Patna High Court
Mansi Yadav And Ors vs The State Of Bihar on 1 May, 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL APPEAL (SJ) No.19 of 2012
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-171 Year-2005 Thana- BIHIA District- Bhojpur
======================================================
1. Mansi Yadav and ORS. S/O Chait Yadav Resident Of Village- Englishpur,
Police Station- Behea, District- Bhojpur
2. Jag Mohan Yadav S/O Chait Yadav Resident Of Village- Englishpur, Police
Station- Behea, District- Bhojpur
3. Lalpati Yadav S/O Jag Mohan Yadav Resident Of Village- Englishpur,
Police Station- Behea, District- Bhojpur
4. Rampati Yadav S/O Jag Mohan Yadav Resident Of Village- Englishpur,
Police Station- Behea, District- Bhojpur
5. Nandji Yadav S/O Jag Mohan Yadav Resident Of Village- Englishpur, Police
Station- Behea, District- Bhojpur
6. Laldeo Yadav S/O Munsi Yadav Resident Of Village- Englishpur, Police
Station- Behea, District- Bhojpur
7. Rajnath Yadav S/O Lalan Yadav Resident Of Village- Englishpur, Police
Station- Behea, District- Bhojpur
... ... Appellant/s
Versus
The State Of Bihar
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Appellant/s : Mr. Bari S.R.P. Sinha, Senior Advocate
: Mr. Brajesh Prasad Gupta, Advocate
: Mr. Rahul Nath, Advocate
For the Respondent/s : Mr. A.M.P Mehta, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAMESH CHAND
MALVIYA
ORAL JUDGMENT
Date: 01-05-2025
Heard Mr. Baxi S.R.P. Sinha, learned counsel for
the appellants assisted by Mr. Brajesh Prasad Gupta, Advocate
and Mr. Rahul Nath, Advocate and Mr. A.M.P. Mehta, learned
counsel for the State.
2. The present appeal has been filed under
Section 374(2) of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.19 of 2012 dt.01-05-2025
2/27
(hereinafter referred as 'Cr.P.C') challenging the judgment of
conviction dated 20.12.2011 and order of sentence dated
22.12.2011passed in Sessions Trial Case No. 195 of 2006/433 of 2006 arising out of Bihiya P.S. Case No. 171 of 2005 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-I, Bhojpur, Ara, whereby and where-under the appellant has been convicted for the offence punishable under Sections 304/149 of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred as 'IPC') and had been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 7 years under Sections 304/149 of the IPC along with fine of Rs. 5,000 and on non-payment of fine further sentenced to one-month rigorous imprisonment.
3. As per the prosecution story, the informant recorded his fardbeyan on 23.12.2005 at about 7.00 am, the informant got information that Jagmohan Yadav, the accused, was digging the foundation by laying bricks in spite of the Panchayat. The informant was sitting at the well in front of Shivrati Yadav's house when at 6.30 pm Jagmohan Yadav, Moshi Yadav called the informant to the foundation land. The informant said to Jagmohan Yadav and Moshi Yadav that yesterday you people had agreed in the Panchayat, why are you getting the work done today. On this Jagmohan Yadav and Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.19 of 2012 dt.01-05-2025 3/27 Moshi Yadav got angry and said that they will get it done from there, let them do whatever they want to do. At the same time, the informant's brother Vishwanath Singh came. When the informant and Vishwanath Singh stopped the accused from digging the foundation, Jagmohan Yadav, Manshi Yadav, Rajnath Yadav, Lalpati Yadav, Ramapati, Nandji Yadav and Laldev Yadav all together started throwing bricks, in which the half of the brick hit Vishwanath Singh's head, due to which his head got broken and Vishwanath Singh fell down on the spot. He died while being taken for treatment.
4. Further on the basis of fardbeyan of informant, a formal FIR was registered in which is marked as ext. 4 and the investigating officer, while continuing the investigation against accused Lalpati Yadav in charge-sheet number- 70 of 2006, submitted chargesheet against other 6 co- accused, on the basis of which learned Chief Judicial Magistrate took cognizance against 6 co-accused on dated 03.05.2006 and the case of other accused except accused Lalpati Yadav was committed to the Court of Sessions on dated 22.05.2006, which was registered as Sessions Case No. 195 of 2006. Supplementary charge-sheet number-133 of 2006 was submitted by the investigating officer against the accused Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.19 of 2012 dt.01-05-2025 4/27 Lalpati Yadav and on the basis of that, the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate took cognizance against him on 16.09.2006 and on 18.09.2006 the case was committed to the Court of Sessions which was registered as Sessions Case No. 433 of 2006.
