IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL APPEAL (DB) No.48 of 1996

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

Against the Judgment of conviction and the order of sentence dated

27.01.1996 passed Sri Devi Dayal Prasad, 9

th

Additional Sessions

Judge, Ara, in Sessions Trial No. 96 of 1993, arising out of Tarari

P.S. Case No. 60 of 1992.

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

1.Jamindar Ram (Abated vide order dt. 25-02-2026) S/o Late Sheo Lochan

Ram R/o vill - Barakagaon, P.S.- Tarari, Distt.- Bhojpur

2.Raja Ram (Abated vide order dt. 25-02-2026) S/o Late Sheo Lochan Ram

R/o vill - Barakagaon, P.S.- Tarari, Distt.- Bhojpur

3.Chhauratan Ram S/o Raja Ram @ Ram Niwas Ram R/o vill - Barakagaon,

P.S.- Tarari, Distt.- Bhojpur

4.Gorakh Ram S/o Dularchand Ram R/o vill - Barakagaon, P.S.- Tarari, Distt.-

Bhojpur

5.Budhan Ram S/o Pannalal Ram R/o vill - Barakagaon, P.S.- Tarari, Distt.-

Bhojpur

6.Chhatho Ram S/o Pannalal Ram R/o vill - Barakagaon, P.S.- Tarari, Distt.-

Bhojpur

... ... Appellants

Versus

The State of Bihar

... ... Respondent

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

with

CRIMINAL APPEAL (DB) No. 71 of 1996

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

Pannalal Ram, son of Sheolochan Ram, Resident of Village – Barakagaon,

P.S. Tarari, District – Bhojpur.

... ... Appellant

Versus

The State of Bihar

... ... Respondent

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

Appearance :

(In CRIMINAL APPEAL (DB) No. 48 of 1996)

For the Appellant/s: Ms. Smriti Singh (Amicus Curiae)

For the Respondent/s: Mr. Sujit Kumar Singh, Addl. P.P.

(In CRIMINAL APPEAL (DB) No. 71 of 1996)

For the Appellant/s: Ms. Smriti Singh (Amicus Curiae)

For the Respondent/s: Mr. Sujit Kumar Singh, Addl. P.P.

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

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR SINHA

and

HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK KUMAR

Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.48 of 1996 dt.10-08-2026

2/33

JUDGMENT AND ORDER

C.A.V.

(Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK KUMAR)

Date : 10-08-2026

Heard Ms. Smriti Singh, learned Amicus Curiae

for the Appellants and Mr. Sujit Kumar Singh, learned counsel

for the State.

2. The present appeals have been preferred against

the Judgment of Conviction dated 27.01.1996 and Order of

Sentence dated 27.01.1996 passed by the learned 9

th

Additional

Sessions Judge, Ara, in Sessions Trial No. 96 of 1993, arising

out of Tarari P.S. Case No. 60 of 1992, whereby the appellants

were convicted for the offence punishable under Section 302

read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to

undergo rigorous imprisonment for life. The appellants as well

as other accused were also convicted under section 452 of the

Indian Penal Code and were sentenced to undergo rigorous

imprisonment for one year. In addition to the above, the

appellant Panna Lal Ram (Appellant in CRIMINAL APPEAL

(DB) No. 71 of 1996) was further sentenced to undergo R/I for

one year under section 27 of the Arms Act.

3. The prosecution case, as unfolded in the

fardbayan of the informant, Raj Kumari Devi, wife of Late

Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.48 of 1996 dt.10-08-2026

3/33

Triloki Ram, recorded at her residence by S.I. M.A. Khan O/C

Tarai P.S., District- Bhojpur on 25.07.1992 at about 7:00 A.M.,

is that on the alleged night of occurrence Raj Kumari Devi was

sleeping separately on a cot with her one year old child and her

husband deceased, Triloki Ram was sleeping on a bed spread on

the floor in the same room and one Diya was burning in the

room and the door of the room was open due to intense heat. At

around 12:15 at night, the accused (1) Panna Lal Ram S/o Shiv

Lochan Ram, carrying a country-made small gun, (2) Chhathu

Ram S/o Panna Lal Ram, carrying a fasuli [a type of axe], (3)

Budhan Ram S/o Panna Lal Ram, carrying a fasuli, (4) Gorakh

Ram S/o Dular Chandr Ram, carrying a pali [stick/rod], entered

into her room. Thereafter, the accused Budhan Ram caught hold

of both the legs of her husband, whereas the accused Chhathu

Ram caught hold of both his hands upon which the informant

Rajkumari Devi woke up as well, she further alleged that her

husband, who was being held by the above-mentioned people,

was trying to free himself and she even got up and wanted to go

to her husband, but at that moment Chhathu Ram came and

stood in front of the cot and said to her that if she got up, he

would cut her with the “fasuli”. Out of fear, she lay back down

on the cot. In the meantime she saw that the accused Panna Lal

Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.48 of 1996 dt.10-08-2026

4/33

Ram fired at the right side of the neck of her husband with his

small country made gun and after doing so all the afore-

mentioned accused escaped from the front door of the room.

