Patna High Court
Rakesh Singh vs The State Of Bihar on 27 June, 2025
Author: Mohit Kumar Shah
Bench: Mohit Kumar Shah
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL APPEAL (DB) No. 1215 of 2016
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-191 Year-1995 Thana- CHAPRA MUFFASIL District- Saran
======================================================
Rakesh Singh son of Ram Prawesh Singh, resident of Gamhariya, P.S.-
Jalalpur, District- Chapra, Saran (Bihar).
... ... Appellant/s
Versus
The State Of Bihar
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance:
For the Appellant : Mr. Sanjeev Kumar Mishra, Senior Advocate
Mr. Narendra Kumar, Advocate
For the Respondent : Ms. Shashi Bala Verma, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MOHIT KUMAR SHAH
and
HONOURABLE JUSTICE SMT. SONI SHRIVASTAVA
CAV JUDGMENT
(Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MOHIT KUMAR SHAH)
Date: 27.06.2025
The present appeal under Section 374 (2) of the Code of
Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as the
"Cr.P.C.") has been preferred against the judgment of conviction
and the order of sentence dated 20.09.2016 and 26.09.2016
respectively, passed in Sessions Trial No.66 of 1997 (arising out
of Chapra Muffasil P.S. Case No.191 of 1995) by the learned
Court of 2nd Additional District and Sessions Judge, Saran,
Chapra (hereinafter referred to as the "learned Trial Judge"). By
the said judgment of conviction dated 20.09.2016, the appellant
has been convicted under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code
(hereinafter referred to as the "IPC") and has been sentenced to
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.1215 of 2016 dt.27-06-2025
2/54
undergo imprisonment for life with fine of Rs.50,000/- and in
default thereof, the appellant has been directed to undergo
further rigorous imprisonment for one year.
2. The short facts of the case are that on 09.07.1995 at 02:00
a.m., the fardbeyan of the informant, namely Surendra Prasad
Sah was recorded by the ASI of Jalalpur Police Station, namely
Mr. G. S. Chaubey. In his fardbeyan, Surendra Prasad Sah
(hereinafter referred to as the "informant") has stated that on
08.07.1995
, day-Saturday, at about 06:00 p.m. in the evening,
Ashok Singh, Manoj Singh and Rakesh Singh (appellant) had
arrived at the betel shop of the informant and had plucked
Tiranga (Gutkha) hanging at the shop, which was objected to by
the elder brother of the informant, namely Ram Mangal Prasad
(deceased), whereupon Ashok Singh had ordered to pull out the
deceased from the shop and kill him, whereafter Manoj Singh
and Rakesh Singh (appellant) had caught hold of the elder
brother of the informant and had pulled him out from inside the
shop, whereupon they had said as to how he dared to ask for
money from them. The informant has further stated that Manoj
Singh had then caught hold of his brother from behind and then,
Rakesh Singh (appellant) had taken out a dagger from his
pocket and had given a dagger blow on the chest of his brother
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.1215 of 2016 dt.27-06-2025
3/54
as also had turned the dagger, whereafter Rakesh Singh had
inflicted a second dagger blow on the chest of his brother and
had again turned the knife, whereupon the informant had raised
an alarm and when he came out of the shop, he saw that co-
villagers, namely Ram Dayal Chaudhary (PW-7), Moti Chand
Sah (PW-1), Hulas Ram (PW-4) and Din Dayal Ram (PW-2)
had arrived there, who were present nearby. Thereafter, all the
accused persons had pushed the brother of the informant on the
ground in front of the shop and had also chased them to assault
them, whereupon they had started running away, however
several co-villagers had arrived there, leading to the accused
persons fleeing away. It is further stated by the informant that he
then saw his brother soaked in blood as also he was wriggling in
pain and had died instantly since lot of blood had flown out. The
informant has further stated that it is his belief that the accused
persons, with the intention of killing his brother had pulled him
out of the shop and inflicted dagger blow on his chest. The
informant had signed the fardbeyan upon the same having been
read over to him and he having understand the same, in presence
of witness, namely Dilip Kumar, who had also signed the said
fardbeyan.
3. On the basis of the said fardbeyan of the informant, a
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.1215 of 2016 dt.27-06-2025
4/54
formal FIR bearing Chapra Muffasil P.S. Case No.191 of 1995
was registered under Section 302/34 of the IPC against Ashok
Singh, Manoj Singh and Rakesh Singh (appellant) on
09.07.1995 at 11:30 a.m. After investigation and finding the
case to be true qua the appellant and one Manoj Singh, charge-
sheet was submitted by the police on 07.02.1996 under Section
302/34 of the IPC, however, Ashok Singh was not sent up for
trial. The learned Magistrate had then taken cognizance vide
order dated 19.02.1996 qua Manoj Singh and Rakesh Singh
(appellant), however, the final form pertaining to Ashok Singh
was accepted. The case was committed to the court of sessions
on 28.01.1997, whereafter it was numbered as Sessions Trial
No. 66 of 1997. The learned Trial Court had then framed
charges under Section 302/34 of the IPC on 08.06.2001 against
Manoj Singh and Rakesh Singh (appellant) to which they
pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
4. During the course of trial, the prosecution had examined
11 witnesses. PW-1 Moti Chand Sah, PW-2 Din Dayal Ram,
PW-4 Hulash Ram, PW-5 Rudal Singh and PW-8 Dharamnath
Manjhi, though are independent witnesses, but have been
declared hostile. PW-3 Sudarshan Sah, PW-6 Surendra Prasad
Sah (Informant) and PW-7 Ram Dayal Chaudhary are stated to
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.1215 of 2016 dt.27-06-2025
5/54
be eye witnesses. PW-9 Dr. Ram Iqbal Prasad is the doctor, who
had conducted the postmortem examination of the dead body of
the deceased-Ram Mangal Prasad, while PW-10 Suresh Kumar
and PW-11 Sravan Kr. Singh are advocate clerks, who have
proved the formal FIR, the inquest report and the seizure list of
blood-soaked mud as is depicted in the case-diary.
5. Sri Sanjeev Kumar Mishra, the learned Senior Counsel
appearing for the appellant, assisted by Mr. Narendra Kumar,
Advocate has submitted that the documents exhibited during the
course of trial should be original, however in the present case
only photocopy of the postmortem report has been exhibited,
hence the same is not required to be looked into. In this regard,
reference has been made to a judgment rendered by the Hon’ble
Apex Court, in the case of Sidhartha Vashisht @ Manu
Sharma vs. State (NCT of Delhi), reported in (2010) 6 SCC 1,
para nos. 170 to 172 whereof are reproduced herein below:-
“170. It was pointed out by the State that the said report
of Rup Singh is inadmissible in law since it is a
photocopy and, therefore, does not fall within the purview
of a report in terms of Section 293 of the Code. In other
words, in terms of the relevant provisions of the Evidence
Act unless the original document is placed for the
scrutiny of the court, no reliance can be placed on the
photocopy without leading proper secondary evidence in
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.1215 of 2016 dt.27-06-2025
6/54this regard. In any case, both Section 293 and Section
294 of the Code which dispense with formal proof of
documents under certain circumstances make it
abundantly clear that the documents sought to be relied
upon must be the originals.
171. Assuming for the sake of the argument, though not
admitting, that the said report of Rup Singh i.e. Ext. PW
89-DB is admissible even though a photocopy has been
placed on record and even though nowhere has it come in
evidence that the same i.e. the photocopy has been
compared and scrutinised with the original by the court
and then placed on record, the same still loses all
credence in the light of the fact that a perusal of the
forwarding letter and report would show that there seems
to have been some tampering with the said documents
since the sequence of numbering of the parcels as
between the forwarding letter and the report has been
changed by somebody which fact remains unexplained as,
therefore, casts a further doubt on the genuineness of the
said report. The report itself with regard to Query 3
shows that “it appears that the two cartridge cases C-1
and C-2 have been fired by two different weapons”. This
opinion of the expert was vague and on the basis of said
opinion no credence can be lent to the fact adverted to by
the defence that there were two persons who fired two
different shots from two different weapons. Moreover, the
said report is oddly silent on Query 7 of the forwarding
letter wherein it was specifically asked about the various
markings on the live cartridge and the bullet empties.