5. On behalf of prosecution altogether 6 witnesses were examined to substantiate the charges levelled against the appellant, who are namely, PW-1 Pappu Kumar Singh, PW-2 Ramchandra Singh, PW-3 Ram Naresh Singh, PW-4 Vinod Kumar Singh, PW-5 Muran Ram and PW-6 Surya Shekhar Lal. No one has been examined on behalf of the accused/appellants.
6. PW-1 Pappu Kumar Singh in his examination-
in-chief stated that occurrence is of 23.12.2005 at about 08:30 am. He further stated that he was at his land and saw that all the accused persons were arguing with the deceased and soon stated throwing bricks and bats toward him. During this a brick struck on the head of the deceased, due to which deceased's head got injured and he fell down. After that accused flew away from the place of occurrence. While he was taking deceased for medical treatment along with Ashok Kumar, Ram Naresh Singh and others. Soon after his elder brother informed the Bihiya P.S. and Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.19 of 2012 dt.01-05-2025 5/27 Deputy S.P. recorded their statement.
6.i. In his cross-examination, he stated that his house is from 10-15 kattha away from the place of occurrence and accused namely Jagmohan's house was located approx 10- 15 feet from the place of occurrence. He further stated that Vinod Singh PW-4 is the cousin of my grandfather Vishwanath Singh while Ramchandra Singh PW-2 is the elder brother of my grandfather. He also stated that his house is about 250 yards from the occurrence, on the south-east corner. In between are the houses of several people. He was present at the place when the alleged occurrence took place.
6.ii. He also stated that the police questioned him regarding the occurrence and he did not tell the police that he was at his home at the time of the occurrence and that he went to the place of occurrence after hearing slight noise. He said that the reason of occurrence was the construction of house. He further said that about 10 minutes before the alleged occurrence, his grandfather had a dispute with the accused persons. At the time of the dispute, about 50 to 60 villagers had reached at the place of occurrence but none of the villagers (except relatives) present at the time of the occurrence as witnesses in the present case. The occurrence took place on Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.19 of 2012 dt.01-05-2025 6/27 their land to the north east of the place of occurrence the accused were making their cattle-trough. Our land on the north of it is about two and a half feet lower than our land on the south side.
6.iii. Presently the possession of cattle-trough is with accused persons. He further said that the stone pelting continued for about 10 to 15 minutes and around 250 bricks thrown. He had shown the bricks to the S.I. and his grandfather was fallen around 10-15 feet apart from the cattle-trough to the north-east. His grandfather had told Ramnaresh Singh and Binara Singh that the accused persons were constructing the house against the panchayati. Both of them were present their at the time of the incidence. There was blood on their body but blood did not spill on the ground. my grandfather got injured and fell down, 5-6 people carried him on a cot and took him for treatment. We have no enmity with the villagers. He further said that while he was carrying his grandfather, his shirt got stained with blood but he did not show that shirt (blood stained) to the police.
7. PW-2 Ramchandra Singh in his examination-
in-chief stated that Vishwanath Singh was murdered about two years ago at about 8 to 9 am and at that time he was at home. Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.19 of 2012 dt.01-05-2025 7/27 The quarrel took place between Jagmohan Yadav and Vishwanath Singh over excavation of plinth at his fields. Banti Yadav and Jagmohan Yadav, Lalpati, Nandji, Ramapati, Ramnath were excavating plinth into his fields. He and his deceased brother Vishwanath Singh stopped them, upon which, they started hurling bricks at us. The deceased Vishwanath Singh was in front so a brick hit at the forehead of the deceased Vishwanath Singh and he fell down there. We tied his forehead with a gamchha and he died on his way to treatment. He further stated that Vinod Kumar Singh PW-4 had given statement to the police before him and finding it correct, he had put his signature. He had also made my signature on the fardbeyan of the witness and his signature is marked as Exhibit-1.
