Patna High Court
Madhav Kumar @ Madhav Singh vs The State Of Bihar on 18 June, 2025
Author: Sunil Dutta Mishra
Bench: Sunil Dutta Mishra
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL APPEAL (DB) No.776 of 2018
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-49 Year-2016 Thana- PAKARIBARAW District- Nawada
======================================================
Madhav Kumar @ Madhav Singh Son of Gopal Singh Resident of Village -
Diaura, Police Station - Pakribarawan, District - Nawadah.
... ... Appellant/s
Versus
The State Of Bihar
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
with
CRIMINAL APPEAL (DB) No. 784 of 2018
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-49 Year-2016 Thana- PAKARIBARAW District- Nawada
======================================================
1. Bhopal Singh Son of Surju Singh,
2. Chandan Singh @ Chandan Kumar, Son of Bhopal Singh, Both are resident
of Village- Diaura, P.S.- Pakribarawan, District- Nawadah.
... ... Appellant/s
Versus
The State Of Bihar
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
with
CRIMINAL APPEAL (DB) No. 909 of 2018
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-49 Year-2016 Thana- PAKARIBARAW District- Nawada
======================================================
Gopal Singh Son of Surju Singh, Resident of Village- Dioura, Police Station-
Pakribarawan, District- Nawadah.
... ... Appellant/s
Versus
The State Of Bihar
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
(In CRIMINAL APPEAL (DB) No. 776 of 2018)
For the Appellant/s : Mr. Baxi S.R.P. Sinha, Sr. Advocate
Mr. Arun Kumar, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Sujit Kumar Singh, APP
(In CRIMINAL APPEAL (DB) No. 784 of 2018)
For the Appellant/s : Mr. Baxi S.R.P. Sinha, Sr. Advocate
Mr. Arun Kumar, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Sujit Kumar Singh, APP
(In CRIMINAL APPEAL (DB) No. 909 of 2018)
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.776 of 2018 dt.18-06-2025
2/34
For the Appellant/s : Mr. Baxi S.R.P. Sinha, Sr. Advocate
Mr. Arun Kumar, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Sujit Kumar Singh, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE VIPUL M. PANCHOLI
and
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL DUTTA MISHRA
ORAL JUDGMENT
(Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE VIPUL M. PANCHOLI)
Date : 18-06-2025
All these appeals have been filed under Section
374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter
referred to as 'the Code') against the common judgment of
conviction dated 29.05.2018 and order of sentence dated
05.06.2018
, passed in Sessions Trial No. 594 of 2016/391 of
2016, arising out of Pakribarawan P.S. Case No. 49 of 2016, by
the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge-II, Nawada,
whereby the learned Trial Court has convicted appellants Gopal
Singh and Madhav Kumar for committing the offence
punishable under Sections- 302 of I.P.C. Further appellants
Bhopal Singh and Chandan Singh have also been convicted for
committing the offence punishable under Section-341 and
302/34 of I.P.C. Appellants Gopal Singh and Madhav Kumar
have been sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and a fine
of Rs. 10,000/- each for the offence punishable under Section-
302 of I.P.C. Appellants Bhopal Singh and Chandan Singh have
been sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and a fine of
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.776 of 2018 dt.18-06-2025
3/34
Rs. 10,000/- each for the offence punishable under Section-
302/34 of I.P.C. and a fine of Rs. 500/- each for the offence
punishable under Section-341 of I.P.C.
1.1. As the present appeals arise out of the common
judgment and order, learned advocates appearing for the parties
jointly pray that all these appeals be heard together and be
disposed of by a common judgment.
2. Heard Mr. Baxi S.R.P. Sinha, learned Senior
Advocate, assisted by Mr. Arun Kumar, learned counsel
appearing for the appellants in Cr. Appeal (D.B.) Nos. 776 of
2018 and 909 of 2018. As no one appeared for the appellants in
Cr. Appeal No. 784 of 2018, we requested Mr. Arun Kumar,
learned counsel, to assist the Court in the present matter also.
Therefore, we heard Mr. Arun Kumar in Cr. Appeal No. 784 of
2018 also and Mr. Sujit Kumar Singh, learned A.P.P. for the
respondent State in all the three appeals.
FACTUAL MATRIX
3. The factual matrix of the present case is as
under:-
“P.W. 3, Ramendra Prasad Singh @ Bachchan
Singh gave his written report to S.H.O. of Pakribarawan
(Nawada) P.S. on 24.03.2016. In the said written report, the
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.776 of 2018 dt.18-06-2025
4/34informant has mainly stated that at about 05:45 p.m., exchange
of abuses took place between his son Rahul Kumar on one side
and his full brother Gopal Singh and nephew Madhav Singh on
the other. Thereafter, at about 06:45 p.m., his son was coming to
the lane from the southern side. As soon as he reached near the
house of Haridwar Singh, accused Gopal Singh, Madhav Singh,
armed with a spear and Bhopal Singh and Chandan Kumar came
in front of the house of Haridwar Singh and Bhopal Singh and
Chandan Singh caught hold of his son and Gopal Singh and
Madhav Kumar assaulted him with Bhala (spear) and injured
him grievously. On commotion, his daughter Sonam Kumari
shouted upon which his wife and village people came there and
seeing them the miscreants fled away. When they went nearer,
they saw grievous injuries on both the sides of chest, navel and
scrotum of his son, caused by spear out of which profuse blood
was oozing and his son was writhing in pain. By the time they
could manage a vehicle to rush him to the hospital, he
succumbed to the injuries sustained by him.”
