Bachandeo Kumar Alias Bachan Singh vs The State Of Bihar (Now Jharkhand) on 19 February, 2026

[Cites 38, Cited by 0]

Jharkhand High Court

Bachandeo Kumar Alias Bachan Singh vs The State Of Bihar (Now Jharkhand) on 19 February, 2026

Bench: Sujit Narayan Prasad

                                                       2026:JHHC:5093-DB

      IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
               Cr. Appeal (DB) No.190 of 1997(P)

 [Against the Judgment of conviction dated 20.3.1997and Order of
 sentence dated 21.3.1997, passed by the Sessions Judge, Deoghar, in
 Sessions Case No.185 of 1995]
                                 -----

1. Bachandeo Kumar alias Bachan Singh, son of Jwala Singh.

2. Tunna Singh, son of Adhiklal Singh Both residents of village Nurmar PS Malaypur District Jamui ...... ..... Appellants Versus The State of Bihar (Now Jharkhand) ...... .... Respondent

-----

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN KUMAR RAI

-------

For the Appellant(s) : Mr.Anil Kumar Kashyap, Sr. Advocate;

Mr. Kaushal Kishor Mishra, Advocate For the Respondent : Mr. Manoj Kumar Mishra, A.P.P.

------

CAV ON:05/02/2026 PRONOUNCED ON:19/02/2026 [Per Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.]

1. The present Appeal has been filed under section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure against the judgment of conviction dated 20.3.1997 and order of sentence dated 21.03.1997, passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Deoghar, in Sessions Case No. 185 of 1995, whereby and whereunder, the learned court below has convicted the appellants under section 302/34 and 307/34 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced them to undergo RI for life with fine of Rs. 5,000/- each under section 302/34 of the IPC and RI for seven years u/s 307/34 of IPC. All the sentences were directed to run concurrently. It is further ordered that half of the amount so realized from the convicts as fine, shall be given to the wife or dependants of the deceased.

Factual Matrix:

2. The prosecution case, in brief, on the basis of fardbeyan of the informant Rajesh Singh (PW-1) dated 24.12.1994 is that accused Angad 1 2026:JHHC:5093-DB Singh and Bachan Singh are full brothers and accused Tunna Singh is their cousin. Accused Angad Singh was married with Ranju Devi @ Baby Devi, daughter of Satish Prasad Singh (PW-11) of the informant's village Malaypur, District Jamui. Deceased Sunil Kumar Singh was chachera sala of Satish Prasad Singh and Mama of the informant Rajesh Singh(PW-1). Sunil Kumar Singh was married in village Bathaniya and was living in Castair Town at Deoghar. He was an employee of High Court of Patna.

3. Further case of the prosecution is that Satish Prasad Singh wanted to gift eight acres land to his daughter Ranju Devi, but the accused Angad Singh wanted that the same should be registered in his own name, to which the deceased used to object.

4. Further case of the prosecution is that on 22.12.94 Sunil Kumar Singh (deceased) along with the informant left Deoghar for his Sasural in village Bathaniya by his Yamaha motorcycle. At about 01:00p.m. in between village Chandan and Katoriya they met with the accused Angad Singh who was on a blue motorcycle along with an unknown youth (later identified as accused Tunna Singh).

5. They accompanied the deceased and informant up to Katoriya Chowk, where they all took tea and breakfast. Thereafter, the accused asked the deceased about his programme regarding return from his Sasural. The deceased told him that they would return by 24th upon which the accused requested them to wait there for about one hour; by that time he would return from Chandan and accompany them up to Banks. The deceased and the informant waited there for more than one 2 2026:JHHC:5093-DB hour, but Angad Singh did not return and hence they left for village Bathaniya.

6. It has further been alleged that on 24.12.1994 the deceased left his Sasural along with the informant by motorcycle for Deoghar.The informant was driving the motor-cycle and the deceased was sitting on back of the motor-cycle. At about 1:45 p.m., when the victim and the informant reached near Dardmara Chowk, they saw all the three accused persons sitting in a tea-stall.

7. Accused Angad Singh waived his hand and signalled to stop the motorcycle. The informant stopped motorcycle, and both of them came near the accused and had a talk with him. At the request of Angad Singh, they allowed Bachan Singh to sit on their motorcycle just behind the deceased Sunil Kumar Singh.

8. Thereafter, they all left for Deoghar. Angad Singh and his cousin Tunna Singh were also following the informant and the deceased, on a blue-coloured Kawasaki motorcycle. As soon as the informant and the deceased reached near Sarsa-Kusmaha Mor, the accused Angad Singh overtook their motorcycle and asked them to stop. The informant stopped the motorcycle and both of them alighted from it. In the meantime, Angad Singh and Tunna Singh came near the deceased and all the three accused persons whipped out country-made pistols from their possession. Accused Angad Singh fired shot from his pistol at the chest of deceased Sunil Singh. Sunil Singh fell down at the spot. The informant tried to run away, but he was restrained at the point of pistol by the other two accused persons and accused Bachan Singh also fired shot from his pistol at the informant which hit him on left hand. Accused 3 2026:JHHC:5093-DB Angad Singh also fired second shot at the informant, which caused injury at the tip of the head. In the meantime, at the command of Tunna Singh, accused Banchan Singh reloaded the pistol, and fired shot at the deceased on his chest in order to finish him. Thereafter all of them fled away along with their motor-bike.

9. After sometime a bus happened to pass through the place of occurrence road. The informant anyhow got it stopped. The passengers of the bus brought both the injured persons by bus to Deoghar Sadar Hospital, where Sunil Singh died during treatment.

10. It has been alleged that accused Angad Singh and his brother committed murder of Sunil Singh, because deceased was making objection in transfer of land in the name of Angad Singh and further accused Angad Singh had some suspicion regarding having illicit relation of deceased with his wife Baby Devi.

11. On the same day, at about 4:00 p.m., S.I. C.K. Singh of Deoghar police station came to the hospital and recorded fardbeyan of the informant, Rajesh Singh (P.W.1) which has been marked as Exhibit-

6. Exhibit-1 is the signature of the informant on Exhibit-6. The S.1. forwarded the same to Jasidih Police Station for Institution of the case.

12. The inquest report of the dead body was prepared which had been marked as Exhibit 4 and sent the dead body for postmortem. Exhibit-2 is the postmortem report. The requisitions to the doctor of the Hospital had also been issued for examination of the informant.

13. After receipt of the fardbeyan, the Jasidih Police registered the case being Jasidih P.S. Case No.181 of 1994 under sections 341, 324,307 and 302/34 IPC and u/s 27 Arms Act.

