Patna High Court
Jawahir SinghversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISPOSED
- Bench
- ALOK KUMAR PANDEY
Holding
The conviction under Section 324 IPC is set aside because the prosecution failed to establish the case beyond reasonable doubt, owing to material contradictions, non‑examination of the investigating officer, and failure to prove the place of occurrence.
Summary
The appellants Jawahir Singh and Chandrama Singh were convicted under Section 324 of the Indian Penal Code for allegedly assaulting a neighbour, Sitaram Singh, over a dispute concerning a public lane. The prosecution relied on the testimony of six eyewitnesses and a medical report, but the witnesses gave contradictory statements about the place of occurrence, the injuries sustained, and the timing of medical treatment. The trial court also failed to examine the investigating officer, a material witness who could have clarified these inconsistencies. The defence argued that the four‑day delay in filing the complaint and the pre‑existing land dispute indicated a false implication. The High Court held that the prosecution had not proved the offence beyond reasonable doubt due to the contradictions, the unexplained delay, and the absence of a reliable account of the place of occurrence. Consequently, the conviction was set aside and the appellants were acquitted, rendering the probation bond void.
Issues considered
- Whether the prosecution proved the offence under Section 324 IPC beyond reasonable doubt.
- Whether the non‑examination of the investigating officer vitiated the trial.
- Whether contradictions in witness testimonies and the delay in filing the complaint affect the credibility of the prosecution case.
- Whether the place of occurrence was sufficiently established.
Legislation cited
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 311, 313
- Indian Penal Code — s. 307, 323, 324, 325, 34, 341
- Probation of Offenders Act
Subjects
- Section 324 IPC
- conviction
- acquittal
- probation bond
- investigating officer
- witness contradictions
- delay in complaint
- criminal appeal
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL APPEAL (SJ) No.480 of 2009
======================================================
1. Jawahir Singh Son of Late Kashi Nath Singh Resident of village- Nayka
Barka Baiju Tola, PS- Rivilganj, Dist- Saran
2. Chandrama singh Son of Late Kashi Nath Singh Resident of village- Nayka
Barka Baiju tola, PS- Rivilganj, Dist- Saran
... ... Appellant/s
Versus
The State of Bihar.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Appellant/s : Ms. Priya, Amicus Curiae
For the Respondent/s : Mrs. Anita Kumari Singh, A.P.P.
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK KUMAR PANDEY
ORAL JUDGMENT
Date : 19-01-2026
None appears on behalf of the appellants.
Learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.
2. It is noted that the matter is pending
consideration for about 16 years.
3. It has been requested and Ms. Priya, learned
counsel, has shown her willingness to assist as Amicus Curiae
in the present matter.
4. Accordingly, learned counsel Ms. Priya, has
been appointed as Amicus Curiae in the present matter.
5. Heard Ms. Priya learned Amicus Curiae for
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.480 of 2009 dt.19-01-2026
2/23
the appellants and learned A.P.P for the State.
6. The present appeal has been preferred for
setting aside the judgment of conviction dated 30.05.2009
passed by the Additional Sessions Judge XIth, Saran, in
Sessions Trial No. 345 of 2002, whereby the appellants were
held guilty for the offence punishable under Section 324 of
the Indian Penal Code. However, the appellants were released
on probation under the provision of the Probation of
Offenders Act upon furnishing a bond of ₹1,000/- with one
surety for keeping peace for a period of one year.
