Patna High Court
MANOJ PRASADversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- ALLOWED
- Bench
- ANIL KUMAR SINHA
Holding
The appeal is allowed; the conviction under Section 307 IPC is set aside and the appellant is acquitted.
Summary
Manoj Prasad was convicted by the Sessions Court for offences under Section 307 IPC for allegedly stabbing his brother Rajeshwar Prasad and his wife during a family dispute over partition. The prosecution relied on the statements of two eye‑witnesses (the injured husband and wife) and several hostile or hearsay witnesses, while medical evidence showed only simple stab injuries to the husband and a blunt‑force injury to the wife. The High Court found the eye‑witness testimonies inconsistent, uncorroborated, and of doubtful reliability, and noted the absence of any forensic proof such as blood traces or the weapon. Applying the principle that conviction must be beyond reasonable doubt, the Court held that the prosecution failed to meet this standard and that the benefit of doubt must be given to the appellant. Consequently, the conviction and sentence were set aside and the appellant was acquitted.
Issues considered
- Whether the prosecution evidence established the appellant’s guilt beyond reasonable doubt for the offence under Section 307 IPC.
- Whether the eye‑witness testimonies of the injured parties were reliable and sufficiently corroborated.
- Whether the medical evidence contradicted the prosecution’s claim of multiple stab injuries.
- Whether the benefit of doubt principle mandates acquittal in the absence of reliable proof.
Legislation cited
- Criminal Procedure Code — s. 313(1)(b)
- Indian Penal Code — s. 307, 323, 324, 34, 341, 504
Subjects
- attempt to murder
- IPC 307
- evidentiary reliability
- eye‑witness testimony
- medical evidence
- benefit of doubt
- criminal appeal
- family partition dispute
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL APPEAL (SJ) No.223 of 2022
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-129 Year-2014 Thana- BHABHUA District- Kaimur (Bhabua)
======================================================
MANOJ PRASAD Son of Rajeshwar Prasad Resident of Village - Paiya, P.s.-
Sonhan, Distt.- Kaimur at Bhabhua.
... ... Appellant/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Appellant/s : Mr.Digvijay Kumar Ojha
For the Respondent/s : Mr.Zeyaul Hoda
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR SINHA
JUDGMENT AND ORDER
C.A.V.
Date : 12-05-2026
The present appeal has been filed against the judgment
of conviction, dated 13.12.2021, and the order of sentence, dated
15.12.2021, passed, in Sessions Trial No. 447 of 2014, in
connection with Bhabhua Police Station Case No.129 of 2014, by
learned Additional Sessions Judge-XI, Kaimur, at Bhabhua,
whereby the appellant has been convicted for the offences
punishable under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code and was
sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven years and
fine of Rs. 20,000 and, in default in payment of fine, to undergo
further simple imprisonment for six months.
2. The prosecution story, in brief, is that, the informant,
Rajeshwar Prasad, in his fardbayan recorded by Sub Inspector of
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.223 of 2022 dt.12-05-2026
2/21
Police Mithilesh Kumar of Bhabhua Police Station, in the
Emergency Ward of Sadar Hospital, Bhabua, stated that on
25.03.2014, at 6:00 PM, he was sitting in his room with his wife
Aarti Devi. The informant's brother, Manoj Prasad, his wife, Soni
Devi and his father, Kameshwar Prasad, was also sitting nearby. At
that very moment, accused Soni Devi started abusing wife of the
informant, Aarti Devi, for partition. When the informant objected,
appellant Manoj Prasad also started abusing. When the informant
objected, his father, Kameshwar Prasad, started abusing him and
ordered to kill them. Upon this, the informant's brother, Manoj
Prasad, stabbed the informant in the chest by means of knife. The
informant staggered and fell down. After this, the appellant
stabbed him four or five times in the chest. Meanwhile, accused
Soni Devi started beating Aarti Devi with a stick. Seeing the
informant fell, his wife, Aarti Devi, came in his rescue, but Aarti
Devi was also stabbed and injured. The informant and his wife fell
down at the spot. Thinking them dead, accused persons fled away
from the place of occurrence.
3. Based on the above fardbayan given by the informant
on 25.03.2014 in connection with the above incident, Bhabhua
Police Station Case No.129 of 2014 was registered against three
accused persons, namely, Manoj Prasad, Soni Devi, and
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.223 of 2022 dt.12-05-2026
3/21
Kameshwar Prasad, under Sections 341/324/307/34 of the Indian
Penal Code.