4. On the basis of the written report given by the
informant, formal F.I.R. came to be registered on 24.03.2016 at
23:30 hours. After registration of the F.I.R., the Investigating
Officer carried out investigation and thereafter filed charge-
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.776 of 2018 dt.18-06-2025
5/34
sheet against the two accused, namely Madhav Kumar and
Gopal Singh. It is pertinent to observe here that the I.O. did not
file charge-sheet against the other two accused, namely Bhopal
Singh and Chandan Singh and submitted final report in favour
of them. However, the concerned Magistrate did not accept the
final report submitted by the I.O. in favour of the aforesaid two
accused and issued process against the aforesaid two accused
also.
5. As the case was exclusively triable by the Court
of Sessions, the learned Magistrate committed the same to the
Court of Sessions under Section-209 of the Code. Before the
Sessions Court, the case was registered as Sessions Trial No.
594 of 2016/391 of 2016.
6. During the course of trial, the prosecution had
examined 8 witnesses, whereas the defence had examined 5
witnesses. The prosecution also produced documentary
evidence. Thereafter, further statement of the accused under
Section-313 of the Code came to be recorded.
7. After conclusion of the trial, the Trial Court
passed the impugned judgment of conviction and order of
sentence, against which the appellants have preferred the
present appeals.
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.776 of 2018 dt.18-06-2025
6/34
SUBMISSIONS CANVASSED ON BEHALF OF
THE APPELLANTS/CONVICTS.
8. Learned Sr. Advocate appearing on behalf of the
appellants would mainly contend that there is a delay in lodging
the F.I.R. It has been pointed out from the record that the alleged
incident took place at 18:45 hours for which formal F.I.R. came
to be registered at 23:30. hours. At this stage, it has been further
submitted that though the formal F.I.R. was registered on
24.03.2016, copy of the same has been received by the
concerned Magistrate Court on 30th March, 2016. Thus, there is
a gross delay in sending the F.I.R. to the concerned Court.
9. At this stage, learned Senior Advocate would
submit that, in fact, the prosecution has projected P.W. 2 Sonam
Kumari as an eye-witness, her deposition is required to be
discarded mainly on the ground that she is a near relative of the
deceased and she is an interested and related witness. Further,
from the other evidence led by the prosecution, it can be said
that P.W. 2 is not an eye-witness to the occurrence in question
and, therefore, her deposition is required to be discarded. At this
stage, it is further submitted that there are major contradictions,
improvement and inconsistencies in the deposition of
prosecution-witnesses, especially P.W. Nos. 1, 2 and 3.
10. Learned Senior Advocate further submits that
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.776 of 2018 dt.18-06-2025
7/34
even the medical evidence does not support the version given by
the so called eye-witness and, therefore, the prosecution has
failed to prove the case against the appellants beyond reasonable
doubt, despite which the Trial Court has recorded the judgment
of conviction and, hence, the same is required to be quashed and
set aside.
11. Learned Senior Advocate would further submit
that, as per the case of the prosecution, the incident took place
near the house of Haridwar Singh and, as per the case of the so
called eye-witness, the other village people also gathered at the
place of occurrence. However, the prosecution has failed to
examine Haridwar Singh or his family members. Further, the
prosecution has also failed to examine the other independent
witnesses and only produced the interested and related
witnesses.
12. Learned Senior Advocate also contended that
the prosecution has failed to establish the motive on the part of
the appellants, who are near relatives of the informant and
deceased, in committing the alleged offences. At this stage, it is
also contended that there are discrepancies in the timing with
regard to preparing the inquest report. Learned Senior Advocate
referred the inquest report produced before the Court and
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.776 of 2018 dt.18-06-2025
8/34
pointed out that there is overwriting in Column Nos. 1 and 3,
from which it can be said that the prosecution has not come with
clean hands and has tried to suppress the correct version.
13. Learned Senior Advocate would further submit
that from the cross-examination of P.W. 3, informant, it
transpires that he informed to the police immediately on his
mobile phone with regard to the occurrence in question, the
names of the assailants and the manner of occurrence. However,
from the deposition given by P.W. 5, I.O., it is revealed that the
police got the information on telephone on the basis of which
Sanha/Station Diary Entry No. 701/16 came to be registered at
19:02 hours. However, in the said entry there is no reference of
the names of the assailants and the manner in which the incident
took place. Learned Senior Advocate, therefore, urged that
serious doubts have been created with regard to the story put
forward by the prosecution and, thereby, the prosecution has
failed to prove the case against the appellants/accused beyond
reasonable doubt.
