Patna High Court
BALIRAM SINGH @ BALI SINGHversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISMISSED
Holding
The appellate court upheld the trial court’s acquittal, finding the prosecution evidence insufficient to convict the respondents.
Summary
The appellant Baliram Singh alleged that on 10 January 2012 he and his son were attacked by six accused in a land‑dispute, resulting in his son's death. The trial court acquitted the accused, finding the prosecution had failed to prove the crime beyond reasonable doubt. On appeal under Section 372( proviso) of the CrPC, the High Court examined the testimony of eight prosecution witnesses, all of whom were family members or interested parties and none were eyewitnesses. The informant’s own evidence was found inconsistent and lacking corroboration, and the investigating officer had not collected any forensic material or independent statements. The Court held that the prosecution’s case rested solely on unreliable testimony and defective investigation, rendering conviction unsafe. Applying the settled principles on appeals against acquittal, the Court affirmed the double presumption of innocence in favour of the accused. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed and the acquittal upheld.
Issues considered
- What is the evidentiary basis required to set aside an acquittal in an appeal under CrPC Section 372?
- Whether the prosecution evidence, particularly the informant's testimony, is sufficient to prove the charges under IPC Sections 302, 307, 120(B) and Arms Act Section 27 beyond reasonable doubt
- Whether the investigation conducted by the police was defective and its impact on the prosecution case
Legislation cited
- Arms Act — s. 27
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 313, 372
- Indian Penal Code — s. 120(B), 302, 307, 34
Subjects
- appeal against acquittal
- insufficient evidence
- eyewitness testimony
- hearsay
- defective investigation
- land dispute
- murder
- IPC 302
- IPC 307
- IPC 120B
- Arms Act 27
- CrPC 372
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL APPEAL (DB) No.600 of 2023
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-27 Year-2012 Thana- UDWANTNAGAR District- Bhojpur
======================================================
Baliram Singh @ Bali Singh Son Of Late Sabhapati Singh Dihri, Ps- Udwant
Nagar, District- Bhojpur. ... ... Appellant
Versus
1. The State of Bihar
2. Kamleshwar Singh Son Of Late Shiv Vachan Singh @ Sidheshwar Singh
Resident Of Villge- Dihri, Ps- Udwant Nagar, District- Bhojpur
3. Ranjan Singh Son Of Musahar Singh @ Sudeshwar Singh Resident Of
Villge- Dihri, Ps- Udwant Nagar, District- Bhojpur
4. Sanjeet Kumar @ Sanjeet Singh Son Of Musahar Singh @ Sudeshwar Singh
Resident Of Villge- Dihri, Ps- Udwant Nagar, District- Bhojpur
5. Madho Singh Son Of Late Somaru Singh Resident Of Villge- Dihri, Ps-
Udwant Nagar, District- Bhojpur
6. Shikandar Singh @ Shikandar Son Of Kameshwar Singh Resident Of
Villge- Dihri, Ps- Udwant Nagar, District- Bhojpur
... ... Respondents.
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Appellant/s : Mr. Ravindra Kumar, Advocate
Mr. Priyanshu Kumar, Advocate
Mr. Sanjeet Kumar, Advocate
Mr. Amish Kumar, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Syed Ashfaque Ahmad, APP
For the Res. No. 2 to 6 Mr. Murlidhar Mishra, Advocate
Mr. Subhesh Pandey, Advocate
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJEEV RANJAN PRASAD
and
HONOURABLE JUSTICE SMT. SONI SHRIVASTAVA
ORAL JUDGMENT
(Per: HONOURABLE JUSTICE SMT. SONI SHRIVASTAVA)
Date : 17-03-2026
Heard learned counsel for the appellant, learned APP for
the State and learned counsel for the respondent nos. 2 to 6.
2. The present appeal has been preferred under Section
372 proviso of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 challenging
the judgment and order dated 25.04.2023 passed by the Court of
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.600 of 2023 dt.17-03-2026
2/22
Additional Sessions Judge-III, Civil Court, Bhojpur (Ara) in
Sessions Trial No.220 of 2013 (arising out of Udwantnagar P.S.
