Patna High Court
Gajadhar Kapri @ Gajadhar Mandal vs The State Of Bihar on 26 June, 2025
Author: Rajeev Ranjan Prasad
Bench: Rajeev Ranjan Prasad, Ashok Kumar Pandey
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL APPEAL (DB) No.654 of 2023
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-78 Year-2017 Thana- ANTICHAK District- Bhagalpur
======================================================
1. Gajadhar Kapri @ Gajadhar Mandal, S/O Late Suresh Kapri, R/O Village-
Rani Diyara, P.S- Ekchari, Distt.- Bhagalpur.
2. Jaikant Mandal, S/O Late Chamaklal Mandal, R/O Village- Authawan, P.S.-
Ekchari, Distt.- Bhagalpur.
... ... Appellants
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Respondent
======================================================
with
CRIMINAL APPEAL (DB) No. 686 of 2023
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-78 Year-2017 Thana- ANTICHAK District- Bhagalpur
======================================================
Rajesh Mandal @ Rajeev, Son of Bajrangi Mandal, Resident of Tofil, P.S.
Antichak, Dist- Bhagalpur.
... ... Appellant
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Respondent
=====================================================
with
CRIMINAL APPEAL (DB) No. 692 of 2023
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-78 Year-2017 Thana- ANTICHAK District- Bhagalpur
======================================================
Chamolal Mandal @ Chamulal Mandal @ Chamaklal Mandal, Son of Late
Soti Mandal, Resident of Village- Anthawan, PS- Ekchari, Distt- Bhagalpur.
... ... Appellant
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Respondent
======================================================
Appearance :
(In CRIMINAL APPEAL (DB) No. 654 of 2023)
For the Appellant/s : Mr. Ranjan Kumar Jha, Advocate
Mr. Rana Pratap Singh, Advocate
Mr. Vikas Kumar, Advocate
For the Respondent/s : Mr. Bipin Kumar, Addl.PP
(In CRIMINAL APPEAL (DB) No. 686 of 2023)
For the Appellant/s : Mr. Pravin Kumar Sinha, Advocate
Mr. Suresh Chand Giri, Advocate
For the Respondent/s : Mr. Bipin Kumar, Addl.PP
(In CRIMINAL APPEAL (DB) No. 692 of 2023)
For the Appellant/s : Mr. Praveen Kumar, Advocate
Mr. Ravi Prakash Dwivedi, Advocate
Mr. Raushan Kumar, Advocate
For the Respondent/s : Mr. Bipin Kumar, Addl.PP
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.654 of 2023 dt.26-06-2025
2/28
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJEEV RANJAN PRASAD
and
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK KUMAR PANDEY
ORAL JUDGMENT
(Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJEEV RANJAN PRASAD)
Date : 26-06-2025
Heard learned counsel for the appellants and learned
Additional Public Prosecutor for the State in all the three appeals.
2. The present three appeals have been preferred for
setting aside the judgment of conviction dated 06.05.2023
(hereinafter referred to as the 'impugned judgment') and the order
of sentence dated 29.05.2023 (hereinafter referred to as the
'impugned order') passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge-II,
Bhagalpur (hereinafter called the 'learned trial court') in S.T. Case
No. 392 of 2018 arising out of Antichak P.S. Case No. 78 of 2017.
3. By the impugned judgment and order, the appellants
have been convicted and sentenced as under:-
Under (Gajadhar Kapri @
Section Gajadhar Mandal
302 read
with 149 Jaikant Mandal)
IPC appellants in Cr. Appeal
(DB) No. 654 of 2023 Life In default of
imprisonment payment of
(Rajesh Mandal @ with fine of fine, they have
Rajeev Mandal) Rs.10,000/- to further under
appellant in Cr. Appeal one year
(DB) No.686 of 2023 imprisonment
Chamolal Mandal
appellant in Cr. Appeal
(DB) No.692 of 2023
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.654 of 2023 dt.26-06-2025
3/28
Under Gajadhar Kapri @ Imprisonment In default of
Section Gajadhar Mandal for Five years payment of
27(i) of with a fine of fine, they have
the Arms Jaikant Mandal Rs.5,000/- to further under
Act six (06) months
imprisonment
Prosecution Case
4. The prosecution story is based on the fardbeyan of
Sitaram Yadav (PW-4) recorded by S.I. Rajesh Kumar Antichak
P.S. on 07.11.2017 at 14:00 Hours at Nawada More P.S. Antichak.
