Patna High Court

Ram Suresh Yadav @ Langa Yadav @ Ram Suresh SinghversusThe State Of Bihar

Decided: 8 July 2026
Disposal: ALLOWED
Bench: BIBEK CHAUDHURI CHANDRA SHEKHAR JHA

Holding

The conviction of the appellant under IPC s.302 and Arms Act s.27 is set aside and he is acquitted.

Summary

The appellant, Ram Suresh Yadav, was convicted for murder (IPC s.302) and illegal possession of arms (Arms Act s.27) stemming from a panchayat election dispute that led to the killing of Ranjeet Rai. The prosecution relied on testimonies of several relatives and associates of the deceased, who were alleged to be chance witnesses but whose presence at the scene was doubtful and whose statements contained material contradictions. The defence argued that the witnesses were interested, the evidence was inconsistent, and the prosecution failed to prove the appellant’s participation beyond reasonable doubt. The High Court examined the credibility of the witnesses, the lack of corroboration, and relevant Supreme Court precedents on chance witnesses and benefit of doubt. Finding the evidence insufficient and unreliable, the Court set aside the conviction, acquitted the appellant, and ordered his release.

Issues considered

The credibility and reliability of the prosecution witnesses, many of whom were relatives or had inimical relations with the appellant.
Whether the prosecution proved the appellant’s participation in the murder beyond reasonable doubt.
Whether the inconsistencies in witness testimonies and lack of corroborative forensic evidence warrant overturning the conviction.

Legislation cited

Arms Act — s. 27
Criminal Procedure Code — s. 207, 209, 313, 374(2)
Indian Penal Code — s. 120B, 302, 34

Subjects

murder
political rivalry
witness credibility
chance witness
benefit of doubt
acquittal
Arms Act
IPC
criminal appeal
evidence
election dispute

Judgment

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL APPEAL (DB) No.1196 of 2018
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-121 Year-2011 Thana- RAJPUR District- Buxar
======================================================
Ram Suresh Yadav @ Langa Yadav @ Ram Suresh Singh Son of
Baliram Yadav, Resident of Village- Sarenja, P.S.- Rajpur, District-
Buxar.
... ... Appellant
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Respondent
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Appellant/s : Mr.Rajendra Narain, Sr. Advocate
Mr.Rashmi Bharti, Advocate
For the Respondent/s : Mr.Shashi Bala Verma, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BIBEK CHAUDHURI
and
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE CHANDRA SHEKHAR JHA
CAV JUDGMENT
(Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE CHANDRA SHEKHAR JHA)

Date : 08-07-2026

Heard Mr. Rajendra Narain, learned senior advocate

appearing on behalf of the appellant and Mrs. Shashi Bala

Verma, learned A.P.P. for the State.

2. The present appeal preferred under section 374(2) of

the Cr.P.C. against the impugned judgment of conviction dated

29.08.2018 and order of sentence dated 31.08.2018, passed by

learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, VI, Buxar

passed in S. Tr. No. 114 of 2016 arising out of Rajpur P.S. Case

No. 121 of 2011, whereby and whereunder the appellant was

convicted for the offences punishable under section 302 of the

Indian Penal Code (in short the “I.P.C.”) and ordered to undergo
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.1196 of 2018 dt.08-07-2026
2/46

rigorous imprisonment for life and also the fine of Rs. 25,000/-,

further ordered to undergo R.I. for three years for the offence

under section 27 of the Arms Act and fine of Rs. 1000/-. In

default of payment of fine, three months R.I. was awarded to the

appellant. The learned trial court ordered that all the sentences

shall run concurrently.

Brief case of the prosecution

3. The brief case of the prosecution as it speaks through

statement of Ramesh Rai (PW-3) that on 01.11.2011 at about

4:45 P.M., while he was returning to his home from his rice mill

and came at Sarenja main road, he saw Ram Suresh Yadav @

Langa Yadav (the appellant), son of Baliram Yadav, Ashok

Yadav, son of Baliram Yadav, both resident of village + Post –

Sarenja; Jitendra Yadav, son of not known (Hira Yadav);

resident of village – Kathtar. All three belonged to P.S. - Rajpur,

District – Buxar, and equipped with rifle in their hand, fired

upon his father Ranjeet Rai before him and further alleged that

Sanjay Yadav, son of not known, R/o – village Taranpur,

Hirdaya Yadav, son of not known, R/o – village Ekdar,

Ramashish Yadav, son of not known, R/o – village Maraniya,

Bihari Yadav, son of not known, R/o – village Taranpur, Umesh

Yadav, son of Dipa Yadav, R/o – village Jagpurva, all are of
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.1196 of 2018 dt.08-07-2026
3/46

Rajpur police station, District – Buxar and were equipped with

rifle in their hand, shouting to kill his father. It is also alleged

that Baliram Yadav, son of Ramdeo Yadav, resident of Rajpur,

district – Buxar, ordered to fire upon him and after firing, they

were fled away in western side, thereafter, he came to his home

and called his family members. The reason supplied behind the

occurrence is that in panchayat election, Mukhiya Sukhrajo

Devi defeated the wife of elder brother of the deceased, namely,

Shail Kumari Devi, and further reason was assigned that there

are litigation between the parties in Buxar court, which asked to

compromise forcibly. It is also stated that Mukhiya Sukhrajo

Devi, wife of Suresh Yadav @ Langa Yadav (the appellant) was

shouting on road as to kill his father so that Shail Kumari Devi

would not in position to contest panchayat election. The

aforesaid statement was read by the informant and found it

correct, he signed on the statement, in presence of his villagers

namely, Shashi Bhushan Rai (PW-1), Jatashankar Rai and

Brijmohan Rai (PW-7), son of Raghubansh Rai.

4. On the basis of said written information, Rajpur P.S.

Case No. 121 of 2011 dated 01.11.2011 was registered for the

offences punishable under sections 302/34 of the Indian Penal

Code and Section 27 of the Arms Act. After concluding
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.1196 of 2018 dt.08-07-2026
4/46

investigation, police submitted charge-sheet against the

appellant for the offences punishable under sections 302,

120B/34 of the I.P.C. and section 27 of the Arms Act vide

charge-sheet no. 03 of 2012. The learned jurisdictional

Magistrate after perusal of materials and records took

cognizance accordingly and after compliance of section 207 of

the Cr.P.C. committed this case to the court of sessions under

section 209 of the Cr.P.C. for its trial and disposal.

5. After commitment, learned trial court, upon perusal

of records and materials collected during investigation framed

charges against accused-appellant and explained the charges to

the accused/appellant in his vernacular language, which he

pleaded “not guilty” and claimed to be tried.

6. To substantiate its case, prosecution altogether

examined following 09 witnesses:

PW-1 – Shashi Bhushan Sharma
PW-2 – Umesh Rai
PW-3 – Ranjeet Rai (Informant of the case)
PW-4 – Dr. Anil Kumar Singh
PW-5 – Achyutanand Rai
PW-6 – Ranglal Chouhan
PW-7 – Brij Mohan Rai
PW-8 – Shyam Bihari Rai, and
PW-9 – Braj Kishore Singh
7. The prosecution has also produced following
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.1196 of 2018 dt.08-07-2026
5/46

documentary evidence:

Exhibit ‘1’ – Signature of informant on fard-e-
beyan
Exhibit 1/1 & 1/2 – Signature of Achyutanand Rai
and Ranglal Chouhan on the inquest report.
Exhibit ‘2’ - Post-mortem report.
Exhibit ‘3’ – Pages in FIR
Exhibit ‘4’ – Formal FIR
Exhibit ‘5’ – Inquest report of the deceased.
Exhibit ‘6’ – Seizure list of blood soil.
Exhibit ‘7’ – Sanha
Exhibit ‘8’ & 8/1 – F.S.L. Report.

