Patna High Court
Jagdish Yadav and OrsversusThe State Of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- PARTLY ALLOWED (DISPOSAL)
Holding
The court affirmed the convictions of Jagdish Yadav and Laxman Yadav on the basis of reliable eyewitness testimony and corroborative forensic evidence, but acquitted Anil Singh due to lack of proof of his involvement.
Summary
The appellants Jagdish Yadav, Laxman Yadav and Anil Singh were convicted for murder under IPC 302 and sentenced to life imprisonment. The prosecution’s case rested mainly on the testimony of PW‑7, an eye‑witness and brother of the deceased, who identified Jagdish and Laxman as the shooters, while another eye‑witness turned hostile. The trial court also admitted forensic evidence of six entry‑exit gunshot wounds and seized 9 mm cartridges. On appeal, the High Court held that PW‑7’s testimony, corroborated by the autopsy report and seized cartridges, was sufficient to uphold the convictions of Jagdish and Laxman, but found no evidence linking Anil Singh to the shooting. Consequently, the appeal was allowed in part: the convictions of Jagdish and Laxman were affirmed, while Anil Singh was acquitted and ordered to be released.
Issues considered
- Whether the testimony of a single eye‑witness (PW‑7) can alone sustain a conviction for murder under IPC 302.
- Whether the prosecution proved the participation of Anil Singh in the commission of the murder.
- Whether the forensic and ballistic evidence sufficiently corroborated the eyewitness account.
Legislation cited
- Arms Act — s. 27
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 207, 209, 313, 374(2)
- Indian Evidence Act, 1872 — s. 134
- Indian Penal Code — s. 120B, 302, 34, 386
Subjects
- murder
- IPC 302
- eyewitness testimony
- partial appeal
- acquittal
- forensic evidence
- arms act
- criminal procedure
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL APPEAL (DB) No.1410 of 2018
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-27 Year-2007 Thana- LAXMIPUR District- Jamui
======================================================
1. Jagdish Yadav, son of Late Jethu Yadav, Resident of Village- Jinhara,
P.S.- Laxmipur, District- Jamui.
2. Laxman Yadav Son of Khado Yadav, Resident of Village- Asauta, P.S.-
Laxmipur, District- Jamui.
3. Anil Singh, Son of Darogi Singh, Resident of Village- Kala, P.S.-
Laxmipur, District- Jamui.
... ... Appellants
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Respondent
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Appellant/s : Mr. S.K. Lal, Sr. Advocate
Mr. Umesh Prasad, Advocate
For the Respondent/s : Mrs.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 : 03-04-2026
Heard Mr. S.K. Lal, learned senior counsel appearing
on behalf of the appellants 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
25.09.2018 and order of sentence dated 04.10.2018, passed by
learned A.D.J., F.T.C.- 1st, Jamui in S. Tr. No. 12 of 2008/S. Tr.
No. 270 of 2008 arising out of Laxmipur P.S. Case No. 27 of
2007, whereby and whereunder the aforesaid three appellants
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.1410 of 2018 dt. 03-04-2026
2/21
were convicted for the offences punishable under section 302 of
the Indian Penal Code (in short the “I.P.C.”) and ordered to
undergo rigorous imprisonment for life.