7. As per prosecution case, the informant
Sitaram Singh (PW-4), was living alone at his house while his
sons were residing outside the village. On 02.07.2001 at about
8:00 A.M., the informant was levelling his sahan (courtyard)
situated in front of his house by filling soil. The soil was
being carried from the bank of a river by an ass belonging to
Satrudhan Baitha (PW-3) and was being transported through a
public lane passing adjacent to the house of the accused
persons, which also served as the access road to the
informant’s house. It is the prosecution case that both the
appellants wrongfully obstructed the passage of the ass
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.480 of 2009 dt.19-01-2026
3/23
through the said public lane, which led to a verbal altercation
between the parties. Upon receiving information about the
obstruction, the informant reached the spot and objected to the
illegal act of the accused persons. It is alleged that during the
course of the altercation, appellant no.2 Chandrama Singh,
instigated the other to kill the informant and he himself picked
up a bhala (spear) kept on his verandah and assaulted the
informant targetting his chest with intention to kill him. In
order to save his life, the informant caught the bhala with his
right hand, as a result of which the bhala struck his right
palm, causing a grievous injury. It is further alleged that, at
the same time, appellant no.1 Jawahar Singh assaulted the
informant’s head with an iron rod. The informant tried to skip,
as a result of which the blow hit his right shoulder causing
bone fracture. The informant fell down on the spot and started
writhing in pain. On hearing the hue and cry, nearby witnesses
assembled at the place of occurrence and intervened, thereby
rescuing the informant from further being assaulted. The
informant/injured informed his son, who resides in Chapra,
about the occurrence, but his son had gone out of Chapra and
when he returned on 05.07.2001, he took the
informant/injured to Chapra Sadar Hospital for medical
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.480 of 2009 dt.19-01-2026
4/23
treatment.
8. Thereafter, the informant filed a complaint
case bearing Complaint Case No. 1117(C) of 2001 before the
learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Mokam, Chhapra which
was converted into Rivilganj P.S. Case No. 97 of 2001
registered under Sections 323, 325, 324, 307 and 34 of the
IPC. Routine investigation followed. Statement of witnesses
came to be recorded and on the completion of investigation,
charge sheet has been submitted against the appellants and
others under Sections 341, 323, 325, 307 and 34 of the IPC.
Thereafter, the learned trial court took cognizance. The case
was committed to the court of sessions after following due
procedure. The learned trial court framed charges against the
appellant and others under Sections 307 and 341 of the IPC.
Charges were read over and explained to the appellants to
which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
9. In order to bring home the guilt of the
accused persons, the prosecution has examined altogether
seven witnesses namely, PW-1 Amar Singh, PW-2 Arun
Kumar Singh (younger son of the informant), PW-3
Shatrughan Baitha, PW-4 Sitaram Singh (informant/injured),
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.480 of 2009 dt.19-01-2026
5/23
PW-5 Prabin Kumar Singh, PW-6 Pappu Singh and PW-7 Dr.
B.K. Gupta.
10. Prosecution has relied upon following
documentary evidence on record:-
Ext. 1- Signature of
Sitaram Singh on carbon copy of
complaint petition.
Ext. 2 – Injury Report
prepared by Dr. B.K. Gupta.
11. Defence has not produced any oral or
documentary evidence in his support. However, defence of the
appellants as gathered from the line of cross-examination of
prosecution witnesses as well as from the statement of the
accused under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. is that of total
denial.
12. After hearing the parties, the learned trial
court convicted the appellants as indicated in the 6 th
paragraph of the judgment.
13. Following submissions have been made on
behalf of learned Amicus Curiae for the appellants.
14. Learned Amicus Curiae for the appellants
has submitted that the entire prosecution case is full of
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.480 of 2009 dt.19-01-2026
6/23
material contradictions and infirmities and the learned trial
court has failed to properly appreciate the evidence on record,
resulting in grave miscarriage of justice. It is submitted that
there is an unexplained delay of four days in lodging the
complaint. The prosecution has not provided plausible
explanation for such delay, which creates serious doubt about
the authenticity of the prosecution story and indicates the
possibility of deliberation, consultation and false implication.