Thereafter, when she got down from the cot and rushed to her

husband saw that he had a wound on his neck and was bleeding

and within moments of struggling he breathed his last.

Afterwards, she raised the alarm and as such from the nearby

dhaba her father-in-law (P.W. 1) came and informed her that he

was also confined in his Dhaba by the accused, Chhauratan

Ram, Raja Ram and Jamindar Ram being armed with fasuli. It is

further alleged that, on the alarm, her elder brother-in-law

Krishna Ram also came running from the neighbouring house,

and he said that while coming to her house he saw seven

accused: (1) Panna Lal Ram (2) Chhathu Ram (3) Chhauratan

Ram (4) Raja Ram (5) Jamindar Ram (6) Gorakh Ram & (7)

Budhan Ram and that under the torch light he saw that all of

them were running away while carrying a country-made small

gun, fasuli etc. Upon hearing the commotion the neighbours

also reached there. It is also alleged that there the reason behind

the occurrence is the previous litigation between the parties.

4. On the basis of the aforesaid fardbayan, Tarari

P.S. Case No. 60 of 1992, dated 25.07.1992, was registered

Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.48 of 1996 dt.10-08-2026

5/33

against the present appellants along with other co-accused

persons for the offences punishable under Section 448, 341,

302, 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and Section 27 of Arms

Act.

5. Upon completion of the investigation, the police

submitted charge-sheet no. 60/92 dated 30.10.1992 against the

present appellants along with other co-accused persons for the

offences punishable under Sections 452/302/34 of the Indian

Penal Code and Section 27 of the Arms Act.

6. Thereafter, the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate

took cognizance of the offence on 16.11.1992 and then the case

was committed to the Court of Sessions. Upon commitment on

22.02.1993, charges under Sections 452, 302 read with section

34 of IPC were framed against the appellants and other six co-

accused persons in addition to this charges under section 27 of

Arms was also framed against the appellant i.e., Panna Lal Ram.

The charges were read over and explained to them in Hindi, to

which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

7. The prosecution, in order to substantiate its case,

has examined as many as five witnesses and exhibited some

documents on its behalf. List of prosecution witnesses and

exhibits are being mentioned hereunder in tabular form.

Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.48 of 1996 dt.10-08-2026

6/33

List of Prosecution Witnesses:

List of Exhibits on behalf of the prosecution:

Exhibit

No.

Description of the Exhibit Date/attested by

1 L.T.I. of Ram Janam Ram on

Fardbayan

09.12.1993

2 to 2/1Signature of witnesses on Seizure List09.12.1993

3 Fardbayan 18.01.1996

4 F.I.R. 18.01.1996

5 Seizure List 18.01.1996

6 Post-Mortem Report 18.01.1996

7 Inquest Report 18.01.1996

8. After closure of the prosecution evidence, the

statement of the appellants were recorded under Section 313 of

the Code of Criminal Procedure on 18.01.1996. The appellants

denied all incriminating circumstances appearing against them

in the prosecution evidence and claimed innocence.

Submission on behalf of appellants

9. Learned Amicus Curiae, Ms. Smriti Singh,

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

submitted that the unexplained delay in lodging the FIR gravely

undermined the prosecution's case. Though the occurrence

Prosecution

witness no.

Name of witness Description

1. Ram Janam RamFather of the deceased

2. Krishna Ram Brother of the deceased

3. Ganga Ram Villager (Seizure list witness)

4. Upendra Ram Villager (Seizure list witness)

5. Murat Ram Formal Witness

Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.48 of 1996 dt.10-08-2026

7/33

allegedly took place on the night of 24th July 1992, the

fardbayan was recorded only at 7:00 AM the next morning, and

the FIR itself was not registered until 8:30 PM that day —

despite the police station being barely 3 kilometers away —

suggesting that the prosecution story was concocted after

deliberation. She further contended that the investigative

timeline discloses a glaring anomaly, as per her submission the

FIR was ante-timed or the records tampered with.

