Patna High Court

RAJ KISHORE SINGH and ORSversusSTATE OF BIHAR

Decided: 8 May 2026
Disposal: ALLOWED
Bench: SANDEEP KUMAR

Holding

The conviction and sentence were set aside and the appellants were acquitted of all charges.

Summary

The appellants were convicted in 2005 for attempted murder (IPC s.307/34), assault (s.323, s.448) and illegal possession of arms (Arms Act s.27) based on the testimony of three interested witnesses – the informant, his son and his brother‑in‑law – and were sentenced to ten years rigorous imprisonment. The appellants appealed, arguing that the prosecution failed to produce independent corroboration, that the medical evidence did not support close‑range firearm injuries, and that crucial forensic material (pellets and the alleged pistol) was never produced. The High Court examined the credibility of the interested witnesses, noted the absence of forensic signs of close‑range firing, and highlighted inconsistencies between the medical report and the prosecution’s case. Applying the rule of prudence, the Court held that the prosecution had not proved its case beyond reasonable doubt. Consequently, the conviction and sentence were set aside and the appellants were acquitted.

Issues considered

The prosecution must prove the alleged close‑range firearm injuries with expert evidence.
Whether the testimony of interested witnesses can sustain a conviction without independent corroboration.
Whether the absence of forensic evidence (pellets, weapon) and medical inconsistencies create reasonable doubt.

Legislation cited

Arms Act — s. 27
Criminal Procedure Code — s. 374(2), 389(1)
Indian Penal Code — s. 307, 323, 34, 448

Subjects

attempted murder
firearms
interested witnesses
medical evidence
burden of proof
acquittal
property dispute
Arms Act
criminal appeal

Judgment

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL APPEAL (SJ) No.115 of 2005

======================================================
1. Raj Kishore Singh.
2. Brij Nandan Singh,
Both appellant nos. 1 and 2 sons of late Gupt Lal Singh.
3. Arun Kumar Singh.
4. Anil Kumar Singh.
5. Udai Kumar Singh.
All appellant nos. 3 to 5 are sons of Raj Kishore Singh.
6. Shyam Kumar Singh.
7. Ram Kumar Singh.
Both appellant nos. 6 and 7 are the sons of Braj Nandan Singh.
All resident of village- Manjhouli, P.O.- Manjhouli, P.S.-
Bakhtiyarpur, Sub-Division- Barh, District- Patna.
... ... Appellants
Versus
State of Bihar
... ... Respondent
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Appellants : Mr. Anurag Pandey, Advocate
For the State : Mr. A.M.P. Mehta, APP
For the Informant : Mr. Rudal Prasad, Advocate
Mr. Kaushal Kishor, Advocate
Ms. Priyanka Singh, Advocate
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP KUMAR
C.A.V. JUDGMENT
Date : 08-05-2026

The present appeal has been filed under sections

374(2) read with section 389(1) of the Criminal Procedure

Code, 1973 by the appellants challenging the judgment of

conviction and the consequential order of sentence dated

10.02.2005 passed by the learned Additional District and
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.115 of 2005 dt.08-05-2026
2/35

Sessions Judge-IV, Barh in Sessions Trial (S.T.) No.502 of

1990, whereby the appellants were convicted and sentenced as

under:-

Appellant Conviction under Sentence
sections
Appellant No.1- R.I. for 10 years under
Raj Kishore Section 307/34 of the Indian Penal
Singh Code.
R.I. for 6 months under
Sections 323, 448, Section 448 of the Indian Penal
307 and 34 of the Code.
Indian Penal Code. No separate sentence under
Section 323 of the Indian Penal
Code.
Sentences to run
concurrently.
Appellant No.2- R.I. for 10 years under
Brij Nandan Section 307/34 of the Indian Penal
Singh (Deceased) Code.
R.I. for 6 months under
Sections 323, 448, Section 448 of the Indian Penal
307 and 34 of the Code.
Indian Penal Code. No separate sentence under
Section 323 of the Indian Penal
Code.
Sentences to run
concurrently.
Appellant No. 3- R.I. for 10 years under
Arun Kumar Section 307/34 of the Indian Penal
Singh (Deceased) Code.
R.I. for 6 months under
Sections 323, 448, Section 448 of the Indian Penal
307 and 34 of the Code.
Indian Penal Code. No separate sentence under
Section 323 of the Indian Penal
Code.
Sentences to run
concurrently.
Appellant No. 4- R.I. for 10 years under
Anil Kumar Section 307/34 of the Indian Penal
Singh Code.
R.I. for 6 months under
Sections 323, 448, Section 448 of the Indian Penal
307 and 34 of the Code.
Indian Penal Code. No separate sentence under
Section 323 of the Indian Penal
Code.
Sentences to run
concurrently.
Appellant No. 5 - Sections 323, 448, R.I. for 10 years under
Udai Kumar 307 and 34 of the Section 307/34 of the Indian Penal
Singh Indian Penal Code Code.
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.115 of 2005 dt.08-05-2026
3/35

R.I. for 6 months under
Section 448 of the Indian Penal
Code.
R.I. for 3 years under
and Section 27
Section 27 Arms Act.
Arms Act.
No separate sentence under
Section 323 IPC.
Sentences to run
concurrently.
Appellant No. 6- R.I. for 10 years under
Shyam Kumar Section 307/34 of the Indian Penal
Singh Code.
R.I. for 6 months under
Sections 323, 448, Section 448 of the Indian Penal
307 and 34 of the Code.
Indian Penal Code R.I. for 3 years under
and Section 27 Section 27 Arms Act
Arms Act. No separate sentence under
Section 323 of the Indian Penal
Code.
Sentences to run
concurrently.
Appellant No. 7- R.I. for 10 years under
Ram Kumar Section 307/34 of the Indian Penal
Singh Code.
R.I. for 6 months under
Sections 323, 448, Section 448 of the Indian Penal
307 and 34 of the Code.
Indian Penal Code. No separate sentence under
Section 323 of the Indian Penal
Code.
Sentences to run
concurrently.