It is further submitted that the Investigating Officer has not
been examined. In view of serious disputes regarding the
place of occurrence, non-examination of the Investigating
Officer is fatal to the prosecution case. It is submitted that the
statements of prosecution witnesses suffer from material
contradictions with regard to the place of occurrence; the
nature and the part of body on which injuries were caused; the
treatment allegedly given to the injured and the presence of
witnesses at the spot. It is submitted that PW-3, who is the
most crucial witness for the prosecution, has not supported the
prosecution version. The hostility of PW-3 demolishes the
gravamen of the prosecution case, and no conviction can be
sustained on the basis of the testimony of remaining interested
witnesses. It is submitted that the medical evidence does not
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.480 of 2009 dt.19-01-2026
7/23
support the prosecution case. The alleged X-ray report has
neither been proved nor exhibited in accordance with law,
rendering the medical evidence unreliable and incapable of
corroborating the ocular version. It is submitted that the
parties admittedly have a pre-existing land dispute. This prior
enmity provides a strong motive for false implication, which
has not been duly considered by the learned trial court. It is
lastly submitted that the impugned judgment is cryptic and
unreasoned. In the light of aforesaid facts and circumstances
of the case, the impugned judgment of conviction is not
sustainable in the eye of law and is fit to be set aside.
15. Learned A.P.P. for the State has submitted
that the informant is the victim of the present case and has
stated how he sustained injuries in the alleged occurrence and
injuries have also been corroborated by the doctor. Other
witnesses have also supported and corroborated the
prosecution story. The learned A.P.P. for the State submitted
that on 17.07.2003, a petition under Section 311 of the Cr.P.C.
was filed by the accused persons seeking recall of PW-3,
Satrughan Baitha, for further cross-examination and the said
petition stands allowed by the trial court vide order dated
22.07.2003. PW-3 is a material and competent witness, yet he
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.480 of 2009 dt.19-01-2026
8/23
was declared hostile during examination-in-chief and did not
support the prosecution version. Despite being the owner of
the ass allegedly used in the occurrence, he denied the
prosecution story. Learned APP further submits that the
judgment of conviction passed by the concerned court is
justified and legal and no interference is required, particularly
in the circumstance that the appellants have already been
granted the benefit of probation under the Probation of
Offenders Act.
16. The question which arises for
consideration is:-
“Whether the
prosecution has been able to prove its
case under Section 324 of the IPC
beyond reasonable doubts or not?
17. I have perused the impugned judgment
and trial court records. I have given my thoughtful
consideration to the rival contention made on behalf of the
parties as noted above.
18. It is necessary to evaluate, analyze and
screen out the evidences of witnesses adduced before the trial
court.
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.480 of 2009 dt.19-01-2026
9/23
19. PW-1/ Amar Singh at para 2 has stated
that the injured/victim was treated at Rivilganj Hospital on the
alleged date of occurrence. However, on the same point, PW-4
(informant) stated in paragraph 1 that he was treated at Sadar
Hospital, Chhapra. In this way, with regard to the place of
treatment, the statements of PW-1 and PW-4 are quite
contradictory. Further, PW-1 in para 11 has stated that he
caught hold of the bhala as a result of which bhala did not hit
the chest of victim. However, at para 12 attention has been
drawn regarding catching hold of bhala to which he has
stated that he had not told daroga ji that he had caught hold
of bhala but as the Investigation Officer has not been
examined in the case, the appellants have been prejudiced due
to non-examination of I.O. as relevant contradiction in
evidence of witness could not be taken on the said point. In
this way, on the aforesaid point, the deposition of PW-1
regarding the manner of assault is quite inconsistent. Further,
PW-1 stated in para 6 that the house of appellant no.1 Jawahir
Singh is situated at a distance of 10 feet east to the house of
Sitaram Singh. There was no land of other persons in between
the houses of the informant and appellant no. 1 Jawahir Singh,
but in paragraph 10 he deposed that in front of Jawahir
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.480 of 2009 dt.19-01-2026
10/23
Singh’s house, there is an east-west public road about 3-4 feet
wide, which creates inconsistency regarding the place of
occurrence. PW-1 has stated in para 10 that the place of
occurrence was the 3–4 feet wide road situated in front of the
house of appellant no. 1/ Jawahir Singh. On the other hand,
PW-4, in paragraph 8 of his deposition, stated that the place of
occurrence was on the road situated in front of the door of
Baban Singh. Therefore, there is a clear and material
contradiction between the statements of PW-1 and PW-4 on
the point of place of occurrence. PW-1 has stated that the
injured was treated at Rivilganj Hospital. Further, PW-4 (the
informant) has stated that the injured was treated at Sadar
Hospital, Chapra. In this way, on the point of treatment, the
statements of PW-1 and PW-4 are quite inconsistent and
contradictory.