Brief facts of the case
3. Brief case of the prosecution as it speaks through
written information dated 27.02.2007 of PW-7 namely, Krishna
Deo Prasad Gupta, son of Late Chalitra Sah, resident of Latta,
P.S. - Laxmipur, District – Jamui, that while he along with
Ravindra Sah (deceased) and Sanjay Sah (PW-10) were
returning to their home village – Jinhara, by bicycle and so as
they reached about 5:00 P.M. in evening somewhere between
the village Kala and Bishanpur and were crossing the river
bridge, the accused persons including the appellants, who were
hidden themselves there prior to their arrival, suddenly came
before them and surrounded them. The informant identified the
accused persons as Gulabi Yadav, son of Sri Yadav; Jagdish
Yadav, son of Unknown (appellant no.1); Laxman Yadav, son
of Kharo Yadav, resident of village - Jinhara (appellant no. 2);
Adhik Yadav, son of Sri Yadav, resident of village – Jinhara;
Anil Singh, son of Darogi Singh, resident of village – Kala
(appellant no. 3) and other unknown persons. It is alleged that
immediately after surrounding them, Gulabi Yadav said to
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.1410 of 2018 dt. 03-04-2026
3/21
Ravindra Sah as ‘you did not paid the ransom money as
demanded by them, therefore, he will kill him today’ and by
saying so, they pulled Ravindra Sah from his bicycle towards
south of the bridge and fired on his chest, whereafter Ravindra
Sah fell down to the ground. Immediately thereafter, Jagdish
Yadav said that still he is alive and saying so he also fired upon
Ravindra Sah from his pistol which hit to his neck. Bullet
crossed the neck by causing entry and exit wound. Thereafter,
Laxman Yadav fired on his stomach. It was further stated that
other accused persons also started to fire upon him and on
seeing the occurrence, he along with Sanjay Sah, by taking his
bicycle, fled away from there and could save their life anyhow.
It was said that the accused persons looted the mobile of
Ravindra Sah bearing No. 9937658680 and cash of Rs. 2000/-
from him.
4. The written information further speaks that
immediately after reaching the village which was at about 2 km
from the place of occurrence, he and Sanjay Sah (PW-10) told
the villagers about the alleged incident and thereafter about 12
persons of the village returned back to the place of occurrence
and found that Ravindra Sah was lying on the ground in injured
condition and was in the pool of blood. He was totally
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.1410 of 2018 dt. 03-04-2026
4/21
unconscious and they brought him to Laxmipur P.S. from where
he was sent to Jamui Hospital for treatment, but the doctor
declared Ravindra Sah brought as dead. Whereafter, he came
back to the police station again and given his aforesaid written
information (Exhibit ‘4’).
5. On the basis of said written information, Laxmipur
P.S. Case No. 27 of 2007 dated 27.02.2007 was registered for
the offences punishable under sections 302/34, 386 of the Indian
Penal Code and Section 27 of the Arms Act. After concluding
investigation, police submitted charge-sheet against the
appellants for the offences punishable under sections 302/34,
386, 120B of the IPC and section 27 of the Arms Act. 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.
6. After commitment, learned trial court, upon perusal
of records, framed charges against accused Laxman Yadav,
Jagdish Yadav, Anil Singh, Tantan Mishra, Hari Ballabh Yadav
under section 302/34, 386 and 120B of the IPC along with
offences punishable under section 27 of the Arms Act, and
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.1410 of 2018 dt. 03-04-2026
5/21
explained the charges to the accused/appellants in their
vernacular language, which they pleaded “not guilty” and
claimed to be tried.
7. To substantiate its case, prosecution altogether
examined 11 witnesses namely, PW-1, Baby Devi; PW-2, Dr.
Syed Naushad Ahmad, PW-3, Puniya Devi; PW-4, Sajan
Kumar Sah; PW-5, Shanti Sah; PW-6, Upendra Prasad;
PW-7, Krishnadeo Pd. Gupta (informant of this case); PW-
8, Shakaldeo Sah; PW-9, Jitendra Narayan Singh; PW-10,
Sanjay Sah and PW-11, Satendra Nath Tiwari.
8. The prosecution has also produced certain documents
viz. Post-mortem report – Exhibit ‘1’, Inquest report – Exhibit
‘2’, seizure list of the cartridge – Exhibit ‘3’, endorsement on
the written report – Exhibit ‘4’ respectively.
9. After examination of prosecution witnesses and by
taking note of evidence as surfaced during trial, statement of
accused/appellants were recorded under Section 313 of the
Cr.P.C., which was denied by the appellants in totality by
claiming their complete innocence and false implication. No
oral or documentary evidence were examined by the
accused/appellants in their defence.