8. After examination of prosecution witnesses and by

taking note of evidence as surfaced during trial, statement of

accused/appellant was recorded under Section 313 of the

Cr.P.C., which was denied by the appellant in totality by

claiming his complete innocence and false implication.

9. Upon perusal of the evidence surfaced during the

trial and hearing the parties, learned trial court convicted the

accused/appellant for the offences punishable under section 302

of the IPC and section 27 of the Arms Act and passed the order

of sentence as mentioned aforesaid. Being aggrieved with, the

present appeal has been preferred by the accused/appellant.

10. Hence, the appeal.
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.1196 of 2018 dt.08-07-2026
6/46

Argument on behalf of the appellant

11. Mr. Rajendra Narain, learned senior advocate

appearing on behalf of the appellant submitted that the appellant

was falsely implicated with the present case being husband of

the Sukhrajo Devi, who won election defeating the wife of elder

brother of the deceased. It is pointed out that as the wife of the

appellant was won the election, there was no occasion to

commit murder of brother-in-law of defeating candidate namely,

Shail Kumari Devi and, therefore, the motive as assigned

through FIR cannot be said convincing.

12. It is further submitted by Mr. Narain that the

informant and other prosecution witnesses are not the eye

witness of the occurrence, rather they projected themselves as a

chance witness and, therefore, several material contradictions

were surfaced during the trial, which was completely

overlooked by the learned trial court while recording the present

impugned judgment of conviction.

13. In this context, Mr. Narain submitted that the

maximum witnesses including the informant are interested

witness being relative of the deceased and his family and

therefore their testimony cannot be said under the category of

“wholly reliable”, particularly when status of the informant and
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.1196 of 2018 dt.08-07-2026
7/46

witnesses claiming themselves as an eye witness appears

doubtful.

14. It is further argued by Mr. Narain that trial of rest

of the two accused was separated including the accused Ashok

Yadav and Jitendra Yadav as trial no. 97/2012, who specifically

alleged to fire upon the father of the informant. In this context, it

is submitted that almost same prosecution witnesses were

examined in the separate trial, who examined in the present

case, but considering the material contradiction and also the

ocular version of the prosecution witnesses not appears

corroborating the medical evidence qua gunshot injury, by

giving benefit of doubt, they were acquitted along with other co-

accused persons, who faced the trial.

15. Taking shelter of acquittal of Ashok Yadav and

Jitendra Yadav, who specifically alleged to fire upon the

deceased father of the informant, it is submitted by Mr. Narain

that one of the learned trial court who recorded the judgment of

acquittal, could not believe common intention and also unlawful

object and, therefore, on this score, the present conviction of the

appellant which was recorded through separate trial (S. Tr. No.

114/2016) by another Sessions Judge is bad in the eyes of law.

16. It is also argued by Mr. Narain that appellant
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.1196 of 2018 dt.08-07-2026
8/46

himself is a man of criminal background as he was involved in

some drug cases and therefore he might be killed by some other

persons but to settle the political rivalry and also the pending

litigation, the present false case was lodged against the appellant

and his family members.

17. In support of the submission, Mr. Narain, relied

upon the legal report of Hon’ble Supreme Court as available

through Punimati and Anr. Vs. State of Chhattisgarh and

Ors. reported in 2025 SCC OnLine SC 2866; Kannaiya Vs.

State of Madhya Pradesh reported in 2025 INSC 1246 = 2025

SCC OnLine SC 2270; Rajendra Singh and others Vs. State

of Uttaranchal reported in 2025 SCC OnLine SC 2148.

18. While concluding argument, it is submitted by Mr.

Narain that in view of aforesaid factual and legal aspects, it

cannot be said with sure that involvement of appellant in murder

of the father of the informant is doubtful and, therefore, he is

equally entitled for the benefit of doubt, to establish its case

beyond all reasonable doubt.

19. Mrs. Shashi Bala Verma, learned A.P.P. for the

Sate, while opposing the appeal, submitted that minor

contradictions are bound to be surfaced during the trial and,

therefore, on the basis of same, conviction recorded by the
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.1196 of 2018 dt.08-07-2026
9/46

learned trial court which is fully corroborated with ocular

evidence cannot be viewed with doubt

20. It is also submitted by learned A.P.P. that

allegation against this appellant is specific as to fire upon the

head of the father of the informant (PW-3) which appears

consistent throughout during the trial in the testimony of all

prosecution witnesses, which is also fully corroborated with the

medical evidence. The bullet was also recovered and sent for

forensic examination, which also corroborated the allegation.

21. Learned A.P.P. further submitted that acquittal of

other set of accused through different session trial is of no

relevancy qua appellant for the reason that in their given set of

facts after appreciating the evidence, the benefit of doubt was

extended to the other co-accused persons. Moreover, the

acquittal of co-accused persons is also challenged by the first

informant which is pending before this Court through separate

appeal bearing Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 1291 of 2018.

22. It is also submitted that motive behind the

occurrence was the political enmity and pending litigation

between parties, accordingly, there is no occasion to interfere

with the finding of the learned trial court which is based upon

the correct appreciation of evidence.
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.1196 of 2018 dt.08-07-2026
10/46

23. We have perused the trial court records carefully

and gone through the evidences available on record as also

considered the rival submissions as canvassed by learned

counsel appearing on behalf of the parties.

24. PW-1 is Shashi Bhushan Rai, who during trial

supported the date and time of the occurrence and deposed that

he was going towards road and when he came on pucca road

and proceeded towards tea stall of one Hardeo Chouhan, he saw

four motorcycles parked near to a Pakar tree. 8-10 persons were

stand there and were equipped with rifle. While he was taking

tea he saw that Ramesh Rai and his father were coming on

motorcycle. It was the first day of Chhath Puja and Chathvrati

were also going on road, in the meantime, motorcycle came

over there and he saw that appellant namely, Ram Suresh Yadav

@ Langa Yadav fired upon Ranjeet Rai, which hit on the back

side of his skull and immediately he fell down, whereafter

Ashok Yadav and Jitendra Yadav both fired on the chest of

Ranjeet Rai, one fire by each. Thereafter, Ashok Yadav and

Jitendra Yadav bolted their rifles to fire upon Ramesh Rai and

fired upon him, whereafter Ramesh Rai fled away. He named 8-

10 persons who were gathered over there as Ram Suresh Yadav

@ Langa Yadav, Ashok Yadav, Jitendra Yadav, Umesh Yadav,
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.1196 of 2018 dt.08-07-2026
11/46

Ramashish Yadav, Bihari Yadav, Hirdaya Yadav and Sukhrajo

Devi. The accused persons after occurrence made indiscriminate

firing and fled towards western side. He deposed that present

occurrence took place due to panchayat election rivalry. He

identified his signature on the fardbeyan of Ramesh Rai (PW-

3) , which upon his identification exhibited as Exhibit ‘1’. He

identified appellant before the accused as the same person who

fired upon Ranjeet Rai. He also said on his own during his

examination-in-chief that while he was coming for his

deposition, he was threatened by appellant in court gallery

saying that he would not remain alive.