20. PW-2/ Arun Kumar, who is the son of the
informant, stated in paragraph 1 that at the time of the
occurrence he was inside his house. However, PW-4 stated in
paragraph 1 that his son Arun Kumar (PW-2) was with him
when he went to the place of occurrence. Thus, the statements
of PW-2 and PW-4 are contradictory with respect to the
presence of PW-2 at the place of occurrence, which creates
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.480 of 2009 dt.19-01-2026
11/23
serious doubt about the prosecution version. Further PW-2
stated in paragraph 3 of his evidence that appellant no. 2,
Chandrama Singh, was armed with a bhala and attacked with
the intention to kill the informant and his father jerked the
bhala with his right hand, causing an injury to the left hand. In
the meantime, appellant no.1 Jawahir Singh brought an iron
rod from his house and gave a blow, which hit the left
shoulder of informant/PW-4. However, the informant (PW-4)
himself categorically stated in paragraph 1 of his evidence
that he sustained injuries on his right hand and right shoulder.
In this way, the statement of PW-2 and PW-4 is quite
contradictory on the crucial point of place of injury. PW-2
has categorically admitted in para 16 of his deposition that the
police was not informed about the occurrence. This admission
clearly establishes that immediately after the alleged
occurrence, no report was made to the police. Such conduct of
the informant casts a serious doubt on the authenticity of the
prosecution version. PW-2 has stated that the informant
received injuries on the left hand and left shoulder, but PW-4
(informant) has stated that the he himself received injuries on
the right hand and right shoulder. In this way, the statement of
PW-2 is inconsistent with the statement of PW-4, who is the
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.480 of 2009 dt.19-01-2026
12/23
victim. PW-2’s statement is also contradictory on the point of
his presence at the time of occurrence. At one point, he stated
that he was present at the place of occurrence, but in
paragraph 1 he stated that at the time of occurrence he was
inside his house.
21. PW-3 Satrudhan Baitha, whose name has
been mentioned in the FIR and whose ass was allegedly being
used for carrying the soil at the relevant time, is the most
competent witness to prove the genesis of the occurrence, but
he has not supported the prosecution case on the point of
assault, which creates a serious doubt on the prosecution story
and makes the prosecution story highly doubtful.
22. PW-4, Sitaram Singh, who is the
informant as well as victim of the case, has stated in
paragraph 10 of his testimony that upon being assaulted he
fell down, and at that time Arun Singh, Pappu Singh (PW-6),
and Arun Kumar Singh (PW-2) reached the place of
occurrence. However, the names of these witnesses have not
been mentioned in initial version of prosecution story and he
has improved upon the said version by adding the names of
said persons. In this way, the presence of the aforesaid
witnesses at the place of occurrence is doubtful. Further, PW-
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.480 of 2009 dt.19-01-2026
13/23
4 (informant) stated in paragraph 1 of his deposition that he
was treated at Sadar Hospital, Chapra. However, on the same
point, PW-1/Amar Singh in para 2 has stated that the
injured/victim was treated at Rivilganj Hospital on the alleged
date of occurrence. In this way, with regard to the place of
treatment, the statements of PW-1 and PW-4 are quite
contradictory and divergent. Further, the informant (PW-4)
has categorically stated in paragraph 1 of his evidence that he
sustained injuries on his right hand and right shoulder.
