IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL APPEAL (DB) No.566 of 2000

======================================================

Against the Judgment of conviction dated 15.09.2000 and the order of

sentence dated 16.09.2000, passed Sri Diwakar Jha, 5

th

Additional

Sessions Judge, Gopalganj in Sessions Trial No. 211 of 1996, arising out

of Barauli (Sidhwalia) P.S. Case No. 243 of 1995.

======================================================

Dumar Bin @ Domar Bin, Son of Balist Bin, Resident of Village – Khajuria,

P.S. Sindhwalia, District – Gopalganj.

... ... Appellant/s

Versus

The State of Bihar

... ... Respondent/s

======================================================

Appearance :

For the Appellant/s: Ms. Anukriti Jaipuriyar, Amicus Curiae

For the Respondent/s: Mr. Satya Narayan Prasad, A.P.P.

======================================================

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR SINHA

and

HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK KUMAR

C.A.V. JUDGMENT

(Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK KUMAR)

Date : 21-07-2026

Heard Ms. Anukriti Jaipuriyar, learned Amicus

Curiae for the Appellant and Mr. Satya Narayan Prasad, learned

counsel for the State.

2. The present appeal has been preferred against the

Judgment of Conviction dated 15.09.2000 and Order of

Sentence dated 16.09.2000 passed by the learned 5

th

Additional

Sessions Judge, Gopalganj, in Sessions Trial No. 211 of 1996

arising out of Sidhwalia P.S. Case No. 243 of 1995, whereby the

appellant was convicted for the offence punishable under

Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo

Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.566 of 2000 dt.21-07-2026

2/30

rigorous imprisonment for life and fine of Rs. 5000/- and in

default of payment to undergo R/I for one year.

3. The prosecution case, as unfolded in the

fardbayan of the informant, Dharamnath Singh alias Chiraiya

Das, son of Late Jamadar Singh, recorded at Sidhwalia Police

Station on 19.10.1995 at about 6:00 P.M., is that on 19.10.1995

at about 3:30 P.M., the informant reached his agricultural field

from the eastern side, while his brother, Paras Singh (deceased),

arrived at the field from the northern side. It is alleged that the

informant’s Rahar crop was damaged by cattle. The informant

questioned the accused as to why they had destroyed the crop

and stated that he would not abandon his land on account of

their actions. Thereupon, it is alleged that the appellant, along

with the other co-accused persons, started assaulting the

informant with lathis at the instigation of co-accused Palita Bin.

It is further alleged that Algu Bin was the first to assault the

informant with a lathi, whereafter the remaining accused

persons also joined in the assault. The appellant inflicted a spear

blow on the abdomen of the informant's brother, Paras Singh,

causing him to fall on the field. Thereafter, Kanchan Bin

allegedly assaulted Paras Singh with lathi. The occurrence was

witnessed by Vishwanath Singh, Amresh Singh, Yogendra

Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.566 of 2000 dt.21-07-2026

3/30

Singh, and other persons, who rushed to the place of occurrence.

Upon seeing other villagers were approaching, all the accused

persons allegedly fled from the place of occurrence. It is also

alleged that the informant’s brother Paras Singh died on the field

at that time.

4. On the basis of the aforesaid fardbayan, Barauli

(Sidhwalia) P.S. Case No. 243 of 1995, dated 20.10.1995, was

registered against the present appellant along with other co-

accused persons for the offences punishable under Sections 147,

148, 149, 302 and 324 of the Indian Penal Code.

5. Upon completion of the investigation, the police

submitted charge-sheet no. 02/96 dated 12.01.1996 against the

present appellant along with other co-accused persons for the

offence punishable under Sections 147, 148, 149, 302 and 324

of the Indian Penal Code.

6. Thereafter, the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate

took cognizance of the offence and on 19.07.1996 and the case

was committed to the Court of Sessions. Upon commitment on

22.01.1997, charges under Sections 147, 148, 149, 323 & 302

IPC were framed against the appellant and other eight co-

accused persons. The charges were read over and explained to

them in Hindi, to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to

Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.566 of 2000 dt.21-07-2026

4/30

be tried.

7. The prosecution in order to substantiate its case,

has examined as many as nine witnesses and exhibited some

documents on its behalf. List of prosecution witnesses and

exhibits are being mentioned hereunder in tabular form.