2. The learned trial Court vide the impugned

judgment of conviction and the order of sentence had convicted

all the appellants under sections 323, 448 and under section 307

read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short

“I.P.C.”). By the order of sentence, all the appellants have been

sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of ten

years for the offence under section 307/34 I.P.C., and rigorous

imprisonment for six months for the offence under section 448

I.P.C. No separate sentence was awarded under section 323
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.115 of 2005 dt.08-05-2026
4/35

I.P.C. Appellant nos. 5 and 6, namely Udai Kumar Singh and

Shyam Kumar Singh respectively, were additionally convicted

under section 27 of the Arms Act and they were sentenced to

undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years thereunder. All

the substantive sentences imposed upon the convicted appellants

were directed to run concurrently.

3. During the pendency of the present appeal,

the appellant No.2 namely, Brij Nandan Singh and appellant No.

3 namely, Arun Kumar Singh have died and accordingly the

present appeal stood abated against them. Therefore, the present

appeal survives and is restricted to appellant Nos. 1, 4, 5, 6 and

7 only.

4. The case of the prosecution, as emerging

from the fardbeyan of the informant, based on which the present

FIR being Bakhtiyarpur P.S. Case No. 88 of 1989, came to be

registered is that, on 16.04.1989 at about 9:30 P.M. at village

Manjhauli, while the informant, Ram Kishore Singh (P.W-03),

along with Arbind Kumar Singh (brother-in-law of the

informant), Chandrika Singh and Sarvendra Singh, were sitting

on a chowki in his sehan (courtyard) of his residential house,

just below his darwaza, the seven named accused persons, along

with two unknown persons, all variously armed with pistol,
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.115 of 2005 dt.08-05-2026
5/35

lathi, gandasa and bhala, entered into his darwaza, and

surrounded him. It is the case of the prosecution that thereupon,

on the exhortation and order of the appellant no.1-Raj Kishore

Singh, the appellant no.5 - Udai Kumar Singh fired upon the

informant with an intent to kill him, which is said to have hit his

head, and immediately thereafter appellant no.6-Shyam Kumar

Singh is said to have fired another shot upon the informant,

which hit the back portion of his head causing bleeding injuries.

The prosecution has further alleged that when Rajesh Kumar,

the son of the informant, rushed to rescue his father, he too was

assaulted by the accused persons by lathi, fists, slaps and kicks,

whereof he is said to have sustained injuries. It has also been

alleged that during the said occurrence, the appellant no.4 - Anil

Kumar Singh took away Rs.100/- from the pocket of the

informant and appellant no.7-Ram Kumar Singh removed his

woolen chadar (blanket). It has further been stated by the

informant that the accused persons wanted to usurp his landed

properties by killing him and his only son named above.

5. Accordingly, on the basis of the written

report of the informant, the present F.I.R. vide Bakhtiyarpur P.S.

Case No.88 of 1989 was instituted against all the seven

convicted appellants, under sections 147, 148, 447, 323, 379 and
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.115 of 2005 dt.08-05-2026
6/35

307 of the Indian Penal Code, read with section 27 of the Arms

Act. Upon investigation, charge-sheet dated 30.01.1990 against

all seven accused persons was submitted and thereafter,

cognizance was taken by the learned A.C.J.M., Barh, and since

the offence under section 307 I.P.C. was triable exclusively by

the Court of Sessions, the case came to be committed to the

Court of Sessions on 22.09.1990, ultimately giving rise to the

instant Sessions Trial No.502 of 1990. In the trial, the appellants

pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

6. During the course of trial, altogether seven

witnesses were examined in support of the prosecution case,

which are as under:-

P.W.-1 Rajesh Kumar (injured son of the informant)
P.W.-2 Chandra Dev
P.W.-3 Ram Kishore Singh (injured- informant)
P.W.-4 Dwarika Prasad Singh (hostile)
P.W.-5 Arbind Kumar (Brother-in-law/sala of informant)
P.W.-6 Dr. Jai Kumar Singh (Doctor)
P.W.-7 Devendra Kumar (Investigating Officer)

7. Apart from the oral evidences, the

documentary evidences were also exhibited on behalf of the

prosecution, which are as follows: -

Exhibit-1 Signature of the informant, Ram Kishore Singh, on the
written report.
Exhibit- 1/1 Injury report of Ram Kishore Singh, prepared by Dr.
Jai Kumar Singh.
Exhibit- 2 Injury report of Rajesh Kumar, prepared by the
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.115 of 2005 dt.08-05-2026
7/35

Investigating Officer in the handwriting of A.S.I.
Baban Baitha.
Exhibit- 2/1 Injury report of Ram Kishore Singh, prepared by the
Investigating Officer in the handwriting of A.S.I.
Baban Baitha.
Exhibit- 3 Charge-sheet.

