Patna High Court
Vansh Prakash SinghversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISMISSED
- Bench
- SUNIL DUTTA MISHRA
Holding
The prosecution failed to prove the charges beyond reasonable doubt, leading to the acquittal of the accused on all counts.
Summary
The trial court convicted Fauzdar Yadav under Sections 325, 452 and 323 of the IPC based on the testimony of the victim’s wife, son and a neighbour, and medical evidence of a head injury, sentencing him to seven years’ rigorous imprisonment. The appellant challenged the conviction in a criminal appeal, while the informant’s heirs filed a revision seeking conviction under Section 302 for murder. The High Court re‑examined the eyewitness accounts, noting inconsistencies, doubtful identification of the accused, non‑examination of material witnesses, and the delay in medical treatment and FIR registration. It held that the prosecution failed to prove the charges beyond reasonable doubt, particularly the element of intent and causation required for murder. Consequently, the court set aside the conviction and acquitted the appellant of all charges, allowing the appeal and dismissing the revision. The decision underscores the necessity of reliable identification and unbroken causal link in murder prosecutions.
Issues considered
- Whether the prosecution evidence established the offence of murder under Section 302 IPC.
- Whether the conviction under Sections 325, 452 and 323 IPC was sustainable on the record.
- Whether the identification of the accused by the witnesses was reliable.
- Whether the delay in medical treatment and FIR registration broke the causal chain between the assault and death.
- Whether the benefit of doubt principle mandates acquittal in the absence of proof beyond reasonable doubt.
Legislation cited
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 313
- Indian Penal Code — s. 302, 304, 307, 323, 325, 326, 452
Subjects
- murder
- IPC sections
- identification of accused
- benefit of doubt
- evidentiary contradictions
- criminal appeal
- revision petition
- acquittal
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL REVISION No.506 of 2009
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-117 Year-2002 Thana- CHAINPUR District- Kaimur (Bhabua)
======================================================
1. Vansh Prakash Singh, Son of Late Jang Bahadur Singh, Resident of village -
Nand Gaon, Sahawal, P.S.- Chainpur, Dist.- Bhabhua.
2. Vijay Bahadur Singh, Son of Late Jang Bahadur Singh, Resident of village -
Nand Gaon, Sahawal, P.S.- Chainpur, Dist.- Bhabhua.
3. Om Prakash Singh, Son of Late Jang Bahadur Singh, Resident of village -
Nand Gaon, Sahawal, P.S.- Chainpur, Dist.- Bhabhua.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar
2. Faujdar Yadav, Son of Chedhari Yadav, R/O Village - Nand Gaon (Suhawal), P.S.-
Chainpur, Dist.- Kaimur (Bhabhua).
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
with
CRIMINAL APPEAL (SJ) No. 552 of 2008
======================================================
Faujadar Yadav
... ... Appellant/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
(In CRIMINAL REVISION No. 506 of 2009)
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Vivekanand Vivek, Advocate
Mr. Debesh Kumar Poddar, Advocate
Mr. Rang Nath Pandey, Advocate
For the Respondent/s : Mr. C. Jawahar, APP
(In CRIMINAL APPEAL (SJ) No. 552 of 2008)
For the Appellant/s : Mr. Vivekanand Singh, Advocate
Mr. Naveen Kumar, Advocate
Mr. Nitish Kumar, Advocate
For the Respondent/s : Mr. Nirsingh Kr. Singh, APP
Mr. Vivekanand Vivek, Advocate
Mr. Debesh Kumar Poddar, Advocate
Mr. Rang Nath Pandey, Advocate
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL DUTTA MISHRA
C.A.V. JUDGMENT
Date : 28-04-2026
1. The present matters arise out of a same judgment
Patna High Court CR. REV. No.506 of 2009 dt.28-04-2026
2/33
of conviction and order of sentence dated 11.06.2008 passed by
the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, F.T.C.-II,
Kaimur at Bhabhua (hereinafter referred to as ‘Trial Court’) in
Sessions Trial No. 8 of 2004/25 of 2008, whereby the opposite
party no.2 (appellant in the connected appeal) has been
convicted under Sections 325, 452 and 323 of the Indian Penal
Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as ‘IPC’) and sentenced to
undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven years along with fine.
2. Two proceedings have been preferred against the
said judgment—one, a criminal revision filed by the informant
(now deceased represented by her legal heirs) against acquittal
of accused Fauzdar Yadav under Section 302 of the IPC,
contending that the evidence on record clearly establishes the
offence of murder; and the other, a criminal appeal filed by the
convict challenging his conviction and sentence, asserting false
implication and insufficiency of evidence.
3. Since both the revision and the appeal arise out
of the same impugned judgment and involve common questions
of fact and law, they have been heard together and are being
disposed of by this common judgment.