In his fardbeyan, PW-4 has stated that on 07.11.2017 at 06:00 AM
his son Kakku Yadav @ Nilamber Yadav with two labourers
namely, (1) Lakshman Yadav and (2) Saudagar Mandal loaded
grains on his tractor and went for Kahalgaon. His son was driving.
At about 12:10 PM his bhanja Nirbhay Yadav gave information on
phone that his son Kakku Yadav has been shot and killed by
cutting with sharp weapon. Then, the informant asked him if he is
dead or alive to which his bhanja replied that he is dead.
Thereafter, the informant informed Buddhuchak Police Station
that his son has been killed near Nawada More. Thereafter, the
informant along with Chattu Mandal went near Nawad More
where he saw his son was lying in roadside field. Thereafter,
Lakshman Yadav told him that when they reached at Nawada More
at 08:00 AM, one tyre of the tractor blew out. They took out the
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.654 of 2023 dt.26-06-2025
4/28
punctured tyre and sent the same to Oriop. In the meantime, Kakku
Yadav called his fua to cook food. Thereafter, they went to the
house of his fua and ate food. At around 11:00 AM, when they
returned, Kakku Yadav and Chattu Mandal went on motorcycle to
Oriop to get the tyre. At 11:45 AM, when they were fitting the tyre
then, accused persons, namely, (1) Gajadhar Kapri (2) Jaikant
Mandal (3) Rajeev Mandal (brother-in-law of Gajadhar Kapri) and
(4) Anjani Mandal came. Gajadhar took Kakku Yadav down the
road by putting gamcha thereafter Jaikant Mandal shot at the thigh
of kakku Yadav, thereafter Gajadhar shot at kanpatti of Kakku
Yadav and once again Jaikant fired as a result of which Kakku
Yadav fell on the ground. Thereafter, Rajeev Mandal cut his throat
by dabiya and Anjani Mandal cut his throat by an axe. On hulla,
people started assembling, in the meantime, two persons who were
on motorcycle was saying not to left him alive. Thereafter, all left
on two motorcycles by riding three persons on each. The two
persons who were already on the motorcycle were Manoj and
Chamolal Mandal.
5. On the basis of this written application, Antichak P.S.
Case No. 78 of 2017 dated 07.11.2017 was registered under
Sections 302/120(B)/34 IPC and Section 27 of the Arms Act. After
investigation, Police submitted chargesheet bearing No. 15 of 2018
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.654 of 2023 dt.26-06-2025
5/28
dated 10.05.2018 against these appellants under Sections
302/120B/34 IPC and Section 27 of the Arms Act keeping
investigation pending against (1) Manoj Tani and (2) Anjani
Mandal. On the basis of the chargesheet, learned A.C.J.M.-XIV,
Bhagalpur took cognizance of the offences vide order dated
14.05.2018. Charges were read over and explained to the appellants in Hindi to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. Accordingly, vide order dated 04.07.2018, charges were framed under Sections 302/149 IPC and 27 of the Arms Act.
6. In course of trial, the prosecution examined as many as thirteen witnesses and exhibited several documents to prove its' case. The list of the prosecution witnesses and the exhibits produced on behalf of the prosecution are being shown hereunder in tabular form:-
List of Prosecution Witnesses PW-1 Nirbhay Yadav PW-2 Saudagar Mandal PW-3 Laxman Yadav PW-4 Ramdhari Yadav PW-5 Sitaram Yadav PW-6 Subodh Yadav PW-7 Binod Kumar Yadav PW-8 Brahmdev Chaudhary PW-9 Sukhdeo Prasad Yadav PW-10 Dr. Rajeev Ranjan PW-11 Rajesh Kumar PW-12 Sanjeev Kant PW-13 Chiranjiv Lal Tiriya Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.654 of 2023 dt.26-06-2025 6/28 List of Exhibits brought on behalf of the Prosecution Exhibit 1 Signature of witness Laxman Yadv over seizure list Exhibit 2 Signature of the informant Sitaram Yadav over Fardbeyan Exhibit 2/1 Signature of witness Laxman Yadav over Fardbeyan Exhibit 3 Postmortem report of the deceased Exhibit 2/2 Contents of Fardbeyan Exhibit 2/3 Endorsement over Fardbeyan Exhibit 4 Formal FIR Exhibit 5 Inquest Report Exhibit 6 Seizure List Exhibit 7 Map of the place of occurrence Exhibit 8 Paragraph 63 and 64 of the case diary Exhibit 9 Chargesheet Exhibit 10 Test report of seized articles List of Material Exhibits Material Exhibit 1 Fired cartridge Material Exhibit 2 Slipper Material Exhibit 2/1 Mobile Phone Findings of the learned Trial Court
7. Learned trial court after analysing the evidences on the record found that the death of the deceased was caused due to four injuries found on his body regarding which it has come in the post mortem report that these injuries are grievous and dangerous to life in ordinary course of nature and caused by sharp heavy weapon such as dabiya, axe and firearm. Learned trial court found that when the accused fired on temple and chest of the deceased, Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.654 of 2023 dt.26-06-2025 7/28 they were well aware that by their act, such bodily injury will be caused which will result in the death of the deceased. Learned trial court also found that the act of firing bullet on temple and chest of the deceased as also cutting his throat by sharp edged weapon clearly shows the intention of the accused to cause death. Accordingly, the act of the accused comes under the purview of Section 300 IPC i.e. the death of the deceased Kakku Yadav is such culpable homicide which amounting to murder.
