Binni Singh and OrsversusThe State Of Bihar

          IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
                       CRIMINAL APPEAL (SJ) No.866 of 2016
               Arising Out of PS. Case No.-8 Year-2010 Thana- SC/ST District- Gaya
     ======================================================
1.    Binni Singh, Son of Rajo Singh
2.   Manoj Singh, Son of Rajo Singh
3.   Ashok Singh, Son of Deo Kumar Singh.
4.   Deo Kumar Singh Son of Late Bishun Singh.
5.   Sudeep Singh, Son of Deo Kumar Singh.
6.   Pancham Singh, Son of Rajo Singh. All resident of Village Garh Sherghati,
     P.S. Sherghati, District- Gaya.

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

                                               ... ... Respondent/s
     ======================================================
     Appearance :
     For the Appellants       :        Mr. Anil Kumar Saxena, Advocate
     For the State            :        Mr. Sadanand Paswan, APP
     ======================================================
     CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRABHAT KUMAR SINGH
                      ORAL JUDGMENT
      Date : 06-05-2026

                   Heard learned counsel appearing for the appellants

      and learned Additional Public Prosecutors appearing for the

      State.

                   2. Despite valid service of notice, no one appears on

      behalf of the informant/Respondent No. 2.

                   3. This appeal has been filed challenging the

      judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 07.09.2016

      passed by the learned Exclusive Special Court, Special Judge

      (S.C./S.T. (POA) Act), Gaya in connection with Sessions Trial

      No. 208 of 2015 arising out of S.C./S.T. P.S. Case No. 08 of
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.866 of 2016 dt.06-05-2026
                                             2/7




         2010 whereby and whereunder these six appellants have been

         convicted for committing offence under Section 427 of the

         Indian Penal Code and Section 3(1)(x)(xi) of the Scheduled

         Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act and

         have been sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for one

         year under Section 427 of the Indian Penal Code and to undergo

         simple imprisonment for three years with a fine of Rs. 10,000/-

         each under Section 3(1)(x)(xi) of the Scheduled Castes and

         Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act and in case of

         default of payment of fine, to further undergo simple

         imprisonment for six months.

                      4. The prosecution story, in brief, is that on

         01.03.2010 at about 5 PM, when the informant was at her

         residence, in the meantime, Appellant Nos. 2 and 3, namely

         Manoj Singh and Ashok Singh, tried to enter into her house and

         on protest, they abused her with caste based slurs and thereafter,

         all these accused-appellants, armed with lathi and danda,

         destroyed the roof of house of informant, abused informant and

         her family members with caste based slurs and assaulted

         informant and her daughter-in-law.

                      5. In this case, in order to bring home guilt of these

         accused-appellants, the prosecution has examined altogether
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.866 of 2016 dt.06-05-2026
                                             3/7




         four witnesses. P.W. 1, namely Gaya Chaudhary, who is husband

         of the informant and his deposition is general and omnibus in

         nature without any specific attribution of overt acts. P.W. 2,

         namely Sikandar Chaudhary, who happens to be brother of P.W.

         1 and brother-in-law (Dewar) of the informant and his testimony

         suffers from exaggeration and material improvements over the

         F.I.R. version. P.W. 3, namely Kiran Devi, who happens to be

         daughter-in-law of the informant and claims to be injured in the

         occurrence but her testimony reveals improvements regarding

         weapons allegedly carried by the accused persons. P.W. 4,

         namely Munki Devi, who is informant of the present case and

         supports the prosecution case.

                      6. On the other hand, the defence has also examined

         two witnesses i.e. D.W. 1, namely Kalawati Devi and D.W. 2,

         namely Rajan Chaudhary.

                      7. After hearing the parties, the learned trial court

         convicted these appellants and sentenced them, as indicated in

         the opening paragraph of this order.

                      8. Learned counsel appearing for the appellants assails

         the order of conviction and sentence on multiple grounds. He

         contends that in this case, neither the Investigating Officer nor

         doctor has not been examined. Non-examination of the
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.866 of 2016 dt.06-05-2026
                                             4/7




         Investigating Officer has caused great prejudice to the defence

         of the these appellants as they were not able to contradict the

         evidence of the witnesses and the place and manner of

         occurrence could not be proved. In absence of examination of

         the doctor and injury report, the allegations of assault levelled in

         the F.I.R. cannot be substantiated. It is further contended that in

         this case, all the prosecution witnesses are family members of

         the informant and are highly interested witnesses and hence,

         their testimony cannot be relied upon. Moreover, their testimony

         suffers from exaggeration and material improvements, which

         makes their testimony unreliable, doubtful and untrustworthy.