24.1. Upon cross-examination, it was stated by him

that he is the resident of village Sarenja. His PACs godown is

near to the place of occurrence where he usually visit in

evening. He deposed that near to the place of occurrence, there

is a pond, where the ladies usually performed their rituals in the

evening of Chhatt Puja festival. He also stated that 3-4 persons

were also present at the tea shop who were not his co-villager.

His house is at the distance of 500-600 yards from the house of

the informant, namely, Ramesh Rai (PW-3). It was stated that as

per him the occurrence took place on middle of the road near to

Pakar tree, which is about 60-70 yards away from Sarenja
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.1196 of 2018 dt.08-07-2026
12/46

Mode. He also stated that in the western side of the shop of

Hardeo there is another tree stall of one Ram Nath Kurmi and in

southern side of the road there is a shop of Suresh Dhobi, saloon

of Rajendra Thakur, Betel shop of Chhattu Chourasiya, the shop

of Dipak Chouhan, Litti shop of Mukhtar Chouhan. It is further

stated that the informant is not his brother, but out of social

acquaintance he has brotherly relation. It is stated by him that he

saw Ramesh Rai after air firing, which created a rucus like

scene at the place of occurrence. He also got afraid and after

hearing the sound of firing the accused started flee away. He

saw the occurrence by hiding himself as he had no occasion to

flee away. It was stated by him that Umesh Rai (PW-2),

Achyutanand Rai (PW-5), Shyam Bihari Rai and Langru

Chouhan arrived at the place of occurrence after the occurrence.

He also stated that after the occurrence informant fled away, but

he could not said that where he went, but he again noticed him

after 4-5 minutes at the place of occurrence. It was stated that

Daroga Jee (police) came somewhere between 7-8 P.M. on the

date of occurrence. He could not saw whether the body was seen

by Daroga Jee or not. Ramesh Rai was also present with him. At

the time of recording of statement, he said to stand at some

distance and when it was read over, he signed it. He denied the
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.1196 of 2018 dt.08-07-2026
13/46

suggestion that his statement with police was different. He

denied that his statement was recorded on 13.11.2011. He could

not remember that whether by that time post-mortem was

conducted upon the deceased or not and further denied that after

post-mortem he modulated the prosecution story. He affirmed

his statement that he said to police that he sit on daily basis at

his katra near to the place of occurrence and on the date of

occurrence he was coming on foot and as he was away about

100 yards east from the place of occurrence, he heard the sound

of 5-6 rounds of firing. He also affirmed his statement given

before police that the persons who were in crowd are Ram

Suresh Yadav @ Langa Yadav, Ashok Yadav, Baliram Yadav,

Sukhrajo Devi, Jitendra Yadav, Umesh Yadav, Sanjay Yadav,

Hari Yadav, Bihari Yadav etc. He also affirmed that he said to

police that Ashok Yadav and Jitendra Yadav came near to the

motorcycle whereafter Ram Suresh Yadav @ Langa Yadav

(appellant) fired upon the skull of Ranjeet Rai from his back and

also stated that Jitendra Yadav, Ashok Yadav, Ramashish Yadav,

Umesh Yadav, Ram Suresh Yadav, Bihari Yadav, Hirdaya Yadav,

Sukhrajo Devi fled towards western side after making firing. He

stated that the panchayat election was won by Sukhrajo Devi. It

was also stated by him that his father was murdered in 1996 and
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.1196 of 2018 dt.08-07-2026
14/46

he was the informant in that case, where the appellant and

Baliram Yadav was the accused. He could not say about the

outcome of that case. He denied the suggestion that out of

previous enmity and being close man of the informant, he

deposed falsely.

25. PW-2 is Umesh Rai. He is the brother of the

informant and also the son of the deceased. He also supported

the date and time of occurrence. He also claimed himself as an

eye witness of the occurrence saying that he was going to

Chhatt Ghat and as he came to Sarenja Mode, he saw that four

motorcycles were standing ahead 40-50 feets near to Pakar Tree,

where 9-10 persons were also standing equipped with arms. He

identified those persons as Ram Suresh Yadav @ Langa Yadav

(appellant), Ashok Yadav, Baliram Yadav, Jitendra Yadav,

Umesh Yadav, Hirdya Yadav, Bihari Yadav, Sanjay Yadav,

Ramashish Yadav and Sukhrajo Devi. He stopped at Mode itself

and saw that one bullet motorcycle is coming from eastern side,

on which his younger brother Ramesh Rai was at driver seat and

his father (deceased) was sitting as pillion rider and when they

came near to Langa Yadav (appellant), he fired upon him, but it

could not hit. By that time, motorcycle came closely, whereafter

Ashok Yadav and Jitendra Yadav stopped the motorcycle and
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.1196 of 2018 dt.08-07-2026
15/46

pulled his father from motorcycle, whereafter Langa Yadav

(appellant) fired on backside of his father. Subsequently,

Jitendra Yadav and Ashok Yadav also fired on his chest. He

deposed that blood started oozing from the body of his father

and he died on spot. His younger brother (informant) started to

flee away but it was said by Sukhrajo Devi (wife of the

appellant) to kill him also, whereafter all opened fire upon him.

After the occurrence, the accused persons fled away. He also

deposed that occurrence took place due to election rivalry. He

identified the appellant/accused during the trial.

25.1. Upon cross-examination, he stated that the

informant is his brother and the date of occurrence was the first

day of Chhath Puja. He also stated that a Chhath Ghat is

available near to the place of occurrencem where generally 200-

300 people gathered on the occasion of chhath Puja. It was

stated by him that the FIR was lodged in the night and in his

earlier statement he said that occurrence took place at 10:00

P.M. He could not remember whether he was talked with the

informant (PW-3) before the occurrence or not. He could not

remember that while deposing in session trial no. 97/2012, he

deposed that he met with Ramesh Rai before the occurrence. He

also named the shopkeepers whose shops are closed to the place
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.1196 of 2018 dt.08-07-2026
16/46

of occurrence. It was stated that the first firing was made from a

distance of 20-25 ft. It was also stated that after the first firing,

second firing was made with an interval of one minute. He

denied the suggestion that he could not made statement before

the police that Jitendra Yadav and Ashok Yadav pulled his father

from motorcycle. He also denied that he could not made

statement before police that Jitendra Yadav and Ashok Yadav

fired on the chest of his father and Sukhrajo Devi said to kill

him also. He affirmed that motive behind the occurrence is only

the election rivalry arising out of panchayat election. He denied

that his father was not smuggler of heroine and he was

convicted in any such case. He also denied that his father ever

captured the house of anyone. He denied the suggestion that no

such occurrence like present ever took place and also that his

father was not in inimical terms with appellant/accused.

26. PW-3 is Ramesh Rai. He is the informant of this

case and also the son of the deceased. He supported the date

and time of the occurrence as stated in the FIR. At the time of

occurrence, he was also returning to his home from his rice mill

along with his father and when he came to Sarenja Mode, he

saw that Ram Suresh Yadav @ Langa Yadav (appellant), Ashok

Yadav, Baliram Yadav, Jitendra Yadav, Umesh Yadav, Hirdya
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.1196 of 2018 dt.08-07-2026
17/46

Yadav, Bihari Yadav, Sanjay Yadav, Ramashish Yadav and

Sukhrajo Devi were equipped with rifle in their hand, when he

came near to them, Langa Yadav (appellant) fired upon him, in

the meantime, his motorcycle also came closely to them,

whereafter Ashok Yadav and Jitendra Yadav pulled his father

from the motorcycle and thereafter Ram Suresh Yadav @ Langa

Yadav fired on his skull from back, in his presence.

