Patna High Court
Pappu MandalversusThe State Of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- ALLOWED
Holding
The conviction was set aside because the circumstantial evidence did not meet the requisite standards of proof, and the appellant was acquitted.
Summary
The appellant, Pappu Mandal, was convicted by the Additional District and Sessions Judge for the murder of his brother’s son, Prashant, under Sections 302 read with 34 of the IPC and Section 27 of the Arms Act. The trial court relied on circumstantial evidence, including the fact that the deceased and appellant had slept on the same cot, a love‑triangle motive, and the absence of blood on the appellant’s clothing. The appellant appealed, arguing that the evidence did not satisfy the stringent “panchsheel” criteria for circumstantial proof and that there was no direct evidence linking him to the shooting. The High Court examined the testimonies of eight prosecution witnesses, forensic reports, and the legal standards for circumstantial cases, concluding that the prosecution’s case was based merely on suspicion and did not meet the required standards of proof. Consequently, the Court set aside the conviction, acquitted the appellant of all charges, ordered his immediate release, and directed the return of any fine paid.
Issues considered
- Whether the circumstantial evidence presented satisfied the five‑point ‘panchsheel’ test for conviction under Sections 302/34 IPC and Section 27 Arms Act.
- Whether the conviction based on motive of a love‑triangle and lack of blood on the appellant’s clothes is sufficient to uphold the judgment.
Legislation cited
- Arms Act — s. 27
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 207, 209, 313, 374(2)
- Indian Penal Code — s. 302, 34
Subjects
- murder
- circumstantial evidence
- acquittal
- Indian Penal Code
- Arms Act
- criminal appeal
- proof of guilt
- panchsheel
- love triangle
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL APPEAL (DB) No.792 of 2018
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-94 Year-2014 Thana- KAHALGAON District- Bhagalpur
======================================================
Pappu Mandal S/o Late Bhagwat Mandal, R/o Vill.- Mushari Pannuchak,
Kamalkund Babu Tola, P.S.- Ghogha, District- Bhagalpur.
... ... Appellant/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Appellant/s : Dr. Ranjeet Kumar, Adv
: Mr. Dilip Kumar, Adv
: Mr. Mohit Srivastava, Adv
: Mr. Ayush Kumar, Adv
: Mr. Kanishk Kaustubh, Adv
: Mr. Rajnish Prakash, Adv
: Ms. Lakshmi Kumari, Adv
: Mr. Ankesh Kumar Sinha, Adv
: Ms. Prerna, Adv
For the Respondent/s : Mr. Ajay Mishra, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BIBEK CHAUDHURI
and
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE CHANDRA SHEKHAR JHA
CAV JUDGMENT
(Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE CHANDRA SHEKHAR JHA)
Date : 10-04-2026
Heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of
petitioner and learned A.P.P. for the State.
2. The present appeal has been preferred by aforesaid
appellant-convict under Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Code’)
challenging the impugned judgment of conviction dated
24.05.2018 and order of sentence dated 29.05.2018 respectively
passed by learned Additional District and Sessions Judge No. 2,
Bhagalpur in Sessions Trial No. 800 of 2014, arising out of
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.792 of 2018 dt.10-04-2026
2/18
Kahalgaon (Ghogha) P.S. Case No. 94 of 2014, whereby and
whereunder the learned Trial Court has convicted the appellant
for the offences punishable under Sections 302 read with 34 of
the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as ‘I.P.C.’) and
Section 27 of the Arms Act. Appellant has been sentenced to
undergo rigorous imprisonment for life alongwith fine of Rs.
10,000/- under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the I.P.C.
and in default of payment of fine appellant shall further directed
to undergo simple imprisonment of six months and further
sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years
alongwith fine of Rs. 2,000/- under Section 27 of the Arms Act
and in default of payment of fine appellant shall undergo simple
imprisonment of one month. All the aforesaid sentences have
been ordered to run concurrently.