8. After completion of prosecution evidence,

altogether fourteen defence witnesses were examined on behalf

of the appellants in the trial, which are as under: -

D.W.-1 Shyam Kumar Rai
D.W.-2 Buddhev Singh
D.W.-3 Sadshiv Pandit
D.W.-4 Bindeshwar Rai
D.W.-5 Ramanand Prasad
D.W.-6 Raj Kumar
D.W.-7 Jai Prakash Singh
D.W.-8 Krishnadev Prasad
D.W.-9 Bhola Prasad
D.W.-10 Sitaram Prasad
D.W.-11 Raj Kumar Pd. Singh
D.W.-12 Ram Sagar Prasad
D.W.-13 Dharmendra Kumar
D.W.-14 Rajendra Chaudhary

9. The defense adduced a voluminous body of

documentary exhibits in their support, which are as under:-

Exhibit- A Endorsement on the written report of
Bakhtiyarpur P.S. Case No. 270/88
Exhibit-B Formal FIR of Bakhtiyarpur P.S. Case No.
270/88.
Exhibit-C Fardbeyan of Bakhtiyarpur P.S. Case No.
109/90.
Exhibit- D Written report dated 02.12.1995 of the
informant.
Exhibit-B/2 Formal FIR of the same case arising out of the
written report dated 02.12.1995.
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.115 of 2005 dt.08-05-2026
8/35

Exhibit-A/2 Written report dated 17.07.1988 of informant
Ram Kishore Singh.
Exhibit-A/3 Application dated 29.05.1988 of informant,
Ram Kishore Singh, addressed to the Sarpanch,
Rukunpura.
Exhibit-D Complaint Petition of Case No. 446(c)/88.
Exhibit-B/3 Formal FIR of Bakhtiyarpur P.S. Case No.
99/89.
Exhibit- H Plaint of Title Suit No. 69/95.
Exhibit-H/1 Amendment petition dated 03.01.1996 in Title
Suit No. 69/95.
Exhibit-H/2 Another amendment petition dated 03.01.1996
in Title Suit No. 69/95.
Exhibit-H/3 Plaint of Title Suit No. 96/92.
Exhibit-J Certificate dated 27.02.2004 issued by the
Central School, Khaprail, District-Darjeeling.
Exhibit-J/1 Certificate dated 09.01.2004 issued by the
General Secretary, Bar Association, Patna City.
Exhibit-J/2 Certificate dated 29.01.2004 issued by the
Secretary, Bar Association, Barh.
Exhibit-J/3 Certificate dated 11.02.2004 issued by the
Secretary General, Advocate Association, High
Court, Patna.
Exhibit-J/4 Certificate dated 31.01.2004 in the name of
accused Uday Kumar Singh issued by Engineer
Puneet Kumar.
Exhibit-R Deed of gift dated 03.07.1988 executed by
Most. Devan Kuer in favour of accused Brij
Nandan Singh and Raj Kishore Singh.
Exhibit-I Identity card of accused Brij Nandan Singh,
issued by the Election Commission.
Exhibit – I/1 Identity card of accused Raj Kishore Singh,
issued by the Election Commission.
Exhibit – L Order dated 06.05.1989 in Case No. 1989/85
Exhibit – L/1 Order sheet of Bakhtiyarpur P.S. Case No.
24(9)/79.
Exhibit – L/2 Order sheet of G.R. Case No. 1559/88 dated
03.07.1992.
Exhibit – L/3 Order sheet of G.R. Case No. 1559/88 dated
19.12.1998.
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.115 of 2005 dt.08-05-2026
9/35

Exhibit – L/4 Order sheet of Criminal Revision No. 37/99
dated 07.12.2001.
Exhibit – L/5 Order sheet of Criminal Misc. Case No. 748/02
dated 25.06.2003.
Exhibit – L/6 Order dated 18.07.1992 in Case No. 33(M) of
1988
Exhibit – L/7 Order sheet of Criminal Misc. No. 877/95 dated
02.11.1995
Exhibit – L/8 Order sheet of Case No. 15(M)/89 dated
05.04.2003.
Exhibit – L/9 Order sheet of Criminal Revision No. 371/02
dated 21.05.2002
Exhibit – L/10 Order sheets dated 25.01.1990.
Exhibit – L/11 Order dated 17.03.1990 in Harijan P.S. Case No.
7/89.
Exhibit – L/12 Order sheet dated 28.04.1990 of Title Suit No.
69/95.
Exhibit – L/13 Order dated 21.07.1998 of Title Suit No. 96/92.
Exhibit – K Khatian of Tauzi No. 2021, Khata No.93,
Survey Plot No. 92.
Exhibit – M Final form of Bakhtiyarpur P.S. Case No. 24
dated 28.09.1979.
Exhibit – N Supplementary charge-sheet of Bakhtiyarpur
P.S. Case No. 270/88.
Exhibit – N/1 Charge-sheet of Bakhtiyarpur P.S. Case No.
270/88.
Exhibit – N/2 Charge-sheet of G.R. Case No. 509/89.
Exhibit – O Deposition of Chandradev Singh dated
07.04.1989.
Exhibit – P Judgment of G.R. Case No. 509/89.
Exhibit – P/1 Judgment of Sessions Trial No. 26/97.
Exhibit – P/2 Judgment of Sessions Trial No. 573/97.
Exhibit – Q Police report in Case No. 1389/88.

10. The learned trial Court, upon appreciation of

the evidence adduced at the trial, had found all the seven

appellants guilty and passed the impugned judgment of

conviction and order of sentence. Aggrieved thereby, the
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.115 of 2005 dt.08-05-2026
10/35

appellants have preferred the present Criminal Appeal.

11. At the outset, the learned counsel for the

appellants has assailed the impugned judgment of conviction

and order of sentence as being contrary to the weight of

evidence and the same has been passed without testing the

allegation against the medical evidence. It is submitted that the

conviction rests upon three highly interested witnesses, namely,

P.W.3-informant, P.W.1, the only son of the informant, and P.W.-

5 the brother-in-law of the informant. Learned counsel for the

appellants has pointed out that the trial Court has itself recorded

that no independent witness was available on record to support

the case of the prosecution.

12. Adverting to paragraph no.14 of the

impugned judgment, learned counsel for the appellants has

submitted that the deposition of P.W.2- Chandra Dev Singh

stood discarded by the trial Court as a chance witness who had

made improvements before the Court, and P.W.4-Dwarika

Prasad Singh, the only truly independent witness, was declared

hostile for stating, in unequivocal terms that no firing incident

had taken place at the place of occurrence, contracting the case

of the prosecution. Further, it is submitted that admittedly, the

informant had stated that at the time of occurrence, he was
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.115 of 2005 dt.08-05-2026
11/35

accompanied by two other persons namely, Chandrika Singh

and Sarvendra Singh and that the incident was witness by 10-15

local villagers, however, none of them were examined during

the course of trial.