List of Prosecution Witnesses :

Prosecution

witness no.

Name of witness Description

1. Yogendra Singh Villager

2. Bhagwat Singh Villager

3. Janak Singh Villager

4. Bishwanath Singh Villager

5. Bikram Singh Villager

6. Suresh Pandey Villager (Seizure list witness)

7. Dharamnath Singh Informant / Brother of the

deceased

8. Nilesh Kumar SinghSon of deceased

9. Dr. Shambu Nath SinghDoctor who conducted post-

mortem

List of Exhibits on behalf of the prosecution :

Exhibit No.Description of the Exhibit Date/attested by

1 Fardbayan 09.05.2000

2 Formal FIR 12.05.2000

3 Signature of witness on Seizure List 12.05.2000

4 Carbon copy of Post-Mortem Report05.09.2000

8. After closure of the prosecution evidence, the

statement of the appellant was recorded under Section 313 of

the Code of Criminal Procedure on 08.09.2000. The appellant

Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.566 of 2000 dt.21-07-2026

5/30

denied all incriminating circumstances appearing against him in

the prosecution evidence and claimed innocence.

Submission on behalf of Appellant

9. Learned Amicus Curiae, Ms. Anukriti Jaipuriyar,

appearing on behalf of the appellant, has, at the outset,

submitted that the judgment of conviction is against the weight

of evidence and has been rendered on mere presumption of

guilt. It is contended that the prosecution has failed to prove its

case beyond reasonable doubt, inasmuch as the testimonies of

the prosecution witnesses suffer from material contradictions

and inconsistencies.

10. It is further submitted that the conviction of the

appellant rests solely on the testimony of PW-8, who is the son

of the deceased and, therefore, an interested witness. The

testimony of PW-8 is replete with material contradictions and

inconsistencies and finds no corroboration from any

independent witness or other reliable evidence on record. In

such circumstances, PW-8 cannot be treated as a wholly reliable

or sterling witness, and it would be unsafe to sustain the

conviction solely on the basis of his uncorroborated testimony.

11. Learned counsel for the Appellant also submits

that although the FIR was instituted against nine accused

Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.566 of 2000 dt.21-07-2026

6/30

persons, including the present appellant, eight of them have

been acquitted as the prosecution failed to establish their guilt

beyond reasonable doubt. The failure of the prosecution case

against the co-accused, coupled with the absence of

corroboration from independent witnesses, seriously undermines

the prosecution version. In the absence of any cogent or

distinguishing evidence against the appellant, his conviction on

the same set of evidence is wholly unsustainable and is liable to

be set aside.

12. It has, lastly, been submitted that the

Investigating Officer has not been examined in the present case.

The non-examination of the Investigating Officer has caused

serious prejudice to the defence, as the appellant has been

deprived of the valuable opportunity to prove material

contradictions and omissions, and effectively challenge the

fairness and legality of the investigation. It is also contended

that the prosecution has failed to establish any motive

attributable to the appellant.

13. In view of the aforesaid facts and

circumstances, it is submitted that the impugned judgment of

conviction and order of sentence is fit to be set aside as the

prosecution has miserably failed to prove its case beyond

Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.566 of 2000 dt.21-07-2026

7/30

reasonable doubt.

14. Learned counsel for the Appellant relied on a

Judgment of Rai Sandeep @ Deepu v. State (NCT of Delhi),

reported in (2012) 8 SCC 21, wherein the Hon’ble Supreme

Court has well discussed the concept of “sterling witness” and

has held that where conviction is based solely on one witness,

his testimony must be of very high quality and should inspire

complete confidence. If the witness suffers from inconsistencies

or improbabilities, conviction cannot be sustained.