4. After registration of the First Information Report, the
investigation commenced and after completion of investigation,
charge sheet No. 57/2014, dated 30.09.2014, was submitted
against all three accused under Sections 341/323/324/504/307/34
of the Indian Penal Code.
5. On 17.11.2014, the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate,
Kaimur, at Bhabhua, took cognizance of the offences on
17.11.2014, under Sections 341/323/324/504/307/34 of the Indian
Penal Code against all the three accused persons and the case was
committed to the Court of Sessions on 11.12.2014.
6. Further, charges were framed on 19.01.2015 for the
offences punishable under Sections 341, 504, 307 and 34 of the
Indian Penal Code against the accused. The accused persons
denied the charges, pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
7. The prosecution in order to substantiate its case, has
examined as many as eight witnesses and exhibited some
documents on its behalf. List of prosecution witnesses and exhibits
are being mentioned herein under:-
List of Prosecution Witnesses :
Prosecution Name of witness Description
witness no.
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.223 of 2022 dt.12-05-2026
4/21
1. Aarti Devi eye witness/injured
2. Harihar Paswan Hostile witness
3. Sitaram Singh Hearsay Witness
4. Rajeshwar Prasad Informant/eye-witness
and injured
5. Ajay Kumar Paswan Investigating Officer
6. Nepali Prasad Hostile Witness
7. Sachidanand Pandey Formal witness
8. Dr. Ajay Pratap Doctor
List of Exhibits on behalf of the prosecution :
Exhibit No. Description of the Date/proved by
Exhibit
1 Fardbeyan 07.09.2015
2 Formal F.I.R 03.10.2015
3 Signature of Dr. Ajay 05.02.2020
Pratap on injury report
of Rajeshwar Prasad
3/1 Signature of Dr. Ajay 05.02.2020
Pratap on supplementary
injury report of
Rajeshwar Prasad
3/2 Signature of Dr. Ajay 05.02.2020
Pratap on injury report
of Aarti Devi
4 Injury Report of 15.02.2021
Rajeshwar Prasad
4/1 Supplementary injury 15.02.2021
report of Rajeshwar
Prasad
4/2 Injury Report of Aarti 15.02.2021
Devi
1 Fardbeyan 07.09.2015
8. The prosecution evidence was closed on 15.02.2021.
Thereafter, the statement of the accused persons were recorded
under section 313 (1) (b) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.223 of 2022 dt.12-05-2026
5/21
on 03.10.2019, in which they denied all the incriminating evidence
brought against them.
9. The defence did not adduce any witness on its behalf,
but has brought on record two documents, which were exhibited
during the trial. List of documents exhibited on behalf of the
defence are being mentioned hereunder:-
List of exhibits on behalf of the defence :
Exhibit No. Description Date
A C.C. of Summon order 12.02.2020
passed in Complaint
Case No.337/2014
A/1 C.C. of Complaint 12.02.2020
Case No.337/2014
10. Learned Counsel for the appellant submits that the
appellant and the informant are full brothers and there was
admitted family dispute with regard to partition of the house/land.
He further submits that there was no premeditated mind and just in
spur of the moment, the scuffle took place between the parties
while all of them were sitting in the same place. He further submits
that there was case and counter case between the parties inasmuch
as the accused Soni Devi has filed Complaint Case No. 337 of
2014 for the same occurrence, allegedly took place in the house of
the informant on 25.03.2014, against the informant, his wife and
others. He further submits that there is allegation in the First
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.223 of 2022 dt.12-05-2026
6/21
Information Report that the appellant assaulted the wife of the
informant by means of knife and lathi, but the doctor has found the
injury sustained by the wife of the informant caused by hard and
blunt substance. He next submits that the informant and his wife
have sustained simple injuries. There was no repetition of knife
blows.
11. On the other hand, learned Additional Public
Prosecutor submits that the deposition of the eye-witnesses/injured
to the occurrence are consistence and the learned Trial Court has
rightly convicted the appellant and acquitted two other accused
persons and there is no illegality in the impugned judgment of
conviction, warranting any interference of this Court. The appeal,
being devoid of any merit, is fit to be dismissed.
12. I have heard learned Counsel for the parties and have
perused the materials available on record.
13. It would be apposite to discuss the oral/documentary
evidence as available on record to re-appreciate the evidence for
just and proper decision of the present appeal.
14. Considering the nature of allegation levelled in the
fir and has emerged during trial of the case, I would like to first
deal with the medical evidence of the doctor (PW 8).