Case of prosecution
3. The brief case of prosecution as founded upon the
“fardbeyan” of Girija Devi (P.W. 3), wife of Devendra Mandal,
that on 09.03.2014, after having dinner, she returned to her
house at around 10:00 PM. At that time, her son Prashant was
sleeping on a cot at the doorstep along with Pappu Mandal
(appellant), a resident of her village, while her middle son,
Raghuveer Kumar, was sleeping alone on a nearby cot. At
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.792 of 2018 dt.10-04-2026
3/18
around 11:00 PM, she heard a noise from outside. She initially
thought that there was a fire cracker bursting at nearby wedding
in the village. After some time, Raghuveer and Pappu raised an
alarm, saying that blood was coming out of Prashant’s mouth.
Upon hearing this, she came out and saw that blood was flowing
from his mouth. Hearing the commotion, nearby villagers
gathered and speculated that it might be due to the bursting of a
vein in the brain. However, she suspected that her son had been
shot, as blood was flowing from his body. At that time,
Prashant’s body was covered with a blanket up to his neck, due
to which no bullet injury was visible. On the morning of
10.03.2014 at about 6:00 AM, when several people gathered and
the blanket was removed, it was found that blood was flowing
from the left side of his neck and also from rib cage. This made
her firmly believe that Pappu Mandal, a resident of Musahari,
Pannuchak, Kamalakund Babu Tola, along with unknown
associates, had shot and killed her son, Prashant.
4. On the basis of aforesaid information/fardbeyan,
Kahalgaon (Ghogha) P.S. Case No.94 of 2014 was lodged for
the offences punishable under Sections 302/34 of the I.P.C. and
Section 27 of the Arms Act on 10.03.2014.
5. After completion of investigation, the police
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.792 of 2018 dt.10-04-2026
4/18
submitted Charge-Sheet No. 188 of 2014 for the offences
punishable under Sections 302/34 of the I.P.C. and Section 27 of
the Arms Act on 31.05.2014 against appellant before the learned
Jurisdictional Magistrate.
6. Upon perusal of materials available on record, the
learned jurisdictional Magistrate took cognizance of the
offences punishable under Sections 302/34 of I.P.C. and Section
27 of the Arms Act against the appellant and after compliance of
Section 207 of the Code, committed the case of appellant in
view of Section 209 of the Code to the Court of Sessions on
08.01.2015 for trial and disposal.
7. After commitment, learned trial court explained
charges to appellant/accused, on the basis of materials collected
during investigation, which he pleaded “not guilty” and claimed
trial.
8. To substantiate its case before learned trial court,
the prosecution has, in total, examined eight witnesses, which
are:-
Sr. No(s). Prosecution Witnesses
P.W. 1 Suman Kumar
P.W. 2 Raghuveer Kumar (younger brother of
deceased)
P.W. 3 Girija Devi (mother of the deceased
and informant of this case)
P.W. 4 Devendra Mandal (father of the
deceased)
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.792 of 2018 dt.10-04-2026
5/18
P.W. 5 Surin Mandal (uncle of deceased)
P.W. 6 Dr. Sandeep Lal
P.W. 7 Jai Ram Mandal
P.W. 8 Randhir Kumar Singh (Investigating
Officer)
9. The prosecution has also relied upon the following
documents as to substantiate its case, which are as under:-
Sr. No. Exhibit No(s). List of documents.
1. Exhibit -1 Seizure List
2. Exhibit-2 Inquest Report
3. Exhibit-3 Postmortem Report
4. Exhibit-4 Signature of Jairam
Mandal on the fardbeyan.
5. Exhibit-5 Formal FIR
10. The statement of the appellant-accused was
recorded under Section 313 of the Code after stating to him
incriminating evidence/circumstances as surfaced during the
trial, which he denied and showed his complete innocence.
11. On the basis of evidences as surfaced during the
trial, the learned trial court convicted and sentenced the
appellant/convict, in aforesaid terms. Being aggrieved of which
present appeal was preferred.
