IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL APPEAL (DB) No.1410 of 2018

Arising Out of PS. Case No.-27 Year-2007 Thana- LAXMIPUR District- Jamui

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

1.Jagdish Yadav, son of Late Jethu Yadav, Resident of Village- Jinhara,

P.S.- Laxmipur, District- Jamui.

2.Laxman Yadav Son of Khado Yadav, Resident of Village- Asauta, P.S.-

Laxmipur, District- Jamui.

3.Anil Singh, Son of Darogi Singh, Resident of Village- Kala, P.S.-

Laxmipur, District- Jamui.

... ... Appellants

Versus

The State of Bihar

... ... Respondent

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

Appearance :

For the Appellant/s: Mr. S.K. Lal, Sr. Advocate

Mr. Umesh Prasad, Advocate

For the Respondent/s: Mrs.Shashi Bala Verma, APP

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

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BIBEK CHAUDHURI

and

HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE CHANDRA SHEKHAR JHA

CAV JUDGMENT

(Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE CHANDRA SHEKHAR JHA)

Date : 03-04-2026

Heard Mr. S.K. Lal, learned senior counsel appearing

on behalf of the appellants and Mrs. Shashi Bala Verma, learned

A.P.P. for the State.

2. The present appeal preferred under section 374(2) of

the Cr.P.C. against the impugned judgment of conviction dated

25.09.2018 and order of sentence dated 04.10.2018, passed by

learned A.D.J., F.T.C.- 1

st

, Jamui in S. Tr. No. 12 of 2008/S. Tr.

No. 270 of 2008 arising out of Laxmipur P.S. Case No. 27 of

2007, whereby and whereunder the aforesaid three appellants

Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.1410 of 2018 dt. 03-04-2026

2/21

were convicted for the offences punishable under section 302 of

the Indian Penal Code (in short the “I.P.C.”) and ordered to

undergo rigorous imprisonment for life.

Brief facts of the case

3. Brief case of the prosecution as it speaks through

written information dated 27.02.2007 of PW-7 namely, Krishna

Deo Prasad Gupta, son of Late Chalitra Sah, resident of Latta,

P.S. - Laxmipur, District – Jamui, that while he along with

Ravindra Sah (deceased) and Sanjay Sah (PW-10) were

returning to their home village – Jinhara, by bicycle and so as

they reached about 5:00 P.M. in evening somewhere between

the village Kala and Bishanpur and were crossing the river

bridge, the accused persons including the appellants, who were

hidden themselves there prior to their arrival, suddenly came

before them and surrounded them. The informant identified the

accused persons as Gulabi Yadav, son of Sri Yadav; Jagdish

Yadav, son of Unknown (appellant no.1); Laxman Yadav, son

of Kharo Yadav, resident of village - Jinhara (appellant no. 2);

Adhik Yadav, son of Sri Yadav, resident of village – Jinhara;

Anil Singh, son of Darogi Singh, resident of village – Kala

(appellant no. 3) and other unknown persons. It is alleged that

immediately after surrounding them, Gulabi Yadav said to

Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.1410 of 2018 dt. 03-04-2026

3/21

Ravindra Sah as ‘you did not paid the ransom money as

demanded by them, therefore, he will kill him today’ and by

saying so, they pulled Ravindra Sah from his bicycle towards

south of the bridge and fired on his chest, whereafter Ravindra

Sah fell down to the ground. Immediately thereafter, Jagdish

Yadav said that still he is alive and saying so he also fired upon

Ravindra Sah from his pistol which hit to his neck. Bullet

crossed the neck by causing entry and exit wound. Thereafter,

Laxman Yadav fired on his stomach. It was further stated that

other accused persons also started to fire upon him and on

seeing the occurrence, he along with Sanjay Sah, by taking his

bicycle, fled away from there and could save their life anyhow.

It was said that the accused persons looted the mobile of

Ravindra Sah bearing No. 9937658680 and cash of Rs. 2000/-

from him.

4. The written information further speaks that

immediately after reaching the village which was at about 2 km

from the place of occurrence, he and Sanjay Sah (PW-10) told

the villagers about the alleged incident and thereafter about 12

persons of the village returned back to the place of occurrence

and found that Ravindra Sah was lying on the ground in injured

condition and was in the pool of blood. He was totally

Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.1410 of 2018 dt. 03-04-2026

4/21

unconscious and they brought him to Laxmipur P.S. from where

he was sent to Jamui Hospital for treatment, but the doctor

declared Ravindra Sah brought as dead. Whereafter, he came

back to the police station again and given his aforesaid written

information (Exhibit ‘4’).