10. It was next argued that the case was fatally

undermined by the prosecution's failure to examine the

informant, i.e., the sole purported eyewitness, depriving the

defence of cross-examination and warranting an adverse

inference. Reliance was placed on the judgment given in

Shivnath Prasad v. State of Bihar, reported in 2008 (15) SCC

735, Para 3. Learned counsel further argued that grave

prejudice resulted from the non-examination of the Investigating

Officer and the Medical Officer — the former foreclosing

exposure of investigative lapses, the latter leaving the medical

evidence uncorroborated. Reliance was placed on Kapildeo

Sinha v. Kirandeo Prasad & Anr., reported in 2008 (14) SCC

658

11. It was also submitted that the allegations are

Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.48 of 1996 dt.10-08-2026

8/33

inherently improbable: PW1, though allegedly held captive by

armed assailants, sustained no injuries, while PW2’s claim to

have identified all the accused by mere torchlight is rendered

doubtful by the total absence of any Test Identification Parade.

Learned counsel further pointed out that the investigation is

vitiated by the failure to examine any independent witness, the

case resting solely on interested and partisan testimony that

lacks neutral corroboration.

12. Learned counsel highlighted that material

contradictions between the depositions of PW1 and PW2

substantially erode their credibility, rendering their inconsistent

accounts an unsafe basis for conviction. It was emphasized,

further, that the prosecution case is colored by longstanding

enmity, lending credence to the submission that the prosecution

is retaliatory and malicious.

13. Lastly, it was submitted that the prosecution has

failed to establish its case beyond reasonable doubt. Reliance

was placed on Shivaji Chintappa Patil v. State of

Maharashtra, 2021 (5) SCC 626 (Paras 31–34), and State of

Punjab v. Kewal Krishan, 2023 (13) SCC 695 (Paras 18–23),

for the proposition that courts must apply strict scrutiny to

circumstantial evidence before basing a conviction thereon.

Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.48 of 1996 dt.10-08-2026

9/33

14. Finally, she concluded that the impugned

judgment of conviction and order of sentence was fit to be set

aside as the prosecution failed miserably to prove its case

beyond reasonable doubt and the appellants were entitled to

benefit of doubt and consequent acquittal.

Submission on behalf of the Respondents

15. Per contra, learned Additional Public

Prosecutor, appearing on behalf of the State, while opposing the

appeal, submitted that the learned trial court, after considering

all the evidence on record and exhibits, has rightly convicted the

appellants as the offences alleged against the appellants appear

to be serious in nature. It is contended that the prosecution has

succeeded in proving the charges beyond reasonable doubt. It

was 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 overall credibility of the witness. Such

discrepancies, it is urged, are liable to be disregarded in the

interest of justice.

16. Finally, he submitted that the impugned

judgment of conviction and order of sentence do not suffer from

any legal infirmity or irregularity warranting interference by this

Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.48 of 1996 dt.10-08-2026

10/33

Court in exercise of its appellants jurisdiction. The appeal is

devoid of any merit and fit to be dismissed.

Conclusion

17. I have heard the parties and perused the

materials available on records 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.

18. 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.

19. PW–1 (father of the deceased), in his

examination-in-chief, deposed that he knows and recognizes the

complainant, Raj Kumari Devi (his daughter-in-law), and the

accused in this case. The deceased, Triloki Ram, was his son. He

identified the seven accused as Gorakh, Chhanvratan, Budhan,

Chhatthu, Pannalal, Raja Ram, and Jimedar Raj. He further

stated that the incident occurred approximately sixteen and a

half months ago, around 12:30 AM. At that time, he was

sleeping on a cot in his dhaba, while his son Triloki and his

daughter-in-law were sleeping in the house. He woke up to the

sound of a gunshot and heard his daughter-in-law shouting that

Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.48 of 1996 dt.10-08-2026

11/33

her husband had died, upon getting up, he saw the accused

Rajaram, Jimedar, and Chhanvratan standing near him, each

armed with a sickle (fasuli). He recognized them in the light of a

burning lamp and a torch. These three accused threatened to kill

him if he got up. Additionally, he saw Pannalal, Chhatthu,

Budhan, and Gorakh leaving his daughter-in-law's room.

