Patna High Court

Mishri Yadav and Ors.versusThe State Of Bihar

Decided: 29 January 2026
Disposal: ALLOWED
Bench: SHAILENDRA SINGH

Holding

The conviction was set aside because the contradictions between eyewitness and medical evidence, coupled with the prosecution's failure to prove the place of occurrence, motive, and causal link to death, rendered the case untenable.

Summary

The appellants were convicted under Sections 304 and 323 read with Section 149 of the IPC for a fatal assault allegedly stemming from a land dispute. The prosecution relied on injured witnesses and medical reports, while the defence highlighted stark contradictions between eyewitness accounts of sharp‑edged weapons and the medical evidence indicating blunt‑force injuries. The court noted the lack of corroboration regarding the place of occurrence, the absence of a direct causal link between the injuries and the death, and the unreliability of the FIR due to a two‑day filing delay. Citing Supreme Court precedents on conflicts between ocular and medical evidence, the bench held that such contradictions are fatal to the prosecution case. Consequently, the convictions were set aside and the appellants were discharged.

Issues considered

Whether the inconsistency between eyewitness testimony and medical evidence creates reasonable doubt sufficient to overturn the conviction
Whether the prosecution established the precise place of occurrence of the alleged assault
Whether the prosecution proved that the injuries caused the death of the deceased (causation)
Whether the prosecution demonstrated a motive for the appellants to commit the assault
Whether the delay in filing the FIR undermines its reliability

Legislation cited

Indian Penal Code — s. 149, 304, 323

Subjects

Indian Penal Code
Section 304
Section 323
Section 149
Eyewitness testimony
Medical evidence
Causation
FIR delay
Acquittal
Criminal appeal
Land dispute
Contradictory evidence

Judgment

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL APPEAL (SJ) No.30 of 2014
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-150 Year-2008 Thana- SHEKHPURA District- Sheikhpura
======================================================
1. Mishri Yadav, Son Of Late Tilak Yadav Resident Of Village- Dhankaul, P.S.
- Ariyari, District- Sheikhpura.
2. Dinesh Yadav, Son Of Sri Mishri Yadav Resident Of Village- Dhankaul, P.S.
- Ariyari, District- Sheikhpura.
3. Sugul Yadav, Son Of Sri Mishri Yadav Resident Of Village- Dhankaul, P.S. -
Ariyari, District- Sheikhpura.
4. Indradeo Yadav, Son Of Late Dhanraj Yadav Resident Of Village- Dhankaul,
P.S. - Ariyari, District- Sheikhpura.

... ... Appellant/s
Versus
The State of Bihar

... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Appellants : Mr. Ajit Kumar Singh, Advocate
Ms. Deepmala, Advocate
For the Informant : Mr. Sanjay Kumar, Advocate
For the State : Mr. A.M.P. Mehta, Addl. P.P.
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHAILENDRA SINGH
ORAL JUDGMENT
Date : 29-01-2026

Heard Mr. Ajit Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the

appellants; Mr. Sanjay Kumar, learned counsel for the informant;

and Mr. A. M. P. Mehta, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for

the State.

2. The present appeal has been preferred by the

appellants against the judgment of conviction dated 16.11.2013

and the order of sentence dated 20.11.2013, passed by the learned

Additional Sessions Judge, Sheikhpura, in Sessions Trial No. 404
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.30 of 2014 dt.29-01-2026
2/24

of 2010 arising out of G.R. Case No. 1073 of 2008, whereby and

whereunder the appellants were convicted for the offences

punishable under Sections 304 and 323, both read with Section

149 of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as ‘IPC’).

The appellants were sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment

for a period of seven years each for the offence under Section 304

read with Section 149 of the IPC, and rigorous imprisonment for

one year for the offence under Section 323 read with Section 149

of the IPC. They were further directed to pay a fine of Rs. 10,000/-

each, and in default thereof, to undergo simple imprisonment for

six months. Both the sentences of imprisonment were ordered to

run concurrently.

