Patna High Court
Parsuram Prasad vs The State Of Bihar on 30 June, 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL APPEAL (SJ) No.123 of 2006
======================================================
1. Parsuram Prasad, Son of Jagarnath Prasad, Resident of village - Amiyan,
P.S. - Bihiyan, District - Bhojpur.
2. Sunil Prasad, Son of Ram Naresh Prasad, Resident of Village- Amiyan, P.S. -
Bihiyan, District - Bhojpur.
3. Anil Prasad, Son of Ram Naresh Prasad, Resident of Village- Amiyan, P.S. -
Bihiyan, District - Bhojpur.
... ... Appellant/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Appellant/s : Mr. Sunil Kumar, Advocate
Mr. Pankaj Kumar, Advocate
For the Respondent/s : Mr. A. M. P. Mehta, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAMESH CHAND MALVIYA
CAV JUDGMENT
Date: 30.06.2025
Heard Mr. Sunil Kumar, learned counsel for the
appellants assisted by Mr. Pankaj Kumar and Mr. A. M. P.
Mehta, learned APP for the State.
2. Learned counsel for the appellants submits
that Bharat Prasad, Naresh Prasad @ Ram Naresh Prasad,
Chhotak Prasad and Pramod Prasad have died during the
pendency of the appeal. So, the appeal against them stands
abated under the provision of Section 394 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure vide order dated 24.06.2024 and
14.11.2024
, respectively.
3. The present appeal has been filed under
Section 374(2) of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.123 of 2006 dt.30-06-2025
2/24
(hereinafter referred as ‘Cr.P.C‘) challenging the Judgment of
conviction dated 31.01.2006 and order of sentence dated
04.02.2006 passed by the learned Additional District and
Sessions Judge, F.T.C.-1st, Ara, Bhojpur in Sessions Trial No.
209 of 1999 by which the appellants have been convicted for the
offence punishable under Sections 304 and 307 of the Indian
Penal Code (hereinafter referred as ‘IPC‘). The appellant
namely Parsuram Prasad has been sentenced to undergo
rigorous imprisonment for ten years for the offence punishable
under Section 304 of the IPC and further rigorous imprisonment
for seven years for the offence punishable under Section 307 of
the IPC. Rest of the appellants namely Sunil Prasad and Anil
Prasad have been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment
for seven years for the offence punishable under Section 304 of
the IPC and further rigorous imprisonment for five years for the
offence punishable under Section 307 of the IPC. All the
sentences have been ordered to run concurrently.
4. The brief facts leading to the filing of the
present appeal is that the informant, namely Jitendra Yadav
(PW-4) recorded his statement at Bihiyan Police Station on
25.10.1995 at about 1:25 PM is that on 24.10.1995 at about 4.00
PM, wrestling was going on near Kali Temple in Village Amiya
and in which the deceased Vishnudeo Yadav (nephew of the
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.123 of 2006 dt.30-06-2025
3/24
informant) had some altercation with Baijnath Prasad (Son of
Manjee Prasad), a co-villager and due to which Bharat Prasad,
Naresh Prasad, Parsuram Prasad, all co-villagers of the
informant (PW-4) arrived there after some time. According to
the informant (PW-4), due to old enmity accused started
assaulting the deceased nephew of the informant with Lathi and
bricks bats. Upon information when the informant went to
rescue the deceased nephew appellant Bharat Prasad assaulted
him with Lathi on his head as a result of which he became
injured and fell down. Accused are alleged to have assaulted the
deceased nephew with Lathi and bricks after surrounding him
and as a result thereof he became unconscious on the spot itself.
Sheo Govind Yadav (not examined), Anant Yadav (not
examined) and others are said to have arrived, who had
witnessed the alleged occurrence and rescued the prosecution
party. It is also alleged that the informant (PW-4) brought his
deceased Nephew to Ara Hospital for treatment, from where the
deceased is said to have been taken to Patna on the advice of the
Doctor at Ara. It is further alleged that the deceased was
unconscious and was admitted in Government Hospital, Patna
where he was being treated. The Informant (PW-4) stated that
there after he came to the Police station and gave his statement
in this regard.