15. Referring to above Judgment, she argued that

P.W.8 Nilesh Kumar Singh, being the sole witness after all other

witnesses turned hostile, his testimony must satisfy the test of a

sterling witness. She further relied on a Judgment Vadivelu

Thevar v. State of Madras, reported in AIR 1957 SC 614,

wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court has discussed that

conviction can be based on testimony of a solitary witness, if

wholly reliable. She further argued that P.W.8, being the son of

deceased and unsupported by any independent witness requires

corroboration. She further relied on a Judgment in the case of

State of Rajasthan v. Kalki, reported in (1981) 2 SCC 752,

wherein it has been held that evidence of related witness

requires careful scrutiny. She also relied on a Judgment in the

Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.566 of 2000 dt.21-07-2026

8/30

case of Behari Prasad v. State of Bihar, reported in (1996) 2

SCC 317 and Arvind Singh v. State of Bihar, reported in (2001)

6 SCC 407, wherein it has been held that non-examination of

the Investigating Officer causes serious prejudice. Finally, she

concluded her argument by relying on Judgment of Hon’ble

Supreme Court in the case of Muluwa v. State of Madhya

Pradesh, reported in AIR (1976) SC 989 and Sarwan Singh

Rattan Singh v. State of Punjab, reported in AIR (1957) SC

637, on an issue of suspicion, however strong, cannot take the

place of proof.

Submission on behalf of the Respondents

16. Per contra, learned Additional Public

Prosecutor, Satya Narayan Prasad, appearing on behalf of the

State, while opposing the appeal submitted that the learned trial

Court, after considering all the evidence and exhibits placed on

record, has rightly convicted the appellant, as the offences

alleged against the appellant appear to be serious in nature. It is

contended that the prosecution has succeeded in proving the

charges beyond all reasonable doubts. It is further submitted that

any apparent contradictions and inconsistencies in the testimony

of the prosecution witnesses are minor and trivial in nature,

which do not affect the core of the prosecution case or the

Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.566 of 2000 dt.21-07-2026

9/30

overall credibility of the witness. Such discrepancies, it is urged,

are liable to be disregarded in the interest of justice. Learned

Additional Public Prosecutor placed reliance on the judgment of

the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Vadivelu Thevar v.

The State of Madras, reported in AIR 1957 SC 614, in which it

is held that “The Court unequivocally held that it is a well-

established rule that the court is concerned with the quality and

not the quantity of evidence, and that insisting on a plurality of

witnesses would indirectly encourage subornation of witnesses

and leave genuine crimes unpunished.” He further relied on the

judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Adalat

Yadav and Another v. State of Bihar, reported in 2026 INSC

403 in which it has been held that “the testimony of a single

injured eyewitness, if deemed of sterling quality, can seal a

conviction even without independent corroboration and even

where other alleged eyewitnesses have been discredited.”

17. It is, therefore, submitted that the impugned

judgment of conviction and order of sentence do not suffer from

any legal infirmity or irregularity warranting interference by this

Court in exercise of its appellate jurisdiction. The appeal is

devoid of any merit and fit to be dismissed.

Conclusion

Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.566 of 2000 dt.21-07-2026

10/30

18. We have heard the parties and perused the

materials available on record as well as lower court records and

proceedings and also taken note of the arguments canvassed by

learned counsel appearing on behalf of the parties.

19. It would be apposite to discuss the

oral/documentary evidence as available on record to re-

appreciate the evidence for just and proper disposal of the

present appeal.

20. PW–1 Yogendra Singh (co-villager), in his

examination-in-chief, deposed that the occurrence had taken

place about four years prior to his deposition at around 3:30

p.m. He stated that he had just reached his house when he heard

that Paras Singh had died and Dharamnath Singh had sustained

injuries. The place of occurrence was the agricultural field of

Dharamnath Singh. He further stated that he had not witnessed

the assault. The witness was declared hostile at the request of

the prosecution.

21. In his cross-examination by the prosecution,

PW–1 stated that his statement had been recorded by the police.

He further deposed that he had only stated before the police that,

upon hearing the hula, he proceeded to the place of occurrence

where he found Dharamnath Singh lying injured and Paras

Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.566 of 2000 dt.21-07-2026

11/30

Singh lying dead. He categorically denied having stated before

the police that he had witnessed the accused persons assaulting

Dharamnath Singh. He also denied having stated that accused

Domar Bind inflicted a spear blow on the abdomen of Paras

Singh, causing an injury on the left side of his stomach, or that

accused Kanchan Bind broke the spear and thereafter assaulted

the deceased with the broken spear, inflicting injuries which

resulted in his death. He further denied having stated before the

police that, on seeing the villagers approaching, the accused

persons fled from the place of occurrence. The witness denied

the suggestion that he was deliberately suppressing the truth.