4. Heard learned counsel for the parties as well as
the learned APP for the State.
Patna High Court CR. REV. No.506 of 2009 dt.28-04-2026
3/33
5. The prosecution case, as emerging from the
fardbeyan of the informant, namely, Dharamshila Devi (P.W.3)
is that on the night of 12.12.2002 at about 09:00 P.M., while she
was present in her house along with her husband, Jung Bahadur
Singh (deceased), and her minor son aged about 8 years (P.W.1),
the opposite party no.2/appellant (Faujadar Yadav) allegedly
entered into her house. Upon being questioned, the opposite
party no.2/appellant assaulted her husband on the head with a
khanti, causing him to fall unconscious, and also assaulted the
informant when she intervened. On her alarm, nearby villagers
arrived at the place of occurrence and witnessed the incident.
Due to non-availability of conveyance, injured Jung Bahadur
Singh was taken for medical treatment on the following day i.e.,
on 13.12.2002. Also, on the same day, based on the statement of
the informant, F.I.R. bearing Chainpur P.S. Case No.117 of 2002
was registered against the accused person (opposite party
no.2/appellant) under Sections 323, 325, 452 and 307 of the
IPC. Furthermore, injured Jung Bahadur Singh during his
treatment at Banaras died on 20.12.2002, whereupon Section
302 of the IPC was added vide order dated 04.01.2003 to the
F.I.R. which was initially registered under Sections 323, 325,
452 and 307 of the IPC.
Patna High Court CR. REV. No.506 of 2009 dt.28-04-2026
4/33
6. Upon completion of the investigation, charge-
sheet bearing C.S. No.60 of 2003 in connection with Chainpur
P.S. Case No.117 of 2002 was submitted under Sections 452,
323 and 302 of the IPC, and the case was committed to the
learned Trial Court. Subsequently, charges were framed by the
learned Trial Court vide order dated 23.01.2004 against the
accused person (opposite party no.2/appellant) under Sections
302, 323 and 452 of the IPC, wherein the opposite party
no.2/appellant pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
7. During the trial, the prosecution has examined
altogether ten witnesses, including the informant and other
alleged eye-witnesses, as well as medical and formal witnesses,
to prove charges against the appellant, who are as under:
P.Ws. Names
P.W.1 Vansh Prakash Singh (Minor son of the deceased
Jung Bahadur Singh)
P.W.2 Pritam Gosai (Co-villager of the deceased)
P.W.3 Dharamshila Devi (Informant/wife of the deceased)
P.W.4 Kameshwar Singh (Father-in-law of the
deceased/formal witness)
P.W.5 Anil Kumar Singh (Formal witness)
P.W.6 Dr. Indrajit Prakash (Doctor who examined injuries
of the informant and the deceased at Primary Health
Centre, Chainpur and issued Injury Report)
P.W.7 Deo Kumar Singh (Formal witness)
P.W.8 Imanwel Tirki (I.O. of the case)
P.W.9 Dr. J.P. Tripathi (Doctor who has conducted
postmortem of the deceased.)
P.W.10 Rajendra Singh (Formal witness)
Patna High Court CR. REV. No.506 of 2009 dt.28-04-2026
5/33
8. Moreover, in support of their case, the
prosecution has exhibited following documentary evidence:
Exts. Particulars
Ext.1 Inquest Report
Ext.1/1 Signature of Anil Kumar Singh on Inquest Report
Ext.2 to Injury Report of the Informant and the deceased
2/1
Ext.2/2 Forwrading letter of the injured persons
to 2/3
Ext.3 Letter by Sir Sundarlal Hospital to O/C Lanka,
Varanasi
Ext.4 Police Form No.13
Ext.5 Postmortem Report
Ext.6 Fardbeyan of the Informant Dharamshila Devi
Ext.7 F.I.R.
9. In order to have a clear understanding of the
case, it would be apposite to notice the testimony of the
prosecution witnesses.
10. P.W.1, Vansh Prakash Singh, who is the son of
deceased Jung Bahadur Singh (aged about 8 years at the time of
occurrence), has deposed that the occurrence took place at about
8:00-9:00 P.M. when he was sitting in the verandah of his house
along with his parents, while his cousins Sachida and Manoj
(both not examined) were in the upper room. He stated that at
that time the accused Fauzdar entered their house, whereupon
his father questioned him as to why he was entering. In the light
Patna High Court CR. REV. No.506 of 2009 dt.28-04-2026
6/33
of a lamp burning in the verandah, he identified the accused. He
further deposed that when his father went to apprehend the
accused, the accused dragged his father into the dalan/room and
assaulted him with a “khanti”, causing injuries on his head by
striking twice, and when his father fell down, he further
assaulted him on the back. He and his mother raised alarm, and
when his mother tried to intervene, the accused also assaulted
her with the lathi of that khanti on her stomach and head. Upon
their alarm, Pritam (P.W.2), Manoj and Sachida arrived and
witnessed the assault. Thereafter, the accused fled away and his
father became unconscious. He further stated that on the next
morning, his father was taken by villagers to Chainpur Hospital
and thereafter referred to Banaras University Hospital, where
after about eight days, his father succumbed to the injuries.