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.223 of 2022 dt.12-05-2026
7/21
15. PW 8 is Dr. Ajay Pratap. This witness, in his
examination-in-chief, has stated that 25.03.2014, at 8:40 PM, he
has examined Rajeshwar Prasad, about 35 years old, and found the
following injuries on his body:
“(i) Stab injury over left chest over mid
clavicular line at the level of nipple about size 1" x
1/2" x cavity deep, red in colour;
(ii) Stab injury over left chest at the level of
mid axillary line at the level of left nipple about size
1" x 1/2" x cavity deep, red in colour; and
(iii) Stab injury over left chest at the level of
mid axillary line at the level of eight rib about size 1"
x 1/2" x cavity deep, red in colour.”
16. The doctor has opined that the injuries were caused
by sharp and pointed weapon and are simple in nature.
17. This witness has further deposed that on the same
day at 8:45 PM, he examined injured Aarti Devi, aged about 32
years, and found the following injuries:-
“(i) Lacerated wound over dorsal aspect of
right hand about 1" x 1/2", red in colour with irregular
margin.”
18. The doctor (PW 8) has found the injury of injured
Aarti Devi simple in nature, caused by hard and blunt substance.
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.223 of 2022 dt.12-05-2026
8/21
19. In the cross-examination, this witness (PW 8) has
deposed that he had not taken the signature of the injured on the
injury reports. This witness has also not mentioned about the
bleeding from the wound at the time when the injured were
brought before him in the injury reports. He further deposed that
the injuries caused to the injured/informant may be caused by
falling on a pointed article. This witness has further admitted that
the injury of Aarti Devi could not have been caused by falling;
rather, the same may be caused if any heavy object fell upon her.
20. The findings of the doctor and his opinion, with
regard to the injuries have not been in dispute at the trial. I, too, do
not notice anything inherently improbable or incorrect in the
findings of the doctor or his opinion, with regard to the cause of
injuries given by him.
21. In the circumstances mentioned above, the main
question for determination before this Court is as to whether the
appellant is the person who was instrumental for causing injuries
to the informant and his wife.
22. Now, coming to the rest of the prosecution witnesses,
I would like to mention here that out of the rest seven prosecution
witnesses, PW 2 (Harihar Paswan) and PW 6 (Nepali Prasad) have
been declared hostile at the instance of the prosecution, PW 3
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.223 of 2022 dt.12-05-2026
9/21
Sitaram Singh) is a hearsay witness, PW 7 (Sacchidanand Pandey)
is a formal witness, who has proved the signatures of PW 8 on the
injury reports/supplementary injury report and PW 5 (Ajay Kumar
Poaswan) is the Investigating Officer of this case. PW 1 (Aarti
Devi and PW 4 (Rajeshwar Prasad), the informant, are the only
eye-witnesses to the occurrence.
23. PW 2 (Harihar Paswan) in his examination-in-chief
has deposed that while he was coming after working and reached
near the nahar, the villagers told him that there was a scuffle
between Rajeshwar and the appellant. After hearing this, he went
to his house. He further deposed that he knew nothing about the
occurrence. This witness (PW 2) was declared hostile.
24. In his cross-examination by the prosecution, this
witness (PW 2) has deposed that the police has enquired from him
and he had not seen the scuffle. He further deposed that he heard
about the scuffle and also heard that Rajeshwar Prasad and Aarti
Devi have got injuries and had gone to Banaras for treatment.
25. This witness (PW 2) has denied that he had disclosed
before the police that when he went to the house of Rajeshwar
Prasad, he saw Rajeshwar Prasad and Aarti Devi in badly injured
conditions. He further denied that the appellant, his wife and
father had caused injuries to Rajeshwar Prasad and Aarti Devi.
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.223 of 2022 dt.12-05-2026
10/21
26. In the cross-examination by the defence, this witness
(PW 2) has deposed that he had not seen the occurrence.
27. PW 6 (Nepali Prasad), in his examination-in-chief,
has deposed that he knew nothing about the occurrence and the
police had not taken his statement. This witness (PW 6) was
declared hostile.
28. In his cross-examination by the prosecution, this
witness (PW 6) has deposed that he had not stated before the
police that on 25.08.2014 at about 6 PM in the evening, he was at
his house and saw that there was a scuffle going on in between the
informant and the appellant and when he went there, he saw that
the appellant, Soni Devi and Kameshwar Prasad, all variously
armed with lathi, danda, knife, were abusing and assaulting
Rajeshwar Prasad (informant) and Aarti Devi.