8. Learned trial court further found from the evidences of the eye witnesses that firearms had been used by accused Jaikant and Gajadhar. Cartridge was recovered from the place of occurrence. Learned trial court observed that though the firearm has not been recovered but the recovery of the firearm is not always necessary for conviction of the accused, specifically in the cases, where it has been proved that the accused fired the shot by firearm and caused death of the deceased. Accordingly, the act of using firearm by accused Gajadhar and Jaikant falls under the ambit of first part of Section 27 of the Arms Act.
9. Learned trial court after carefully examining the evidences available on the record convicted all the appellants under Section 302 read with 149 IPC and further convicted Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.654 of 2023 dt.26-06-2025 8/28 Gajadhar Kapri @ Gajadhar Mandal and Jaikant Mandal under Section 27(i) of the Arms Act.
Submissions on behalf of the appellants
10. Learned counsel(s) for the appellants have assailed the impugned judgment and order on various grounds. Mr. Ranjan Kumar Jha, learned counsel representing the appellants in Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 654 of 2023, submits that in this case, the learned trial court could not appreciate that the prosecution had not examined the FIR named witnesse, namely, Chhattu Mandal who was said to be present with the deceased at the time and date of occurrence. According to him, the informant is not an eyewitness of the occurrence, he got the information from his nephew Nirbhay Yadav about the murder of his son Kakku Yadav.
11. Learned counsel submits that Nirbhay Yadav (PW-1) who had informed about the occurrence to the informant has been declared hostile by the prosecution on the point of identification of the accused persons. It is submitted that PW-2, PW-3 and PW-4, who claimed themselves as eyewitnesses of the occurrence, are actually not the eyewitnesses. It is submitted that PW-2 and PW-4 have stated that they fled due to fear in their cross-examination.
12. Learned counsel submits that the informant and the deceased both were convicted in the murder case of Santosh and it Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.654 of 2023 dt.26-06-2025 9/28 has come in the statement of the accused recorded under section 313 CrPC that in the quarrel between the informant side and the said Santosh over ploughing of a piece of land, the appellants had intervened and that is the reason why the appellants have been falsely implicated in this case.
13. Learned counsel submits that the learned trial court could not appreciate that after getting the information about the killing of the deceased son, the informant had informed/intimated the Budhu Chak Police Station first and after reaching at the place of occurrence, he had made fardbeyan before Antichak Police Station. The information/intimation before Budhu Chak Police Station is not available on the record.
14. Mr. Praveen Kumar Sinha, learned counsel for the appellant in Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 686 of 2023 has assailed the impugned judgment and order on the ground that the prosecution has failed to properly prove the place of occurrence and there are material contradictions in the statement of the prosecution witnesses.
15. It is submitted that the learned trial court has not considered the materials on the record in which it has come that the death of the deceased was caused by gunshot injury whereas the appellant was holding hasua which caused sharp cut wound Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.654 of 2023 dt.26-06-2025 10/28 margin 3" x 1/2" x muscle deep over left surface of upper part of neck behind left ear and death was caused due to hemorrhage and shock due to firearm.
16. It is further submitted that there is no independent witness in this case and the whole prosecution case has been proved on the basis of the statements of interested witnesses who are either informant or his relatives.
17. Arguing on behalf of the appellant Chamolal Mandal @ Chamulal Mandal @ Chamaklal Mandal in Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 692 of 2023, learned counsel submits that so far as this appellant is concerned, he is not the assailant of the deceased. It has also not been established that this appellant was member of the unlawful assembly. The only witness namely PW-3 has stated that this appellant was on a motorcycle and he asked the accused persons to cut the neck of the deceased and bring it but this statement of PW-3 is not corroborated by another witness namely PW-2 who claims himself an eyewitness of the occurrence.