7.i. In his cross-examination, he stated that the deceased Vishwanath Singh and he was separate and the place of occurrence is the joint property of all four brothers. He further stated that the house of the accused faces eastward. Vacant land lies in front of their house. West of this vacant land is cattle trough of the accused and east of the cattle trough, two steps ahead, the accused were excavating plinth. East of the cattle trough is his land. North of this, is the land of Vinoda Singh. Again says that east of the cattle trough is gair-majaruah Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.19 of 2012 dt.01-05-2025 8/27 pit-like land which is about 10 to 15 hands approx 100 yards in area. East of this land of Bihar Government is my land.
7.ii. After that he stated that the east of the government land and east of the cattle trough is their land. That land has been partitioned among their brothers. Again says that this 14 kathas of land has not been partitioned and is vacant. Earlier kiln was there in. Kiln belonged to Anant Singh. He further said that 10 to 15 days before the occurrence, the accused had excavated a plinth of about 10 feet. North of this, the accused were trying to excavate more plinth. The accused were excavating plinth into my land and the land of Vinod Singh.
7.iii. On the day of the occurrence itself, they were excavating plinth. North of the cattle trough, there are three pillars of 1-1.5 feet height. Two pillars lie in the land of Vinod and one is on the land of the deceased Vishwanath Singh. Pillars had been erected two days before the occurrence. No dispute occurred on the day on which the pillars were erected. A panchayati had been conducted regarding the land two-four days before the erecting of pillars. The plinth excavated was 1.5 feet deep and 7/8 long and 1.5 ft wide. The plinth had been excavated east and north of the sitting place. The plinth had Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.19 of 2012 dt.01-05-2025 9/27 been excavated about three feet from the sitting place. The feeding trough is five feet from the sitting place. The feeding trough lies north-south. It is about 3.5 feet wide and 5/6 feet long. It is not that the cattle trough is 10 feet east of the sitting place of the accused and the feeding trough is about 25 feet north-south long. North of the cattle trough is common road. North of the common road is the land of Vinod Singh.
7.iv. At the time of hurling of bricks, he was at home and his fields are adjacent and west to the fields of Vinod Singh. Adjacent and south to this fields is the sitting place of the accused. There were about 2-4 persons in the fields of Vinod Singh whom he did not know. The well of Shivrati Yadav is north to the house of the accused. There is (illegible) main road to go to dam via the well. I had told the police that at the time of the occurrence, he was at the well of Shivrati Yadav. There is vacant land between the well of Shivrati Yadav and the cattle trough but no house. The house of the accused is 10 steps west of the well of Shivrati. The cattle trough is about 20 steps east of the well of Shivrati. Bricks were being hurled in the east of this cattle trough.
7.v. About 200/250 bricks were hurled. Apart from Vishwanath Singh, Vinod Singh and Ram Naresh Singh Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.19 of 2012 dt.01-05-2025 10/27 were hurt too. Binod Singh and Ram Naresh Singh were not medically examined. Vishwanth Singh was about 15 feet east of the feeding trough on his land when he got hurt. On being hit with brick, Vishwanth Singh fell down there and blood would have fallen there on about a span of land. Then we tied his injury with gamchha (towel). He had shown the place of occurrence to the S.I. At the time of the arrival of S.I., bricks were lying on the place of occurrence. Bricks were not there on the place where Vishwanath Singh had fallen down. The S.I. had seen the blood lying on the land. He cannot tell whether he had seized it or not.
8. PW-3 Ram Naresh Singh in his examination-
in-chief stated that the occurrence took place on 23.12.2005 around 7 to 8 am in morning. There was a scuffle going on between Vishwanath Singh and Jagmohan Yadav regarding the path of the lane. It was decided during the measurement that Jagmohan Yadav would construct his house sparing 3 feet of land. Jagmohan Yadav agreed to it initially but on the day of the occurrence he backed out. Jagmohan Yadav, Munshi Yadav, Lalpati Yadav, Ramanath Yadav, Lalten Yadav and Nanji Yadav, all these persons were digging the foundation. Vishwanth Singh and Bikki Singh forbade them to do so. On this the accused Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.19 of 2012 dt.01-05-2025 11/27 persons started pelting bricks. Vishwanath Singh was hit by a brick after which he got injured and fell down. He died there itself.