5. On the basis of said written information, Laxmipur

P.S. Case No. 27 of 2007 dated 27.02.2007 was registered for

the offences punishable under sections 302/34, 386 of the Indian

Penal Code and Section 27 of the Arms Act. After concluding

investigation, police submitted charge-sheet against the

appellants for the offences punishable under sections 302/34,

386, 120B of the IPC and section 27 of the Arms Act. The

learned jurisdictional Magistrate after perusal of materials and

records took cognizance accordingly and after compliance of

section 207 of the Cr.P.C. committed this case to the court of

sessions under section 209 of the Cr.P.C. for its trial and

disposal.

6. After commitment, learned trial court, upon perusal

of records, framed charges against accused Laxman Yadav,

Jagdish Yadav, Anil Singh, Tantan Mishra, Hari Ballabh Yadav

under section 302/34, 386 and 120B of the IPC along with

offences punishable under section 27 of the Arms Act, and

Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.1410 of 2018 dt. 03-04-2026

5/21

explained the charges to the accused/appellants in their

vernacular language, which they pleaded “not guilty” and

claimed to be tried.

7. To substantiate its case, prosecution altogether

examined 11 witnesses namely, PW-1, Baby Devi; PW-2, Dr.

Syed Naushad Ahmad, PW-3, Puniya Devi; PW-4, Sajan

Kumar Sah; PW-5, Shanti Sah; PW-6, Upendra Prasad;

PW-7, Krishnadeo Pd. Gupta (informant of this case); PW-

8, Shakaldeo Sah; PW-9, Jitendra Narayan Singh; PW-10,

Sanjay Sah and PW-11, Satendra Nath Tiwari.

8. The prosecution has also produced certain documents

viz. Post-mortem report – Exhibit ‘1’, Inquest report – Exhibit

‘2’, seizure list of the cartridge – Exhibit ‘3’, endorsement on

the written report – Exhibit ‘4’ respectively.

9. After examination of prosecution witnesses and by

taking note of evidence as surfaced during trial, statement of

accused/appellants were recorded under Section 313 of the

Cr.P.C., which was denied by the appellants in totality by

claiming their complete innocence and false implication. No

oral or documentary evidence were examined by the

accused/appellants in their defence.

10. Upon perusal of the evidence surfaced during the

Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.1410 of 2018 dt. 03-04-2026

6/21

trial and hearing the parties, learned trial court convicted the

accused/appellants for the offences punishable under section

302 of the IPC and passed the order of sentence as mentioned

aforesaid. Being aggrieved with, the present appeal has been

preferred by the accused/appellants.

11. Hence, the appeal.

Argument on behalf of the accused/appellants

12. Mr. S.K. Lal, learned senior counsel appearing on

behalf of the appellants submitted that conviction of appellants

was recorded on the sole testimony of PW-7 namely, Krishna

Deo Prasad Gupta. It is pointed out by Mr. Lal that rest of the

witnesses are villagers and they are not the eye witness of the

occurrence and they deposed before the learned trial court qua

occurrence in the manner as it was said to them by the informant

(PW-7).

13. It is also submitted by Mr. Lal that, PW-10,

namely, Sanjay Sah, who accompanied the deceased and

informant and also the eye witness of the alleged occurrence,

deposed nothing about the occurrence during the trial and

declared hostile by the prosecution. It is submitted that in view

of same, the testimony of solitary witness requires strict

scrutiny, particularly when no case prior to the occurrence in

Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.1410 of 2018 dt. 03-04-2026

7/21

connection with demanding any ransom money was lodged by

the deceased against them.

14. It is also submitted that PW-7 (informant) saw only

three accused persons who fired upon the deceased, whereas as

per medial evidence and seizure list, six bullet injuries were

found upon the deceased with entry and exit wound, which

makes the version of PW-7 doubtful being as eye witness of the

occurrence.

15. It is also submitted by Mr. S.K. Lal that no forensic

examination was made qua seized empty cartridges which were

seized from the place of occurrence. It is also pointed out that in

want of further corroborating materials, conviction as recorded

by the learned trial court is bad in the eyes of law on the sole

testimony of PW-7/informant.

Argument by learned A.P.P.