Submissions on behalf of the State
18. On the other hand, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State submits that in this case Saudagar Mandal (PW-2) and Laxman Yadav (PW-3) are the labourers who were present on the tractor with the deceased, they have deposed as Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.654 of 2023 dt.26-06-2025 11/28 eyewitnesses of the occurrence. They have proved their presence with the deceased and have also proved the place of occurrence. It is submitted that while cross-examining PW-2 and PW-3, the defence did not set up a case that they were not present on the spot or that they could not have seen the occurrence. PW-2 has stated that he had concealed himself beneath the tractor and from there he had seen the occurrence. The defence has not suggested that from beneath the tractor he could not have seen the occurrence. PW-3 has stated about the manner of occurrence, though he claims to have assaulted one of the assailants with an iron rod but the defence has not questioned his presence at the place of occurrence.
19. It is submitted that Ramdhari Yadav (PW-4) is an independent witness, though, comes in the category of a chance witness. The defence suggested PW-4 that he was named in the murder case of Sakhi Chand @ Prayag Mandal but the witness denied this suggestion. The defence suggested PW-4 that he had been sent to jail in connection with the said case and he came out on bail in appeal but that suggestion was also denied and finally, the witness denied this suggestion that the said case was lodged by a relative of Gajadhar, namely, Lakhan Lal Mandal and for that reason, Gajadhar and others have been falsely implicated in this case. It is pointed out that the defence has not led any evidence to Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.654 of 2023 dt.26-06-2025 12/28 show that this witness was an accused in the murder case of Sakhi Chand @ Prayag Mandal. It is also pointed out that the defence has advanced different reasons for the lodgement of the case and no connection has been shown between Sakhi Chand @ Prayag Mandal and this witness.
20. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor further submits that the plea of the defence that PW-2 and PW-3 who were present with the deceased had not given telephonic information to the informant about the occurrence would create doubt over their presence is not fit to be accepted because in course of their cross- examination, no question was put to these witnesses that whether they were having mobiles with them, therefore, if they did not make a call to the informant that alone cannot be said to be an unnatural conduct. It has come in evidence that when the tractor got punctured and it stopped near the place of occurrence then the deceased along with two witnesses had gone to the village of his bua (mother of Nirbhay Yadav-PW-1). On this point also, no contradiction has been taken from the prosecution witnesses.
21. It is submitted that though PW-1 has been declared hostile on the point of identification of the accused but he has stated that when he was going to Kahalgaon by his motorcycle and reached at Nawada More then he heard the sound of firing. He has Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.654 of 2023 dt.26-06-2025 13/28 further stated that he got frightened and stopped there, then he saw that from the place of occurrence, six persons were fleeing away by motorcycle and they were having hasua and gun in their hand. When he went to the place of occurrence, he found that Kakku Yadav was lying dead then he had given a mobile call to the father of the deceased. He has stated to have given telephonic information to the informant. He was also examined by the I.O. in course of investigation. The prosecution cross-examined him limited to the identification of the accused, however, when the defence cross-examined this witness, he has denied the suggestion that he had not seen the occurrence and he was not going by motorcycle anywhere.
22. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State further submits that all incriminating materials which were brought by the prosecution on record were brought to the notice of the accused persons who have stated that they were implicated because of the prior enmity. The evidence of PW-2 and PW-3 are fully corroborated by the medical evidence.
23. So far as the appealant Chamolal Mandal @ Chamulal Mandal @ Chamaklal Mandal is concerned, the learned APP submits that one Laxman Yadav (PW-3), who is an eyewitness of the occurrence, has stated that Manoj Tanti and Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.654 of 2023 dt.26-06-2025 14/28 Chamolal Mandal were saying to cut the neck and bring it. It is, however, not contested that so far as PW-2 is concerned, he has not taken the name of Chamolal Mandal @ Chamulal Mandal @ Chamaklal Mandal and the chance witness (PW-4) has also not taken the name of this appellant. It is submitted that in his fardbeyan the informant has stated that he had informed about the occurrence to Budhu Chak Police Station saying that his son Kakku Yadav had been murdered near Nawada More and he was going to the said place. The informant claimed that he requested the said police officer to come to his house. It is submitted that the place of occurrence, in this case falls within the jurisdiction of Antichak Police Station, therefore, the fardbeyan of the informant was recorded by S.I. Rajesh Kumar (PW-11) of Antichak Police Station on the same date of occurrence at 14:00 Hrs. While cross- examining the informant (PW-5), the defence did not invite his attention about the information given by him to Budhu Chak Police Station, moreover this Court finds that the informant has well explained in his fardbeyan what he has informed to Budhu Chak Police Station. This has not been questioned by the defence.