Pannalal was armed with a country-made gun, while Chhatthu,

Budhan, and Gorakh were armed with sickles. He also

recognized these four in the light of the lamp and torch. All

seven accused then fled the scene. He then stated that when he

went into the house, he found his son Triloki dead, bleeding

from a bullet wound on the right side of his neck, below the

beard. His daughter-in-law informed him that Pannalal,

Chhatthu, Budhan, and Gorakh had entered the house and that

Pannalal had shot Triloki. He asserted that all seven accused

collaboratively murdered his son. He then told that the Sub-

Inspector (Daroga ji) arrived at their house at 7:00 AM,

inspected the scene, and recorded his daughter-in-law's

fardbayan (statement) in his presence. The Sub-Inspector read

the statement aloud to them, after which both PW 1 and his

daughter-in-law affixed their thumb impressions. PW 1

identified his thumb impression, which was marked as Exhibit –

Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.48 of 1996 dt.10-08-2026

12/33

1. The Sub-Inspector seized two blood-stained white

rags/tattered clothes, a blood-stained green checked lungi, and

blood-stained soil from the scene. The seizure list was prepared

in front of two witnesses, Ganga Ram and Upendra Ram, who

signed it in his presence. PW 1 recognized their signatures;

Upendra Ram's signature was marked as Exhibit - 2, and Ganga

Ram's signature was marked as Exhibit - 2/1. The Sub-Inspector

then recorded PW 1's statement and sent Triloki's body to Arrah

Hospital for a post-mortem. PW 1 confirmed that other

witnesses also saw the incident and identified all the accused

present in the court as the murderers of his son.

20. In his cross-examination by the prosecution,

PW–1 stated that his village comprises people of all castes and

is not a Naxalite area (lacking a police camp). He provided a

detailed geographical location and noted a three-hand-span wide

alley between his house and his elder son Krishna's house

(which lies to the east of PW 1's house). He deposed his mud

and tile house has an eastern exit with no door. It consists of two

rooms: a northern room where he lives, and a western room with

a door where his son lives. The courtyard measures four hands

east-west and five hands north-south. He clarified that the

complainant (his daughter-in-law) owns no land. He detailed

Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.48 of 1996 dt.10-08-2026

13/33

that his deceased son, Triloki, had been married twice (first in

Katariyan, second in Muanv). The second marriage occurred

two years after the first because Triloki did not like his first

wife, who subsequently returned to her maternal home. The

second marriage took place three years prior to the incident.

Regarding his sleeping arrangements, PW 1 stated that the

palani (thatched shed) he mentioned is actually his dhaba, which

is located outside the main northern door. The dhaba has a tiled

and bamboo roof, is enclosed by mud walls on three sides, and

is open to the south. The roof slopes from a height of ten feet in

the west to five feet in the east. He was sleeping in this dhaba on

a cot measuring seven spans by five spans, laid north-south with

his head toward the south. No one was sleeping in the second

courtyard room.

21. He further deposed that on the night of the

incident, the accused who surrounded him stood to the east of

his cot, directly adjacent to it, with their faces uncovered. He

remained in bed because they threatened him not to get up. He

noted that the accused fled five minutes after the shooting. PW 1

stated that there was no lamp burning where he slept, but a

small lamp (dhibri) was lit in Triloki's house, kept on a niche

(takha) two fingers away from the wall (leaving no soot). Triloki

Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.48 of 1996 dt.10-08-2026

14/33

was sleeping in the middle of the room, positioned north-south

with his head to the south, wearing only underwear (his lungi

and vest were removed and placed near his head). Triloki's

bedding was soaked in blood but not smeared. He noted that the

accused fled through the east main door toward the south. He

clarified his timeline, stating he had eaten at 6:00 PM, while his

son and daughter-in-law ate around 8:00 PM. He smoked ganja

and went to sleep. Because he had no watch, he could not

specify the exact time but estimated the incident occurred at

12:00 AM. PW 1 stated that after the accused fled and his

daughter-in-law raised an alarm (which he stated woke him up),

neighbors gathered, including Ganga Ram, Itwaru Ram, Birbal

Ram, Shivchand Ram, Kamlu Ram, Nageshwar Ram, and

Upendra (Ganga and Upendra being witnesses). Immediately

after, his brother Shivchand, his son Krishna, and the chowkidar

Rameshwar went to the Tarari police station, which is less than

a mile away. The police arrived at 7:30 AM. His daughter-in-law

gave her statement twice: once that morning, and a second time

eight days later when the Superintendent of Police (S.P.) visited.

The Sub-Inspector also took statements from Krishna, Ganga,

and Upendra. He noted that he did not hand his torch over to the

Sub-Inspector.

Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.48 of 1996 dt.10-08-2026

15/33

22. He acknowledged that prior to this incident, the

accused Pannalal had filed a criminal case (under Section

324/34) against PW 1, Ganga Ram, Krishna Ram, Ramji Ram,

Etwaro Ram, Shivchand Ram, and Lakhvichand Ram for

allegedly assaulting Raja Ram with a spear. This case was still

pending. Due to their bail being canceled in that case, PW 1 and

the others had spent 18 days in jail and were released on bail

just eight to ten days before Triloki's murder.

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

denied several suggestions made by the defense during cross-

examination. He denied failing to tell the police about the

specific weapons held by the accused, recognizing them by

torch/lamp light, or that Pannalal shot his son while the others

assisted in the murder. He denied that his son Triloki had a bad

character, or that there was a dispute with his first wife's family

over his character. He strongly denied that Triloki was actually

murdered in a field (badhar) and his corpse subsequently moved

inside the house. Finally, he completely denied framing the

accused with a fabricated case due to the existing enmity, and

denied giving false testimony before the court.

24. PW-2 (brother of deceased), in his examination-

in-chief, deposed that he is acquainted with the informant, Raj

Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.48 of 1996 dt.10-08-2026

16/33

Kumari Devi, and the accused persons in the case. He stated that

his brother, Triloki Ram, was murdered approximately one year

and nine months prior to his testimony. On the night of the

incident, at approximately 12:00 midnight, he was sleeping in

his room when he awoke to noises made by his father and sister-

in-law. Upon taking a torch and stepping outside, he identified

several individuals in the torchlight, specifically Chhauratan

Ram, Raja Ram, Gorakh, Jamindar, Pannalal, Chhathu, and

Budhan. He testified that Pannalal was armed with a country-

made gun, while the other individuals carried fasulis (a type of

sickle). He discovered his brother, Triloki, lying dead in his

room with a gunshot wound on the right side of his neck. Raj

Kumari Devi informed him that Pannalal, Chhathu, Gorakh, and

Budhan had committed the murder, with Pannalal firing the

shot. He noted that his father had informed him that Raja Ram,

Jamindar, and Chhauratan had restrained him (the witness's

father). The witness confirmed that his statement was recorded

by the Daroga ji (Police Sub-Inspector) and identified all seven

accused persons present in the court.

25. In cross-examination, PW-2 stated that his

father, had three brothers. He deposed that his father, Ram

Janam Ram, had two sons: the witness himself and the deceased

Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.48 of 1996 dt.10-08-2026

17/33

(Triloki). He clarified that while he lived in the same house with

his father and deceased brother, their eating arrangements were

separate. However, the deceased and their father lived and ate

together. The witness mentioned that his deceased brother had a

son from his second wife.

26. He further testified that he lived in the southern

room of the house with his family. His deceased brother lived in

the western room with his wife and child, while his father lived

in the dhaba. He described the dhaba as being located inside the

main exit door. He confirmed that the main exit faces east. The

witness stated that Lakhichandra Ram had three sons. He added

that Shivchandra Ram has one son, who is still a child.

27. He also testified that LakhiChandra Ram and

his sons, Suresh, Naresh, and Ramesh, arrived at the scene after

the incident occurred. He saw the accused fleeing toward the

east; their faces were not covered and he did not follow them.

He affirmed that he had informed Darogaji about seeing the

accused.

28. PW-2 recounted that his sleep was broken by

the sound of gunfire and screaming of his sister-in-law. He

stated that he immediately went outside upon hearing the

scream. He testified that the dead body was lying inside the

Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.48 of 1996 dt.10-08-2026

18/33

house, positioned flat on its back (supine), with the feet pointing

north and the head pointing south. Regarding the deceased's

clothing, he initially stated that his brother was wearing a white

checked lungi. He subsequently corrected this, stating that the

deceased was wearing a purple checked lungi, black briefs

(kachha), and a black vest. He noted there was nothing placed

near the head of the deceased. He clarified that the deceased had

been sleeping on the ground on top of two ledras (mattresses),

while the deceased's wife had been sleeping on a cot. The

witness observed that a single bullet had struck the right side of

the deceased's neck and exited through the back. He testified

that there was no bullet hole in the ledra (mattress) or in the

ground, but blood had pooled on both surfaces.

29. The witness deposed that he went to sleep

between 8:00 PM and 9:00 PM on the night of the incident. He

stated that his deceased brother also went to bed between 8:00

PM and 9:00 PM, and fell asleep after the witness had already

gone to sleep. He testified that the accused were running away,

and he identified them in the light of his torch. He confirmed

that he had informed the villagers about seeing the accused

fleeing. Specifically, he stated that he told Suresh, Shivchandra,

Upendra, Ganga and others that he had seen the accused running

Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.48 of 1996 dt.10-08-2026

19/33

away.