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.1215 of 2016 dt.27-06-2025
7/54
172. The stand of the defence that to opine whether the
two cartridge cases are from the same weapon or not the
pistol is not required, and the pistol is only required when
the opinion is sought whether they are from that
particular weapon or not, cannot be accepted. It is well
settled that when pressure is built inside the cartridge
case, which results in the pushing out of the bullet from
the barrel, there is difference in the marks to the extent
that it may be either clear or unclear and flattened or
deepened thus no opinion can be rendered on account of
this dissimilarity in the absence of the weapon of offence
and test firing. Further once the report of Rup Singh is
rendered inadmissible the two gun theory of the defence
becomes wholly inadmissible and what remains is that the
two empties found at the spot are .22″ bore cartridges,
that the live bullet found in Tata Safari is a .22″ cartridge
and that the gun belonging to the appellant is a .22″ bore
pistol which was used for the commission of the crime of
murder of Jessica Lal.”
6. The learned Senior Counsel for the appellant has further
submitted that the statement made by the witnesses under
Section 164 Cr.P.C. cannot be looked into for the purposes of
holding the appellant guilty of the offences alleged. He has
contended that non-examination of the Investigating Officer has
proved to be fatal to the case of the prosecution and has caused
grave prejudice to the defence. In this regard, it has been
submitted that since there are serious contradictions in the
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.1215 of 2016 dt.27-06-2025
8/54
evidence of witnesses, especially the independent witness, i.e.
PW-7 Ram Dayal Chaudhary, examination of Investigation
Officer assumes significance. Reference has been made to
paragraph no.2 of the evidence of PW-7 to submit that PW-7 has
deposed therein that he had seen that a shopkeeper had been
killed. He has also stated that the accused had fired gunshot and
had run away, apart from stating that assault was made on the
chest by a dagger and Rakesh Singh had assaulted and fled
away. Reference has also been made to paragraph no.4 of the
deposition of PW-7 to submit that PW-7 has stated therein that
100 persons were present there since the shop in question was
situated in a market place. Reference has next been made to
paragraph no.5 of the deposition of PW-7 to submit that at the
time when the murder of the deceased had taken place, none of
his family members were present there. Attention has also been
drawn to paragraph no.38 of the deposition of PW-6 Surendra
Prasad Sah (Informant) to submit that he has stated therein that
at the time of occurrence, he had not been assaulted and the
quarrel was parted by Tarkeshwar Sah, Dilip Kumar, Raj
Kishore and Ashok Chaudhary, however none of the said
persons have been examined, hence the prosecution has
deliberately withheld the independent witnesses in order to
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.1215 of 2016 dt.27-06-2025
9/54
suppress the actual facts and circumstances of the case. It is
submitted that it is the duty of the prosecution to bring material
witnesses for examination, however in the present case, even the
Investigating Officer has been withheld and the entire evidence
would show that same is full of discrepancy and doubt. In this
regard, reference has been made to a judgment rendered by the
Ld. Division Bench of this Court, in the case of Rajendra Yadav
& Ors. vs. State of Bihar, reported in 1998 (2) PLJR 434.
7. The learned Senior Counsel for the appellant, on the issue
of non-examination of the Investigating Officer having caused
prejudice to the appellant, has referred to a judgment rendered
by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Munna Lal vs. State
of Utter Pradesh and its analogous case, reported in AIR 2023
SC 634, paragraph nos. 28 and 42 whereof are reproduced
herein below:-
“28. Before embarking on the exercise of deciding the
fate of these appellants, it would be apt to take note of
certain principles relevant for a decision on these two
appeals. Needless to observe, such principles have
evolved over the years and crystallized into ‘settled
principles of law’. These are: (a). Section 134 of Indian
Evidence Act, 1872, enshrines the well-recognized maxim
that evidence has to be weighed and not counted. In other
words, it is the quality of evidence that matters and not
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.1215 of 2016 dt.27-06-2025
10/54the quantity. As a sequitur, even in a case of murder, it is
not necessary to insist upon a plurality of witnesses and
the oral evidence of a single witness, if found to be
reliable and trustworthy, could lead to a conviction. (b).
Generally speaking, oral testimony may be classified into
three categories, viz.:(i) Wholly reliable;(ii) Wholly
unreliable;(iii) Neither wholly reliable nor wholly
unreliable. The first two category of cases may not pose
serious difficulty for the court in arriving at its
conclusion(s). However, in the third category of cases, the
court has to be circumspect and look for corroboration of
any material particulars by reliable testimony, direct or
circumstantial, as a requirement of the rule of prudence.
(c). A defective investigation is not always fatal to the
prosecution where ocular testimony is found credible and
cogent. While in such a case the court has to be
circumspect in evaluating the evidence, a faulty
investigation cannot in all cases be a determinative factor
to throw out a credible prosecution version. (d). Non-
examination of the Investigating Officer must result in
prejudice to the accused; if no prejudice is caused, mere
non-examination would not render the prosecution case
fatal. (e). Discrepancies do creep in, when a witness
deposes in a natural manner after lapse of some time,
and if such discrepancies are comparatively of a minor
nature and do not go to the root of the prosecution story,
then the same may not be given undue importance.
42. Although, mere defects in the investigative process by
itself cannot constitute ground for acquittal, it is the legal
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.1215 of 2016 dt.27-06-2025
11/54
obligation of the Court to examine carefully in each case
the prosecution evidence de hors the lapses committed by
the Investigating Officer to find out whether the evidence
brought on record is at all reliable and whether such
lapses affect the object of finding out the truth. Being
conscious of the above position in law and to avoid
erosion of the faith and confidence of the people in the
administration of criminal justice, this Court has
examined the evidence led by the prosecution threadbare
and refrained from giving primacy to the negligence of
the Investigating Officer as well as to the omission or
lapses resulting from the perfunctory investigation
undertaken by him. The endeavour of this Court has been
to reach the root of the matter by analysing and assessing
the evidence on record and to ascertain whether the
appellants were duly found to be guilty as well as to
ensure that the guilty does not escape the rigours of law.
The disturbing features in the process of investigation,
since noticed, have not weighed in the Court’s mind to
give the benefit of doubt to the appellants but on proper
evaluation of the various facts and circumstances, it has
transpired that there were reasons for which PW-2 might
have falsely implicated the appellants and also that PW-3
was not a wholly reliable witness. There is a fair degree
of uncertainty in the prosecution story and the courts
below appear to have somewhat been influenced by the
oral testimony of PW-2 and PW-3, without taking into
consideration the effect of the other attending
circumstances, thereby warranting interference.”
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.1215 of 2016 dt.27-06-2025
12/54
8. It is also submitted by the learned Senior Counsel for the
appellant that the cause for the dispute/quarrel/fighting which
had taken place, was trivial in nature, inasmuch as it is alleged
that on account of Tiranga (Gutkha) having been plucked by the
appellant and the deceased having asked to pay for it, the
appellant had killed the deceased (elder brother of the
informant), however it is beyond comprehension that such a
trivial issue would have led to killing of a person. It is stated
that the actual cause of the incident in question is yet to be
ascertained apart from the fact that the weapon used in the
incident has also not been recovered. It is contended that neither
any sort of intention on the part of the appellant nor any motive
to give effect to the alleged occurrence has stood proved during
the course of trial. Alternatively, it is submitted that the incident
had taken place at the spur of the movement and the accused
persons including the appellant had not arrived at the place of
occurrence with any premeditated mind to commit the murder
of the deceased, hence the present case would not fall within the
purview of Section 302 of the I.P.C., rather it could at best
attract the provision of Section 304 Part II of the I.P.C., in
absence of any intention to cause the death of the deceased.
9. Per contra, the learned APP for the State, Ms. Shashi
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.1215 of 2016 dt.27-06-2025
13/54
Bala Verma has submitted that the evidence of the prosecution
would show that there is no discrepancy in their evidence, they
have deposed consistently, more particularly PW-3, PW-6 and
PW-7, who are eye witnesses to the said occurrence. It is
submitted that earlier also, a dispute had taken place in between
the parties as is apparent from the evidence of PW-6, who in
paragraph no.9 of his deposition, has stated that earlier also he
had asked for money for gram, however, the accused had
assaulted him by fists. Reference has also been made to
paragraph no.37 of the evidence of PW-6 to submit that he has
stated that two days before the date of present occurrence,
quarrel had taken place with Rakesh (appellant), however, no
quarrel had taken place with the deceased. The learned APP for
the State has further submitted by referring to paragraph no. 40
of the evidence of PW-6 that the appellant had given repeated
dagger blows on his elder brother. It has also been submitted by
the learned APP for the State by referring to the order dated
31.07.2012 passed by the learned Trial Court that the doctor has
proved the original postmortem report and the records would
bear it out that the original postmortem report has been
exhibited.