Consideration
24. Having heard learned counsel for the appellants and learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State as also on Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.654 of 2023 dt.26-06-2025 15/28 perusal of the records, we find that the informant (PW-5) is the father of the deceased. He is not an eyewitness of the occurrence. He got information about the alleged occurrence from his bhagina Nirbhay Yadav (PW-1) on 07.11.2017 at 12:10 Hrs. The information was given over the telephone and thereafter he reached the place of occurrence near Nawada More. He found that his son Kakku Yadav @ Nilambar Yadav was lying dead in the field at the edge of the road. He was informed by Laxman Yadav (PW-3) about the occurrence. Laxman Yadav disclosed to him the names of four accused persons who had come at about 11:45 AM. Gajadhar Kapri put a towel/gamcha in the neck of Kakku Yadav and took him down to the road whereafter Jaikant Mandal shot at the thigh of Kakku Yadav, Gajadhar Kapri fired at the temporal region of the deceased and then second firing was again done by Jaikant Mandal whereafter Kakku Yadav had fallen down on the earth and after he fell down, the brother-in-law of Gajadhar Kapri cut the neck of the deceased by a dabiya and Anjani Mandal also cut the neck by an axe. On hulla, the accused persons fled away on two motorcycles, three on each of the motorcycles. It is stated that two persons were already there on the motorcycle who were (i) Manoj Tanti; and (ii) Chamolal Mandal. The fardbeyan of Sitaram Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.654 of 2023 dt.26-06-2025 16/28 Yadav (PW-5) has been recorded by Rajesh Kumar, Sub-Inspector of Police, which has been marked Exhibit '2/2'.
25. On the basis of the said fardbeyan, FIR was lodged giving rise to the present case on 07.11.2017 at 5:00 PM. From the formal FIR, it appears that information with regard to the occurrence was received in the police station at 12:15 PM. The village of the informant is at a distance of 4-5 km only from the place of occurrence.
26. From the records, it appears that the four appellants of this case were charged for the offences under Sections 302/149 IPC and Section 27 of the Arms Act.
27. From the evidences available on the record, it appears that Saudagar Mandal (PW-2) and Laxman Mandal (PW-
3) are the two labourers who claimed that they were present with the deceased at the time of occurrence. They had loaded the tractor and had left with the deceased in the morning. PW-2 has stated that at the time of occurrence, he was on the tractor at Nawada More and he had lifted the tractor for placing the wheels, in the meantime, Gajadhar Kapri came and put a towel in the neck of Kakku and slammed him down and thereafter, Jaikant Mandal fired on Kakku which hit on his thigh, Gajadhar shot at the temporal region of the deceased and Rajiv Mandal cut the neck by Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.654 of 2023 dt.26-06-2025 17/28 a hasua. He has stated that Anjani Mandal had assaulted by tengari on the backside of the neck. Being frightened of the same, he fled away whereafter, when the public came, then he also reached. His statement was recorded by police. In his cross- examination, he has stated that when the accused persons came armed with pistol, then he got frightened and he put himself beneath the tractor. The accused Gajadhar had put towel on the neck of the deceased and took him down the pitch road, the said place is about five feet deep, he had seen the occurrence from beneath the tractor. He has stated that he had no litigation with Rajiv Mandal and he was not aware that there was any litigation between Kakku and Gajadhar. He has further stated in his cross- examination that he was working with Kakku for the last two years and on the date of occurrence, he had gone to the place of Kakku at 6:00 AM, Kakku was himself driving the tractor. They had reached Nawada More at about 9:00 AM. They were going to Kahalgaon by the tractor and maize and raicha (mustard) were loaded on the tractor. The tractor had got punctured at a distance of about one rope before Nawada More. The plot is just adjacent to the edge of the road which was parti and ploughed. There were signs of pulling away of the deceased in the field. Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.654 of 2023 dt.26-06-2025 18/28
28. PW-2 has further stated in his cross-examination that after the occurrence police had brought him, Laxman and Chhatu to the Police Station where papers were prepared and his thumb impression were taken. He denied this suggestion of the defence that before police he had stated that at the time of occurrence, he was at Nawada More near the tractor. He also denied the suggestion that he had made statement before police that at the time of occurrence, he had put the tractor in lifted condition with a jack. He denied the suggestion that because he was working with Kakku, therefore he was falsely deposing. This witness did not identify Chamolal Mandal. The evidence of the I.O. (PW-11) would show that he had proved the endorsement made on the FIR and the signature of the informant and witness Laxman Yadav and Chhatu Mandal. At his instance, Exhibit '2', Exhibit '2/1' and Exhibit '2/3' had been marked. The formal FIR has been marked as Exhibit '4'. He had himself investigated the case. PW-11 had conducted the inspection of the place of occurrence and prepared the inquest report. He has proved the inquest report which has been marked Exhibit '5'.
