[ad_1]
Patna High Court
Ranjit Kumar And Anr vs The State Of Bihar on 10 April, 2025
Author: Shailendra Singh
Bench: Mohit Kumar Shah, Shailendra Singh
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL APPEAL (DB) No.138 of 2017
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-179 Year-2014 Thana- VAISHALI District- Vaishali
======================================================
1. Ranjit Kumar
2. Sanjit Kumar, Both sons of Pradeep Rai, Both residents of Village-
Raghunathpatti, P.S.- Vaishali, District- Vaishali.
... ... Appellant/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Appellants : Mr. Akashdeep, Adv.
Mr. Shyameshwar Kumar Singh, Adv.
Mr. Upendra Yogesh, Adv.
For the State : Mr. Abhimanyu Sharma, APP
For the Informant : Mr. Lakshmindra Kr. Yadav, Adv.
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MOHIT KUMAR SHAH
and
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHAILENDRA SINGH
ORAL JUDGMENT
(Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHAILENDRA SINGH)
Date : 10-04-2025
Heard Mr. Akashdeep, learned counsel appearing
for the appellants, Mr. Abhimanyu Sharma, learned APP
appearing for the State and Mr. Lakshmindra Kumar Yadav,
learned counsel appearing for the informant.
2. The present criminal appeal has been filed
against the judgment of conviction dated 29.11.2016 and order
of sentence dated 02.12.2016 passed by the court of learned
Additional Sessions Judge-III, Vaishali at Hajipur, in Sessions
Trial No. 455 of 2014 arising out of Vaishali P.S. Case No. 179
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.138 of 2017 dt.10-04-2025
2/30
of 2014, whereby and whereunder the learned trial court has
convicted the appellants for the offence under section 302 read
with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (in short 'IPC') and
sentenced them to undergo life imprisonment and a fine of Rs.
5,000/- each has also been imposed upon the appellants and in
default of payment of fine, the convicts/appellants have been
directed to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for two
months.
Prosecution Story :-
3. The substance of the prosecution story appearing
from the FIR is as follows:-
As per the informant, Anil Kumar (son of the
victim), on 17.07.2014 at about 5:00 P.M., his mother Leela
Devi (deceased, hereinafter referred to as victim) was going to
chaur area to look after her farm land (the term 'chaur' denotes
a place situated just outside the area of village), when she
reached in chaur area, she found and saw the accused/convicts,
namely, Ranjit Kumar and Sanjit Kumar assaulting each other,
then his mother (victim) intervened to save them, then the
accused Ranjit Kumar said that the victim was mainly
responsible for all domestic clashes in his house, and she should
be killed and thereafter, the convict/appellant Ranjit Kumar
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.138 of 2017 dt.10-04-2025
3/30
caught hold of the shoulder of the victim and then the appellant
Sanjit Kumar stabbed the victim with hasua (sickle) in her
stomach, which resulted in her death on the spot, thereafter, both
the accused tried to flee away with the sickle but the appellant
Sanjit Kumar was caught by the people on chase and the
appellant Ranjit Kumar managed to escape.
4. Describing the aforesaid prosecution story, the
informant Anil Kumar, (examined as P.W.-7) filed a written
application (Ext. - 1) at Vaishali police station, upon which two
persons, namely, Umesh Kumar and Arvind Kumar made their
signature as witnesses of the fact of lodging of the FIR and on
that basis, the formal FIR bearing Vaishali P.S. Case No. 179 of
2014 dated 17.07.2014 was registered for the offence of murder
under section 302 read with section 34 of IPC, which set the
criminal law in motion and the investigation was started.
5. After completion of the investigation, the police
chargesheeted both the appellants/convicts for the offence under
section 302/34 of IPC. The learned Magistrate took cognizance
of the same offence for which both the appellants were
chargesheeted and thereafter, committed their case to the court
of Sessions for trial.
6. Both the appellants stood charged for the offence
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.138 of 2017 dt.10-04-2025
4/30
under section 302 read with section 34 of IPC. The charge was
read over and explained to them in Hindi, to which they pleaded
not guilty and claimed to be tried for the charged offence.