10. Beside hearing the learned counsel for the parties, we
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.1215 of 2016 dt.27-06-2025
14/54
have minutely perused both the evidence, i.e. oral and
documentary. Before proceeding further, it would be necessary
to cursorily discuss the evidence.
11. PW-1 Moti Chand Sah, PW-2 Din Dayal Ram, PW-4
Hulash Ram, PW-5 Rudal Singh and PW-8 Dharmnath Manjhi
have been declared hostile, hence we do not find it significant to
discuss the evidence of the said witnesses, nonetheless we
would like to point out that as far as PW-5 Rudal Singh is
concerned, he has stated in paragraph no.6 of his cross-
examination (conducted by the defence) that the place where
Ram Mangal Prasad was assaulted, at that time his brother
Surendra Prasad Sah (PW-6) and his father Sudarshan Sah (PW-
3) were not present and had arrived after an hour.
12. PW-3 Sudarshan Sah is the father of the informant as also
father of the deceased. PW-3 has stated in his deposition that the
occurrence dates back to the year 1995 at about 06:00 p.m. in
the evening and the day was Saturday. He has stated that the
occurrence had taken place on 08.07.1995. On the day of
occurrence, son of PW-3, namely Ram Mangal Prasad was
sitting at his shop and he was also present there. The shop is
made of wood. In the said shop, Paan (betel), Kirana (grocery),
Tiranga (Gutkha) etc. used to be sold. PW-3 has further stated
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.1215 of 2016 dt.27-06-2025
15/54
that his second son’s name is Surendra Prasad Sah and he used
to sell fried gram. PW-3 has next stated that the accused
persons, namely Rakesh Singh (appellant), Manoj Singh and
Ashok Singh had arrived at the shop and had asked for Tiranga
which was given to him, whereafter Rakesh Singh (appellant)
had himself plucked a sachet of Tiranga and when money was
asked, Ashok Singh had exhorted to pull him out of the shop
and kill him, whereupon Rakesh Singh (appellant) and Manoj
Singh had pulled him out of the shop, leading to him having
fallen down on the ground and then Rakesh Singh (appellant)
took out a dagger and gave first dagger blow on the deceased
which hit his right hand finger. Thereafter, Rakesh Singh had
inflicted second dagger blow on the chest of the deceased and
turned the dagger, whereafter he had fallen down and blood
started oozing out and he died instantly, while PW-3 was
standing there. As far as identification of the accused standing in
the dock is concerned, PW-1 had stated that he wants to see the
witnesses from a close distance, whereafter he had gone near the
accused persons and recognized Manoj Singh and Rakesh Singh
(appellant). Upon being asked by the Court, he stated that he
can also recognize the third accused person.
13. In his cross-examination, PW-3 has stated that the police
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.1215 of 2016 dt.27-06-2025
16/54
had recorded his statement. He has stated that at the time of
occurrence, several persons numbering 25-30 in all had arrived
at the place of occurrence and out of them, he can only state the
name of three persons. PW-3 has further stated that though 25-
30 persons had arrived there, but he cannot say as to whether
they were of the same village or not. He has also stated that the
place of occurrence is situated at Gamaria village. He has next
stated that after the occurrence had taken place, several persons
of Gamharia village arrived there, including Pancham Sah, Moti
Chand Sah (PW-1), Din Dayal Chamar and Ram Dayal
Choudhary (PW-7). He has stated that he cannot state the name
of other persons, who had arrived there. In paragraph no.11 of
his cross-examination, PW-3 has stated that he has not stated
before the police that a quarrel with fists had taken place in
between his son Surendra and Rakesh (appellant) before the
present occurrence. He has further stated that the land on which
the shop is situated belongs to Ram Dayal Choudhary (PW-7).
In paragraph no.14 of his cross-examination, PW-3 has stated
that 300-400 villagers had arrived at the place of occurrence,
after the occurrence had taken place, however he did not talk
with any of them. In paragraph no.15 of his cross-examination,
PW-3 has stated that when the accused persons had pulled Ram
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.1215 of 2016 dt.27-06-2025
17/54
Mangal out of his shop, 2-4 people were present there, including
his son Surendra (PW-6), Dharamnath Rai (PW-8) , Chaukidar,
Ram Dayal Chaudhary (PW-7), Din Dayal Ram (PW-2) and
Hulas Ram (PW-4), however no other person was present at that
time. In paragraph no.16 of his cross-examination, PW-3 has
stated that his son was assaulted on the southern side of the shop
at about a hand’s distance and the person who had assaulted him
was standing towards the southern side of Ram Mangal. He has
also stated that Ram Mangal was assaulted resulting in him
falling down flat on the ground. In paragraph no.17 of his cross-
examination, PW-3 has stated that after being assaulted, his son
had fallen down, whereafter he was assaulted thrice and at the
time of being assaulted, the deceased was not standing but he
was pulled & assaulted. In para no.19 of his cross-examination,
PW-3 has stated that the police had come in the night itself,
however he does not remember as to whether he was present
there or not. He has next stated that his statement was recorded
by the police in the night, after the occurrence had taken place.
14. PW-6 Surendra Prasad Sah (Informant) is the brother of
the deceased and he has stated in his evidence that the
occurrence dates back to 08.07.1995 at about 06:00 p.m. in the
evening when he along with his brother Ram Mangal Prasad
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.1215 of 2016 dt.27-06-2025
18/54
Sah were at their betel shop. Rakesh Singh (appellant), Manoj
Singh and Ashok Singh had arrived at the shop and plucked a
Tiranga Gutkha, whereafter his brother Ram Mangal had asked
for money but Ashok Singh abused him and said as to how he
was asking for money, whereupon he had exhorted others to pull
him out of the shop and assault him. Thereafter, Manoj Singh
and Rakesh Singh (appellant) had pulled out Ram Mangal from
the shop while Rakesh Singh had taken out a knife from his
back, whereafter Manoj Singh had caught hold of both the
hands of Ram Mangal and then Rakesh Singh had inflicted a
knife blow on the chest of Ram Mangal and inserted the same
inside as also he had inflicted second knife blow on the chest of
Ram Mangal and turned it inside, whereupon third knife blow
was inflicted on the hand of Ram Mangal. PW-6 has further
stated that his brother was soaked with blood and had fallen
down and in the meantime four persons, namely Ram Dayal
Chaudhary (PW-7), Machchan Sah, Din Dayal Ram (PW-2) and
Dilip Kumar had arrived there but his brother, who was
wriggling had died. The accused persons had then chased PW-6,
while he had raised an alarm, leading to 20-25 people of the
village having arrived there resulting in the accused persons
fleeing away. The police personnel had then arrived and
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.1215 of 2016 dt.27-06-2025
19/54
recorded the statement of PW-6 which was read over to him and
upon understanding the same, he had made his signature over
the same which he has identified and the same has been marked
as Exhibit-3. P.W.-6 has also stated that seizure list of blood-
soaked mud and clothes, which were seized, was also made.
P.W.-6 has stated that he had given his statement before the
learned Magistrate in the Court over which he had made his
signature which has been marked as Exhibit-4. In para no.9 of
his deposition, PW-6 has stated that earlier also when he had
demanded money for gram, he was assaulted by fists. PW-6 had
recognized Rakesh Singh and Manoj Singh standing in the dock.
15. In paragraph no.13 of his cross-examination, PW-6 has
stated that after the incident had taken place, the villagers had
gone to the police station and the chaukidar of the village had
also gone to the police station but he cannot state his name. He
had not met the chaukidar and he cannot say as to when the
chaukidar had come to his shop, however he has stated that the
villagers had told him that the chaukidar had gone to inform the
police. In paragraph no.14 of his cross-examination, PW-6 has
stated that after the occurrence had taken place, he had not met
the chaukidar for the entire night although he was present at the
place of occurrence during the entire night and along with him
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.1215 of 2016 dt.27-06-2025
20/54
several persons, including 50-60 people of Gamharia village
were also present there. He has stated that out of the said
persons, he can state the name of four villagers, namely Ram
Dayal Chaudhary (PW-7), Moti Chand Sah (PW-2), Din Dayal
Ram and Dilip Kumar Chaudhary and moreover, his father was
also present there. He has also stated that the Officer-in-charge
had arrived at 01:00-02:00 a.m. in the night along with other
police personnel and at that time no person from his village had
come there. In paragraph no.16 of his cross-examination, PW-6
has stated that the Officer-in-charge had recorded his statement
firstly at about 02:00 a.m. in the night. In paragraph no.26 of his
cross-examination, PW-6 has stated that in the shop, he used to
sell soap, surf, Tiranga gutkha (which was hanging in the shop),
paan (betel) along with biscuit and toffee. He has also stated
that inside the shop, no article had been disturbed and the shop
has not been dismantled, however the articles of the shop were
scattered outside the shop on the southern side. PW-6 has stated
in his cross-examination that the accused persons had stayed at
his shop for about 10 minutes and when they had come, no
customer was present there.