29. PW-11 has stated that at the place of occurrence he had seized empty cartridge on the 'base' of which BMS and KF were written. On the 'base' there was a sign of fired tip. He had Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.654 of 2023 dt.26-06-2025 19/28 seized one blue, yellow and red color slipper of the left leg, he had seized blood stained soil and one black color Samsung mobile with SIM Number 7282851776 and SIM Number 9973249885. PW-11 has proved the seizure list (Exhibit '6'). He has also given the boundary of the place of occurrence. In paragraph '3' he has stated that in the east of the place of occurrence, there is house of Prabhu Yadav and the place of occurrence is at a distance of 50 meter from the house of Prabhu Yadav, at the west end tractor was standing. He had prepared the najri naksha of the place of occurrence which has been marked Exhibit '7'. As regards the statements made by Saudagar Mandal in paragraph '15', this witness has stated that in course of investigation, he had not stated that he was at Nawada More near the tractor. He had not stated that the tractor was kept lifted on the jack and he had not stated that Kakku was put down by a towel/gamcha rather this witness had stated before the I.O. that Gajadhar Kapri, Jayant Mandal, Rajiv Mandal and Anjani Mandal came and they pulled away Kakku down the road.
30. It is evident from the statement of PW-2 and the statement of the I.O. (PW-11) that so far as presence of PW-2 at the place of occurrence is concerned, no doubt has been created by the defence. There is a minor discrepancy in the statement of PW-2 Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.654 of 2023 dt.26-06-2025 20/28 as regards the position of the tractor but it is evident that the tractor was standing at a distance of only 50 meter from the house of Prabhu Yadav and the plot in which the killing had taken place was just adjacent to the road. PW-11 has duly proved the place of occurrence and no doubt has been created by the defence with regard to the place of occurrence as disclosed by the prosecution.
31. Laxman Yadav (PW-3) is another eyewitness of the occurrence. This witness has also stated that they were trying to lift the trailer with the help of jack, in the meantime, Gajadhar Kapri put gamcha in the neck of Kakku and thereafter all the four accused persons took Kakku to the side of the road. He has stated that Jaikant shot at Kakku which hit his leg whereafter Kakku fell down then Gajadhar Kapri shot at his kanpati, Jaikant Mandal shot at his chest and then Anjani Mandal and Rajiv Mandal cut the neck by hasua. This witness has further stated that Anjani and Chamolal Mandal were saying to bring the chopped neck of Kakku. He is one of the seizure list witnesses and has proved his signature on the seizure list which has been marked Exhibit '1'. Again this Court finds that the date, time, place and manner of occurrence as stated by PW-3 is consistent with the evidence of PW-2. His statement that he had assaulted Jaikant by iron rod has been contradicted by the I.O. that he had not stated so in course of Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.654 of 2023 dt.26-06-2025 21/28 investigation but that would not result in disbelieving the witness as a whole. In India, the legal maxim 'Falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus' i.e. false in one thing, false in everything does not apply as a rule of law in India. To this Court, it appears that the eyewitness testimony of PW-2 and PW-3 are not in doubt. The defence is not able to draw any material contradiction in the evidence of PW-2 and PW-3. Once again referring to the evidence of PW-11, this Court finds that the defence has not taken any contradiction from the I.O. with regard to the material part of the evidence of PW-3. His presence at the place of occurrence and the manner of occurrence as stated by him remained intact.