14. Learned Senior Advocate further submits that
even the weapons with which assault was made have not been
recovered or discovered by the investigating agency. Learned
Senior Counsel also contended that the police officer, namely
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.776 of 2018 dt.18-06-2025
9/34
Anil Prasad, who has prepared the inquest report, has not been
examined by the prosecution, nor the police officer, namely
Ram Shankar Dubey, who was sent by the S.H.O. to the place
of occurrence, has been examined by the prosecution. Learned
Senior Counsel has also contended with regard to character of
the deceased and contended that there are all chances that some
other person has killed the deceased and the present appellants,
who are near relatives of the deceased, have been falsely
implicated because of certain property dispute. Learned Senior
Advocate, therefore, urged that when the prosecution has
miserably failed to prove the case against the appellants beyond
reasonable doubt, the Trial Court has committed serious error
while passing the impugned judgment and order. Learned Senior
Advocate, therefore, urged that the impugned judgment and
order be quashed and set aside.
15. Learned Senior Advocate for the appellants has
also referred the depositions given by the defence witnesses and
mainly placed reliance upon the deposition given by D.W. 1
who is father of the informant as well as two of the appellants. It
is submitted that from the deposition given by D.W. 1 itself, it
transpires that the prosecution has suppressed the correct
version and though P.W. 2 is not an eye-witness, she has been
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.776 of 2018 dt.18-06-2025
10/34
projected as an eye-witness to the occurrence in question.
SUBMISSIONS CANVASSED ON
BEHALF OF THE STATE.
16. On the other hand, learned A.P.P. has opposed
all the three appeals. Learned A.P.P. would mainly contend that
P.W. 2, sister of the deceased, is the eye-witness to the
occurrence in question. She was present at the place of
occurrence and when she shouted, P.W. 1 and P.W. 3, who are
her parents, immediately came to the place of occurrence. All
the aforesaid three witnesses have supported the case of the
prosecution. Though P.W. 4 is a hearsay witness, he has also
supported the case of the prosecution. From the deposition given
by P.W. 1 to P.W. 3, it can be said that the prosecution has
proved the manner of occurrence and also given the details with
regard to the manner in which occurrence took place. Similarly,
names of the assailants were also disclosed. Learned A.P.P.
would further submit that, as per the case of the prosecution, the
occurrence took place at 06:45 hours and when police reached at
the place of occurrence at about 08:00 p.m., immediately written
complaint/report was given by the informant to the S.H.O. On
the basis of the said written complaint/report, formal F.I.R. came
to be registered at 11:30 p.m. Thus, there is no delay in lodging
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.776 of 2018 dt.18-06-2025
11/34
the F.I.R. and the informant, who reached to the place of
occurrence immediately, has disclosed the names of the
assailants and the manner in which the occurrence took place.
Thus, when the F.I.R. was immediately lodged, it cannot be said
that the appellants have been falsely implicated, as contended by
the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellants.
17. Learned A.P.P. would further submit that even
the medical evidence also supports the version given by the eye-
witness. Two penetrating wounds were found on the dead body
of the deceased and the doctor has explained with regard to the
injury sustained by the deceased. It is the specific case of the
eye-witness that the appellants used Bhala (spear) while
committing the alleged offence.
18. Learned A.P.P., therefore, urged that merely
because the independent witnesses have not been examined by
the prosecution, it cannot be presumed that the prosecution has
failed to prove the case against the appellants beyond reasonable
doubt. Learned A.P.P. would submit that the Trial Court has not
committed any error while passing the impugned judgment and
order of conviction and sentence. He, therefore, urged that all
the three appeals be dismissed.
19. We have considered the submissions canvassed
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.776 of 2018 dt.18-06-2025
12/34
by learned counsel appearing for the parties. We have also
perused the materials placed on record and the evidence led by
the prosecution before the Trial Court. From the materials
placed on record, it transpires that the prosecution has examined
eight witnesses. At this stage, we would like to appreciate the
entire relevant extract of the depositions of the prosecution-
witnesses.
ANALYSIS OF ORAL EVIDENCE
20. P.W. 1 Shaila Devi is the mother of the
deceased. She has stated in her examination-in-chief that the
incident of exchange of abuses took place a year ago, at about
05:45 p.m. Her son Rahul Singh went to Gopal Singh to call
him for milking the cow at which Gopal Singh and Madhav
Singh abused him. However, the matter was pacified.
Thereafter, her son went on walk towards southern side. After
some time, accused Gopal Singh, Madhav Singh, Chandan
Singh and Bhopal Singh came in front of the house of Haridwar
Singh abusing. Gopal and Madhav were having spear in their
hands. Chandan and Bhopal were empty handed. Bhopal and
Chandan caught hold of her son abusing him and Madhav and
Gopal started assaulting him with spear. All the four accused
together flung her son on the ground. Her daughter Sonam
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.776 of 2018 dt.18-06-2025
13/34
Kumari shouted upon which PW-1 and her husband came there.
