Patna High Court
Rampoojan Bind And Anr vs The State Of Bihar on 28 April, 2026
Author: Prabhat Kumar Singh
Bench: Prabhat Kumar Singh
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL APPEAL (SJ) No.93 of 2016
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-491 Year-1997 Thana- DARIGAON District- Rohtas
======================================================
1. Rampoojan Bind son of late Lala Bind R/o village - Patadi, P.S. - Shivsagar,
District - Rohtas.
2. Ramchander Bind @ Ramchandra Bind son of Late Suraj Bind R/o Village -
Darangia, P.S. - Shivsagar, District - Rohtas.
... ... Appellant/s
Versus
The State Of Bihar
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Appellant/s : Mr. Binod Kumar Singh, Advocate
For the Respondent/s : Mr. Bipin Kumar, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRABHAT KUMAR SINGH
ORAL JUDGMENT
Date : 28-04-2026
At the outset, learned counsel for the appellants submits
that during pendency of this appeal, Appellant No. 2, namely
Ramchander Bind, has died and as such, this appeal has become
infructuous, so far as appellant no. 2 is concerned.
2. Accordingly, the appeal stands abated with respect to
Appellant No. 2.
3. Heard learned counsel for the sole appellant (i.e.
appellant no. 1, namely Rampoojan Bind) and learned A.P.P. for
the State.
4. This appeal has been filed against the judgment of
conviction dated 20.01.2016 and order of sentence 25.01.2016
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.93 of 2016 dt.28-04-2026
2/7
passed by the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge - 9 th,
Sasaram, Rohtas in Sessions Trial No. 388 of 2000, arising out of
Darogaon P.S. Case No. 491 of 1997, whereby and whereunder
appellant & co-accused Ramchander Bind (since died) have been
convicted for committing offence under Sections 364/34 and
201/34 of the Indian Penal Code and have been sentenced to
undergo rigorous imprisonment for ten (10) years with fine of Rs.
20,000/- (Twenty thousand) under Section 364/34 of the Indian
Penal Code and to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 3 (three)
years and to pay fine of Rs. 5,000/- (Five thousand) for the offence
under Section 201/34 of the Indian Penal Code. In default of
payment of fine, they were directed to further under rigorous
imprisonment of six months. Both sentences were directed to run
concurrently.
5. Prosecution case, in brief, is that after three days of
Jiutya, deceased Munna @ Banar Bind had come to his sister's
house (the informant) from where he was about to go to his
'sasural' to get 'bidai' of his wife, when his father-in-law accused
Ram Poojan (appellant no. 1) came there along with Ram Chander
(co-convict since died), co-accused Uma (Taid) Gupta & 03
unknown in the evening. Deceased had asked his father-in-law
whether he would bida his daughter & whereupon appellant no. 1
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.93 of 2016 dt.28-04-2026
3/7
asked him (deceased) to accompany him for getting 'bidai'. The
deceased then went along with all the accused persons. Three days
later to this incident, informant was informed by her younger
brother that deceased had neither gone to his 'sasural' nor returned
home. So, a case was instituted by the informant on 18.10.1997
regarding kidnapping of deceased Munna, but when his dead body
was traced, the F.I.R. was converted into of murder.
6. F.I.R. was registered on the Fardebeyan of informant
Basmatiya Devi, sister of deceased. After investigation,
chargesheet was submitted against 04 accused persons, including
both appellants, and cognizance was taken under sections 364,
302, 201, 34 of the Indian Penal Code. Charges against all the four
accused persons were framed on 05.08.2003 under sections 364/34
& 302/34 of the I.P.C. The prosecution evidence was closed on
01.09.2015& statement of abovenamed both the accused persons under section 313 Cr.P.C. was recorded on 15.09.2015. No defence evidence had been led by the accused persons.