Prosecution Story:-

3. The substance of the prosecution case, as emerging

from the FIR, is as follows:—

According to the informant, Kapildeo Yadav, on

27.11.2008, at about 10:00 A.M., he along with his brothers,

namely Kailash Yadav, Maheshwar Yadav, and Dular Yadav, was

proceeding to their field for bundling the harvested paddy crop.

While they were passing near the house of one Rambriksha Bind,

their co-villagers, namely Mishri Yadav (Appellant No.1), Bhusan

Yadav, Devendra Yadav, Kalendra Yadav, Indradeo Yadav
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.30 of 2014 dt.29-01-2026
3/24

(Appellant No.4), Dinesh Yadav (Appellant No.2), and Sugul

Yadav (Appellant No.3), arrived there, surrounded them, and

started abusing and assaulting them. The informant further alleged

that during the course of the assault, accused Indradeo Yadav

(Appellant No.4) was armed with a spear (bhala), accused Bhusan

Yadav with a garasa, accused Mishri Yadav (Appellant No. 1) with

an iron rod, accused Devendra Yadav with a tangi, and accused

Sugul Yadav (Appellant No.3) was armed with a lathi, while the

remaining accused were armed with lathi and danda. All the said

weapons were used in assaulting the informant and his brothers.

As per the informant, the motive behind the occurrence was a land

dispute which had been subsisting between the informant’s side

and the accused persons. The informant further stated that as a

result of the said assault, his brother Kailash Yadav sustained a

serious head injury.

3.1. The informant, Kapildeo Yadav, recorded his

fardbeyan at Sadar Hospital, Sheikhpura, on 27.11.2008 at 14:45

hours, describing the aforesaid alleged occurrence. On the basis

thereof, Ariyari P.S. Case No. 150 of 2008 was registered for the

offences punishable under Sections 147, 148, 149, 341, 342, 323,

325, and 307 of the Indian Penal Code. Subsequently, upon the

death of the injured Kailash Yadav, Section 302 of the IPC was
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.30 of 2014 dt.29-01-2026
4/24

also added. The formal First Information Report (FIR) thus set the

criminal law in motion, and the investigation was taken up.

4. Upon completion of the investigation, the police

submitted a charge-sheet against the appellants and co-accused

Bhushan Yadav. However, by the same police report, the co-

accused persons, namely Devendra Yadav and Kalendra Yadav,

were not sent up for trial, and the investigation was kept pending

in respect of certain non-FIR-named accused, namely Ramdeo

Manjhi, Surendra Bind, and Rambriksha Bind, in whose case a

separate charge-sheet was subsequently filed. On 12.08.2009, the

Investigating Officer submitted a second charge-sheet against the

non-FIR-named accused, namely Ramdeo Manjhi, Surendra Bind,

and Rambriksha Bind. The appellants were charge-sheeted for the

offences punishable under Sections 147, 148, 149, 341, 342, 323,

325, 307, and 302 of the Indian Penal Code.

5. At this stage, it is relevant to mention that the co-

accused Bhushan Yadav was tried as a juvenile by the Juvenile

Justice Board, and, as per the impugned judgment, he was

acquitted of the charges.

6. After taking cognizance of the alleged offences, the

learned Chief Judicial Magistrate committed the case of the
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.30 of 2014 dt.29-01-2026
5/24

appellants, along with the co-accused persons, to the Court of

Sessions.

7. The appellants and the co-accused persons were

charged for the offences punishable under Sections 302 read with

Section 149 and 307 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal

Code. The said charges were read over and explained to them in

Hindi, to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

8. Along with the appellants, the three charge-sheeted

accused persons, namely Surendra Bind, Rambriksha Bind, and

Ramdeo Manjhi, were also tried, and after trial, they were

acquitted by the same judgment which has been impugned in the

present appeal. However, the appellants were convicted for the

offences punishable under Sections 304 and 323, both read with

Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code.