7. During the trial, the prosecution produced and
examined the following ten witnesses :-
Name Nature as per Relevancy
prosecution
P.W.-1 Sakila Devi Eyewitness Gotani of the deceased
P.W.-2 Reeta Devi Claiming to be an Daughter of the deceased
eyewitness
P.W.-3 Basudeo Rai Hearsay witness Husband of the deceased
P.W.-4 Sunil Kumar Claiming to be an Son of the deceased
eyewitness
P.W.-5 Umesh Kumar Hearsay witness Relative of the informant
P.W.-6 Daroga Rai Claiming to be a Friend of the informant
chance witness
P.W.-7 Anil Kumar Informant Son of the deceased
P.W.-8 Md. Rafique Investigating Investigated the case
Officer
P.W.-9 Dr. Anil Kumar Medical Officer Observer of P.M.R
P.W.-10 Dr. Navin Kumar Medical Officer Conducted the autopsy
In documentary evidence, the prosecution proved
the following documents and got them marked as exhibits which
are as under : -
Ext. 1 The signature of one Umesh Rai on written application
Ext. 1/1 Written application filed by the informant
Ext. 1/2 An endorsement on the written application
Ext. 2 The signature of one Md. Rafique (I.O.) on the formal
FIR
Ex.t 3 The Signature of the Doctor Anil Kumar (P.W.-9) on
the postmortem report
Ext. 3/1 Postmortem report
8. After completion of the prosecution's evidence,
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.138 of 2017 dt.10-04-2025
5/30
the statements of the appellants were recorded by the trial court
under section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (in short
'Cr.P.C.') giving them an opportunity for explaining the main
circumstances appearing against them from the prosecution's
evidences in which the appellants claimed themselves to be
innocent while denying the incriminating circumstances
appearing against them and they did not take any specific
defence.
9. The appellants did not give any oral or
documentary evidence in their defence.
10. While convicting the appellants, the learned
trial court mainly placed reliance upon the testimonies of the
P.Ws. no.-1, 2, 4 and 6 deeming them to be eyewitnesses of the
alleged occurrence of murder and also placed reliance upon
P.Ws. no.-3, 5 and 7 though, they were considered hearsay
witnesses but their evidence was taken into account as
corroborative to the evidences of other prosecution witnesses.
Regarding the manner of assault, time of occurrence and the
body part of the deceased upon which injury was inflicted, the
medical opinion given in the postmortem report of the deceased
was also taken into account as corroborative piece of evidence
by the trial court. The learned trial court disbelieved the
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.138 of 2017 dt.10-04-2025
6/30
appellants' the defence as to they having been framed in the
alleged murder falsely by the prosecution party due to a land
dispute running in between them considering the fact that
enmity cuts both the ends. The evidence of P.Ws. no.-1, 2, 4 and
5 was deemed to be believable by the trial court despite these
witnesses being relatives of the deceased. After analyzing the
evidence of these witnesses, learned trial court deemed their
evidence to be credible and consequently, convicted the
appellants for the charged offence of murder with the aid of
section 34 of IPC.
Submissions made on behalf of the appellants:-
11. Mr. Akashdeep, learned counsel appearing for
the appellants submits that in the present matter, actually there is
no eyewitness of the alleged murder which would be clearly
evident from the evidence of prosecution witnesses, who
claimed themselves as eyewitnesses of the commission of the
alleged murder. The prosecution failed to establish the place of
occurrence of which details has been given in the FIR. It is
further submitted that as per the FIR, the alleged occurrence is
said to have taken place at about 5:00 P.M. on 17.07.2014 but in
view of the medical opinion given by medical expert in the
postmortem report regarding the timing of death, the victim had
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.138 of 2017 dt.10-04-2025
7/30
died much before 5:00 P.M. and further, there is serious
contradiction in between the details of an external injury found
on the body of the deceased (victim) by the Doctor concerned
who conducted the postmortem examination and the details of
the injuries which were sustained by the victim as per the
witnesses who claimed to have seen the infliction of the assaults
on the body of the victim by the accused/appellants. There is
material discrepancy in the statements of the prosecution
witnesses with regard to the number of persons who are said to
have brought the victim from the place of occurrence to her
home just after the commission of the alleged occurrence. The
investigating officer failed to produce the sanha which was
admittedly recorded by him when he got the first information of
the alleged occurrence, so, the actual first information was
intentionally suppressed by the police with malafide intention
which completely goes against the prosecution and makes the
prosecution's case highly doubtful. It is further submitted that
the material witnesses upon which reliance was placed by the
trial court while convicting the appellants, are relatives of the
deceased so they were fully interested in getting the appellants
convicted and the prosecution failed to produce the independent
persons as witnesses despite the fact that there were some
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.138 of 2017 dt.10-04-2025
8/30
villagers working nearby the place of occurrence and in this
regard, the evidence of prosecution witnesses is relevant. It is
lastly submitted that the alleged instrument used as a weapon
was not produced by the prosecution party despite the appellant
Sanjit Kumar was caught hold at the spot as per prosecution and
in this regard, no explanation was given and further no attempt
was made by the investigating officer to recover and seize the
alleged weapon and the description of the external injury given
by the medical expert in the postmortem report does not
corroborate the allegation of causing an injury at the neck area
of the deceased as revealed by some material witnesses of
prosecution. The prosecution also failed to establish the strong
motive on the part of the appellants to kill the victim.