13. It is emphasized by learned counsel for the

appellants that admittedly there were multiple cases between the

parties over landed properties and therefore, the informant and

the prosecution witnesses were highly interested witnesses and

as such, the rule of prudence demanded independent

corroboration in material particulars. In support of this

submission, learned counsel for the appellants has relied upon a

decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court rendered in the cases of

Dalip Singh & Ors. vs. State of Punjab, reported as AIR 1953

SC 364; Masalti & Ors. vs. State of U.P., reported as AIR 1965

SC 202; Vadivelu Thevar vs. State of Madras, reported as AIR

1957 SC 614; Lallu Manjhi & Anr. vs. State of Jharkhand,

reported as (2003) 2 SCC 401 and Sucha Singh & Anr. vs.

State of Punjab, reported as (2003) 7 SCC 643.

14. It has been submitted by learned counsel for

the appellants that according to the prosecution, the allegation

against the appellants is of close-range pistol firing with an

intent to commit the murder of the informant, however it is
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.115 of 2005 dt.08-05-2026
12/35

submitted that the same stands wholly demolished by the

deposition of the Medical Officer, P.W.6-Dr. Jai Kumar Singh,

and the medical injury report (Ext.1/1) since the medical

evidence does not corroborate the case of the prosecution, but

on the contrary, totally contradicts the same. In the first place,

the dimensions of the so-called firearm injuries are inconsistent

with close range firearm injuries being superficial in nature. It is

the categorical submission of the learned counsel of the

appellants that the nature of injuries having been found to be

simple is wholly inconsistent with two close-range pistol shots

aimed at the head of the informant. It is pointed by the learned

counsel that no fractures or grievous penetrating wounds have

been found on the injured informant. It is further submitted by

the learned counsel for the appellants that P.W.6 has, in his

deposition, has categorically stated that there is complete

absence of charring, blackening, tattooing, the effect of gas,

flame, carbon, or any burnt margins around either of the alleged

firearm injuries which would inexorably accompany a close-

range firing. It is emphasized by the learned counsel for the

appellants that the so-called pellets are stated to have been

visible to the naked eye and have been removed without any

operative or surgical intervention. Adverting to the cross-
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.115 of 2005 dt.08-05-2026
13/35

examination of the Medical Officer, P.W.6, the learned counsel

for the appellants has underscored that the aforesaid witness has

expressly conceded that, since the injuries were lacerated and

not punctured, therefore, it is possible that the pieces of pellet

could have be inserted into the wounds without difficulty. It is,

therefore, the submission of the learned counsel for the

appellants that injuries sustained by the injured informant may

have been fabricated.

15. The learned counsel for the appellants has

drawn strength from the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court

in the cases of Mohinder Singh vs. The State, reported as AIR

1953 SC 415 wherein it has been held that when a lethal weapon

is used, the prosecution must bring expert evidence to connect

the injuries with the weapon and failure to do so, is fatal to the

case of the prosecution. Further, unexplained inconsistencies

between the witness and the medical evidence creates fatal

doubt over the case of the prosecution. He has further relied

upon the decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court rendered in

the cases of Ram Narain Singh v. State of Punjab, reported as

(1975) 4 SCC 497; Amar Singh & Ors. vs. State of Punjab,

reported as (1987) 1 SCC 679 and Gangabhavani v. Rayapati

Venkat Reddy & Ors., reported as (2013) 15 SCC 298.
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.115 of 2005 dt.08-05-2026
14/35

16. It has been argued by learned counsel for the

appellants that the alleged pellets and the alleged pistols were

not produced during the course of trial though according to the

deposition of P.W.6, Medical Officer, the pellets recovered from

the wounds of the informant were sealed in a glass vial and

dispatched to the police station along with his injury report.

Further, P.W.7, Investigating Officer, however, has wholly

omitted to make any reference to the said pellets in his

deposition. Moreover, the said pellets have admittedly never

been produced before the trial court and were never sent for

forensic, ballistic or chemical examination. Furthermore, no

pistol has ever been seized or recovered much less linked to the

appellants.

17. Learned counsel for the appellants has

further argued that although P.Ws. 1, 3 and 5 have asserted that

the clothes of the injured were heavily blood-stained, yet, no

blood-stained cloth was seized, sealed or produced during the

trial. Further, adverting to the deposition of P.W.-7, the

Investigating Officer, the learned counsel has submitted that

again though the aforesaid witness had deposed that he had

found something "blood like" at the place of occurrence, but the

said material was neither seized nor sent for chemical
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.115 of 2005 dt.08-05-2026
15/35

examination. It is, therefore, the categorical submission of the

learned counsel for the appellants that, in a case whose

gravamen is firearm assault accompanied by alleged copious

bleeding, the cumulative effect of non-production of alleged

pellets, non-seizure of pistols and non-recovery of the blood

stained clothes or blood like substance from the place of

occurrence, reduces the prosecution to a case of allegation

without proof and is fatal.

18. The learned counsel for the appellants has

relied upon the decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the

cases of Munna Lal vs. State of U.P., reported as (2023) 18

SCC 661; Ram Singh vs. State of U.P., reported as (2024) 4

SCC 208, Tomaso Bruno & Anr. vs. State of U.P., reported as

(2015) 7 SCC 178 and Takhaji Hiraji vs. Thakore Kubersing

Chamansing & Ors., reported as (2001) 6 SCC 145 and has

argued that the fact of non-recovery of pistol from the place of

occurrence and non-production of pellets during the trial

assumes significance since the medical evidence contradicts the

case of the prosecution and the supporting evidence is

forthcoming only from the interested witnesses and therefore,

the failure / neglect to seize the alleged weapons used in the

offence has the effect of gravely denting the case of the
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.115 of 2005 dt.08-05-2026
16/35

prosecution.