Case NO. 27 of 2012) whereby and whereunder the respondents
have been acquitted by the learned trial court from the charges
levelled against them under Sections 302, 307, and 120 (B) of the
Indian Penal Code read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code
(hereinafter referred to as ‘IPC’) and section 27 of the Arms Act.
3. The records of this appeal have been placed before
this Court for consideration of the prayer of the appellant.
4. The prosecution case emerging from the fardbeyan
(Ext.4) of the informant, namely Baliram Singh @ Bali Singh, is
that on 10.01.2012 at about 16:15 hours, he along with his son
Hare Krishna Singh was returning to his house from Ara and when
they reached near the farmyard of Lallu Singh, they were
surrounded by the accused persons namely Madho Singh,
Dharmendra Singh, Kameshwar Singh, Sikandar Singh, Yogendra
Singh @ Punjabi, Musahar Singh, Rajan Singh, Sanjeet Singh and
Ramjeet Singh, who were all variously armed. It is alleged that
Madho Singh and Kameshwar Singh instigated the other accused
persons to kill the informant and his son, upon which all the
accused persons caught hold of the informant's son Hare Krishna
Singh. Thereafter, Dharmendra Singh and Sikandar Singh fired on
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.600 of 2023 dt.17-03-2026
3/22
the head of Hare Krishna Singh, as a result of which he fell. It is
further alleged that the accused persons also assaulted the
informant by means of fists and slaps. At the same time, Madho
Singh also fired at the informant, however the bullet was misfired.
Upon raising alarm, informant’s wife Moharmato Devi and other
villagers reached the place of occurrence and witnessed the
incident. Seeing the villagers gathering at the place of occurrence,
all the accused persons fled away. It is further alleged that Hare
Krishna Singh died due to the gunshot injury fired by Dharmendra
Singh. The reason for the occurrence is stated to be a land dispute
between the parties, as the accused persons allegedly intended to
grab the land of the informant. It is also alleged that Madho Singh,
who is a Chowkidar, is the main conspirator behind the
occurrence.
5. On the basis of the above-mentioned fardbeyan of the
informant- Baliram Singh @ Bali Singh, Udwantnagar P.S. Case
No. 27 of 2012 was registered by the police against nine accused
persons including the appellant. After submission of the charge-
sheet against accused persons, cognizance was taken by the
learned C.J.M under sections 302, 307 and 120(B) read with
Section 34 of the IPC and 27 of Arms Act, whereafter the case was
committed to the Court of Sessions vide order dated 22.05.2013,
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.600 of 2023 dt.17-03-2026
4/22
giving rise to Sessions Case Nos. 220 of 2013, 221 of 2013 and
222 of 2013, which were subsequently amalgamated.
6. Accordingly, the trial proceeded against six accused
persons, one of them was declared juvenile vide order dated
03.08.2016, and his case was separated. Thereafter, the trial
proceeded against the remaining five accused persons.
7. Further, charges under Sections 302, 307 and 120(B)
IPC and Section 27 of the Arms Act were framed against the five
accused persons vide order dated 26.09.2013 to which they
pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. The statement of the
accused persons under Section 313 Cr.P.C was recorded on
07.04.2022, after closure of the prosecution evidence.
8. The prosecution to substantiate its case during trial
has examined, as many as, eight witnesses and has exhibited
several documents, while the defence have neither examined any
witness nor exhibited any document. The list of prosecution
witnesses and documents exhibited on behalf of prosecution and
defence are mentioned hereinbelow in a tabular chart:
List of Prosecution witnesses
PW1 Suraj Kumar Singh @ Suraj Singh
PW2 Radhika Devi
PW3 Anjali Devi @ Rinku Devi
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.600 of 2023 dt.17-03-2026
5/22
PW4 Dr. R.N. Yadav (Doctor who conducted autopsy of
deceased Hare Krishna Singh)
PW5 Vijay Prasad Rai (SHO -Cum-IO)
PW6 Moharwati Devi (Mother of deceased)
PW7 Maheshwar Singh
PW8 Baliram Singh (Informant)
List of Exhibits on behalf of Prosecution
Ext.1 Post-Mortem Report
Ext.2 Formal FIR
Ext.3 Fard-bayan
Ext.4 Signature of informant Baliram Singh @ Bali
Singh
FINDINGS OF THE TRIAL COURT
9. The learned trial court, upon analyzing the evidence
and deposition of the prosecution witnesses with respect to the
charges levelled against the respondents arrived at the conclusion
that the prosecution has failed to prove and establish well beyond
reasonable doubt, both the criminal act and intent of the accused
persons and that the prosecution was not able to bring home the
charges against the accused persons. Accordingly, the accused
persons/respondents stood acquitted of the charges framed under
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.600 of 2023 dt.17-03-2026
6/22
Sections 302, 307 & 120(B) read with Section 34 of I.P.C &
Section 27 of the Arms Act, in absence of sufficient evidence and
were thus discharged from the liabilities of their bail bonds.