Submissions advanced by learned APP and
learned counsel for the informant:-
12. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing
for the informant as well as learned APP appearing for the State
has argued that the medical evidence given by P.W.-10, who
conducted the postmortem examination on the body of the
deceased, fully corroborates the allegation of inflicting sickle
attack at the stomach of the victim. The appellant Sanjit Kumar
was caught at the spot and the testimonies of P.W.s No. 1, 2, 4
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.138 of 2017 dt.10-04-2025
9/30
and 6 are completely reliable and they fully supported the case
of the prosecution and the contradictions pointed out by the
appellants' counsel in their testimonies with regard to the place
of occurrence and the body parts of the victim at where sickle
stabs were inflicted, are minor in nature and the FIR was
registered immediately which makes it credibile and the
informant proved the FIR and there are sufficient number of
witnesses to prove the commission of the alleged occurrence
and the prosecution witnesses also described and proved the
motive on the part of the appellants for killing the victim as they
considered the victim as a dayan and held her responsible for all
their personal problems, so the conviction of the appellants for
the charged offences is proper and there is no need to interfere
with the same.
Consideration and analysis of evidences :-
13. We have heard both the sides, perused the
judgment impugned and gone through the evidences taken by
the trial court during the trial of the appellants.
14. The prosecution placed the witnesses P.Ws No.
1, 2, 4 and 6 as eyewitnesses of the alleged occurrence whereas
the appellants have mainly taken the defence that these
witnesses are not eyewitnesses and in actual, none of the
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.138 of 2017 dt.10-04-2025
10/30
prosecution witnesses saw the commission of the alleged
occurrence. In the light of this plea of the prosecution as well as
the defence taken by the appellants, we are going to appreciate
the evidence of the said prosecution witnesses.
The FIR was registered by P.W.-7, Anil Kumar, the son of
the deceased. If we take the entire contents of the FIR into
account, it would be appear that P.W.-7 claimed himself to be an
eyewitness of the alleged occurrence. But P.W.-1, Sakila Devi,
who also claimed herself to be an eyewitness of the occurrence,
deposed in the examination-in-chief that the deceased was going
to field just ahead of her and then she saw the appellant Sanjit
Kumar assaulting the deceased with hasua and stabbed the
victim with hasua in the stomach and also assaulted at the neck
of the deceased by the same instrument and then she caught
hold of the assailant Sanjeet Kumar. The witness did not say
anything about the presence of the informant at the place of
occurrence when the occurrence was being committed. P.W.-2,
Reeta Devi, daughter of the victim, also claimed herself to have
seen the alleged occurrence of murder and she stated in her
examination-in-chief that on the alleged day and time of
occurrence, she was going with her mother (victim) towards
chaur for cutting maize crop and reaping grass and at that time,
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.138 of 2017 dt.10-04-2025
11/30
her mother was 50 laggi ahead of her (1 laggi = 2743.2 mm or 3
Gaj) but this witness did not reveal the presence of the
informant at the place of occurrence at that time. But regarding
the presence of this witness (P.W. -2), P.W.-1 did not say
anything, The witness stated in paragraph No. 3 of her cross-
examination that when the dead body of the deceased was
brought at the door of her house then upon hearing hulla,
several persons arrived and Sakila Devi (P.W.-1) and one
Jagdish Rai also arrived there at that time. She further stated in
the paragraph No. 4 of her cross-examination that his brother,
Sunil Kumar (informant), run a grocery shop at Jangbahadur
Chowk who was informed about the occurrence then he and one
Basudeo came and then Sakila Devi (P.W.-1) told them about
the occurrence. She further stated in the paragraph No. 6 that at
the time of incident, her brothers Anil, Sunil and father were at
the shop and P.W. 1 (Sakila Devi) told her about the acts of the
accused and revealed that among them, who caught hold of the
victim and who assaulted her.