2026:JHHC:5093-DB

14. On completion of investigation, charge-sheet no. 48 dated 12.08.1995, was submitted under sections 341/324/326/307/302/120B/34 and u/s 27 Arms Act against the appellants. Thereafter, cognizance of the said offences was taken and case was committed to the court of Sessions.

15. Charges were framed against the appellants under sections 302/34, 307/34 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. Trial commenced and at the conclusion of the trial appellants were convicted and sentenced as aforesaid.

16. The prosecution, in order to prove its case, had examined altogether fifteen witnesses. Out of which PW-1 Rajesh Singh is the informant, P.W.-13 is Dr. Y.N. Singh who has conducted autopsy over the dead body of the deceased and P.W.-15 Raj Kumar is the Investigating Officer of the case.P.W.-11 is Satish Prasad Singh is the cousin brother of the deceased. PW-12 Dilip Kumar Singh is the brother of deceased. PW-5 is the seizure list witness and PW 14 is the witness to the inquest report.

17. PW-2 Ramesh Singh and PW-8 Dropadi Devi have been declared hostile. PWs. 3,4,6,7,9 and 10 have been tendered.

18. Defence had examined one witness, namely, Dr. Surya Narayan Mahto, the Medical Officer of PAC, Birajpur. The defence has also adduced some documents which have been marked Ext. A to Ext.D. Ext.A is the indoor register entry of PAC, Birajpur, Ext. B is the certified copy of the voter-list, Ext. C to C/2 are the formal FIR of Deoghar P.S case Nos. 181/1994, 184/1996 and 399/1996, Ext. D is the charge-sheet of Sessions Trial No. 184 of 1996.

2026:JHHC:5093-DB

19. The learned trial Court, after recording the evidence of witnesses, examination-in-chief and cross-examination, recorded the statement of the accused persons, found the present appellants along with other co-accused guilty and accordingly, convicted them in the manner as indicated hereinabove.

20. Against the aforesaid order of conviction and sentence the present appeal has been preferred.

Submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the Appellants:

21. The learned counsels appearing on behalf of the appellants has submitted that the genesis and motive of the occurrence have not been proved and further the motorcycle which was used in the crime has not been immediately recovered.

22. It has further been submitted that front portion of the cartridge alleged to be blood stained but it was not sent to the expert for examination. The Investigating Officer in his evidence in para 11 has categorically asserted that he did not find any blood stain on the front portion of the fired cartridge which suggests that the cartridges recovered were not used in crime and also the recovered cartridges were not even produced at the time of trial as material exhibits.

23. It is further submitted that though blood was found by the Investigating Officer at the place of occurrence but he did not collect the same which shows that investigation of the Investigating Officer was perfunctory.

24. It is further submitted that identity of accused Tunna Singh has not been established as he has not been named in the fardbeyan and also no TIP was held during the investigation.

2026:JHHC:5093-DB

25. It has further been contended that the objective finding of the Dr. Yogendra Narayan Singh (P.W.13) who conducted the post-mortem of the deceased and had also examined the informant (P.W.1) are highly inconsistent and incompatible with the story put forth by the informant in as much as according to the admitted case of the prosecution that the deceased Sunil Kumar Singh was shot at from the front in the chest by co-accused Angad Singh thereafter, deceased fell down injured on the road, whereafter appellant No.1 alleged to have fired a shot in the chest of the deceased, but only one fire arm Injury could be found on the Person of the deceased and from the evidence of the doctor it is clear that the deceased was not hit from the front in the chest but as a matter of fact deceased was shot by the assailant at his back since the wound of Injury was found on the back on the deceased and not on the chest as alleged.

The aforesaid fact completely falsifies the prosecution story of the deceased being shot in the chest from front and that he was further shot by appellant No.1 in the chest while the deceased was lying on the road after having been hit by the shot fired by co-accused.

26. It has been contended that the learned trial court further failed to appreciate that appellant No.2 is not even named in the fardbeyan/F.I.R. even though he is fully known to the informant as he happens to be a close relative of appellant No.1 and co-accused Angad Singh.

27. It has been contended that the place of occurrence has also not been established in as much as P.W.5 Bishun Dubey, a witness of seizure list, has not stated the place from where the empty cartridges were 7 2026:JHHC:5093-DB recovered and has categorically asserted that no blood was seized in his Presence.

28. It has further been submitted that the learned trial court failed to appreciate that the evidence of solitary witness can be accepted only when it is free from all blemish and doubt from the scrutiny of the evidence of the informant (P.W.1) but in the instant case the evidence of the solitary witness (P.W.1) is full of inconsistency and improbabilities and, therefore, is totally unacceptable and accordingly the appellants should have been acquitted.

Submission advanced by the learned counsel for the State:

29. Mr. Manoj Kumar Mishra, the learned counsel appearing for the State has submitted that both the accused persons have been charged u/s 302 r/w 34 IPC for causing murder of Sunil Singh. Apart from the aforesaid charge they have further been charged under section u/s 307 r/w 34 IPC for causing injuries of fire arms to Rajesh Kumar Singh, PW- 1 with intention or knowledge of causing death and they have also been charged under section 120B IPC.

30. It is further submitted that the deceased died of fire arm injuries which is consistent with the oral evidence of prosecution. The ocular evidence of prosecution got support from the medical evidence.

31. It is a case where the prosecution has been able to prove the charge beyond all reasonable doubt and the instant case is based upon the cogent testimony of the injured eyewitness, as such some lacuna in the investigation will not vitiate the prosecution case.

32. So far as the argument advanced on behalf of the appellants that there cannot be conviction on the basis of solitary eye witness, the 8 2026:JHHC:5093-DB submission has been made that if the testimony of the eye witness is fully trustworthy then there is no bar in passing the judgment of conviction on the basis of the testimony of the solitary eye witness.

33. Learned counsel for the State has further submitted that the solitary injured eye witness since has gracefully made meticulous description of the occurrence, which has been corroborated by medical evidence and other witnesses including Investigating Officer, as such the evidence of injured sole eye witness is to be fully relied upon while proving the charge against accused persons as it is settled principle of law that quality of witness matters and not the quantity of witness.

34. Therefore, learned counsel for the State submitted that learned trial court on the basis of evidence of the witnesses and documents available on record has rightly convicted the appellants under section 302/34 and 307/34 of the IPC and hence, requires no interference by this court.

Analysis

35. We have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the documents and the testimony of witnesses as also the finding recorded by learned trial Court in the impugned order.