9. During trial the prosecution examined altogether 14

witnesses who are as under:

Sl. No. Name Relevancy
PW-1 Dular Yadav An injured witness
PW-2 Mohd. M. Khan Formal witness
PW-3 Sona Kumari An eyewitness
PW-4 Maheshwar Yadav An injured witness
PW-5 Nandu Yadav An eyewitness
PW-6 Basdeo Yadav Hearsay witness
PW-7 Bhim Yadav An eyewitness
PW-8 Kapildeo Yadav Informant and injured witness
PW-9 Sohaga Devi Claimed herself as an eyewitness
PW-10 Dayamani Devi Claimed herself as an eyewitness
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.30 of 2014 dt.29-01-2026
6/24

PW-11 Vinod Kr. Singh S.I. Investigating Officer
PW-12 Dr. Arbind Kumar Medically examined the injured
PW-13 Mahendra Yadav Hostile witness
PW-14 Dr. A.K. Singh Conducted postmortem
examination

10. In documentary evidence the prosecution proved the

following documents and got them exhibited which are as under:-

Sl. No. Relevancy
Ext.-1,1/1 Fardbeyan
Ext.-2 &3 FIR
Ext.-4 to 4/C Signature of I.O. on injury report
Ext.-x Inquest Report
Ext.-5 to 5/C Injury Report
Ext.-6 Postmortem Report

11. After the completion of the prosecution evidence, the

statements of the appellants were recorded, thereby affording them

an opportunity to explain all the material circumstances appearing

against them from the prosecution evidence, which were denied by

them. While recording their statements, all the appellants claimed

themselves to be innocent; however, none of them took any

specific defence in their statements.

12. In defence, the appellants examined one witness

namely, Mathura Prasad who was examined as DW-1.

13. In documentary evidence, the appellants produced

and exhibited the following documents in defence:-

Sl. No. Relevancy
Ext.-A A copy of the sale deed executed by one namely Rambriksha
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.30 of 2014 dt.29-01-2026
7/24

Bind upon which the signature of Dular Yadav was marked
Ext.-A/1 A photocopy of the sale deed executed by one Mahendra Bind
upon which the signature of Dular Yadav was marked
Ext.-A/2 Statement of one Manni Yadav recorded at Patrakar Nagar
police station
Ext.-A/3 The signature of Kapildeo Yadav on his fardbeyan recorded by
Patrakar Nagar police on 14.12.2008
Ext.-B A certified copy of the chargesheet filed in connection with
G.R. No. 1074/08
Ext.-C Written report of Munger Harijan P.S. Case No. 95/08
Ext.-D Certified copy of case record of J.J. Board pertaining to G.R.
1073A/08

14. While convicting the appellants, the learned trial

court placed reliance upon the evidence of the injured witnesses

and medical evidence regarding the injuries of the injured persons

and the nature of injuries sustained by the deceased. The trial court

observed in the impugned judgment that the ocular version of the

eyewitnesses was corroborative of the medical evidence of the

doctor, and the manner of assault as alleged in the FIR was

corroborated by the medical evidence. As far as the motive of the

appellants to commit the alleged occurrence is concerned, the

learned trial court observed that a scuffle had taken place on the

alleged day between both parties on account of a land dispute, due

to which the alleged occurrence of assault was committed by the

appellants against the prosecution party, resulting in the death of

the deceased. The learned trial court further observed that the

evidence of the star witnesses remained consistent and

corroborative of the evidence of other witnesses, and the defence
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.30 of 2014 dt.29-01-2026
8/24

was not able to elicit any material contradiction in their evidence

as far as the assault is concerned.