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.123 of 2006 dt.30-06-2025
4/24
5. On the basis of the fardbeyan of the informant
(PW-4), Bihiyan P.S. Case No. 120 of 1995 was registered on
25.10.1995 at about 1:25 PM, for the offences punishable under
Sections 302 of the IPC after completion of investigation,
charge-sheet vide charge sheet No. 9 of 1996 on 28.01.1996 was
submitted against accused persons for the offences punishable
under Sections 341, 323, 337, 504 and 304 read with 34 of the
IPC and accordingly the cognizance of offences under Sections
307 and 304 of the IPC was taken, against altogether eight
accused persons and the case was committed to the Additional
District and Sessions Judge (F.T.C. -Ist), Ara, Bhojpur. The
charges were framed against the accused persons which was
explained to them and they denied of prosecution taking plea of
false implication in the case and claimed to be innocent.
6. On behalf of prosecution altogether 7
witnesses were examined to substantiate the charges leveled
against the appellants, who are namely, PW-1 Dr. K. P. Singh
has examined the injuries on the person of Jitendra Yadav (PW-
4) and has proved injury report (Ext. 1), PW-2 (brother of the
deceased) Satyendra Yadav, PW-3- Raj Kumar Yadav (cousin of
the deceased), PW-4 Jitendra Yadav (Informant) and PW-5-
Surendra Nath Singh (formal witness who proved the certified
copy of the FIR.) have deposed in support of the prosecution on
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.123 of 2006 dt.30-06-2025
5/24
point of occurrence. PW-6 Dr. Bishnudeo Prasad claims to have
held autopsy on the deceased on 06.11.1995 at about 10:10 AM.
and prepared postmortem report, which was marked as Ext. 4.
PW-7 Krishna Bihari Tiwari (Investigating Officer).
7. PW-1 Dr. K.P. Singh in his Examination-in-
Chief stated that on 24.10.1995 he was posted at Behiya Health
Centre. On the same day at about 9:30 PM. he examined
Jitendra Yadav and found following injuries:-
(i) Lacerated wound 1 ½ x ½ x ¼ cm on
middle of head.
(ii) Lacerated wound 1 x ½ ” x ¼ ” on left
frontal aspect of head.
opinion both the injuries were caused by
hard and blunt substance and simple in
nature.
Doctor identified his injury report which
has been marked as Ext-1.
In his cross-examination he stated that both the injuries are of
superficial in nature and may be caused by friendly hands.
8. PW-2 Satyendra Yadav, the younger brother of
the deceased in his Examination-in-Chief stated that the alleged
occurrence took place on 24.10.1995 at 4:00 PM. At that time he
was near Kali temple and there is also Gorbardhan hill near Kali
temple. While wrestling was performed on the eve of
Gobardhan Puja near Kali Temple, Sanjay Yadav assaulted
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.123 of 2006 dt.30-06-2025
6/24
Pramod Prasad for pinching him. Naresh Prasad, Bharat Prasad,
Parshuram Prasad, Pramod Prasad, Anil Prasad, Sunil Prasad,
Manji Prasad, Chhotak Prasad started assaulting him there.
Naresh Prasad and Parshuram Prasad assaulted the deceased
Vishnudev Yadav with lathi causing injury on the left side of his
head and as a result thereof he fell down in injured condition.
PW-4 Jitendra Yadav (informant) went to save the deceased,
who was also getting hit by the appellant Bharat Prasad with
lathi on his head. Both the injured Vishnudev Yadav and
Jitendra were brought to Bihiya Hospital for treatment. Jitendra
was treated there and Vishnudev was referred to Ara. When they
reached Ara, the Ara Doctor referred them to PMCH Patna and
he was treated in Patna. During treatment Vishnudev Yadav
died in PMCH. The accused person who hit the injured with the
Lathi was intoxicated. He further stated that his statement was
recorded at the police station.
8.i. In his cross-examination, he stated that he
had himself saw the occurrence and had not heard from others.
He further stated that he did not give the statement to the police
officer that he came to know about the incidence that Bharat
Prasad, Parshuram Prasad, Naresh Prasad, and Mad Prasad beat
his brother Vishnu Dev Yadav with sticks, bricks and stones and
injured him on the head. When Jitendra Yadav went to rescue
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.123 of 2006 dt.30-06-2025
7/24
him, Bharat Prasad attacked him with Lathi and he received
injury on the head.