12. Hence, the present appeal.
Argument on behalf of appellant
13. Learned counsel appearing for appellant while
assailing through impugned judgment for conviction submitted
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.792 of 2018 dt.10-04-2026
6/18
that the conviction of appellant was recorded not on the basis of
“direct evidence” rather on the basis of “circumstantial
evidence” as he was sleeping with the deceased on same bed/cot
covered with mosquito net. It is submitted that another
incriminating circumstance which was considered by the
learned Trial Court was that despite sleeping on the same
bed/cot with deceased no blood stain was found on the cloth of
the appellant and, therefore, it was presumed that at the time of
occurrence he was not on the bed and committed the murder. It
is submitted by learned counsel that both appellant and deceased
were sleeping in the outer courtyard (darwaza) on which just at
the distance of two yards on another bed younger brother of
deceased namely Raguveer Kumar (P.W. 2) was sleeping, whose
cloth was found stained with blood. In this context, it is further
submitted that the place of occurrence is an open place
accessible to all. It is pointed out that no material qua enmities
surfaced during the trial and save and except suspicion that the
murder was committed for the reason that deceased was in love
with same girl with whom this appellant was in love and due to
this love triangle present occurrence took place, no any cogent
motive was assigned.
14. It is futher submitted that beside aforesaid, no fire-
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.792 of 2018 dt.10-04-2026
7/18
arm was recovered from the possession of this appellant in
support of gunshot injury as ascertained and no other
incriminating material surfaced during the trial, which may
suggest his involvement with crime in question, rather it was
ascertained that appellant woke up after half an hour of the
firing and noticing the profused bleeding he informed the P.W. 2
who was sleeping on next cot/bed, whereafter out of their cry
the occurrence came into the knowledge of mother of deceased
(P.W. 3), who was sleeping inside the room. It is submitted that
by any prudent imagination, the conviction of appellant with
aforesaid circumstances cannot be said justified. The
incriminating circumstances are not within the principles of
“panchsheel” as evolved through leading legal report Sharad
Birdhichand Sarda Vs. State of Maharashtra, [(1984) 4 SCC
116] and, therefore, the impugned judgment of conviction is fit
to be set aside.
Argument on behalf of State
15. Learned A.P.P. appearing on behalf of State, while
opposing the appeal submitted that entire bed sheet was stained
with blood on which the appellant was sleeping with deceased
and, therefore, non-finding of blood stain on his clothes leads to
a serious doubt that how it happened ?, suggesting on its face
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.792 of 2018 dt.10-04-2026
8/18
that at the time of occurrence he was not on the bed. It is
submitted that this is an incriminating circumstance, which must
be duly explained by him.
16. It is further submitted by learned A.P.P. that to
inform the informant and his brother regarding occurrence is
also creating doubt against him, which was rightly considered
by learned Trial Court, while recording the judgment of
conviction. It is submitted that on the basis of single
circumstance, the conviction can be recorded, if it is so
convincing and, therefore, the judgment of conviction as
recorded by learned Trial Court is not required to interfere.
17. We have perused the materials available on the
record and also taken note of the argument as advanced by
learned counsel appearing on behalf of the parties. It appears to
this Court that re-appreciation of evidence is required for just
and proper disposal of the present appeal.