Immediately, after receiving bullet shot his father fell down,

whereafter Ashok Yadav and Jitendra Yadav fired on his chest.

All persons were making fire in the air. Sukhrajo Devi was also

standing near to the place of occurrence and shouting to kill

otherwise will again contest the election and when Langa Yadav

(appellant) bolted rifle to fire upon him, he fled away to his

home. He recorded his statement before police on same very

day. He identified his signature on fardbeyan, which upon his

identification, exhibited as Exhibit ‘1’. He also deposed that the

occurrence took place due to election rivalry. He identified the

appellant/accused in court.

26.1. Upon cross-examination, he stated that Umesh

Rai (PW-2) is his own brother. After the occurrence, he went to

his home, but he could not remember whether he talked with

anyone or not. He could not even say that who were present in
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.1196 of 2018 dt.08-07-2026
18/46

the house. It was stated that he returned to the place of

occurrence but could not stated about the time. He also stated

that he remembered everything regarding the occurrence and he

also made statement before the police that he was going on

motorcycle. He could not said to police anything about the

registration number of the motorcycle. There was no scratch on

the motorcycle. He affirmed to depose earlier also in separate

trial of this case, where he deposed that when he came near to

Sarenja Mode, then he saw the accused persons. It was also

affirmed that firing was made from 50 fts. It was also affirmed

by him that he stated through FIR, that when he came near to

accused persons, Ashok Yadav and Jitendra Yadav pulled his

father from motorcycle but he remain seated. It was stated that

at the time of first firing his father was sitting on the motorcycle

and before second firing he was pulled from motorcycle,

whereafter he had fled away. His father fell down immediately

after receiving the bullet shot and by that time he was sitting on

the motorcycle. It was stated that his father was accused in one

NDPS Case, where he was acquitted from the High Court. He

also supported the presence of Chhatvrati, where the occurrence

took place. It was stated that he saw Langa Yadav (appellant)

and other accused persons from a distance of 50 fts. It is further
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.1196 of 2018 dt.08-07-2026
19/46

stated that after the occurrence and before lodging FIR he met

with Shashi Bhushan Rai (PW-1), Umesh Rai (PW-2), Ranglal

Chouhan (PW-6), Suman Yadav, Baliram Yadav, Achyutanand

Rai (PW-5), Shyam Bihari Rai (PW-8). They all met with him at

the place of occurrence but he could not say that after passing

what time he met with them at the place of occurrence. He

remained at his house at about 10 minutes after the occurrence

and he could not say whether in between he met with Umesh

Rai (PW-2), Sourabh Rai (not examined), Abhishek Rai (not

examined). Upon drawing his attention, he could not say that he

deposed in another case related with same FIR qua another

accused persons that within said 10 minutes he met with

aforesaid persons. He could not say even the appellant was

engaged in Chhath Puja on that day. It was stated that after the

occurrence his motorcycle was seen by the Investigating Officer

and Superintendent of Police, but no paper related with

motorcycle was asked from him. He also stated that in the north

of place of occurrence there is Tea stall of Ram Nath, Betal

Shop of Panna Chourasiya, Litti Chokha of Hardeo Chouhan

and Fish Shop of Mukhtiyar Chouhan. In south, there is saloon

of Rajendra Thakur, betel shop of Chhathulal and fruit shop of

Dipak Chouhan. He could not remember whether these
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.1196 of 2018 dt.08-07-2026
20/46

shopkeepers made statement before police or not. He recorded

all his statement in FIR. He denied the suggestion that he did

not said in FIR that at the time of occurrence he was on

motorcycle. It was also stated that at the time of occurrence his

father was wearing cream colour Kurta of Matka fibre. He could

not say whether his cloth was seized by police or not. He denied

the suggestion that his father was a heroine smuggler and no

such occurrence took place as he deposed.

27. PW-4 is Dr. Anil Kumar Singh. He deposed that

on the date of occurrence i.e. 02.11.2011, he was posted as

Medical Officer at Sadar Hospital, Buxar and performed the

post-mortem examination on the dead body of deceased Ranjeet

Rai and found following anti-mortem injury, which are as under:

(i) Lacerated wound left lower chest 3” x 1¼” x organ

deep with periphery of blackening with signing of heirs

with inverted margin.

(ii) Lacerated wound left right parietal region below

the costal margin 4½” x 2½” x skin deep with

blackening at its external end with fatty tissue

scattered over the margin.

(iii) Abrasion injury occipital region of skull in a

diameter of 4 ½” with inverted margin fracturing
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.1196 of 2018 dt.08-07-2026
21/46

occipital temporal left parietals, sphnodial and nasal

bones with lacerated margin with blackening at its left

border brain matter found dram any out of the skull

cavity.

A bullet 1¼” length and a bare diameter of 9 mm was

recovered from the right chest cavity adhered to the

posterior wall collected, sealed and leveled and

handed over to the police personnel.

Body was brought and identified by constables Ram

Asheri Singh and Jag Narain Singh, Right Eye semi

closed left eye closed, small bleeding left nostrial and

left ear.

Rigor mortis present in all the 4 limbs.

I to IV cervical vertebra fractured. Brain &

Membranes – torn & anulged.

Larynx & Trachea – Severed at its upper end.

Lungs – Pale.

Heart – Both chambers empty.

Large vessels – Tributaries of carotids & Middle

meningeal artiry severed.

Peritoneum – Torn, punctured wound left dome of

diaphragm, O esophagus severed at its upper end.
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.1196 of 2018 dt.08-07-2026
22/46

Stomach – Semi digested food.

Liver – Pale

Spleen – congested.

Kidney – Pale

Bladder – Empty

other – N.A.D. (nothing abnormal detected)

Cause of death – Hemorrhage & shock caused by fire

arm injuries.

Time since death – between 4 to 24 hours.

28. It is further deposed by PW-4 that he has signed on

the post-mortem report and identified the same and upon his

identification, the report was marked as Exhibit ‘2’.

29. PW-5 is Achyutanand Rai. He is also supported

the date and time of the occurrence as 01.11.2011 and 4:45 P.M.

respectively. It was deposed by him that while he was returning

from Buxar, after taking medicine from his Jeep and going to

Sarenja, he saw rucus there and people were saying that his

brother Ranjeet Rai was killed by Langa Yadav (appellant)

gang. He found his brother dead. It was deposed that police

prepared inquest report of his dead brother, which he signed. He

also identified his signature over there. It was said that the

occurrence took place due to election related enmities.
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.1196 of 2018 dt.08-07-2026
23/46

29.1. Upon cross-examination, he stated that he

disclosed the name of persons to police, who said him about the

occurrence. He recorded his statement before police at about

8:30 PM on the date of occurrence and by that time, inquest

report was already prepared. It was also stated by him that one

of the female family members lost election in the hand of

Sukhrajo Devi (wife of the appellant), against which she also

filed appeal, which was rejected.

30. PW-6 is Ranglal Chouhan, who supported the

date and time of occurrence as mentioned in the FIR. At the

time of occurrence, he was standing on the Betel shop near to

place of occurrence and saw that Ram Suresh Yadav @ Langa

Yadav (appellant), Jitendra Yadav, Ashok Yadav and other

accused persons were standing there, equipped with rifle. He

also deposed that Ramesh Rai (PW-3) was coming from eastern

side along with his father on motorcycle. Langa Yadav

(appellant), Jitendra Yadav and Ashok Yadav stopped the

motorcycle and dragged Ranjeet Rai from motorcycle,

whereafter the appellant fired on the backside of the skull of

Ranjeet Rai by his rifle. Jitendra and Ashok Yadav also fired on

his chest. Sukhrajo Devi said to kill Ramesh Rai (informant).