8.ii. He further stated that he was distributing
prasad at the place where Gobhardhan Puja was being
performed and the temple of Goddess Kali was adjacent to the
said mountain in north direction and the Wrestling was
performed in the south-west direction of Gobhardhan mountain.
There was a huge crowd at the place where the wrestling was
going on and at that time he was distributing Prasad. While the
wrestling was going on, suddenly a commotion broke out and
people started running here and there and bricks and stones were
also thrown. During this Vishnu Dev Yadav got injured. He also
stated that he can recall that who was fighting with whom
instead of the disturbance broke out and bricks and stones were
being thrown.
8.iii. He further stated that Vishnu Dev became
unconscious after getting hit by the accused persons and fell
unconscious at the place itself and from that place his family
members took him to the home. When he again felt unconscious
at home his family took him to the Ara hospital he also went to
Ara with the injured from where deceased was referred to Patna
P.M.C.H. and he also accompanied the deceased in hospital. He
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.123 of 2006 dt.30-06-2025
8/24
further stated that near akhada, at a distance of ten foot on the
left side, Vishnu Dev was lying down but blood was not oozing
from his head. There was injuries in the eye of the deceased and
blood oozing out from there.
9. PW-3 Raj Kumar Yadav in his examination-in-
chief stated that the alleged incident took place on 24.10.1995 at
4:00 PM. At that time on the eve of Govardhan Puja wrestling
was going on and in the programme of wrestling there was
altercation between Pramod and Sanjay. Sanjay abused Pramod
upon which Pramod assaulted Sanjay. Ram Naresh and
Parsuram assaulted Vishundeo with lathi on his head. They also
assaulted Jitendra Yadav (PW-4) who went for rescue of
Vishundeo. Jitendra Yadav ran to save him. Bharat Prasad hit
him on the head with a stick and he also got hit by the stick on
his head. He also stated that they took the injured to Bihiya
hospital for treatment. Jitendra was treated and Vishnu Dev was
referred to Ara hospital where from he was referred to PMCH
hospital and he died during course of treatment.
9.i. In his cross-examination, he stated that he
had given statement to the police, his statement was recorded
four days after the alleged incident. Before Vishnudev Yadav
died, he had given his statement to the police. He had told the
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.123 of 2006 dt.30-06-2025
9/24
police that on being pinched, Sanjay started abusing and Pramod
started hitting him, upon this Vishnu Yadav went to kill him,
upon this Parshuram, Ram Naresh, Bharat, Prabhav, Sunil, Anil,
Chhotak, Manji started hitting Vishnudev. He had told the police
that Ram Naresh and Parshuram started hitting Vishnudev with
sticks due to which Vishnudev’s head got injured. He further
stated that Jitendra Yadav went to save Vishnudev, so Bharat
Prasad hit him with a stick and he also receive injury on his
head and after that both the injured were taken to Bihiya
hospital for treatment.
9.ii. He further stated that Vishnudev died after
10 days of the alleged incidence. Jitendra’s statement was not
recorded on the day he was taken to Bihiya hospital. We reached
Bihiya hospital 10:00 PM. Vishnudev and Jitendra were taken to
Bihiya hospital from the place of the alleged incident and not
convey them to home and Jitendra’s statement was recorded in
Bihiya hospital. Jitendra did not come to Patna hospital with
Vishnudev, he stayed in Bihiya hospital.
9.iii. He further stated that he was in Puja at that
time when alleged incidence took place. There was a crowd of
thousands of people around the arena. When the fight started
and there was a ruckus and halla, his attention went towards the
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.123 of 2006 dt.30-06-2025
10/24
place of the incidence. The people showing the wrestling were
not intervening because bricks and stones were thrown.
Vishnudev Yadav (deceased) and Jitendra (PW-4) got hit by the
same bricks and stones. He also stated that at the time when the
bricks were being thrown, the wrestlers continues their
wrestling and huge crowd watching it and the fight ended due to
mediation and intervention of other people went to their
respective places.