Deposition of witnesses
18. PW-1 Suman Kumar, stated in his examination-
in-chief that Prashant Mandal was sleeping on same bed along
with appellant and on another bed Raghuveer Kumar (P.W. 2)
was sleeping. They were sleeping in outer courtyard (darwaza)
of the house. P.W. 1 categorically stated that he heard two
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.792 of 2018 dt.10-04-2026
9/18
sounds of firing, but he thought that same was bursting of
firecracker in nearby marriage. It was stated by him that after
half an hour the appellant tried to woke up P.W. 2 and other
family members. P.W. 1 came to the place of occurrence and
found that bed/cot was stained with blood and the left side of the
neck of deceased was with penetrating bullet wound and another
wound was below the left chest. No injury was on appellant and
no blood stain was found on his clothes. P.W. 1 ascertained that
mosquito net and blanket was also having one hole. He also
ascertained that the deceased and appellant was in love with
same girl and due to said love triangle and enmity, present
occurrence took place. It was also ascertained by him that the
cloth of deceased along with, cloth of appellant, the blood
stained soil from the place of occurrence, mobile and also
mosquito net were seized. The seizure list was prepared before
him. Two seizure lists were ascertained to be prepared, which
upon his identification was exhibited as Exhibit-1 and Exhibit
1/A. He also identified the signature of Shambhu Mandal on the
carbon copy of the seizure list, which upon his identification
was exhibited as Exhibit-1/B. In terms of testimony the distance
between the two beds i.e., of the deceased and P.W. 2, who is
none but the younger brother of the deceased was hardly of two
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.792 of 2018 dt.10-04-2026
10/18
yards. It was categorically stated by him that he was woken up
by Pappu Mandal (appellant) and when he arrived at the place
of occurrence he found P.W. 3, Ashok Mandal, Manjula Devi,
Mala Devi and other children. The distance between the place of
occurrence and the place where marriage procession was taking
place was about one kilometer. It was ascertained that Pappu
Mandal came along with him at the place of occurrence and
found that P.W. 2 was not sleeping and has woken up. He also
noticed one hole in mosquito note, but by that time it was
dismantled.
19. PW-2 Raghuveer Kumar, who is none but the
younger brother of the deceased. His testimony contradicts the
testimony of P.W. 1, namely Suman Kumar on material aspects,
as it was testified by P.W. 2 that he woke up by the appellant
after half an hour of the occurrence, but as per P.W. 1, he came
to the place of occurrence along with appellant and found that
P.W. 2 was sleeping. Interestingly P.W. 2 ascertained during the
trial that after hearing sound of firing he woke up and saw
vigilantly in his surroundings and upon finding nothing
noticeable he again slept, whereafter half an hour appellant
raised halla saying that brain of his brother Prashant burst and
blood is coming, whereafter he went inside to call his mother
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.792 of 2018 dt.10-04-2026
11/18
(P.W. 3), who was also coming by that time after opening the
gate and they all came near to deceased and found him dead.
They also noticed the cot and bed was found heavily blood
stained, but no blood stain was noticed upon appellant’s clothes.
He categorically said that he did not saw anyone firing upon his
deceased brother. He identified the appellant being co-villager.
His testimony simply suggest that he suspect this appellant to
commit murder of his brother only for the reason that, despite
sleeping on the same bed, which was heavily blood-stained no
blood was found upon the appellant. He did not found anything
objectionable when he woke up after hearing the sound of firing
meaning thereby he found the appellant sleeping with his
brother. It is an admitted position that being co-villagers and
neighbors, the appellant was allowed to sleep with deceased out
of consent.
20. PW-3 Girija Devi, who is the mother of the
deceased and informant of this case stated in her examination-
in-chief that she arrived at the place of the occurrence that is
outer courtyard (darwaza). She also heard two sounds of firing
at about 11 PM and thought that same was fired in connection
with marriage processions, but after sometime P.W. 2 and
appellant/accused raised halla, whereafter she came out of the
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.792 of 2018 dt.10-04-2026
12/18
house and saw profused bleeding from the mouth of Prashant
(deceased son). She did not find any blood on the body of the
appellant. She ascertained that firing was made by appellant due
to which brain of his son was burst. It is ascertained by her that
due to love triangle the appellant committed murder of her son.