8.i. In his cross-examination, he stated that his father and the deceased Vishwanath Singh are real brothers. He have no share in the land over which the dispute occurred. The accused already had a Nad Charan(cattle trough) on that land, and Nad Charan was north-south. The Nad Charan was about 12 ft long. To the west of Nad Charan is the house of the accused. The exit of this house is towards the north. In front of the house of the accused there is only 5 ft hallow land. To the north of 5 ft hallow land is the land of the deceased Vishwanath Singh. It is not true that in front of the house of the accused, 20 feet vacant land is there, to the north of which was the Nad Charan of the accused persons.
8.ii. At the time of the occurrence, there was no hut to the east of the house of the accused persons. These days the accused persons have erected a hut. He further stated that two to four days before the alleged occurrence the accused had erected their pillar on the north and the eastern side of Nad Charan. Three pillars were north and three pillars were on the eastern side. The pillars were constructed at night. No case was Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.19 of 2012 dt.01-05-2025 12/27 lodged against constructing pillars on the land of the deceased. A Panchayati was held regarding construction of pillars on the land of the deceased by the accused. He was not present on the day of the Panchayati; hence he cannot say who all were present during the Panchayati. The disputed land was measured by the Amin. He was not present at the time of this measurement as well. Hence, he cannot tell the name of the Amin.
8.iii. He also stated that he was present at the crime scene at the time of the occurrence. There was a commotion before the occurrence. He rushed to the crime scene hearing that commotion. About 50 villagers were present at the crime scene before he reached there. The commotion continued for 10-15 minutes after he reached. The villagers who came to the crime scene, among them are Prashuram Singh, Satyendra Singh, the witnesses in this case.
8.iv. He further stated that before getting injured, deceased Vishwanath Singh was on the south-east corner of his land, which would just be situated to the north and east of Nad Charan. Vishwanath Singh was alone at that time. Deceased Vishwanath Singh was hit by a brick. 200-250 bricks must have fallen there. There was a stampede after the deceased fell after being hit by the brick. He along with Mantosh Kumar Singh, Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.19 of 2012 dt.01-05-2025 13/27 Pappu and Ashok, clung to the fallen deceased Vishwanath Singh. Ashok and Mantosh are not the witnesses in this case and the statement was made in front of the police on the day of the occurrence and the day after. He have signed both the statements. Before giving the statement to the Sub Inspector, he did not say anything to any villager about being an eyewitness to the occurrence.
9. PW-4 Vinod Kumar Singh the informant in his examination-in-chief stated that the occurrence took place on 23.12.2005 at about 8.30 AM. He was sitting in the east of Shivrati Yadav 's house near his well. In the east of his well Ramapati Yadav, Maithi Yadav were digging the foundation in that land which was declared as Raja's land by Panchayat. Methi Yadav called him on that land. He forbade them digging foundation. The accused persons did not relent. At that time his cousin Vishwanath Singh came there and he also forbade them doing so. The accused persons did agreed with him too. He further stated that then Methi Yadav, Jagmohan Yadav, Lalpati Yadav, Ramapati Yadav, Nathuni Yadav, Rajnath Yadav began to hit them with bricks. One brick directly hit Vishwanath Yadav's head and thereafter he fell down and became unconscious. They brought cot and took him to sadar hospital, Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.19 of 2012 dt.01-05-2025 14/27 Bihia. On their way to hospital, 15 to 20 minutes latter he died. Apart from me Nageswar Yadav, Ganga JI, Parshuram Ji and all villagers had seen this occurrence.
9.i. In his cross-examination, he stated that well is in the north of the village and west of site. The houses of Accused persons are in the south of the site. The land of the site is Garmajarua aam and documented. The land is of their and accused persons as per the document. The land of accused is to the east of the land of Government of Bihar. The land of accused persons adjacent south to his land. The Nad Charan (cattle trough) of the accused falls in the land of Government of Bihar. To the west of the Nad Charan is land on record. 20 feet east to the Nad Charan is the land of Government of Bihar.
9.ii. He also stated that the disputed land has been measured by the Amin. Amins of both the parties were present in the measurement. He was present on the spot at the time of measurement. Apart from him, Jagmohan Yadav, Parshuram Singh, Shri Ram Singh, Jagesh Singh etc were also present on the spot at the time of measurement. After the measurement, it marks has been given to both the parties. The accused had dig their foundation even before the measurement. No written document of the measurement was prepared. It must Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.19 of 2012 dt.01-05-2025 15/27 have taken him one minute to reach the place of occurrence from the well. He saw the occurrence with his own eyes.