In cross-examination, P.W.1 stated that the accused
Fauzdar had not been visiting his house prior to the date of
occurrence. He described the structure of his house, stating that
it is a pucca house having 11-12 rooms (kothri), with a northern
entrance, dalan, courtyard (angan), verandah and rooms
(kothri), and that the door is usually closed by his mother at
about 9:30 P.M. everyday, though at the time of occurrence the
door was open. He reiterated that at the time of occurrence, he
Patna High Court CR. REV. No.506 of 2009 dt.28-04-2026
7/33
and his mother were in the verandah and the lamp was burning
there. He stated that his father, upon asking “kaun hai”, went
towards the accused and was dragged on the ground into the
dalan where he was assaulted. He further stated that on raising
alarm, initially no one from the neighbourhood came, but after
the accused fled, some villagers arrived. He deposed that he and
his mother went to the dalan and saw his father lying injured
with bleeding head injuries and in unconscious condition, and
thereafter, with the help of Pritam, Sachida and Manoj, shifted
him to a cot. He also stated that Sachida and Manoj had gone to
call a doctor but returned saying that the accused was standing
armed with a katta. He stated that his mother informed the
villagers, but no one came immediately, and they tied the injury
with a gamchha. He further stated that in the morning, his father
was taken to the doctor by Pritam Gosai (P.W.2) and others,
while he himself did not accompany them. He denied the
suggestion that he has falsely deposed at the instance of others
or that the accused had not committed the occurrence and that
some unknown person had assaulted his father.
11. P.W.2, Pritam Gosai who is a co-villager of the
deceased Jung Bahadur Singh, supported the prosecution’s case and
deposed that after taking his meal, he was proceeding from his
house towards the shop of Ganga Sahu to purchase bidi and, on
Patna High Court CR. REV. No.506 of 2009 dt.28-04-2026
8/33
reaching near the house of Jung Bahadur Singh and the shop, he
stopped in the lane to urinate. After a few minutes, he heard
shouting (halla) from the house of Jung Bahadur Singh,
whereupon he went to his door and saw that Jung Bahadur
Singh had caught hold of Fauzdar Yadav and the accused was
dragging him into the dalan. He further stated that the accused
was holding a “khanti” in his hand and assaulted Jung Bahadur
Singh with the said weapon twice on his head, as a result of
which he fell down in the dalan. He further deposed that when
the wife of Jung Bahadur Singh came to rescue him, the accused
also assaulted her with the danda of the khanti on her stomach
and head. Even after Jung Bahadur Singh fell down, the accused
dealt another blow on his back and thereafter fled away. He
stated that apart from him, the occurrence was also witnessed by
the son of Jung Bahadur Singh, and his relatives Sachida and
Manoj, and his wife. He further stated that a lantern was burning
in the verandah and in that light, as well as in the light of his
torch, he saw the occurrence and identified the accused. He
deposed that thereafter Jung Bahadur Singh was lifted and laid
on a cot in the verandah and the bleeding injury on his head was
tied with a cloth. He further stated that during the night, the
injured was not taken to hospital as villagers did not come
Patna High Court CR. REV. No.506 of 2009 dt.28-04-2026
9/33
forward, and in the morning, he took Jung Bahadur Singh to
Chainpur Hospital.
In his cross-examination, P.W.2 stated that prior to
the occurrence he had visited the house of Jung Bahadur Singh
2-4 times and that Jung Bahadur Singh was a big landholder
having about 100–125 bighas of land. He stated that his house is
situated about 100 yards north of the house of Jung Bahadur
Singh. He further stated that it was winter season and in the
village there are about 10-11 shops which remain open till about
9:00-9:30P.M. He stated that he had not yet purchased bidi and
was urinating in the lane adjacent to the shop of Ganga Sahu,
and that he had not reached the shop and had not seen who was
sitting there. He further stated that at that time no one else was
passing through the lane. On hearing the alarm, he went towards
the dalan door of Jung Bahadur Singh, and stated that when he
reached there, he saw injury on the head of Jung Bahadur Singh
and that at that time Jung Bahadur Singh was standing and no
conversation took place with him. He further stated that when
he reached near him, apart from the accused, his wife and two
relatives were present and no other villagers were there. He
stated that the accused fled towards the west in the lane and that
neither he nor the family members chased him. He further stated
Patna High Court CR. REV. No.506 of 2009 dt.28-04-2026
10/33
that he himself did not raise alarm, but the wife and relatives of
Jung Bahadur Singh were raising alarm even before his arrival.