P.W.-4, Sunil Kumar, son of the victim, though claimed
himself as an eyewitness of the occurrence in the examination-
in-chief but his own sister P.W. No. 2 made a contradictory
statement to the said claim as discussed above and further, in the
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.138 of 2017 dt.10-04-2025
12/30
FIR, the informant did not say anything about the presence of
this witness at the place of occurrence at the time of commission
of occurrence. It is relevant to mention that as per this witness,
he has four sisters and their names are Anita Devi, Sunita Devi,
Reeta Devi and Sangeeta Devi and all are married and live at
their respective sasuraal and he accepted his and his brother's
shops being situated at Subhai Chaur and Jangbahadur Chaur
and as per P.W.-2, sister of this witness, at the time of alleged
occurrence, the said witness (P.W. 4) and the informant were
present at their shop and it is not the case of the prosecution that
Jangbahadur Chaur is situated at very close to the place of
occurrence.
P.W.-6, Daroga Rai, is also claimed to be an eyewitness of
the alleged occurrence and he can be deemed to be very
important witness of prosecution as he does not have any
relationship with the deceased and her family members, so, he
appears to be an independent witness. He stated in his
examination-in-chief that on 17.07.2014 at about 5:00 P.M., he
was going to meet one Ram Ikbal Rai through Bhagwanpur
Chaur, in that course, he saw one person holding a lady and
another person inflicting hasua blow in the stomach of the said
lady. From this statement, it appears that at the time of
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.138 of 2017 dt.10-04-2025
13/30
occurrence, the witness had no information about the name of
the accused/appellants and he stated in his examination-in-chief
that he later knew the fact that the appellants killed the mother
of the informant by stabbing her with hasua. The witness stated
in the cross-examination that he run a grocery shop at Sevai
Market at where the informant's mobile shop is situated. From
this fact, it appears that the informant was known to him when
the alleged occurrence took place but he did not say about the
presence of the informant at place of occurrence and he stated in
the cross-examination that after the incident of stabbing, he left
the place of occurrence and went to his shop and did not meet
the informant at that time and did not say anything about the
incident to the informant and after the incident, he regularly met
with the informant but they did not talk about the incident. The
said conduct of this witness appears to be highly suspicious as
this witness and the informant were admittedly known to each
other and doing the same nature of occupation but even then, no
discussion was made in between them regarding the alleged
occurrence despite this witness having claimed to be present at
the place of occurrence when the alleged incident was being
committed. Further, regarding the presence of this witness, other
prosecution witnesses, P.Ws No. 1, 2 and 4 did not say anything.
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.138 of 2017 dt.10-04-2025
14/30
To verify the reliability of this witness, the I.O. was cross-
examined by the defence before the trial court in the light of the
previous statement recorded by this witness during the
investigation under section 161 of Cr.P.C. The I.O. (P.W.-8)
stated in his cross-examination that the said witness (P.W.-6) did
not say the fact that on the alleged day and time of occurrence
he was going through the way of Bhagwanpur Chaur and at
Raghunathpatti Chaur, he saw the accused assaulting the victim
and according to the I.O., the witness P.W.-6 stated before him
that at the time of occurrence, he was in the house of Raghuanth
Rai and upon hearing hulla of the murder of a woman, he went
there.
Accordingly, in view of serious contradictions regarding
the presence of P.Ws No. 1, 2, 4 and 6 appearing from their own
testimonies as discussed above, they do not appear to be
eyewitnesses of the alleged occurrence though, regarding the
presence of P.W.1(Sakila Devi), P.W.2 stated that the said
witness was present at the time of occurrence at the alleged
place but P.W.-2 does not appear to be reliable regarding her
claim as an eyewitness and further, about the presence of P.W.-
1, the other witnesses, who claimed themselves to have
witnessed the commission of the alleged occurrence, did not say
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.138 of 2017 dt.10-04-2025
15/30
anything and the most important thing is that the said witness
(P.W. 1) stated in the examination-in-chief that the
convict/appellant Sanjit Kumar firstly stabbed in the stomach of
the victim with hasua and thereafter, inflicted the second blow
with the same instrument at the neck of victim and in the cross-
examination also, she remained firm on her stand. But in the
postmortem report of the deceased, no any injury at her neck
was found and further, P.W.4, P.W. 7 (informant), and P.W.-6
(Daroga Rai) did not say about the second blow by hasua at the
neck of the deceased by the appellant Sanjit Kumar.
Accordingly, in view of these contradictions, all these witnesses
P.Ws No. 1, 2, 4 and 6 do not appear to be eyewitnesses of the
alleged occurrence.