Submissions on behalf of the Appellants :

15. Mr. Ajit Kumar Singh, learned counsel appearing for

the appellants, has argued that there exists a major contradiction

between the ocular evidence and the medical evidence with regard

to the manner of assault, and that the same is sufficient to discredit

the entire prosecution version. He has further submitted that all the

material witnesses of the prosecution who claimed to have

witnessed the entire occurrence of assault are family members of

the deceased. In view of the contradiction arising between their

ocular evidence and the medical expert’s opinion regarding the

nature of the weapons used in the alleged assault, their evidence is

completely unreliable, and, further, they are highly interested

witnesses of the prosecution. It has also been argued that a delay of

two days occurred on the part of the concerned police officer in

sending the First Information Report to the jurisdictional

Magistrate, without giving any explanation, which casts doubt on

the reliability of the FIR and raises a reasonable apprehension of

manipulation by the police in its contents. Learned counsel has

further submitted that, as per the prosecution story, the alleged

occurrence is said to have taken place at 10:00 A.M., and,
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.30 of 2014 dt.29-01-2026
9/24

according to the evidence of the prosecution witnesses, several

villagers, numbering about 100, gathered at the site of the

occurrence. However, none of these villagers was made a witness

by the police, even though they were the best witnesses to prove

the place of occurrence and other relevant facts constituting the

occurrence. Some material witnesses of the prosecution deposed

that there was no dispute between the appellants and the

prosecution party, who are agnates, and that they had a cordial

relationship during the relevant period. In this regard, the evidence

of PW-5 is relevant. Therefore, there was no reason for the

appellants to assault the prosecution party with fatal weapons. It

was further argued that the investigating officer did not find any

signs of marpit at the alleged place of occurrence, nor did he find

blood-stained earth or soil, despite visiting the site on the very next

day. According to the postmortem report, the deceased sustained

six injuries, among which injury No. 1 was described as the fatal

injury and opined to be the cause of death. However, the medical

expert who treated the deceased initially stated in his evidence that

the said injury was not life-threatening, and he did not mention in

his report that the deceased was unconscious when brought to the

Primary Health Centre, Sheikhpura. According to him, this showed

that the deceased was conscious. Further, the said injury was
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.30 of 2014 dt.29-01-2026
10/24

specifically attributed to the co-accused Bhushan Yadav, who was

tried separately before the Juvenile Justice Board and was

acquitted. The same medical expert, examined as PW-12, deposed

that he could not give his final opinion regarding the nature of

injury No. 1 because the X-ray report of the deceased was not

available at that time. Hence, the evidence given by PW-12 is not

corroborative of the medical opinion given in the postmortem

report, in which injury No. 1 was considered fatal and the main

cause of death. Learned counsel has further submitted that, as per

the FIR, the appellants allegedly used sharp-edged weapon

(garasa) and pointed weapon (spear) in assaulting the deceased and

other injured persons. However, no corroborating injury from the

said weapons was found either on the body of the deceased or on

the bodies of the other injured persons, which amounts to a serious

contradiction. In fact, all the so-called eyewitnesses did not see the

commission of the alleged occurrence, and none of them was an

eyewitness; they were planted to support a false story. An incident

of marpit took place between the prosecution party and one

Ramdeo Manjhi, in respect of which Ariyari P.S. Case No.

151/2008 was registered for offences under Sections 147, 341,

323, and 325 of the IPC against the informant of the present

matter, some injured persons of the present matter, and others who
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.30 of 2014 dt.29-01-2026
11/24

were charge-sheeted for offences alleged in that matter. The FIR

relating to that case was lodged on the same day, 27.11.2008,

which relates to the date of occurrence of the present matter. The

submission of the charge-sheet in Ariyari P.S. Case No. 151/2008

clearly shows that the police found the allegations of assault and

marpit made in that FIR to be true. Further, the same is sufficient

to indicate that the alleged occurrence, as narrated in the FIR of

the present matter, took place in a different manner, which casts a

serious doubt on the truthfulness and veracity of the allegations

leveled by the informant.