16. In paragraph no.30 of his cross-examination, PW-6 has
stated that as soon as the accused persons arrived at the shop,
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.1215 of 2016 dt.27-06-2025
21/54
they had broken the sachet of Tiranga and after his brother had
been assaulted, they had stayed there for five minutes, during
which period, four persons had arrived there but he has then
stated that the said four persons were already present there. It is
also stated that during the course of the said five minutes,
people from village totaling 50-60 in all had arrived there but he
cannot state their names. In paragraph no.31 of his cross-
examination, PW-6 has stated that at the time when accused
persons had plucked Tiranga, he was inside the shop and when
Ram Mangal was assaulted, he was outside the shop.
17. In paragraph no.34 of his cross-examination, PW-6 has
stated that there were three injuries on the body of Ram Mangal,
while two injuries were in between the middle of the chest, the
third injury was on the wrist of right hand. There was only one
injury on the wrist. He has also stated that one hole had formed
near the chest on the cloth which his brother was wearing. He
has next stated that his brother was wearing shirt in which hole
had been made at two places. In para no.36 of his cross-
examination, PW-6 has stated that his brother Ram Mangal was
assaulted while he was standing and after he was assaulted, he
fell down on the ground, however, thereafter he was not
assaulted. In paragraph no.37 of his cross-examination,
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.1215 of 2016 dt.27-06-2025
22/54
PW-6 has stated that quarrel had taken place in between him and
Rakesh Singh (appellant) two days earlier to the present
occurrence, however no quarrel had taken place in between the
accused persons and Ram Mangal. He has also stated that Ram
Mangal had neither assaulted nor abused any of the accused
persons. In paragraph no.39 of his cross-examination, PW-6 has
stated that Ram Mangal had no enmity with anyone from
before.
18. PW-7 Ram Dayal Chaudhary has stated in his deposition
that the occurrence dates back to 7-8 years and the occurrence
had taken place near his house in the market in the evening
when it had become dark. He has further stated that he saw that
a shopkeeper had been killed. Rakesh Singh (appellant) had
killed the shopkeeper by firing gun-shot and then he had fled
away. Knife was inserted in the chest. Rakesh Singh had
assaulted the deceased, whereafter he had fled away. PW-7,
upon being asked to recognize the accused, he had gone near
Rakesh Singh and recognized him. He has also stated that since
past 14-15 years, he has difficulty with his vision. He has stated
that at the time of occurrence, he was drinking tea at the shop
adjacent to the shop of the deceased, which is situated in the
market. 100 people were present there but he cannot state the
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.1215 of 2016 dt.27-06-2025
23/54
name of the persons present there. In paragraph no.5 of his
examination-in-chief, PW-7 has stated that he does not
remember as to whether other persons had arrived there after the
killing had taken place. He has also stated that at the time of
occurrence, Moti Chand Sah (PW-1) was present there, who was
drinking tea along with him, however, no family member of the
shopkeeper, who had been killed was present there.
19. PW-9 Dr. Ram Iqbal Prasad is the doctor, who had
conducted postmortem examination of the dead body of the
deceased, Ram Mangal Prasad. He has stated in his evidence
that on 09.07.1995, he was posted as Medical Officer, Sadar
Hospital, Chapra & on that date, at 1:15 p.m., he had conducted
the postmortem examination of the dead body of the deceased
and found the following ante-mortem injuries on his body:-
“(i) One incised penetrating wound just below mid
sternum region approx. 2″ x ½” x chest cavity deep.
(ii) One incised penetrating wound over lower part of
sternum on right side approx. 1″x ½” x chest cavity deep.
(iii) Two incised wounds on right wrist, one approx. 1″ x
½” x ¼” on lateral side near radial styloid and another
approx. 1½” x ½” x ¼” approx. 1″ above the 1st one.
The findings of PW-9, on dissection of chest cavity, are as
follows:-
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.1215 of 2016 dt.27-06-2025
24/54“The chest cavity was full of dark fluid blood. There was
punctured wound in the right ventricle and leading to left
ventricle 1″ in length and ¼” in breadth. The sternum
was cut in the line of injury No.(i). All other viscera were
found intact.”
20. PW-9 has opined that the death has been caused due to
hemorrhage and shock and injury to vital organ heart as a result
of the above-mentioned injuries, which were caused by sharp
cutting weapon. PW-9 has identified the postmortem report,
which he has stated is in his writing and bears his signature and
the same has been marked as Exhibit-5. In cross-examination,
PW-9 has stated that he had found four injuries on the person of
the deceased, which were impact of four blows. He has also
stated that the deceased was not known to him from before.
21. PW-10 Suresh Kumar is an advocate clerk, who has
identified the writing and signature of Sri Ganga Sagar Chaubey
who was posted on 09.07.1995 as Assistant Sub-Inspector of
Police at Jalalpur Police Station. He has stated that fardbeyan is
in his writing and bears his signature which he has identified
and the same has been marked earlier as Exhibit-3. PW-10 has
also stated that he recognizes the writing and signature of Sri
Bisheshwar Prasad, Sub-Inspector of Police, who was posted at
Chapra Muffasil Police Station on 09.07.1995. He has stated
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.1215 of 2016 dt.27-06-2025
25/54
that the formal FIR is in his writing and bears his signature
which he has identified and the same has been marked as
Exhibit-6. In cross-examination, PW-10 has stated that he
cannot say as to whether Bisheshwar Prasad is still in job and
whether he is alive or not. PW-10 has stated that he had never
worked with him and he is not a hand writing expert.
22. PW-11 Shravan Kumar Singh is also an advocate clerk
and he has stated in his evidence that on 09.07.1995, the
Officer-in-charge of Jalalpur Police Station was one Ganga
Sagar Chaubey, whose writing and signature, he recognizes. He
has further stated that the inquest report of the deceased Ram
Mangal Prasad has been written in paragraph no.2 of the case-
diary in the writing of Ganga Sagar Chaubey, which has been
marked as Exhibit-6 (with protest). P.W.-11 has stated that the
seizure list of blood-soaked mud, which has been mentioned in
paragraph no.6 of the case-diary is in the writing of the then
Officer-in-charge, Ganga Sagar Chaubey and the same has been
marked as Exhibit-7 (with protest). In cross-examination, PW-
11 has stated that he is not a finger print expert, he had no
occasion to work with Ganga Sagar Chaubey and both the
exhibits were not prepared before him. He has also stated that he
does not know as to who were the witnesses to the exhibits and
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.1215 of 2016 dt.27-06-2025
26/54
who had made seizure. PW-11 has stated that the said
documents were not prepared before him.
23. After closing the prosecution evidence, the learned Trial
Court recorded the statement of the appellant on 17.12.2012
under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. for enabling him to personally
explain the circumstances appearing in the evidence against
him, however he stated that he would give in writing.
24. The trial Court, upon appreciation, analysis and scrutiny
of the evidence adduced at the trial, has found the aforesaid
appellant guilty of the offence and has sentenced him to
imprisonment and fine, as noted above, by its impugned
judgment and order.
25. We have perused the impugned judgment of the learned
Trial Court, the entire materials on record and have given
thoughtful consideration to the rival submissions made by the
learned Senior Counsel for the appellant as well as the learned
APP for the State.