36. This Court, before appreciating the arguments advanced on behalf of the parties as also the legality and propriety of the impugned judgment, deems it fit and proper to refer the testimonies of P.W.-1 Rajesh Singh who is the informant, P.W.-13 Dr. Y.N. Singh who has conducted autopsy over the dead body, P.W.-15 Raj Kumar, the Investigating Officer of the case, P.W.-11 Satish Prasad Singh, the cousin brother of the deceased and P.W.-12 Dilip Kumar Singh, the 9 2026:JHHC:5093-DB brother of deceased. For ready reference, the relevant portion of their testimonies is quoted as under:

37. PW-1 Rajesh Singh, the informant of the case and nephew of the deceased Sunil Singh. The informant in his examination-in-chief has deposed that on 24.12.1994 they were returning on a motorcycle from village Bathaniya. He was driving the bike and his mama was sitting on the back seat. At about 1:30 p.m. they reached Dardmara Chowk Mor they saw all the three accused persons sitting in a tea-stall. Accused Angad Singh stopped them and on the request of Angad Singh they allowed accused Bachan Singh to sit in their bike. Thereafter, they proceeded further for Deoghar. He has further deposed that when they reached near Sarsa Kuswaha Mor the accused Angad Singh overtook their motorcycle and asked them to stop. Thereafter, all the three accused persons whipped out country-made pistols from their possession. Accused Angad Singh fired shot from his pistol at the chest of the deceased Sunil Singh. Sunil Singh fell down at the spot. When the informant tried to run away, other two accused restrained him on the point of pistol. Thereafter, accused Bachan Singh(appellant no.1) fired shot from his pistol at the informant which hit him on left hand. Accused Angad Singh also fired upon him which caused injury at the tip of his head. In the meantime, at the command of Tunna Singh, accused Banchan Singh reloaded the pistol, and fired shot at the deceased on his chest in order to finish him. Thereafter all of them fled away along with their motor-bike.

38. In paragraph 2 of the deposition, this witness stated about motive for the occurrence. He has stated that Satish Prasad Singh wanted 10 2026:JHHC:5093-DB to gift eight acres of land to his daughter Ranju Devi, but the accused Angad Singh wanted that the same should be registered in his name. Sunil Singh counselled Satish Singh not to register the said land in name of Angad Singh, due to which Angad Singh had grudge against deceased Sunil Singh.

39. In paragraph 6 of the deposition, P.W.1 has stated that after some time a bus was passing through the Place of occurrence road. The passengers of the bus brought both of them to Deoghar Hospital, where Sunil Singh died immediately in course of his treatment. He has also stated that the police came in the Hospital before whom he gave Fard- beyan. Exhibit-6 is the Fard-bayan and Exhibit 1 is the signature of the informant on the Fard-bayan.

40. P.W.15 Raj Kumar is the investigating officer of the case. His evidence establishes the place of occurrence as stated by the informant (P.W.1). On that day he was posted at Jasidih P.S. as S.I. At about 4.15 p.m. he received telephonic message regarding the occurrence from Deoghar P.S. After entering the S.D.entry, he rushed to emergency Ward of Sadar Hospital, Deoghar. He found a dead body in the Emergency Ward. Hе also found the informant undergoing treatment in Emergency Ward. After recording the statement of the informant, he went to the P.O. The P.O. was pucca road near Sarsa-Kuswaha Mor. He has stated in his evidence vide para-3, that he found blood stains as well as three fired cartridges at the spot. Exhibit-5 is the seizure-list of cartridges. He has further stated that the P.O. was a lonely place and there was no house or village around one kilometre of the P.O. 11 2026:JHHC:5093-DB In cross-examination at para-11, he has stated that he inspected the P.O. at about 5.15 p.m. In paragraph 16 of the evidence, he has stated that on 3.1.95, he raided the house of accused Angad Singh and found a motorcycle in open condition. Ext.-5/A is the seizure-list of the motorcycle. In paragraph 18 of the cross-examination, he, has stated that the cartridges were examined by expert. Exhibit-7 is the report of the expert.

41. P.W.13 Dr. Yogendra Narayan Singh who conducted postmortem examination on the dead body of Sunil Singh and also examined the informant.

On 24.12.94 he conducted post mortem on the dead body of the deceased and found following injuries:

(i) A lacerated circular injury 1/3" in diameters with inverted margin on back left side at the level of 4th, 5th and 6th thoracic vertebras with blood clot.

(ii) One circular injury one inch in diameter with exverted margins, just below left clavicle at mid clavicular region with blood clot.

(iii) Multiple abrasions, right side forehead, margins size 1"x1/2"

another ½ " x ¼", yet another ½" x ¼".

(iv)     Lacerated wound left side forehead ½"x ¼".

(v)      Crushed injury left side chest 2" x 1".

On dissection of skull brain matter was found to be pale.After, dissection chest 4th, 5th and 6th thoracic vertebras were found broken. Left lung was badly pierced, left side chest cavity was full of blood, and right lung was pale. The heart was found empty; stomach contained a little semi-digested food material. Large intestine contained a little fecal 12 2026:JHHC:5093-DB material, liver was pale, kidneys were also pale spleen was also pale.

Urinary bladder was empty.

Opinion:

Death was due to hemorrhage and shock caused by fire arm. Time since death was within 4 hours. This injury report was marked Ext.-2.

On the same day at 2.40 p.m. he examined Rajesh Singh s/o Awadesh Kishore Singh of Village Malaipur and found the following injury on his person.

i) Lacerated injury on left upper arm 2"x1" with charred margins.

ii) Abrasion on mid of skull 1" x 1/3" with charring.

He has opined that out of the aforesaid injuries, injury no. (i) was caused by firearm and was serious in nature and injury no. (ii) was caused by fire arm and was simple in nature. This injury report was marked Ext.-3.

In cross examination he has stated that injury no. 1 on Sunil could be possible only when shot is fired from behind.

42. P.W.11 Satish Prasad Singh is the father-in-law of accused Angad Singh. In examination-in-chief, he has stated that Angad Singh is his son-in-law, who is unemployed. At the time of the marriage, he falsely disclosed that he was engineer. In para-2 of his examination-in- chief, he has stated that deceased Sunil Singh was his Chachere Sala (cousin brother-in-law) and had good relation with him. He has also supported the prosecution story that he wanted to give some land to his daughter, but Angad Singh wanted that the same should be registered in his name. He has also deposed that deceased Sunil Singh advised him to 13 2026:JHHC:5093-DB register the land in name of his daughter only. In para-3 of the examination-in-chief, he has stated that Sunil Singh was murdered either on 22nd or 24th December and he heard that accused Angad Singh and others committed his murder.

In cross-examination at para-9, he has stated that he had no enmity with his son-in-law.

43. P.W.12 Dilip Kumar Singh is the full brother of deceased Sunil Singh. His evidence is hearsay on the point of occurrence. However, it corroborates the prosecution story that on 22.12.94 the deceased along with the informant left for his Sasural Bathaniya on motorbike and thereafter he never returned back. He has further stated that on 24.12.94 he heard about the occurrence and immediately rushed to the Hospital, where the informant was found undergoing treatments. He also saw the dead body of his brother in the hospital. The informant narrated the entire story and disclosed the name of the accused persons as murderers of Sunil Singh.