15. Now, we come to the place of occurrence. As
per the FIR, on the alleged day and time of occurrence, the
victim was going towards the chaur area to see her field and
during that course, on a land situated in the chaur area, both the
appellants committed the alleged occurrence with the victim and
as per the FIR it is not the case of the prosecution that the
alleged occurrence took place on a particular field belonging to
the victim or someone. While as per P.W.4 (son of the
deceased), the alleged occurrence took place on his field. The
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.138 of 2017 dt.10-04-2025
16/30
I.O. inspected the alleged place of occurrence and on this point,
he was cross-examined. He stated in his examination-in-chief
that he inspected the place of occurrence which was a vacant
field of one Nizam Mian and as per this witness, there was no
any maize crop on that field and the informant's land was
situated near the said field, upon which there was paddy crop.
While as per P.W.2, daughter of the victim, her mother
(deceased) was going to pluck maize and reap grass and as per
P.W.-4, the alleged occurrence took place on the said field but
the evidence of the I.O. (P.W.8) is completely against the said
story and according to his evidence, there was no maize crop on
the place of occurrence or on the land belonging to the
deceased, which was situated near the place of occurrence. And
as per this witness, the alleged occurrence took place on a field
belonging to one different person namely Nizam Mian. The
witness further stated in paragraph No. 5 of his cross-
examination that there was no maize crop either on the place of
occurrence or nearby fields and on the same day of occurrence,
he visited and inspected the place of occurrence but he did not
find any single drop of blood on the place of occurrence and
also did not find any material or evidence or any sign to show
the commission of the alleged occurrence at the alleged place
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.138 of 2017 dt.10-04-2025
17/30
while as per the evidence of P.W.4, some blood of the victim fell
down at the place of occurrence and as per this witness, blood
from the body of the victim also fell at the gate of the
informant's house where the dead body was brought and kept.
The said evidence does not get corroboration from the evidence
of I.O., who inspected the said places immediately after the
occurrence. Here, it is important to mention that the informant (
P.W.-7) stated in the cross-examination that he did not see the
blood of the victim being fallen on the land of the alleged place
of occurrence and later, he stated that at the place of occurrence
where there was paddy crop, there was no any crushing of said
paddy crop. All these evidences raise a serious doubt in the
prosecution's claim as to the place of occurrence being the field
of the victim and we are of the view that in this matter, the
prosecution failed to establish the alleged place of occurrence
which has been described in the prosecution's story. In every
offence which is committed at a particular identified place,
proving of such place is considered very material and failure of
prosecution to prove such place of occurrence can be deemed to
be fatal to the case of the prosecution and the same situation is
available in the present matter and in this regard, we would like
to refer the following judgments of the Hon'ble Apex Court.
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.138 of 2017 dt.10-04-2025
18/30
In the case of Syed Ibrahim vs. State of A.P. reported in
(2006) 10 SCC 601, the Hon'ble Apex Court observed that
when the place of occurrence itself has not been established, it
would not be proper to accept the prosecution version. Though,
in this cited case, the material prosecution witness P.W.-1
indicated four different places to be the place of occurrence and
such position is not present in the present matter but from the
above discussed facts we find that there are sufficient materials
to raise serious doubt about the place which is said to be the
place of occurrence as per the prosecution witnesses and
particularly, in view of the evidence of I.O. (P.W.-8), who did
not find any sign of occurrence on the alleged place despite his
immediate visit at the said place and also he did not find any
trace of blood at the alleged place of occurrence and in this
regard, the observation made by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the
case of Ramsewak and Ors. vs. State of M.P. reported in
(2004) 11 SCC 259 in the paragraph '14' of the said judgment is
relevant and in the cited case, the Hon'ble Apex Court doubted
the alleged place of occurrence as no any trace of blood was
found on the alleged place of occurrence relating to that matter.
In the instant matter, the I.O. accepted that he did not find any
trace of blood on the alleged place of occurrence and the
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.138 of 2017 dt.10-04-2025
19/30
informant himself stated in the cross-examination that he did not
see blood of the victim being fallen on the land of the place of
occurrence whereas it is the case of the prosecution that the
appellant Sanjit Kumar stabbed the victim with a hasua in her
stomach resulting in her death on the spot. The relevant
paragraphs of the above judgments containing the aforesaid
observations are being reproduced as under : -
(i) In the case of Syed Ibrahim (supra), the relevant
paragraph No. 11 :-
"11. In the background of principles set out
above........................... He has indicated four different
places to be the place of occurrence. In his examination-in-
chief he stated that the occurrence took place in his house.
In the cross-examination he stated that the incident took
place at the house of his wife, the deceased's mother. This is
a very important factor considering the undisputed position
and in fact the admission of PW 1 that he and his wife were
separated nearly two decades ago, and that he was not on
visiting terms with his wife. Then the question would
automatically arise as to how in spite of strained
relationship he could have seen the occurrence as alleged
in the house of his wife. That is not the end of the matter. In
his cross-examination he further stated that the incident
happened in the small lane in front of the house of his wife.