26. The first and foremost aspect, which is required to be
adjudged is as to whether any ocular evidence is available on
record to prove the guilt of the aforesaid appellant for the
offences with which he has been charged. The prosecution has
led the evidence of PW-3 Sudarshan Sah, PW-6 Surendra Prasad
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.1215 of 2016 dt.27-06-2025
27/54
Sah (informant) and PW-7 Ram Dayal Chaudhary (independent
witness), apart from PW-9 Dr. Ram Iqbal Prasad, PW-10 Suresh
Kumar and PW-11 Shravan Kumar Singh to prove the guilt of
the appellant and based on the same the learned Trial Judge has
convicted the appellant whereas on the contrary, the appellant
has primarily taken the defence that there are serious
contradictions in the evidence of the witnesses, the Investigating
Officer of the present case has not been examined which has
caused grave prejudice to the defence, the weapon used in the
incident has not been recovered, only photocopy of the
postmortem report has been exhibited, hence the same cannot be
looked into and moreover, no motive has been established. In
this regard, upon perusal of the evidence of PW-3 Sudarshan
Sah, PW-6 Surendra Prasad Sah and PW-7 Ram Dayal
Chaudhary, we do not find any serious contradiction in their
evidence. It is a well settled law that minor omissions or
variations or infirmities in the evidence are never considered to
be fatal and the same cannot be a ground for rejection of
evidence in its entirety and the same also do not affect the
credibility of the witnesses account inasmuch as minor
discrepancies in eye witnesses’ testimony are natural, while a
completely flawless testimony may indicate tutoring. Reference
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.1215 of 2016 dt.27-06-2025
28/54
in this connection be had to a judgment rendered by the Hon’ble
Apex Court in the case of Rammi vs. State of M.P., reported in
(1999) 8 SCC 649. Reference be also had to a judgment
rendered by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of State of U.P.
vs. Krishna Master & ors., reported in (2010) 12 SCC 324,
paragraph no.15 whereof is reproduced herein below:-
“15. Before appreciating evidence of the witnesses
examined in the case, it would be instructive to refer to
the criteria for appreciation of oral evidence. While
appreciating the evidence of a witness, the approach must
be whether the evidence of the witness read as a whole
appears to have a ring of truth. Once that impression is
found, it is undoubtedly necessary for the court to
scrutinise the evidence more particularly keeping in view
the deficiencies, drawbacks and infirmities pointed out in
the evidence as a whole and evaluate them to find out
whether it is against the general tenor of the evidence
and whether the earlier evaluation of the evidence is
shaken as to render it unworthy of belief. Minor
discrepancies on trivial matters not touching the core of
the case, hyper technical approach by taking sentences
torn out of context here or there from the evidence,
attaching importance to some technical error committed
by the investigating officer not going to the root of the
matter would not ordinarily permit rejection of the
evidence as a whole.”
27. We also find from the testimony of the prosecution
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.1215 of 2016 dt.27-06-2025
29/54
witnesses, as has been discussed at length in the preceding
paragraphs that they have supported the case of the prosecution
and no contradictions have been elicited by the defence in their
cross-examination, so as to doubt the veracity of their evidence.
In fact, both the aforesaid prosecution witnesses, i.e. PW-3
Sudarshan Sah and PW-6 Surendra Prasad Sah have definitely
seen the appellant having inflicted dagger/knife blows on the
chest of the deceased as also on his hand, while PW-7 Ram
Dayal Chaudhary (independent witness) has also stated in his
evidence that the appellant has killed a shopkeeper by inserting
knife. PW-9 Dr. Ram Iqbal Prasad, who had conducted the
postmortem examination of the dead body of the deceased-Ram
Mangal Prasad has stated in his evidence that he had conducted
the postmortem examination of the dead body of the deceased
on 9.7.1995 at 01:15 p.m., whereupon he had found two incised
penetrating wounds on mid and lower part of sternum of 2″ x
1/2″ and 1″ x ½”, both chest cavity deep apart from two incised
wounds on the right wrist and he has opined that the death has
been caused due to hemorrhage, shock and injury to vital organ
heart, inasmuch as on dissection he has found punctured wound
in the right ventricle leading to left ventricle, as a result of the
aforesaid injuries, which have been caused by sharp cutting
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.1215 of 2016 dt.27-06-2025
30/54
weapon. Thus, narrative of the prosecution case in the FIR
stands fully supported by the ocular evidence led by the
prosecution during trial, which has further stood corroborated
by the medical evidence and the same also confirms that the
injuries sustained by the deceased were sufficient to cause
death. Reference in this connection be had to a judgment
rendered by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of
Bhagchandra vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh, reported in
(2021) 18 SCC 274. In the case of Solanki Chimanbhai
Ukabhai vs. State of Gujarat, reported in AIR 1983 SC 484, the
Hon’ble Apex Court has held that unless the medical evidence
completely rules out all possibilities of injuries taking place in
the manner alleged, the testimony of the eye witnesses cannot
be thrown out. As far as the present case is concerned, we find
that there is no irreconcilable conflict between the oral and the
medical evidence which would warrant discarding the
prosecution case.
28. As regards the place of occurrence, all the aforesaid
prosecution witnesses, i.e. PW-3 Sudarshan Sah, PW-6 Surendra
Prasad Sah and PW-7 Ram Dayal Chaudhary have deposed that
the same is the shop of the deceased/informant, i.e. PW-6.
29. Now coming to the contention raised by the learned
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.1215 of 2016 dt.27-06-2025
31/54
Senior Counsel for the appellant to the effect that there are
serious contradictions in the evidence of the witnesses,
especially the independent witness, i.e. PW-7 Ram Dayal
Chaudhary and PW-6 Surendra Prasad Sah inasmuch as though
PW-6 Surendra Prasad Sah has stated that at the time of
occurrence, quarrel was separated by Tarkeshwar Sah, Dilip
Kumar, Raj Kishore and Ashok Chaudhary, however none of the
said persons have been examined, hence the prosecution has
deliberately withheld the independent witnesses in order to
suppress the actual facts and circumstances of the case. We find
that the ocular evidence of PW-3 Sudarshan Sah, PW-6
Surendra Prasad Sah and PW-7 Ram Dayal Chaudhary are
cogent, convincing, creditworthy and reliable as also have stood
the test of cross-examination and are totally reconcilable and
consistent with the medical evidence, hence there is no reason to
create any doubt about guilt of the appellant in the alleged
occurrence, which stands proved beyond all reasonable doubt. It
is a well-settled law that a court can convict based on a single
eye witness if its testimony is solely reliable as mandated under
134 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 which provides that no
particular number of witnesses shall in any case be required for
the proof of any act. Thus, the quality of evidence matters more
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.1215 of 2016 dt.27-06-2025
32/54
than quantity. Reference in this connection be had to a judgment
rendered by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Amar Singh
vs. State (NCT of Delhi), reported in (2020) 19 SCC 165. It is
equally a well settled law that a witness is normally to be
considered independent unless he or she springs from sources
which are likely to be tainted and that usually means unless the
witness has cause, such as enmity against the accused, to wish
to implicate him falsely, which is not the case here and
moreover, ordinarily a close relative would be the last to screen
the real culprit and falsely implicate an innocent person.
Reference in this connection be had to an old classic judgment
rendered by a three-Judge Bench of the Hon’ble Apex Court in
the case of Dalip Singh & Ors. vs. the State of Punjab, reported
in AIR 1953 SC 364.
30. As regards the contention raised by the learned Senior
Counsel for the appellant to the effect that non-examination of
the Investigating Officer has proved to be fatal to the case of the
prosecution and has caused grave prejudice to the defence, we
find that the Appellant has failed to demonstrate the prejudice
caused to him, hence the same cannot in any manner effect the
prosecution case. It is a well settled law that the prosecution
case need not fail solely due to non-examination of the
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.1215 of 2016 dt.27-06-2025
33/54
Investigation Officer, as long as the eye-witness credibility stays
intact. Reference in this connection be had to a judgment
rendered by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Behari
Prasad & Ors. vs. The State of Bihar, reported in (1996) 2 SCC
317.
31. The next argument advanced by the learned Senior
Counsel for the appellant is that the document exhibited during
the course of trial should be original whereas in the present case
photocopy of the postmortem report has been exhibited, hence
the same cannot be looked into and to the said effect reliance
has been placed on a judgment rendered in the case of
Sidhartha Vashisht (supra). We are of the view that the said
argument advanced by the learned Senior Counsel for the
appellant is only to be noted for the purpose of being rejected,
since the records of the learned trial court would show that not
only the original postmortem report has been exhibited but the
same has also been proved by PW-9 Dr. Ram Dayal Chaudhary,
who has identified the postmortem report and has stated that the
same is in his writing and bears his signature. The judgment
referred to by the learned Senior Counsel for the appellant in the
case of Sidhartha Vashisht (supra) is clearly distinguishable in
the facts and circumstances of the present case and has in-fact
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.1215 of 2016 dt.27-06-2025
34/54
been erroneously referred to by the learned Senior Counsel for
the appellant, inasmuch as the same deals with a document
purported to be a report under the hand of an expert, as provided
for under Section 299 of the Cr.P.C.