44. PW-2 Ramesh Singh and PW-8 Prapti Devi have been declared hostile. PWs. 3,4,6,7,9 and 10 have been tendered. PW-5 is the seizure list witness and PW 14 is the witness to the inquest report.

45. After due appreciations of evidences, the learned trial court had found the charges were proved beyond reasonable doubt against these appellants and accordingly they were convicted as aforesaid, against which the instant appeal has been preferred.

46. This Court, in order to appreciate the submissions advanced on behalf of the appellants with respect to the culpability of the appellants in commission of crime under Sections 302 and 307 of the Indian Penal 14 2026:JHHC:5093-DB Code vis-à-vis the evidences adduced on behalf of the parties, deems it fit and proper to refer certain judicial pronouncements in context of contention raised by the appellants.

47. The learned counsel has contended that the learned trial court even in absence of corroboration of the testimony of P.W.1 who is self- proclaimed sole injured eyewitness has convicted the appellants which is bad in eyes of law.

48. In the aforesaid context this court thinks fit to discuss the evidentiary value of the sole eyewitness. It is settled proposition of law that the judgment of conviction can be passed on the basis of the testimony of sole eyewitness but the testimony of said witness should be trustworthy and inspire confidence in the mind of the Court.

49. There is no legal impediment in convicting a person on the sole testimony of a single witness. That is the logic of Section 134 of the Evidence Act, 1872. But if there are doubts about the testimony the courts will insist on corroboration. In fact, it is not the number, the quantity, but the quality that is material. The time-honoured principle is that evidence has to be weighed and not counted. The test is whether the evidence has a ring of truth, is cogent, credible and trustworthy, or otherwise.

50. The law is well settled that the judgment of conviction can be passed also on the basis of the testimony of sole witness but the testimony of said witness should be trustworthy as per the judgment rendered by Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Bipin Kumar Mondal v. State of W.B., (2010) 12 SCC 91 paragraphs 30 to 34 of the said judgment are being referred hereunder as :-

2026:JHHC:5093-DB "30. Shri Bagga has also submitted that there was sole testimony of Sujit Mondal, PW 1, and the rest i.e. depositions of PW 2 to PW 8, could be treated merely as hearsay. The same cannot be relied upon for conviction.

31. In Sunil Kumar v. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) this Court repelled a similar submission observing that: (SCC p. 371, para 9) "9. ... as a general rule the court can and may act on the testimony of a single witness provided he is wholly reliable. There is no legal impediment in convicting a person on the sole testimony of a single witness. That is the logic of Section 134 of the Evidence Act, 1872.

But, if there are doubts about the testimony the courts will insist on corroboration."

In fact, it is not the number, the quantity, but the quality that is material. The time-honoured principle is that evidence has to be weighed and not counted. The test is whether the evidence has a ring of truth, is cogent, credible and trustworthy, or otherwise.

32. In Namdeo v. State of Maharashtra this Court reiterated the similar view observing that it is the quality and not the quantity of evidence which is necessary for proving or disproving a fact. The legal system has laid emphasis on value, weight and quality of evidence rather than on quantity, multiplicity or plurality of witnesses. It is, therefore, open to a competent court to fully and completely rely on a solitary witness and record conviction. Conversely, it may acquit the accused in spite of testimony of several witnesses if it is not satisfied about the quality of evidence.

33. In Kunju v. State of T.N., a similar view has been reiterated placing reliance on various earlier judgments of this Court including Jagdish Prasad v. State of M.P. and Vadivelu Thevar v. State of Madras.

34. Thus, in view of the above, the bald contention made by Shri Bagga that no conviction can be recorded in case of a solitary eyewitness has no force and is negatived accordingly."

51. Likewise, the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Kuriya and another vs. State of Rajasthan, (2012) 10 SCC 433 has held as under: - 16

2026:JHHC:5093-DB " 33. ---The Court has stated the principle that, as a general rule, the Court can and may act on the testimony of a single eyewitness provided he is wholly reliable and base the conviction on the testimony of such sole eyewitness. There is no legal impediment in convicting a person on the sole testimony of a single witness."

52. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Kalu @ Amit vs. State of Haryana, (2012) 8 SCC 34 held as under:-

"11. We find no infirmity in the judgment of the High Court which has rightly affirmed the trial court's view. It is true that the accused have managed to win over the complainant PW 4 Karambir Yadav, but the evidence of PW 5 Ram Chander Yadav bears out the prosecution case. It is well settled that conviction can be based on the evidence of a sole eyewitness if his evidence inspires confidence. This witness has meticulously narrated the incident and supported the prosecution case. We find him to be a reliable witness."

53. The Hon'ble Apex Court in case of Sheelam Ramesh v. State of A.P., (1999) 8 SCC 369 in Para -18 held as follows:-

"18. According to learned counsel for the accused appellants, though PW 3 has deposed that 10-15 persons were in the vicinity at the time of occurrence, no independent witness was examined by the prosecution. There is nothing on evidence to show that there was any other eyewitness to the occurrence. Having examined all the eyewitnesses even if other persons present nearby were not examined, the evidence of the eyewitnesses cannot be discarded. Courts are concerned with quality and not with quantity of evidence and in a criminal trial, conviction can be based on the sole evidence of a witness if it inspires confidence."

54. Further settled position of law is that even if the blood stained earth or cloth is not seized due to inadequate amount or not sent for its examination to Forensic Scientific Laboratory but if the prosecution version is supported by the eye witness the non-sending of the same for its expert examination will not vitiate the prosecution story as has been held by Hon'ble Apex Court in the case Surendra Paswan v. State of 17 2026:JHHC:5093-DB Jharkhand, (2003) 12 SCC 360. For ready reference the relevant paragraph is being quoted as under:

"9. So far as the non-seizure of blood from the cot is concerned, the investigating officer has stated that he found bloodstained earth at the place of occurrence and had seized it. Merely because it was not sent for chemical examination, it may be a defect in the investigation but does not corrode the evidentiary value of the eyewitnesses. The investigating officer did not find presence of blood on the cot. The trial court and the High Court have analysed this aspect. It has been found that after receiving the bullet injury the deceased leaned forward and whatever blood was profusing spilled over onto the earth.

55. Likewise, the Hon'ble Apex Court in the judgment rendered in Sheo Shankar Singh v. State of Jharkhand and another, (2011) 3 SCC 654 held as under:

"56. The same view was expressed by this Court in Surendra Paswan v. State of Jharkhand. In that case the investigating officer had not sent the blood samples collected from the spot for chemical examination. This Court held that merely because the sample was not so sent may constitute a deficiency in the investigation but the same did not corrode the evidentiary value of the eyewitnesses.