ARGUMENT ON BEHALF OF APPELLANT
10. The argument of the learned counsel for the
informant/appellant is that the witnesses of the prosecution have
fully supported the allegations against the accused persons. It has
been specifically submitted that there is a direct allegation that the
appellant along with the other co-accused persons fired on Hare
Krishna Singh (deceased), resulting in his death while other co-
accused persons also assaulted the informant by means of lathi,
danda, farsa, etc. It has further been submitted that the medical
evidence in form of the Post Mortem Report and the deposition of
the doctor (PW4) also indicates that the deceased died due to
gunshot injury. Considering the allegations to be serious in nature,
it was prayed that the accused persons deserve to be convicted and
the impugned judgment of acquittal be thus set aside.
ARGUMENT ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENTS
11. Per contra, the learned APP for the State and
respondent nos. 2 to 6 have emphatically submitted that the
accused persons are totally innocent and they have been falsely
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.600 of 2023 dt.17-03-2026
7/22
implicated on account of previous enmity and land dispute. The
witnesses of the prosecution are all interested and hearsay and as a
matter of fact there is no eyewitness of the incident as upon
perusal of the deposition of the witnesses, it becomes apparent that
they were not present at the place occurrence at the alleged time of
incident. The Investigating Officer has also not collected any
evidence worth the name to lend support to the case of the
prosecution. As such, the charges levelled against the accused
persons/respondents have not been proved by the prosecution
beyond reasonable doubt and hence, the acquittal of the
respondents do not need to be interfered with.
ANALYSIS AND CONSIDERATION
12. We have heard learned counsel for the informant/
appellant, learned APP for the State and learned counsel for
respondent nos. 2 to 6 and considered the materials on record. The
prosecution has examined as many as eight witnesses as
enumerated hereinbefore in the tabular chart, whose evidence
needs to be briefly analyzed for arriving at a justifiable decision.
13. P.W.-1 (Suraj Kumar Singh @ Suraj Singh), who
happens to be uncle of the deceased, has claimed to be an
eyewitness in his examination-in-chief by stating that he had
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.600 of 2023 dt.17-03-2026
8/22
reached the place of occurrence upon alarm being raised and even
intervened in the clash which was taking place between the
accused persons and the informant and the deceased. However, in
his cross examination in para-8, he has stated that there is no other
witness to the incident but for his family members while in para-
14, he made a statement that when he was going towards the place
of occurrence he did not meet anyone on the way and did not
witness the alleged incident (Maarpit), when he reached the place
of occurrence. He has further clarified in para18 of his deposition
that he had not reached the place of occurrence while the incident
was happening and further in para-20, he stated that he reached
after the occurrence. He also disclosed that his brother had told
him about the occurrence. It thus, appears from totality of his
evidence that he is not an eyewitness to the occurrence but is only
a hearsay witness.
14. P.W.-2 (Radhika Devi), the mother of the deceased
and P.W.-3 (Anjali Devi), the wife of the deceased have admitted
in their examination-in-chief itself that it was the informant who
had informed them about the incident and the information was also
given by the villagers. While P.W.-2 has admitted that hundreds of
people had already reached the place of occurrence before her,
P.W.-3 has specifically stated in para-16 of her deposition that she
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.600 of 2023 dt.17-03-2026
9/22
was at the rooftop of her house along with Maheshwar Singh
(P.W.-7), her mother-in-law Moharmati Devi (P.W.-6), father-in-
law Suraj Singh (P.W.-1) & Radhika Devi (P.W.-2), at the time of
firing. In para-17 and 18, she had further confirmed that she had
stated before the Investigating Officer that she was at her rooftop
along with the aforesaid family members and before she or her
family members reached the place of occurrence, 20 to 30 persons
had already assembled but she is unable to name any of them.