9.iv. He stated that where Vishnudev and Jitendra
fell, there was no blood. Jitendra’s forehead was bruised and
Vigun Dev’s head was not broken. Vishnu Dev and Jitendra
were lying side by side. He had not seen from which direction
the bricks and stones were thrown and stated that bricks and
stone coming from every direction. Firstly he stated that
Parshuram and Ram Naresh work in the railways and on that
day also they had gone on duty. Then he stated that they had not
gone on duty.
10. PW-4 Jitendra Yadav (informant) in his
Examination-in-Chief stated that on 24.10.1995 at 4:00 PM he
was in Govardhan Puja. As on that date there was Gobardhan
Puja and a program of wrestling was also organized near
Govardhan hill. Pramod pinches Sanjay this led to a fight. In the
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.123 of 2006 dt.30-06-2025
11/24
midst of the fight, bricks and stones started flying. Apart from
them, Parashuram hit Vishnudev with a stick. He was hit on the
left side of the head. Vishnudev fell unconscious after being hit.
When he went to save him, Bharat hit him on the left side of his
head with a stick. He along with his nephew went to Bihiya
Hospital for treatment. He was treated and Vishundev was
referred to Sadar Hospital, Ara. Then Vishundev was referred
from Ara to PMCH and during treatment, Vishundev Yadav died
in Patna.
10.i. In his cross-examination, he stated that
Police registered a case on his statement. On the day of alleged
incident he went to Bihiya hospital on his own and after him
Vishnudev and others reached there by train. After half an hour
of the incident he left for the hospital from the village.
Vishnudev was unconscious and lying at the place of the
incident and he had made arrangements to take Vishnudev to the
hospital. Again he says that he was not aware of the fact that
Vishnu Dev was injured, therefore, his brother and nephew took
him to the hospital. He reached the hospital on 24.10.1995 at
8:00 PM and he came to Bihiya by taking the railway line. He
showed his wounds to the doctor and doctor examined his
wounds as soon as he reached there. By that time blood was also
oozing from the wound on his head. Blood had also fallen on his
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.123 of 2006 dt.30-06-2025
12/24
white clothes. He had shown his blood stained cloth to police.
10.ii. He further stated that before Vishnudev
was admitted to P.M.C.H, he registered his FIR. On 25.10.1995
at 12:00 PM. he took Vishnudev to the hospital and Vishnudev
was admitted to P.M.C.H. He was admitted in the Government
Hospital of Ara where he is undergoing treatment. He further
stated that he was treated by a Government Doctor B.P. Yadav in
Ara. He also stated that Dr. Radhey Shyam was available in
Bihiya. but Vishnudev was not treated by Dr. Radhey Shyam.
11. PW-5 Surendra Nath Singh formal witness in
his Examination-in-Chief stated on 24.11.1985 he was posted in
copying department of Ara Civil Court on that day he received
the copy of Case No 120 of 1995. After verification, he signed it
and then certified it. He identified certified copy of FIR which
has been marked as Ext. 2. He further stated that he has proved
photocopy of the formal First Information Report. He stated that
after the copy was verified by him, it was issued by the copying
department.
12. PW-6 Dr. Bishnudeo Prasad in his
Examination-in-Chief has stated that on 06.11.1995 he was
posted as Assistant Professor Forensic Medicine Department at
P.M.C.H. Patna. On that date at 10:10 AM. he performed
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.123 of 2006 dt.30-06-2025
13/24
postmortem examination on the dead body of Vishun Dev Yadav
aged about 20 years. Dead body was identified by Constable
Rama Kant Sharma No-9988. As per observation of the Doctor
rigor motris was present on all over the body. He found
following antemortem injury. Stitch wound of 3 cm was present
on the left temporal to left partial region of the head and
dissection of head, chest and abdomen, was done the
craniotomy was done injury of 2″ x 1″ was present on the left
temporal bone. Blood and blood clots were present on the left
side of brain. The bladder spleen and both kidneys were found
congested. The stomach contain about 4 oz of watery fluid,
urinary bladder was found empty.
12.i. As per opinion of the Doctor cause of death
was shock and haemorrhage due to head injury. Nature of
violence could not be ascertained due to surgical intervention.
He further stated that postmortem examination had been done
within 24 hours after death. He identified postmortem report
which has been marked as Ext-4.