16. While opposing the appeal, learned A.P.P. Mrs.

Shashi Bala Verma, appearing for the State, submitted that it is

the quality of witness which required to be taken note of rather

to count the number. It is pointed out by learned APP that there

is no reason to disbelieve the version of PW-7, who is the eye

witness of the occurrence and informant of this case, who

supported the case during the trial. It is also submitted that as

Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.1410 of 2018 dt. 03-04-2026

8/21

another eye witness turned hostile during the trial, it does not

lead to conclusion ipso facto as to doubt the testimony of PW-7.

17. We have perused the trial court records carefully

and gone through the evidences available on record as also

considered the rival submissions as canvassed by learned

counsel appearing on behalf of the parties.

18. PW-7 is Krishna Deo Prasad Gupta, who is the

informant of this case. He deposed during trial through

examination-in-chief that the occurrence is of 27.02.2007,

which took place at about 5:00 P.M. while he along with

deceased and PW-10 namely, Sanjay Sah were returning to their

village Jinhara, by bicycle and as they reached near to

Bishanpur bridge, suddenly, the accused persons including these

appellants namely Gulabi Yadav, Jagdish Yadav, Laxman Yadav,

Adhik Yadav and Anil Singh surrounded them and pulled

Ravindra Sah (deceased) towards the bridge, whereafter Gulabi

Yadav said him that they will kill him as he refused to pay

ransom tax and by saying so, he fired on his chest. It was

deposed that receiving bullet injuries, he wriggled down to the

ground. Whereafter the appellant accused Jagdish Yadav said

that still he is alive and fired upon his neck. Thereafter, Laxman

Yadav fired on his stomach. PW-7 further deposed that due to

Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.1410 of 2018 dt. 03-04-2026

9/21

fear, he fled away through bicycle towards his village along

with PW-10. He deposed that Hari Ballabh Yadav and Tantan

Mishra were also the members of the gang of the

accused/appellants. It was also deposed that one Nokia mobile

set and cash of Rs. 2000/- was also looted from the deceased

during the occurrence. He further testified that immediately

after returning to the village, he disclosed the occurrence to his

mother, Punia Devi (PW-3) and maternal aunt Baby Devi (PW-

1). Whereafter, he disclosed the occurrence to one Shanti Sah

(PW-5), Sajan Kumar Shah (PW-4), Sakaldeo Sah (PW-8),

Upendra Prasad (PW-6) and other villagers of his village. PW-7

further deposed that he returned again to the place of occurrence

along with 20-25 co-villagers and brought the deceased

Ravindra Sah to police station, whereafter a slip was given to

him by police to get him admitted in Jamui Hospital, where

Ravindra Sah was declared brought dead. It was deposed that he

returned from hospital to police station and given written

information qua occurrence, which upon his identification,

exhibited during the trial as Exhibit ‘4’. He identified the

appellants/accused Anil Singh, Jagdish Yadav, Laxman Yadav,

Gulabi Yadav during the trial.

18.1. Upon cross-examination, it was stated that the

Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.1410 of 2018 dt. 03-04-2026

10/21

accused Gulabi Yadav, Laxman Yadav and Jagdish Yadav were

known to him prior to the occurrence. He also ascertained that

deceased was his relative and engaged in the business of ready-

made cloth having earning of about Rs. 2000/- per month. It was

stated that on the date of occurrence, he along with deceased

went to Jinhara Market at about 11:00 A.M. by bicycle, where

he remained for 2 - 2½ hours and again proceeded to return at

about 3:00 P.M. It was also ascertained that they were also

surrounded by the accused persons, but no harm was caused. It

was stated that the deceased was pulled down from his bicycle

and was shot after travelling 25 steps ahead. Initially, they were

stand there but subsequently due to fear, they started to move

away. He and Sanjay Sah (PW-10) were not caught hold by any

accused persons. It was stated that after receiving bullet injury,

Ravindra Sah was fell down to the ground. He saw the

occurrence while he was running away from the place of

occurrence. It was said that they brought deceased to police

station from place of occurrence on cot and reached Laxmipur

Police Station at about 7:00 P.M. He remained there for 15-20

minutes, whereafter a slip was given to him by police station

Incharge for treatment and thereafter he along with others

brought Ravindra Sah to the District Hospital, Jamui, where he

Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.1410 of 2018 dt. 03-04-2026

11/21

was declared brought dead. He deposed that the deceased

Ravindra Sah was his brother. The place of occurrence was full

of blood. He denied the suggestion that Ravindra Sah was killed

by some unknown persons. He stated that the bicycle of his

deceased brother was not seized by police. The police collected

blood-stained blood. He heard the sound of 6-7 round of firing.