The witness stated that he knew all the accused persons. He

identified the seven accused persons present in Court.

22. In his cross-examination by the defence, PW–1

stated that he reached the place of occurrence after 15 minutes.

He further deposed that he is a pattidar (agnate) of the deceased,

Paras Singh.

23. PW-2 Bhagwat Singh (co-villager), in his

examination-in-chief, deposed that the occurrence had occurred

about four years prior at about 3:00 p.m. He further stated that at

that time, he was at his house and did not witness the occurrence

himself. Upon receiving information about the incident, he

Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.566 of 2000 dt.21-07-2026

12/30

arrived at the place of occurrence, where he found Paras Singh

was dead and Dharamnath Singh was in injured condition. He

stated that his statement was recorded by the police, wherein he

had also stated that he reached on the place of occurrence after

receiving information and saw the dead body of Paras Singh and

Dharamnath Singh in an injured condition. He further deposed

that he did not recognize any of the accused persons and did not

identify anyone present in Court.

24. In cross-examination, PW-2 stated that the

place of occurrence is situated at a distance of about 2

kilometers from his house.

25. PW-3 Janak Singh (co-villager), in his

examination-in-chief, deposed that he had no knowledge about

the occurrence of this case. He further deposed that on the date

of the incident, he was at Pipra Fair. The learned additional

public prosecutor submitted that the statement of PW-3 was not

recorded in the case diary. This witness was not cross-examined

by the defence.

26. PW-4 Bishwanath Singh (co-villager), in his

examination-in-chief, deposed that the occurrence had taken

place about four and a half years prior. He stated that he did not

remember the time of the occurrence. He further stated that on

Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.566 of 2000 dt.21-07-2026

13/30

the date of the incident, he had gone to the Pipra fair to purchase

a bull and returned from the fair after two days. Upon his return,

he came to know that a quarrel had taken place between Paras

Singh and Bin people, and he heard that Paras Singh had died in

the said quarrel. He further deposed that he had not seen anyone

being killed, as he was not present on the date of the occurrence.

He further stated that he did not remember whether his

statement had been recorded by the police.

27. In cross-examination, PW-4 stated that he came

to know from the villagers that Paras Singh was dead.

28. PW-5 Bikram Singh (co-villager), in his

examination-in-chief, identified the signature and handwriting

of Rameshwar Mahto on the fardbayan, which was marked as

Exhibit–1. He also identified the handwriting and signature of

Ali Hussain, the then Station House Officer of Barauli Police

Station, which was marked as Exhibit–2.

29. In cross-examination, PW-5 stated that it was

not written in his presence.

30. PW-6 Suresh Pandey (co-villager), in his

examination-in-chief, deposed that on 19.10.1995 at 06:30 p.m.

Sub Inspector (Daroga ji) came to his village carrying a piece of

paper and asked him to sign it. He further stated that he signed

Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.566 of 2000 dt.21-07-2026

14/30

the document. The witness identified his signature on the

seizure-list, which is marked as Exhibit-3. The witness was

declared hostile at the request of the prosecution.

31. In his cross-examination by the defence, PW–6

stated that he was some distance away from the place of

occurrence and went there only when the Sub-Inspector (S.I.)

called him. He further deposed that the seizure list had already

been prepared when he arrived, and he signed it. He further

stated that he could not tell the length of the stick or the other

seized article. He reached the place only after the incident had

already occurred.

32. PW-7 (Informant), in his examination-in-chief,

deposed that he had gone to inspect his agricultural field, where

he found the goats and cattle belonging to the accused persons

grazing in his Rahar crop. When he protested, the accused

persons surrounded him and started assaulting him. He further

stated that he became nervous and could not recognize any of

the accused persons. According to the informant when he was

beaten and he became unconscious. He stated that he could not

say who assaulted him or who assaulted the other. The

informant was declared hostile at the request of the prosecution.

33. In his cross-examination by the prosecution,

Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.566 of 2000 dt.21-07-2026

15/30

PW–7 stated that he did not remember whether he had given

any statement to the police. He denied that he had stated before

the police that Algu Bind had assaulted Paras with a stick and

that the other accused had also assaulted him with sticks. He

further stated that he did not remember telling the police that

Domar Bind had struck his brother Paras in the stomach with a

spear or that Kanchan Bind had assaulted his brother with a

stick. He also did not remember informing the police that the

incident had taken place at about 3:00 p.m. PW-7 explained that

he was nervous. He denied the suggestion that he was

suppressing the truth in collusion with the accused.