29. In the cross-examination by the defence, this witness
(PW 6) has deposed that he did not see the incident with his own
eyes.
30. PW 3 (Sita Ram Singh), in his examination-in-chief,
has deposed that about 1½ years ago at 6 PM, while he was on his
terrace, he heard a commotion coming from Rajeshwar's house
and he went there and saw many people had gathered there.
Rajeshwar, along with his brother, Ramta, was there and
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.223 of 2022 dt.12-05-2026
11/21
Rajeshwar had three stab wounds around his chest. Everyone there
was saying that the appellant had stabbed him. Rajeshwar and his
family were never asked who stabbed him. Rajeshwar was lying
on the ground. His wife was crying there, saying that the applelant
had stabbed him.
31. In the cross-examination, this witness (PW 3) has
deposed that Rajeshwar was wearing a shirt at the time of
occurrence and his wife was wearing a blouse and a saree. There
was a minor property dispute between the two brothers.
32. PW 5 (Ajay Kumar Paswan) is the Investigating
Officer of this case. He, in the examination-in-chief, has deposed
that on 25.03.20214, he was posted in the Sonhan Police Station
as Sub-Inspector of Police. He deposed that the alleged occurrence
took place in the courtyard and he recorded the statements of
witnesses, namely, Aarti Devi, Harihar Paswan, Sita Ram Singh,
Ajay Sharma, and Nepali Chandravanshi. He also procured the
injury reports of the injured persons. Based on the statements of
the witnesses, supervision notes, and the instructions of senior
officer, he found the occurrence to be true against the three
accused persons and submitted charge sheet accordingly.
33. In his cross-examination, PW 5 has deposed that he
recorded the restatement of the informant at Sadar Hospital,
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.223 of 2022 dt.12-05-2026
12/21
Bhabhua. He visited the place of occurrence on the day of the
occurrence, but he did not see any blood at the place of
occurrence. This witness has also not inspected the cloth of the
informant (PW 4).
34. Now, coming to the evidence of the two eye-
witnesses of the occurrence, I would first deal with the evidence
of PW 1, the wife of the informant (PW 4) and one of the injured
also.
35. PW 1 (Aarti Devi) has deposed, in her examination-
in-chief, that while she was in the house, her husband, Rajeshwar
Prasad, her brother-in-law Manoj Prasad (the appellant), her
father-in-law Kameshwar Prasad and the wife of the appellant,
Soni Devi, were also there. This witness and accused Soni Devi
was in the house while her husband, father-in-law and the
appellant were in the courtyard of the house. The accused Soni
Devi started abusing this witness. When Soni Devi started abusing
me regarding partition, this witness came into the house from the
courtyard. Her father-in-law Kameshwar started beating me by
hand and danda. When the husband of this witness came to the
aangan, the appellant inflicted three knife blows. When this
witness tried to save her husband, the appellant stabbed her too,
due to which she started screaming. From Sonhan Police Station,
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.223 of 2022 dt.12-05-2026
13/21
they were brought to Sadar Hospital, Bhabua. The husband of this
witness was treated for ten days. Her husband was referred to
Banaras on the same day. This witness was treated at Sadar
Hospital, Bhabhua. The husband of this witness returned home
from B.H.U., Banaras, after ten days of treatment.
36. In her cross-examination, this witness (PW 1) has
deposed that all four brothers of her husband lived in the same
courtyard and there is no partition of the house among themselves.
37. This witness (PW 1) has further deposed that her
husband was wearing a kurta and full-sleeved jacket at the time
and that kurta is in the hospital. This witness has further deposed
that she also sustained injury near the wrist of right hand. This
witness further denied that she did not receive injury by assault;
rather the injury was caused by bangles. Except this injury, this
witness has not sustained any other injury. This witness (PW 1)
has further deposed that she did not know that the appellant had
lodged any case against them. This witness has deposed that it is
false that we entered into the room of the accused persons and
committed theft and to save from that case, this false case has
been lodged.
38. This witness (PW 1) has deposed that blood had
fallen in the aangan where the scuffle had taken place. They went
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.223 of 2022 dt.12-05-2026
14/21
to Banaras for treatment. This witness met with the police in the
Bhabhua hospital. The police had not come in the aangan of the
house in presence of this witness because they had gone to
Bhabhua hospital.