32. Thus, taking into account an overall perspective of the
entire case, emerging out of the totality of the facts and
circumstances, as indicated hereinabove and considering the
evidence, which has been brought on record to prove the
allegations levelled against the appellant beyond pale of any
reasonable doubt as well as considering the credibility and
trustworthiness of the evidence of the prosecution, which has not
been discredited during the course of cross-examination coupled
with the postmortem report and for the reasons mentioned
hereinabove, we find that there is no reason to create any doubt in
our minds. Therefore, there is no reason to create any doubt about
the guilt of the appellant of the aforesaid appeal in the alleged
occurrence which stands proved beyond all reasonable doubts.
Hence, having examined the materials available on record, we do
not find any apparent error in the impugned judgment of
conviction.
33. Now we shall take up the alternative argument raised by the
learned Senior Counsel for the appellant to the effect that the
incident had taken place at the spur of the moment and the
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.1215 of 2016 dt.27-06-2025
35/54
appellant had not arrived at the place of occurrence with any
premeditated mind to murder the deceased, hence the present case
would not fall within the purview of Section 302 of the IPC, rather
it would at best attract the provisions of Section 304 Part-II of the
IPC in absence of any intention to cause death of the deceased. We
have given a careful consideration to the aforesaid argument raised
by the learned Senior Counsel for the appellant and upon having
perused the evidence on record, we find that neither there had been
any grave and sudden provocation, resulting in the appellant
loosing self-control nor it is a case where the act was done without
the knowledge that it is likely to cause death apart from the fact
that the Appellant definitely had the intention to cause death. We
also find that “Exception 4” to Section 300 of the IPC will also not
be applicable in the present case, which reads as follows:-
“Exception 4. Culpable homicide is not murder if it is
committed without premeditation in a sudden fight in the heat
of passion upon a sudden quarrel and without the offender
having taken undue advantage or acted in a cruel or unusual
manner.”
34. We find that in the present case, the appellant, who is the
offender, was armed with knife and had attacked the deceased on
his chest and hand brutally as also repeatedly, while the deceased
was unarmed, hence the offender i.e. the appellant has definitely
taken undue advantage and acted in a cruel and unusual manner
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.1215 of 2016 dt.27-06-2025
36/54
towards the deceased, who has not been proved to have been
armed. Reference in this connection, be had to a judgment
rendered by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Babu & Anr.
vs. State represented by Inspector of Police, Chennai and one
another analogous case, reported in (2013) 4 SCC 448, paragraph
nos. 19 to 21 are reproduced herein below:-
“19. We are also not convinced with the submission of
the learned counsel for the appellants that this was a case
which fell under Exception 4 to Section 300 IPC.
Exception 4 to Section 300 IPC is quoted hereinbelow:
“Exception 4. Culpable homicide is not murder if it is
committed without premeditation in a sudden fight in
the heat of passion upon a sudden quarrel and without
the offender having taken undue advantage or acted in
a cruel or unusual manner.”
The language of Exception 4 to Section 300 is, thus, clear
that culpable homicide is not murder if it is committed
without premeditation in a sudden fight in the heat of
passion upon a sudden quarrel provided the offender has
not taken undue advantage or acted in a cruel or unusual
manner. In this case, there is no evidence to show that the
deceased was armed in any manner when he questioned
A-1 as to why he had threatened his wife. On the other
hand, the appellants were armed with knives and attacked
the deceased on his head and face even after he fell
down. Thus, A-1, A-2, A-3 and A-4, who were the
offenders, have taken undue advantage and acted in a
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.1215 of 2016 dt.27-06-2025
37/54
cruel and unusual manner towards the deceased who is
not proved to have been armed.
20. Moreover, we find from the evidence of PW-7, the
doctor who conducted the post mortem of the deceased
on 26.01.2004 at around 12.45 hours, that he found as
many as six injuries on the head and face of the deceased.
These injuries are extracted hereinbelow:
“Injury 1: A bruised injury in red colour admeasuring
3×2 cm on the left cheek and in 2×2 cm at the tip of the
nose.
Injury 2: An oblique incised injury 3×0.05 cm bone
deep on the lower jaw.
Injury 3: An incised injury vertical, 2×0.5 cm bone
deep on th4 left side of the lower jaw.
Injury 4: An incised injury, oblique 3×05 cm muscle
deep on the lower lip on its right side.
Injury 5: Several incised injuries crosswise and
longitudinal. On opening it, it was found that the
tissues on the cranium were found bruised and the
bones of the skull fractured and brain smashed and
visible from outside.
Injury 6: An incised injury seen horizontally and
gaping in between the eyes, 22×6 cm. on dissecting, it
was found that, all the tissues, nerves and blood
vessels had got cut the face was smashed and the upper
jaw bone and the lower jaw bone crumbled. Both the
eyes had got completely smashed and seen outside the
eye-sockets. The teeth in the upper jaw and those of the
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.1215 of 2016 dt.27-06-2025
38/54lower jaw were broken and some fallen.”
PW-7 has further stated that due to these injuries
sustained on his head and face, the deceased would
have died as has been expressed by him in the post
mortem report Ext.P-7. Considering the nature of the
injuries and, in particular, injury nos.5 and 6, we have
no doubt that the common intention of A-1, A-2, A-3
and A-4 was to cause the death of the deceased.
Accordingly, A-1, A-2, A-3 and A-4 (the appellants)
were guilty of the offences under Section 302 read with
Section 34, IPC.
21. In the result, we find no merit in the appeals and
we accordingly dismiss the same.”
35. We would also like to refer to one another judgment
rendered by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Bhagwan
Munjaji Pawade vs. State of Maharashtra, reported in (1978) 3
SCC 330, paragraph nos.6 and 7 are reproduced herein below:-
“6. We do not think much can be made out of the stray
observation of the High Court “that the appellant had far
exceeded his right of private defence”. The circumstances
of the case disclose that no right of private defence,
either of person or of property, had ever accrued to the
appellant. The deceased was unarmed. Exception 2 can
have no application. It is true that some of the conditions
for the applicability of Exception 4 to Section 300 exist
here, but not all. The quarrel had broken out suddenly,
but there was no sudden fight between the deceased and
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.1215 of 2016 dt.27-06-2025
39/54the appellant. ‘Fight’ postulates a bilateral transaction in
which blows are exchanged. The deceased was unarmed.
He did not cause any injury to the appellant or his
companions. Furthermore no less than three fatal injuries
were inflicted by the appellant with an axe, which is a
formidable weapon on the unarmed victim. Appellant, is
therefore, not entitled to the benefit of Exception 4, either.
7. We, therefore, think that he has been rightly convicted
under Section 302 of the Penal Code. The fact that the
crime was unpremeditated, has been taken into account
in mitigation of the sentence. We find no good ground to
interfere with the conviction of the appellant.”
36. It would be apt to refer to yet another judgment rendered by
the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Kunhimuhammed alias
Kunheethu vs. State of Kerala, reported in 2024 SCC OnLine
SC 3618, paragraph nos.6, 8, 25.8, 25.9, 25.16, 25.17, 25.18 and
30 are reproduced herein below:-
“6. We have heard Shri Nikhil Goel, learned senior
counsel appearing for the appellant and Shri P.V. Dinesh,
learned senior counsel appearing for the State of Kerala
and perused the material on record. The submissions of
Shri Goel are limited to the extent that this was not a case
of premeditated pre planned murder. There was no mens
rea for committing culpable homicide amounting to
murder. The intention was only of assaulting with the
stick but later on during the fight as the deceased
overpowered the appellant and started assaulting him
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.1215 of 2016 dt.27-06-2025
40/54with the same stick after snatching it from the appellant,
the appellant pulled out the knife from his back and
stabbed the deceased and also the injured to save him. He
has drawn attention to the evidence on record as also to
the judgment of the Trial Court wherein specific finding
was recorded to that extent by the Trial Court but despite
the same, the Trial Court proceeded to record conviction
under section 302 IPC and not section 304 IPC.
8. On the other hand, Mr. P.V. Dinesh, learned senior
counsel appearing for the respondent-State submitted that
the Trial Court and the High Court have both dealt with
this aspect of the matter and have concurrently found that
this was a case of culpable homicide amounting to
murder. The fact that the appellant was carrying a knife
and the number of assaults made by him on the deceased
as also the injury would clearly show that the intention
was to commit murder.
