to the act of absconding, treating it as a very
small item in the evidence for sustaining conviction. It can
scarcely be held as a determining link in completing the
chain of circumstantial evidence which must admit of no
other reasonable hypothesis than that of the guilt of the
accused.
In the case of Chetan (supra), reliance has
Patna High Court D. REF. No.1 of 2024 dt.26-03-2026
131
bben placed in the case of Matru (supra) and it is held that
mere absconding by itself does not constitute a guilty mind
as even an innocent man may feel panicky and may seek to
evade the police when wrongly suspected of being
involvement as an instinct of self-preservation.
In the case of Sk. Yusuf -Vrs.- State of West
Bengal reported in (2011) 11 Supreme Court Cases
754, it is held that in case a person is absconding after
commission of offence of which he may not even be the
author, such a circumstance alone may not be enough to
draw an adverse inference against him as it would go
against the doctrine of innocence. It is quite possible that
he may be running away merely being suspected, out of
fear of police arrest and harassment.
In view of the foregoing discussions, we are of
the view that mere absconding of the two appellants from
judicial custody may not be alone sufficient to hold that
they in connivance with others caused the bomb blast in
the Ara Civil Court complex on the date of occurrence,
however, we will discuss at the appropriate stage as to
what offence such act of escape makes out against each of
them.
Whether recovery of articles at the spot and from
the appellants linked them with the crime?:
35. At the place of occurrence i.e. Civil Court, Ara
premises, where the bomb blast took place, on 23.01.2015
Patna High Court D. REF. No.1 of 2024 dt.26-03-2026
132at 02.15 p.m., the I.O. (P.W.38) seized a Micromax mobile
set in which a sim card was installed having the mobile
phone number 8083172236 (Aircel), a white colour mobile
ear phone, a torn note of five rupees, a torn note of fifty
rupees, two broken pieces of anklet like silver, a rold gold
yellow colour chain in the neck of the deceased and a
broken piece of earring and blood of the deceased woman
spilled at the place of occurrence as per seizure list.
As already discussed, the prosecution has failed
to establish the link between the deceased and the mobile
set lying near the deceased and that the deceased was
keeping any contact with any of the appellants by using
such mobile set.
Though the experts of Forensic Science
Laboratory, Patna visited the crime scene on 23.01.2015 at
04:30 p.m. and collected samples of various articles and
the exhibit seized materials from the crime scene were
handed over by them to the I.O. which were kept in packets
marked as A, B, C, D, E, F, G, H, I and J and those were sent
to the Forensic Science Laboratory, Patna for examination
and opinion and the reports were received, but from the
conclusions in the reports, it just came to light that blood
could be detected in each of the exhibits marked as A, B
and C but not in exhibit marked as D and that from the
examination of the articles contained in the polythene
packets which were marked as D, E, F, G, H, I and J, it could
Patna High Court D. REF. No.1 of 2024 dt.26-03-2026
133
be concluded that those were the remnants of exploded
country-made bomb, but since bomb blast at the scene of
occurrence is not in dispute, the reports of scientific experts
no way further help the prosecution in connecting any of
the appellants with the crime.
As per the evidence of the I.O. (P.W.38), after
the arrest of appellants Anshu Kumar and Rinku Yadav on
24.03.2015, a Nokia mobile set having two SIM cards, a
motorcycle was recovered and though the I.O. stated that
on the date of occurrence appellant Rinku Yadav used
mobile no.8540022698 through which he contacted with
appellant Lamboo Sharma but the prosecution has failed to
establish which mobile phone was in possession of
appellant Lamboo Sharma on the date of occurrence and
therefore, no importance can be attached to such evidence
of the I.O.
Similarly, after the arrest of appellant Chand
Mian on 17.05.2015, one Jivi mobile phone having SIM card
no.9198593370 and a Samsung mobile phone with SIM card
no. 7301204932 were recovered from him so also after the
arrest of appellant Shyam Vinay Sharma on 20.05.2015,
Samsung Grand Prime mobile with mobile no.9471416384
and SIM card of 8102932486 and another Samsung mobile
set were recovered from him including a bullet holder, a
rifle cleaner rod and a gun cleaner rod but the prosecution
has failed to establish any link of these articles recovered
Patna High Court D. REF. No.1 of 2024 dt.26-03-2026
134
with the crime in any manner.
Similarly, on the basis of the information given
by appellant Lamboo Sharma after his arrest, on the basis
of a raid conducted at his residence in Ludhiana, Punjab, a
Samsung mobile phone with SIM card no.7084708365 was
recovered, similarly black colour LED T.V., home theatre and
four speakers were recovered from the house of appellant
Lamboo Sharma, however, the prosecution has not
established any link with any of these articles with the
crime in question.
Thus, from the articles recovered at the scene
of occurrence and from some of the appellants, the link of
any of the appellants with the crime in question cannot be
said to be established.
Another peculiar feature we noticed that though
the signatures of witnesses in the seizure lists have been
marked as Exts.1, 1/1, 1/2, 1/3, 1/4, 1/5 and 1/6, but the
seizure lists have not been marked as exhibits during the
trial even though the author of such seizure lists i.e. the I.O.
(P.W.38) has been examined. Section 100 of Cr.P.C. which
corresponds to section 103 of BNSS lays down as to how
search of a place is to be conducted and seizure list is to be
prepared. Section 165 of Cr.P.C. which corresponds to
section 185 of BNSS which deals with search by police
officer also indicates that the general provisions of as to
searches contained in section 100 of Cr.P.C. shall apply to a
Patna High Court D. REF. No.1 of 2024 dt.26-03-2026
135
search made under this section.
To prove a seizure list in a criminal case, the
document must be formally exhibited during the trial
through the testimony of its author (usually the
Investigating Officer) and the witnesses present during the
seizure. The process is critical in establishing the
authenticity of the seized materials. Even if the witnesses
to the seizure do not support the seizure of articles and
only prove their signatures and say that their signatures
were taken in blank papers, yet it can be proved by the
Investigating Officer or the author of such seizure list. Even
though the independent witnesses to the seizure do not
support the prosecution case, that cannot be a ground to
discard the evidence of the official witnesses including the
Investigating Officer relating to search and seizure, if the
same is found to be cogent, reliable and trustworthy. The
Court will have to appreciate the relevant evidence and
determine whether the evidence of the Investigating Officer
is believable after taking due care and caution in evaluating
the evidence. The I.O. must confirm that the seizure list was
prepared by him in course of investigation and he has also
to say the details of the seizure list i.e. the date, time,
location and description of seized articles and the presence
of witnesses. The I.O. shall also confirm the signatures of
seizure witnesses and his own signature in the seizure list.
During the examination of the I.O. or the author of the
Patna High Court D. REF. No.1 of 2024 dt.26-03-2026
136
seizure list, it should be marked as an exhibit on behalf of
the prosecution.