39. Now, coming to the deposition of PW 4 (Rajeshwar
Prasad), who is the informant of this case and the injured also.
This witness (PW 4), in his examination-in-chief, has deposed that
on 25.03.2014 at 6 PM, he and his wife (PW 1) was in his house
and no one else was there. At that time, accused Soni Devi, who is
the wife of the appellant, started abusing for partition and when
the wife of this witness objected her from abusing, the appellant
also started abusing. When this witness forbade to abuse, the
father of this witness, Kameshwar Prasad, told the appellant to
beat him. After that, the appellant brought a knife and stabbed him
in the chest. When his wife came in his rescue, Soni Devi also
beat her with danda, due to which she sustained injury in her hand.
The appellant also inflicted a knife blow on the hand of the wife
of this witness. This witness fell down at the spot, then the
villagers took him and his wife to Bhabhua Hospital, where they
were treated. The police came to Bhabhua Hospital, where the
statement of this witness was recorded. The police read the
statement over to him and on finding it correct, he put his
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.223 of 2022 dt.12-05-2026
15/21
signature on it. This witness also deposed that the doctors at
Bhabhua Hospital has referred this witness to B.H.U., where he
was admitted in the Emergency.
40. In cross-examination, this witness (PW 4) has
deposed that there was a case for the partition and the partition has
still not taken place. He denied that the brothers have divided the
property among themselves and the father had not been given any
share. The father of this witness lives with the brothers of this
witness, namely, Kamta and the appellant.
41. This witness (PW 4) has further deposed that the
blood had fallen at the place of occurrence and since he remained
hospitalized for 10 days after the incident, he did not show the
place of occurrence to the police. The police came to his house on
the next day when he was not in his house. The neighbours of this
witness had not come at the time of occurrence; rather, they came
after the occurrence, to whom this witness had shown the injuries.
This witness has shown his injuries to Ashok Prasad (not
examined), Ramta Prasad (not examined) and 2-4 persons of the
village.
42. This witness (PW 4) has denied that no occurrence
of stabbing of assault had taken place and for pressurizing for
partition, this false case has been lodged.
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.223 of 2022 dt.12-05-2026
16/21
43. This witness (PW 4), in the last, has deposed that he
is satisfied with the partition which has taken place.
44. From the depositions of PW 2, PW 3 and PW 6, it is
very much clear that they have not seen the occurrence. This fact
also finds strength from the deposition of the informant (PW 4)
that at the time of occurrence, no villager had come and the
villagers came only after the incident had taken place. PW 3 has
deposed to the extent that the informant has sustained injuries
from knife, but he had not disclosed the source of information he
got that the informant was assaulted by means of knife.
45. It is the consistent depositions of the two eye-
witnesses to the occurrence, i.e. PW 1 and PW 2, that blood had
fallen at the place where scuffle had taken place, but the
Investigating Officer (PW 5) has not found any trail of blood in
the house of the informant (PW 4) while he inspected the place of
occurrence. The Investigating Officer (PW 5) has also not
recovered the weapon (knife) by which assault has been made.
The exact place of occurrence has also not been disclosed by the
prosecution witnesses.
46. It is the further case of the prosecution in the First
Information Report that the appellant had stabbed the knife upon
the informant (PW 4) 5-6 times and the appellant also inflicted
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.223 of 2022 dt.12-05-2026
17/21
one knife blow on the wife of the informant (PW 1), apart from
the assault made by the wife of the appellant upon the wife of the
informant by danda and hands. The doctor (PW 8) has also opined
in his cross-examination that the injuries sustained by the
informant (PW 4) may happen if he falls on a pointed substance.
The informant (PW 4) has not deposed any repetition of knife
blows upon him. As such, from the evidence of eye-witnesses to
the occurrence, it cannot be safely said that the actual manner of
occurrence has been disclosed by the prosecution witnesses.
47. In the face of the medical evidence on record, there
can be no escape from the conclusion that the informant (PW 4)
sustained only three stab injuries and that too, simple in nature,
and the wife of the informant (PW 1) did not sustain any knife
injury and the only one injury sustained by the wife of the
informant (PW 1) is caused by hard and blunt substance and is
also simple in nature.
48. In the face of the evidence of PW 1 and PW 4 and
also in the face of the medical evidence on record, discussed
above, there can be no escape from the conclusion that the
description of the occurrence, given by PW 1 and PW 4, is not
safe to place reliance upon inasmuch as the evidence of these
witnesses are nothing, but ad-mixture of half-truth and untruth.