13. PW-7 the Investigating Officer in his
Examination-in-Chief stated that on 25.10.1995 he was posted
as Assistant Sub Inspector in Bihiya Police Station. Bihiya
Police Station In charge Shri V.N. Singh asked him to register
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.123 of 2006 dt.30-06-2025
14/24
Bihiya Police Station Case No. 120 of 1995 and entrusted the
responsibility of investigation to him. During the investigation,
he took the statement of the plaintiff Jitendra Yadav again and
issued letter of inquest report. He also visited the place of
occurrence and gave details of place of occurrence. The place of
incident is near the Kali Mandir about 100 yards west of village
Ameya Tola, Gobardhan hill was just adjacent to the Kali
temple, wrestling was being organized near the said hill and it is
said that the fight took place there.
13.i. He further stated that during the course of
investigation, the statements of witnesses Anant Yadav, Satendra
Yadav, Sanjay and Raj Kumar Yadav were taken. Jitendra
Yadav, the informant, came to the police station and gave
information that the victim of this case, Vishun Dev Yadav, died
in the course of treatment in P.M.C.H. on 06-11-1995. During
the course of investigation, he received the postmortem report of
deceased Vishnudev Yadav from P.M.C.H. Patna. The death
review report is in the writing of R.P. Singh, Assistant Sub
Inspector, Peer Bahor Police Station, which should be marked as
Ext.5. During the course of investigation, he took the statements
of other witnesses.
14. After closure of the prosecution evidence, the
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.123 of 2006 dt.30-06-2025
15/24
appellants were examined under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C
where they claimed that the prosecution evidence is false and
they are innocent and have been falsely implicated in the present
case.
15. The learned Counsel for the appellants
submitted that the impugned judgment of conviction and order
of sentence are not sustainable in the eye of law or on facts.
Learned trial Court has not applied its judicial mind and
erroneously passed the judgment of conviction and order of
sentence and from perusal of the evidences adduced on behalf of
the prosecution it is crystal clear that the prosecution’s case is
false and fabricated.
15.i. The learned Counsel for the appellants
further submitted that according to PW-1 Dr. K.P. Singh who
examined the informant Jitendra Yadav (PW-4) on 24.10.1995 at
about 9:30 PM found both injuries inflicted on him was
superficial in nature and caused by hard and blunt substance and
also simple in nature. But as per the deposition of the PW-4
Jitendra Yadav on 24.10.1995 at about 4:00 PM went to
Hospital. Further he stated that he reached in hospital on
24.10.1995 at about 8:00 PM. Blood was also fallen on his
white shirt which was produced to the Investigating Officer who
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.123 of 2006 dt.30-06-2025
16/24
prepared the Seizure list. But the said statement has not been
brought either on record or on the exhibition.
15.ii. He further submitted that PW-2 Satyendra
Yadav was examined as eye witness of the alleged occurrence
but he has given complete different version of occurrence from
that of informant (PW-4). In para-6 of his deposition he stated
that when Gobardhan Puja was going on then he was
distributing the “Prashad” and at that time at the place of
wrestling all of a sudden nuisance was created as a result of
which the visitors started to flee away hither and thither and
brick batting was going on during which Vishundeo Yadav
received injury. During cross-examination he further stated in
his deposition that after receiving injury Vishundev Yadav
became unconscious and fell down from where he was taken
away to his house by his family members and when his
condition was deteriorated then family members took him to
Ara Hospital. So he has described a complete different story
from that of PW-4 Jitendra Yadav on which the F.I.R. is based.
When attention of this witness was drawn with respect to his
previous statement made before police under Section 161
Cr.P.C. and on cross examination of the Investigating Officer
(PW-7) it would appear that PW-2 had not seen the alleged
occurrence and has stated as hearsay witness. Thus, the claim of
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.123 of 2006 dt.30-06-2025
17/24
this witness of having seen the alleged occurrence from his own
eye is contradictory.
15.iii. He further submitted that PW-3 Raj
Kumar Yadav has also not supported the prosecution version
rather he has narrated a different story in his deposition which
falsify the entire occurrence as alleged by the informant PW-4.