Whereafter, everyone started to fire indiscriminately, but
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.1196 of 2018 dt.08-07-2026
24/46

Ramesh Rai fled away, whereafter the accused persons also fled

away in western side. He also supported by saying that the

occurrence took place in the background of enmities arising out

of panchayat election. He also signed the inquest report of

Ranjeet Rai. He identified the signature over the carbon copy,

which upon his identification exhibited as Exhibit 1/1A and

Exhibit 1/2. He identified the accused persons.

30.1. Upon cross-examination, he deposed that he

signed the inquest report on the next day and Achyutanand Rai

(PW-5) also signed with him. He made statement to police on

03.11.2011. He denied the suggestion that he never made

statement before police that Langa Yadav (appellant), Jitendra

Yadav and Ashok Yadav pulled Ranjeet Rai from motorcycle

and thereafter Ram Suresh Yadav @ Langa Yadav (appellant)

shot on the back of his head, whereafter, Jitendra and Ashok

Yadav fired on his chest. He could not name the shopkeeper of

the Betel shop, where he was standing. He affirmed that he

made statement before police that Ramesh Rai @ Pintu started

to flee away with motorcycle but it was pulled by back and

thereafter the firing was made, resultantly deceased fell down

from the motorcycle. He also stated that Ramesh Rai fled with

motorcycle and was fled in the same direction in which the
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.1196 of 2018 dt.08-07-2026
25/46

accused persons were fled away and by that time Ranjeet Rai

was lying on the road. He also affirmed that he made statement

before police that Sukhrajo Devi was shouting to kill Ramesh

Rai also. He denied the suggestion that he is deposing as the

deceased Ranjeet Rai was his accomplish in heroine smuggling

case. It was stated that while he was eating betel, no one was on

the road. He denied that the witnesses are known to Ranjeet Rai

being the person of same criminal profile.

31. PW-7 is Brij Mohan Rai. He was the younger

brother of the deceased Ranjeet Rai. He deposed that the

occurrence is of 01.11.2011. It was around 4:45 P.M. He

deposed that while he was going to rice mill by foot and reached

Sarenja Mode, he saw that Ram Suresh Yadav, Ashok Yadav,

Jitendra Yadav, Baliram Yadav, Umesh Yadav, Sukhrajo Devi,

Sanjay Yadav, Hirdya Yadav, Ramashish Yadav and Bihari

Yadav all equipped with rifle in their hand were standing. At the

same time, Ramesh Rai (informant) was coming with his elder

brother Ranjeet Rai (deceased) on motorcycle and when they

reached near to Pakar tree, Ashok Yadav and Jitendra Yadav

dragged Ranjeet Rai from motorcycle, whereafter Ram Suresh

Rai fired one shot on his skull and, thereafter, Ashok Yadav and

Jitendra Yadav each of them fired one bullet on his chest. He
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.1196 of 2018 dt.08-07-2026
26/46

deposed that Sukhrajo Devi, who was standing nearby, said the

accused persons to kill Ramesh Rai also. He further deposed

that after the occurrence Ramesh Rai fled away from there. He

deposed that the alleged occurrence took place due to panchayat

election. He stated that he identified the Ram Suresh Rai, Ashok

Rai and other accused persons.

31.1. Upon cross-examination, he disclosed that

police had taken his statement and he never said to police that

the time of occurrence was 5:00 P.M. and not 4:45 P.M. He

deposed to saw that as he reached near Pakar tree Ashok Yadav

and Jitendra Yadav took off, Ranjeet Rai from his motorcycle,

whereafter Ram Suresh Yadav shot at his skull and thereafter

Ashok and Jitendra shot at his chest and Sukhrajo Devi, who

was present there, ordered the accused persons to kill Ramesh

Rai (PW-3) also, thereafter Ramesh Rai fled away from the

place of occurrence by taking his motorcycle. PW-7 further

deposed that the distance between Sarenja Mode and Pakar tree

is about 70 feets and accused persons were standing at Sarenja

Mode. He deposed that he was the co-accused along with

Surendra Kumar Jaiswal, Ranjit Rai, Uchhatanand Rai,

Sachhitanand Rai, Ranglal Nonia, Umesh Chandra Rai, Manoj

Rai in the case of smuggling of Heroine. He deposed that he had
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.1196 of 2018 dt.08-07-2026
27/46

met with Ramesh Rai at 5:00 P.M. and told him that he has seen

the occurrence. He further stated that Sukhrajo Devi had

defeated his Bhabhi namely, Shail Kumari Devi in panchayat

election, against which they had filed appeal also. Lastly, he

deposed that the occurrence took place due to election disputes.

32. PW-8 is Shyambihari Rai. Who is the

Investigating Officer of this case. He deposed that on

01.11.2011, while posted as the Station House Officer of Rajpur

Police Station, he took over the investigation of Rajpur P.S.

Case No. 121 of 2016. Upon assuming charge, he first inspected

the place of occurrence situated at Sarenja Bazaar on the

northern side of the Buxar–Kochas main road. He stated that a

large quantity of blood was found scattered at the place of

occurrence and the surrounding soil was soaked with blood. He

further described the topography of the place of occurrence by

stating that the road at the relevant place runs from east to west

and, at a distance of about 10 feet south from the place of

occurrence on the road, the dead body of Chhathu Lal

Chaurasia, resident of Sarenja, was lying.

33. He further deposed that near the place of

occurrence there was a Betel Shop and Pakad tree. He stated

that Rajendra Thakur, resident of Sarenja, had a saloon there;
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.1196 of 2018 dt.08-07-2026
28/46

west of the saloon there is laundry and ironing shop of Suresh

Dhobi; and in east there is partly constructed house of Siddhi

Chauhan. He further stated that towards the north of the place of

occurrence there is a hut-like tea and snacks shop of one

Ramnath Kurmi, adjacent to which in the western side there was

Paan stall of Madan Keshari, whereas to the east of Ramnath

Kurmi’s tea stall there was the Paan stall of Madan Kasera.

Adjacent of which another “Pakad tree” and a hut-like litti and

fish shop belonging to Mukhtar Chauhan @ Sadhu is there. He

stated that he prepared the sketch map of the place of

occurrence.

34. The witness further stated that he seized the blood-

stained soil from the place of occurrence after preparing a

proper seizure list. He recorded the re-statement of the

informant and also recorded the statements of witnesses namely

Shashibhushan Rai, Brijmohan Rai, Ranglal Chauhan, Shyam

Bihari Rai, Umesh Rai and Sachchidanand Rai, all of whom

supported the prosecution case during investigation. He further

deposed that during the course of investigation, he found that

accused Ram Suresh Yadav @ Langa Yadav had criminal

antecedents involving five cases relating to murder and other

offences. He obtained the post-mortem report and sent the
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.1196 of 2018 dt.08-07-2026
29/46

blood-stained soil to the Forensic Science Laboratory for

examination.