He stated that when he reached, some persons were raising
alarm and some were lifting Jung Bahadur Singh, and that he
also helped in lifting him to the courtyard, after which 10-12
villagers came, though he had no conversation with them. He
further stated that he stayed there for about 10-15 minutes and
thereafter returned home. He further stated that in the morning,
on being requested by the wife of Jung Bahadur Singh, he went
to his house and took Jung Bahadur to the hospital and reached
Chainpur Hospital at about 07:00 A.M., where the doctor
examined him. He stated that from the time of occurrence till
07:00 A.M., no treatment was given. He further stated that
police came in the afternoon and his statement was recorded; he
met the Investigating Officer in the lane and showed him the
house, and that his statement was recorded there. He further
stated that at that time only an old woman was present and he
does not know whose statements were recorded at the house. He
denied that he did not disclose to the Investigating Officer that
he had seen the occurrence or that he was a witness. He further
stated that he had told the Investigating Officer that he had seen
the occurrence in the light of his torch and lantern, though he
Patna High Court CR. REV. No.506 of 2009 dt.28-04-2026
11/33
did not hand over the torch. He further stated that the dalan of
Jung Bahadur Singh is closed from all sides with one door
leading inside, and that the house is double-storeyed though he
had not gone to the upper floor. He also stated that there was no
prior enmity between him or Jung Bahadur Singh and the
accused. He denied the suggestion that he had not gone to
purchase bidi or that he had falsely deposed regarding the
occurrence.
12. P.W.3, Dharamshila Devi, who is wife of the
deceased Jung Bahadur Singh and also the informant in the
case, has deposed that at about 9:00 P.M. when she was sitting
in the verandah of her house along with her husband and her
son Vansh Prakash, while her two nephews Sachida and Manoj
had gone to the upper room after taking meals. She deposed that
at that time the accused Fauzdar entered her house, whereupon
her husband caught hold of him and questioned him as to why
he was entering the house. She further stated that a lantern was
burning on a table in the verandah and in its light she identified
the accused. She deposed that upon raising alarm by her and her
son, Sachida and Manoj came down from the roof and Pritam
also came at the door, and in the meantime, the accused dragged
her husband into the dalan room and assaulted him with a
Patna High Court CR. REV. No.506 of 2009 dt.28-04-2026
12/33
“khanti” by giving two blows on his head, causing his head to
split open. She further stated that even after her husband fell
down, the accused assaulted him with the handle of the khanti
on his back. When she tried to rescue her husband, the accused
assaulted her also with the handle of the khanti on her stomach
and head. She stated that after the assault, her husband fell down
unconscious and the accused fled away. She further deposed that
the occurrence was also witnessed by Sachida, Manoj, Vansh
Prakash and Pritam. Thereafter, her husband was lifted and laid
on a cot in the verandah and his injuries were tied with a
gamchha. She further stated that Sachida and Manoj went to call
villagers for taking her husband to the hospital but no one came
due to fear of the accused, who was stated to be hiding with a
katta. She also stated that on the next morning, her husband was
taken on a cot to Chainpur Primary Health Centre, where the
doctor examined both her and her husband and advised that his
condition was serious and he be taken to Banaras. She stated
that thereafter she returned to the village with Sachida and
Manoj to arrange money and clothes, met the police officer who
made inquiries and was shown the place of occurrence, and
thereafter her husband was taken to Banaras University
Hospital, where after 7-8 days, he died. She identified the
Patna High Court CR. REV. No.506 of 2009 dt.28-04-2026
13/33
accused present in Court.
In her cross-examination, P.W.3 stated that her
husband was an influential person in the village and had no
enmity with anyone. She further stated that she is pardanashin
and has limited interaction outside her house and that no
outsider used to enter inside the house, rather people would
meet in the dalan. She stated that the accused Fauzdar had never
visited her house earlier and she does not know his family
members. She further stated that Pritam Gosai never used to
come inside her house and she had no conversation with him
earlier. She described the structure of her house, stating that
there are about 13 rooms around the courtyard and four rooms
on the upper floor, and that there is no electricity connection and
on the date of occurrence a lantern was burning. She further
stated that the main door of the house opens towards the east
and leads to the dalan and then to the lane, and that the dalan
has rooms on both sides and is surrounded by a boundary wall.