Submissions on behalf of the Respondents:-

16. On the other hand, Mr. A.M.P. Mehta, learned

Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the State, argued that

the material witnesses of the prosecution, namely PW-1, PW-4,

and PW-8, remained consistent with the prosecution story and

fully supported it in their testimonies. The evidence of these

witnesses is highly reliable, as they are injured. Although there are

some contradictions between their testimonies and the prosecution

story, the same are minor in nature and ignorable. When the

Investigating Officer inspected the place of occurrence, he found

some straw scattered at the site, which indicates that some incident

had taken place there. Regarding the contradiction between the
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.30 of 2014 dt.29-01-2026
12/24

nature of the weapons mentioned in the FIR by the informant and

the injuries noted by the medical expert in his report, the same is

also ignorable. According to the testimonies of the material

witnesses, all the alleged fatal weapons — garasa and spear having

wooden portions, and other implements such as iron rods, lathis,

and dandas — could have been used by the accused in their blunt

portions during the assault on the deceased and other injured

persons. Learned APP further submitted that the informant

recorded his fardbeyan on the same day of the occurrence, which

demonstrates the naturality and credibility of his statement. As per

the postmortem report, the deceased sustained a head injury among

other injuries, and the said head injury was found to be the primary

cause of death. According to the prosecution story, the accused

specifically assaulted the head of the deceased.

17. Mr. Sanjay Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the

informant, adopted the submissions advanced by the learned

Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the State.

Consideration and Analysis:-

18. I have heard the arguments of both sides, perused the

impugned judgment, examined the evidence of both parties

available on the record of the trial court, and have also taken into

account the statements of the accused.
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.30 of 2014 dt.29-01-2026
13/24

19. The first and foremost contention raised by the

appellants’ counsel is the contradiction between the ocular

evidence and the medical evidence, particularly with respect to the

manner of assault, as stated above. In light of this contention, I

have perused the fardbeyan of the informant, the evidence of the

injured witnesses (PW-1, PW-4, and PW-8), and, regarding the

medical opinion, the evidence of PW-12 and PW-14. As per the

prosecution story narrated in the FIR, the appellant Indradeo

Yadav used a spear, the appellant Mishri Yadav used an iron rod,

co-accused Devendra Yadav used a tangi, co-accused Bhushan

Yadav used a garasa, and other accused persons used lathis and

dandas in assaulting the deceased and his two brothers, including

the informant.

19.1. PW-1 deposed in his examination-in-chief that co-

accused Bhushan Yadav assaulted the deceased on his head with a

garasa, the appellant Indradeo Yadav assaulted the informant using

a spear, and co-accused Devendra Yadav assaulted PW-4 with a

tangi, inflicting a blow on the neck of PW-4 with the said weapon.

Regarding the use of these weapons by the accused, including the

appellants, similar evidence was given by PW-4 in his

examination-in-chief. The witness (PW-4) stated in cross-

examination in paragraph 11 that his brother sustained two spear
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.30 of 2014 dt.29-01-2026
14/24

injuries to his chest and one garasa blow to his head, and that the

sharp portion of the garasa was used in the assault. Similarly, PW-

5 Nandlal Yadav, who claimed to be an eyewitness of the alleged

occurrence, deposed in cross-examination in paragraph 12 that the

deceased was assaulted with the sharp portion of the garasa. If

these statements of the said witnesses are taken to be true, it would

appear that the sharp portion of the garasa was used to inflict

blows on the head of the deceased, and that the other injured

persons were also assaulted by the pointed portion of the spear and

the sharp portion of the garasa. However, as per the medical

expert’s opinion, who initially examined the deceased and the

other injured persons, all injuries were caused by hard and blunt

objects, and most of the injuries were found to be bruises,

swellings, and some lacerated wounds. It is not believable that all

the injured persons, four in number, including the deceased, were

assaulted by the accused with the blunt portion of the alleged

weapons. The said contradiction between the ocular evidence and

the medical evidence appears to be fatal to the prosecution and

cannot be ignored. It is a settled position of law that where the

ocular evidence of the prosecution witnesses is totally inconsistent

with the medical evidence, such inconsistency should be

considered a fundamental defect in the prosecution case, and in
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.30 of 2014 dt.29-01-2026
15/24

such a situation, it would be unsafe to convict solely on the ocular

evidence. In this regard, I would like to refer to the observations

made by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Ram Narain Singh v.