35. Upon completion of investigation, finding the

occurrence to be true, he submitted charge-sheet against accused

Sanjay Yadav, Bihari Yadav, Hridaya Yadav and Ramashish

Yadav under Sections 302, 120-B/34 of the Indian Penal Code

and Section 27 of the Arms Act, while accused Ram Suresh

Yadav @ Langa Yadav, Ashok Yadav, Mukhiya Sukhrajo Devi

and Jitendra Yadav by showing them absconders.

36. The witness further proved the documentary

exhibits. He stated that the fardbeyan of the informant was

recorded by Shailendra Kumar Mandal, the then Sub-Inspector

of Rajpur Police Station, and endorsement thereon was made in

his handwriting and signature, which he identified. The

fardbeyan along with endorsement was marked as Exhibit-3.

He further deposed that the formal F.I.R. was in the handwriting

of constable Arun Kumar Srivastava bearing his signature,

which was marked as Exhibit-4. He also identified the inquest

report prepared by the then Sub-Inspector Jagnarayan Singh

Yadav in his handwriting and signature, which was marked as

Exhibit-5. He further identified the seizure list relating to

seizure of blood-stained soil prepared in the handwriting and
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.1196 of 2018 dt.08-07-2026
30/46

signature of Sub-Inspector Shubhnarayan Tiwari, bearing his

own signature as well, which was marked as Exhibit-6.

36.1. In his cross-examination, he stated that on

01.11.2011 he was present at Rajpur Police Station, where he

received the fardbeyan recorded by Shailendra Kumar Mandal.

He admitted that among the witnesses named in the F.I.R.,

namely Shashibhushan Rai, Umesh Rai, Achutanand Rai and

Ranglal Chauhan, only Shashibhushan Rai had signed the

fardbeyan and their signatures are indicative of the fact that the

informant had given the statement in their presence. The witness

further deposed that he recorded Station Diary Entry No. 1 on

01.11.2011 and Diary Entry No. 2 on 02.11.2011. He stated that

in paragraph 27 of the case diary he recorded the statement of

Shashibhushan Rai and in paragraph 26 he again recorded the

statement of Ramesh Rai. He further stated that investigation

was initiated on the basis of the F.I.R. and the occurrence report.

According to him, the inquest report was prepared in paragraph

2 of the case diary and the same bear signatures of Ranglal

Chauhan and Achutanand Rai. He further stated that the dead

body was lying about 15–16 feet east of Sarenja Mod near a

Pakad tree. He admitted that he had not explained the scale or

meaning of “one foot” in the sketch map. He denied the
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.1196 of 2018 dt.08-07-2026
31/46

suggestion that the body was lying at a distance of 60–70 yards

and reiterated that it was lying only 15–16 feet away. He further

stated that though it was not mentioned in the F.I.R. that

deceased and informant was coming on motorcycle, but same

was subsequently mentioned during investigation. The witness

deposed that after receiving the F.I.R., he inspected/visited the

place of occurrence and thereafter left for the house of the

informant at about 20:35 hours, reached there at about 23:35

hours and left at about 23:55 hours after completing the writings

of case diary on 01.11.2011. He further stated that on

02.11.2011 he conducted raids at the houses of accused Ram

Suresh Yadav, Ashok Yadav, Sukhrajon Devi and Baliram

Yadav. Thereafter, he went to Atta village at about 2:10 A.M., to

Ekhtar at about 3:41 A.M., and to Madhanian at about 4:15

A.M., before returning to the police station. He again visited

Sarenja village at about 7:10 A.M., inspected the place of

occurrence, prepared the sketch map and also prepared the

seizure list. He further admitted that after inspecting the place of

occurrence he again recorded the statement of Ramesh Rai. He

stated that in paragraph 2 of the case diary, the name of the

assailant was not mentioned and that the information recorded

therein was based on hearsay. He expressed inability to state
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.1196 of 2018 dt.08-07-2026
32/46

whether an F.I.R. could be instituted solely on the basis of

hearsay information. The witness further stated that paragraphs

1 and 2 of the case diary were written in his own handwriting.

According to him, the fardbeyan was received at the police

station at about 8:10 P.M., though the statement itself had been

written at about 4:00 P.M. He admitted that no progress had

taken place in the case between 8:00 P.M. and 10:10 P.M. He

also admitted that the case diary did not mention whether any

police personnel were present at the place of occurrence

between 9:00 P.M. and 10:10 P.M. He further stated that

paragraph 3 of the F.I.R. mentioned that the dead body was

lying on the Buxar–Kochas main road near Sarenja Mode. The

witness further stated that Ramnath Kurmi had merely stated

before him that there was an election-related dispute between

the parties. He also deposed that Shashibhushan Rai had stated

in paragraph 27 of the case diary that he used to visit his Katra,

situated about 100–150 yards east of the place of occurrence,

almost every evening and sit there for some time, and that he

had heard that such Katra belonged to Shashibhushan Rai. He

further admitted that Shashibhushan Rai had not stated before

him that Ashok and Jitendra came near to motorcycle, and Ram

Suresh Yadav @ Langa Yadav fired at the deceased from behind
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.1196 of 2018 dt.08-07-2026
33/46

on his skull, or that Sanjay Yadav, Ramashish Yadav, Hridaya

Yadav and Jitendra Yadav fled away under firing. He also

admitted that Umesh Rai was not a named witness in the F.I.R.

and that Umesh Rai had not stated in paragraph 34 of the case

diary that Jitendra and Ashok had pulled his father from the

motorcycle and shot him in the chest, nor that Raju had exhorted

others by saying, “What are you waiting for, shoot him too.” He

further admitted that the F.I.R. did not contain any statement of

Ramesh Rai to the effect that while he was travelling on a

motorcycle with his father, Ashok Yadav and Jitendra Yadav

came there and made his father get down from the motorcycle

while he himself was sitting on it. He further stated that he had

recorded the statement of Nandlal Chauhan in paragraph 29 of

the case diary. According to him, Nandlal Chauhan had not

stated before him that Langa Yadav, Ashok and Jitendra had

made the deceased dragged from the motorcycle, and Ram

Suresh Yadav fired at the back of his head, that Jitendra and

Ashok fired at his chest, or that when Ramesh Rai @ Pintu

attempted to flee with the motorcycle, he was dragged from it

and shot at. He further admitted that Nandlal Chauhan had not

stated that after occurrence accused persons fled away with

motorcycle while Sukhrajon Devi was exhorting them to kill
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.1196 of 2018 dt.08-07-2026
34/46

Ramesh Rai as well. The witness further deposed that

paragraph 24 of the case diary related to inspection of the place

of occurrence and that such inspection was conducted on the

day following the occurrence. He stated that he did not find any

sign of trampling upon the blood lying at the place of

occurrence and that he had seized the blood-stained soil

therefrom. He further stated that he did not know whether the

deceased Ranjit Rai, Brijmohan Rai, Achutanand Rai and

Ranglal Chauhan had ever been arrested in a heroin case at

Rajpur Police Station. He also expressed ignorance as to

whether the post-mortem examination of the deceased had been

conducted on the orders of the District Magistrate. Lastly, he

denied the suggestion that the place of occurrence as stated by

him was incorrect.

37. PW-9 is Brajkishore Singh, an Assistant Sub-

Inspector of Police, deposed to produce station diary of Rajpur

Police Station containing entries from 25.09.2011 to 26.11.2011,

before the court. He stated that the station diary entry dated

01.11.2011 recorded at 17.05 hours, lodged on the basis of

rumour, which was in the handwriting of the then Station House

Officer , Sub- Inspector V. Prasad, whose handwriting and

signature was identified by him. The said station Diary entry
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.1196 of 2018 dt.08-07-2026
35/46

was marked as Exhibit 09.