However, PW-2, in paragraph 3 of his evidence, has stated
that the informant sustained injuries on his left hand and left
shoulder. In this way, the testimonies of PW-2 and PW-4 are
quite contradictory on the crucial point regarding the place of
injury.
23. PW-5/ Pravin Kumar Singh and PW-6/
Pappu Singh are witnesses of the occurrence; however, they
have stated that they have no knowledge of the alleged
assault. Consequently, they have been declared hostile.
24. PW-7/ Dr. B.K. Gupta has examined
Sitaram Singh (informant) on 18.05.2005 in injured condition
and has found the following injuries:
(i) Lacerated wound 2” x 1/3” x skin deep on
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.480 of 2009 dt.19-01-2026
14/23
right from arm.
(ii) Bruise on back 2” x ½”
(iii) Pain, swelling and tenderness on right
clavicular region. X-ray from Uphar X-ray Chapra dated
06.07.2001 found fracture in middle clavicular region right
side.
24.1 PW-7 has opined that injury nos. 1 and 2
were simple in nature, whereas injury no. 3 was grievous.
However, the opinion regarding grievous injury was based
solely on an alleged X-ray report said to be of Uphar X-ray
Centre. Admittedly, the said X-ray report has neither been
produced nor exhibited on record. PW-7 has further stated in
paragraph 2 of his cross-examination that he had not advised
X-ray examination and the injured himself got his shoulder X-
rayed without any medical advice and subsequently produced
the report before him on 30.07.2001. The doctor has also
admitted that while assessing the age of the injury, he did not
record the colour of the bruise. In this way, the medical
opinion regarding grievous injury remains unsupported.
25. Apart from that, the Investigating Officer
of this case has not been examined who is the material
witness on the point of identifying the place of occurrence.
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.480 of 2009 dt.19-01-2026
15/23
26. In Behari Prasad Vs. State of Bihar
reported in (1996) 2 SCC 317, the Hon’ble Supreme Court
held that though non-examination of the Investigating Officer
may not always be fatal where it causes prejudiced to the
accused, it becomes a significant infirmity, as observed in the
judgment which reads as under:-
"We may also indicate here
that it will not be correct to contend
that if an Investigating Officer is not
examined in a case, such case should
fail on the ground that the accused
were deprived of the opportunity to
effectively cross examine the
witnesses for the prosecution and to
bring out contradictions in their
statements before the police. A case
of prejudice likely to be suffered by
an accused must depend on the facts
of the case and no universal straight
jacket formula should be laid down
that non examination of investigating
Officer per se vitiates a criminal trial.
These appeals, therefore, fail and are
dismissed. The appellants who have
been released on bail should be taken
into custody to serve out the
sentence."
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.480 of 2009 dt.19-01-2026
16/23
27. Applying this principle to the present
matter, this Court finds that the omission to examine the
Investigating Officer has, in fact, caused serious prejudice to
the defence. The prosecution version suffers from
contradictions and omissions in the statements of the
witnesses and the only person who could have clarified or
explained such contradictions was the Investigating Officer.
28. The failure to examine the Investigating
Officer also means that the place of occurrence has not been
duly established. At this point, it would be relevant to take
note of the decision passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in
the case of Syed Ibrahim versus State of Andhra Pradesh,
reported in (2008) 10 SCC 601, wherein it has been held that
"when place of occurrence itself has not been established, it
would not be proper to accept the prosecution side."