She stated that at about 9:00-9:30 P.M., when they were sitting
on the cot, all the doors including the main gate and dalan door
were open. She further stated that she heard a knocking sound
from the dalan side and her husband went towards it asking
“kaun hai”, and on hearing his alarm she rushed there. She
Patna High Court CR. REV. No.506 of 2009 dt.28-04-2026
14/33
stated that when she reached, Pritam Gosai was already present
and thereafter her nephews came. She further stated that apart
from Pritam, there were about 10 other persons present but due
to night she could not recognise them. She stated that the entire
occurrence took place within about a minute and the assailant
fled away, and that he had a katta tucked at his waist. She
further stated that her nephews did not catch hold of the accused
or his weapon. She further stated that after the occurrence,
villagers and Pritam remained there for about half an hour and
that Pritam told her that the assailant was Fauzdar Yadav. She
stated that her husband had 3-4 bleeding injuries on his head.
She further stated that in the morning at about 7:00-8:00 A.M.,
her husband was taken to the doctor at Chainpur on a cot by
four persons and she accompanied him, and the doctor declared
his condition serious and referred him to Banaras, where he was
admitted in B.H.U. Hospital, though she does not know the
name of the doctor who treated him. She denied any suggestion
of false implication.
13. P.W.4 and P.W.5, Kameshwar Singh and Anil
Kumar Singh respectively are formal witnesses who have signed
and proved the panchnama which has been marked as Ext.1.
14. P.W.6, Dr. Indrajit Prakash, who is M.O. at
Patna High Court CR. REV. No.506 of 2009 dt.28-04-2026
15/33
Primary Health Centre, Chainpur, has deposed that on
13.12.2002 at about 09:10 A.M., he examined Dharamshila
Devi and found the injury on her person as “A swelling over
right perital region of the head 1”x 1”. The injury was opined as
simple in nature caused by hard blunt substance (Injury report
marked as Ext.2). P.W.6 further deposed that on the same day he
also examined Jung Bahadur Singh at about 09:00 A.M. and
found following injuries on his person (Injury report marked as
Ext.2/1):
“(I) A lacerated wound on the upper paret of
the head 1.5’’ x 0.2’’ skin deep.
(II) Three abrasions on the dorsal surface of
the right head 0.3’’x 0.2’’.
(III) An abrasion on the left knee laterally
0.5’’ x 0.4’’.
Patient was unconscious and so referred to
PMCH Patna or Sir Sundarlal Hospital,
BHU, Varanasi for investigation, treatment
and opinion.”
In his cross-examination, P.W.6 stated that on
police requisition he examined the injured persons. He stated
that on the police requisition it was mentioned that the injured
Dharamshila had stomach ache and red abrasion on her back,
which after examination he did not find such injury on her body.
Moreover, he stated that the injuries of Jung Bahadur Singh
were possible due to hard and blunt substance. He stated that he
Patna High Court CR. REV. No.506 of 2009 dt.28-04-2026
16/33
found injury only on the head of Jung Bahadur Singh and after
providing medical treatment he referred him to Higher Hospital.
15. P.W.7, Deo Kumar Singh is a formal witness
who has proved Ext.3.
16. P.W.8, Imanwel Tirki, who is Investigating
Officer (I.O.) of this case, has deposed that he recorded the
fardbeyan of Dharamshila Devi at Primary Health Centre,
Chainpur, and he identified the fardbeyan to be in his
handwriting and bearing his signature, which has been marked
as Exhibit-6. P.W.8 further deposed that after recording the
fardbeyan, he got examined the injuries of Dharamshila Devi
and her husband Jung Bahadur Singh and issued forwarding
letter of the injury reports, which are in his handwriting and bear
his signature, and identified the same, which have been marked
as Exhibits 2/2 and 2/3 respectively. He further deposed that
thereafter the investigation was entrusted to him, during which
he again recorded the statement of the informant and inspected
the place of occurrence. He deposed that he recorded the
statements of witnesses, namely Pritam Gosai, Vansh Prakash
Singh, Manoj Kumar and Sachchidanand Singh, who supported
the occurrence. He also deposed that during the course of
investigation, injured Jung Bahadur Singh died on 20.12.2002 at
Patna High Court CR. REV. No.506 of 2009 dt.28-04-2026
17/33
about 8:30 P.M. in B.H.U., Varanasi, whereupon he submitted
application for conversion of the case from Section 307 to
Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and obtained the inquest
report and postmortem report.