State of Punjab and the analogous case Jaggar Singh and

Others v. State of Punjab, reported in (1975) 4 SCC 497, and the

relevant paragraph no. 6 of the said judgment is reproduced as

under:

“ 6. ………. the evidence of the eyewitnesses
was inconsistent with the medical evidence appears to
be well founded. In other words, the position is that if we
discard this part of the evidence of the eyewitnesses
which has come to light for the first time in the Sessions
Court, then according to medical evidence, the deceased
would have got two gunshots whereas it was never the
prosecution case that Ram Narain Singh or any other
accused fired a second shot at the deceased at any time.
The medical evidence, therefore, clearly falsifies the
prosecution case regarding the manner in which the
deceased was hit.”

19.2. I would also like to refer to the judgment of the

Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Thaman Kumar v. State of

Union Territory of Chandigarh, reported in (2003) 6 SCC 380, in

which the observations made in paragraph 16 are reproduced as

under:
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.30 of 2014 dt.29-01-2026
16/24

“16. The conflict between oral testimony and
medical evidence can be of varied dimensions and
shapes. There may be a case where there is total
absence of injuries which are normally caused by a
particular weapon. There is another category where
though the injuries found on the victim are of the type
which are possible by the weapon of assault, but the size
and dimension of the injuries do not exactly tally with
the size and dimension of the weapon. The third
category can be where the injuries found on the victim
are such which are normally caused by the weapon of
assault but they are not found on that portion of the
body where they are deposed to have been caused by the
eyewitnesses. The same kind of inference cannot be
drawn in the three categories of apparent conflict in
oral and medical evidence enumerated above. In the
first category it may legitimately be inferred that the
oral evidence regarding assault having been made from
a particular weapon is not truthful. However, in the
second and third categories no such inference can
straight away be drawn. The manner and method of
assault, the position of the victim, the resistance offered
by him, the opportunity available to the witnesses to see
the occurrence like their distance, presence of light and
many other similar factors will have to be taken into
consideration in judging the reliability of ocular
testimony.”

19.3. As far as the place of occurrence is concerned,

according to the FIR, the alleged assault took place near the house

of one Rambriksha Bind. However, as per the evidence of some
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.30 of 2014 dt.29-01-2026
17/24

material prosecution witnesses (PW-8), the incident took place

near a Samudayik Bhawan, and according to PW-7 Bhim Yadav,

who claimed to be an eyewitness, the incident occurred near the

field of the prosecution party. The investigating officer visited the

place of occurrence on the second day after the alleged incident

and did not find any signs of marpit or blood-stained soil.

Although, as per the learned APP, some straw was found scattered,

the same is insufficient to prove the alleged place of occurrence.

The investigating officer also made no attempt to recover the

weapons allegedly used in assaulting the deceased and others. It is

relevant to note that on 27.11.2008, an FIR bearing Ariyari P.S.

Case No. 151/2008 was also lodged by one Ramdev Manjhi

against the deceased and some of the injured persons of the present

matter, and others, pertaining to an alleged assault that took place

on the same date. In that FIR, Maheshwar Yadav, Dular Yadav

(injured persons of the present matter), Kapildeo Yadav (informant

of the present matter), and others were charge-sheeted, whereas the

deceased Kailash Yadav could not be charge-sheeted on account of

his death. If the prosecution story in Ariyari P.S. Case No.

151/2008, the contradictions between the ocular evidence of the

prosecution witnesses in the present matter and the medical

evidence, and the non-finding of any signs of marpit at the alleged
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.30 of 2014 dt.29-01-2026
18/24

place of occurrence by the investigating officer are considered

simultaneously, it may be inferred that the alleged occurrence, as

narrated by the informant in his fardbeyan, did not take place in

the manner described by him and might have occurred differently.

Furthermore, the informant also recorded his statement at

Rajeshwar Hospital, Kankarbagh, Patna, before Sub-Inspector

S.K. Verma, the original copy of which was produced before the

trial court and exhibited; this has not been disputed by the

prosecution. From the perusal of the second fardbeyan of the

informant, a different story emerges. Although the participation of

the appellants and other co-accused in the alleged assault was

reiterated, the genesis of the occurrence is described differently.