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.223 of 2022 dt.12-05-2026
18/21
This apart, the half-truth and untruth are so inextricably mixed
with each other that it is impossible to disengage the truth from
falsehoold.
49. It is also the admitted case of the prosecution that
there was dispute over partition of the house.
50. Considering the fact that there was, admittedly,
enmity between the informant, on the one hand, and the appellant,
on the other hand. Enmity is a double-edged weapon, which cuts
both the ways. While enmity may be a reason for committing an
offence, such as, present one, enmity may also be a reason for
either falsely implicating an enemy as an accused or roping in an
enemy, who may be innocent.
51. In the circumstances indicated above, it was
impossible to place implicit reliance on the evidence of PW 1 and
PW 4. In the absence of any other evidence, supporting the
description of the occurrence given by the eye witnesses, one has
no option, but to hold that none of these witnesses can be treated
or held to be wholly reliable. Even if their evidence is not rejected
by the Court as wholly unreliable, their evidence would fall, at
best, in the category of those witnesses, who are neither wholly
reliable nor wholly unreliable.
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.223 of 2022 dt.12-05-2026
19/21
52. It is trite that the witnesses, ordinarily, fall into three
distinct categories, namely, (i) wholly reliable, (ii) wholly
unreliable and (iii) neither wholly reliable nor wholly unreliable.
If the witness is wholly reliable, his evidence can be implicitly
relied upon and such a witness’s testimony can be made basis for
conviction of an accused. Similarly, when a witness is found to be
wholly unreliable, no reliance can at all be placed on his evidence
and his evidence has to be rejected outright. When, however, a
witness is found to be neither wholly reliable, nor wholly
unreliable, his evidence cannot be accepted as true unless his
evidence is found to have been corroborated by some credible
independent evidence, direct or circumstantial.
53. The evidence of the eye-witnesses, which the
prosecution has adduced in the present case, cannot be safely
relied upon unless the same is found to have been corroborated by
some credible independent evidence, direct or circumstantial.
54. It is also an undisputed position of law that one
infirm witness cannot be treated to have corroborated the evidence
of another infirm witness meaning thereby that witnesses of same
brand cannot be taken to have corroborated each other. Thus,
when a witness is neither wholly reliable nor wholly unreliable,
his evidence cannot be taken to have been corroborated by a
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.223 of 2022 dt.12-05-2026
20/21
witness of the same brand, namely, a witness, who is neither
wholly reliable nor wholly unreliable, for, evidence is not to be
counted, but weighed.
55. Situated thus, it is clear that merely because some
persons, claiming themselves to be eye-witnesses, have given
evidence describing the occurrence, their evidence cannot be
made basis for holding them truthful witnesses, when their
evidence is inconsistent, contradictory and belied by each other’s
evidence, particularly when their evidence is found to have not
been corroborated by credible independent evidence, direct or
circumstantial.
56. Because of the nature of evidence, which is available
on record, the least, which ought to have been done by the learned
Trial Court, was to accord benefit of reasonable doubt to the
accused persons inasmuch as I am clearly of the view that in the
light of the evidence on record, which I have discussed above, it
was too hazardous to convict the appellant, particularly, when I
find that the evidence, which the prosecution has adduced, is an ad
mixture of half-truth and untruth and it is not only difficult, but
wholly impossible to disengage the truth from the falsehood. The
benefit of such a situation ought to have been given to the
appellant.
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.223 of 2022 dt.12-05-2026
21/21
57. In the backdrop of what has been discussed and
pointed out above, I am of the considered view that the
prosecution has failed, in the present case, to bring home the
charges against the appellant beyond reasonable doubt and that the
appellant was entitled to be accorded benefit of doubt.
58. In the result, this appeal succeeds. The impugned
conviction of the appellant by the judgment, under appeal, and the
consequential sentence, passed under the impugned order, are
hereby set aside. The appellant is held not guilty of the offence,
for which he stood convicted, and is acquitted of the same under
benefit of doubt.
59. The appellant is already on bail. The bail bonds of
the appellant are hereby cancelled and his sureties shall stand
discharged.
60. The Registry is directed to return the Lower Court’s
Record forthwith along with a copy of this judgment.
(Anil Kumar Sinha, J.)
Prabhakar Anand/-
AFR/NAFR AFR
CAV DATE 27-04-2026
Uploading Date 12-05-2026
Transmission Date 12-05-2026
Checking your session…
Lawyer court records for this case
Associated through the court’s case reference.