10. Upon perusal of the evidence surfaced during the
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.1410 of 2018 dt. 03-04-2026
6/21
trial and hearing the parties, learned trial court convicted the
accused/appellants for the offences punishable under section
302 of the IPC and passed the order of sentence as mentioned
aforesaid. Being aggrieved with, the present appeal has been
preferred by the accused/appellants.
11. Hence, the appeal.
Argument on behalf of the accused/appellants
12. Mr. S.K. Lal, learned senior counsel appearing on
behalf of the appellants submitted that conviction of appellants
was recorded on the sole testimony of PW-7 namely, Krishna
Deo Prasad Gupta. It is pointed out by Mr. Lal that rest of the
witnesses are villagers and they are not the eye witness of the
occurrence and they deposed before the learned trial court qua
occurrence in the manner as it was said to them by the informant
(PW-7).
13. It is also submitted by Mr. Lal that, PW-10,
namely, Sanjay Sah, who accompanied the deceased and
informant and also the eye witness of the alleged occurrence,
deposed nothing about the occurrence during the trial and
declared hostile by the prosecution. It is submitted that in view
of same, the testimony of solitary witness requires strict
scrutiny, particularly when no case prior to the occurrence in
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.1410 of 2018 dt. 03-04-2026
7/21
connection with demanding any ransom money was lodged by
the deceased against them.
14. It is also submitted that PW-7 (informant) saw only
three accused persons who fired upon the deceased, whereas as
per medial evidence and seizure list, six bullet injuries were
found upon the deceased with entry and exit wound, which
makes the version of PW-7 doubtful being as eye witness of the
occurrence.
15. It is also submitted by Mr. S.K. Lal that no forensic
examination was made qua seized empty cartridges which were
seized from the place of occurrence. It is also pointed out that in
want of further corroborating materials, conviction as recorded
by the learned trial court is bad in the eyes of law on the sole
testimony of PW-7/informant.
Argument by learned A.P.P.
16. While opposing the appeal, learned A.P.P. Mrs.
Shashi Bala Verma, appearing for the State, submitted that it is
the quality of witness which required to be taken note of rather
to count the number. It is pointed out by learned APP that there
is no reason to disbelieve the version of PW-7, who is the eye
witness of the occurrence and informant of this case, who
supported the case during the trial. It is also submitted that as
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.1410 of 2018 dt. 03-04-2026
8/21
another eye witness turned hostile during the trial, it does not
lead to conclusion ipso facto as to doubt the testimony of PW-7.
17. 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.
18. PW-7 is Krishna Deo Prasad Gupta, who is the
informant of this case. He deposed during trial through
examination-in-chief that the occurrence is of 27.02.2007,
which took place at about 5:00 P.M. while he along with
deceased and PW-10 namely, Sanjay Sah were returning to their
village Jinhara, by bicycle and as they reached near to
Bishanpur bridge, suddenly, the accused persons including these
appellants namely Gulabi Yadav, Jagdish Yadav, Laxman Yadav,
Adhik Yadav and Anil Singh surrounded them and pulled
Ravindra Sah (deceased) towards the bridge, whereafter Gulabi
Yadav said him that they will kill him as he refused to pay
ransom tax and by saying so, he fired on his chest. It was
deposed that receiving bullet injuries, he wriggled down to the
ground. Whereafter the appellant accused Jagdish Yadav said
that still he is alive and fired upon his neck. Thereafter, Laxman
Yadav fired on his stomach. PW-7 further deposed that due to
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.1410 of 2018 dt. 03-04-2026
9/21
fear, he fled away through bicycle towards his village along
with PW-10. He deposed that Hari Ballabh Yadav and Tantan
Mishra were also the members of the gang of the
accused/appellants. It was also deposed that one Nokia mobile
set and cash of Rs. 2000/- was also looted from the deceased
during the occurrence. He further testified that immediately
after returning to the village, he disclosed the occurrence to his
mother, Punia Devi (PW-3) and maternal aunt Baby Devi (PW-
1). Whereafter, he disclosed the occurrence to one Shanti Sah
(PW-5), Sajan Kumar Shah (PW-4), Sakaldeo Sah (PW-8),
Upendra Prasad (PW-6) and other villagers of his village. PW-7
further deposed that he returned again to the place of occurrence
along with 20-25 co-villagers and brought the deceased
Ravindra Sah to police station, whereafter a slip was given to
him by police to get him admitted in Jamui Hospital, where
Ravindra Sah was declared brought dead. It was deposed that he
returned from hospital to police station and given written
information qua occurrence, which upon his identification,
exhibited during the trial as Exhibit ‘4’. He identified the
appellants/accused Anil Singh, Jagdish Yadav, Laxman Yadav,
Gulabi Yadav during the trial.