His brother was in black full pant and full shirt. When he

returned to place of occurrence with co-villagers, his brother

was unconscious and his eyes was blinking somehow. He found

the wound of six bullet on the body of his brother. Police seized

four empty cartridges and three bullets from the place of

occurrence. He says that he is not the witness of seizure list. It

was said that bullet was not produced before him during the

trial.

19. PW-1 is Baby Devi, who is the wife of the

deceased Ravindra Sah. It appears from her testimony that she is

not the eye witness of the occurrence, rather she stated about the

occurrence as said to her by PW-7 (informant), but in cross-

examination, she ascertained that ransom was demanded from

her husband by accused Gulabi Yadav.

20. Same is about PW-3 Puniya Devi, the mother of

informant, to whom the occurrence was stated first by the

Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.1410 of 2018 dt. 03-04-2026

12/21

informant (PW-7) after returning to the village.

21. PW-4 is the Sajan Kumar Sah, who is a co-

villager and it was deposed by him that he was said about the

occurrence by PW-7 and PW-10 and while stating so, both of

them were nervous. He ascertained that after receiving

information, he along with Baby Devi, Puniya Devi, Shanti Sah,

Upendra Prasad, Sanjay Sah, Krishna Deo Pd. Gupta, Dilip,

Chandra Shekhar, Sachhidanand Rajak and other villagers went

to the place of occurrence. He saw the blood at the place of

occurrence. He also testified that by the time of their arrival at

the place of occurrence, the deceased was in unconscious

condition, but died before reaching to the Government Hospital,

Jamui.

22. PW-5 is Shanti Sah, who is also not the eye

witness of the occurrence and was informed about the

occurrence by PW-7 and PW-10. He appears to be a witness of

seizure list, where he supported the seized empty cartridges and

bullets, which were seized at the place of occurrence by police,

which upon his identification exhibited during the trial as

Exhibit ‘3’. He also ascertained the presence of blood at the

place of occurrence.

23. PW-6 is Upendra Prasad. He also deposed to

Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.1410 of 2018 dt. 03-04-2026

13/21

know about the occurrence from PW-7 & PW-10.

24. PW-8 is Sakaldeo Sah. He is also the co-villager

and came to know about the occurrence from PW-7 & PW-10.

He is the witness of the inquest and supported the inquest report

by identifying his signature, which upon his identification

during trial was exhibited as Exhibit ‘2’.

25. PW-10 is Sanjay Sah. He accompanied the

informant but turned hostile during the trial. It was stated by

him that he does not know anything about the occurrence but

came to know that Ravindra Sah was killed. He failed to

disclose the name of the person and also said that his statement

was not recorded by the police. He was declared hostile and

when suggestion was placed before him regarding occurrence

by the State qua involvement of accused/appellants, it was

simply denied. Upon cross-examination, he said that he has

given his statement under free-will.

26. PW-11, is Satyendra Nath Tiwari, who brought

the seized and sealed material before the court during trial

having mark M/R No. 5/07, which he opened before the court

under the court permission. The seized material having four

empty cartridges, two was of misfired and one live cartridge,

which were produced before the court. The aforesaid material

Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.1410 of 2018 dt. 03-04-2026

14/21

exhibits were marked with Laxmipur P.S. Case No. 27/07 and

M/R No. 05/07. The bullet was of 9 mm. The empty cartridge

was also of 9 mm. The date was mentioned as 27.02.2007. He

deposed to brought the aforesaid seized material before the

court as per direction of S.H.O. of Laxmipur Police Station and

said that it is the same materials. Upon his identification, the

seized empty cartridges were exhibited as Exhibit- I, Exhibit-

II, Exhibit- III, Exhibit- IV. The two misfired bullets were

exhibited as material Exhibit V & VI and live cartridge was

exhibited as Exhibit- VII.

26.1. Upon cross-examination, he stated that the

material was not sealed before him. It was said that the paper

fixed on material exhibits is not bearing any signature.

27. Now, we find apposite to discuss the testimony of

doctor and Investigating Officer who were examined before the

learned trial court as PW-2 and PW-9.