She stated in her cross-examination that her younger son namely
Raghuveer Kumar (P.W. 2) was also sleeping in the same
courtyard (darwaza) hardly at the distance of two yards. She
ascertained that she saw appellant firing the accused, but
subsequently ascertained that when appellant and P.W. 2 came
to her only after that she woke up and by the time when she
arrived at the outer courtyard (darwaza), several persons were
gathered over there. She also noticed blood on the body of P.W.
2, her own son.
21. PW-4 Devendra Mandal, who is the father of the
deceased and from his testimony it appears that at the time of
occurrence he was not available at home rather, he went along
with Naresh in connection with one marriage negotiation, where
he received information over phone as given by his younger son
P.W. 2, that appellant and his associates committed murder of
Prashant bhaiya (deceased). Upon his instruction only police
was informed. He stated that the occurrence took place as his
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.792 of 2018 dt.10-04-2026
13/18
deceased son was in love with one Bimli with whom the
appellant was also in love.
22. PW-5 Surin Mandal, is the witness of inquest
who during the trial identified the signature on inquest report
which upon his identification was exhibited as Exhibit-2.
23. PW-6 Dr. Sandeep Lal, is the doctor who
conducted the post-mortem examination on the dead body of
Prashant Kumar, son of Devendra Mandal, resident of Village
Mushahari, P.S. Ghogha, District Bhagalpur, at about 4:00 P.M.
The dead body was brought and identified by a relative, namely
Bhola Narayan Das.
External Examination & Injuries:
On examination of the dead body, I found the
following injuries:
1. Firearm Entry Wound:- One wound of entry
measuring approximately ½" × ½", with inverted
and worn margins, present over the neck.
Blackening was present around the wound.
2. Lacerated Wound on Neck:- A lacerated wound
present on the left side of the neck, deep in nature,
with exposure of underlying structures/bone
cavity.
3. Firearm Injury on Chest:- A projectile wound
present on the left front of the chest.
On dissection, blackening and ecchymosis were
present around the wound.
The size of the wound was approximately 3" × 1".
The direction of the wound was from left to back
and downward.
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.792 of 2018 dt.10-04-2026
14/18
4. Diffuse Swelling: Diffuse swelling was present
over the affected regions.
Internal Examination:
a. The thorax was punctured.
b. There was collection of blood and clotted blood
in the left side of the chest cavity.
c. Blood was also present in the abdominal cavity.
Opinion:
1. The above-mentioned injuries were ante-
mortem in nature.
2. The injuries were grievous and sufficient in the
ordinary course of nature to cause death.
3. Cause of Death: Death was caused due to
firearm injury, resulting in hemorrhage and shock.
4. Time Since Death: Approximately 12 to 24
hours prior to the post-mortem examination.
23.1. Upon cross-examination, it was ascertained by
him that no sign of burning was found outside injury and no
bullet was found inside.
24. PW-7 Jai Ram Mandal, is a formal witness, who
identified his signature over fardbeyan, which upon his
identification was exhibited as Exhibit-4.
25. PW-8 Randhir Kumar Singh, is the I.O. of this
case who recorded the fardbeyan in his own handwriting, which
upon his identification was exhibited as Exhibit-4/1. He also
identified formal FIR, which was in his handwriting which upon
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.792 of 2018 dt.10-04-2026
15/18
his identification was exhibited as Exhibit-5. He also identified
his signature on seizure list, which upon his identification was
exhibited as Exhibit-2/6 and Exhibit-1/C, respectively.
26. From the face of occurrence it transpires that,
place of occurrence was an open place accessible to general
public.
27. It would be apposite to reproduce para-153 and
154 of the Sharad Birdhichand Sarda case (supra), which are
as under:-
“153. A close analysis of this decision would
show that the following conditions must be
fulfilled before a case against an accused can be
said to be fully established:
(1) the circumstances from which the conclusion
of guilt is to be drawn should be fully established.