19. The learned counsel for the appellants has

next argued that, as per Exhibit- 1/1, it is clear that the medical

examination of P.W.1, the son of the informant, took place at

1:30 A.M. and that of the informant took place at 2:00 A.M. on

17.04.1989, however P.W.7, the Investigating Officer, on the

contrary, has deposed that he visited the place of occurrence

only at 8:00 A.M. on 17.04.1989 and had examined the injuries

himself whereupon he had got the police injury reports (Exhibits

2 and 2/1) to be drawn up, and only thereafter he had sent the

injured informant and his son to the doctor for their medical

examination. It is argued by the learned counsel for the

appellants that these two accounts are contradictory to the case

of the prosecution. It is pointed out by the learned counsel for

the appellants that the sequence in which the injured informant

and his son were examined by the Medical Officer itself creates

doubts on the case of the prosecution. It is argued by the learned

counsel for the appellants that P.W.1 is said to have suffered

only fist and lathi injuries, yet he was attended to prior to the

informant, at 1:30 A.M. while the informant, who is said to have

suffered two grievous head firearm injuries with critical

bleeding, was attended subsequently at 2:00 A.M. on the same
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.115 of 2005 dt.08-05-2026
17/35

night. It is, therefore, submitted that, this sequence, according to

the learned counsel for the appellants, is wholly inconsistent

with rational and prudent medical practice. It is doubtful that

despite the supposed gravity of his head injuries, the informant

was admittedly never hospitalized. It is further the submission

of the learned counsel for the appellants that the alleged

occurrence took place at village Manjhauli at 9:30 P.M. on

16.04.1989, which was only at a distance of 06 kilometers from

the police station, yet the same was reported only at about 1:00

A.M. on 17.04.1989. It is argued that this unexplained delay of

about three to four hours gave the informant full opportunity for

deliberation, consultation, embellishment and the introduction

of a coloured version. The learned counsel for the appellants had

drawn strength from the decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme

Court rendered in the cases Thulia Kali v. State of Tamil Nadu,

reported as (1972) 3 SCC 393, Tahsildar Singh v. State of U.P.,

AIR 1959 SC 1012 and Bhaskarrao v. State of Maharashtra,

(2018) 6 SCC 591.

20. It is next submitted by learned counsel for

the appellants that in the trial the defence had adduced several

documentary evidences as well as examined fourteen witnesses

to demonstrate that the informant has been in a habit of using
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.115 of 2005 dt.08-05-2026
18/35

the criminal law against the present appellants as a tool of

vengeance. Therefore, it is the argument of learned counsel for

the appellants that the defence had clearly demonstrated the

propensity on the part of the informant to weaponize the

criminal process against the appellants and their branch of the

family. However, adverting to paragraph no. 8 of the impugned

judgment of conviction, the learned counsel for the appellants

has submitted that the learned trial Court had merely dealt with

the defence evidence in a single sentence brushing it aside on

the bare reasoning that since enmity was admitted no detailed

discussion was required. It is argued that the defence case,

however, was not merely that there was enmity, but that the

enmity had ripened into a settled pattern of false implication and

that the present case was one further link in a chain of vexatious

prosecutions.

21. Learned counsel for the State has supported

the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence and has

submitted that no grounds for interference is made out. He has

submitted that the learned trial Court after duly appreciating the

evidence on record, had passed a reasoned judgment of

conviction and therefore, the same does not suffer from any

illegality and this Court may not interfere with the same.
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.115 of 2005 dt.08-05-2026
19/35

22. I have considered the submissions of the

parties and perused the materials on record.

23. The crux of allegation against the appellants

is of having forcibly entered the dwelling house of the

informant, armed with weapons and thereupon appellants nos. 5

and 6 having shot at the informant, which had hit him on his

head from a close range.

24. At the outset, it is noted that both the

prosecution side as well as the appellants are close agnates

having descended from a common stock, who have remained

embroiled in several rounds of earlier litigation, both civil as

well as criminal in nature, primarily emanating from disputes

over ancestral landed properties. Pertinently, from the perusal of

the records, it transpires that the defence had adduced a

voluminous body of evidence in order to illustrate this prior

enmity existing between the parties, including the records of

Bakhtiyarpur P.S. Case No. 270 of 1988, Case No. 99 of 1989

and Case No. 109 of 1990, among others, which were instituted

by the present informant and had ultimately culminated in

acquittal or final form (Exhibits- A, B, B/2, B/3, C, D). It is also

noted that by an order dated 18.07.1992 passed by the learned

Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Barh, in connection with
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.115 of 2005 dt.08-05-2026
20/35

Case No. 33(M) of 1988 (Exhibt- L/6), the learned A.C.J.M.,

Barh had directed the Assistant Public Prosecutor to file a

complaint against the instant informant for forgery. In paragraph

no.08 of the impugned judgment of conviction, the learned trial

Court had itself recorded the existence of enmity between the

parties and further that there were several litigation over

property dispute.

25. From the perusal of the impugned judgment

of conviction, it is clear that the learned trial Court had placed

decisive reliance over the depositions of the three witnesses, that

is, the informant, the son of the informant and the brother-in-law

of the informant, all of whom are not only related to the

appellants, but were highly interested parties.

26. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of

Gangabhavani v. Rayapati Venkat Reddy & Ors., reported as

(2013) 15 SCC 298 has held as under:-

Evidence of related/interested witnesses
“15. It is a settled legal proposition that the
evidence of closely related witnesses is required
to be carefully scrutinised and appreciated
before any conclusion is made to rest upon it,
regarding the convict/accused in a given case.
Thus, the evidence cannot be disbelieved merely
on the ground that the witnesses are related to
each other or to the deceased. In case the
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.115 of 2005 dt.08-05-2026
21/35

evidence has a ring of truth to it, is cogent,
credible and trustworthy, it can, and certainly
should, be relied upon. (Vide Bhagaloo Lodh v.
State of U.P. [(2011) 13 SCC 206 and Dahari v.
State of U.P. [(2012) 10 SCC 256.
16. In State of Rajasthan v. Kalki [(1981) 2 SCC
752, this Court held: (SCC p. 754, para 7)
“7. As mentioned above the High Court has
declined to rely on the evidence of PW 1
on two grounds: (1) she was a ‘highly
interested’ witness because she ‘is the
wife of the deceased’…. For, in the
circumstances of the case, she was the
only and most natural witness; she was
the only person present in the hut with
the deceased at the time of the
occurrence, and the only person who saw
the occurrence. True, it is, she is the wife
of the deceased; but she cannot be called
an ‘interested’ witness. She is related to
the deceased. ‘Related’ is not equivalent
to ‘interested’. A witness may be called
‘interested’ only when he or she derives
some benefit from the result of a
litigation; in the decree in a civil case,
or in seeing an accused person
punished. A witness who is a natural one
and is the only possible eyewitness in the
circumstances of a case cannot be said to
be ‘interested’. In the instant case PW 1
had no interest in protecting the real
culprit, and falsely implicating the
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.115 of 2005 dt.08-05-2026
22/35

respondents.”(emphasis added)
(See also Chakali Maddilety v. State of A.P.
[(2010) 12 SCC 72]
17. In Sachchey Lal Tiwari v. State of U.P. [(2004)
11 SCC 410, while dealing with the case this
Court held : (SCC pp. 414-15, para 7)
“7. … Murders are not committed with
previous notice to witnesses—soliciting
their presence. If murder is committed in
a dwelling house, the inmates of the
house are natural witnesses. If murder is
committed in a street, only passers-by
will be witnesses. Their evidence cannot
be brushed aside or viewed with
suspicion on the ground that they are
mere ‘chance witnesses’. The expression
‘chance witness’ is borrowed from
countries where every man's home is
considered his castle and everyone must
have an explanation for his presence
elsewhere or in another man's castle. It is
quite unsuitable an expression in a
country where people are less formal and
more casual, at any rate in the matter of
explaining their presence.”
18. In view of the above, it can safely be held that
natural witnesses may not be labelled as
interested witnesses. Interested witnesses are
those who want to derive some benefit out of
the litigation/case. In case the circumstances
reveal that a witness was present on the scene
of the occurrence and had witnessed the crime,
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.115 of 2005 dt.08-05-2026
23/35

his deposition cannot be discarded merely on
the ground of being closely related to the
victim/deceased.” (emphasis supplied).

27. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of

Mohd. Rojali Ali & Ors. vs. State of Assam reported as (2019)

19 SCC 567 had explained as to who is an ‘interested witness’

and the ‘related witness’ and held as under:-

“13. As regards the contention that all the
eyewitnesses are close relatives of the deceased,
it is by now well settled that a related witness
cannot be said to be an “interested” witness
merely by virtue of being a relative of the victim.
This Court has elucidated the difference
between “interested” and “related” witnesses
in a plethora of cases, stating that a witness
may be called interested only when he or she
derives some benefit from the result of a
litigation, which in the context of a criminal
case would mean that the witness has a direct
or indirect interest in seeing the accused
punished due to prior enmity or other reasons,
and thus has a motive to falsely implicate the
accused (for instance, see State of Rajasthan v.
Kalki (1981) 2 SCC 752; Amit v. State of U.P.
(2012) 4 SCC 107 and Gangabhavani v.
Rayapati Venkat Reddy (2013) 15 SCC 298).
Recently, this difference was reiterated in
Ganapathi v. State of T.N. (2018) 5 SCC 549, in
the following terms, by referring to the three-
Judge Bench decision in State of Rajasthan v.
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.115 of 2005 dt.08-05-2026
24/35

Kalki (1981) 2 SCC 752; (Ganapathi case, SCC
p. 555, para 14)
‘14. “Related” is not equivalent to
“interested”. A witness may be called
“interested” only when he or she derives
some benefit from the result of a
litigation; in the decree in a civil case, or
in seeing an accused person punished. A
witness who is a natural one and is the
only possible eyewitness in the
circumstances of a case cannot be said to
be “interested”.’
14. In criminal cases, it is often the case that the
offence is witnessed by a close relative of the
victim, whose presence on the scene of the
offence would be natural. The evidence of such
a witness cannot automatically be discarded by
labelling the witness as interested. Indeed, one
of the earliest statements with respect to
interested witnesses in criminal cases was made
by this Court in Dalip Singh v. State of Punjab
(1953) 2 SCC 36], wherein this Court observed:
(SCC p. 44, para 24)
‘26. A witness is normally to be
considered independent unless he or she
springs from sources which are likely to
be tainted and that usually means unless
the witness has cause, such as enmity
against the accused, to wish to implicate
him falsely. Ordinarily, a close relative
would be the last to screen the real
culprit and falsely implicate an innocent
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.115 of 2005 dt.08-05-2026
25/35

person.’
15. In case of a related witness, the Court may not
treat his or her testimony as inherently tainted,
and needs to ensure only that the evidence is
inherently reliable, probable, cogent and
consistent. We may refer to the observations of
this Court in Jayabalan v. State (UT of
Pondicherry) (2010) 1 SCC 199 : (SCC p. 213,
para 23)
‘23. We are of the considered view that in
cases where the court is called upon to
deal with the evidence of the interested
witnesses, the approach of the court,
while appreciating the evidence of such
witnesses must not be pedantic. The court
must be cautious in appreciating and
accepting the evidence given by the
interested witnesses but the court must
not be suspicious of such evidence. The
primary endeavour of the court must be
to look for consistency. The evidence of a
witness cannot be ignored or thrown out
solely because it comes from the mouth of
a person who is closely related to the
victim.” (emphasis supplied).