18.1. Upon cross-examination, it was stated that the
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.1410 of 2018 dt. 03-04-2026
10/21
accused Gulabi Yadav, Laxman Yadav and Jagdish Yadav were
known to him prior to the occurrence. He also ascertained that
deceased was his relative and engaged in the business of ready-
made cloth having earning of about Rs. 2000/- per month. It was
stated that on the date of occurrence, he along with deceased
went to Jinhara Market at about 11:00 A.M. by bicycle, where
he remained for 2 - 2½ hours and again proceeded to return at
about 3:00 P.M. It was also ascertained that they were also
surrounded by the accused persons, but no harm was caused. It
was stated that the deceased was pulled down from his bicycle
and was shot after travelling 25 steps ahead. Initially, they were
stand there but subsequently due to fear, they started to move
away. He and Sanjay Sah (PW-10) were not caught hold by any
accused persons. It was stated that after receiving bullet injury,
Ravindra Sah was fell down to the ground. He saw the
occurrence while he was running away from the place of
occurrence. It was said that they brought deceased to police
station from place of occurrence on cot and reached Laxmipur
Police Station at about 7:00 P.M. He remained there for 15-20
minutes, whereafter a slip was given to him by police station
Incharge for treatment and thereafter he along with others
brought Ravindra Sah to the District Hospital, Jamui, where he
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.1410 of 2018 dt. 03-04-2026
11/21
was declared brought dead. He deposed that the deceased
Ravindra Sah was his brother. The place of occurrence was full
of blood. He denied the suggestion that Ravindra Sah was killed
by some unknown persons. He stated that the bicycle of his
deceased brother was not seized by police. The police collected
blood-stained blood. He heard the sound of 6-7 round of firing.
His brother was in black full pant and full shirt. When he
returned to place of occurrence with co-villagers, his brother
was unconscious and his eyes was blinking somehow. He found
the wound of six bullet on the body of his brother. Police seized
four empty cartridges and three bullets from the place of
occurrence. He says that he is not the witness of seizure list. It
was said that bullet was not produced before him during the
trial.
19. PW-1 is Baby Devi, who is the wife of the
deceased Ravindra Sah. It appears from her testimony that she is
not the eye witness of the occurrence, rather she stated about the
occurrence as said to her by PW-7 (informant), but in cross-
examination, she ascertained that ransom was demanded from
her husband by accused Gulabi Yadav.
20. Same is about PW-3 Puniya Devi, the mother of
informant, to whom the occurrence was stated first by the
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.1410 of 2018 dt. 03-04-2026
12/21
informant (PW-7) after returning to the village.
21. PW-4 is the Sajan Kumar Sah, who is a co-
villager and it was deposed by him that he was said about the
occurrence by PW-7 and PW-10 and while stating so, both of
them were nervous. He ascertained that after receiving
information, he along with Baby Devi, Puniya Devi, Shanti Sah,
Upendra Prasad, Sanjay Sah, Krishna Deo Pd. Gupta, Dilip,
Chandra Shekhar, Sachhidanand Rajak and other villagers went
to the place of occurrence. He saw the blood at the place of
occurrence. He also testified that by the time of their arrival at
the place of occurrence, the deceased was in unconscious
condition, but died before reaching to the Government Hospital,
Jamui.