The informant has also narrated a complete different story of
occurrence in his deposition from that of first information
report. As PW-4 in his deposition stated that at first he went to
hospital thereafter he went to police station with doctor’s slip but
that doctor’s slip was not brought on record. According to him
on the alleged date of occurrence his statement was recorded by
the police but that statement was not brought on record by the
prosecution.
15.iv. He further submitted that PW-3 in his
deposition stated that informant Jitendra PW-4 gave his
statement before the police in Bihiyan Hospital He further stated
in his deposition that blood stained shirt was shown by him to
the Sub-Inspector who prepared the seizure list on which he put
signature, but the Seizure list was not brought on record by the
prosecution. He also stated in his deposition that he was
standing near the place of wrestling during quarrel stampede
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.123 of 2006 dt.30-06-2025
18/24
started. When attention of PW-4 was drawn with respect to
earliest statement of this witness before the police then he
named only appellants Bharat Prasad (dead), Naresh Prasad
(dead), Parshuram Prasad, Pramod Prasad (dead) who are
alleged to have assaulted the deceased by lathi and he has also
admitted that he did not disclose the name of Sunil and Manji
before the police.
15.v. He further submitted that PW-6 Dr.
Bishundeo Prasad found stitched wound of 3″ on left temporal
region to left parietal region on his head. In the opinion of the
doctor cause of death was shocked and haemorrhage due to head
injury. Nature of violence could not ascertain due to Surgical
interference. PW-7 namely Krishna Bihari Tiwari (I.O.) stated in
his deposition that he visited the place of occurrence but he did
not found wrestling court at the place of occurrence and neither
blood stain was found nor he found any piece of bricks at the
place of occurrence and when his attention was drawn with
respect to the deposition of PW-2 and PW-3 then he
categorically said that they have not stated that they have seen
the place of occurrence and, thus, the deposition of the PW-2
and 3 cannot be taken into consideration in the present case and
the same is fit to be discarded.
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.123 of 2006 dt.30-06-2025
19/24
15.vi. He further submitted that from the facts
and material collected during trial, it is apparent that the
prosecution has failed to establish the place of occurrence, time
of occurrence, manner of occurrence and genesis of occurrence
and also motive of occurrence. He also submitted that the
prosecution also has not disclosed that the appellant no.5
Pramod Prasad also received injury in the alleged occurrence.
The Investigating Officer visited the place of occurrence but he
did not found the wrestling place at the place of occurrence and
also not found sign of stampede at the place of occurrence and
no sign of blood was found at place of occurrence and, thus, it is
apparent that the prosecution has failed to establish the charges
leveled against the appellants beyond shadow of all reasonable
doubts.
16. However, learned APP for the State defends
the impugned judgment of conviction and the order of sentence
submitting that there is no illegality or infirmity in the impugned
judgment and order of sentence, because prosecution has proved
its case against the appellants. In view of the aforesaid
statements and the evidences on record, learned trial Court has
rightly convicted the appellants and the present appeal should
not be entertained.
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.123 of 2006 dt.30-06-2025
20/24
17. At this stage, I would like to appreciate the
relevant extract of entire evidence led by the prosecution before
the Trial Court. I have thoroughly perused the materials on
record and as well as given thoughtful consideration to the
submissions advanced by both the parties.
18. On deeply studied and scrutinized all
evidences, it is evident to note that there are serious
inconsistency in the deposition of prosecution witnesses with
respect to the occurrence of alleged incidence which are as
follow:
(i) PW-2 in contradiction to the other prosecution
witnesses stated in paragraph no.8 of his deposition stated that
after receiving injury Vishnudev Yadav became unconscious and
fell down from where he was taken away to his house by his
family members and when his condition was deteriorated then
family members took him to Ara Hospital. As the other
prosecution witnesses stated that the deceased and PW-4 were
taken to the hospital directly from the place of incidence.
(ii) PW-3 is not the eye witness of the occurrence
as in paragraph no.8 of his deposition he stated that he was
performing puja at the time of occurrence and on halla his
attention was drawn towards the place of incidence so his
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.123 of 2006 dt.30-06-2025
21/24statement with respect to the place of occurrence can not be
believed.