34. In his cross-examination by the defence, PW–7

stated that the field where the incident occurred was situated at a

distance of about one to two bighas from his house. He deposed

that he and his brother Paras had not gone to the field together

and Paras did not have any enmity or strained relations with the

accused. He also stated that the houses of other persons

belonging to the accused's locality were situated near the place

of occurrence.

35. The conviction was based on the deposition of

Nilesh Kumar Singh (PW-8), who happens to be the son of the

deceased. In his examination-in-chief he stated that the incident

Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.566 of 2000 dt.21-07-2026

16/30

occurred about five years ago at 3.30 P.M. on Thursday. At the

time of the incident, this witness was at his home. He stated that

his uncle Dharamnath Singh and his father had gone to inspect

the fields. At that time the Bind brothers, including Palita Bind,

Algu Bind, Shiv Bind, Dumar Bind, Kanchan Bind, Siraman

Bind and Daroga Bind exchanged hot words and began beating

his father and uncle. He stated that when there was a hulla, he

went there to inspect. He further stated that he saw Dumar hit

his father with a spear and Kanchan hit his father with the back

of the spear, and others were beating his uncle with sticks. On

receiving information, the police reached there, noted the report

and left the place. He also stated that his father died as a result

of beating. After his death, the villagers came there. This

witness recognized all the accused present and claimed to

identify them. He also stated that he told the Police that the

accused fled away after seeing the villagers. The distance

between the farm and his house is about 200 yards. There are

five or six houses between the farm and his house. He further

stated that his farm is after the houses of Sona Lal Manjhi,

Urethi Bind, Saral Bind and Mati Laal Bind. He also stated that

his statement was recorded by the police at the site of the

incident, one or two hours after the incident. He also stated that

Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.566 of 2000 dt.21-07-2026

17/30

when he arrived, the accused had already beaten his father and

uncle. The other villagers were not present. He stated that his

father died and his uncle fell unconscious.

36. In his cross-examination, P.W. - 8 stated that he

had no enmity with the accused before the incident, and the area

where the incident occurred is his land. There was no dispute

over this land. He stated that his uncle and father went to ask the

accused at 3.30 P.M.; he did not accompany them. Later on, he

heard a hulla from both sides ten minutes after their departure.

He further stated that he was grazing buffalo nearby and heard

the hulla of his uncle and father, and then he ran towards that

site. He was empty-handed. At that time his uncle had fainted

and his father had died after the beating. He further narrated that

his father did not bleed. His uncle had a fracture in his ankle. He

also stated that when he went to save them, the accused persons

did not beat him. The spear moved from the left side of his

uncle. The first injury was from the spear. He further stated in

his cross-examination that he did not know whether his father

tried to stop the spear when it was thrown, as he had gone there

later. He also stated that he had not seen the spear on the land

but had seen the stick.

37. P.W.9 the Medical Officer, who conducted

Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.566 of 2000 dt.21-07-2026

18/30

Postmortem examination on the dead body of Paras Singh,

indicated that death was caused due to shock and hemorrhage as

a result of caused by a sharp pointed and penetrating weapon

such as Bhala and found the following ante mortem injuries:

(1) Abrasion 1” X 1/2” over middle on right leg on

lateral side.

(2) Abrasion 1/2” X 1/2” over forehead in its

middle near hair line.

(3) Sharp penetrating wound 2/3” X 1/2” X deep

into abdominal cavity situated within 10

th

and 11

th

rib in mid axillary line on left side.

On dissection the witness found abdominal cavity

full of blood and blood clots and spleen punctured and inter

costal space between 10

th

and 11

th

rib punctured. The witness

stated that these injuries corresponded to injury no.3. The

witness opined that, according to the doctor, the time elapsed

since death was 24 hours. The witness identified his writing and

signature on the Postmortem report marked Ext.4.

38. In this case all the independent eyewitnesses

namely Bishwanath Singh (PW-4), Yogendra Singh (PW-1) and

Amresh Singh (not examined) failed to support the prosecution.