In his cross-examination, the witness stated that
when he recorded the fardbeyan at the Primary Health Centre,
Dharamshila Devi as well as Jung Bahadur Singh were present
and the latter was in unconscious condition. He stated that the
occurrence took place on 12.12.2002 at about 9:00 P.M. and the
fardbeyan was recorded on 13.12.2002 at about 10:15 A.M., i.e.,
after about 12 hours, and that in the meantime no such
information had reached the police station. He further stated that
though both injured had been given dressing, he did not remove
the bandage to examine the injuries, and Dharamshila Devi had
only ointment applied. He stated that the doctor did not refer the
injured to Banaras in his presence and he did not make any
recommendation for such referral, nor has he recorded in the
case diary as to when the injured was referred to Varanasi. He
further stated that he did not go to Banaras and came to know
about the death of Jung Bahadur Singh after about 12 days, on
04.01.2003, when the informant herself came to the police
station and informed him. He stated that the postmortem report
Patna High Court CR. REV. No.506 of 2009 dt.28-04-2026
18/33
was received through the Superintendent of Police by post, but
the same has not been entered in the case diary, and he did not
verify the postmortem report, though he denied the suggestion
that it was not verified because it was forged. He further stated
that he did not ascertain the name of the doctor who treated the
deceased at B.H.U., nor did he collect any admission or
treatment papers. He further stated that he inspected the place of
occurrence on 13.12.2002 in presence of the informant, and at
that time he seized blood-stained soil from the place of
occurrence and prepared a seizure list, though the same has not
been attached, and the seized soil was not sent for chemical
examination and is lying in the malkhana. He further stated that
though the occurrence took place at night and the source of light
was a lantern, he did not seize the said lantern. He further stated
that he did not seize the cot, mattress or quilt from the dalan,
stating that there was no blood on them as per the informant. He
further stated that he did not investigate whether the accused
had broken open the door or had entered otherwise, as no
witness had stated so. He further stated that he made inquiry
regarding the criminal antecedents of the accused but did not
find any such history.
17. P.W.9, Dr. J.P. Tripathi is the doctor who
Patna High Court CR. REV. No.506 of 2009 dt.28-04-2026
19/33
conducted postmortem of the deceased Jung Bahadur Singh. He
has deposed that death of Jung Bahadur Singh occurred due to
coma resulting from a grievous injury on the head. He stated
that the postmortem report is in his handwriting and bears his
signature, which he identifies. He further deposed that the
injuries found on the body of the deceased were sufficient in the
ordinary course of nature to cause death.
In his cross-examination, P.W.9 stated that there
was one injury on the head of the deceased, apart from that,
there was one injury on the left knee and a bedsore on the back
below the waist. He stated that the injury on the left knee was a
superficial abrasion caused by friction and not by lathi blow. He
further stated that the head injury was so severe that, in absence
of proper treatment, it could cause death. He explained that
upon opening the skull, there was subdural and extradural
hematoma, and such hematoma causes pressure on the brain. He
denied the suggestion that the report given by him is incorrect or
not in accordance with medical science.
18. P.W.10, Rajendra Singh is a formal witness who
has deposed that the signature appearing on the formal First
Information Report is that of Sri Surendra Prasad Singh, the
then Sub-Inspector of Chainpur Police Station, which he
Patna High Court CR. REV. No.506 of 2009 dt.28-04-2026
20/33
identifies. The said document has been marked as an exhibit.
In cross-examination, he stated that the said
document was not signed in his presence and that he has no
personal knowledge regarding the contents of the case.
19. After closure of the prosecution evidence, the
statement of the appellant was recorded under Section 313 of
the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 on 11.12.2006 wherein he
denied the allegations and pleaded innocence. However, in his
defence, the appellant has not adduced any oral or documentary
evidence.
20. Considering the facts and circumstances of the
case, upon perusal of the materials available on record and after
a detailed appreciation of the oral and medical evidence on
record, came to a categorical finding that the prosecution had
failed to establish the ingredients necessary to constitute
offences under Sections 302, 307 and 304 of the IPC. The
learned Trial Court observed that neither the intention nor the
knowledge requisite for attracting the offence of murder or
culpable homicide could be safely inferred from the materials
available on record. It was further held that even the charge
under Section 326 of the IPC was not made out, as the nature of
injuries and the manner of assault did not satisfy the statutory
Patna High Court CR. REV. No.506 of 2009 dt.28-04-2026
21/33
requirements thereof. However, the learned Trial Court found
that the evidence of the eye-witnesses, to the extent it proved
assault by the accused upon the deceased, was reliable and stood
corroborated by the medical evidence insofar as it established
that the deceased had sustained grievous injury on the head. On
such reasoning, the learned Trial Court concluded that the act of
the accused squarely fell within the ambit of Section 325 of the
IPC and accordingly recorded conviction thereunder. The
learned Trial Court further held that the prosecution had
succeeded in proving that the accused had voluntarily caused
simple hurt to the informant (P.W.3), thereby attracting Section
323 of the IPC, and that his act of entering the house of the
informant with preparation for assault constituted the offence
under Section 452 of the IPC. Moreover, on the point of
sentence, the learned Trial Court taking into account the nature
of the offence proved, imposed rigorous imprisonment for seven
years along with fine of Rs.10,000/- under Section 325 of the
IPC, with a default stipulation, and awarded similar sentence
under Section 452 of IPC, while directing all sentences to run
concurrently and awarding no separate sentence under Section
323 of the IPC.