The miscreants fled away on seeing them. Before they could
manage a vehicle, her son succumbed to the injuries. Thereafter,
she informed to the concerned police station and Daroga came
at the place of occurrence and he took the dead body of her
deceased son for post mortem examination. After post mortem,
dead body was returned to her. She identifies all the four
accused present in the Court.
20.1. In her cross-examination of PW-1 stated that
before she reached the place of occurrence on hulla, two to four
unknown persons had already reached there. In all, 10 nearby
residents came at the place of occurrence. She has denied the
suggestion that her husband had set the house of Gopal Singh on
fire. She has also denied the suggestion that her son was having
a bad character and used to molest local women and girls and
there were several enemies in the locality out of who someone
secretly killed him. She has also denied the suggestion that
because of enmity, she has given false testimony with the
intention to implicate the accused persons in this case. She has
further denied the suggestion that she had not stated before the
police that she along with her husband reached at the place of
occurrence when her son was writhing in pain and that they
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.776 of 2018 dt.18-06-2025
14/34
tried to catch the accused. She has further denied the suggestion
that no incident as described by her had taken place. She has
further stated that her husband was on leave on the relevant
date. Her family members stayed at the place of occurrence for
10-15 minutes.
21. P.W. 2 Sonam Kumari has stated in her
examination-in-chief that the occurrence took place on
24.03.2016 at 05:45 p.m. She has supported the manner of
occurrence as deposed by P.W. 1. She has further stated that all
the four accused caught hold of Rahul Kumar and flung him to
the ground and Gopal Singh and Madhav Kumar started
assaulting Rahul Kumar with the spear they were having. She
was present at the place of occurrence and she raised alarm. On
her alarm her parents and 2-4 villagers came to the place of
occurrence. Her brother had received grievous spear injuries on
both sides of his chest. She also saw spear injuries in his navel
and scrotum. Before they could manage a vehicle to take him to
hospital, her brother succumbed to the injuries within 2-4
minutes. Then the police was informed upon which police came
on the spot at 08:00 p.m. and her father gave a written
application to the police which bears her signature also.
Thereafter, inquest report was prepared on a printed form
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.776 of 2018 dt.18-06-2025
15/34
through carbon process at the place of occurrence which also
bears her signature (Ext-1/1). She and her father gave their
statement to the police at the place of occurrence itself.
Thereafter, the dead body was sent for post mortem examination
at 11:00 p.m. to Nawada. She and her father had gone with the
dead body to Nawada and reached Nawada Hospital at 12:00
hours when the post mortem room was closed. The post
mortem was conducted next day at 08:30 a.m.
21.1. In her cross-examination, she has stated that
she does not know the names of the persons who came at the
place of occurrence on her Hulla. Her father, at his own, gave
the written complaint to the police and she had not helped him
in the process. She with her parents was present in the house
from morning to 06:00 p.m. on the date of occurrence. She had
not gone with her brother on the relevant date and, therefore,
she does not know as to which places her brother had gone on
the date of occurrence. She only saw him going towards South
direction. She saw the accused fleeing with spear in their hands
from a distance of 2-3 steps. She did not see whether blood was
spread on the spear or not. She saw her brother fallen on the
ground and writhing in pain due to which blood had spread upto
1-2 steps around. She has further stated that they did not tell the
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.776 of 2018 dt.18-06-2025
16/34
villagers that the miscreants have fled away after assaulting and
to catch the miscreants and recover the spears. Police saw the
dead body in the light of electric bulb and torch light. The
electric bulb was glowing in the bungalow of Haridwar Singh.
She had briefed her father before he prepared the written
complaint. She has denied the suggestions that she had not
stated before the police that all the four accused persons caught
hold of Rahul Kumar, flung him on the ground and accused
Gopal Singh and Madhav Kumar started assaulting him with
their spears when she was present there and upon alarm raised
by her, her parents and other 2-4 village people came to the
place of occurrence. She has further denied the suggestion that
because of the bad character of her brother, his wife had
deserted him and solemnized a second marriage. She has further
stated that previously also a quarrel had taken place with the
accused persons of which day, date, month and year she does
not remember. It was a family feud.
22. P.W. 3 Ramendra Prasad Singh @ Bachchan
Singh is the informant and father of the deceased. He has also
supported the manner of occurrence as stated by P.W. 1 and P.W.
2. He has further stated that he had seen the accused catching
hold of his son Rahul Kumar, flinging him and assaulting with
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.776 of 2018 dt.18-06-2025
17/34
spear with his own eyes. The police was informed and the police
reached at 08:00 p.m. at the place of occurrence. He wrote down
the written report on a plain paper and submitted it to the police
at the place of occurrence itself. He has identified his writing
and signature on the written report which was marked as Ext.-2.
He has stated that his son was killed by hatching conspiracy for
grabbing the movable and immovable property. He has
identified the three accused present in the Court and claimed to
identify all the accused persons by face.