However, the I.O. (P.W.38) has clearly stated
about the seized articles, place of seizure, preparation of
seizure list in presence of witnesses and got it signed by
the witnesses and that he himself signed the same. It was
the duty of the Addl. Public Prosecutor who was conducting
the trial to get the seizure list exhibited during the
recording of evidence of the I.O. The learned trial Judge
should also have displayed vigil and alertness and not
remained as a silent spectator or a mute observer. A
criminal trial is not to be conducted in a casual manner
which would display negligence on the part of the
prosecution and the trial Court.
Therefore, in the factual scenario, non-
exhibiting the seizure list even though it is otherwise has
been proved, cannot be ground to discard the seizure list.
36. After discussing the evidence on record in
general against the appellants, we are now to analyse
specific evidence against each of the appellants to see
whether the charges are proved as has been held by the
learned trial Court.
Appellant Lamboo Sharma:
36.1. For the purpose of connecting the appellant in
the crime, the prosecution has tried to rely mainly on two
circumstances, i.e. the appellant was in possession of three
Patna High Court D. REF. No.1 of 2024 dt.26-03-2026
137mobile phones being mobile nos. 7631105971,
7764939558 and 7654894198 and with the help of the such
phones, he allegedly talked with deceased woman and
various other persons.
As per prosecution case, the appellant Lamboo
Sharma was inside the jail and on the date of occurrence,
he was produced along with others in a prisoner van from
jail in the campus of Civil Court, Ara and after bomb blast,
he escaped from judicial custody.
As per the documents exhibited by the
prosecution, mobile no.7631105971 was in the name of one
Sanjay Kumar, mobile no.7764939558 was in the name of
one Musa Nut and mobile no.7654894198 was in the name
of one Vijay Prasad.
The customer application form (CAF) of Sanjay
Kumar (mobile no.7631105971) would go to show that the
said phone was activated on 24th July 2014 and on the date
of occurrence i.e. 23rd January 2015 at 07.19.14 hours, its
tower location was at Dhanman Chowk, P.S.- Ara Town,
District- Bhojpur. Similarly at 11.02.08 hours on that day, its
tower location was at Jail road, P.O./P.S./District- Ara and at
11.39.38 hours, its tower location was at Mohalla M.P. Bagh,
P.O./P.S.- Ara and thus this phone was not only found
moving outside the jurisdiction of tower location of jail road
area but in other tower locations also and at the time of
occurrence, its tower location was not at Civil Court, Ara.
Patna High Court D. REF. No.1 of 2024 dt.26-03-2026
138
The customer application form (CAF) of Musa
Nut (mobile no. 7764939558) would go to show that the
said phone was activated on 28.04.2013 and on
21.01.2015, the tower location of this mobile phone is
mentioned at Sandhya Rai, village- Shivganj as well as
Sreyansh Chandra Jain at Jail road and on 22.01.2015, the
tower location was found within tower location of Sandhya
Rai, village- Shivganj, Shreyansh Chandra Jain, Jail Road and
in the C.D.R., the tower location on 23.01.2015 was not
supplied.
The customer application form (CAF) of Vijay
Prasad (mobile no. 7654894198) would go to show that the
said phone was activated on 14.02.2012 and on
21.01.2015, the tower location of the said mobile phone
was the tower of Shobha Devi of Mohalla Mahajan Toli No.2,
Sandhya Rai, Sapna Cinema Road, Shivganj, Khata
No.1855, Khesra no.8158 Bhruhipur Thana no.237, Khata
no.816, Khesra no. Old 6476, New 617 near Bacha Singh Ka
Hat and tower location on 22.01.2015 was tower of Shobha
Devi, resident of Mahajan Toli No.2, Mrs. Sandhya Rai,
Sapna Cinema Road, Shivganj, Thana no.237 Khata no.816,
Khesra no. Old 6476 New 617 near Bacha Singh Ka Hat and
tower location on 23.01.2015 was not supplied with only
note of N/A.
Though the voter identity card and other details
of all the three mobile phone subscribers are part of
Patna High Court D. REF. No.1 of 2024 dt.26-03-2026
139
exhibits, but none of the three mobile subscribers has been
examined by the prosecution during trial nor they have
been made accused in the present case.
On 12th, 13th and 15th or even on previous day
(as per C.D.R. provided by the prosecution), at the same
day and time, the three mobiles were at three different
places such as on 22 nd January 2015, mobile no.
7631105971 which was of one Sanjay Kumar, its tower
location was at Jail road and on 23 rd January 2015, its tower
location was at Dhanman Chowk at 7.19.14 hours and
thereafter again at Jail road tower and at Mohalla M.P. Bagh
at 11.39.38 hours. So far as mobile no. 7764939558 which
was of one Musa Nut, on 22nd of January 2015, its tower
location from 18.30.10 hours as well as at 06.09.11 hours
and onwards, the tower location was Sandhya Devi, village-
Shivganj, Sreyansh Chandra Jain at Jail road, Sandhya Rai of
P.O.- Nawada. Similarly mobile no. 7654894198 which was
of one Vijay Prasad, on 22.01.2015, its tower location was
Shobha Devi, resident of Mahajan Toli No.2, Mrs. Sandhya
Rai, Sapna Cinema road, Shivganj, Sobha Devi, Mahajan
Tola No.2, Thana 237, Khata no.816, Khesra no. Old 6476
New 617 and other places and its tower location of
23.01.2015 has not been mentioned.
Thus, it appears that all the three mobiles at
the same day and same time were at tower locations of
three different places. The prosecution has not produced
Patna High Court D. REF. No.1 of 2024 dt.26-03-2026
140
any person from service provider of the aforesaid mobiles
numbers to explain as to if the three mobiles were in
possession of one person (according to prosecution those
were with appellant Lamboo Sharma) that too inside the
jail, then how its tower locations were found at three
different places and different mohallas.
There is no material on record that at time of
occurrence, the tower location of any of the three mobile
phones in question was found within the tower location of
Ara Civil Court premises.
There is also no evidence on record that any of
these three mobile phones was in the possession of
appellant Lamboo Sharma who was admittedly in jail
custody and if so, who gave such mobile phones to him.
None of these three mobile phones was recovered from the
possession of the appellant and thus, the prosecution case
that the aforesaid three mobile phones were in possession
of the appellant inside the jail is nothing but based on
surmises and speculation without any concrete materials
which is being contradicted and falsified from documents
proved by the prosecution.
Though the learned trial Court has held that the
appellant Lamboo Sharma was acquainted with the
deceased woman Nagina Devi and the same has been
confirmed by the appellant himself, but we have held such
confessional statement made to the I.O. (P.W.38) after
Patna High Court D. REF. No.1 of 2024 dt.26-03-2026
141
arrest to be inadmissible in view of section 25 of the
Evidence Act.
We have already held that there is no cogent
evidence on record that the deceased woman had any
previous contact with the appellant Lamboo Sharma and
that she had previously met him either in jail or in the Court
complex on the date of his appearance and that on the
date of occurrence, in the Ara Court complex, the deceased
woman was trying to give any bag containing bomb to the
appellants Lamboo Sharma and Akhilesh Upadhyay. There
is also no evidence that any of the accused persons had
come to jail prior to the occurrence to meet the appellant
Lamboo Sharma.