This is at clear variance with the statement that the
occurrence took place inside the house where allegedly he,
the deceased, his son, PW 2 and daughters, PWs 3 and 6
were present. That is not the final say of the witness. He
accepted that in the FIR (Ext. P-1) he had stated the place
of occurrence to be the house of the deceased. Though the
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.138 of 2017 dt.10-04-2025
20/30
FIR is not a substantive evidence yet, the same can be used
to test the veracity of the witness. PW 1 accepted that what
was stated in the FIR was correct. When the place of
occurrence itself has not been established it would not be
proper to accept the prosecution version."
(ii) In the case of Ramsewak and Ors. (supra), the
relevant paragraph No. 14 :-
"14. The learned counsel for the State of M.P., however,
contended that what was stated in the said part of the
evidence of PW 1, was referable to the inquest report and
not the FIR. We have examined the original which is in
Hindi and the translation is admittedly correct. A reading of
this part of the evidence shows that this witness was
speaking about two reports. The first report which he refers
to must be in regard to the inquest in regard to which he
says that he does not remember if the police took his
signatures after the spot inspection. The latter part of the
evidence certainly refers to his complaint which he in
specific terms states was written on the spot only. Even
assuming that there is some doubt as to the interpretation of
this part of his evidence since the same is not clarified by
the prosecution by way of re-examination, the benefit of
doubt should go to the defence which has in specific terms
taken a stand that the FIR came into being only after the
dead body was recovered. We also notice that there is
considerable doubt in regard to the place of incident also.
From the medical evidence we notice that the deceased
suffered 3 major incised wounds leading to the severance
of the blood vessels and amputation of his hand near the
wrist and the body in question was lying at the spot till the
police came which was nearly 4 to 5 hours later but still
the investigating agency was unable to find any blood on
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.138 of 2017 dt.10-04-2025
21/30
the spot. Of course, the prosecution has given an
explanation that after the incident in question it had
rained but even then it is difficult to believe that even
traces of blood could not have been found on the soil in
spite of the rain. The absence of any such material also
supports the prosecution case that the incident in question
might not have happened at the place of incident. In the
background of these deficiencies in the prosecution case,
we think the trial court was justified in coming to the
conclusion that the prosecution has not established its
case hence the trial court was justified in acquitting all the
accused persons. Consequently, we are of the opinion that
the High Court was not justified in taking a contrary
view."
16. Now, we come to the motive of the appellants
to commit the alleged occurrence. In every offence, the motive
of the offender plays a significant role, though, not always
decisive, however, it can provide crucial circumstantial
evidence, helping to establish why an accused person might
have committed a crime, although in the matter of direct
evidence, the motive is not a necessary ingredient for
establishing the guilt. In the present matter, as per the
prosecution's story, both the appellants were found assaulting
each other when they were seen by the victim at the relevant
time and then the victim intervened to save them. From this fact,
one thing is quite clear that the victim had good feelings
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.138 of 2017 dt.10-04-2025
22/30
towards the appellants at that time, otherwise, she would not
have interfered in the quarreling allegedly being taken place in
between both the appellants. Though, as per the FIR, the
appellant Ranjit Kumar deemed the victim to be responsible for
all his personal family clashes and it was deposed by P.W.-4, son
of the deceased, that both the appellants used to call the victim
as a dayan but the said fact does not seem reliable as the
prosecution did not produce any material to show that a legal
action in the past had been taken by the victim or her family
against the appellants for calling the victim as a dayan, so, in the
present matter, from the prosecution's evidences, a strong
motive on the part of the appellants to kill the deceased does not
appear and the said circumstance also goes in favour of the
appellants.
17. Now, we come to the contradictions as to the
body parts of the victim where the convict Sanjit Kumar
inflicted hasua blow as pointed out by learned counsel
appearing for the appellants. As per the FIR, the appellant Sanjit
Kumar inflicted hasua blow only at the stomach of the victim
and it is not the case of the prosecution that the second blow by
the alleged same instrument was inflicted at other part of the
body of the victim. But as per the evidence of P.Ws No. 1 and 2,
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.138 of 2017 dt.10-04-2025
23/30
who claimed themselves to be eyewitnesses of the alleged
occurrence, the appellant Sanjit Kumar inflicted two sickle
blows on the body of the victim, first, in the stomach and second
at her neck, which is clearly contradictory to the prosecution's
story narrated in the FIR and also, to the evidence of P.W.4 and
P.W.6, who did not say anything about the second blow by
hasua (sickle) at the neck of the victim and according to them,
only one blow by hasua was inflicted in the stomach of the
victim by the appellant Sanjit Kumar and further, as per the
postmortem report of the deceased, only one incised wound on
the left diaphragmatic region in mid clavicular line was found as
an external injury and the report does not show any external
injury by hasua like instrument at the neck area of the victim.