It may be noted here that this Court indicated that
the circumstances concerned “must or should”
and not “may be” established. There is not only a
grammatical but a legal distinction between “may
be proved” and “must be or should be proved” as
was held by this Court in Shivaji Sahabrao
Bobade v. State of Maharashtra [(1973) 2 SCC
793 : 1973 SCC (Cri) 1033 : 1973 Crl LJ 1783]
where the observations were made: [SCC para 19,
p. 807: SCC (Cri) p. 1047]
“Certainly, it is a primary principle that the
accused must be and not merely may be guilty
before a court can convict and the mental distance
between ‘may be’ and ‘must be’ is long and
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.792 of 2018 dt.10-04-2026
16/18
divides vague conjectures from sure
conclusions.”
(2) the facts so established should be consistent
only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the
accused, that is to say, they should not be
explainable on any other hypothesis except that
the accused is guilty,
(3) the circumstances should be of a conclusive
nature and tendency,
(4) they should exclude every possible hypothesis
except the one to be proved, and
(5) there must be a chain of evidence so complete
as not to leave any reasonable ground for the
conclusion consistent with the innocence of the
accused and must show that in all human
probability the act must have been done by the
accused.
154. These five golden principles, if we may say
so, constitute the panchsheel of the proof of a
case based on circumstantial evidence.”
Discussion & Conclusion
28. No doubt, as we are convinced enough that the
impugned judgment of conviction appears recorded on the basis
of circumstantial evidence. From the aforesaid discussed
evidence it transpires to us that merely on the basis of the fact as
the informant was under suspicion that deceased was in love
with same girl with whom the appellant was in love and as he
was sleeping on the same cot, but despite profused bleeding no
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.792 of 2018 dt.10-04-2026
17/18
blood stain was found upon the appellant, he was suspected to
be involved in the present crime in question. The testimony of
P.W. 3/informant also suggest that she is not the eye-witness of
the occurrence. P.W. 1 was also sleeping on his darwaza, which
was hardly 10-12 steps ahead. It cannot be said with certainty
that the murder was committed by appellant, moreover P.W. 2
was also sleeping over there near to the bed of deceased and to
the contrary his clothes was noticed with blood in terms of
testimony of P.W. 3, who is none, but his mother and also
mother of the deceased. Therefore, on the basis of available
evidence out of testimony of P.W. 1, P.W. 2 and P.W. 3 only a
suspicion can be gathered against appellant. Their testimony
also supporting the fact that appellant was sleeping with the
deceased without any objection and it was well within the
knowledge of P.W. 2 and P.W. 3.
29. Thus, we are convinced that the circumstances as
discussed aforesaid are not sufficiently incriminating against
appellant which by taking a guiding note of “panchsheel” as
discussed aforesaid, it can be said with certainty that none else
than appellant-accused committed murder of the son of the
informant.
30. Accordingly, the impugned judgment of
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.792 of 2018 dt.10-04-2026
18/18
conviction dated 24.05.2018 and order of sentence dated
29.05.2018 respectively as passed by learned Additional District
and Sessions Judge No. 2, Bhagalpur in Sessions Trial No. 800
of 2014 arising out of Kahalgaon (Ghogha) P.S. Case No. 94 of
2014, is hereby set-aside.
31. Hence, Criminal Appeal (DB) No.792 of 2018, as
preferred by appellant namely, Pappu Mandal stands allowed.
32. The appellant, namely, Pappu Mandal is acquitted
of the charges levelled against him by the learned trial court.
Since appellant is in custody in connection with this case, he is
directed to be released forthwith, if not required in any other
case.
33. Fine, if any paid, be returned to the appellant
immediately.
34. Let a copy of this judgment along with the Trial
Court Records be sent to the learned Trial Court forthwith.
( Chandra Shekhar Jha, J.)
Bibek Chaudhuri, J:- I agree.
S.Tripathi/-
(Bibek Chaudhuri, J.)
AFR/NAFR AFR
CAV DATE 02.04.2026
Uploading Date 10.04.2026
Transmission Date 10.04.2026
Checking your session…