We have also held that the prosecution has not
produced any evidence to connect the deceased woman
with the appellant Lamboo Sharma save and except the
C.D.Rs. exhibited which are not admissible in evidence.
There is no evidence on record that appellant had made
any planning either for manufacturing the bomb or asked
anyone to send the deceased woman to come to Ara Civil
Court premises with bomb.
We have also held that the prosecution has
failed to establish the link between the deceased woman
and the mobile set lying near her dead body in Ara Civil
Court complex and that she was keeping any contact with
the appellant Lamboo Sharma by using such mobile set.
Patna High Court D. REF. No.1 of 2024 dt.26-03-2026
142
We have also held that the prosecution has
miserably failed to establish that there was any criminal
conspiracy between the accused persons and that the
appellant Lamboo Sharma in connivance with others had
set up the deceased woman to commit bomb blast in the
Court premises.
We have also held that from the articles
recovered at the scene of occurrence so also from the
residence of the appellant Lamboo Sharma situated in
Ludhiana, Punjab on the basis of a raid conducted after his
arrest, no link has been established between him with the
crime in question.
We have also held that mere absconding of the
appellant Lamboo Sharma from judicial custody may not
alone be sufficient to hold that he in connivance with others
caused the bomb blast in the Ara Civil Court complex on
the date of occurrence.
Even though the escape of the appellant
Lamboo Sharma from judicial custody in absence of any
other cogent evidence, may not be sufficient to hold him
guilty under sections 302, 307, 326, 353, 115, 216 and
120(B) of the Indian Penal Code and sections 3, 4 and 5 of
Explosive Substances Act and accordingly he is acquitted of
such charges, but since he was lawfully detained for
commission of various offences and he escaped from
judicial custody and section 224 of I.P.C, inter alia, provides
Patna High Court D. REF. No.1 of 2024 dt.26-03-2026
143
for punishment if a person escapes or attempts to escape
from any custody in which he is lawfully detained,
therefore, we are of the humble view that the learned trial
Court has rightly found him guilty under section 224 of the
Indian Penal Code.
Appellant Shyam Vinay Sharma:
36.2. The learned trial Court has held that the
explosive material used in the bomb was procured from the
appellant Shyam Vinay Sharma and accordingly found him
guilty. We find that except the confessional statement of
the appellant so also confessional statement of appellant
Rinku Yadav before the I.O. (P.W.38) after arrest, there is no
other substantive evidence in that respect.
Though the I.O. raided the house of the
appellant on the basis of the confessional statement of
appellant Anshu Kumar and recovered Samsung Grand
Prime mobile with mobile no.9471416384 and SIM card of
8102932486 and another Samsung mobile set were
recovered from him including a bullet holder, a rifle cleaner
rod and a gun cleaner rod, but in absence of any clinching
evidence on record connecting such articles with the crime,
the conviction of the appellant basing on his confessional
statement before police after arrest, which is not legally
admissible as well as that of appellant Rinku Yadav before
police after arrest, which is not substantive evidence, is not
sustainable in the eyes of law. Such recoveries alone would
Patna High Court D. REF. No.1 of 2024 dt.26-03-2026
144
not justify the conviction of the appellant and therefore, the
appellant is entitled to be given benefit of doubt.
Accordingly, the conviction of the appellant is hereby set
aside.
Appellant Rinku Yadav:
36.3. The learned trial Court held that the appellants
Anshu Kumar and Rinku Yadav were given the responsibility
of making the bomb and delivering it within the Court
premises as these appellants have admitted.
The learned trial Court further held that for
making the bomb, the appellants Anshu Kumar and Rinku
Yadav purchased the head of hand pump from the scrap
dealer Butan Chaudhary (P.W.6) and the explosive material
used in the preparation of bomb was procured from
appellant Shyam Vinay Sharma through the jailed accused
Pramod Singh.
The learned trial Court further held that the
appellants Anshu Kumar and Rinku Yadav have confirmed in
their confessions of having collected the explosive
materials for the bomb blast. This has been confirmed by
other witnesses apart from their own confessional
statements such as that the two appellants had bought the
head of hand pump from the scrap dealer Butan Chaudhary
which Butan Chaudhary has proved by his evidence as
P.W.6 before the Court.
P.W.6 Butan Chaudhary in his evidence has
Patna High Court D. REF. No.1 of 2024 dt.26-03-2026
145
stated that when he was at his home, the Daroga Ji
enquired from him to whom he had sold the head of hand
pump, to which he replied that he had sold it to Anshu, who
belonged to village Karari which came within the
jurisdiction of Ara police station. The witness also identified
the appellant Anshu in the dock. The said witness has not
whispered anything against the appellant Rinku Yadav.
The I.O. arrested the appellants Anshu Kumar
and Rinku Yadav on 24.03.2015 near Park View Hotel, Ara,
from whom a Nokia mobile set, having two SIM Cards, in
which mobile phone no.8292500417 and mobile phone
no.7562995706, one SIM Card having mobile
no.8292704437 and a motorcycle bearing registration
no.BR-03C-2908 were recovered.
Though the I.O. (P.W.38) has stated that on the
date of occurrence appellant Rinku Yadav used mobile
no.8540022698 through which he contacted with appellant
Lamboo Sharma, but we find there is no basis for making
such a statement and as we have already held that all the
CDRs exhibited by the prosecution are not admissible in
evidence and since the prosecution has failed to establish
which mobile phone was in possession of appellant Lamboo
Sharma on the date of occurrence, therefore, no
importance can be attached to such evidence of the I.O.
Thus, the conviction of the appellant Rinku
Yadav which is based mainly on his own confessional
Patna High Court D. REF. No.1 of 2024 dt.26-03-2026
146
statement before police after arrest, which is not legally
admissible as well as that of appellant Anshu Kumar before
police after arrest, which is not substantive evidence, is not
sustainable in the eyes of law. The recoveries alone would
not justify the conviction of the appellant and therefore, the
appellant is entitled to be given benefit of doubt.
Accordingly, the conviction of the appellant is hereby set
aside.
Appellant Md. Naim Miya @ Naim Miya:
36.4 Mr. Binay Kumar, learned counsel appearing for
appellant Md. Naim Miya contended that even though no
specific defence plea has been taken by the appellant in
the accused statement of the appellant and that he
examined two defence witnesses to prove that he was a
mechanic working in the garage of D.W.1 Wasi Ahmad and
he had not gone anywhere on the date of occurrence and
such a plea has not been accepted by the learned trial
Court, but in absence of any clinching evidence on record
against the appellant, it was erroneously held that the
charges are proved against him. He further argued that on
the basis of confessional statements of the two appellants
Lamboo Sharma and Akhilesh Upadhaya before police after
their arrest and seizure of material exhibits i.e. Ext.XI to
XVIII which are the L.E.D. T.V., Home Theatre, mobile
recovered from the rented house of appellant Lamboo
Sharma in Ludhiana and the boxes of mobile used by him,
Patna High Court D. REF. No.1 of 2024 dt.26-03-2026
147two receipts and C.Ds., the learned trial Court erred in
holding that the appellant and his brother Chand Miya
arranged for the stay and provided other facilities to those
two appellants and that the appellant Naim Miya helped in
the crime.