22. PW-5 is Shanti Sah, who is also not the eye
witness of the occurrence and was informed about the
occurrence by PW-7 and PW-10. He appears to be a witness of
seizure list, where he supported the seized empty cartridges and
bullets, which were seized at the place of occurrence by police,
which upon his identification exhibited during the trial as
Exhibit ‘3’. He also ascertained the presence of blood at the
place of occurrence.
23. PW-6 is Upendra Prasad. He also deposed to
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.1410 of 2018 dt. 03-04-2026
13/21
know about the occurrence from PW-7 & PW-10.
24. PW-8 is Sakaldeo Sah. He is also the co-villager
and came to know about the occurrence from PW-7 & PW-10.
He is the witness of the inquest and supported the inquest report
by identifying his signature, which upon his identification
during trial was exhibited as Exhibit ‘2’.
25. PW-10 is Sanjay Sah. He accompanied the
informant but turned hostile during the trial. It was stated by
him that he does not know anything about the occurrence but
came to know that Ravindra Sah was killed. He failed to
disclose the name of the person and also said that his statement
was not recorded by the police. He was declared hostile and
when suggestion was placed before him regarding occurrence
by the State qua involvement of accused/appellants, it was
simply denied. Upon cross-examination, he said that he has
given his statement under free-will.
26. PW-11, is Satyendra Nath Tiwari, who brought
the seized and sealed material before the court during trial
having mark M/R No. 5/07, which he opened before the court
under the court permission. The seized material having four
empty cartridges, two was of misfired and one live cartridge,
which were produced before the court. The aforesaid material
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.1410 of 2018 dt. 03-04-2026
14/21
exhibits were marked with Laxmipur P.S. Case No. 27/07 and
M/R No. 05/07. The bullet was of 9 mm. The empty cartridge
was also of 9 mm. The date was mentioned as 27.02.2007. He
deposed to brought the aforesaid seized material before the
court as per direction of S.H.O. of Laxmipur Police Station and
said that it is the same materials. Upon his identification, the
seized empty cartridges were exhibited as Exhibit- I, Exhibit-
II, Exhibit- III, Exhibit- IV. The two misfired bullets were
exhibited as material Exhibit V & VI and live cartridge was
exhibited as Exhibit- VII.
26.1. Upon cross-examination, he stated that the
material was not sealed before him. It was said that the paper
fixed on material exhibits is not bearing any signature.
27. Now, we find apposite to discuss the testimony of
doctor and Investigating Officer who were examined before the
learned trial court as PW-2 and PW-9.
28. PW-2 is Saiyad Naushad Ahmad, who is a
autopsy surgeon conducted autopsy/post-mortem upon the
deceased on 28th February, 2007. At the time of examination, he
found rigour mortis present all over the body. On examination,
he found the following injuries, which are as under:
“Injuries – (I) A round hole with black inverted margin on
left side of neck 1/4” dia. It is wound of entry;
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.1410 of 2018 dt. 03-04-2026
15/21
(II) A round hole with everted margin 1/2” in diameter on
right side of neck – wound of exit;
(III) A round hole with black inverted margin on right
shoulder 1/4” in dia- it is wound of entry;
(IV) A round hole with everted margin 1/2” diameter on
right deltoy – it is wound of exit;
(V) A round hole with black inverted margin on chest
below right nipple 1/4” diameter – it is wound of entry;
(VI) A round hole with everted margin 1/2” in diameter,
right to 12th thorasic vertibra – it is wound of exit;
(VII) A hole with black inverted margin 1/4” dia an
epigastrium – it is wound of entry;
(VIII) A hole with everted margin 1/2” in dia an right
lumber region – it is wound of exit;
(IX) An oval would 1/2” x 1/4” with black inverted margin
on left eliot region – it is wound of entry;
(X) An oval wound 3/4” x 1/2” with everted margin on
right eliot region, it is wound of exit;
(XI) An oval would 1/2” x 1/4” with black inverted margin
on right inguil region – it is wound of entry;
(XII) A round hole with everted margin on lateral side of
right thigh – it is wound of exit;
Wound no. 1 and 2 were inter communicating, similarly
wound no. 3 and 4, no. 5 and 6, no. 7 and 8 and 10, no. 11
and 12 were inter communicating.