As such, there is serious contradiction in respect of the number
of blows allegedly inflicted by the appellant Sanjit Kumar with
hasua and the same also creates a serious doubt in the
prosecution story.
18. Now, we come to the time of the alleged
occurrence. As per the FIR, the alleged occurrence took place on
17.07.2014
at about 5:00 P.M., and all the material witnesses of
the prosecution, who claimed themselves to have seen the
occurrence, categorically stated that the alleged occurrence took
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.138 of 2017 dt.10-04-2025
24/30
place at about 5:00 P.M. at the alleged place and the victim died
on the spot, so, in view of this stand of prosecution, the time of
the victim’s death was between 5 P.M. and 5:15 or 5:30 P.M.
The victim’s postmortem examination was conducted on the
same day at 9:45 P.M. within six hours of her death but as per
the medical expert’s opinion given in the postmortem report
regarding the time of death of the victim, the death happened
within 24 hours from the time of examination, which means that
the victim had died at least 12 hours before from the time of
conducting of postmortem examination. From the perusal of the
facts stated in the cross-examination by the Doctor, it appears
that if the victim had died within 6 hours from the time of
postmortem examination then the medical expert would have
opined the time since death ‘within 6 hours’ and on this point,
P.W.-10 (Dr. Navin Kumar), who conducted the postmortem
examination, was also cross-examined and he stated that if the
postmortem is conducted within six hours from the death of a
person then we write the time since death ‘within six hours’ and
similarly, if the death happens within 12 hours from the
postmortem examination, we write ‘within 12 hours’. As per the
medical findings given in the postmortem report, rigor mortis
was present in all four limbs of the body of the deceased when it
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.138 of 2017 dt.10-04-2025
25/30
was examined. As per the medical science, the rigor mortis
begins to set in approximately two hours after death and is
completed in about 8 to 12 hours and may last up to 24 hours or
more. In the present matter, the postmortem examination on the
dead body was conducted at 9:45 P.M. on 17.07.2024 and as per
the prosecution’s story, the alleged occurrence took place on
17.07.2014 at about 5:00 P.M., so, in such a situation, the rigor
mortis was not possible in all four limbs of the body when
postmortem examination was being conducted as there was a
gap of only approx five hours in between the death of the
deceased and the postmortem examination. By these medical
opinions, it appears that the victim had died much before 5:00
P.M. on 17.07.2014, as such, there is a serious contradiction in
respect of the time of death of victim disclosed in the
prosecution’s story and the time of death as opined by the
medical expert, which also creates a serious doubt in the
prosecution story.
19. Now, we come to the reliability of the first
information report. In every criminal matter relating to an
offence, the suppression of the first information regarding the
commission of such offence can significantly impact the
prosecution’s case and if it is established that the actual FIR was
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.138 of 2017 dt.10-04-2025
26/30
suppressed, it can lead to the dismissal of the prosecution’s
case. In present matter as per prosecution, the first information
of alleged occurrence which was in the form of a written
application, was filed on 17.07.2014 at 07:45 P.M. but as per the
evidence of the investigating officer (P.W.-8), he had started the
investigation before the registration of the FIR and he stated in
the paragraph No. 3 of the cross-examination that he had
received the information of the occurrence on telephone at 5:20
P.M., on that basis, sanha No. 370 was also entered. He further
stated that he did not mention the complete details of the said
sanha in the case diary nor file the copy of the sanha before the
trial court. So, according to this statement, the I.O., who was
Station House Officer (SHO) of the concerned police station at
that time, had got the information of the alleged occurrence at
5:20 P.M. on 17.07.2014 and he also reduced that information
into writing as Sanha No. 370 but the same was suppressed and
not produced before the trial court and the said sanha can be
deemed to be the actual first information of the alleged
occurrence but the same was suppressed by the police. As per
P.W.-7, the informant, he gave his written information to the
SHO Vaishali. While as per P.W.-8, the written application was
given by the informant to him at the door of the victim’s house.
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.138 of 2017 dt.10-04-2025
27/30
This contradiction as well as not producing the sanha No. 370
relating to the first information of the occurrence received by
the SHO, Vaishali police station clearly shows that the actual
first information of the occurrence was suppressed intentionally
by the police, which casts a serious doubt in the prosecution’s
story and in this regard, we would like to refer the observation
made in the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court passed in the
case of Nand Lal and Others vs. State of Chhattisgarh
reported in (2023) 10 SCC 470 and the relevant paragraph No.