30. The witness stated that his house faces east. He

added that his father's house is located within the same

courtyard and faces south. He testified that his statement to the

police was recorded at his doorstep. He noted that the statement

of an individual whose name he did not know was recorded

first, followed by his own statement. He further clarified that his

father's statement was recorded before his own, and that no one

else's statement was recorded at that time. He described that the

ledra (mattress) in his brother's room was soaked with blood. He

stated there were blood spatters on the ledra as well as inside the

room, including on the walls. He also stated that there was no

police camp in Barkagaon.

31. PW-2 further deposed that his deceased

brother's first wife had left him and his brother married for the

second time two to three years after his first wife left. He

explicitly denied the suggestion that his brother had a bad

character and that this was the reason his first wife left him. He

stated that Barkagaon is a Naxalite area. He testified that the

second wife of the deceased does not own any agricultural field

near the place of occurrence.

32. PW-2 confirmed that he had gone to the police

Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.48 of 1996 dt.10-08-2026

20/33

station and stated that the Daroga (Police Sub-Inspector) seized

soil, a ledra (quilt), a ganji (vest), a lungi, and other items. He

specified that the police scraped and collected the soil from the

house. He testified that Srichand and Chowkidar Tapeshwar

Ram accompanied him to the police station. He added that he

went to the police station at 6:00 AM and noted that the journey

takes approximately 10 minutes.

33. The witness asserted that he had informed the

police that Pannalal was carrying a country-made gun in his

hand. He denied the defense's suggestion that he had not told the

police about the blood flowing from the country-made gunshot

wound on the right side of his brother's neck. He also denied the

suggestion that he had not told the police that his father

informed him about Rajaram, Jamindar, and Chhauratan

restraining him (the father). He explicitly denied giving false

testimony in court. Furthermore, he vehemently denied the

defense's suggestions that the deceased, Triloki, had a bad

character; that he had an ongoing dispute with his first wife's

family; that he was murdered elsewhere due to his bad character

and his body was subsequently brought into the room; and that

the accused were falsely implicated due to an old, ongoing case

against them.

Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.48 of 1996 dt.10-08-2026

21/33

34. PW-3 (Seizure Witness), in his examination-in-

chief, deposed that on July 25, 1992, at approximately 8:45 AM,

the Sub-Inspector (Daroga) of the Tarari Police Station visited

the house of Ram Janam Ram. He stated that, in his presence,

the police seized two plain white ledras (mattresses) and one

green lungi, all of which were stained with blood. He deposed

that the police also took custody of the dead body of Triloki

Ram. He further noted that the police seized blood-stained earth

from the scene. The witness confirmed that a seizure list was

prepared by the police in his presence, which bears his signature

and had been previously marked as Exhibit 2/1.

35. In cross-examination, PW-3, clarified that there

were indeed two ledras, and both were white in color. He

observed that blood was smeared all over the ledras and noted

that the blood on them was still wet. He stated that, in contrast,

the blood found on the seized earth was dry. He concluded his

testimony by confirming that the seized lungi was stained with

blood and was completely drenched in it.

36. PW-4 (Seizure Witness), in his examination-in-

chief, deposed that on July 25, 1992, at approximately 8:45 AM,

he was present at the house of the deceased, Triloki Ram. He

stated that the Sub-Inspector (Daroga) of the Tarari Police

Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.48 of 1996 dt.10-08-2026

22/33

Station seized two white blood-stained ledras (mattresses), one

blood-stained checked lungi (green coloured), and blood

scraped from the ground, in his presence. He testified that the

police prepared the seizure list in his presence and made him a

witness to it. He identified his signature on the seizure list,

noting that it had already been marked as Exhibit 2. He added

that he had also seen the dead body of Triloki Ram.

37. In his cross-examination, PW-4, testified that

he went to the scene of the incident after the police had arrived.

He affirmed that he affixed his signature to the document

voluntarily. He specified that he signed the seizure list at a spot

10 feet to the east of the dead body. He concluded by stating that

he had gone to the scene upon hearing the commotion and he

also deposed that the Police Sub-Inspector (Daroga) did not

record his statement after that.