The PW-1 turned hostile, PW-4 denied his presence and stated

Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.566 of 2000 dt.21-07-2026

19/30

he was away from village and Amresh Singh was not examined.

39. Having carefully examined the entire

evidence available on record and giving thoughtful

consideration to the rival submissions made by the Learned

Amicus Curiae for the Appellant and Learned APP for the State,

this Court finds that a quarrel had taken place in the agricultural

field of PW7 in the afternoon of 19.10.1995, which resulted in

the death of Paras Singh, brother of the informant (PW7), due to

injury caused to a vital part of the body.

The most important point for consideration is as to

whether the prosecution has been able to prove beyond

reasonable doubt that the present appellant was the one who

caused the death of Paras Singh, the brother of the informant

(PW7).

It is quite interesting that PW7, who also happens

to be the informant and the brother of the deceased, and the one

who was present at the site of the incident, was declared hostile

at the request of the prosecution.

PW-7 (Informant), in his examination-in-chief, had

stated that he became nervous and could not recognize any of

the accused persons. According to the informant when he was

beaten and he became unconscious. He stated that he could not

Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.566 of 2000 dt.21-07-2026

20/30

say who assaulted him or who assaulted the other. In his cross-

examination by the prosecution, PW–7 stated that he did not

remember whether he had given any statement to the police. He

denied that he had stated before the police that Algu Bind had

assaulted Paras with a stick and that the other accused had also

assaulted him with sticks

40. It is important to consider whether PW-8 (son

of the deceased), admittedly the sole witness against the

appellant, can be considered a sterling witness, when he himself

contradicts his own statements in this case, having stated in his

testimony that he arrived later at the place of incident and

further stated that he did not see the spear at the place of

incident but saw a stick. Further, his testimony is not

corroborated by the informant PW-7, or by the seizure-list

witnesses. Here, it is important to note that a “sterling witness”

is a credible, trustworthy and consistent witness whose

testimony is so reliable that a Court can accept it without any

corroboration. This indicates that quality rather than quantity of

the testimony matters. For a witness to be considered a “sterling

witness”, the testimony must meet great judicial standards. The

unimpeachable consistency, the confidence in answering

defence questions, and the independent and unbiased nature are

Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.566 of 2000 dt.21-07-2026

21/30

important. On perusal of the deposition of PW-8, it is quite clear

that there are material contradictions and inconsistencies in his

statements. Specially, in respect to where he was when the

incident took place.

The Hon’ble Apex Court in Rai Sandeep @ Deepu

vs State Of NCT Of Delhi (2012 (8) SCC 21), in para has 22

held that,

“In our considered opinion, the ‘sterling

witness’ should be of a very high quality and

caliber whose version should, therefore, be

unassailable. The Court considering the

version of such witness should be in a

position to accept it for its face value

without any hesitation. To test the quality of

such a witness, the status of the witness

would be immaterial and what would be

relevant is the truthfulness of the statement

made by such a witness. What would be

more relevant would be the consistency of

the statement right from the starting point

till the end, namely, at the time when the

witness makes the initial statement and

ultimately before the Court. It should be

natural and consistent with the case of the

prosecution qua the accused. There should

not be any prevarication in the version of

such a witness. The witness should be in a

position to withstand the cross- examination

Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.566 of 2000 dt.21-07-2026

22/30

of any length and howsoever strenuous it

may be and under no circumstance should

give room for any doubt as to the factum of

the occurrence, the persons involved, as well

as, the sequence of it. Such a version should

have co-relation with each and everyone of

other supporting material such as the

recoveries made, the weapons used, the

manner of offence committed, the scientific

evidence and the expert opinion. The said

version should consistently match with the

version of every other witness. It can even be

stated that it should be akin to the test

applied in the case of circumstantial

evidence where there should not be any

missing link in the chain of circumstances to

hold the accused guilty of the offence alleged

against him. Only if the version of such a

witness qualifies the above test as well as all

other similar such tests to be applied, it can

be held that such a witness can be called as

a ‘sterling witness’ whose version can be

accepted by the Court without any

corroboration and based on which the guilty

can be punished. To be more precise, the

version of the said witness on the core

spectrum of the crime should remain intact

while all other attendant materials, namely,

oral, documentary and material objects

should match the said version in material

Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.566 of 2000 dt.21-07-2026

23/30

particulars in order to enable the Court

trying the offence to rely on the core version

to sieve the other supporting materials for

holding the offender guilty of the charge

alleged.”