Thus, she negates not only her presence at the place of occurrence
as an eye witness but other witnesses too, including P.W.-1, P.W.-2,
P.W.-6 and P.W.-7.
15. As per the deposition of P.W.-4 (Dr. R.N. Yadav)–
Cause of death is due to shock & hemorrhage caused by firearm
injury which is consistent with the prosecution case of the
deceased being killed by firing of gunshot.
16. P.W.-6 (Moharmati Devi), wife of the informant and
P.W.-7 (Maheshwar Singh), son of the informant have also made
an attempt to pose themselves as eyewitness of the occurrence but
P.W.-6 in para-7 of her cross-examination has stated that 10 to 20
persons were already present at the place of occurrence, before she
reached. Further, PW7 in Para-6 of his cross-examination stated
that before he reached the place of occurrence, thirty to forty
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.600 of 2023 dt.17-03-2026
10/22
people were already assembled there. In para-7, he stated that he
saw his brother lying on the ground having gun-shot injury. Thus,
upon a cumulative reading of the testimonies of P.W.-6 and P.W.-7,
read in conjunction with the deposition of P.W.-3, it becomes
evident that P.W.-6 & P.W.-7 were on the rooftop of P.W.-3 at the
time of firing. Therefore, P.W.-6 & P.W.-7 were only hearsay
witnesses and have not seen the alleged occurrence.
17. Thus, upon consideration of the deposition of all the
above mentioned prosecution witnesses, it is gathered that the
witnesses are all giving a hearsay account of the occurrence on the
basis of what has been fed to them by the informant (P.W.-8),
which takes us to analyse the evidence of the informant, Baliram
Singh @ Bali Singh, examined as P.W.8.
18. P.W.-8 (Baliram Singh @ Bali Singh), the appellant,
who is also the informant of the present case, claims to have
witnessed the occurrence as he has stated that he was coming
along with the deceased from Ara and the occurrence took place
when they reached the field of Lallu Singh. He has reiterated the
story, narrated in the fardbeyan (Exhibit-4) to the extent that
Madho Singh (R-5) and Kameshwar Singh (R-2) had exhorted for
killing the deceased. So far as the allegation of opening fire on
deceased is concerned, while this witness had attributed such
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.600 of 2023 dt.17-03-2026
11/22
allegation on Dharmendra Singh and Sikandar Singh in the FIR,
during trial the said allegation is confined to Dharmendra Singh
only, which led to the death of the deceased.
19. The attempt of the informant (P.W.8) to portray
himself as an eyewitness has also failed as his evidence suffers
from the vice of inherent inconsistencies and is replete with major
contradictions. Neither does his presence gets established by the
evidence of other witnesses nor he has been able to give any
details of the incident in order to inspire confidence. On the
contrary, he has not even been consistent in mentioning names of
the accused who fired at the deceased and most importantly, fired
at him. He even failed to give any satisfactory reason for being
present at the place of occurrence with the deceased.
20. Learned counsel for the appellant has contended that
although the informant (P.W.8) is the only eye witness, but his
evidence may be kept in the category of a ‘wholly reliable’
witness. It is an admitted position and there is no contest with the
finding of the learned trial court that all other prosecution
witnesses are not eye witnesses of the occurrence.
21. So far as the testimony of P.W.-8 is concerned, we
have closely looked into the same and find that he has changed his
statement during course of trial. While in the fardbeyan, he has
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.600 of 2023 dt.17-03-2026
12/22
mentioned the name of Madho Singh as his assailant who had fired
upon him, in course of trial he has attributed such allegation upon
Sikandar. There are other deficient statements such as, he could
not say that for how long he was present at the place of occurrence
and when the police arrived at the place of occurrence, from which
direction bullets were shot etc., all these together make us to
believe that he cannot fall in the category of a ‘wholly reliable’
witness as veracity cannot be attached to his testimony and his
testimony alone, without sufficient corroboration from
independent quarters, would not be sufficient, much less safe, to
convict the respondent nos. 2 to 6. This Court is unable to reach
an irresistible conclusion as to the guilt of the respondents.