28. Further, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the

case of Mohd. Jabbar Ali & Ors. v. State of Assam, (2023) 19

SCC 672, had summarized the principles on rule of prudence for

interested and partisan witnesses and held as under :-

“49. It is noted that great weight has been
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.115 of 2005 dt.08-05-2026
26/35

attached to the testimonies of the witnesses in
the instant case. Having regard to the aforesaid
fact that this Court has examined the credibility
of the witnesses to rule out any tainted evidence
given in the court of law. It was contended by
the learned counsel for the appellant that the
prosecution failed to examine any independent
witnesses in the present case and that the
witnesses were related to each other. This Court
in a number of cases has had the opportunity to
consider the said aspect of related / interested /
partisan witnesses and the credibility of such
witnesses. This Court is conscious of the well-
settled principle that just because the witnesses
are related / interested / partisan witnesses,
their testimonies cannot be disregarded,
however, it is also true that when the witnesses
are related/interested, their testimonies have to
be scrutinised with greater care and
circumspection. In Gangadhar Behera v. State
of Orissa (2002) 8 SCC 381, this Court held that
the testimony of such related witnesses should
be analysed with caution for its credibility.
50. In Raju v. State of T.N., (2012) 12 SCC 701, this
Court observed : (SCC pp. 709-10, para 29)
“29. The sum and substance is that the
evidence of a related or interested
witness should be meticulously and
carefully examined. In a case where the
related and interested witness may have
some enmity with the assailant, the bar
would need to be raised and the
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.115 of 2005 dt.08-05-2026
27/35

evidence of the witness would have to be
examined by applying a standard of
discerning scrutiny. However, this is
only a rule of prudence and not one of
law, as held in Dalip Singh (1953) 2 SCC
36 and pithily reiterated in Sarwan Singh
(1976) 4 SCC 369 in the following
words: (Sarwan Singh case, p. 376, para
10)
‘10. … The evidence of an
interested witness does not suffer
from any infirmity as such, but the
courts require as a rule of
prudence, not as a rule of law, that
the evidence of such witnesses
should be scrutinised with a little
care. Once that approach is made
and the court is satisfied that the
evidence of interested witnesses
have a ring of truth such evidence
could be relied upon even without
corroboration.”
(emphasis supplied)
51. Further delving on the same issue, it is noted
that in Ganapathi v. State of T.N. (2018) 5 SCC
549, this Court held that in several cases when
only family members are present at the time of
the incident and the case of the prosecution is
based only on their evidence, Courts have to be
cautious and meticulously evaluate the evidence
in the process of trial.”
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.115 of 2005 dt.08-05-2026
28/35

29. It is therefore, settled that, though mere

relationship between parties does not vitiate the testimony of the

witnesses by itself, however, the rule of prudence demands that

in such cases, the Court must approach the testimony of

interested witnesses with heightened caution requiring

corroboration in material particulars. Pertinently, in a faction

ridden case, where the parties are embroiled with prior litigation

and a degree of propensity is illustrated to weaponize the

criminal law, evidence must be approached with greater care

and analyzed for cogency and credibility.

30. From the impugned judgment of conviction,

the structure upon which the conviction has been founded is

seen to be conspicuously narrow. The case has been allowed to

rest upon three witnesses alone, that is, P.W.3, the informant

himself; P.W.1, his only son; and P.W.5, his real brother-in-law.

The deposition of P.W.-2 Chandra Dev Singh stood discarded by

the trial Court as a chance witness, who had made

improvements before the trial Court and more importantly, the

deposition of P.W.-4 Dwarika Prasad Singh, the only truly

independent witness produced by the prosecution, had stated

that no assault and no firing had taken place at the alleged place

and time of occurrence. The aforesaid P.W.-4 Dwarika Prasad
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.115 of 2005 dt.08-05-2026
29/35

Singh was declared as hostile and his statements were also

discarded in toto.

31. The prosecution had also failed to produce

the independent witnesses who, as per the informant himself,

had gathered at the place of occurrence. Further, the fardbeyan

of informant (P.W.3) itself recites that, at the time of the alleged

occurrence, he was in the company of Arbind Kumar Singh,

Chandrika Singh and one Sarvendra Singh. Furthermore, the

prosecution witnesses, in their depositions, have asserted that

ten to fifteen villagers had assembled at the place of occurrence.

Yet, neither Chandrika Singh, nor Sarvendra Singh, nor any of

the ten to fifteen villagers admittedly present, was produced in

the trial. This omission on the part of prosecution assumes even

greater significance considering the facts of the present case

whose gravamen is armed entry and close-range firearm assault

within an inhabited rural homestead.

32. P.W.-2, in his deposition, had attributed the

firing to appellant no.7 Ram Kumar Singh, whereas, the

prosecution case carried into trial attributed the second shot to

appellant no.-6 Shyam Kumar Singh. This discrepancy goes to

the very root of the incident since it strikes at the very identity

of the alleged shooter.
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.115 of 2005 dt.08-05-2026
30/35

33. The nucleus of the allegation against the

appellants under section 307 read with section 34 IPC and

Section 27 of the Arms Act is that the appellants nos. 5 and 6

had fired upon the informant from close range, with an intent to

commit his murder. However, these allegations run contrary to

the medical evidence of P.W.-6, Dr. Jai Kumar Singh and the

medical injury report (Ext.1/1). Firstly, the dimensions and

depth of the alleged firearm injuries are wholly out of

consonance with the prosecution case of close-range pistol

firing aimed at the head of the informant. These injuries, as

recorded in the medical injury report, are lacerated, superficial

wounds which are muscle-deep alone and no fracture and

penetrating wounds were present. Further, from the perusal of

the injury report, it is clear that the informant had emerged with

two simple, lacerated, muscle-deep injuries, which P.W.-6 had

categorically opined to be simple in nature.