         Moreover, the present case has been lodged after inordinate

         delay of seven days and there is no explanation for the same. It

         is further contended that in this case, no independent witness

         was produced on behalf of the prosecution. As per F.I.R., the

         alleged incident took place inside the house of informant and

         thus, the prosecution has failed to prove that the intentional

         insult was made within the public view and the essential

         ingredients of Section 3(1)(x)(xi) of the S.C./S.T. (POA) Act are

         not established. Therefore, the prosecution has failed to prove

         the case beyond reasonable doubts and the trial court has

         wrongfully convicted these appellants ignoring material
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.866 of 2016 dt.06-05-2026
                                             5/7




         contradictions and hence, the appellants are fit to be acquitted.

                      9. Per contra, learned Additional Public Prosecutor

         for the State submits that the evidence on record unmistakably

         points to the guilt of the appellants. The prosecution could prove

         that it was these appellants committed the occurrence. Charges

         against the appellants was proved by the prosecution witnesses

         beyond all reasonable doubt and, therefore, the learned Trial

         Court was fully justified in convicting the appellants under

         Section 427 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 3(1)(x)(xi) of

         the     Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of

         Atrocities) Act.

                      10. On going through the rival submissions, evidences

         and upon perusal of the records, this Court finds that in this

         case, all prosecution witnesses are close relative of the

         informant and are highly interested witnesses. Moreover, their

         testimony appears to be suffering from material improvements

         over the F.I.R. version and renders it unreliable, doubtful and

         untrustworthy. As per allegation, the alleged incident took place

         at 5 PM during festival season, however, there is no independent

         eye witness to the occurrence to show that the same occurred

         within the public view and hence, the essential ingredients to

         convict an accused under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.866 of 2016 dt.06-05-2026
                                             6/7




         Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act is missing. In this case, the

         Investigating Officer has not been examined, which has caused

         great prejudice to the defence as the defence could not get

         documentary evidence, explain the material discrepancies and

         contradict the witnesses under Section 145 of the Evidence Act.

         Further, neither the doctor has been examined not any injury

         report has been brought on record to substantiate the allegation

         of assault. Evidence also reveals admitted prior enmity and land

         dispute between the parties, thereby rendering possibility of

         false implication.

                      11. It is settled law that in criminal cases, since life

         and liberty of the accused are involved, a strict standard of proof

         is required as to prove the guilt of the accused. It is not the

         preponderance of the probabilities that establishes the guilt of

         the accused. It is necessary that the evidence on record must

         prove it beyond reasonable doubt. A conviction cannot be based

         on the consideration that the prosecution story may be true. The

         accused can only be convicted if the court reaches the

         conclusion that the prosecution story must be proved. The

         burden of proving the guilt of the accused is upon the

         prosecution. In this case, the prosecution has miserably failed to

         prove the guilt of these appellants beyond reasonable doubt and
             Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.866 of 2016 dt.06-05-2026
                                                          7/7




                      thus, the appellants are entitled to be given the benefit of doubt.

                                   12.     Accordingly,         the       impugned   judgment   of

                      conviction and order of sentence dated 07.09.2016 passed by the

                      learned Exclusive Special Court, Special Judge (S.C./S.T.

                      (POA) Act), Gaya in connection with Sessions Trial No. 208 of

                      2015 arising out of S.C./S.T. P.S. Case No. 08 of 2010 are

                      hereby set aside with respect to these appellants only.

                                   13.      In that view of the matter, appellants, above

                      named, are discharged from the liability of their bail bonds in

                      connection with this case.

                                   14. Accordingly, this appeal stands allowed.

                                   15. Interlocutory application/s, if any, also stands

                      disposed off.




                                              (Prabhat Kumar Singh, J)
shashank/-
AFR/NAFR                NAFR
CAV DATE                NA
Uploading Date          11.05.2026
Transmission Date       11.05.2026