According to the informant’s second fardbeyan, on the alleged day

and time, the appellant Indradeo Yadav was erecting a hut on

disputed land near the house of Rambriksha Bind, which was

opposed by the deceased. Thereafter, the deceased and his brothers

were threatened and abused by the accused. Subsequently,

Indradeo Yadav rushed behind the deceased, and near the

Samudayik Bhawan, other accused, including the appellants,

joined him and assaulted the deceased with lathi, danda, bhala,

garasa, and iron rod. Upon hearing the cries of the deceased, the

informant and others rushed to the spot and were also assaulted by
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.30 of 2014 dt.29-01-2026
19/24

the accused. Thus, there is a serious contradiction between the

prosecution story described by the informant in his first fardbeyan,

which formed the basis of the FIR, and the story described in his

second fardbeyan, recorded at Patrakar Nagar Police Station,

Patna. Accordingly, the place of occurrence as shown in the first

fardbeyan appears doubtful.

20. The second contention raised by the appellants’

counsel is that all the so-called eyewitnesses are highly interested

and relative witnesses of the prosecution party and despite the

presence of several independent persons at the time of the alleged

occurrence, none of them was produced or examined by the

prosecution. Further, the presence of the informant at the alleged

time and place of the alleged occurrence is also highly doubtful. In

this regard, the learened counsel has referred to the evidence of

PW-1, PW-3, PW-4, PW-5, and PW-8.

20.1. From a perusal of the evidence of these witnesses,

it appears that several independent persons gathered when the

alleged occurrence was being committed by the accused. PW-5,

Nandu Yadav @ Nandlal Yadav, deposed in his cross-examination

that 100–200 people had gathered at the place of occurrence when

he reached there. However, the prosecution has not provided any

plausible explanation for not producing and examining any of
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.30 of 2014 dt.29-01-2026
20/24

these persons, whose evidence might have been helpful, at least to

establish the alleged place of occurrence. The withholding of such

witnesses weighs against the prosecution. PW-3, Sona Kumari,

who is the daughter of the injured Maheshwar Yadav, claimed to

have witnessed the occurrence. However, as per her statements in

paragraph 4 of her cross-examination, she does not appear to be an

eyewitness, as she deposed that at the time of the occurrence she

was inside her home cooking food. Her evidence contradicts the

informant’s claim that he had witnessed the commission of the

alleged assault, as she deposed in paragraph 5 of her cross-

examination that her uncle Kapildeo Yadav arrived at the place of

occurrence just after she reached there. In the preceding paragraph

(paragraph 4), she also deposed that 20–30 persons had gathered at

the place of occurrence before she reached there. PW-5, Nandu

Yadav @ Nandlal Yadav, the brother of the informant, deposed in

cross-examination that when he and his four brothers were going,

they saw the accused seated at the alleged place of occurrence the

said fact is contradictory to the story narrated by the informant in

his second fardbeyan. In paragraph 12, he deposed that when the

accused were assaulting Kailash Yadav (deceased), he was

standing nearby observing the occurrence, and upon hearing the

commotion, 100–200 villagers gathered. He further stated that
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.30 of 2014 dt.29-01-2026
21/24

when the accused left the place of occurrence, he went there. In the

next paragraph, he stated that all his brothers stood nearby and

reached the place of occurrence only after the accused had left.

This conduct of the witness and his brothers raises doubt regarding

their presence at the place of occurrence during the relevant time

of alleged assault. Accordingly, I find force in the aforesaid

contention of the appellants’ counsel.

21. The third contention raised by the appellants’

counsel is the delay of two days on the part of the concerned

police officer in sending the First Information Report (FIR) to the

jurisdictional Magistrate. During the course of arguments, the

learned APP has not provided any plausible explanation for the

said delay in not sending the FIR within the time frame prescribed

under the law. This delay is also a relevant factor that creates doubt

regarding the reliability of the FIR.