22.1. In his cross-examination he has stated that he
has the degree of M.A., B.Ed and was posted as an assistant
teacher in Upgraded Middle School, Kazichak, P.S. Rajauli. He
has further deposed that the incident took place on the day of
Holi. On alarm being raised by him Jai Nandan and another
neighbour came to the place of occurrence. Sonam had not
informed him about the assault being made by spear. Neither he
nor police nor any of the villagers recovered the spear from the
house of the accused persons. His daughter shouted that the
accused have come to kill. At this no one went out with any
weapon. They just tried to pacify the matter. He does not know
as to how many times the deceased was assaulted by spear. He
again states that four times his son was assaulted by spear. The
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.776 of 2018 dt.18-06-2025
18/34
accused persons first flung his son and then started assaulting
with spear. The police was informed on mobile phone two
minutes after the death of the deceased describing the manner in
which his son was killed. He identifies the 6-10 villagers present
at the place of occurrence, but does not know their names. He
had not taken any help in drafting the written report. He had
arranged the paper for preparing the report from a shop, but he
does not want to disclose the name of the person who brought
the paper from the shop. The inquest report was not prepared at
the place where he drafted the written report. He has further
stated that he has also mentioned in the written report that when
they reached near the deceased, they saw the deceased having
grievous injuries on both the sides of his chest and on navel and
scrotum and he had stated verbatim the same before the police.
He has denied the suggestion that his daughter-in-law had
deserted his son because of his bad character. He has denied the
suggestion that no occurrence had taken place in the manner as
stated by him. He has also denied the suggestion that his father
saw the dead body of Rahul in the evening and upon being
informed by him he, his wife and daughter saw the dead body
and then informed the police on phone without disclosing the
names of the accused. He has also denied that at the first
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.776 of 2018 dt.18-06-2025
19/34
instance he had not disclosed the names of the accused persons,
but later on, with the connivance of police, submitted another
application which is the F.I.R. He has denied the suggestion to
have given false evidence.
23. P.W. 4 Poonam Kumari is a hearsay witness.
She has stated in her deposition that she got information that her
uncle Gopal Singh, Bhopal Singh, Madhav Singh and Chandan
all together assaulted her brother Rahul with spear causing
grievous injuries causing his death. Such information was given
by her parents and sister who had seen the occurrence. She had
seen the dead body of deceased Rahul Kumar after post mortem.
She saw spear injuries on both the sides of chest, on navel and
scrotum. She identifies all the four accused present in Court.
23.1. In her cross-examination she has stated that
the incident is of 24.03.2016. It was Holi festival day. Her father
informed her about the incident on telephone. On 25.03.2016,
she went to her parents’ house and did not go to hospital. She
went to the place of occurrence on 25.03.2016. Bhopal Singh is
her uncle and Chandan is her cousin brother. She has denied that
they were not involved in the incident. She has also denied that
Bhopal and Chandan are innocent and due to the land dispute
her father has implicated them and that she has given false
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.776 of 2018 dt.18-06-2025
20/34
evidence.
24. P.W. 5 Pramod Kumar has stated that on
24.03.2016 he was posted at Pakribarawan P.S. He got
information about the incident on mobile phone at 07.02 p.m.
that a person in village Diyora has been brutally assaulted and
has received grievous injuries. He proceeded to the place of
occurrence with other police officials and armed force and
reached at the place of occurrence at about 08:00 p.m. Informant
Ramendra Singh and his family members were present there. He
found a person dead in pool of blood. The inquest report was
prepared by A.S.I. Anil Prasad and a written report was received
from informant Ramendra Prasad Singh @ Bachchan Singh. He
took over the charge of investigation himself and on reaching
the police station he registered the formal F.I.R. Four injuries
were found on the body of the deceased Rahul Kumar, which
are mentioned in the inquest report. A white dhoti with blood
stains and a blue Jeans were recovered from the house of
accused Gopal Singh on 25.03.2016. He prepared the seizure list
in his pen and signature on 25.03.2016, wrongly mentioned as
25.03.2015 in the seizure list, which is a clerical mistake.
24.1. In his cross-examination, he has stated that he
has produced the Station Diary Sanha No. 701/16 dated
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.776 of 2018 dt.18-06-2025
21/34
24.03.2015 from his custody which is in his pen and signature
(Ext.-A). He received only one call based upon which he
registered Sanha. He did not receive any call either before or
after the same. The informer of Sanha did not either disclose the
names of the accused persons or names of witnesses of the
occurrence. He stayed at the place of occurrence for about two
hours and forty-five minutes during which he recorded the
statement, but did not record the Fardbeyan. First of all, he
recorded the statement of the informant. As soon as he reached
the place of occurrence, the informant gave him a written report.
He does not know as to where the informant prepared the
written report. The four injuries which he mentioned in Court
was based on the inquest report which was not prepared by him.
The inquest report was prepared by A.S.I. Anil Prasad whose
statement was not recorded. The time mentioned in Column
Nos. 1 and 3 of the inquest report has not been changed from
17:15 to 20:15, rather it is 20:15. He has denied the suggestion
that to cover the forgery committed in the inquest report, only
the family members were made witnesses and no independent
person was made a witness. He has further stated that he did not
mention at any place as to when the F.I.R. was sent to the Court.