38. The witness further deposed that the police force

had left the Police Station on the basis of information received

through rumours communicated by some person. He also stated

that the “Sanha entry” did not contain the name of any accused.

Conclusion

39. Having heard learned counsel appearing on behalf

of the parties and upon perusal of evidence/material available on

the record, it appears to us that the first and foremost issue

which is required to be examined is whether PW-1, PW-2, PW-3

(informant), PW-5, PW-6 and PW-7 are chance and independent

witnesses to the occurrence or their presence at the place of

occurrence is doubtful. It is also to be examined that whether

their testimony to be discarded being interested witness to the

occurrence as they are relatives or in inimical terms with the

appellant/accused.

40. In this context, it would be apposite to refer the

testimony of PW-1 who categorically stated that PW-2 namely,

Umesh Rai and PW-5 namely, Achyutanand Rai came at the

place of occurrence after the occurrence i.e. after the alleged

murder. In view of same, testimony of PW-2 and PW-5 claiming

themselves as eye witnesses to the occurrence and claimed their
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.1196 of 2018 dt.08-07-2026
36/46

presence during the occurrence as a matter of chance at Sarenja

Mode, which is the place of occurrence appears doubtful.

41. Now, coming to the testimony of PW-1, it can be

gathered safely that he also claimed as an eye witness of the

occurrence and claimed their presence near to the place of

occurrence as a matter of chance. It appears that he is the

signatory of fardbeyan/FIR along with PW-3. In FIR, PW-3

being informant of the case, nowhere mentioned that he was

coming on motorcycle along with his deceased father, rather he

stated that he was returning to his home from his Rice-Mill and

as he came to Sarenja main road, he saw a gathering of 8-9

persons equipped with fire-arm and appellant including two

accused persons namely, Jitendra Yadav and Ashok Yadav fired

on his father. It is also stated thereof that Baliram Yadav ordered

to fire upon the informant (PW-3). Threat was also advanced by

co-accused Sukhrajo Devi, who won the panchayat election,

where family member of the informant namely, Shail Kumari

Devi was defeated. It is also stated that litigation is pending

between the parties prior to the occurrence, which was asked to

withdraw by the appellant/accused and his family members.

42. In the background of this statement of FIR, PW-1

stated that he was taking tea at the Tea Stall and the informant
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.1196 of 2018 dt.08-07-2026
37/46

was coming along with his father on motorcycle. Without saying

anything, first firing was made by this appellant/accused in air.

He straightway stated that the appellant/accused fired upon

Ranjeet Rai which hit on the backside of his skull, whereafter he

fell to the ground immediately, whereafter Ashok Yadav and

Jitendra Yadav fired one by one each on Ranjeet Rai. He also

stated that Ashok Yadav and Jitendra Yadav bolted their rifles to

fire upon PW-3 contrary to the statement made in FIR. This fact

appears completely improved over the statement in FIR. He

could not denied the statement of fardbeyan of PW-3 as he

identified his signature over there. He also affirmed his

statement given to police that he heard about 5-6 round of firing,

when he was at the distance of about 100 yards from the place

of occurrence. From the case of prosecution, it appears that it is

a case where maximum of four firing was alleged to made. One

firing by this appellant which was made in air, missed the target,

second firing was made by this appellant only when the

deceased came near to him, which hit to the back of his head

and the third and fourth firing was made by the co-accused

Ashok Yadav and Jitendra Yadav, one firing by each, which hit

on the chest of the deceased. Thus, by taking note of his

improved version contrary to the FIR and also that he was in
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.1196 of 2018 dt.08-07-2026
38/46

inimical terms with accused/appellant, his presence as chance

witness appears doubtful at the place of occurrence.

43. PW-3/informant for the first time, testified before

the court that he was coming alongwith his father on the

motorcycle. He stated that the appellant Langa Yadav bolted

rifle to fire upon him, whereafter he fled away from the place of

occurrence. This statement of PW-3 is an improved version as

no such statement was made in the FIR. It also appears that

immediately after the occurrence, he fled away from the place of

occurrence and went to his home. An Attention was also drawn

to him regarding his statement which is the basis of FIR, but he

said that it was Ashok Yadav and Jitendra Yadav who pulled his

father from the motorcycle. He was remained seated there and

first firing could not hit his father and he was pulled from

motorcycle before second firing, whereafter he had fled away.

44. All such aforesaid contradictions were put to PW-8

by defence, who is the Investigating Officer of this case, as to

whether any such statements were made by PW-3, during

investigation, which was denied and said that no such statement

was made by him during investigation, which makes his

credibility doubtful.

45. It was vehemently argued by learned counsel
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.1196 of 2018 dt.08-07-2026
39/46

appearing for the informant that medical evidence appears in

full corroboration with ocular evidence as one gunshot injury

was found in the back of the head of the deceased and two

gunshot injuries were found on the chest. PW-4 who is a doctor

and conducted post-mortem upon deceased categorically stated

that injury no. 2 is not the entry wound of bullet.

46. In terms of clear cut deposition of PW-4, specific

case of prosecution becomes doubtful as almost all prosecution

witnesses including informant (PW-3) testified that co-accused

Ashok Yadav and Jitendra Yadav each fired one bullet on the

chest of his father when he fell to the ground after receiving first

bullet injury in the back of his skull fired by appellant/accused.

Obviously, this testimony also support that the firing was made

from the very close range while the father of informant was

lying on the ground. In such circumstances, the missing of bullet

injury does not arise. Having all probability to hit the chest of

the deceased, finding of only one gunshot injury makes a

serious doubt qua prosecution case to the extent that the

informant (PW-3) was the eye witness of the occurrence.

47. PW-6 and PW-7 also testified their presence near to

the place of occurrence as a matter of chance. Both of them

claimed eye witness to the occurrence. He stated that at the time
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.1196 of 2018 dt.08-07-2026
40/46

of occurrence he was standing at the Betel shop near to the place

of occurrence. He stated that this appellant along with Jitendra

Yadav and Ashok Yadav stopped the motorcycle and dragged

Ranjeet Rai from motorcycle. Sukhrajo Devi said to kill Ramesh

Rai (PW-3). Whereafter, everyone started to fire

indiscriminately upon PW-3 but he fled away. He is the witness

of the inquest report also.

48. In the aforesaid context, it would be apposite to

reproduce para 13 of Punimati’s case (supra), which reads as

under:

“13. It is a well-settled law that merely because the
witness is an interested or related witness, his/her
deposition cannot be discarded. Further, deposition of such
witnesses is required to be scrutinized closely. As such, we
have closely scrutinized the deposition given by PW-4,
who is the mother of the deceased. As observed
hereinabove, there are material contradictions in her
deposition regarding the manner in which the incident
took place and with regard to which the information about
the incident was given by her granddaughter.”