All above injuries were ante-mortem in nature, caused by
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.1410 of 2018 dt. 03-04-2026
16/21
fire-arms.
Cause of death :- Hemorrhage due to above injuries.
Time elapsed since death till holding PM – within 24 hrs.
This PMR is prepared by me and bears my signature mark
it Ext.I.”
28.1. Upon cross-examination, it was stated that total
of six entry wounds and all was caused by fire-arms. He did not
find any dressing materials on the wounds. He denied the
suggestion that post-mortem examination is not correct.
29. PW-9 is Jitendra Narayan Singh. He is the
Investigating Officer of this case and was posted as SHO/Police
Station Incharge of Laxmipur Police Station on the date of
occurrence i.e. 27.02.2007. It was deposed by him that the case
was registered on the basis of statement of Krishnadeo Pd.
Gupta (PW-7), who is the brother of the deceased Ravindra Sah.
He identified the endorsement mentioned over written
information as same was written by him and upon identification
of his handwriting same was exhibited before the trial court as
Exhibit ‘4’. He visited the place of occurrence. He ascertained
that the place of occurrence is south of the river bridge almost
about at the distance of 200 yards. He found plenty of blood at
the place of occurrence, four empty cartridges, three misfired of
9 mm and one live cartridge. It is ascertained that the place of
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.1410 of 2018 dt. 03-04-2026
17/21
occurrence is an isolated place. He prepared seizure list at the
place of occurrence itself. The seizure list, upon his
identification, exhibited as Exhibit ‘3’. It was ascertained by
him that the witness Sanjay Sah (PW-10) and other prosecution
witnesses supported the occurrence during investigation. After
investigation, he submitted the charge-sheet for the occurrence
under Sections 386, 302, 120B, 34 of the IPC along with
Section 27 of the Arms Act against the appellants and other
accused persons.
29.1. During cross-examination, it was stated by him
that there is no hospital between the place of occurrence and the
police station. He could not seized the cloth of the deceased. He
seized the blood-stained soil, but failed to mention it in the
seizure list. It was stated that the bicycle of the deceased was
also not seized by him and also blood group was not
ascertained.
30. At this stage, it would be apposite to reproduce
Section 134 of the Indian Evidence Act, which reads as under:-
“134. Number of witnesses. - No particular number of
witnesses shall in any case be required for the proof of any
fact.”
31. It is pertinent to refer Para 22 of the Hon’ble
Supreme court judgment as reported in Ajai alias Ajju v. State
of U.P., 2023 SCC OnLine SC 144, which reads as under:
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.1410 of 2018 dt. 03-04-2026
18/21
“22. Non-examination of Ms. Rashmi and Horam, father
of Vijay Pal Singh also has no material bearing. It is the
discretion of the prosecution to lead as much evidence as
is necessary for proving the charge. It is not the quantity
of the witnesses but the quality of witnesses which matters.
Smt. Pinky (PW-1) was the injured witness having
received grievous and life-threatening injuries. We are not
impressed by this argument also.
32. From the aforesaid testimony, it transpires us that
the occurrence was witnessed by two prosecution witnesses in
terms of the FIR (Exhibit ‘4’) which was authored by PW-7. It
seems to us that the occurrence in terms of FIR was seen by two
persons namely, Krishnadeo Pd. Gupta (PW-7) and Sanjay Sah
(PW-10), who were examined before the learned trial court. PW-
7 is the informant of this case and the brother of the deceased
and supported the occurrence that how his brother was brutally
killed by the appellants/accused, whereas PW-10 turned hostile.