56.The law is well settled that if the blood stained earth, and murder weapon have not been seized the entire prosecution will not fail as has been held by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of State of Rajasthan vs. Arjun Singh reported in 2011(9) SCC 115 wherein at paragraph 18 it has been held, which reads as under:

"18. As rightly pointed out by the learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the State that mere non-recovery of pistol or cartridge does not detract the case of the prosecution where clinching and direct evidence is acceptable. Likewise, absence of evidence 18 2026:JHHC:5093-DB regarding recovery of used pillets, bloodstained clothes etc. cannot be taken or construed as no such occurrence had taken place. As a matter of fact, we have already pointed out that the gunshot injuries tallied with medical evidence. It is also seen that Raghuraj Singh and Himmat Raj Singh, who had died, received 8 and 7 gunshot wounds respectively while Raj Singh (PW 2) also received 8 gunshots scattered in front of left thigh. All these injuries have been noted by the Doctor (PW-1) in his reports Exts. P-1 to P-4."

57. Further the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Ram Avtar Rai vs. State of U.P reported in (1985) 2 SCC 61 wherein at paragraph 10 it has been held, which reads as under:

"10. ..... It is true that bloodstained earth has not been recovered from the scene of occurrence by the investigating officer though as stated earlier the deceased had sustained as many as 5 lacerated injuries besides a number of contusions and abrasions. From the failure of the investigating officer to recover bloodstained earth from the scene of occurrence it is not possible to infer that the occurrence had not taken place in front of the house of the deceased and PW 1. The evidence of PWs 2 and 3 could not, therefore, be rejected as unreliable as has been done by the learned Sessions Judge. ......"

58. Further the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Maqbool & Anr. vs. State of A.P., reported in (2010) 8 SCC 359 wherein at paragraph 20 it has been held, which reads as under:

"20. Secondly, not only PW 2 but even other witnesses have stated that there was sufficient light in and around the place of occurrence because of streetlight, light from the house of the deceased, bus-stand and the nursing home. There is no reason for us to disbelieve PW 1, PW 3 and other witnesses who said that there was sufficient illumination at the place of occurrence and the argument advanced by the appellants hardly has any merit. Yes, it was expected of the investigating officer to seize from the place of occurrence such articles or items including the bloodstained earth or empties, which were available even as per his statement. This lacuna in the investigation stands completely covered by the statement of the witness, the medical report and the eyewitness version."

59. It is, thus, evident that the law is well settled that merely because the blood-stained earth, weapon and the other incriminating 19 2026:JHHC:5093-DB articles have not been seized, the prosecution will not vitiate if the prosecution version is being supported by the credible testimony of the eye witness.

60. In the backdrop of the aforesaid discussion of proposition of law, this Court in the instant case is to consider following issues: -

(i) Whether the material as has come in course of trial is sufficient to attract the offence committed under Section 302/307 of the Indian Penal Code against the present appellants?

(ii) Whether the only sole testimony of an injured eyewitness is sufficient enough to prove the alleged charges against the appellants beyond all reasonable doubt.

(iii) Whether the testimony of the sole injured eyewitness can be discarded on the basis of perfunctory investigation like non sending of blood stain cartridge or non-seizure of the blood stain from the place of occurrence.

(iv) Whether the variation between the medical and ocular evidence is sufficient enough to dismiss the prosecution case that too then the said alleged occurrence was witnessed by the sole injured eye-witness.

61. Since all the aforesaid issues are inextricably interlinked, the same are being decided hereinbelow by considering them together.

62. At this juncture this Court thinks fit to revisit the testimony of the witnesses particularly the sole injured eyewitness P.W.1, in the backdrop of aforesaid legal proposition.

2026:JHHC:5093-DB

63. The informant who has been examined as P.W.1 has categorically substantiated his fardbeyan during his examination-in-chief wherein he had stated that on 24.12.1994 he and deceased Sunil Singh were returning on a motorcycle from village Bathaniya. He was driving the bike and his mama was sitting on the back seat. At about 1:30 p.m. they reached Dardmara Chowk Mor they saw all the three accused persons (including the present appellants) sitting in a tea-stall. Accused Angad Singh stopped them and on the request of Angad Singh they allowed accused Bachan Singh (appellant no.1) to sit in their bike and thereafter, they proceeded further for Deoghar.

64. This witness has further deposed that when they reached near Sarsa Kuswaha Mor the accused Angad Singh overtook their motorcycle and asked them to stop. Thereafter, all the three accused persons whipped out country-made pistols from their possession and accused Angad Singh fired shot from his pistol at the chest of the deceased Sunil Singh upon which Sunil Singh fell down at the spot. He had further deposed that when he tried to run away, other two accused restrained him on the point of pistol and hereafter, accused Bachan Singh (appellant no.1) fired shot from his pistol at the informant which hit him on left hand and accused Angad Singh also fired upon him which caused injury at the tip of his head.

65. This witness further deposed that in the meantime, at the command of Tunna Singh, (appellant no.2), accused Banchan Singh (appellant no.1) reloaded the pistol, and fired shot at the deceased on his chest in order to finish him. Thereafter all of them fled away along with their motor-bike.

2026:JHHC:5093-DB

66. About motive for the occurrence, this witness had stated that Satish Prasad Singh (P.W.11) wanted to gift eight acres of land to his daughter Ranju Devi, but the accused Angad Singh (son-in-law of P.W.11) wanted that the same should be registered in his name and Sunil Singh (deceased) counselled Satish Singh not to register the said land in name of Angad Singh, due to which Angad Singh had grudge against deceased Sunil Singh.

67. Thus, from the testimony of the P.W.1 sole injured eye-witness it is evident that this witness has categorically stated about the culpability of the present appellants. This Witness has stated that on instigation of appellant no.2, the appellant no.1 had shot fire upon the deceased in order to finish him. This witness had further stated that accused Bachan Singh (appellant no.1) fired shot from his pistol upon him (this witness) which hit him on left hand.

68. It needs to refer herein that this witness is an injured sole eye- witness and as per the settled position of law the testimony of an injured solitary eyewitness holds high evidentiary value, often acting as the sole basis for conviction due to a "built-in guarantee" of their presence at the crime scene. Such evidence is not easily discarded unless major irreconcilable contradictions exist, as they are unlikely to implicate false perpetrators. The evidence of injured witness has greater evidentiary value and unless compelling reasons exist, their statements are not to be discarded lightly, reference in this regard be made to the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Balu Sudam Khalde v. State of Maharashtra, (2023) 13 SCC 365wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court has enunciated the legal principle as how the evidence of an 22 2026:JHHC:5093-DB injured eyewitness is to be appreciated. For ready reference the relevant paragraphs of the aforesaid judgment are being quoted as under

"26. When the evidence of an injured eyewitness is to be appreciated, the undernoted legal principles enunciated by the courts are required to be kept in mind:

26.1. The presence of an injured eyewitness at the time and place of the occurrence cannot be doubted unless there are material contradictions in his deposition.