22. Moreover, the trend of prosecution evidence is also
to be viewed in background of the fact that all the witnesses
belong to the family of the informant and deceased and there is an
admitted case of land dispute between the parties, thereby bringing
these witnesses in the category of ‘interested witnesses’. It also
needs to be considered that despite the specific and consistent case
of the prosecution of several villagers assembling at the place of
occurrence, not a single independent witness has been examined
on its behalf, which could have attached some credence to the case
of the prosecution. Thus, the non-examination of any independent
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.600 of 2023 dt.17-03-2026
13/22
witness, not even the landlord of the farmyard, which is place of
occurrence, Lallu Singh, especially when the incident is said to
have taken place in broad daylight, takes away the credibility of
the prosecution story.
23. PW-5 (Vijay Prasad Rai), S.H.O. -cum-Investigating
Officer of this case, has stated in his examination-in-chief that on
10-01-2012, he received an information (source not disclosed)
about murder of a person at Village Dihri, whereupon, he
registered a sanha and thereafter reached the place of occurrence at
04:15 p.m., where he saw that one person has been killed by
gunshot. This witness recorded the fardbeyan of Baliram Singh
(PW8) at place of occurrence, prepared inquest report of the dead
body and thereafter sent the dead body for post-mortem
examination. Further, this witness sated that he inspected the place
of occurrence which is farmyard of Lallu Singh (not examined),
where he found dead body of deceased near the bundles of hay
stock and blood near the place of occurrence. After completion of
investigation, this witness submitted charge-sheet against the
accused persons.
24. This Court takes note of the fact that the
Investigating Officer (P.W. 5) of the case has indulged in
perfunctory investigation in as much as, he has not recovered or
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.600 of 2023 dt.17-03-2026
14/22
collected any objective evidence from the place of occurrence in
order to establish the same, including empty cartridges, pellets,
blood etc. and submitted charge-sheet in absence of the same. He
failed to record statements of independent witnesses of the vicnity
of the place of occurrence, as admitted by him during trial. What
further appears to be a glaring deficiency in investigation is that he
even failed to examine the witness on the Inquest Report, Akhilesh
Kumar, as specifically admitted in para-7 of his deposition. Thus,
in wake of the fact that neither Investigating Officer has examined
Akhilesh Kumar, the witness on Inquest Report, nor the said
witness has been examined during trial, nor the inquest has been
exhibited/brought on record, even by any other formal proof of the
same, makes him remain as ghost witness and further rendering
the very existence and preparation of the Inquest Report shrouded
in mystery. Moreover, even as per the deposition of the
Investigating Officer, neither the informant, nor any family
member is witness to the alleged Inquest Report, thereby further
negating their presence at the place of occurrence.
25. From the entire foregoing discussion and analysis of
evidence on record, it is apparent that the prosecution has
primarily rested its case on the evidence of the informant (P.W.8),
whose evidence is not worthy of basing conviction coupled with
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.600 of 2023 dt.17-03-2026
15/22
several other major deficiencies and gaping loopholes in the
prosecution case. As such, in our opinion, there is no good ground
to differ with the judgment of the learned Trial Court acquitting the
accused persons (Respondent nos.2 to 6) from the charges levelled
against them.
26. Thus, considering the settled proposition of law as
laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in relation to appeals against
acquittal, in the case of Rajesh Prasad Vs. State of Bihar,
reported in (2022)3 SCC 471, which also took note of the case of
Chandrappa v. State of Karnataka, reported in (2007) 4 SCC
415, it is abundantly clear that the accused persons (respondents)
are within the shield of double presumption -- the presumption of
innocence under principles of criminal jurisprudence and the same
being re-inforced by the judgment of acquittal by the Trial Court.