21. Being aggrieved by the impugned order of
Patna High Court CR. REV. No.506 of 2009 dt.28-04-2026
22/33
conviction and sentence, the opposite party no.2/appellant filed
appeal before this Court bearing Criminal Appeal (SJ) No.552
of 2008 and the petitioner filed the present revision petition.
22. Having noticed the findings recorded by the
learned Trial Court, this Court proceeds to consider the
submissions advanced on behalf of the parties in the connected
revision as well as the appeal.
23. Learned counsel for the petitioner in revision
submitted that the impugned order suffers from manifest
illegality inasmuch as the learned Trial Court has failed to
properly appreciate the consistent and cogent ocular evidence of
the eye-witnesses, namely P.W.1 and P.W.3, the latter being an
injured witness. It is submitted that the presence of these
witnesses at the place of occurrence is natural and fully
established, and their testimonies clearly prove that the accused
entered the house armed with a khanti and inflicted a forceful
blow on the head of the deceased, which ultimately resulted in
his death. It is submitted that the evidence of P.W.1, a natural
witness and son of the deceased, fully corroborates the version
of the informant (P.W.3), and both have consistently supported
the prosecution case with regard to the manner of assault.
Learned counsel further submitted that their ocular version
Patna High Court CR. REV. No.506 of 2009 dt.28-04-2026
23/33
stands further corroborated by the medical evidence of P.W.6
and P.W.9, particularly the postmortem report (Ext.3), which
establishes fracture of the skull and opines the cause of death to
be head injury. It is thus submitted that once the assault by the
accused and the resulting fatal injury are proved beyond doubt,
there was no justification for the learned Trial Court to dilute the
offence to one under Section 325 of the IPC, especially when
the injury was inflicted on a vital part of the body with a
dangerous weapon inside the house of the deceased.
24. Learned counsel for the petitioner further
submitted that minor inconsistencies or embellishments in the
testimonies of certain witnesses, particularly with respect to
presence of other villagers, do not go to the root of the
prosecution case and ought to have been ignored. In this regard,
learned counsel has placed reliance upon the judgment of the
Hon’ble Supreme Court in Bhaskarrao and Ors. v. State of
Maharashtra, reported in (2018) 6 SCC 591, following
Tahsildar Singh and Anr. v. State of Uttar Pradesh, reported in
1959 SCC OnLine SC 17; AIR 1959 SC 1012, wherein it has
been held that the Court must separate truth from
embellishments. Further reliance is placed on Balakrishnan
and Ors. v. State of Tamil Nadu, reported in (2018) 14 SCC 55;
Patna High Court CR. REV. No.506 of 2009 dt.28-04-2026
24/33
AIR 2018 SC 1153, wherein it has been held that minor
contradictions do not affect the core of prosecution case.
Learned counsel also relied upon the decision of the Hon’ble
Apex Court in Stalin v. State (Represented by Inspector of
Police), reported in (2020) 9 SCC 524 to submit that even a
single blow on a vital part like the head, if inflicted with
sufficient force and intention, can attract Section 302 of the IPC.
Additionally, reliance has been placed upon the judgment in
Kunhimuhammed @ Kunheethu v. State of Kerala, reported in
2024 SCC OnLine SC 3618, wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court
has held that where ocular evidence of reliable eye-witnesses
stands corroborated by medical evidence, the same is sufficient
to sustain conviction for murder. On the strength of these
submissions, it is submitted that the accused be convicted under
Section 302 of the IPC.
25. Learned counsel for the opposite party
no.2/appellant submitted that the impugned judgment, even to
the extent of conviction under Sections 325, 452 and 323 of the
IPC, is unsustainable in law as the prosecution has failed to
establish its case beyond reasonable doubt. It is submitted that
the entire prosecution story suffers from material inconsistencies
and contradictions, particularly with regard to the identity of the
Patna High Court CR. REV. No.506 of 2009 dt.28-04-2026
25/33
accused and presence of alleged eye-witnesses at the place of
occurrence. It is further submitted that as per the earliest version
in the fardbeyan of P.W.3, only she, her husband and her minor
son (P.W.1) were present at the time of occurrence, however,
during trial, attempts have been made to introduce additional
witnesses as eye-witnesses, which creates serious doubt
regarding the veracity of the prosecution case. Learned counsel
further submitted that even P.W.2, who is projected as an eye-
witness, has not actually witnessed the occurrence and reached
the place only after the alleged assault. It is further submitted
that important independent witnesses named in the fardbeyan,
namely Munna Singh, Manoj Singh and Sachidanand Singh,
have not been examined by the prosecution without any
explanation, which gives rise to adverse inference against the
prosecution case.