(Emphasis Supplied)

On the touchstone of the above principle, when we

test the version of PW-8’s deposition, it is unfortunate that the

said witness has failed to satisfy most of the tests mentioned

above. The deposition of PW-8 suffers from material

contradictions and inconsistencies. Since PW-8, being the son of

the deceased, is an interested witness, his testimony must be

examined with greater caution.

Further in Krishan Kumar Malik v. State of

Haryana (AIR 2011 SUPREME COURT 2877) in respect of

the offence of gang rape under Section 376 (2) (g), IPC, it has

been held as under in paras 31 and 32:

“31. No doubt, it is true that to hold an

accused guilty for commission of an offence

of rape, the solitary evidence of the

prosecutrix is sufficient provided the same

inspires confidence and appears to be

absolutely trustworthy, unblemished and

should be of sterling quality. But, in the case

in hand, the evidence of the prosecutrix,

Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.566 of 2000 dt.21-07-2026

24/30

showing several lacunae, which have

already been projected hereinabove, would

go to show that her evidence does not fall in

that category and cannot be relied upon to

hold the appellant guilty of the said offences.

32. Indeed there are several

significant variations in material facts in her

Section 164 statement, Section 161 statement

(CrPC), FIR and deposition in court. Thus,

it was necessary to get her evidence

corroborated independently, which they

could have done either by examination of

Ritu, her sister or Bimla Devi, who were

present in the house at the time of her

alleged abduction. The record shows that

Bimla Devi though cited as a witness was

not examined and later given up by the

public prosecutor on the ground that she has

been won over by the appellant.”

(Emphasis Supplied)

41. It is relevant to state here that the I.O. was not

examined in this case, the consequences of it is that the

contradiction u/s 161 of Cr.P.C. could not be proved, defense

lost valuable right of confronting the PW, place of occurrence

could not be proved, seizure and investigation could not be

verified, this leads to a serious prejudice to the defense coupled

with the fact when most of the eye-witnesses have turned out to

Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.566 of 2000 dt.21-07-2026

25/30

be hostile and conviction was based on a sole witness that too an

interested witness.

In this regard it is important to discuss here the

case of Chhote Lal v. Rohtash and Others, [2023 INSC 1072],

in which the Hon’ble Apex Court upheld the High Court's

acquittal, affirming that the testimony of a sole eyewitness —

particularly one who is an interested witness with demonstrated

enmity against the accused — must be examined with the

greatest caution, and if material discrepancies are found, it

cannot qualify as evidence of sterling quality”. The relevant

portion i.e., para 13 of the said judgment is reproduced as

below;

“It may not be out of context to mention that

the appellant/complainant, a sole

eyewitness, happens to be the most

interested witness being the father of the

deceased and having long enmity with the

group to which the accused persons belong,

therefore, his testimony was to be examined

with great caution and the High Court was

justified in doing so and in doubting it so as

to uphold the conviction on his solitary

evidence”.

(Emphasis Supplied)

42. Because of the nature of evidence, which is

Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.566 of 2000 dt.21-07-2026

26/30

available on record, the least, which ought to have been done by

the learned Trial Court, was to accord the benefit of reasonable

doubt to the appellant inasmuch as I am clearly of the view that

in the light of the evidence on record, which I have discussed

above, it was not proper to convict the appellant. The benefit of

such a situation ought to have been given to the appellant. The

Infirmities in the Prosecution’s Case which Lead to Reasonable

Doubt are flaws that fail to meet the “beyond a reasonable

doubt” standard. “Beyond a reasonable doubt” is the ultimate

standard of proof in the legal system. It means that the

prosecution must prove guilt conclusively, such that no

reasonable or rational person could arrive at another explanation

based on the evidence.