25.8. The appellant’s primary defence has been the
absence of intent to commit murder. However, intent can
be inferred from the circumstances surrounding the act,
including the nature and location of the injuries inflicted,
the weapon used, and the actions of the appellant during
the incident. The injuries were concentrated on the vital
parts of the deceased’s body, such as the chest and ribs,
which house critical organs like the heart and lungs. The
deliberate targeting of these areas indicates a clear intent
to cause harm that could lead to death. According to the
testimony of the injured eyewitness, the appellant stabbed
the deceased with considerable force, further
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.1215 of 2016 dt.27-06-2025
41/54corroborating the prosecution’s argument that the
injuries were inflicted intentionally or at least with the
knowledge of their natural consequence. While other co-
accused were reportedly armed with sticks, the appellant-
accused no. 1 was in possession of a sharp knife, which
was used to inflict severe injuries. The decision to carry
and use such a weapon during the scuffle reflects a
readiness to escalate violence beyond a mere physical
altercation. Even if the appellant did not have a prior
intention to murder the deceased, the circumstances
demonstrate that such injuries were caused which were
sufficient in the ordinary course to cause death. The
deliberate act of stabbing vital parts of the body, coupled
with the force used, indicates that the appellant must have
been aware of the likely fatal consequences of his actions.
Under the provisions of Section 300 IPC, an intention to
cause such injuries that are sufficient in the ordinary
course of nature to cause death qualifies as murder, and
even if ingredients other than intention to cause murder
are proved, mere knowledge of the result of fatal actions
is enough to ascribe culpability to the accused person.
25.9. The lower courts have also dismissed the
appellant’s argument that the act was not premeditated.
While the attack may not have been planned in advance,
intent can emerge in the heat of the moment, particularly
during a violent confrontation. The appellant’s decision
to use a lethal weapon and the precise targeting of the
victim’s vital organs are sufficient to establish the
requisite intent for murder or at least knowledge of the
possible consequences of one’s actions and to hold the
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.1215 of 2016 dt.27-06-2025
42/54appellant liable for death of the deceased as per clause 3
of Section 300, IPC.
25.16. The third clause of Section 300, IPC defines
murder as the act of causing death by causing such bodily
injury as is likely to result in death in the ordinary course
of nature. In the present case, the appellant’s actions
satisfy these criteria. The appellant was armed with a
knife, which he used to inflict multiple injuries on vital
organs. The fatal nature of these injuries, as confirmed by
medical evidence, and the circumstances of the attack
clearly point to an intent to cause death or at least an
intention to inflict injuries with the knowledge that they
were likely to result in death. Even if it is presumed that
the appellant – accused no. 1 did not have an intention to
cause such bodily injury, the act of causing injuries with
knife to vital parts is reflective of the knowledge that
causing such injuries is likely to cause death in the
ordinary course.
25.17. The defence’s argument that the incident was a
spontaneous scuffle does not absolve the appellant of
liability. While the scuffle may have triggered the attack,
the appellant’s use of a lethal weapon and the manner in
which the injuries were inflicted elevate the act from
culpable homicide to murder. Courts have consistently
held that intent can be inferred from the nature and
severity of injuries, as well as the choice of weapon and
the manner of its use. The use of a lethal weapon and the
deliberate targeting of vital parts of the body are strong
indicators of such intent.
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.1215 of 2016 dt.27-06-2025
43/5425.18. In light of the evidence and the legal principles
involved, the appellant’s plea for leniency on the grounds
of spontaneity and lack of premeditation cannot be
sustained. The nature and location of the injuries
inflicted, the choice of weapon, and the circumstances of
the attack unequivocally establish the liability of the
appellant for causing the death of Subrahmannian. The
argument that the act was committed in the spur of the
moment does not diminish the gravity of the offence or
the appellant’s culpability.
30. After thoroughly examining the appellant’s
submissions and the evidence presented in the case, the
Court concludes that the appeal against conviction and
the request for a reduction in sentence are without merit.
The findings of both the Trial Court and the High Court
are well-founded and supported by compelling evidence.”
37. At this juncture, we would also like to refer to a judgment
rendered by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Singapagu
Anjaiah vs. State of Andhra Pradesh, reported in (2010) 9 SCC
799, paragraph nos. 16 to 20 whereof are reproduced herein
below:-
“16. In our opinion, as nobody can enter into the mind of
the accused, his intention has to be gathered from the
weapon used, the part of the body chosen for the assault
and the nature of the injuries caused. Here, the appellant
had chosen a crowbar as the weapon of offence. He has
further chosen a vital part of the body i.e. the head for
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.1215 of 2016 dt.27-06-2025
44/54causing the injury which had caused multiple fractures of
skull. This clearly shows the force with which the
appellant had used the weapon. The cumulative effect of
all these factors irresistibly leads to one and the only
conclusion that the appellant intended to cause death of
the deceased.
17. Now referring to the decision of this Court in Gurmail
Singh [(1982) 3 SCC 185 : 1982 SCC (Cri) 680], the
same is clearly distinguishable. In the said case, on facts,
it was found that the accused did not intend to cause the
injury which in fact was found to have been caused and
in the said background, it was held that the accused did
not intend to cause death, which is not the situation here.
18. In Jagtar Singh [(1983) 2 SCC 342 : 1983 SCC (Cri)
459] the incident was preceded by a sudden and chance
quarrel and in that background, the Court held the
allegation proved to be under Section 304 Part II IPC. In
Gurmukh Singh [(2009) 15 SCC 635 : (2010) 2 SCC
(Cri) 711] the injury found on the deceased was only
depression of skull bone and the occurrence had taken
place on the spur of the moment. In the background of the
aforesaid facts, infliction of a single lathi-blow was not
found enough to infer the intention of the accused to
cause death of the deceased. Here, as pointed out above,
the three important factors enumerated above, clearly
lead to the conclusion that the appellant intended to
cause death.
19. Hence, all these decisions are clearly distinguishable.
20. In the present case, as pointed out above, the weapon
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.1215 of 2016 dt.27-06-2025
45/54used, the part of the body chosen for the assault and the
intensity with which the appellant assaulted the deceased
clearly go to show that he intended to cause the death of
the deceased.”
38. Reference be also had to a recent judgment rendered by the
Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Anbazhagan vs. State
Represented by the Inspector of Police, reported in 2023 SCC
OnLine SC 857, paragraph no.66 whereof is reproduced herein
below:-
“66. Few important principles of law discernible from the
aforesaid discussion may be summed up thus:–
(1) When the court is confronted with the question,
what offence the accused could be said to have
committed, the true test is to find out the intention or
knowledge of the accused in doing the act. If the
intention or knowledge was such as is described in
Clauses (1) to (4) of Section 300 of the IPC, the act
will be murder even though only a single injury was
caused. To illustrate:’A’ is bound hand and foot. ‘B’
comes and placing his revolver against the head of ‘A’,
shoots ‘A’ in his head killing him instantaneously.
Here, there will be no difficulty in holding that the
intention of ‘B’ in shooting ‘A’ was to kill him, though
only single injury was caused. The case would,
therefore, be of murder falling within Clause (1) of
Section 300 of the IPC. Taking another instance, ‘B’
sneaks into the bed room of his enemy ‘A’ while the
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.1215 of 2016 dt.27-06-2025
46/54
latter is asleep on his bed. Taking aim at the left chest
of ‘A’, ‘B’ forcibly plunges a sword in the left chest of
‘A’ and runs away. ‘A’ dies shortly thereafter. The
injury to ‘A’ was found to be sufficient in ordinary
course of nature to cause death. There may be no
difficulty in holding that ‘B’ intentionally inflicted the
particular injury found to be caused and that the said
injury was objectively sufficient in the ordinary course
of nature to cause death. This would bring the act of
‘B’ within Clause (3) of Section 300 of the IPC and
render him guilty of the offence of murder although
only single injury was caused.
(2) Even when the intention or knowledge of the
accused may fall within Clauses (1) to (4) of
Section 300 of the IPC, the act of the accused which
would otherwise be murder, will be taken out of the
purview of murder, if the accused’s case attracts any
one of the five exceptions enumerated in that section.
In the event of the case falling within any of those
exceptions, the offence would be culpable homicide not
amounting to murder, falling within Part 1 of
Section 304 of the IPC, if the case of the accused is
such as to fall within Clauses (1) to (3) of
Section 300 of the IPC. It would be offence under Part
II of Section 304 if the case is such as to fall within
Clause (4) of Section 300 of the IPC. Again, the
intention or knowledge of the accused may be such that
only 2nd or 3rd part of Section 299 of the IPC, may be
attracted but not any of the clauses of Section 300 of
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.1215 of 2016 dt.27-06-2025
47/54
the IPC. In that situation also, the offence would be
culpable homicide not amounting to murder under
Section 304 of the IPC. It would be an offence under
Part I of that section, if the case fall within 2nd part of
Section 299, while it would be an offence under Part II
of Section 304 if the case fall within 3rd part of
Section 299 of the IPC.