26.2. Unless, it is otherwise established by the evidence, it must be believed that an injured witness would not allow the real culprits to escape and falsely implicate the accused.

26.3. The evidence of injured witness has greater evidentiary value and unless compelling reasons exist, their statements are not to be discarded lightly.

26.4. The evidence of injured witness cannot be doubted on account of some embellishment in natural conduct or minor contradictions.

26.5. If there be any exaggeration or immaterial embellishments in the evidence of an injured witness, then such contradiction, exaggeration or embellishment should be discarded from the evidence of injured, but not the whole evidence.

26.6. The broad substratum of the prosecution version must be taken into consideration and discrepancies which normally creep due to loss of memory with passage of time should be discarded."

69. The Hon'ble Apex Court while relying upon the ratio rendered in the case of Balu Sudam Khalde v. State of Maharashtra(supra) has reiterated the same view in the case of Baljinder Singh v. State of Punjab, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 2622 and has observed that the sworn testimonies provided by injured witnesses generally carry significant evidentiary weight. Such testimonies cannot be dismissed as unreliable unless there are pellucid and substantial discrepancies or contradictions that undermine their credibility. If there is any exaggeration in the 23 2026:JHHC:5093-DB deposition that is immaterial to the case, such exaggeration should be disregarded; however, it does not warrant the rejection of the entire evidence.

70. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Rajan v. State of Haryana, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1952has observed that Unless, it is otherwise established by the evidence, it must be believed that an injured witness would not allow the real culprits to escape and falsely implicate the accused and further if there be any exaggeration or immaterial embellishments in the evidence of an injured witness, then such contradiction, exaggeration or embellishment should be discarded from the evidence of injured, but not the whole evidence, for ready reference the relevant paragraphof the aforesaid order is being quoted herein which reads as under:

33.When the evidence of an injured eye-witness is to be appreciated, the undernoted legal principles enunciated by the Courts are required to be kept in mind:

"(a) The presence of an injured eye-witness at the time and place of the occurrence cannot be doubted unless there are material contradictions in his deposition.

(b) Unless, it is otherwise established by the evidence, it must be believed that an injured witness would not allow the real culprits to escape and falsely implicate the accused.

(c) The evidence of injured witness has greater evidentiary value and unless compelling reasons exist, their statements are not to be discarded lightly.

(d) The evidence of injured witness cannot be doubted on account of some embellishment in natural conduct or minor contradictions.

(e) If there be any exaggeration or immaterial embellishments in the evidence of an injured witness, then such contradiction, exaggeration or embellishment should be discarded from the evidence of injured, but not the whole evidence.

2026:JHHC:5093-DB

(f) The broad substratum of the prosecution version must be taken into consideration and discrepancies which normally creep due to loss of memory with passage of time should be discarded.

71. Thus, from the aforesaid it is evident that the testimony of an injured solitary eyewitness holds high evidentiary value, often acting as the sole basis for conviction due to a "built-in guarantee" of their presence at the crime scene and such evidence cannot be easily discarded.

72. Further, it is settled position of law in assessing the value of the evidence of the eyewitnesses, two principal considerations are whether, in the circumstances of the case, it is possible to believe their presence at the scene of occurrence or in such situations as would make it possible for them to witness the facts deposed by them and secondly, whether there is anything inherently improbable or unreliable in their evidence.

73. Herein the learned Counsel for appellants has tried to dent the testimony of the sole injured eye-witness (P.W.1) by taking aid of post- mortem report wherein it has been opined by the doctor in his cross- examination that injury no. 1 on Sunil is possible only when shot is fired from behind. The learned Counsel for the appellants based upon the said opinion has contended that P.W.1 had specifically stated that shot was made by Fire arm by the accused on the chest of deceased but the said fact has not been substantiated by the medical evidence, therefore entire terra-firma of the prosecution case has no basis.

74. Admittedly, the injuries found by the P.W.13 do not fully conform the manner of occurrence. Now the question arises as to whether the said inconsistencies is vital enough to discard the entire evidence of sole injured eyewitness.

2026:JHHC:5093-DB

75. In the aforesaid context it needs to refer herein the settled proposition of law that if there is a variance in ocular evidence and medical evidence, then the ocular evidence has to be given preference over medical evidence, unless and until, the medical evidence completely rules out the ocular evidence.

76. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Bhajan Singh v. State of Haryana, reported in (2011) 7 SCC 421 has held as under:

38. Thus, the position of law in such a case of contradiction between medical and ocular evidence can be crystallised to the effect that though the ocular testimony of a witness has greater evidentiary value vis-à-vis medical evidence, when medical evidence makes the ocular testimony improbable, that becomes a relevant factor in the process of the evaluation of evidence. However, where the medical evidence goes so far that it completely rules out all possibility of the ocular evidence being true, the ocular evidence may be disbelieved.

77. In the case of CBI v. Mohd. Parvez Abdul Kayuum, (2019) 12 SCC 1the Hon'ble Apex Court has reiterated the same view, for ready reference the relevant paragraph of the aforesaid order is being quoted as under:

"The witness is not supposed to give all these minute details. It is not a case where medical evidence completely improbabilises the ocular evidence; only in that case the ocular evidence has to be discarded, not otherwise. Reliance has been placed on behalf of the accused on Abdul Sayeed v. State of M.P. [Abdul Sayeed v. State of M.P., (2010) 10 SCC 259 : (2010) 3 SCC (Cri) 1262] thus: (SCC p. 274, para 39) "39. Thus, the position of law in cases where there is a contradiction between medical evidence and ocular evidence can be crystallised to the effect that though the ocular testimony of a witness has greater evidentiary value vis-à-vis medical evidence, when medical evidence makes the ocular testimony improbable, 26 2026:JHHC:5093-DB that becomes a relevant factor in the process of the evaluation of evidence. However, where the medical evidence goes so far that it completely rules out all possibility of the ocular evidence being true, the ocular evidence may be disbelieved."