It was seen by the learned Magistrates on 30.03.2016 whereas
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.776 of 2018 dt.18-06-2025
22/34
the F.I.R. was registered on 24.03.2016. He has not mentioned
any reason for the said delay, but it might have been caused as
the office remained closed on the occasion of Holi. The seized
Dhoti and Jeans are not before him in Court. The Jeans was not
having blood stains, but having colour on it. He had not got the
Dhoti examined by a chemical examiner or Serologist. He has
further stated that the dead body was put in the vehicle by
Chaukidar. Witness Shaila Devi had stated about the accused
abusing her son, but had not stated that her son had gone to call
Gopal Singh for milking the cow upon which Gopal Singh and
Madhav Singh abused him. He has further stated that Shaila
Devi had not stated that when they reached at the place of
occurrence her son was writhing in pain and continued writhing
for 2-4 minutes. Witness Sonam Kumari had stated that all the
four accused caught hold of deceased and flung him on the
ground, but she has not stated that she was present during that
period. She further stated that on hearing commotion she and
her parents and other villagers reached at the place of
occurrence. She did not state that she had also gone with the
dead body to Nawada for its post mortem. He has further stated
that the informant stated that on hearing commotion his
daughter shouted, but did not mention about hearing any abuses.
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.776 of 2018 dt.18-06-2025
23/34
The informant had not stated before him that upon reaching the
place of occurrence he saw Gopal and Madhav catching hold of
Rahul, flinging him on the ground and assaulting him with
spear. Witness Poonam Kumari had not stated before him that
information about the occurrence was given by her parents and
sister who had seen the occurrence. She had seen the dead body
of deceased Rahul Kumar after post mortem. She saw spear
injuries on both the sides of chest, on navel and scrotum. He has
denied the suggestion that he changed the original application
which was tallying with the Sanha and to prove it genuine, he
showed wrong seizure and drafted a concocted an F.I.R. and that
is the reason why he did not send the F.I.R. to the Court before
30.03.2016. He had rather submitted the F.I.R. in the Court on
25.03.2016 itself. As no independent witness disclosed any
complicity of accused Bhopal and Chandan in the incident, he
did not submit charge-sheet against them. Any incriminating
article was also not recovered or discovered from their houses.
Accused Bhopal and Chandan were found not guilty in his
investigation. The informant, his wife and daughter had though
stated about Bhopal and Chandan catching hold of the deceased
but had not stated to have seen it with their eyes. He has lastly
stated that he conducted proper investigation with regard to
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.776 of 2018 dt.18-06-2025
24/34
Bhopal and Chandan.
25. PW-6 Dr. Bipin Kumar Choudhary has stated in
his examination-in-chief that on 25th March, 2016, at 08:10 a.m.,
he conducted the post mortem examination of the deceased
Rahul Kumar Singh at Sadar Hospital, Nawada and noted the
following:-
“2. External appearance of dead
body:- Normal built, Fair colour, No
decomposition, Rigor Mortis present all over
the body.
3. External Examination:-
(i) Incised wound 2.5″x1″x cavity
deep over left side of chest, one and half inch
below left nipple with one rib bone cut. This
injury is ante mortem.
(ii) Incised wound 2.5″x1/2″x
cavity deep over right side of chest, 2″ above
and medial right nipple with one rib bone cut
(ante mortem).
(iii) Bruise forehead right side
1’x1″ (ante mortem).
(iv) Bruise lateral to left eye size-
1″x1/2′ (ante mortem).
On dissection:-
(I) Chest cavity full of blood and
blood clots, both lungs ruptured, heart
punctured and empty. Abdomen contains
three ounce fluid and partially digested food
materials. Urinary bladder empty. All viscera
intact and pale.
Cause of death- Shock due to
haemorrhage due to above mentioned injuries
caused by sharp penetrating object.
Time elapsed since death- Six to Thirty Six hours.
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.776 of 2018 dt.18-06-2025
25/34
25.1. In his cross-examination, he has stated that he
has seen Sword, Spear, Knife, Gandasa during his studies. He
cannot say whether the injuries were caused by the weapon
mentioned by him above. He has further stated that except the
injuries mentioned by him (in his examination-in-chief), he did
not find any other injury either on the navel or scrotum of the
dead body.
26. P.W. 7 Sanjay Kumar is a police official and
P.W. 8 Ashok Kumar Rajak is an office clerk in the office of
learned C.J.M., Nawada. Their depositions need not be gone
into in detail as they have not stated anything about the
occurrence.
27. D.W. 1 Surju Singh has not supported the
prosecution case. He has stated in his examination-in-chief that
his eldest son is the informant of this case. He has divided his
property among his sons. On the incident he was at the house of
the informant. At 04:30 p.m. he had gone to the village road and
saw Rahul Singh, son of the informant, lying dead near the
house of Haridwar Singh. He did not see anyone else near that
place or fleeing from that place. He went running to the house
of Ramendra Singh and informed him about the incident. Police
had also come to the place of occurrence and he had briefed the
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.776 of 2018 dt.18-06-2025
26/34
police about the incident. He has further stated that Bachchan
Singh had falsely implicated the accused persons due to
jealousness. He identifies the informant and all the accused
persons as they are his family members. Accused persons were
not present at the place of occurrence.