The learned trial Court did not accept the
defence plea adduced by appellant Naim Miya that on
23.01.2015, he was at the garage of D.W.1 and that no
person of Bihar had come to meet him in Kheta Sarai as the
both the defence witnesses admitted that the appellant
used to work in the garage and that they could not tell who
had come to meet him at that time.
In the case of Shankarlal Gyarasilal Dixit
-Vrs.- State of Maharashtra reported in A.I.R. 1981
S.C. 765, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that falsity of
defence case cannot take the place of proof of facts which
the prosecution has to establish in order to succeed. A false
plea can at best be considered as an additional
circumstance, if other circumstances point unfailingly to the
guilt of the accused.
In the case of Anand Ramchandra Chougule
(supra), it is held as follows:
”10. The burden lies on the prosecution to
prove the allegations beyond all reasonable
doubt. In contradistinction to the same, the
accused has only to create a doubt about
Patna High Court D. REF. No.1 of 2024 dt.26-03-2026
148the prosecution case and the probability of
its defence. An accused is not required to
establish or prove his defence beyond all
reasonable doubt, unlike the prosecution. If
the accused takes a defence, which is not
improbable and appears likely, there is
material in support of such defence, the
accused is not required to prove anything
further. The benefit of doubt must follow
unless the prosecution is able to prove its
case beyond all reasonable doubt.
11. The fact that a defence may not have
been taken by an accused under Section
313 Cr.P.C. again cannot absolve the
prosecution from proving its case beyond
all reasonable doubt. If there are materials
which the prosecution is unable to answer,
the weakness in the defence taken cannot
become the strength of the prosecution to
claim that in the circumstances it was not
required to prove anything. In Sunil
Kundu -Vrs.- State of Jharkhand :
(2013) 4 SCC 422, this Court observed:
28….When the prosecution is not
able to prove its case beyond
reasonable doubt, it cannot take
advantage of the fact that the
accused have not been able to
probabilise their defence. It is well
settled that the prosecution must
stand or fall on its own feet. It
cannot draw support from the
weakness of the case of the
accused, if it has not proved its case
Patna High Court D. REF. No.1 of 2024 dt.26-03-2026
149beyond reasonable doubt.”
Thus, law is well settled that the prosecution
cannot derive any advantage from the falsity or other
infirmities of the defence version, so long as it does not
discharge its initial burden of proving its case against the
accused beyond all reasonable doubt. The prosecution has
a bounden duty to lead an impenetrable chain of evidence
suggesting the guilt of the accused and it must stand on its
own leg without borrowing credence from falsity of defence
evidence. If the evidence on record fails to point to the guilt
of the accused beyond reasonable doubt, it is of no
consequence whether or not the defence version is false.
We are of the humble view that in absence of
any specific plea being taken in the accused statement by
the appellant that he was in the garage of D.W.1 on the
date of occurrence and on the basis of nature of evidence
adduced by two defence witnesses, even if it cannot be
said that the appellant has established such plea by
preponderance of probabilities, but we find that the
prosecution has failed in its bounden duty to lead any
cogent evidence to prove the guilt of the appellant.
The confessional statements of the two
appellants Lamboo Sharma and Akhilesh Upadhay before
police after their arrest against the appellant Md. Naim
Miya cannot be treated as substantive evidence and can be
pressed into service only when we are inclined to accept
Patna High Court D. REF. No.1 of 2024 dt.26-03-2026
150
other evidence against him and feels the necessity of
seeking for an assurance in support of our conclusion
deducible from the said evidence in view of the ratio laid
down in the cases of Haricharan Kurmi (supra) and
Surinder Kumar Khanna (supra).
The seizure of material exhibits as stated to
above recovered from the rented house of appellant
Lamboo Sharma, no way links the appellant in the crime.
Therefore, there is no substantive evidence on
record that the appellant Md. Naim Miya arranged for the
stay and provided other facilities to the appellants Lamboo
Sharma and Akhilesh Upadhyay after their escape from
judicial custody and helped in the crime as observed by the
learned trial Court and since the evidence on record fails to
point to the guilt of the appellant beyond reasonable doubt,
it would be inappropriate to base the conviction of the
appellant. Accordingly, the conviction of the appellant is not
sustainable in the eyes of law and hereby set aside.
Appellant Md. Chand Miya @ Chand Miyan:
36.5. The learned trial Court arrived at a finding that
after the appellants Lamboo Sharma and Akhilesh
Upadhyay escaped from judicial custody, the appellant
Chand Miyan played important role in the execution of the
second plan by those two appellants and arranged for their
stay in a temple at Varanasi and also gave twenty thousand
rupees to appellant Lamboo Sharma, in consequence of
Patna High Court D. REF. No.1 of 2024 dt.26-03-2026
151which appellant Lamboo Sharma lived at his brother’s place
at Jalana, Maharashtra and from there, he came to stay at
Ludhiana.
Such a finding of the learned trial Court is
based on the confessional statement of appellant Md.
Chand Miya @ Chand Miyan before police after arrest,
which is not legally admissible as well as that of appellants
Lamboo Sharma and Akhilesh Upadhyay before police after
their arrest, which is not substantive evidence.
P.W.38, the I.O. arrested appellant Chand Miyan
on 17.05.2015, from whom a mobile phone of Jivi Company
with SIM Card no.9198593370 and a Samsung mobile
phone with SIM Card no.7301204932 were recovered. The
confessional statement of Chand Miyan was recorded. The
Samsung and Jivi mobile phones were marked as Material
Exts.I and II respectively.
The I.O. also recovered a note with mobile
no.9179520386 written on it from the residence of
appellant Lamboo Sharma in Ludhiana. The tower location
of this phone was found near Lamboo Sharma’s residence
in Ludhiana. According to the I.O., this mobile phone was
used to call appellant Chand Miyan’s mobile
nos.7301204933 and 7301204932.
The recoveries of mobile phones as stated
above alone would not justify the link between the
appellant Chand Miyan and appellant Lamboo Sharma as
Patna High Court D. REF. No.1 of 2024 dt.26-03-2026
152
we have already held that all the CDRs exhibited by the
prosecution are not admissible in evidence.
Accordingly, the appellant is entitled to be
given benefit of doubt. The conviction of the appellant is
not legally sustainable and therefore, the same is hereby
set aside.
Appellant Anshu Kumar:
36.6. The learned trial Court held that the appellants
Anshu Kumar and Rinku Yadav were given the responsibility
of making the bomb and delivering it within the Court
premises as these appellants have admitted. The learned
trial Court further held that for making the bomb, the
appellants Anshu Kumar and Rinku Yadav purchased the
head of hand pump from the scrap dealer Butan Chaudhary
(P.W.6) and the explosive materials used in the preparation
of bomb was procured from appellant Shyam Vinay Sharma
through the jailed accused Pramod Singh.