43. The ultimate benchmark of “beyond a

reasonable doubt” upholds the presumption of innocence in the

legal system that we follow. The presumption of innocence is

the absolute bedrock of a fair criminal justice system. It protects

individuals from wrongful, arbitrary imprisonment by requiring

the State to bear the burden of proof and to establish guilt

beyond a reasonable doubt, rather than placing the burden on

the accused to prove his innocence. It is pertinent to discuss here

the landmark judgment of Kali Ram v. State of Himachal

Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.566 of 2000 dt.21-07-2026

27/30

Pradesh, (1972) 2 SCC 808, which is a cornerstone of Indian

criminal jurisprudence for its emphasis on the ‘presumption of

innocence’ and ‘the strict standard of proof in criminal trials’,

and hence one of the most celebrated judgments on the ‘benefit

of doubt’ and the ‘presumption of innocence’ in Indian legal

history. The said judgment was rendered by a three-Judge Bench

of the Hon'ble Apex Court, wherein, in para 25, the Court held

that:

“Another golden thread which runs through

the web of the administration of justice in

criminal cases is that if two views are

possible on the evidence adduced in the

case, one pointing to the guilt of the accused

and the other to his innocence, the view

which is favourable to the accused should be

adopted. This principle has a special

relevance in cases wherein the guilt of the

accused is sought to be established by

circumstantial evidence. Rule has

accordingly been laid down that unless the

evidence adduced in the case is consistent

only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the

accused and is inconsistent with that of his

innocence, the Court should refrain from

recording a finding of guilt of the accused. It

is also an accepted rule that in case the

Court entertains reasonable doubt regarding

Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.566 of 2000 dt.21-07-2026

28/30

the guilt of the accused, the accused must

have the benefit of that doubt. Of course, the

doubt regarding the guilt of the accused

should be reasonable; it is not the doubt of a

mind which is either so vacillating that it is

incapable of reaching a firm conclusion or

so timid that is hesitant and afraid to take

things to their natural consequences. The

rule regarding the benefit of doubt also does

not warrant acquittal of the accused by

report to surmises, conjectures or fanciful

considerations. As mentioned by us recently

in the case of State of Punjab v. Jagir Singh

1974 3 SCC 227 a criminal trial is not like a

fairy tale wherein one is free to give flight to

one’s imagination and phantasy. It concerns

itself with the question as to whether the

accused arraigned at the trial is guilty of the

offence with which he is charged. Crime is

an event in real life and is the product of

interplay of different human emotions. In

arriving at the conclusion about the guilt of

the accused charged with the commission of

a crime, the Court has to judge the evidence

by the yardstick of probabilities, its intrinsic

worth and the animus of witnesses. Every

case in the final analysis would have to

depend upon its own facts. Although the

benefit of every reasonable doubt should be

given to the accused, the Courts should not

Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.566 of 2000 dt.21-07-2026

29/30

at the same time reject evidence which is ex

facie trustworthy on grounds which are

fanciful or in the nature of conjectures”.

(Emphasis Supplied)

44. Applying the above principle to the facts of the

case in hand, I find that the deposition of PW-8 cannot be taken

as gospel truth on its face value, and in the absence of any other

supportive evidence, there is no scope to sustain the conviction

and sentence imposed on the appellant.

45. In the result, this appeal succeeds. The

impugned conviction of the appellant by the judgment, under

appeal, and the consequential sentence, passed under the

impugned order, are hereby set aside. The appellant is held not

guilty of the offence, which he stand convicted of, and is

acquitted of the same under benefit of doubt. The Appellant is

acquitted of the offences alleged against him. The Appellant is

on bail, therefore, he is discharged from the liabilities of his bail

bonds.

46. I put on record words of appreciation for the

able assistance rendered by Ms. Anukriti Jaipuriyar, learned

Amicus Curiae, to this Court in arriving at the proper conclusion

for deciding the instant appeal. We direct the High Court Legal

Services Authority to pay an amount of Rs. 10,000/- to Ms.

Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.566 of 2000 dt.21-07-2026

30/30

Anukriti Jaipuriyar, learned Amicus Curiae, for service rendered

by her.

47. The Registry is directed to return the Lower

Court’s Record forthwith along with a copy of this Judgment.

Manish Kumar

(Alok Kumar, J.)

Anil Kumar Sinha, J.:- I agree.

(Anil Kumar Sinha, J.)

AFR/NAFR A F R

CAV DATE 23.06.2026

Uploading Date 21.07.2026

Transmission Date 21.07.2026