27.1. In his cross-examination, he has stated that he
stays at the houses of his sons for four months each by turn.
Before the incident, all his sons were having cordial terms. He
had seen injury on the chest of Rahul Singh. He has denied the
suggestion that to grab the property of Ramendra Singh, the
accused persons killed his only son. He has denied the
suggestion of giving false evidence.
28. Other defence witnesses have also not
supported the prosecution-case.
DISCUSSIONS AND FINDINGS
29. We have considered the arguments canvassed
by the learned counsels appearing for the parties, re-appreciated
the entire evidence led by the prosecution as well as defence and
perused the trial court records.
30. From the evidence led by the prosecution, it
transpires that P.W. 3 Ramendra Prasad Singh is the informant
who gave his written report to S.H.O. concerned. As per the said
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.776 of 2018 dt.18-06-2025
27/34
written report, the incident took place at 06:45 p.m. If the
written report is carefully examined, it is revealed that it is the
specific case that when his son reached near the house of
Haridwar Singh, accused Bhopal Singh and Chandan Singh
caught hold of his son and accused Gopal Singh and Madhav
Kumar assaulted him with Bhala and injured him grievously.
From the written report, it further transpires that the informant is
not an eye-witness to the occurrence in question and daughter of
the informant, namely Sonam Kumari is projected as an eye-
witness. Now, it is required to be observed at this stage that the
formal F.I.R. came to be registered at 18.45 hours on 24.03.2016
and the said F.I.R. was received by the concerned Magistrate
Court on 30th March, 2016. Thus, there is a gross delay in
sending the F.I.R. to the concerned Magistrate Court for which
the prosecution has failed to give any reasonable explanation.
31. From the deposition given by P.Ws. 1, 2 and 3,
who are near relatives of the deceased, it transpires that there are
major contradictions and improvement in their version. All the
aforesaid witnesses have deposed before the Court that all the
four accused together flung the deceased on the ground.
However, no such allegation was levelled against the accused in
the written report given by P.W. 3, informant. At this stage, it is
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.776 of 2018 dt.18-06-2025
28/34
also relevant to observe that, as per the case of P.Ws. 1 to 3, the
deceased sustained grievous spear injuries on both sides of his
chest. He also sustained injuries on his navel and scrotum.
However, at this stage, if we examine the deposition of P.W. 6,
Dr. Bipin Kumar Chaudhary, who had conducted the post
mortem on the dead body of the deceased, it transpires that
injury Nos. 1 and 2 are incised wound injuries, whereas injury
Nos. 3 and 4 are bruises. During cross-examination, the said
witness has specifically stated that, except the aforesaid two
injuries mentioned by him in the examination-in-chief, he did
not find any other injury either on the navel or the scrotum of
the dead body. Thus, we are of the view that the medical
evidence does not support the version given by the prosecution-
witnesses, namely P.Ws. 1 to 3.
32. As observed hereinabove, P.W. 2 Sonam
Kumari is projected as an eye-witness and, therefore, the case of
the prosecution rests mainly upon her deposition. It is not in
dispute that P.W. 2 is the sister of the deceased and is an
interested and related witness. It is well settled that merely
because a witness is an interested witness, his/her deposition
cannot be discarded only on that ground, however, deposition of
such a witness is required to be scrutinized closely.
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.776 of 2018 dt.18-06-2025
29/34
33. We have carefully gone through the deposition
given by P.W. 2 as also considered the deposition given by the
other prosecution-witnesses, the doctor and the defence
witnesses, more particularly D.W. 1. It is the specific case of
P.W. 2, as observed hereinabove, that the deceased sustained
four injuries caused by spears and one injury was found on
navel and another on scrotum. However, as per the deposition
given by P.W. 6, Dr. Bipin Kumar Chaudhary, it is revealed that
no such injuries were found on the navel or scrotum of the dead
body. Further, D.W. 1 Surju Singh is the father of the informant
and also father of two of the accused. From the deposition given
by D.W. 1, it is revealed that the said witness has specifically
stated that at the time of incident he was at the house of the
informant. At 04:30 p.m., he had gone to the village road and
saw Rahul Singh, son of the informant, lying dead near the
house of Haridwar Singh. He did not see any other person near
that place or fleeing from that place. He immediately came to
the house and informed Ramendra Singh (informant) about the
incident.
34. It is required to be observed at this stage that, as
per the case of the prosecution, the occurrence took place near
the house of Haridwar Singh. Further, from the deposition given
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.776 of 2018 dt.18-06-2025
30/34
by P.Ws. 1 to 3, eight to ten people immediately came to the
place of occurrence, however, the prosecution has failed to
examine any independent witnesses, including Haridwar Singh.