28 of this judgment is being reproduced as under :-
“28. We have already seen hereinabove the injuries
sustained by Accused 11 Naresh Kumar. Much prior to
lodging of the FIR at 3.15 a.m. on 4-11-2006 by Khomlal,
the police had taken Accused 11 Naresh Kumar for medical
examination. The memo forwarding Accused 11 Naresh
Kumar for medical examination to medical officer mentions
that Accused 11 had informed the police that at around 8.30
p.m., he was assaulted by Atmaram (PW 1). Undisputedly,
the prosecution has suppressed information with regard to
the said incident. The prosecution has also suppressed the
FIR lodged by Atmaram (PW 1). It is thus clear that the
prosecution has attempted to suppress the real genesis of
the incident. Taking into consideration this aspect of the
matter, coupled with the non-explanation of the injuries
sustained by Accused 11 Naresh Kumar, we are of the
considered view that Accused 11 Naresh Kumar is entitled
to benefit of doubt.”
20. As per the prosecution story, the appellant
Sanjit Kumar inflicted one hasua (sickle) blow in the stomach
of the victim and he was caught at the spot by the people when
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.138 of 2017 dt.10-04-2025
28/30
he was trying to flee but in the FIR, the names of the said people
were not disclosed whereas it comes in the evidence of the
prosecution witnesses that some persons were working in their
field situated nearby the place of occurrence and P.W.-2 also
stated that the assailant Sanjit Kumar was caught at the spot.
The prosecution did not explain why the alleged hasua (sickle)
was not seized or recovered by the investigating officer whereas
the main assailant/appellant, who used that hasua in assaulting
the victim, was caught at the spot and the said flaw in the
investigation also creates a serious dent to the prosecution story.
The I.O. (P.W.-8) stated in the paragraph No. 4 of the cross-
examination that he prepared the inquest report of the deceased
at 6:28 P.M., which shows that the same had been prepared
before the registration of the formal FIR as the FIR is said to
have been registered at 7:45 P.M. on 17.07.2014 and
surprisingly, the said inquest report was also suppressed by the
prosecution as the same was not produced and exhibited by the
prosecution in documentary evidence, which casts a serious
doubt in the prosecution’s case.
Conclusion :-
21. After having discussed the prosecution’s
evidences and taking into account the submissions advanced by
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.138 of 2017 dt.10-04-2025
29/30
both the sides and in the light of the facts and circumstances
emerging from the prosecution’s evidences, as discussed above,
we are of the considered opinion that though, in this matter, the
prosecution succeeded to prove the unnatural death of the
deceased (victim) by an incised wound caused on left sub
diaphragmatic region in mid clavicular line causing fatal injury
to the left side of the heart of the deceased but the prosecution
witnesses ( P.W. 1, P.W. 2, P.W. 4 and P.W. 6), who claimed
themselves as eyewitnesses of the alleged occurrence, do not
appear to be eyewitnesses of the occurrence for the reasons
discussed above and the place as well as the time of the
occurrence, as described in the prosecution’s story, are not
established from the prosecution’s evidences and the initial
information which had admittedly been received by the S.H.O.
of the concerned P.S. was withheld by the prosecution, which
creates a serious doubt in the prosecution’s allegation levelled
against the appellants and also, taking into account the material
discrepancies and contradictions appearing among the
testimonies of the prosecution witnesses, we find that both the
appellants are entitled to get the benefit of doubt and we are not
persuaded to affirm the judgement of conviction of the trial
court, therefore, the impugned judgment and order convicting
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.138 of 2017 dt.10-04-2025
30/30
and sentencing the appellants for the charged offences are
hereby set aside. The appellant No.2, namely, Sanjit Kumar is in
judicial custody, so, he is directed to be released forthwith if his
custody is not required in any other case. The appellant No.1,
namely, Ranjit Kumar is on bail, so, he as well as his sureties
are discharged from the liabilities of the bail bonds.
22. In result, the instant criminal appeal stands
allowed.
23. Let the judgment’s copy be sent immediately to
the trial court as well as the jail authority concerned for
information and needful compliance.
24. Let the LCR be sent back to the trial court
concerned forthwith.
(Shailendra Singh, J)
I agree
(Mohit Kumar Shah, J) (Mohit Kumar Shah, J)
annu/-
AFR/NAFR AFR
CAV DATE NA
Uploading Date 16.04.2025
Transmission Date 16.04.2025
[ad_2]
Source link