29. From perusal of evidence of prosecution
witnesses, it is evident that PW-1 has stated that the injured
was treated at Revelganj Hospital, whereas PW-2 has stated
that the injured was treated at Chapra. Further, PW-4 (the
informant) has stated that the injured was treated at Sadar
Hospital, Chapra. In this way, on the point of treatment, the
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.480 of 2009 dt.19-01-2026
17/23
statements of PW-1, PW-2, and PW-4 are quite inconsistent
and contradictory. On the point of the place of occurrence,
there is a contradiction in the versions of PW-1 and PW-4,
which is not corroborated by any prosecution witness. If the
place of occurrence is not proved, it is fatal to the prosecution
case, especially when the Investigating Officer has not been
examined on the said point. The prosecution has miserably
failed to prove the place of occurrence. PW-4 has stated in
paragraph 1 that he went to inquire about the matter and his
son Arun Kumar Singh (PW-2) came behind him, but he
further deposed that after falling he sustained injuries, Amar
Singh, Arun Kumar Singh (PW-2) and Pappu Singh came
there. However, in the FIR there is no specific mention as to
who was present at the time when the occurrence took place.
In this way, PW-1 and PW-2 have falsely claimed that they
witnessed the occurrence. PW-2, in paragraph 16, has stated
that the police were not informed about the occurrence, which
clearly shows that the informant did not inform the police
about the incident and lodged the complaint before the learned
CJM after a lapse of four days. It has already been admitted
by the informant that there was a land dispute between the
parties, and in cases of land disputes, facts are generally
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.480 of 2009 dt.19-01-2026
18/23
exaggerated to make the offence graver. The injury report of
the doctor appears to be collusive in nature, as although the
doctor examined the injured on 05.07.2001, the final injury
opinion was given on 30.07.2001. This clearly indicates that
there was delay at multiple stages on account of deliberation,
and the prosecution has developed a suitable story to falsely
implicate the appellants in the present case. Even the trial
court has not mentioned how the witnesses were found
reliable to reach the conclusion of conviction. In the present
case, the occurrence took place on a 02.07.2001 and it has
come to light in the deposition of the prosecution witnesses
that the police was not informed. Without availing the remedy
of lodging a police case, the complainant resorted to file a
court complaint, which appears to be a calculated device to
frame allegations against the appellants. On the point of the
place of occurrence, the statement of the Investigating Officer
was essential, but in the present case the Investigating Officer
has not been examined. I.O. is the competent witness to point
out the boundaries of the place of occurrence and the
authenticity of the prosecution case depends upon how the
place of occurrence is established. In the present case, on the
point of the place of occurrence , the statements of the
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.480 of 2009 dt.19-01-2026
19/23
prosecution witnesses are inconsistent, particularly when
compared with the testimony of PW-4. There is no
independent witness to corroborate the place of occurrence,
which is fatal to the prosecution case. In no paragraph of the
judgment has it been mentioned how the witnesses were
reliable or how credibility was reposed in their statements, no
reasons have been recorded by the trial court. The trial court
has merely reached the conclusion that the appellants are
guilty under Section 324 of the I.P.C. Further, the statement of
PW-4 (the informant) is contradictory with regard to the
medical treatment allegedly received. He stated that he was
treated at Sadar Hospital, Chapra , whereas PW-1 stated that
the treatment was provided at Revelganj Hospital. The
statements of PW-4 and PW-1 regarding the place of
occurrence, which is a vital aspect of the prosecution case, is
also quite contradictory. In this way, the informant, who
claims to be the victim, has given inconsistent statements on
the vital aspect of the story of prosecution. In light of the facts
and circumstances of the case, his testimony is neither tenable
nor sustainable. Although he sustained injuries on 02.07.2001
but the complaint was filed after a delay of four days. PW-1
has not categorically stated that the occurrence was reported
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.480 of 2009 dt.19-01-2026
20/23
to the police. Instead of lodging a police case, the informant
preferred to file a complaint case and in that situation due
deliberation cannot be negated. PW-3/ Satrughan Baitha,
whose ass was allegedly hired for carrying soil, has not
supported the prosecution case even during his examination-
in-chief. Additionally, the manner in which the injury report
was prepared raises serious doubts. The doctor did not advise
an X-ray, yet the informant himself proceeded for an X-ray
examination. The final injury report was prepared on
30.07.2001 which is much later than the initial medical
examination dated 05.07.2001. From the initial version of the
prosecution story to the completion of the injury report, all
the steps are inferring that some deliberation has been made.