34.1. At this stage, it is also required to be observed
that P.W. 5 Pramod Kumar, I.O., has specifically admitted
during cross-examination that as no independent witness
disclosed any complicity of accused Bhopal Singh and Chandan
Singh in the incident, he did not submit charge-sheet against
them. He had conducted proper investigation with regard to
Bhopal and Chandan. Thus, from the aforesaid version of the
prosecution-witness, i.e. the I.O., it is revealed that the aforesaid
two accused, though were not present at the scene, have been
falsely implicated.
34.2. We are, therefore, of the view that though
P.W. 2 is projected as an eye-witness, the version given by her
cannot be accepted in view of the other evidence led by the
prosecution itself. P.W. 4 is a hearsay and she came to know
about the incident in question from P.Ws. 1 to 3.
35. It would further reveal from the evidence led by
the prosecution that P.W. 3, informant, has admitted during
cross-examination that he informed to the police immediately on
his mobile phone with regard to occurrence in question and he
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.776 of 2018 dt.18-06-2025
31/34
also disclosed the names of the assailants and the manner of
occurrence. However, if the deposition given by P.W. 5, I.O., is
carefully examined, it is revealed that the said witness got the
information on telephone on the basis of which station diary
entry No. 701/16 came to be registered at 19:02 hours.
However, in the said station diary entry, there is no reference of
the names of the assailants and the manner in which the
occurrence took place. P.W. 5 has also admitted that he received
only one call based upon which he registered the Sanha/Station
Diary Entry. He further deposed that he did not receive any call
either before or after the same. He has also stated that the
informer did not either disclose the names of the accused or the
names of the witnesses to the occurrence. Thus, it can be said
that when the informant was given to the police on telephone,
names of the assailants and the manner of occurrence were not
disclosed. Subsequently, when the police came at the place of
occurrence at 08:00 p.m., the informant gave written report to
the police.
35.1. At this stage, it is also required to be observed
that P.W. 3, informant, is the father of the deceased. It is
surprising to note that the said witness drafted the written report
immediately at the place of occurrence. During cross-
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.776 of 2018 dt.18-06-2025
32/34
examination, he has stated that he had arranged the paper for
preparing the report from a shop, but he does not want to
disclose the name of the person who brought the paper from the
shop.
35.2. Thus, it is required to be observed at this
stage that if P.W. 3, informant, had already disclosed the names
of the assailants and the manner in which the occurrence took
place to the police on telephone, there was no question of giving
the written report to the police.
36. It further transpires from the record that there is
discrepancy with regard to the time of preparing the inquest
report. Learned counsel for the appellants has specifically stated
that there is overwriting in Column Nos. 1 and 3 from which it
can be said that prosecution has not come with clean hands and
has suppressed the correct version. We have also gone through
the inquest report produced before the trial court. It appears that
there is overwriting at two places, i.e. Column Nos. 1 and 3.
37. It would further reveal from the evidence that
the investigating agency has failed to recover/discover the
weapons/spears with which assaults were made. Further, the
prosecution did not examine A.S.I. Anil Prasad who has
prepared the inquest report. Similarly, prosecution did not
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.776 of 2018 dt.18-06-2025
33/34
examine police officer Ramshankar Dubey who was sent by the
S.H.O. (P.W. 5) to the place of occurrence.
38. Looking to the aforesaid facts and
circumstances of the present case, we are of the view that the
prosecution has failed to prove the case against the accused
persons beyond reasonable doubt, despite which the trial court
has recorded the judgment of conviction and order of sentence.
39. We have gone through the reasoning recorded
by the trial court while passing the impugned judgment and
order and we are of the view that the trial court has committed
grave error while passing the same. Hence, the same are
required to be quashed and set aside.
CONCLUSION
40. Accordingly, the impugned common judgment
of conviction dated 29.05.2018 and order of sentence dated
05.06.2018, passed in Sessions Trial No. 594 of 2016/391 of
2016, arising out of Pakribarawan P.S. Case No. 49 of 2016, by
the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge-II, Nawada, are
quashed and set aside. The appellants are acquitted of the
charges levelled against them by the learned Trial Court.
41. Appellant Madhav Kumar @ Madhav Singh
(in Cr. Appeal (D.B.) No. 776 of 2018) and appellant Gopal
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.776 of 2018 dt.18-06-2025
34/34
Singh (in Cr. Appeal (D.B.) No. 909 of 2018) are in custody.
They are directed to be released from jail custody forthwith, if
their custody is not required in any other case.
42. Appellants Bhopal Singh and Chandan Singh @
Chandan Kumar (in Cr. Appeal (D.B.) No. 784 of 2018) are on
bail. They are discharged from the liabilities of their bail-bonds.
43. All the appeals stand allowed.
(Vipul M. Pancholi, J)
(Sunil Dutta Mishra, J)
K.C.Jha/-
AFR/NAFR N.A.F.R. CAV DATE N.A. Uploading Date 25.06.2025 Transmission Date 25.06.2025