Paragraph-29 of Rajesh Prasad (supra) is being quoted
hereunder:
“29. After referring to a catena of judgments, this Court
culled out the following general principles regarding the
powers of the appellate court while dealing with an appeal
against an order of acquittal in the following words :
(Chandrappa case [(2007) 4 SCC 415 : (2007) 2 SCC (Cri)
325] , SCC p. 432, para 42)
“42. From the above decisions, in our considered
view, the following general principles regarding powers of the
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.600 of 2023 dt.17-03-2026
16/22
appellate court while dealing with an appeal against an order
of acquittal emerge:
(1) An appellate court has full power to review,
reappreciate and reconsider the evidence upon which the
order of acquittal is founded.
(2) The Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 puts no
limitation, restriction or condition on exercise of such power
and an appellate court on the evidence before it may reach its
own conclusion, both on questions of fact and of law.
(3) Various expressions, such as, “substantial and
compelling reasons”, “good and sufficient grounds”, “very
strong circumstances”, “distorted conclusions”, “glaring
mistakes”, etc. are not intended to curtail extensive powers of
an appellate court in an appeal against acquittal. Such
phraseologies are more in the nature of “flourishes of
language” to emphasise the reluctance of an appellate court
to interfere with acquittal than to curtail the power of the
court to review the evidence and to come to its own
conclusion.
(4) An appellate court, however, must bear in
mind that in case of acquittal, there is double presumption in
favour of the accused. Firstly, the presumption of innocence is
available to him under the fundamental principle of criminal
jurisprudence that every person shall be presumed to be
innocent unless he is proved guilty by a competent court of
law. Secondly, the accused having secured his acquittal, the
presumption of his innocence is further reinforced, reaffirmed
and strengthened by the trial court.
(5) If two reasonable conclusions are possible on
the basis of the evidence on record, the appellate court should
not disturb the finding of acquittal recorded by the trial
court.”
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.600 of 2023 dt.17-03-2026
17/22
27. This view was reiterated in the case of H.D.
Sundara and Ors. Vs. State of Karnataka reported in (2023) 9
SCC 581 and Babu Sahebgouda Rudragoudar and Ors. Vs.
Sate of Karnataka reported in (2024) 8 SCC 149. Thus, applying
the abovementioned settled principles, the view of the learned
Trial Court acquitting the accused persons (Respondent Nos.2 to
6) on the basis of insufficiency of evidence and on the ground that
the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond the shadow of
reasonable doubt, appears to be a probable view and even if two
reasonable conclusions are possible on the basis of evidence on
record, in view of the settled position of law, this Court does not
find any reasonable ground to disturb the finding of acquittal
recorded by the learned Trial Court.
28. Therefore, taking into consideration that the
impugned judgment and order of acquittal is based on sound
reasons, the same warrants no interference as we do not find any
illegality or perversity in the findings recorded by the learned Trial
Court in the impugned judgment dated 25.04.2023 passed by
learned Additional Sessions Judge-III, Bhojpur at Ara, in Sessions
Trial No.220 of 2013 (arising out of Udwantnagar P.S. Case No.
27 of 2012).
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.600 of 2023 dt.17-03-2026
18/22
29. Before parting with the judgment, we feel
constrained to record our displeasure with the inaction of the
Investigating Agency which has conducted an improper, faulty and
perfunctory investigation. Such defective investigation largely
contributes to the failure of the prosecution and consequently,
failure of the justice delivery system. At this juncture, we are
tempted to quote from the case of State of Gujarat Vs.
Kishanbhai & Ors., reported in (2014) 5 SCC 108, where the
Hon’ble Apex Court held in paragraph-23 as under:
“23. On the culmination of a criminal case in acquittal, the
investigating/prosecuting official(s) concerned responsible
for such acquittal must necessarily be identified. A finding
needs to be recorded in each case, whether the lapse was
innocent or blameworthy. Each erring officer must suffer the
consequences of his lapse, by appropriate departmental
action, whenever called for. Taking into consideration the
seriousness of the matter, the official concerned may be
withdrawn from investigative responsibilities, permanently or
temporarily, depending purely on his culpability. We also feel
compelled to require the adoption of some indispensable
measures, which may reduce the malady suffered by parties
on both sides of criminal litigation. Accordingly, we direct the
Home Department of every State Government to formulate a
procedure for taking action against all erring
investigating/prosecuting officials/officers. All such erring
officials/officers identified, as responsible for failure of a
prosecution case, on account of sheer negligence or because
of culpable lapses, must suffer departmental action. The
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.600 of 2023 dt.17-03-2026
19/22
above mechanism formulated would infuse seriousness in the
performance of investigating and prosecuting duties, and
would ensure that investigation and prosecution are
purposeful and decisive. The instant direction shall also be
given effect to within 6 months.”
30. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Dayal
Singh & Ors. Vs. State of Uttaranchal, reported in (2012) 8
SCC 263 laid down certain parameters for dealing with the
question of defective investigation. Paragraph-19 of the judgment
is being quoted hereunder:
“19. Now, we will deal with the question of defective or
improper investigation resulting from the acts of omission
and/or commission, deliberate or otherwise, of the
investigating officer or other material witnesses, who are
obliged to perform certain duties in discharge of their
functions and then to examine its effects. In order to examine
this aspect in conformity with the rule of law and keeping in
mind the basic principles of criminal jurisprudence, and the
questions framed by us at the very outset of this judgment,
the following points need consideration:
(i) Whether there have been acts of omission and commission
which have resulted in improper or defective investigation.
(ii) Whether such default and/or acts of omission and commission
have adversely affected the case of the prosecution.
(iii) Whether such default and acts were deliberate, unintentional
or resulted from unavoidable circumstances of a given case.
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.600 of 2023 dt.17-03-2026
20/22
(iv) If the dereliction of duty and omission to perform was
deliberate, then is it obligatory upon the court to pass
appropriate directions including directions in regard to
taking of penal or other civil action against such
officer/witness.”
31. The investigational lapses conducted by the
Investigating Officer, by way of not collecting of any objective
evidence including blood, cartridges etc., non-recording of
statements of independent material witnesses, not even the witness
on the Inquest Report, casts serious aspersion on the conduct of the
Investigating Officer which has had a detrimental effect on the
prosecution case. We cannot ignore his casual and callous
approach towards investigation, as he is expected to perform his
duties with greater caution and sincerity, by even taking recourse
to scientific methods of investigation. The police has a primary
and statutory duty to investigate into a crime in accordance with
law and fair investigation is a necessary concomitant of Articles 14
and 21 of the Constitution of India and a strict adherence to the
same is the bounden duty and obligation of the Investigating
agency. In the words of Lord Denning “In safeguarding our
freedoms, the police play a vital role. Society for its defence needs
a well-led, well-trained and well-disciplined force of police whom
it can trust: and enough of them to be able to prevent crime before
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.600 of 2023 dt.17-03-2026
21/22
it happens, or if it does happen, to detect it and bring the accused
to justice”.
32. In the present case, the Investigating Officer has
utterly failed in the performance of his salutary duty, which raises
deliberation upon the fact whether such investigation, done in
breach of professional standards and requirements of law, is an
intentional act designed to cause failure of prosecution or sheer
incompetence of the police officer. We thus direct the
Superintendent of Police, District of Bhojpur to conduct an inquiry
against the Investigating Officer Vijay Prasad Rai (P.W.-5) and
consider taking appropriate disciplinary action as may be
permissible in law against the erring officer. If found guilty, the
erring police officer would be liable to be punished in accordance
with law. It does not matter whether such officer is in service or
has since retired.
33. Let a copy of this judgment be sent to the
Superintendent of Police, Bhojpur, by email as well as through
registered post for compliance of the directions.
34 An action taken report be submitted to the learned
Registrar General, Patna High Court within four months from the
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.600 of 2023 dt.17-03-2026
22/22
date of receipt of communication. The report shall be placed for
perusal by the Court.
35. With the above-mentioned directions, the appeal
stands dismissed.
(Rajeev Ranjan Prasad, J)
(Soni Shrivastava, J)
devendra/-
AFR/NAFR NAFR
CAV DATE NA
Uploading Date 26.03.2026
Transmission Date 26.03.2026
Checking your session…