28. PW-2 is Saiyad Naushad Ahmad, who is a

autopsy surgeon conducted autopsy/post-mortem upon the

deceased on 28

th

February, 2007. At the time of examination, he

found rigour mortis present all over the body. On examination,

he found the following injuries, which are as under:

“Injuries – (I) A round hole with black inverted margin on

left side of neck 1/4” dia. It is wound of entry;

Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.1410 of 2018 dt. 03-04-2026

15/21

(II) A round hole with everted margin 1/2” in diameter on

right side of neck – wound of exit;

(III) A round hole with black inverted margin on right

shoulder 1/4” in dia- it is wound of entry;

(IV) A round hole with everted margin 1/2” diameter on

right deltoy – it is wound of exit;

(V) A round hole with black inverted margin on chest

below right nipple 1/4” diameter – it is wound of entry;

(VI) A round hole with everted margin 1/2” in diameter,

right to 12

th

thorasic vertibra – it is wound of exit;

(VII) A hole with black inverted margin 1/4” dia an

epigastrium – it is wound of entry;

(VIII) A hole with everted margin 1/2” in dia an right

lumber region – it is wound of exit;

(IX) An oval would 1/2” x 1/4” with black inverted margin

on left eliot region – it is wound of entry;

(X) An oval wound 3/4” x 1/2” with everted margin on

right eliot region, it is wound of exit;

(XI) An oval would 1/2” x 1/4” with black inverted margin

on right inguil region – it is wound of entry;

(XII) A round hole with everted margin on lateral side of

right thigh – it is wound of exit;

Wound no. 1 and 2 were inter communicating, similarly

wound no. 3 and 4, no. 5 and 6, no. 7 and 8 and 10, no. 11

and 12 were inter communicating.

All above injuries were ante-mortem in nature, caused by

Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.1410 of 2018 dt. 03-04-2026

16/21

fire-arms.

Cause of death :- Hemorrhage due to above injuries.

Time elapsed since death till holding PM – within 24 hrs.

This PMR is prepared by me and bears my signature mark

it Ext.I.”

28.1. Upon cross-examination, it was stated that total

of six entry wounds and all was caused by fire-arms. He did not

find any dressing materials on the wounds. He denied the

suggestion that post-mortem examination is not correct.

29. PW-9 is Jitendra Narayan Singh. He is the

Investigating Officer of this case and was posted as SHO/Police

Station Incharge of Laxmipur Police Station on the date of

occurrence i.e. 27.02.2007. It was deposed by him that the case

was registered on the basis of statement of Krishnadeo Pd.

Gupta (PW-7), who is the brother of the deceased Ravindra Sah.

He identified the endorsement mentioned over written

information as same was written by him and upon identification

of his handwriting same was exhibited before the trial court as

Exhibit ‘4’. He visited the place of occurrence. He ascertained

that the place of occurrence is south of the river bridge almost

about at the distance of 200 yards. He found plenty of blood at

the place of occurrence, four empty cartridges, three misfired of

9 mm and one live cartridge. It is ascertained that the place of

Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.1410 of 2018 dt. 03-04-2026

17/21

occurrence is an isolated place. He prepared seizure list at the

place of occurrence itself. The seizure list, upon his

identification, exhibited as Exhibit ‘3’. It was ascertained by

him that the witness Sanjay Sah (PW-10) and other prosecution

witnesses supported the occurrence during investigation. After

investigation, he submitted the charge-sheet for the occurrence

under Sections 386, 302, 120B, 34 of the IPC along with

Section 27 of the Arms Act against the appellants and other

accused persons.

29.1. During cross-examination, it was stated by him

that there is no hospital between the place of occurrence and the

police station. He could not seized the cloth of the deceased. He

seized the blood-stained soil, but failed to mention it in the

seizure list. It was stated that the bicycle of the deceased was

also not seized by him and also blood group was not

ascertained.

30. At this stage, it would be apposite to reproduce

Section 134 of the Indian Evidence Act, which reads as under:-

“134. Number of witnesses. - No particular number of

witnesses shall in any case be required for the proof of any

fact.”

31. It is pertinent to refer Para 22 of the Hon’ble

Supreme court judgment as reported in Ajai alias Ajju v. State

of U.P., 2023 SCC OnLine SC 144, which reads as under:

Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.1410 of 2018 dt. 03-04-2026

18/21

“22. Non-examination of Ms. Rashmi and Horam, father

of Vijay Pal Singh also has no material bearing. It is the

discretion of the prosecution to lead as much evidence as

is necessary for proving the charge. It is not the quantity

of the witnesses but the quality of witnesses which matters.

Smt. Pinky (PW-1) was the injured witness having

received grievous and life-threatening injuries. We are not

impressed by this argument also.