9.iii. At the time of the occurrence, he was standing two cubits west of the deceased. The accused were around the deceased and the work of digging the foundation was going on. The occurrence started with them telling the accused with a request to dig a foundation according to the Panchayati. Initially there was some discussion between both the parties for two to four minutes, then the accused started pelting bricks. While throwing bricks the accused were at a distance of ten yards from us. The accused were throwing the pieces of bricks which were brought for the foundation. While throwing the bricks, a brick hit my back. He did not mention about his injury in his statement given to the police. Apart from him only Vishwanath Singh got injured while throwing bricks. He saw only one injury on deceased Vishwanath Singh while throwing bricks. The accused must have thrown 200 to 250 bricks. He did not state in his statement given to the police that 200 to 250 bricks were thrown by the accused.
9.iv. He further stated that his house is about 200 yards south of the Nad Charan (cattle trough) of Jagmohan Yadav. There are many houses to the north of his house. The Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.19 of 2012 dt.01-05-2025 16/27 first house adjacent to the site of the occurrence is of accused Jagmohan Yadav. Adjacent to the Nad Charan is the house of Naai (name of caste who practice the profession of barber) to the south. There are about 6-7 houses of Naai there. South of the Naai is the house of Babu Saheb (officers). After ten to twelve Bavu Saheb's houses is our house. Among the people living near the site of the occurrence, none of the Naai and Babu Saheb were witnesses in this case.
9.v. He further stated that two days before the occurrence, piling was done at the site of the occurrence by accused Jagmohan Yadav. Before piling, no panchayat was held regarding the land. After piling, a panchayat was held regarding the land. In the panchayat, Nageshwar Yadav, Vishwanath Singh (deceased), he, Dashai Yadav (Village) and other persons were present, he did not remember their names. At the time of the panchayat, the disputed land was measured. The measurement was done by an Amin of Dodhra and an Amin of Dawa. It is not true that the disputed land was measured by the Amin on 17.12.2005 and a written document was prepared for the same. It is not the case that after the measurement on 17.12.2005, the land was demarcated by two Amins and on the alleged day of the occurrence, the accused were laying foundation on the land Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.19 of 2012 dt.01-05-2025 17/27 belonging to them.
9.vi. He also stated that at the time of the occurrence, there was stone pelting for about 15 minutes. The stone pelting was from west to east. The SI did not confiscate even a single stone from the place of occurrence. He did not get the information that the inspector found about 250 bricks thrown between the house of accused Jagmohan Yadav and Nad Charan after the occurrence. When Vishwanath Singh got injured, he was standing to the west of Nad Charan and was talking to the accused. Ten to twelve men were standing near Vishwanath Singh. During the pelting, the first brick hit Vishwanath Singh, after which the people standing near him ran away from there. He did not know the name of the persons who were standing near Vishwanath Singh at that time. However, all of them were my co-villagers.
10. PW-5 Muran Ram in his examination-in-
chief stated that the postmortem report of Vishwanath Singh, which is in the handwriting and signature of Dr. Om Prakash Sinha, and which he identify. Dr. Om Prakash Sinha had died. The postmortem report is marked Exhibit- 3.
10.i. In his cross-examination, he stated that he have no personal knowledge of anything written in the Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.19 of 2012 dt.01-05-2025 18/27 postmortem report.
11. PW-6 Surya Shekhar Lal in his examination- in-chief stated that he was posted as Sub-Inspector in Bihiya PS in 2005. On 23.12.2005, in Englishpur, he had written the fardbeyan of this case as stated by the complainant Vinod Singh on the dictation of the SHO R.N. Chaudhary, which is in his handwriting and signature of the SHO, which was signed by the complainant Vinod Singh after reading it. The fardbeyan is marked Exhibit-1/3. On the basis of the fardbeyan, the formal FIR of this case lodged, which was in the handwriting of the then literate constable Krishna Singh and signature of SHO R.N. Chaudhary which is marked as Exhibit-2. He further stated that as per the orders of the SHO, he started investigation of the case. During investigation, he inspected the place of occurrence.