32. Ramdhari Yadav (PW-4) is a chance witness. He has stated that he was going to his home in Taufil Diyara and when he reached near Nawada More, he found that four persons had caught Kakku Yadav and one person was sitting on the bike whose name was Manoj Tanti. He has identified Jaikant Mandal, Gajadhar Mandal, Anjani Mandal and Rajesh Mandal. He has stated that Jaikant Mandal shot at first which hit Kakku at his thigh, the second fire was done by Jaikant which hit on the chest of the Kakku and Gajadhar Mandal shot at the kanpati whereafter Anjani and Rajesh assaulted Kakku by kulhari and hasua. Manoj Tanti was saying to bring the chopped neck of the deceased. His Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.654 of 2023 dt.26-06-2025 22/28 statement was recorded before the I.O. In his cross-examination, he has stated that he was standing at a distance of 25 feet from the place of occurrence and the plot is three feet down from the road. He is not related to Kakku Yadav and he was not a friend of Kakku Yadav, he was not even on visiting terms with Kakku Yadav. His attention was drawn towards his previous statements made before police, however, this Court finds that PW-11 has contradicted PW- 5 only on a trivial issue that he had not stated in course of investigation that four persons were hanging with the deceased. PW-11 has stated that the witness had stated before him in course of investigation that Gajadhar Kapri had put a towel in the neck of Kakku Yadav and took him down to the road and the accused Jaikant Mandal present at that place shot at Kakku whereafter Gajadhar Kapri had also shot at Kakku.
33. The informant has been examined as PW-5. He is not an eyewitness of the occurrence but he has deposed as to the circumstances which were present at the place of occurrence when he reached there. He has stated in his cross-examination that he and his son Kakku Yadav were convicted in the murder case of Santosh Kumar. PW-6, PW-7, PW-8 and PW-9 have been declared hostile.
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.654 of 2023 dt.26-06-2025 23/28
34. Dr. Rajiv Ranjan (PW-10) was posted at Jawaharlal Nehru Medical College and Hospital, Bhagalpur on 07.11.2017, he conducted postmortem on the dead body of Kakku Yadav. He found the following injuries:-
(1) One sharp cut 1" x 1/8" was present over top of left middle finger.
(2) One sharp cut wound 3" x 1/8" was present over left forearm (3) One sharp cut wound with inverted margin 3" x 1/2" x muscle deep was present over left surface of upper part of neck behind left ear.
(4) One blackened, burned hand like parchment area 3" x 2"
was present over anterior surface of left upper chest wall. (5) One wound of entry with inverted margin and blackened margin 1/4" x 1/4" prime prime was present over lateral surface of mid of right thigh. Bullet was pierced muscle and exit through wound 2" x 1" with everted margin over medial surface of right thigh.
(6) One wound of entry 1/4" x 1/4" with inverted and blackened margin was present over left side of omipetal bone behind left ear. Bullet pierced brain matter base of skull and breaked zygomatic bone and exit through wound 1/2" x 1/2"
with everted margin over right surface of face and situated 1½ anterior to right ear.
(7) One wound of entry 1/4" x 1/4" with inverted and blackened margin was present over anterior surface of right chest wall. 4" above right nipple. Bullet pierced subcutaneous tissue and exit through wound 1/2" x 1/2" over right armpit. In his deposition, PW-10 has stated that all the above injuries were antemortem. Injury nos. 1, 2 and 4 were simple but injury nos. 3, 5, 6 and 7 were grievous and dangerous to life in ordinary course of nature and caused by sharp heavy weapon and firearm such as dabiya and axe. Time since death has been assessed between six to twelve hours from time of postmortem examination. Postmortem report has been proved as Exhibit '3'. In Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.654 of 2023 dt.26-06-2025 24/28 his cross-examination, he has stated that he had not mentioned bullet because he had not found the bullet into the body and further he had given the time of postmortem as 8:40 PM in his report. He denied the suggestion that he had conducted the autopsy in unscientific manner and his report is collusive.
35. The I.O. (PW-11) has stated that in course of investigation he had recorded the statement of the prosecution witnesses who supported the prosecution case. He had sent the dead body for postmortem which he had received. He had obtained the criminal antecedent of Gajadhar Kapri and Jaikant Mandal which is mentioned in paragraph '63' and '64' of the case diary. He has proved the same as Exhibit '8'. On perusal of Exhibit '8' it appears that Gajadhar Kapri has got as many as nine criminal antecedents including cases under Sections 386/ 323/ 34 and cases under Sections 302/201/34 IPC and Section 27 of the Arms Act. These cases have been lodged and he has been chargesheeted in these cases which are during the period of 2005 to 2019. The criminal antecedent of Jaikant Mandal has been mentioned in paragraph '64' which is part of the evidence and according to this, the appellant Jaikant Mandal has got five criminal antecedent of similar kind.
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.654 of 2023 dt.26-06-2025 25/28
36. Sanjeev Kant (PW-12) was the Deputy Superintendent of Police in Police Centre, Bhagalpur on 27.03.2018. The seized empty cartridge was produced before him for physical examination. He has examined the Exhibit 'A' which is a 315 mm bore empty cartridge on the base of which AF 8mm was inscribed and there was sign of firing pin on the base of it. He had given the report on Exhibit 'A' which has been marked Exhibit '10'.