49. It would further be apposite to reproduce para 58

of Kannaiya’s case (supra), which reads as under:

“58. In this regard, reference my be made to the decision
of this Court in Pankaj v. State of Rajasthan [(2016) 16
SCC 192], wherein it was emphasised that when the
genesis and manner of the incident itself are doubtful,
conviction cannot be sustained. The Court held as under: -
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.1196 of 2018 dt.08-07-2026
41/46

“25. It is a well-settled principle of law that when the
genesis and the manner of the incident is doubtful, the
accused cannot be convicted. Inasmuch as the
prosecution has failed to establish the circumstances
in which the appellant was alleged to have fired at the
deceased, the entire story deserves to be rejected.
When the evidence produced by the prosecution has
neither quality nor credibility, it would be unsafe to
rest conviction upon such evidence. After having
considered the matter thoughtfully, we find that the
evidence on record in the case is not sufficient to bring
home the guilt of the appellant. In such circumstances,
the appellant is entitled to the benefit of doubt.”
(Emphasis Supplied)

50. Admittedly, the occurrence took place on first day

of Chhath Puja in a busy market place where witnesses claimed

their presence as a matter of chance on Betel shop or Tea Stall,

but they could not disclose the name of peoples present over

their and as such appears failed to explain adequately their

presence at place of occurrence.

51. In this context, it would be apposite to reproduce

para 26 of Rajendra Singh’s case (supra), which reads as

under

26. This Court, in several decisions, while considering
the evidentiary value of a chance witness, has held that
the deposition of a chance witness whose presence at
the place of incident is doubtful should be discarded,
or at least be treated with great caution and close
scrutiny. Such a chance witness must adequately
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.1196 of 2018 dt.08-07-2026
42/46

explain his presence at the place of incident, which has
not been satisfactorily done in the instant case.

52. In the present case, all the prosecution witnesses are

either immediate family members or are in admitted inimical

terms with the informant. The occurrence admittedly took place

in the backdrop of Mukhiya Panchayat election. Therefore,

possibility of false implication of accused cannot be ruled out

outrightly. Further, the inconsistency regarding exact manner of

occurrence, positioning of witnesses and the participation of

accused qua crime in question was also overlooked by the

learned trial court. In this context, it would be apposite to

mention that allegation of firing appears to be general as per

fardbeyan of the informant, but while deposing before the court,

the informant raised specific allegation of firing against the

accused/appellant. It also appears from the FIR that he arrived at

the place of occurrence alone but to set a new theory while

deposing before the court he added that he was coming towards

the place of occurrence with his father, where the accused

persons were assembled including the appellant, on motorcycle,

where his deceased father was a pillion rider. These two major

important improvements qua occurrence and involvement of

appellant makes their testimony doubtful as much not “wholly

reliable” being “interested witness”.
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.1196 of 2018 dt.08-07-2026
43/46

53. In this context, it would be apposite to reproduce

para 32 & 33 of legal report of Hon’ble Supreme Court as

available through Nand Lal v. State of Chhattisgarh reported

in (2023) 10 SCC 470, which reads as under:

32. Undisputedly, the present case rests on the evidence of
interested witnesses. No doubt that two of them are injured
witnesses. This Court, in Vadivelu Thevar v. State of Madras
[Vadivelu Thevar v. State of Madras, 1957 SCC OnLine SC
13 : 1957 SCR 981 : AIR 1957 SC 614] , has observed thus :
(AIR p. 619, paras 11-12)
“11. … Hence, in our opinion, it is a sound and well-
established rule of law that the court is concerned with
the quality and not with the quantity of the evidence
necessary for proving or disproving a fact. Generally
speaking, oral testimony in this context may be
classified into three categories, namely:
(1) Wholly reliable.
(2) Wholly unreliable.
(3) Neither wholly reliable nor wholly unreliable.
12. In the first category of proof, the court should have
no difficulty in coming to its conclusion either way — it
may convict or may acquit on the testimony of a single
witness, if it is found to be above reproach or suspicion
of interestedness, incompetence or subornation. In the
second category, the court equally has no difficulty in
coming to its conclusion. It is in the third category of
cases, that the court has to be circumspect and has to
look for corroboration in material particulars by reliable
testimony, direct or circumstantial.”
33. It could thus be seen that in the category of “wholly
reliable” witness, there is no difficulty for the prosecution to
press for conviction on the basis of the testimony of such a
witness. In case of “wholly unreliable” witness, again, there
is no difficulty, inasmuch as no conviction could be made on
the basis of oral testimony provided by a “wholly unreliable”
witness. The real difficulty comes in case of the third
category of evidence which is partly reliable and partly
unreliable. In such cases, the court is required to be
circumspect and separate the chaff from the grain, and seek
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.1196 of 2018 dt.08-07-2026
44/46

further corroboration from reliable testimony, direct or
circumstantial.

54. It would further be apposite to reproduce para 22 of

the legal report of Hon’ble Apex Court as available through

Khema alias Khem Chandra and Others Vs. State of Uttar

Pradesh reported in (2023) 10 SCC 451, which reads as under:

“22. We are conscious that on the ground of minor
inconsistencies, the evidence of Inder (PW 2) cannot be
brushed aside. However, it is to be noted that there are
material improvements in his evidence. His evidence
therefore is required to be scrutinised with greater caution
and circumspection. It is further to be noted that even
according to the prosecution, there is previous enmity
between the accused and the deceased. As held by this Court
in Ramashish Rai v. Jagdish Singh [Ramashish Rai v.
Jagdish Singh, (2005) 10 SCC 498 : 2005 SCC (Cri) 1611] ,
previous enmity is a double-edged sword. On one hand, it
provides motive to the crime and on the other, there is a
possibility of false implication.”

55. This Court is conscious that the occurrence

resulted in loss of human life and that criminal law must

respond sensitively to such grave offences. Yet, the solemn duty

of a constitutional court is to ensure that conviction rests on

legal proof i.e. proof of guilt/charge beyond reasonable doubt

and, therefore, the trajectory of charge as raised against

appellant/accused starting from “may be true” must be rest on

“must be true” as to secure the conviction and if any doubt

surfaced during the trial, the benefit of doubt must be extended

to the accused/appellant.
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.1196 of 2018 dt.08-07-2026
45/46

56. In the present case, despite occurrence took place

at busy market place, non-examination of independent

witnesses, rather of interested witness, non-explanation qua

presence of these witnesses at the place of occurrence being

chance witnesses, previous enmity arising out of local

panchayat election collectively creates a doubt qua conviction

of accused/appellant by the learned trial court as same appears

not appreciated in view of settled legal propositions of Hon’ble

Supreme Court, as discussed aforesaid.

57. In view of the facts and circumstances, as discussed

above, we arrived upon conclusion that conviction and sentence

of the appellant-accused cannot be said to be sustainable in the

eye of law.

58. Accordingly, extending the benefit of doubt as the

prosecution has failed to answer several important aspects

during trial as to connect the appellant-accused with crime in

question beyond reasonable doubts, hence, impugned judgment

of conviction dated 29.08.2018 and order of sentence dated

31.08.2018 passed by learned Additional District and Sessions

Judge, VI, Buxar in connection with Sessions Trial No. 114 of

2016 arising out of Rajpur P.S. Case No. 121 of 2011 is hereby

set-aside.
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.1196 of 2018 dt.08-07-2026
46/46

59. The appellant, namely, Ram Suresh Yadav @ Langa

Yadav is acquitted of the charges levelled against him by the

learned trial court. He is directed to be released forthwith, if his

presence is not required in any other case.

60. The appeal stands allowed.

61. Let a copy of this judgment alongwith the Trial

Court Records be sent to the learned Trial Court forthwith.

(Chandra Shekhar Jha, J.)

Bibek Chaudhuri, J.:- I agree.

Rajeev/- (Bibek Chaudhuri, J.)
AFR/NAFR AFR
CAV DATE 07.05.2026
Uploading Date 08.07.2026
Transmission Date 08.07.2026

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…

Lawyer court records for this case

Associated through the court’s case reference.