The learned trial Court further held that the
appellants Anshu Kumar and Rinku Yadav have confirmed in
their confessions of having collected the explosive
materials for the bomb blast. This has been confirmed by
other witnesses apart from their own confessional
statements such as that the two appellants had bought the
head of hand pump from the scrap dealer Butan Chaudhary
which Butan Chaudhary has proved by his evidence as
Patna High Court D. REF. No.1 of 2024 dt.26-03-2026
153
P.W.6 before the Court.
The learned trial Court further held that it has
been proved that the deceased Nagina Devi and appellant
Anshu Kumar lived in Chaurasia Rest House from
21.01.2015 to 10:10 a.m. on 23.01.2015. This has been
proved by appellant Anshu Kumar in his confessional
statement as well as the owner of rest house Laxman
Prasad Chaurasia (P.W.30), who in his evidence has stated
that the police recovered register from his rest house and
he had signed on the seizure list. The photo copy of voter
identity card of appellant Anshu Kumar was also recovered
from the rest house and on page 36 of that register, the LTI
of appellant Anshu Kumar and Rina Devi @ Nagina Devi
were also available. Accordingly, on the basis of recovered
materials, the learned trial Court held the involvement of
the appellant in the incident is proved.
The findings of the learned trial Court against
the appellant Anshu Kumar which are solely based on the
confessional statement of his own before the I.O. (P.W.38)
after arrest so also the confessional statements of other
appellants before the I.O. (P.W.38) after their arrest are to
be excluded from consideration as per the reasons already
assigned.
P.W.6 Butan Chaudhary in his evidence has
stated that when he was at his home, the Daroga Ji
Patna High Court D. REF. No.1 of 2024 dt.26-03-2026
154
enquired from him to whom he had sold the head of hand
pump, to which he replied that he had sold it to Anshu, who
belonged to village Karari which came within the
jurisdiction of Ara police station. The witness also identified
the appellant Anshu in the dock. In the cross-examination,
he has stated that the head of hand pump was in a broken
state and there was only one head of a hand pump. He
further admitted that he had no license of the shop. There
is no evidence as to how such purchase is relevant for the
prosecution case and how such hand pump was used by
the appellant.
The I.O. arrested the appellants Anshu Kumar
and Rinku Yadav on 24.03.2015 near Park View Hotel, Ara,
from whom a Nokia mobile set, having two SIM Cards, in
which mobile phone no.8292500417 and mobile phone
no.7562995706, one SIM Card having mobile
no.8292704437 and a motorcycle bearing registration
no.BR-03C-2908 were recovered. The I.O. received the
C.D.Rs. of the phone recovered from the appellant Anshu
Kumar. Three SIM Cards were recovered from him. He
obtained the C.D.Rs. of all the three, which he marked as
‘J’, ‘K’, and ‘I’ and in Court, those were marked as Exts.11,
12 and 13 respectively.
The recoveries of mobile phones and SIM Cards
as stated above as well as C.D.Rs. alone would not justify
the link of the appellant either with the deceased woman or
Patna High Court D. REF. No.1 of 2024 dt.26-03-2026
155
with any other appellants as we have already held that all
the CDRs exhibited by the prosecution are not admissible in
evidence.
The prosecution case is that the appellant
Anshu Kumar stayed with the deceased woman at
Chaurasia Guest House prior to the occurrence and left on
the date of occurrence, but there is no clinching evidence in
that respect except some entry made in the register of the
Guest House and seizure of Voter I.D. Card of the appellant.
In the register of Chaurasia Guest House, one lady namely
Reena Devi was shown to be staying with the appellant
from 21.01.2015 till 10:10 a.m. on 23.01.2015, however, it
is not established that the lady who died in the Civil Court
premises on account of bomb blast was the same lady who
was staying with the appellant at Chaurasia Guest House.
P.W.30, the owner of Chaurasia Rest House has stated only
about the seizure of register and I-Card of the appellant
Anshu Kumar. In the cross-examination, he has stated that
he had appointed a manager to look after the management
of the hotel and there were two men in the Rest House. The
manager and the staff have not been examined. P.W.30 has
not identified the appellant Anshu Kumar in the dock. The
appellant in his accused statement has denied to be
staying in the Rest House. Though the LTI of the person
staying in the Rest House were there in the register of
Chaurasia Guest House, but it has not been proved to be
Patna High Court D. REF. No.1 of 2024 dt.26-03-2026
156
the LTI of the appellant by taking the assistance of finger
print expert.
Thus, the circumstantial evidence appearing on
record against the appellant Anshu Kumar cannot be stated
to be fully and cogently established and the facts
established cannot be said to be consistent only with the
hypothesis of the guilt of the appellant and unerringly
pointing towards the guilt of the appellant and it does not
conclusively established that the appellant hatched
criminal conspiracy with the co-accused persons to carry
out the bomb blast and that it was done in a pre-planned
way and thus, we are of the view that benefit of doubt
should be extended in favour of the appellant.
Accordingly, the conviction of the appellant is
not legally sustainable and therefore, the same is hereby
set aside.
Appellant Akhilesh Upadhyay:
36.7. As per prosecution case, the appellant Akhilesh
Upadhyay was inside the jail and on the date of occurrence,
he was produced along with others in a prisoner van from
jail in the campus of Civil Court, Ara and after bomb blast,
he escaped from judicial custody.
We have already held that there is no cogent
evidence on record that the deceased woman had any
previous contact with the appellant Akhilesh Upadhyay and
Patna High Court D. REF. No.1 of 2024 dt.26-03-2026
157
that she had previously met him either in jail or in the Court
complex on the date of his appearance and that on the
date of occurrence, in the Ara Court complex, the deceased
woman was trying to give any bag containing bomb to the
appellants Lamboo Sharma and Akhilesh Upadhyay. There
is also no evidence that any of the accused persons had
come to jail prior to the occurrence to meet the appellant
Akhilesh Upadhyay. There is no evidence that the appellant
was in touch with the deceased woman even through
mobile phone and no mobile phone has been seized from
the appellant.
We have also held that the prosecution has
miserably failed to establish that there was any criminal
conspiracy between the appellant with appellant Lamboo
Sharma much less any kind of conspiracy with other
appellants even though both of them were staying in one
jail, came together in the prisoner van and also escaped
together and that the appellant Akhilesh Upadhyay in
connivance with others had set up the deceased woman to
commit bomb blast in the Court premises.
We have also held that mere absconding of the
appellant Akhilesh Upadhyay from judicial custody may not
alone be sufficient to hold that he in connivance with others
caused the bomb blast in the Ara Civil Court complex on
the date of occurrence.
Even though the escape of the appellant
Patna High Court D. REF. No.1 of 2024 dt.26-03-2026
158
Akhilesh Upadhyay from judicial custody in absence of any
other cogent evidence, may not be sufficient to hold him
guilty under sections 302, 307, 326, 353, 115/34 and
120(B) of the Indian Penal Code and sections 3, 4 and 5 of
Explosive Substances Act and accordingly he is acquitted of
such charges, but since he was lawfully detained for
commission of various offences and he escaped from
custody and section 224 of I.P.C, inter alia, provides for
punishment if a person escapes or attempts to escape from
any custody in which he is lawfully detained, therefore, we
are of the humble view that the learned trial Court has
rightly found him guilty under section 224 of the Indian
Penal Code.