65. Even otherwise as submitted on behalf of the prosecution that in case of any discrepancy between the ocular or medical evidence, the ocular evidence shall prevail, as observed in Yogesh Singh v. Mahabeer Singh [Yogesh Singh v. Mahabeer Singh, (2017) 11 SCC 195 : (2017) 4 SCC (Cri) 257] : (SCC pp. 217-18, para 43) "43. The learned counsel appearing for the respondents has then tried to create a dent in the prosecution story by pointing out inconsistencies between the ocular evidence and the medical evidence. However, we are not persuaded with this submission since both the courts below have categorically ruled that the medical evidence was consistent with the ocular evidence and we can safely say that to that extent, it corroborated the direct evidence proffered by the eyewitnesses. We hold that there is no material discrepancy in the medical and ocular evidence and there is no reason to interfere with the judgments [Mahabeer Singh v. State of U.P., 2012 SCC OnLine All 4428] of the courts below on this ground. In any event, it has been consistently held by this Court that the evidentiary value of medical evidence is only corroborative and not conclusive and, hence, in case of a conflict between oral evidence and medical evidence, the former is to be preferred unless the medical evidence completely rules out the oral evidence. [See Solanki Chimanbhai Ukabhai v. State of Gujarat [Solanki Chimanbhai Ukabhai v. State of Gujarat, (1983) 2 SCC 174 : 1983 SCC (Cri) 379] , Mani Ram v. State of Rajasthan [Mani Ram v. State of Rajasthan, 1993 Supp (3) SCC 18 : 1993 SCC (Cri) 853] , State of U.P. v. Krishna Gopal [State of U.P. v. Krishna Gopal, (1988) 4 SCC 302 : 1988 SCC (Cri) 928] , State of Haryana v. Bhagirath [State of Haryana v. Bhagirath, (1999) 5 SCC 96 : 1999 SCC (Cri) 658] , Dhirajbhai Gorakhbhai Nayak v. State of Gujarat [Dhirajbhai Gorakhbhai Nayak v. State of Gujarat, (2003) 9 SCC 322 : 2003 SCC (Cri) 1809] , Thaman Kumar v. State (UT of Chandigarh) [Thaman Kumar v. State (UT of Chandigarh), (2003) 6 SCC 380 : 2003 SCC (Cri) 1362] , Krishnan v. State [Krishnan v. State, (2003) 7 SCC 56 : 2003 SCC (Cri) 1577] , Khambam Raja Reddy v. Public Prosecutor [Khambam Raja Reddy v. Public Prosecutor, (2006) 11 27 2026:JHHC:5093-DB SCC 239 : (2007) 1 SCC (Cri) 431] , State of U.P. v. Dinesh [State of U.P. v. Dinesh, (2009) 11 SCC 566 : (2009) 3 SCC (Cri) 1484] , State of U.P. v. Hari Chand [State of U.P. v. Hari Chand, (2009) 13 SCC 542 : (2010) 1 SCC (Cri) 1112] , Abdul Sayeed v. State of M.P. [Abdul Sayeed v. State of M.P., (2010) 10 SCC 259 : (2010) 3 SCC (Cri) 1262] and Bhajan Singh v. State of Haryana [Bhajan Singh v. State of Haryana, (2011) 7 SCC 421 : (2011) 3 SCC (Cri) 241 : (2011) 7 SCR 1] .]"

66. The ocular evidence to prevail has also been observed in Sunil Kundu v. State of Jharkhand [Sunil Kundu v. State of Jharkhand, (2013) 4 SCC 422 : (2013) 2 SCC (Cri) 427] thus: (SCC p. 432, para

24) "24. In Kapildeo Mandal v. State of Bihar [Kapildeo Mandal v. State of Bihar, (2008) 16 SCC 99 : (2010) 4 SCC (Cri) 203] , all the eyewitnesses had categorically stated that the deceased was injured by the use of firearm, whereas the medical evidence specifically indicated that no firearm injury was found on the deceased. This Court held that while appreciating variance between medical evidence and ocular evidence, oral evidence of eyewitnesses has to get priority as medical evidence is basically opinionative. But, when the evidence of the eyewitnesses is totally inconsistent with the evidence given by the medical experts then evidence is appreciated in a different perspective by the courts. It was observed that when medical evidence specifically rules out the injury claimed to have been inflicted as per the eyewitnesses' version, then the court can draw adverse inference that the prosecution version is not trustworthy. This judgment is clearly attracted to the present case."

67. Similarly, in Bastiram v. State of Rajasthan [Bastiram v. State of Rajasthan, (2014) 5 SCC 398 : (2014) 2 SCC (Cri) 608] , it was observed: (SCC pp. 407 & 408, paras 33 & 36) "33. The question before us, therefore, is whether the "medical evidence" should be believed or whether the testimony of the eyewitnesses should be preferred? There is no doubt that ocular evidence should be accepted unless it is completely negated by the medical evidence. This principle has more recently been accepted in Gangabhavani v. Rayapati Venkat Reddy [Gangabhavani v. Rayapati Venkat Reddy, (2013) 15 SCC 298 :

(2014) 6 SCC (Cri) 182] .

*** 28 2026:JHHC:5093-DB

36. Similarly, a fact stated by a doctor in a post-mortem report could be rejected by a court relying on eyewitness testimony, though this would be quite infrequent. In Dayal Singh v. State of Uttaranchal [Dayal Singh v. State of Uttaranchal, (2012) 8 SCC 263 : (2012) 4 SCC (Civ) 424 : (2012) 3 SCC (Cri) 838 : (2012) 2 SCC (L&S) 583] , the post-mortem report and the oral testimony of the doctor who conducted that examination was that no internal or external injuries were found on the body of the deceased. This Court rejected the "medical evidence" and upheld the view of the trial court (and the High Court) that the testimony of the eyewitnesses supported by other evidence would prevail over the post-mortem report and testimony of the doctor. It was held: (SCC p. 286, para 41) "33. The question before us, therefore, is whether the "medical evidence" should be believed or whether the testimony of the eyewitnesses should be preferred? There is no doubt that ocular evidence should be accepted unless it is completely negated by the medical evidence. This principle has more recently been accepted in Gangabhavani v. Rayapati Venkat Reddy [Gangabhavani v. Rayapati Venkat Reddy, (2013) 15 SCC 298 :

(2014) 6 SCC (Cri) 182] .

***

78. Thus, from the aforesaid settled position of law, it is evident that in any event, unless the oral evidence is totally irreconcilable with the medical evidence, it has primacy and when it comes to Ocular 29 2026:JHHC:5093-DB Evidence and Medical Evidence being inconsistent with each other, the settled law is that the ocular evidence must be given primacy, unless medical evidence completely overrules the ocular evidence.

79. In the instant case the FIR was lodged promptly within two hours of the occurrence by P.W.1 injured eyewitness and the victim was died within two hours, therefore there was very less time available to the injured eyewitness to develop the story or falsely implicate the appellants. Further no where on record it has come that there was previous enmity between the sole injured eyewitness and the appellants.