22. The fourth contention raised by the appellants’

counsel is that the prosecution has failed to establish a direct

connection between the cause of death of the deceased, as

indicated in the postmortem report, and the alleged injuries

purportedly inflicted by the accused/appellants on the person of

the deceased.
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.30 of 2014 dt.29-01-2026
22/24

22.1. The deceased died on 14.12.2008, while the

alleged occurrence is said to have taken place on 27.11.2008.

Thus, there was a gap of seventeen days between the date of the

occurrence and his death. The deceased was initially treated at

Sadar Hospital, Sheikhpura, where the concerned doctor,

examined as PW-12, found five injuries on his person. Out of

these, three were bruises, the fourth was swelling, and the fifth was

a lacerated wound over the left parietal region of the scalp

measuring 2½” x ¼” x ¼”. As per PW-12, two injuries were

simple, and regarding the remaining injuries, he kept his opinion

reserved for want of the X-Ray report. However, the X-Ray report

could not be produced before PW-12 when the final opinion

regarding the reserved injuries was to be given. PW-12 deposed in

cross-examination in paragraph 10 that he did not give the opinion

that the deceased was unconscious, as per him which indicates that

the deceased was conscious at the time of examination. He further

deposed that injuries Nos. 2, 3, and 4 of Kailash Yadav (deceased)

were superficial, and regarding injury No. 1, he could not state

whether it was fatal due to the absence of the X-Ray report;

however, according to him, it did not appear to be fatal. He further

deposed in cross-examination in paragraph 11 that he did not refer

the deceased for treatment at Patna. As per the prosecution, the
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.30 of 2014 dt.29-01-2026
23/24

deceased was initially treated at Sadar Hospital, Sheikhpura, and

thereafter at P.M.C.H., Patna, and Rajeshwar Hospital,

Kankarbagh, Patna. However, regarding the treatment at P.M.C.H.

and Rajeshwar Hospital, the prosecution could not produce any

documentary evidence. Though the postmortem report opined the

cause of death as due to head injury, the concerned doctor opined

that injuries Nos. 1 and 6 were caused by a hard and blunt

substance, and for injuries Nos. 2 to 5, opinion should be taken

from the surgeon who conducted the operation of the deceased

before postmortem. In the light of these facts, I find convincing

materials to show that the prosecution has not fully established the

death of the deceased as a direct consequence of the alleged

assault. Accordingly, I find some force in the above contention.

Conclusion:-

23. After having discussed the evidences available on

record, I reach the conclusion that there is a serious contradiction

between the manner of assault as alleged in the FIR and the

medical evidence regarding the nature of the injuries and the

weapons allegedly used in assaulting the injured and the deceased.

This contradiction is fatal to the prosecution’s case. Furthermore,

the prosecution has failed to establish the place of occurrence, and

no strong motive on the part of the appellants to commit the
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.30 of 2014 dt.29-01-2026
24/24

alleged occurrence emerges from the evidence. The prosecution

has also failed to establish that the death of the deceased was a

direct consequence of the alleged assault. Accordingly, I am of the

view that the conviction of the appellants for the charged offences

is not sustainable in law. Hence, the impugned judgment of

conviction dated 16.11.2013 and the order of sentence dated

20.11.2013 passed in Sessions Trial No. 404 of 2010 / G.R. Case

No. 1073 of 2008, convicting and sentencing the appellants for the

charged offences, are hereby set aside.

24. The appeal is allowed.

25. The appellants are on bail. Accordingly, their bail

bonds stand cancelled forthwith, and they, along with their

sureties, are hereby discharged from their respective liabilities.

26. Let the records of the trial court, along with a copy

of this judgment, be sent forthwith to the court concerned for

compliance and for doing the needful.

(Shailendra Singh, J)

maynaz/-
AFR/NAFR AFR
CAV DATE NA
Uploading Date 07.02.2026
Transmission Date 07.02.2026

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…