33. It transpires from the deposition of PW-7 that he
saw the appellants Jagdish Yadav (appellant no. 1) to fire on the
neck of the deceased and Laxman Yadav (appellant no. 2) in the
stomach. All the firing was made from the close range as it was
fired by surrounding the deceased by the accused persons
having both entry and exit wounds. These wounds were also
found by PW-2, while conducting autopsy.
34. We are of the view that merely as one of the eye
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.1410 of 2018 dt. 03-04-2026
19/21
witness of the occurrence turns hostile during the trial does not
makes a ground to disbelieve the another eye witness of the
occurrence, who is PW-7 (informant of this case). It also
appears to us that ocular evidence is in full corroboration with
medical evidence as PW-7 categorically deposed that he heard
the sound of 6-7 firings and upon medical examination, six
wounds were found by PW-2, who conducted autopsy upon the
deceased. In terms of testimony of PW-7, it appears that he was
not surrounded or caught hold by any of the accused persons
including Anil Singh (appellant no. 3). He could not even saw
the appellant Anil Singh to open fire upon the deceased. The
seized bullets and empty cartridges were produced before the
court. We have no reason to discard the version of PW-7 as the
eye witness of the occurrence, where he specifically alleged to
see the appellant no. 1 and 2 to shot upon chest and neck of the
deceased.
35. It appears to us that rest of the eye witnesses are
the hearsay witness of the occurrence, who visited only the
place of occurrence after reporting the occurrence by PW-7.
These witnesses categorically stated that the occurrence was
reported to them by PW-10 also along with PW-7 immediately
after returning to village. This deposition appears relevant to
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.1410 of 2018 dt. 03-04-2026
20/21
support the version of PW-7 as raised through FIR and also
testified during the trial that PW-10 was with him. Though, PW-
10 turns hostile but his immediate presence after the occurrence
before different witnesses, narrating the version of occurrence
cannot be ignored. PW-7 could not say anything incriminating
against appellant Anil Singh except as he was present at the
place of occurrence. He was not even said to be equipped with
any arms and was also not said to commit any overt act. PW-7
categorically stated that he was not caught hold by any of the
co-accused persons including the appellant no. 3.
36. Considering the aforesaid, we are of the considered
view that we did not find any reason to disbelieve the testimony
of PW-7 qua Jagdish Yadav (appellant no. 1) and Laxman Yadav
(appellant no.2) committing murder of the deceased Ravindra
Sah and, therefore, we could not find any occasion to interfere
with judgment of conviction as recorded by learned trial court
qua appellant no. 1 and appellant no. 2.
37. Hence, the appeal stands dismissed with regard to
Jagdish Yadav (appellant no.1) and Laxman Yadav (appellant
no. 2).
38. So far as conviction of Anil Singh (appellant no. 3)
is concerned, it seems to us that prosecution failed to answer
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.1410 of 2018 dt. 03-04-2026
21/21
qua his involvement with crime in question. He was said to be
present only at the place of occurrence without any overt act.
Therefore, it seems to us that prosecution failed to establish its
case against appellant no. 3 beyond reasonable doubt, therefore,
the impugned judgment of conviction dated 25.09.2018 and
order of sentence dated 04.10.2018, passed by learned A.D.J.,
F.T.C.- 1st, Jamui in S. Tr. No. 12 of 2008/S. Tr. No. 270 of 2008
arising out of Laxmipur P.S. Case No. 27 of 2007 is hereby set-
aside.
38. Accordingly, appellant no. 3 namely, Anil Singh is
acquitted of the charges leveled against him by the learned trial
court. He is directed to be released forthwith, if his presence is
not required in any other case. Fine, if any paid, be returned to
appellant no. 3 immediately.
39. Let a copy of this judgment along with the Trial
Court Records be sent to the learned Trial Court forthwith.
(Chandra Shekhar Jha, J.)
I agree.
(Bibek Chaudhuri, J.)
Rajeev/-
AFR/NAFR AFR
CAV DATE 24.03.2026
Uploading Date 03.04.2026
Transmission Date 03.04.2026
Checking your session…
Lawyer court records for this case
Associated through the court’s case reference.