11.i. There is about 8.5 ft rural road towards east of pucca house of Jagmohan Yadav, north of two under construction house. With an intention to forcefully encroach this very road, Jagmohan was digging foundation. In that, four pillars of about 1/2 ft have been cast at the foundation place. Towards the west side of this under construction house, the accused Vishwanath Singh was forbidding it, where the accused persons were said to be gathered. To the east of the place of Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.19 of 2012 dt.01-05-2025 19/27 occurrence 8ft Gairmajarua Aam low lying area, to the west- house of the accused Jagmohan Yadav and rural road, to the north- potato field and to the south is pucca residential house of Dinanath Thakur. He inquired the complainant witnesses Ramchandra Singh, Ramkumari Devi, Pappu Kumar Singh, Radhakishan Yadav, Sonaru Yadav, Saryug Yadav, Prithvi Yadav, Ramnaresh Singh, Satyendra Singh about the occurrence.
11.ii. He also stated that he prepared the inquest report of the deceased Vishwanath Singh in the presence of Ramnaresh Singh and Parshuram Singh, which is in his handwriting and signature and the witnesses also put their signature on it. This is the carbon copy of the same inquest report. It is marked as Exhibit- 3. Upon finding the occurrence correct, he submitted the charge-sheet. The entire case diary is marked as Exhibit- 4.
11.iii. In his cross-examination, he stated that he handed over the charge of the investigation on 23.12.05 at 12.30 pm. At about 13.40, he reached at the village (Englishpur) of the occurrence and inspected it. He did not remember the time when he inspected it. He found four pillars about 1/2 feet high at the place of occurrence. Towards the west of the place of Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.19 of 2012 dt.01-05-2025 20/27 occurrence, there is cattle trough of the accused persons and 50 yards west from there lies the house of Jagmohan Yadav. he did not find any brick at the place of occurrence. He did not find any objectionable (suspicious) articles at the place of occurrence. He did not find any evidence of encroaching the road (digging foundation) to the north of the place of occurrence.
12. Learned counsel on behalf of the appellants submits 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 and the case is filed due to enmity between the appellants and the informant as they had land dispute attributed between the parties. He further submitted that highly interested witnesses have been examined by the prosecution as the prosecution case is not being supported by any independent witnesses. He next submits that non examination of the doctor who conducted the postmortem has highly prejudiced the prosecution case. Learned counsel further Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.19 of 2012 dt.01-05-2025 21/27 submitted that PW-6 Investigating Officer did not mention anything in his statement regarding deceased condition when he reached at the place of occurrence neither did, he seized anything from the place of occurrence nor he prepared seizure list in this regard.
12.i. In the case of Harbeer Singh vs Sheeshpal and Ors. reported in AIR 2016 SC 4958 held that where the prosecution was not able to prove its case beyond all reasonable doubts and since the eyewitnesses were interested in the complainant and hence, unreliable. He further contends that as per the postmortem report deceased was a 70 years old man who had a lacerated wound on the skull of the right forehead that was caused by hard and blunt object which doesn't show that the deceased had sustained any grievous injury that may have caused his death and the medical evidence does not support the prosecution case. The informant and appellant are the pattidar and have land dispute with each other which generate a high chance that the informant has involved appellants in this case with intention to seek revenge from them. During the course of investigation, police stated that the bricks and stone were thrown from both the sides and from the place of occurrence, neither any pieces of bricks were found nor Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.19 of 2012 dt.01-05-2025 22/27 any stains of blood was there.
12.ii. Alternately, it is submitted that there was no intention on the part of the appellants to cause the death of the victim or such bodily injury, to him, that would be sufficient to cause death. The occurrence occurred suddenly, on a trivial issue. There was no premeditation on the part of the appellants. The testimony of the eye witnesses does not indicate that the appellants used any weapons or that he continued to assault the deceased even after he had collapsed. it is humbly stated and submitted that informant implicated the appellants with the mala fide intention. The appellants are the simple persons in the village. The appellants have suffered few months in jail before regarding the present case. He further submitted that the evidence available on record are insufficient to substantiate the charges leveled against the appellants and the prosecution has failed to prove the complicity of the appellants in connection of offence for which he has been charged. So, the appellants should have been acquitted from the conviction as sentenced against them.