Conclusion:
37. In view of the foregoing discussions, we are of
the view that the prosecution has failed to establish any of
the charges against the appellants Shyam Vinay Sharma,
Rinku Yadav, Md. Naim Miya @ Naim Miya, Md. Chand Miya
@ Chand Miyan and Anshu Kumar. The impugned judgment
and order of conviction of these appellants is hereby set
aside and they are acquitted of all the charges. They shall
be set at liberty forthwith if their detention is not required
in any other cases.
The conviction of the appellants Lamboo
Sharma and Akhilesh Upadhyay of all the charges except
under section 224 of the Indian Penal Code, are hereby set
Patna High Court D. REF. No.1 of 2024 dt.26-03-2026
159
aside. The sentence imposed by the learned trial Court on
these two appellants for the offence under section 224 of
the Indian Penal Code is upheld. Since both the appellants
are in jail, they are to be set at liberty if they have already
undergone the sentence imposed for the offence under
section 224 of I.P.C. and their detention is not required in
any other cases.
In the result, Criminal Appeal (DB) No.1150 of
2019 filed by appellant Shyam Vinay Sharma, Criminal
Appeal (DB) No.1162 of 2019 filed by appellant Rinku
Yadav, Criminal Appeal (DB) No.1185 of 2019 filed by
appellant Md. Naim Miya @ Naim Miya, Criminal Appeal
(DB) No.1246 of 2019 filed by appellant Md. Chand Miya @
Chand Miyan and Criminal Appeal (DB) No.1271 of 2019
filed by appellant Anshu Kumar are allowed.
Criminal Appeal (DB) No.1210 of 2019 filed by
appellant Lamboo Sharma @ Munna Sharma @
Sachidanand Sharma and Criminal Appeal (DB) No.1290 of
2019 filed by appellant Akhilesh Upadhyay are allowed in
part.
The death sentence reference is answered in
negative.
Trial Court records with a copy of this judgment
be sent down to the learned trial Court forthwith for
information.
38. Before parting with the case, we would like to
Patna High Court D. REF. No.1 of 2024 dt.26-03-2026
160
put on record our appreciation to Mr. Pratik Mishra, learned
Amicus Curiae for rendering his valuable help and
assistance towards arriving at the decision above
mentioned. He prepared the case thoroughly and argued
very neatly, diligently and meticulously, point by point,
making analytical presentation of the case with reference
to various case laws to our satisfaction. We also place on
record our appreciation to Mr. Ajay Kumar Thakur,
Advocate, Mr. Ganesh Prasad Singh, Advocate, Mr. Binay
Kumar, Advocate and Mr. Ravindra Kumar, Advocate. This
Court also appreciates the valuable help and assistance
provided by Ms. Shashi Bala Verma, learned Additional
Public Prosecutor and Mr. Ajay Mishra, learned Additional
Public Prosecutor.
The hearing fees is assessed to Rs.30,000/-
(rupees thirty thousand) in toto which shall be paid to the
learned Amicus Curiae Mr. Pratik Mishra immediately.
(Sangam Kumar Sahoo, CJ)
Per: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJEEV RANJAN PRASAD
I have the privilege to go through the judgment
recorded by Hon’ble the Chief Justice. To me, it is crystal
clear that there is a balance of legal preposition, reasoning
and articulation of the logical path in the judgment. I join
Hon’ble the Chief Justice in his Lordship’s well-reasoned
Patna High Court D. REF. No.1 of 2024 dt.26-03-2026
161
conclusion to reverse the decision of the learned trial court
in Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 1150 of 2019 (Shyam Vinay Sharma
vs. The State of Bihar), Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 1162 of 2019
(Rinku Yadav vs. The State of Bihar), Cr. Appeal (DB) No.
1185 of 2019 (Md. Naim Miya @ Naim Miya vs. The State of
Bihar), Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 1246 of 2019 (Md. Chand Miya
@ Chand Miyan vs. The State of Bihar) and Cr. Appeal (DB)
No. 1271 of 2019 (Anshu Kumar vs. The State of Bihar).
2. I fully agree with the reasoning and rationale of
the judgment recorded by Hon’ble the Chief Justice in
Death Reference No. 1 of 2024 (The State of Bihar vs.
Lamboo Sharma @ Munna Sharma @ Sachidanand Sharma)
and in the connected appeal being Cr. Appeal (DB) No.
1210 of 2019 (Lambu Sharma @ Munna Sharma @
Sachidanand Sharma vs. The State of Bihar). I also endorse
the judgment in Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 1290 of 2019 (Akhilesh
Upadhyay @ Musa vs. The State of Bihar).
3. I would only add with regard to the procedural
integrity which have been followed in course of hearing of
these appeals. In fact, it is a learning experience for me as
a member of the Hon’ble Division Bench. When the hearing
in these appeals and the death reference case started, the
learned Registrar General of this Court was instructed to
communicate to the Jail Superintendent, Divisional Jail.
Jamui and the condemned prisoner, namely, Lamboo
Sharma @ Munna Sharma @ Sachidanand Sharma to be
Patna High Court D. REF. No.1 of 2024 dt.26-03-2026
162
present online/ through virtual mode. Earlier, Mr. Pratik
Mishra, learned counsel was engaged as Amicus Curiae in
the Death Reference. The condemned prisoner Lamboo
Sharma @ Munna Sharma @ Sachidanand Sharma was
informed about the engagement of Mr. Pratik Mishra,
learned counsel as an Amicus Curiae. He expressed no
objection regarding the counsel who had been engaged. On
13.01.2026, an order was passed directing learned
Additional Public Prosecutor for the State to ascertain about
the jails in which the other appellants were lodged. It was
directed to ensure their appearance through virtual mode
on the next date of hearing. At the same time, the
Secretaries of the respective District Legal Services
Authority were directed to depute one counsel from the
panel to remain present with the respective appellants to
apprise them about the proceedings of that day. On all
subsequent dates of hearing, the condemned prisoner
Lamboo Sharma @ Munna Sharma @ Sachidanand Sharma
and the other appellants remained present through virtual
mode and they were being explained the arguments which
were going on in this Court, through the respective learned
counsels present with them in the jail premises where the
appellants were lodged.
4. In order to provide the prisoners a fair
opportunity to be heard on the point of sentencing, we
recorded in our order dated 16.01.2026 in paragraphs ’10’,
Patna High Court D. REF. No.1 of 2024 dt.26-03-2026
163
’11’, ’12’ and ’13’ as under:-
“10. Law is well settled that hearing on
the question of sentence has to be real
and effective and not a mere formality; if a
meaningful hearing is not taken up by a
Court while considering the sentence to be
imposed and inflicted upon the convict, it
is likely to cause severe prejudice to him.
Either there is a need for considering the
mitigating circumstances already on
record received as evidence during trial or
besides such evidence, further opportunity
should be provided to a convict to bring on
record all such circumstances favourable
to him at the time of hearing on sentence.