32. From the aforesaid testimony, it transpires us that

the occurrence was witnessed by two prosecution witnesses in

terms of the FIR (Exhibit ‘4’) which was authored by PW-7. It

seems to us that the occurrence in terms of FIR was seen by two

persons namely, Krishnadeo Pd. Gupta (PW-7) and Sanjay Sah

(PW-10), who were examined before the learned trial court. PW-

7 is the informant of this case and the brother of the deceased

and supported the occurrence that how his brother was brutally

killed by the appellants/accused, whereas PW-10 turned hostile.

33. It transpires from the deposition of PW-7 that he

saw the appellants Jagdish Yadav (appellant no. 1) to fire on the

neck of the deceased and Laxman Yadav (appellant no. 2) in the

stomach. All the firing was made from the close range as it was

fired by surrounding the deceased by the accused persons

having both entry and exit wounds. These wounds were also

found by PW-2, while conducting autopsy.

34. We are of the view that merely as one of the eye

Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.1410 of 2018 dt. 03-04-2026

19/21

witness of the occurrence turns hostile during the trial does not

makes a ground to disbelieve the another eye witness of the

occurrence, who is PW-7 (informant of this case). It also

appears to us that ocular evidence is in full corroboration with

medical evidence as PW-7 categorically deposed that he heard

the sound of 6-7 firings and upon medical examination, six

wounds were found by PW-2, who conducted autopsy upon the

deceased. In terms of testimony of PW-7, it appears that he was

not surrounded or caught hold by any of the accused persons

including Anil Singh (appellant no. 3). He could not even saw

the appellant Anil Singh to open fire upon the deceased. The

seized bullets and empty cartridges were produced before the

court. We have no reason to discard the version of PW-7 as the

eye witness of the occurrence, where he specifically alleged to

see the appellant no. 1 and 2 to shot upon chest and neck of the

deceased.

35. It appears to us that rest of the eye witnesses are

the hearsay witness of the occurrence, who visited only the

place of occurrence after reporting the occurrence by PW-7.

These witnesses categorically stated that the occurrence was

reported to them by PW-10 also along with PW-7 immediately

after returning to village. This deposition appears relevant to

Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.1410 of 2018 dt. 03-04-2026

20/21

support the version of PW-7 as raised through FIR and also

testified during the trial that PW-10 was with him. Though, PW-

10 turns hostile but his immediate presence after the occurrence

before different witnesses, narrating the version of occurrence

cannot be ignored. PW-7 could not say anything incriminating

against appellant Anil Singh except as he was present at the

place of occurrence. He was not even said to be equipped with

any arms and was also not said to commit any overt act. PW-7

categorically stated that he was not caught hold by any of the

co-accused persons including the appellant no. 3.

36. Considering the aforesaid, we are of the considered

view that we did not find any reason to disbelieve the testimony

of PW-7 qua Jagdish Yadav (appellant no. 1) and Laxman Yadav

(appellant no.2) committing murder of the deceased Ravindra

Sah and, therefore, we could not find any occasion to interfere

with judgment of conviction as recorded by learned trial court

qua appellant no. 1 and appellant no. 2.

37. Hence, the appeal stands dismissed with regard to

Jagdish Yadav (appellant no.1) and Laxman Yadav (appellant

no. 2).

38. So far as conviction of Anil Singh (appellant no. 3)

is concerned, it seems to us that prosecution failed to answer

Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.1410 of 2018 dt. 03-04-2026

21/21

qua his involvement with crime in question. He was said to be

present only at the place of occurrence without any overt act.

Therefore, it seems to us that prosecution failed to establish its

case against appellant no. 3 beyond reasonable doubt, therefore,

the impugned judgment of conviction dated 25.09.2018 and

order of sentence dated 04.10.2018, passed by learned A.D.J.,

F.T.C.- 1

st

, Jamui in S. Tr. No. 12 of 2008/S. Tr. No. 270 of 2008

arising out of Laxmipur P.S. Case No. 27 of 2007 is hereby set-

aside.

38. Accordingly, appellant no. 3 namely, Anil Singh is

acquitted of the charges leveled against him by the learned trial

court. He is directed to be released forthwith, if his presence is

not required in any other case. Fine, if any paid, be returned to

appellant no. 3 immediately.

39. Let a copy of this judgment along with the Trial

Court Records be sent to the learned Trial Court forthwith.

Rajeev/-

(Chandra Shekhar Jha, J.)

I agree.

(Bibek Chaudhuri, J.)

AFR/NAFR AFR

CAV DATE 24.03.2026

Uploading Date 03.04.2026

Transmission Date 03.04.2026