13. 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 Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.19 of 2012 dt.01-05-2025 23/27 impugned judgment and order of sentence, because prosecution has proved its case against the appellant beyond all reasonable doubts. In view of the aforesaid statements and the evidence on record, learned trial Court has rightly convicted the appellant and the present appeal should not be entertained.
14. 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 as well as given thoughtful consideration to the submissions advanced by both the parties.
15. On deeply studied and scrutinized all evidences, it is evident to note that PW-1 in his cross- examination stated that he was present at the place of occurrence when the alleged occurrence took place whereas in his further cross-examination he did not tell the police that he was at his home at the time of the occurrence and that he went to the place of occurrence after hearing slight noise. PW-1 further stated that at the time of the dispute, about 50 to 60 villagers had reached at the place of occurrence but none of the villagers (except relatives) present at the time of the occurrence as witnesses in the present case. He had shown the bricks to the S.I. but S.I in his deposition stated that he had not found Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.19 of 2012 dt.01-05-2025 24/27 anything from the place of occurrence. PW-1 further stated that while he was carrying his grandfather, his shirt got stained with blood but he did not shown or given that shirt (blood stained) to the police.
15.i. Further, PW-2 in his deposition stated that about 200/250 bricks were hurled and apart from Vishwanath Singh, Vinod Singh and Ram Naresh Singh were hurt too. Binod Singh and Ram Naresh Singh were not medically examined which creates lacuna in the prosecution story as to why these witnesses who got injured along with the deceased were not examined. He had shown the place of occurrence to the S.I and at the time of the arrival of S.I., bricks were lying on the place of occurrence but the Investigating officer in his deposition stated that he found nothing on the place of occurrence which shows contradictions among the depostions given by the prosecution witnesses. PW-3 in his examination- in-chief stated that deceased died at the place of occurrence itself after sustaining injury on his forehead whereas other prosecution witnesses stated that the deceased died on the way for his treatment.
15.ii. PW-4 in his deposition claims that while throwing the bricks, a brick hit his back but he did not mention Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.19 of 2012 dt.01-05-2025 25/27 about his injury in his statement given to the police and stated that apart from him only Vishwanath Singh got injured while throwing bricks. PW-6 Investigating officer in his deposition stated that towards the west of the place of occurrence, there is cattle trough of the accused persons and 50 yards west from there lies the house of Jagmohan Yadav whereas PW-1 stated in his deposition that the cattle trough is towards the north-east direction. He did not find any objectionable (suspicious) articles at the place of occurrence. He did not find any evidence of encroaching the road (digging foundation) to the north of the place of occurrence which clearly shows that the prosecution has failed to prove its story beyond shadow of all reasonable doubt.
16. Further prosecution has failed to prove the injury sustained by the victim as neither any medical report has been exhibited nor any medical practitioner has been examined during the course of the trial as it was fatal since he could have adduced the expected evidence and his non-examination creates a material lacuna in the effort of the prosecution to nail the appellants and there are many contradictions in the depositions of the prosecution witnesses, thereby creating reasonable doubt in the prosecution case and the learned trial Court failed to Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.19 of 2012 dt.01-05-2025 26/27 scrutinize the evidence brought on record regarding deficiencies, drawbacks and infirmities crept during course of trial and passed the impugned judgment in complete ignorance of criminal jurisprudence. Moreover, there are discrepancies regarding the sequence of events and the presence of individuals at the place of occurrence. Considering this fact, prosecution has failed to establish this case beyond shadow of all reasonable doubt therefore, in such circumstances, it may not be proper to convict the appellants/accused on the materials available on record. Hence, the judgment of conviction and order of sentence in this present matter is fit to be set aside.
17. Hence, the Judgment of conviction dated 20.12.2011 and order of sentence dated 22.12.2011 in Sessions Trial Case No. 195 of 2006/433 of 2006 arising out of Bihiya P.S. Case No. 171 of 2005 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-I, Bhojpur, Ara 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 bond.
18. Accordingly, this appeal stands allowed.
19. Office is directed to send back the trial court records and proceedings along with a copy of this judgment to Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.19 of 2012 dt.01-05-2025 27/27 the trial court, forthwith, for necessary compliance, if any.
(Ramesh Chand Malviya, J) Harshita/-
AFR/NAFR NAFR CAV DATE N/A Uploading Date 06.05.2025 Transmission Date 06.05.2025