Ramdaras RamversusThe State Of Bihar

    IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
                 CRIMINAL APPEAL (SJ) No.566 of 2016
      Arising Out of PS. Case No.-8 Year-1989 Thana- OBRA District- Aurangabad
======================================================
Ramdaras Ram Son of Late Maharaj Ram, resident of Village- Karhara,
Police Station- Muffasil, District- Aurangbad.

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

                                          ... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Appellant/s     :        Mr. Kamlendra Pd. Singh
For the Respondent/s    :        Mr. AMP Mehta, A.P.P.
For the Vigilance       :        Mr. Anil Singh, Advocate
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRABHAT KUMAR SINGH
ORAL JUDGMENT
 Date : 22-04-2026

                 1. Heard learned counsel for the appellant, learned

 A.P.P. for the State and learned counsel for the Vigilance

 Department.

                 2. This appeal has been filed challenging the

 judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 5.07.2016

 passed in Special Case No. 52 of 1993 arising out of

 Aurangabad (Obra) P. S. Case No. 8 of 1989 whereby and

 whereunder the sole appellant has been convicted under

 Sections 5(2) r/w 5(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act,

 1947 (corresponding to Section 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of the

 Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988) and was sentenced to

 undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months.

                3. The prosecution case, in brief, is that on the basis
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.566 of 2016 dt.22-04-2026
                                             2/7




         of a complaint submitted by Sri Vimal Kumar Singh, Advocate

         to Sri Ram Naresh Singh, MLA, irregularities in disbursement

         of old age pension under the social security scheme were

         brought to light. The matter was place before the District 20-

         Point Programme Implementation Committee on 25.08.1984,

         pursuant to which, Sub-Divisional Officer conducted an inquiry

         at Obra Block on 26.08.1984.

                       4. During inquiry, it surfaced that several pension

         beneficiaries were sanctioned specific pension amounts, paid

         lesser amount and their thumb impressions were obtained on

         records showing full payments. It was found that out of a total

         payable amount of Rs. 3930/-, only Rs. 1720/- was actually

         paid, while Rs. 2210/- was dishonestly misappropriated by the

         accused persons, including the present appellant.

                        5. On the basis of the inquiry report, a formal F.I.R.

         dated 17.01.1989 was instituted, investigation was conducted

         and charge-sheet was submitted. Cognizance was taken and the

         case was ultimately committed to the Court of Special Judge,

         Vigilance and charges were framed under Sections 420, 467,

         468, 471, 120B of the IPC and Sections 5(2) r/w 5(1)(d) of the

         P.C. Act, 1947.

                         6. The defence is one of complete denial and false
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.566 of 2016 dt.22-04-2026
                                             3/7




         implication. No oral or documentary evidence was adduced in

         defence.

                        7. In this case, in order to bring home guilt of the

         accused person, the prosecution has examined two witnesses.

         P.W. 1, namely, Taregni Devi, who is a beneficiary under the

         pension scheme and direct victim of the alleged offence and

         P.W. 2, namely, Kedar Singh, who is Mukhiya of Panchayat.

         Besides the oral evidence, the prosecution has also proved the

         signature of Kedar Singh Ex-1 and signature of Nirmal Kumar

         Singh, Advocate, Member Bis Sutri Karyanvayan Samiti, Obra

         on the complaint petition filed before the MLA Sri Ram Naresh.

                       8. P.W. 1 had deposed in her evidence that the alleged

         occurrence took place 24 years before when she was getting Rs.

         30/- per month as old age pension. She further stated that her

         pension was due for 18 months which was Rs. 540/- but out of

         that, only Rs. 220/- was paid to her, though her thumb

         impression was taken on the paper by this appellant and co-

         accused Kameshwar Tiwary regarding receipt of entire amount

         of Rs. 540/-. P.W. 1 complained about the incident to Mukhiya

         Kedar Singh (P.W. 2) and Sarpanch Kishori.