38. PW-5 (Formal Witness), in his examination-in-

chief deposed that he recognizes the fardbayan (statement),

which is in the handwriting and signature of the then Sub-

Inspector (S.I.) Mahmood Anwar Khan, who was the Station

House Officer of Tarari. This document was subsequently

marked as Exhibit 3. He further identified the formal First

Information Report (FIR), stating that it is also in the

Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.48 of 1996 dt.10-08-2026

23/33

handwriting and signature of Anwar Khan. This was marked as

Exhibit 4. He testified that he recognizes the seizure list, which

is in the handwriting and signature of Munshi Mahmood Anwar

Khan. This was marked as Exhibit 5. He identified the post-

mortem report, noting that it was prepared using a carbon

process and is in the handwriting and signature of Dr. Vijay

Raushan from Sadar Hospital, Ara, which he recognizes. This

document was marked as Exhibit-6. He concluded his chief

examination by identifying the inquest report (mrityu samiksha

report), confirming it is in the handwriting and signature of

Mahmood Anwar Khan, which he recognizes. This was marked

as Exhibit 7.

39. In his cross-examination, PW-5, admitted that

the fardbayan was not written in his presence. He further stated

that he does not have any personal knowledge regarding the

facts written in it. He testified that the formal FIR was also not

written in his presence. He admitted that the seizure list, post-

mortem report, and inquest report were not prepared or written

in his presence either. He clarified that he had never worked in

the office alongside the Daroga (Sub-Inspector), nor had he

worked with the doctor. He concluded by stating that he

possesses no personal knowledge concerning the post-mortem.

Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.48 of 1996 dt.10-08-2026

24/33

40. Having carefully examined the entire evidence

available on record, this Court finds that conviction was based

on the testimony of PW1 and PW2 who are father and brother of

the deceased respectively. The PW1 and PW2 admittedly are not

eyewitnesses to the actual assault and their evidence is confined

to having seen the appellants mainly away from the place of

occurrence after hearing the gunshots.

41. The principal question as discussed earlier for

determination is whether the prosecution has succeeded in

proving beyond reasonable doubt, that it was the appellants who

are responsible for the deceased’s death.

42. It is significant to note that Raj Kumari Devi,

the informant, admittedly the only person who witnessed the

actual assault upon her husband from within the room, has not

been examined as a witness at the trial. Her fardbayan forms the

very foundation of the prosecution case — every other witness

merely repeats what the informant had told them about the

occurrence. Her non-examination, without any explanation

whatsoever on record, deprives the defence of the opportunity to

test the foundational account of the occurrence through cross-

examination, and squarely attracts the principle laid down by the

Hon'ble Supreme Court in Takhaji Hiraji v. Thakore Kubersing

Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.48 of 1996 dt.10-08-2026

25/33

Chamansing, (2001) 6 SCC 145, wherein it was held under para

19, which reads as under:

“if a material witness, which 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 which 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”

(Emphasis Supplied)

43. It is important to point out that there is material

contradiction in the deposition of PW-1 and PW-2. The PW-1 in

paragraph 8 of the deposition has described the place of

occurrence by giving the topography of the place. As per his

statement, the second room of the house was vacant, whereas

PW-2 in paragraphs 1 and 4 of his deposition has stated that he

was sleeping in the southern room of the house in the same

courtyard. This is a major contradiction and leads to a doubt

regarding the presence of P.W-2. Further, there is also

contradiction in the statement of P.W-1 in respect of the

identification of the accused as in para - 1 he deposes that he

Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.48 of 1996 dt.10-08-2026

26/33

identified the 3 accused in light of diya and torch, whereas in

para - 10 of his deposition he states that there was no diya in the

room where he was sleeping.

The above contradiction in the deposition of the

PW1 and PW2 leads to doubt about the prosecution story.

Needless to say, PW1 and PW2 happens to be the relative of the

deceased and related witness their deposition cannot be

considered as gospel truth in view of the contradiction in

deposition.

44. The above-mentioned infirmity is compounded

by the fact that neither the Investigating Officer nor the Doctor

who conducted the post-mortem examination were examined

and as such neither has stepped into the witness box, and no

explanation for their absence appears anywhere on the record. It

is pertinent to note that the non-examination of the Investigating

Officer has deprived the defence of any opportunity to confront

the witnesses with their statements recorded under Section 161

of Cr.P.C., to test the manner and timing of the seizure. The non-

examination of the doctor leaves the post-mortem findings, i.e.,

Exhibit 6, unproved except through the formal witness, PW-5,

who candidly admitted that he had no personal knowledge of its

contents. This very combination of defects was considered fatal

Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.48 of 1996 dt.10-08-2026

27/33

to the prosecution in Kapil Deo Sinha v. Kirandeo Prasad &

Anr. (2008 (14) SCC 658), where the Hon'ble Supreme Court

upheld an acquittal recorded by a Division Bench of this Court

on the ground that the non-examination of the Investigating

Officer and the doctor, taken together with unreliable ocular

evidence, caused serious prejudice to the accused. Because of

the nature of evidence, which is 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 appellants

inasmuch as I am clearly of the view that in the light of the

evidence on record, which I have discussed above, it was

dangerous to convict the appellants. The benefit of such a

situation ought to have been given to the appellants.