While addressing the apprehensions
relating to absence of a framework at the
time of considering sentence, the Hon’ble
Supreme Court in the case of Manoj and
Others -Vrs.- State of Madhya
Pradesh reported in (2022) SCC Online
SC 677 held the importance of a separate
hearing and the necessity of background
analysis of the convict with reference to
the social milieu, age, educational
qualification and whether, he has faced
any trauma in life, family circumstances,
psychological evaluation and post-
conviction conduct being the relevant
factors while taking a call, whether, death
penalty should be imposed or otherwise.
11. Being satisfied that the learned Trial
Court has not acted properly while hearing
on the question of sentence with respect
Patna High Court D. REF. No.1 of 2024 dt.26-03-2026
164to the appellant in the manner it was
expected to and that the law envisages
with the aggravating and mitigating
circumstances to be either on record or
with such further opportunity to furnish
the necessary information or data thereon,
this Court is of the humble view that in
view of the settled position of law
discussed herein before, for a purposeful
and meaningful hearing on sentence, the
appellant should be afforded an
opportunity at present inviting from him
such data to be furnished in the shape of
affidavits and also to direct the Jail
Authority to do the needful in that regard.
The Court is hence of the view that there
is a need for a direction to the
Superintendent, District Jail, Jamui to
collect all such information on the past life
of the convicts, psychological conditions of
the appellant and also his conduct post-
conviction obtaining reports accordingly
by taking service and necessary
assistance from the Probation Officer and
such other officers including a
Psychologist or Jail doctor or any Medical
Officer attending the prison. Such an
exercise is considered to be absolutely
expedient in order to advance the cause of
justice, the intent and purpose being to
provide a fair amount of opportunity for
the appellant to bring on record all such
mitigating circumstances to be weighed
against the aggravating circumstances
Patna High Court D. REF. No.1 of 2024 dt.26-03-2026
165since a balance is to be struck while taking
a final decision on sentence in
juxtaposition to the sentences imposed by
the Trial Court. Hence, it is ordered.
12. The appellant shall submit all such
materials on mitigating circumstances by
filling affidavits stating therein the
particulars for consideration of the Court
on or before 27th January, 2026. It is
directed that the Superintendent, District
Jail, Jamui shall exercise his good office
and ensure collection of detailed
information with reports on the past life,
psychological conditions and post
conviction conduct of the appellant and
such other matters to be relevant at the
final hearing by taking able assistance of
the officials concerned. It is further
directed that all the materials shall reach
this Court on or before 27th January, 2026.
13. At the end, it is clarified that this Court
has not expressed anything on merits of
the appeal as the appellants should not
pre-judge and be on any such
apprehension for the above exercise being
undertaken, which is in relation to the
sentencing aspect to be examined finally,
while disposing it off with the death
reference.”
5. Pursuant to the aforementioned order, learned
APP representing the State obtained instructions and filed
affidavit sworn by the Jail Superintendent, Jamui. The same
has been recorded in our order dated 02.02.2026 in Death
Patna High Court D. REF. No.1 of 2024 dt.26-03-2026
166
Reference No. 1 of 2024. We reproduce paragraph ‘6’ of the
said order hereunder for a ready reference:-
“6. Ms. Shashi Bala Verma, learned APP has
placed before this Court the affidavit sworn
by the Jail Superintendent, Jamui. This
affidavit has been filed in compliance of our
order dated 16.01.2026 and 28.01.2026.
The affidavit is taken on the record. While,
prima-facie, going through the said affidavit,
we have noticed from one of the annexures
which is a copy of Letter No. 1214 dated
05.05.2016 written by the Superintendent,
Divisional Jail, Ara to the Superintendent
Special Central Jail, Bhagalpur that the
condemned prisoner Lambu Sharma has got
eight criminal antecedents. In two sessions
trials i.e. Sessions Trial No. 659 of 2008 and
Sessions Trial No. 128 of 2010, he has been
convicted by the learned trial court. Out of
these two trials in one of the trials against
the judgment of conviction and order of
sentence, his appeal being Cr. Appeal (DB)
No. 502 of 2013 has been allowed while
another appeal being Cr. Appeal (DB) No.
659 of 2008 has been dismissed. As regards
the other six cases which are mentioned in
the communication stated hereinabove,
presently there is no information as to their
status/stage.”
6. In course of hearing of the appeal, it was
noticed that learned counsel representing Rinku Yadav in
Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 1162 of 2019 was not appearing. In
Patna High Court D. REF. No.1 of 2024 dt.26-03-2026
167
such circumstance, we interacted with Rinku Yadav who
was online and with his consent, we requested Mr. Ravindra
Kumar, learned Advocate to appear as Amicus Curiae and
represent the case of Rinku Yadav. The learned Advocate
was already appearing on behalf of some of the appellants.
With the consent of Rinku Yadav, we have heard Mr.
Ravindra Kumar, learned Amicus Curiae in Cr. Appeal (DB)
No. 1162 of 2019. These are recorded in our order dated
02.02.2026.
7. On 12.02.2026, when the hearing was going to
be concluded, we interacted with the condemned prisoner
as well as the Jail Superintendent, Jamui and enquired
about the nature of the cases in which Lamboo Sharma @
Munna Sharma @ Sachidanand Sharma has been made
accused during his incarceration in connection with the
present case. The Jail Superintendent, Ara was called upon
to make available a copy of the FIR as well as the
Chargesheet of these cases after obtaining the same either
from the Office of the Superintendent of Police, Bhojpur, Ara
or from the concerned Court where the cases are pending.
In course of interaction, the condemned prisoner Lamboo
Sharma @ Munna Sharma @ Sachidanand Sharma wanted
to give something in writing on his behalf. We directed the
Jail Superintendent, Jamui to collect the same and send it to
the Office of learned Advocate General from where Ms.
Shashi Bala Verma, learned Additional Public Prosecutor
Patna High Court D. REF. No.1 of 2024 dt.26-03-2026
168
shall collect and place before us for our record.