7. During evidence, the prosecution examined six witnesses. Shrawan Bind (PW-1) is an independent witness and stated that there was good relation between the deceased and his wife. Gulab Bind (PW-2), who is husband of informant, declared hostile. Tetra Devi (PW-3) did not identify the accused persons., Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.93 of 2016 dt.28-04-2026 4/7 Shiv Muni Bind (PW-4), who is uncle of informant, turned hostile and did not support prosecution case. Basmati Devi (PW-5), who is informant, has stated that deceased was last seen with the accused persons and alleged that deceased was deceitfully killed on the pretext of bidai. She also identified the dead-body. Parwati Kuer (PW-6) is hearsay witness and did not identify the accused persons. The photograph of deceased had been marked as Exts. 1 & 1/A with objections. No other evidences had been led either by the prosecution or the defence.
8. Thereafter, the learned Trial Court, after hearing the parties and perusing the materials available on record, convicted these two appellants and sentenced them, as indicated in the opening paragraph of this judgment.
9. Learned counsel for the appellant assails the judgment of conviction and sentence on various grounds. He contends that out of six prosecution witnesses, five witnesses have turned hostile, including husband and uncle of informant. Two witnesses have not identified the accused persons. Even, P.W.-2 (husband of informant) had not seen the dead-body of deceased and P.W.-1 had deposed that there was good relation between the deceased and his wife. All the prosecution witnesses, except P.W.-5 (informant), have not supported the prosecution case. The dead body has not Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.93 of 2016 dt.28-04-2026 5/7 been recovered in this case, rather photo of dead-body was submitted, as the dead-body was found on the railway track by G.R.P., and photo of the same has been claimed by the prosecution to be of deceased Munna Bind. Further, the investigating officer (I.O.) or the G.R.P. officials or the doctor conducting post-mortem has not been examined by the prosecution, which has seriously prejudiced the case of prosecution. Even, F.I.R. has not been formally proved by the prosecution. In view of aforesaid infirmities, the charge against the appellants stands not proved beyond all shadow of doubt and so the appellants are liable to be acquitted.
10. On the other hand, learned A.P.P. for the State has vehemently opposed the appeal and submitted that P.W.-3 and P.W.-5 had identified the dead-body to be that of deceased, vide photo (Ext.-1 & 1/A) and P.W.-5 (informant) has supported the F.I.R. & prosecution version, so it cannot be said that dead-body is still traceless and not recovered. The deceased was lastly seen with the appellant & other co-accused and as such, there is no requirement of any interference in this appeal and there is no reason to differ with the findings of the learned trial court and the judgment of conviction and order of sentence are justified and legal.
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.93 of 2016 dt.28-04-2026 6/7
11. From going through the rival submissions, evidences and upon perusal of the records, this Court finds that the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence suffers from several infirmities. It is apparent from the record that out of six prosecution witnesses, five witnesses have been declared hostile by the prosecution. In this case, I.O. or the G.R.P. officials or the doctor have not been examined, even, F.I.R. has not been formally proved by the prosecution and only P.W.-5 (informant) has supported the prosecution case.
12. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances, coupled with the fact that I.O. & doctor have not been examined as also dead-body has not been identified, the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond all reasonable doubt and thus, the benefit of doubt goes in favour of appellant.
13. In that view of the matter, the impugned judgment of conviction dated 20.01.2016 and order of sentence 25.01.2016 passed by the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge - 9 th, Sasaram, Rohtas in Sessions Trial No. 388 of 2000, arising out of Darogaon P.S. Case No. 491 of 1997, in respect of this appellant, are hereby set aside.
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.93 of 2016 dt.28-04-2026 7/7
14. Appellant, above named, is acquitted of all the charges and is discharged from the liability of the bail bond in connection with this case.
15. Accordingly, this appeal stands disposed of.
(Prabhat Kumar Singh, J)
Anay
AFR/NAFR NAFR
CAV DATE N/A
Uploading Date 05.05.2026
Transmission Date 05.05.2026