34. Secondly, the well-known forensic indicia of

close-range firing, that is, charring, blackening, tattooing, the

effect of gas, flame and carbon, and burnt margins around the

wound, were all admittedly absent on the injuries sustained by

the informant and P.W.-6, Medical Officer, in his deposition had

categorically affirmed the absence of all such signs around
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.115 of 2005 dt.08-05-2026
31/35

either of the two alleged firearm injuries.

35. Thirdly, as per the deposition of the Medical

Officer, the pellets recovered from the person of the informant

did not require any operative or surgical procedure and were

removed upon visual inspection alone, which is again wholly

inconsistent with the allegation of close-range firearm injuries.

Further, this witness in his cross-examination had conceded that

the injuries sustained by the informant may have been fabricated

since the pieces of pellet could be inserted into the said injuries

without any difficulty, and could equally be removed without

any operation or surgical intervention. From the cross-

examination of the Medical Officer, it appears that the theory of

fabricated injuries for false implication could not be ruled out.

36. Fourthly, besides the above-mentioned

factors, the prosecution has compounded the discrepancy by

withholding the pellets in the trial which were recovered from

the person of the informant. The Medical Officer, P.W.6, had

deposed that he had recovered one pellet from each of the two

head injuries which were sealed in a glass vial and dispatched to

the police station along with the injury report. However, neither

the Investigating Officer, P.W.7, had made any reference

whatsoever to the said pellets in his deposition, nor were these
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.115 of 2005 dt.08-05-2026
32/35

pellets ever produced in the trial. The pellets recovered were

thus never sent for forensic analysis much less being linked to

any firearm or to the appellants.

37. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of

Ram Narain Singh vs. State of Punjab, reported as (1975) 4

SCC 497, relying upon Mohinder Singh v. The State, reported

as AIR 1953 SC 415 had held as under:-

“14. Where the evidence of the witnesses for the
prosecution is totally inconsistent with the
medical evidence or the evidence of the ballistic
expert, this is a most fundamental defect in the
prosecution case and unless reasonably
explained it is sufficient to discredit the entire
case. In Mohinder Singh v. State [1950 SCC
673, this Court observed in similar
circumstances as follows:
“In a case where death is due to injuries
or wounds caused by a lethal weapon, it
has always been considered to be the
duty of the prosecution to prove by expert
evidence that it was likely or at least
possible for the injuries to have been
caused with the weapon with which and
in the manner in which they are alleged
to have been caused. It is elementary that
where the prosecution has a definite or
positive case, it is doubtful whether the
injuries which are attributed to the
appellant were caused by a gun or by a
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.115 of 2005 dt.08-05-2026
33/35

rifle.”
It is obvious that where the direct evidence is
not supported by the expert evidence, then the
evidence is wanting in the most material part of
the prosecution case and it would be difficult to
convict the accused on the basis of such
evidence. While appreciating the evidence of the
witnesses, the High Court does not appear to
have considered this important aspect, but
readily accepted the prosecution case without
noticing that the evidence of the eye witnesses in
the Court was a belated attempt to improve their
testimony and bring the same in line with the
doctor's evidence with a view to support an
incorrect case.”
38. In the case of State of Gujarat vs.

Jayrajbhai Punjabhai Varu, reported as (2016) 14 SCC 151,

the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that prosecution has to

prove the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt. It is

also the rule of justice in criminal law that if two views are

possible on the evidence adduced in the case, one pointing to the

guilt of the accused and the other towards his innocence, the

view which is favourable to the accused should be adopted. In

case of Nikhil Chandra Mondal vs. State of W.B., reported as

(2023) 6 SCC 605, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that it

is a settled principle of law that however strong a suspicion may

be, it cannot take place of a proof beyond reasonable doubt.
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.115 of 2005 dt.08-05-2026
34/35

39. In view of the aforesaid discussions, this

Court is of the considered opinion that the prosecution has failed

to prove its case beyond the reasonable doubt since the case of

the prosecution is founded upon three highly interested

witnesses, who have shown a propensity to weaponize criminal

law against the appellants and therefore, not only the trial Court

ought to have considered their testimonies with greater caution

but also as a rule of prudence ought to have required

independent and material corroboration, which is absent in the

present case, the medical evidence does not support the case of

the prosecution and rather runs contrary to the same and the

omission on the part of the prosecution to produce the pellets

and pistol during the trial.

40. From the foregoing discussions, the

conviction of the appellants cannot be sustained and

accordingly, the impugned judgment of conviction and the

consequential order of sentence dated 10.02.2005 passed by the

learned Additional District and Sessions Judge-IV, Barh in

Sessions Trial (S.T.) No.502 of 1990 is hereby set aside.

41. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed. The

appellant nos. 1, 4, 5, 6 and 7 are acquitted of all the charges.

Since the appellant nos.1, 4, 5, 6 and 7 are on bail, they are
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.115 of 2005 dt.08-05-2026
35/35

discharged from the liability of their bail bonds.

42. The original trial case records be transmitted

to the concerned trial court forthwith.

(Sandeep Kumar, J)

pawan/-
AFR/NAFR N.A.F.R.
CAV DATE 27.02.2026
Uploading Date 14.05.2026
Transmission Date 14.05.2026

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…

Lawyer court records for this case

Associated through the court’s case reference.