(3) To put it in other words, if the act of an accused
person falls within the first two clauses of cases of
culpable homicide as described in Section 299 of
the IPC it is punishable under the first part of Section
304. If, however, it falls within the third clause, it is
punishable under the second part of Section 304. In
effect, therefore, the first part of this section would
apply when there is ‘guilty intention,’ whereas the
second part would apply when there is no such
intention, but there is ‘guilty knowledge’.
(4) Even if single injury is inflicted, if that particular
injury was intended, and objectively that injury was
sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause
death, the requirements of Clause 3rdly to
Section 300 of the IPC, are fulfilled and the offence
would be murder.
(5) Section 304 of the IPC will apply to the following
classes of cases : (i) when the case falls under one or
the other of the clauses of Section 300, but it is covered
by one of the exceptions to that Section, (ii) when the
injury caused is not of the higher degree of likelihood
which is covered by the expression ‘sufficient in the
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.1215 of 2016 dt.27-06-2025
48/54
ordinary course of nature to cause death’ but is of a
lower degree of likelihood which is generally spoken of
as an injury ‘likely to cause death’ and the case does
not fall under Clause (2) of Section 300 of the IPC, (iii)
when the act is done with the knowledge that death is
likely to ensue but without intention to cause death or
an injury likely to cause death.
To put it more succinctly, the difference between the
two parts of Section 304 of the IPC is that under the
first part, the crime of murder is first established and
the accused is then given the benefit of one of the
exceptions to Section 300 of the IPC, while under the
second part, the crime of murder is never established
at all. Therefore, for the purpose of holding an accused
guilty of the offence punishable under the second part
of Section 304 of the IPC, the accused need not bring
his case within one of the exceptions to Section 300 of
the IPC.
(6) The word ‘likely’ means probably and it is
distinguished from more ‘possibly’. When chances of
happening are even or greater than its not happening,
we may say that the thing will ‘probably happen’. In
reaching the conclusion, the court has to place itself in
the situation of the accused and then judge whether the
accused had the knowledge that by the act he was
likely to cause death.
(7) The distinction between culpable homicide (Section
299 of the IPC) and murder (Section 300 of the IPC)
has always to be carefully borne in mind while dealing
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.1215 of 2016 dt.27-06-2025
49/54
with a charge under Section 302of the IPC. Under the
category of unlawful homicides, both, the cases of
culpable homicide amounting to murder and those not
amounting to murder would fall. Culpable homicide is
not murder when the case is brought within the five
exceptions to Section 300 of the IPC. But, even though
none of the said five exceptions are pleaded or prima
facie established on the evidence on record, the
prosecution must still be required under the law to
bring the case under any of the four clauses of
Section 300 of the IPC to sustain the charge of murder.
If the prosecution fails to discharge this onus in
establishing any one of the four clauses of
Section 300 of the IPC, namely, 1stly to 4thly, the
charge of murder would not be made out and the case
may be one of culpable homicide not amounting to
murder as described under Section 299 of the IPC.
(8) The court must address itself to the question
of mens rea. If Clause thirdly of Section 300 is to be
applied, the assailant must intend the particular injury
inflicted on the deceased. This ingredient could rarely
be proved by direct evidence. Inevitably, it is a matter
of inference to be drawn from the proved circumstances
of the case. The court must necessarily have regard to
the nature of the weapon used, part of the body injured,
extent of the injury, degree of force used in causing the
injury, the manner of attack, the circumstances
preceding and attendant on the attack.
(9) Intention to kill is not the only intention that makes
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.1215 of 2016 dt.27-06-2025
50/54
a culpable homicide a murder. The intention to cause
injury or injuries sufficient in the ordinary cause of
nature to cause death also makes a culpable homicide
a murder if death has actually been caused and
intention to cause such injury or injuries is to be
inferred from the act or acts resulting in the injury or
injuries.
(10) When single injury inflicted by the accused results
in the death of the victim, no inference, as a general
principle, can be drawn that the accused did not have
the intention to cause the death or that particular
injury which resulted in the death of the victim.
Whether an accused had the required guilty intention
or not, is a question of fact which has to be determined
on the facts of each case.
(11) Where the prosecution proves that the accused had
the intention to cause death of any person or to cause
bodily injury to him and the intended injury is
sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause
death, then, even if he inflicts a single injury which
results in the death of the victim, the offence squarely
falls under Clause thirdly of Section 300 of
the IPC unless one of the exceptions applies.
(12) In determining the question, whether an accused
had guilty intention or guilty knowledge in a case
where only a single injury is inflicted by him and that
injury is sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to
cause death, the fact that the act is done without
premeditation in a sudden fight or quarrel, or that the
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.1215 of 2016 dt.27-06-2025
51/54
circumstances justify that the injury was accidental or
unintentional, or that he only intended a simple injury,
would lead to the inference of guilty knowledge, and
the offence would be one under Section 304 Part II of
the IPC.”
39. Upon going through the principles laid down by the
Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Anbazhagan (supra) as also in
the other cases referred to herein above in the preceding
paragraphs and upon going through the evidence led by the
prosecution, we find that the act done by the appellant, which has
caused the death of the deceased, was not only with the
knowledge that such act is likely to cause death, but the appellant
also had the intention to cause death of the deceased inasmuch as
he had inflicted repeated blows on the vital part of the deceased,
i.e. in the middle of the chest by a sharp cutting weapon i.e.
knife/dagger in such a manner that the same had pierced the
heart. “Intent” and “Knowledge” are ingredients of Section 299
of IPC and so far as an act done by an accused, which causes
death, is done with the knowledge that death is likely to be
caused by such an act as also the accused had the intention to
cause death, would fall within the purview of Section 300 of the
IPC and such act of the accused will be a murder. In the present
case, the injuries were concentrated on the vital parts of the
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.1215 of 2016 dt.27-06-2025
52/54
deceased’s body, such as the chest and heart. The deliberate
targeting of these areas indicates a clear intent to cause harm
that could lead to death. Admittedly, the appellant had stabbed
the deceased with considerable force, further corroborating the
fact that the injuries were inflicted intentionally or at least with
the knowledge of their natural consequence. The appellant was
in possession of a knife/dagger, which was used to inflict severe
injuries. The decision to carry and use such a weapon during the
scuffle reflects a readiness to escalate violence beyond a mere
physical altercation. Even if the appellant did not have a prior
intention to murder the deceased, the circumstances demonstrate
that such injuries were caused which were sufficient in the
ordinary course to cause death. The deliberate act of stabbing
vital parts of the body, coupled with the force used, indicates
that the appellant must have been aware of the likely fatal
consequences of his actions. Under the provisions of
Section 300 of the IPC, an intention to cause such injuries that
are sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death
qualifies as murder, and even if ingredients other than intention
to cause murder are proved, mere knowledge of the result of
fatal actions is enough to ascribe culpability to the accused
person.
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.1215 of 2016 dt.27-06-2025
53/54
40. Thus, the appellant’s decision to use a lethal weapon and
the precise targeting of the vital parts of the body of the
deceased are sufficient to establish the requisite intent for
murder or at least knowledge of the possible consequences of
one’s actions and to hold the appellant liable for death of the
deceased as per clause 3 of Section 300 of the IPC. The
argument of the appellant that the incident was a spontaneous
scuffle does not absolve him of his liability. While the scuffle
may have triggered the attack, the appellant’s use of a lethal
weapon and the manner in which the injuries were inflicted
elevate the act from culpable homicide to murder. Courts have
consistently held that intent can be inferred from the nature and
severity of injuries, as well as the choice of weapon and the
manner of its use. The use of a lethal weapon and the deliberate
targeting of vital parts of the body are strong indicators of such
intent. Consequently, since the case of the appellant will not
attract any one of the five exceptions enumerated in Section 300
of the IPC, the present case would not fall within the purview of
Section 304 Part-II of the IPC.
41. From the entire conspectus of the case, considering the
factual matrix as also for the reasons mentioned hereinabove in
the preceding paragraphs, we do not find any merit in the
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.1215 of 2016 dt.27-06-2025
54/54
present appeal, i.e. Criminal Appeal (DB) No.1215 of 2016,
hence the same stands dismissed.
(Mohit Kumar Shah, J)
I agree.
Soni Shrivastava, J:-
(Soni Shrivastava, J)
kanchan/-
AFR/NAFR AFR CAV DATE 03.04.2025 Uploading Date 27.06.2025 Transmission Date 27.06.2025