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.

The ultimate benchmark of “beyond a reasonable

doubt” upholds the presumption of innocence in the legal

Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.48 of 1996 dt.10-08-2026

28/33

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

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

Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.48 of 1996 dt.10-08-2026

29/33

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 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

Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.48 of 1996 dt.10-08-2026

30/33

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 at the same

time reject evidence which is ex facie trustworthy

on grounds which are fanciful or in the nature of

conjectures”.

(Emphasis Supplied)

45. Further even more doubt is cast upon the

identification of the accused by the fact that PW-1 and PW-2

claim to have recognized all seven accused persons in the light

of a diya, and a torch, in the middle of the night and in

circumstances of considerable confusion. This doubt is

deepened, rather than allayed, by the admitted history of prior

litigation as PW-1 himself had conceded that a cross-case was

instituted earlier by the appellant, Panna Lal Ram, against PW-1

and others, in which they had remained in custody for about 18

days and had obtained bail only shortly before the present

occurrence. This constitutes a live and proximate motive for

false implication, one that assumes even greater significance

where, as in the present case, the identification of the accused is

not otherwise free from doubt.

Prior Enmity, as is well settled, is a double-edged

weapon — it may furnish motive for the offence, but equally

Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.48 of 1996 dt.10-08-2026

31/33

furnish motive for false implication, and both possibilities must

be weighed with equal circumspection. The Hon'ble Supreme

Court, in Aslam alias Imran v. State of Madhya Pradesh, 2025

INSC 403, while acquitting the accused of a charge under

Section 302 IPC, held:

"It is a settled law that enmity is a double-edged

weapon. On one hand, it provides motive, on the

other hand it also does not rule out the

possibility of false implication. From the nature

of the evidence placed on record by the

prosecution, the possibility of the present

appellant being falsely implicated on account of

previous enmity cannot be ruled out. In our

opinion, therefore, the appellant is entitled to

benefit of doubt."

(Emphasis Supplied)

Given the proximate cross-case and custody

suffered by PW-1 at the appellant's instance, coupled with the

doubt already noted regarding identification, the possibility of

false implication cannot be ruled out. This circumstance, too,

ensures to the benefit of the appellants.

46. Having examined the evidence as a whole, this

Court finds that the prosecution case suffers from a number of

defects, each significant in itself and, when taken together, can

be fatal to the conviction: (i) the informant, being the sole

Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.48 of 1996 dt.10-08-2026

32/33

witness to the actual assault, has not been examined; (ii) The

two available witnesses, PW-1 and PW-2, contradict each other

on material particulars, thereby rendering their testimony

unreliable and unsafe to found a conviction thereon. (iii) neither

the Investigating Officer nor the post-mortem doctor has been

examined, without any explanation whatsoever; and (iv) the

identification of the accused, resting on torch-light and diya; and

(v) proximate motive for false implication based on prior enmity

stands admitted on record.

47. In the facts and attending circumstances of the

present case, the appellants ought to have been accorded benefit

of reasonable doubt in as much as the prosecution had failed, in

the light of the discussion of the evidence on record, to bring

home the charges against the appellants beyond all reasonable

doubt.

48. In the result and for the foregoing reasons, this

appeal is allowed. The impugned conviction of the appellants

and the sentence passed against them by the judgment and order,

under appeals are hereby set aside. The Appellants are not found

guilty of the offence, which they stand convicted of, and they

are hereby acquitted of the same under benefit of doubt.

49. Since the appellants are on bail, their bail bonds

Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.48 of 1996 dt.10-08-2026

33/33

are hereby cancelled and their sureties shall stand discharged.

50. I put on record words of appreciation for the

able assistance rendered by Ms. Smriti Singh, 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.

Smriti Singh, learned Amicus Curiae, for service rendered by

her.

51. The Registry shall, forthwith, send a copy of

this Judgment and order to the Learned Trial Court along with

the Lower Court’s Records.

Manish/-

(Alok Kumar, J.)

Anil Kumar Sinha, J.:- I agree.

(Anil Kumar Sinha, J.)

AFR/NAFR A. F. R.

CAV DATE 29.06.2026

Uploading Date 10.08.2026

Transmission Date 10.08.2026