Further, PW-4, who is victim and the informant, has narrated
the manner of occurrence by stating that he was levelling his
sahan (courtyard) and for the purpose of carrying soil, an ass
was being used which belongs to PW-3/ Satrughan Baitha,
and the soil was being transported through a public lane
passing adjacent to the houses of the accused persons
including informant. According to the informant, the accused
persons wrongfully obstructed the passage of the ass through
the said public lane, which led to a verbal altercation between
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.480 of 2009 dt.19-01-2026
21/23
the parties. During the course of the altercation, the informant
was assaulted and sustained injuries. The alleged occurrence
is said to have taken place on 02.07.2001; however, the
complaint was filed on 06.07.2001, after delay of four days
and no plausible explanation for this delay has been offered
by the informant in the initial version of the prosecution story.
Moreover, PW-2 has categorically admitted in paragraph 16
of his evidence that the police was not informed about the
occurrence. Such unexplained delay in setting the criminal
law into motion casts serious doubt upon the authenticity and
credibility of the prosecution case. In the initial version of the
prosecution story, the informant did not specifically name any
person who was present at the place of occurrence. However,
during the course of adducing evidence before the court, he
specifically mentioned several names as being present at the
place of occurrence. In this way, the informant has
subsequently introduced the names of persons who were not
narrated in the initial version of the prosecution story. Such
subsequent introduction of names, which find no mention in
the initial version of the prosecution case, amounts to a clear
improvement and casts serious doubt on the credibility of the
informant’s testimony. It is cardinal principle of criminal
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.480 of 2009 dt.19-01-2026
22/23
jurisprudence that that the prosecution has to prove its case
beyond reasonable doubt. The evidence of all the factual
witnesses, namely PW-1 to PW-6, are neither trustworthy nor
convincing and the place of occurrence has also not been
proved, as discussed in foregoing paragraphs. Hence, the
contention of learned Amicus Curiae is quite tenable and
sustainable in the light of aforesaid facts and circumstances of
the case. In this way, the prosecution has failed to prove the
case beyond reasonable doubt.
30. In the result, in my view, prosecution
case suffers from several infirmities, as noticed above, and it
was not a fit case where conviction could have been recorded.
The learned trial court fell in error of law as well as
appreciation of facts of the case in view of settled criminal
jurisprudence. Hence, the impugned judgment of conviction is
hereby set aside and this appeal stands allowed.
31. Since, impugned judgment of conviction
is hereby set aside, this appeal stands allowed and appellants
are acquitted, the very foundation of probation order
disappears. Consequently, the probation bond automatically
loses its legal basis and the bond becomes infructuous and the
accused/appellants stand discharged from the liability of
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.480 of 2009 dt.19-01-2026
23/23
probation bond.
32. The interlocutory application, if any, also
stands disposed of.
33. Let a copy of this judgment be
transmitted to the Superintendent of the concerned jail for
compliance and for record.
34. The records of this case be also returned
to the concerned trial court forthwith.
35. Before parting with the judgment, I
appreciate the legal assistance rendered by Ms. Priya, learned
Amicus Curiae. Patna High Court Legal Services Committee
is directed to pay a sum of Rs. 5,000/- (rupees five thousand)
to Ms. Priya, learned Amicus Curiae, as consolidated fee for
the legal assistance rendered by her, within a period of four
weeks from the date of receipt of this judgment.
(Alok Kumar Pandey, J)
Nilmani/-
AFR/NAFR AFR
CAV DATE N/A
Uploading Date 31.01.2026
Transmission Date 31.01.2026
Checking your session…