37. Chiranjeev Lal Tiriya (PW-13) has proved three material exhibits which were in sealed conditions in two envelopes and one bag of cloth which were duly sealed. In the cloth bag M.R.-05/17 was written and there was a brass fired cartridge of rifle on the base of which BMM and KF was written. In the second material exhibit, one slipper and in the third material exhibit, one black colour Samsung mobile phone were found which were marked material exhibit '2' and material exhibit '3' respectively.
38. This Court further finds that the materials brought by the prosecution in course of trial were brought to the notice of the accused persons-appellants who denied the same and pleaded innocence. Accused Rajesh Mandal @ Rajeev has stated that when Kakku Yadav and Sitaram Mandal were ploughing the field of Santosh Yadav then he had opposed the same. Similar statement Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.654 of 2023 dt.26-06-2025 26/28 has been given by Gajadhar Kapri, Chamolal Mandal and Jaikant Mandal.
39. We have reappraised the entire evidences available on the record and have also gone through the judgment of the learned trial court. To this Court, it appears that so far as the complicity of the three appellants Gajadhar Kapri, Jaikant Mandal and Rajeev Mandal are concerned, the prosecution witnesses particularly the eyewitnesses are consistent about their role in the alleged occurrence. The prosecution has not been able to create any dent in the evidence of PW-2 and PW-3 who are the eyewitnesses of the occurrence. The date and time of occurrence as well as the place and manner of occurrence have been duly proved by the prosecution. The inquest report (Exhibit '5') and postmortem report (Exhibit '3') are fully corroborating the ocular evidence of PW-2 and PW-3. There is no iota of doubt that the injuries inflicted on the body of the deceased were caused with intention and knowledge of having such bodily injury which resulted in the death of the son of the informant.
40. The impugned judgment and order of the learned trial court insofar as it relates to Gajadhar Kapri, Jaikant Mandal and Rajesh Mandal are concerned, this Court finds no reason to interfere with the same.
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.654 of 2023 dt.26-06-2025 27/28
41. This Court would, however, record that so far as the complicity of appellant Chamolal Mandal is concerned, the prosecution is not able to prove the charges against him beyond all reasonable doubts. In the fardbeyan the informant has stated that when he reached at the place of occurrence, he was told about the occurrence by Laxman Yadav (PW-3). In the fardbeyan, only four persons have been named who had allegedly committed the occurrence. Chamolal Mandal is not named in the fardbeyan.
42. So far as Saudagar Mandal (PW-2) is concerned, in his examination-in-chief he has not named Chamolal Mandal. It is Laxman Yadav (PW-3) who has stated in his examination-in-chief that Manoj Tanti and Chamolal Mandal were asking to bring the chopped neck of Kakku. As regards this statement he was cross- examined on behalf of Chamolal Mandal. In his cross-examination his attention was drawn towards his statements made before the I.O. in which he had not stated that Chamolal Mandal was asking to bring the chopped neck of the deceased. PW-3 denied the suggestion but then the I.O. (PW-11) has stated that the witness Ramdhari Yadav had not stated before him that Manoj was asking to bring the chopped neck of Kakku Yadav. At this stage, this Court would notice that Ramdhari Yadav (PW-4) has also not named Chamolal Mandal in his examination-in-chief. In the Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.654 of 2023 dt.26-06-2025 28/28 opinion of this Court so far as the guilt of Chamolal Mandal is concerned, it has not been duly proved by the prosecution beyond all reasonable doubts, hence the judgment of conviction and order of sentence as regards Chamolal Mandal @ Chamulal Mandal @ Chamaklal Mandal cannot sustain the test of law.
43. In result, Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 654 of 2023 and Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 686 of 2023 are dismissed. The appellants Gajadhar Kapri @ Gajadhar Mandal, Jaikant Mandal and Rajesh Mandal @ Rajeev would undergo the remaining sentence.
44. Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 692 of 2023 (Chamolal Mandal @ Chamulal Mandal @ Chamaklal Mandal) is allowed. The impugned judgment as regards this appellant is set aside. The appellant is already on bail, he and his sureties are discharged from the liability of their bail bonds.
45. A copy of the judgment of this Court together with the trial court records be sent down to the learned trial court.
(Rajeev Ranjan Prasad, J) (Ashok Kumar Pandey, J) SUSHMA2/-
AFR/NAFR CAV DATE Uploading Date 01.07.2025 Transmission Date 01.07.2025