                        9. P.W. 2 deposed in his evidence that the occurrence

         took place in the year 1984 and at that time, he was Mukhiya of
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.566 of 2016 dt.22-04-2026
                                             4/7




         Ben Panchayat and complaint relating to pensioners of Sarsauli

         Panchayat had come to him on which he put his signature and

         identified his signature on the typed complaint petition marked

         Ext-1.

                       10. Charge was framed on 26.09.1995 against five

         accused persons, namely, Bimal Chand Choudhary, Narendra

         Bahadur Singh, Nand Kishore Prasad, Ram Daras Ram

         (appellant) and Kameshwar Tiwary @ Kameshwar Trivedi. On

         the same day, i.e., 26.09.1995, learned counsel had given

         information that co-accused Kameshwar Tiwary @ Kameshwar

         Trivedi has died. Accused Nand Kishore Prasad and Narendra

         Bahadur Singh also died on 24.11.2008 and 30.03.2009

         respectively. Accused Bimal Chand Choudhary was not found

         guilty and was acquitted from the charge.

                     11. After hearing the parties, the learned trial court

         convicted the appellant and sentenced him as indicated in the

         opening paragraph of this order.

                      12. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant assails

         the order of conviction and sentence on various grounds. He

         contends that no reliance can be placed upon P.W. 1 for the

         simple reason that she is the interested witness and in view of

         the contradictory statements made by the witnesses, the
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.566 of 2016 dt.22-04-2026
                                               5/7




         prosecution has failed to establish this case. He further submits

         that on the date of deposition, P.W. 1 was 65 years old and as

         per her evidence, the occurrence took place 24 years before and

         as such, she was not entitled or eligible to get the old age

         pension and her deposition cannot be relied upon. He further

         contends that P.W. 2 in his deposition has stated that he put his

         signature on the complaint under pressure. Neither the

         pensioners signed in his presence nor the pension payment was

         made in his presence. P.W. 2 is not the eye witness to the

         misappropriation          of    the     alleged     amount.   Documentary

         evidences were exhibited without examination of the author of

         the actual documents and as such, no reliance can be placed on

         the documentary evidence. Appellant was Assistant at the

         relevant time and was not entrusted with pension disbursement.

         Thus, in view of the inconsistent and contradictory evidence. In

         absence of independent corroborative evidence, accused person

         deserves to be acquitted and appeal deserves to be allowed.

                      13. On the other hand, learned A.P.P. for the State as

         well as learned counsel for the Vigilance Department have

         submitted that there is no need of any interference in this appeal

         and there is no reason to differ with the findings of the learned

         trial court and the judgment of conviction and order of sentence
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.566 of 2016 dt.22-04-2026
                                             6/7




         are justified and legal.

                   14. From going through the rival submissions, evidences

         and upon perusal of the records, it appears that P.W. 1 is the sole

         eye witness of the occurrence. This witness is a beneficiary of

         the old pension scheme and parent victim of the offence and

         there is no independent corroboration of the offence. Her thumb

         impression was not examined by the expert. P.W. 2 is not the

         Mukhiya of concerned Sarsauli Panchayat. Further in cross-

         examination he submits that he put the signature under pressure

         and pension was not disbursed in his presence. This Court finds

         that there are material contradictions with regard to manner of

         occurrence and there is no independent corroborative evidence.

                       15. Under the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the

         appellant is given benefit of doubt and acquitted of all the

         charges.

                      16. The judgment of conviction and order of sentence

         dated 5.07.2016 passed in Special Case No. 52 of 1993 arising

         out of Aurangabad (Obra) P. S. Case No. 8 of 1989 is hereby set

         aside and appellant is discharged from the liability of the bail

         bond in connection with this case.

                       17. Accordingly, this appeal stands allowed.

                       18. Interlocutory application/s, if any, also stands
             Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.566 of 2016 dt.22-04-2026
                                                          7/7




                      disposed of.




                                              (Prabhat Kumar Singh, J)
Navya/-
AFR/NAFR                NAFR
CAV DATE                N/A
Uploading Date          24.04.2026
Transmission Date       24.04.2026