(iii) Moreover, PW-3 in para no.7 of his
deposition stated that substances which related to the portion of
incidence after the alleged occurrence which can be taken into
consideration that PW-4 the informant gave his statement before
the police was not recorded in Bihiyan hospital in contradictory
to this further on same paragraph in subsequent line he stated
that the statement of PW-4 was recorded in the Bihiyan hospital.
(iv) PW-4 in paragraph no.6 of his deposition
stated that he went to the hospital by his own foot which is not
reliable as after sustaining the injury there is no possibility of
reaching hospital by foot. He also stated that he had no
knowledge that deceased sustained injury and he had taken him
to the hospital. Moreover in paragraph no.8 of his deposition he
state that he was treated in Ara hospital by Dr. B. P. Yadav
which is in contradictory to the deposition of other prosecution
witnesses.
(v) In the present case it is also evident from the
deposition of PW-6 that the deceased has not sustained injury in
the transaction stated by prosecution story as there is only single
injury sustained by him which is not reliable as the numbers of
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.123 of 2006 dt.30-06-2025
22/24bricks and stones were thrown.
(vi) PW-7 did not find any wrestling court at the
place of occurrence and neither blood stain was found nor he
found any piece of bricks at the place of occurrence.
19. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of State
of Maharashtra v. Kashirao and Ors. (2003) 10 SCC 434 laid
down the essential ingredients required to be proved in case of
an offence under Section 307 of IPC. The relevant portion of the
judgement reads as under:
“20…… The essential ingredients required
to be proved in the case of an offence under
Section 307 are:
(i) that the death of a human being was
attempted;
(ii) that such death was attempted to be
caused by, or in consequence of the act of
the accused; and
(iii) that such act was done with the
intention of causing death; or that it was
done with the intention of causing such
bodily injury as.
(a) the accused knew to be likely to cause
death; or
(b) was sufficient in the ordinary course of
nature to cause death, or that the accused
attempted to cause death by doing an act
known to him to be so imminently
dangerous that it must in all probability
cause
(a) death, or
(b) such bodily injury as is likely to cause
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.123 of 2006 dt.30-06-2025
23/24death, the accused having no excuse for
incurring the risk of causing such death or
injury.
20. In the present case it is crystal clear upon
analyzing the facts and material on the record that there was no
intention to kill or no knowledge that death will be caused as the
transaction which resulted in death of deceased is not fully
established beyond the shadow of all reasonable doubts.
Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of State of U.P. v. M.K.
Anthony AIR 1985 SC 48:- Some contradictions are natural due
to passage of time and stress. But serious contradictions
affecting core facts may render prosecution unreliable. The
Court acquitted the accused due to material contradictions in
eyewitness testimony.
21. In Babu v. State of Kerala (2010) 9
SCC189:- The Court emphasized that prosecution evidence
must be trustworthy and consistent. When witnesses contradict
themselves materially the benefit must go to the accused. Doubt
arose due to discrepancies in the time and sequence of events,
leading to acquittal. In Vikas v. State of Maharashtra (2008) 2
SCC 516:- Contradictions between FIR and deposition, and
between witnesses, were central to acquittal. The benefit of
doubt was extended due to failure of prosecution to prove guilt
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.123 of 2006 dt.30-06-2025
24/24
beyond reasonable doubt. In the present case there are major
contradictions on material particulars which become fatal for the
prosecution case.
22. Considering the above facts, it is crystal clear
that the prosecution has not established its case beyond the
shadow of all reasonable doubts. Hence, the Judgment of
conviction dated 31.01.2006 and order of sentence dated
04.02.2006 passed by the learned Additional District and
Sessions Judge, F.T.C.-1st, Ara, Bhojpur in Sessions Trial No.
209 of 1999 is set aside and the accused/appellants are acquitted
from the charges leveled against them. As the appellants are on
bail, they are discharged from liability of their bail bonds.
23. Accordingly, this appeal stands allowed.
24. Office is directed to send back the trial Court
records and proceedings along with a copy of this judgment to
the trial court, forthwith, for necessary compliance, if any.
(Ramesh Chand Malviya, J)
Anand Kr.
AFR/NAFR NAFR CAV DATE 16.06.2025 Uploading Date 30.06.2025 Transmission Date 30.06.2025