8. The issues with regard to appointment of
Amicus Curiae in an appeal pending before the Hon’ble
High Court against the judgment of conviction recorded by
learned Sessions Court recently came for consideration in
the case of Bhola Mahto vs. The State of Jharkhand
reported in 2026 INSC 257. In the said case, the appellant
challenged the judgment of the Hon’ble Jharkhand High
Court on the grounds inter alia that the appellant had not
been made aware of the absence of learned counsel
engaged by him to prosecute the appeal before the Division
Bench and that such Bench proceeded to appoint the
Amicus Curiae without the appellant’s knowledge. The
Hon’ble Supreme Court called for a report from the learned
Registrar General of the High Court and it was found that
no notice was issued to the appellant to the effect that his
learned counsel was not appearing to prosecute the appeal
and that an amicus had been appointed by the Division
Bench. In this background, it was vehemently contended on
behalf of the appellant that there had been a gross failure
of justice, in that the appellant had suffered prejudice by
not being meted out fair treatment. The Hon’ble Supreme
Court has held in paragraph ’14’ of it’s judgment as under:-
“14. Having held so, we find that the High
Court in its anxiety to deliver justice
without further delay and to decide the
appeal expeditiously upon hearing the
Patna High Court D. REF. No.1 of 2024 dt.26-03-2026
169learned amicus, had not made an attempt
to inform the appellant that his appeal
having been listed for final hearing (after
two decades) and there being absence of
representation from his side, (on the first
day) an amicus had been appointed to
represent him. The High Court was under
no obligation to inform the appellant of his
counsel’s absence; however, it would have
been a desirable precaution if the appellant
were so informed. This is more so, because,
this Court has taken the view that
assistance in the form of legal aid should be
real and meaningful and not by way of a
token gesture or to complete an idle
formality. None can possibly doubt the High
Court’s genuine intention to render legal
assistance to a non-appearing convict by
appointing an amicus on his behalf to assist
the court render justice but, perhaps,
justice would have been better served if an
intimation by way of a notice been sent,
bearing in mind that the appeal was listed
for the first time for hearing twenty-one
years after the appellant was released on
bail.”
9. In the case of Bhola Mahto (supra), the
Hon’ble Supreme Court referred the decision of the Court
reported in Anokhi Lal vs. State of Madhya Pradesh
reported in (2019) 20 SCC 196 and proceeded to record
the additional observations. I reproduce paragraphs ’22’
and ’23’ of the judgment in case of Bhola Mahto (supra)
Patna High Court D. REF. No.1 of 2024 dt.26-03-2026
170
as under:-
“22. Before parting, we wish to refer to the
decision of this Court reported in Anokhi Lal
v. State of Madhya Pradesh, [(2019) 20
SCC 196]. A three-Judge Bench speaking
through Hon’ble U.U. Lalit, J. (as the learned
Chief Justice then was) poignantly observed
as follows:”
26. Expeditious disposal is undoubtedly
required in criminal matters and that
would naturally be part of guarantee of
fair trial. However, the attempts to
expedite the process should not be at
the expense of the basic elements of
fairness and the opportunity to the
accused, on which postulates, the entire
criminal administration of justice is
founded. In the pursuit for expeditious
disposal, the cause of justice must
never be allowed to suffer or be
sacrificed. What is paramount is the
cause of justice and keeping the basic
ingredients which secure that as a core
idea and ideal, the process may be
expedited, but fast tracking of process
must never ever result in burying the
cause of justice.
Thereafter, the Court proceeded to lay down
norms to avoid repetition of infirmities
noticed in the case under consideration. It
was said thus:
31. Before we part, we must lay down
Patna High Court D. REF. No.1 of 2024 dt.26-03-2026
171certain norms so that the infirmities
that we have noticed in the present
matter are not repeated:
31.1. In all cases where there is a
possibility of life sentence or death
sentence, learned advocates who have
put in minimum of 10 years’ practice
at the Bar alone be considered to be
appointed as Amicus Curiae or through
legal services to represent an accused.
31.2. In all matters dealt with by the
High Court concerning confirmation of
death sentence, Senior Advocates of
the Court must first be considered to
be appointed as Amicus Curiae.
31.3. Whenever any learned counsel is
appointed as Amicus Curiae, some
reasonable time may be provided to
enable the counsel to prepare the
matter. There cannot be any hard-and-
fast rule in that behalf. However, a
minimum of seven days’ time may
normally be considered to be
appropriate and adequate.
31.4. Any learned counsel, who is
appointed as Amicus Curiae on behalf
of the accused must normally be
granted to have meetings and
discussion with the accused
concerned. Such interactions may
prove to be helpful as was noticed in
Imtiyaz Ramzan Khan [(2018) 9 SCC
160.
23. In continuation of the above and in the
Patna High Court D. REF. No.1 of 2024 dt.26-03-2026
172
light of what has transpired in course of the
present proceedings, we wish to make an
additional observation. It is a matter of
common knowledge that once a convict
obtains an order from the appellate court
suspending the sentence of imprisonment
and is, consequently, released on bail, more
often than not, he neglects and/or fails to
cooperate with the court and impedes an
expeditious decision on his appeal by
staying away from the proceedings with a
view to ensure that his liberty is not
curtailed, if the appeal were to fail. Drawing
from experience, we can record that on
many an occasion, such convicts become
untraceable. These convicts, enjoying the
concession of bail and misusing it, need to
be dealt with firm and strong hands by the
courts. Having regard to the dictum of the
three-Judge Bench in Anokhi Lal (supra) and
in order to curb the tendency of convicts to
raise technical pleas of the nature which
were advanced before us, we observe that,
henceforth, whenever an appellate court
considers it desirable to appoint an amicus
to represent a convict whose counsel is
absent, such Court may also consider the
desirability of issuing a notice from the
registry to the address of the convict
mentioned in the memorandum of appeal,
for such notice to be served on him through
the jurisdictional police station, with an
intimation that the convict may contact the
learned amicus and provide him necessary
Patna High Court D. REF. No.1 of 2024 dt.26-03-2026
173
instructions so that his case is argued
before the Court effectively and
meaningfully. In the event the convict
contacts the amicus and provides
instructions, there would ordinarily be no
impediment in proceeding with hearing of
the appeal. If, indeed, the convict desires to
have his own counsel argue the appeal on
his behalf and not the amicus, the Court
may hear such counsel in addition to the
amicus. However, if the service report
indicates that the convict was not found at
the address or that he refused to accept
notice despite being present, it would
amount to sufficient compliance if the
notice is pasted on the outer wall of the
premises, address whereof is mentioned in
the cause title of the memorandum of
appeal. Should the convict still remain
dormant, and it is so reported, the High
Court may proceed to decide the appeal
without waiting for the convict to turn up
either in person or through the counsel of
his choice engaged by him. This process, in
our view, would substantially serve the
purpose of eliminating any plea of
unfairness being raised before this Court if
an appeal is disposed of upon hearing the
amicus appointed by the court.
Additionally, in a case of like nature where
the appeal is listed two decades after grant
of bail, this process would ensure obtaining
of information as to whether the appeal
survives for decision or stands abated. In
Patna High Court D. REF. No.1 of 2024 dt.26-03-2026
174
case of the latter, the courts could avoid
spending precious judicial time deciding an
appeal which, by operation of law, may not
require a decision on merits. Of course, for
a convict in custody who has committed an
offence punishable with death or life
imprisonment, the directions in Anokhi Lal
(supra) have to be scrupulously followed
apart from the relevant rules regulating the
business of the courts concerned.”
10. In the present case, the procedural integrity
was maintained right from the beginning. The procedure
followed in the present appeal is fully in consonance with
the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of
Bhola Mahto (supra).
11. I believe that the procedure followed in the
present case in the matter of appointment of Amicus
Curiae and securing the presence of the convicts
particularly condemned prisoner and giving them an
opportunity to interact will set a precedent.
(Rajeev Ranjan Prasad, J)
P.K.P.
AFR/NAFR AFR
CAV DATE 12.02.2026
Uploading Date 26.03.2026
Transmission Date 26.03.2026