80. So far as the variation between ocular evidence and medical evidence is concerned it is evident from post-mortem report that deceased was died of fire arm injuries. From the record it is evident that post-mortem of the deceased was carried within 4 hours of the alleged occurrence which would be evident from post-mortem report (Exhibit-2). Further from medical examination of the informant, it has been established that the injuries were also caused upon the informant by the firearm which would be evident from injury report (Ext.3 ) of the informant. Thus, from the aforesaid it is evident that the testimony of sole injured eyewitness on the material pointof the occurrence that the deceased was died due to firearm injuries has fully been substantiated by the medical evidence.

81. So far the variation on the point of shot from the from the front side or behind is concerned it is not very much significant in the light of cogent evidence available on record in form of the testimony of sole injured eyewitness. Further the opinion given by a medical witness need not be the last word on the subject and shall be tested by the court. If the 30 2026:JHHC:5093-DB opinion is bereft of logic or objectivity, the court is not obliged to follow that opinion. After all, opinion forms in a person's mind regarding a fact situation. If one doctor forms one opinion and another doctor forms a different opinion on the same facts, it is open to the Court to adopt the more objective or probable view. However due weight must be given to opinions given by persons who are experts in the particular subject and if the case involves this particular issue of law, one must sift through the evidence and frame the legal arguments as per the facts and circumstances of the case, while keeping in mind the importance of medical evidence.

82. We are conscious with the settled position of law as discussed and referred in the preceding paragraph that in cases where medical evidence completely overrules and makes the ocular evidence completely improbable, the evidence must be considered by the Court in that light and the ocular evidence may be disbelieved but herein the testimony of P.W.1 injured eyewitness having no material discrepancy.

83. Further in this case, the eyewitnesses had no motive to falsely implicate the accused/appellants and on the basis of discussion made hereinabove, discrepancies as raised by the learned counsel for the appellants, are not of such a nature as to render the testimony of the sole injured eyewitness unbelievable or unreliable.

84. Herein from perusal of the testimony of the P.W.11 it is evident that he has supported in his testimony about the motive of the said occurrence. This witness has specifically stated that deceased advised him to register the land in name of his daughter only. From the testimony 31 2026:JHHC:5093-DB of this witness the testimony of the P.W.1 on point of motive behind the crime has fully been established. Even in his cross-examination he had stated that he has no enmity with his son-in-law (co-accused Angad Singh).

85. As discussed hereinabove P.W.1 Rajesh Singh is sole injured eye-witness of the occurrence. According to the prosecution case as well as the materials available on the record, which have been discussed above, this witness was all along with the deceased. His presence has been established by the fact that he also received serious firearm injuries at the hands of the accused persons in the same occurrence. The evidence of the doctor (P.W.13) coupled with the post-mortem report and injury report (Exts. 2 & 3) respectively also confirms this fact. The doctor found injuries on the person of the dead body as well as on the informant of within four hours of the alleged occurrence and statement of the injured eyewitness who has high evidentiary value was also recorded promptly within two hours of the occurrence in the injured condition. There is nothing on the record to show that there was any imaginable reason for false implication of the accused persons/appellant herein by the informant for no rhyme or reason.

86. As discussed above the inconsistencies occurring in the manner of injuries are also not beyond plausible explanation. The Main inconsistency of the first short fired by the co-accused Angad Singh which was fired from front whereas doctor found wound of entrance at the left side of back.

87. It is apparent from the fardbeyan as well as evidence available on record that the occurrence took place all of a sudden and at a lonely 32 2026:JHHC:5093-DB place. The informant and the deceased were unarmed and accused persons all of a sudden attacked them. Naturally the informant, who himself also received grievous injury, must have been confused with the turn of events and in this condition, it would not be conceivable for anyone to actually judge shots and injuries. The shots were fired by the accused persons when the informant himself was laying on the ground under' serious injury. Above all, the informant and the doctor are in agreement on the main point that the deceased received firearm injury, which was the cause of his death.

88. Further as per the settled position of law as discussed and referred hereinabove in the preceding paragraphs that evidence of injured eyewitness has high probative value and the same cannot be discarded on the basis of irrelevant or minor discrepancies. Herein P.W.1 is victim of assault and fortunately he has survived, he must therefore, be considered as the unimpeachable eyewitness and his evidence cannot be thrown out on the basis of undue importance to minor discrepancies.

89. On the basis of discussions made hereinabove this Court is of the considered view that contention of the learned counsel for the appellant in relation to discrepancies between medical and ocular evidence is so vital that demolished the case of the prosecution, is not fit to be accepted herein.

90. It is settled position of law that in order to render any witnesses' testimony as unreliable, the inconsistencies shall be material one and of such a nature that they create substantive doubts in the mind of the court towards the story or the chain of events as sought to be established by the prosecution but herein the testimony of P.W.1 is unimpeachable and 33 2026:JHHC:5093-DB there is no chink in the prosecution case, therefore the benefit of doubt cannot be given to the appellants reason being that it is well-settled principle that the benefit of the doubt must be based on rational and cogent grounds and mere conjectures or irrelevant inconsistencies cannot form the basis for acquittal when the evidence, viewed as a whole, points to the guilt of the accused/appellants.

91 . This Court, after having discussed the factual aspect and legal position and considering the finding recorded by the learned trial Court, is of the view that the learned trial Court after giving its thoughtful consideration to the testimony of sole injured eye witness (P.W. 1) being corroborated by the testimony of doctor (P.W.13) and P.W.11 Satish Prasad Singh on point of motive has come to the conclusion that the prosecution has been able to prove the charge beyond all shadow of doubt against the present appellants, therefore, requires no interference by this Court.

92 . Accordingly, the instant appeals stand dismissed. 93 . Consequent upon dismissal of the appeals preferred by the appellants, since both the appellants are enjoying the suspension of sentence after the order being passed by this Court directing to release them during pendency of the appeal, their bail bonds are cancelled and they are directed to surrender before the learned trial Court for serving out the sentence inflicted upon them.

94. Needless to say, that if the appellants will not surrender, the trial Court will take endeavors for securing custody of the appellants to serve out the sentence as inflicted by the learned trial court. 34

2026:JHHC:5093-DB

95. Let the Lower Court Records be sent back to the Court concerned forthwith, along with the copy of this Judgment.

96. Accordingly, the instant appeal fails and is dismissed.

97. Pending interlocutory application(s), if any, also stands disposed of.

                      I agree                          (Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.)



                (Arun Kumar Rai, J.)                      (Arun Kumar Rai, J.)

Jharkhand High Court
Dated: 19 /02/2026
KNR/AFR
Uploaded On: 20/02/2026




                                                35

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Jharkhand High Court