26. Learned counsel for the opposite party
no.2/appellant further submitted that the medical evidence does
not conclusively establish that the death of the deceased was
solely attributable to the alleged assault by the appellant,
particularly in view of the delay in taking the injured to the
hospital and intervening circumstances during treatment. The
defence of the appellant has consistently been one of total denial
Patna High Court CR. REV. No.506 of 2009 dt.28-04-2026
26/33
and false implication due to prior enmity, and the prosecution
has failed to establish any clear motive for the alleged
occurrence. It is submitted that the learned Trial Court itself has
disbelieved the prosecution case insofar as the charge under
Section 302 of the IPC is concerned, thereby indicating serious
doubt in the prosecution version. However, despite such doubt,
the learned Trial Court has erred in convicting the appellant
under lesser offences on the same set of evidence, which is
legally impermissible. It is thus submitted that in view of the
contradictions, non-examination of material witnesses, doubtful
nature of evidence and failure of the prosecution to prove the
case beyond reasonable doubt, the appellant is entitled to benefit
of doubt and consequent acquittal from all the charges.
27. Learned APP for the State supported the
impugned order of conviction and sentence and submitted that
the learned Trial Court has rightly appreciated the evidence on
record and recorded conviction of the appellant under Sections
325, 452 and 323 of the IPC. It is submitted that the occurrence
and the role of the appellant stand duly proved from the
consistent testimonies of P.W.1 and P.W.3, which are
corroborated by the medical evidence. It is further submitted
that minor inconsistencies or non-examination of some
Patna High Court CR. REV. No.506 of 2009 dt.28-04-2026
27/33
witnesses do not affect the core of the prosecution case,
particularly when the injured witness has supported the case.
Learned APP, therefore, submitted that the conviction and
sentence require no interference and the impugned judgment
deserves to be affirmed.
28. In view of the rival submissions and materials
available on record, the sole issue that arises for consideration
before this Court is “whether, on the basis of the evidence
adduced by the prosecution, the learned Trial Court was
justified in convicting the accused under Sections 325, 452 and
323 of the IPC, or whether the case is made out for conviction
under Section 302 of the IPC as contended by the petitioner, or
for acquittal as claimed by the opposite party no.2/appellant.”
29. It is well settled that this Court has power to re-
appreciate and reconsider the evidence in an appeal. The act of
an accused can be proved by direct evidences or circumstantial
evidence. The present case, in the facts and circumstances rests
upon direct evidence. In the present case, P.W.1, P.W.2 and
P.W.3, are projected by the prosecution as eye-witnesses to the
said occurrence.
30. It is noteworthy that the earliest version of the
prosecution, as reflected in the fardbeyan of P.W.3, clearly
Patna High Court CR. REV. No.506 of 2009 dt.28-04-2026
28/33
indicates that at the time of occurrence only she, her husband
(deceased) and her minor son (P.W.1) were present. However,
during trial, both P.W.1 and P.W.3 have introduced additional
persons, namely Pritam (P.W.2), Sachida and Manoj, as eye-
witnesses to the occurrence. This material improvement creates
serious doubt regarding the actual manner of occurrence.
Further, P.W.1, being a minor child witness at the time, has
made inconsistent statements regarding arrival of villagers and
sequence of events, thereby affecting the reliability of his
testimony. The conduct of the witnesses also appears unnatural,
particularly inasmuch as no effective steps were taken to secure
immediate medical aid.
31. More importantly, the testimony of P.W.3
suffers from a serious infirmity on the aspect of identification of
the accused. While in her examination-in-chief she claimed to
have identified the accused in lantern light, in her cross-
examination she has admitted that she was a pardanashin
woman and Fauzdar Yadav had never visited her house earlier,
and further admitted in para 42 of her cross-examination that it
was P.W.2, Pritam Gosai, who disclosed to her that the assailant
was Fauzdar Yadav which shows that she herself had not
recognized the assailant. In para 25 of her cross-examination she
Patna High Court CR. REV. No.506 of 2009 dt.28-04-2026
29/33
has also admitted that during the course of occurrence, no co-
villager was present there, and on the contrary in para 32 she
has stated that when she went to her husband, P.W.2, Pritam
Gosai, was already there. Moreover, P.W.2, Pritam Gosai has
stated in para 11 of his cross-examination, he has stated that at
the time he reached the doors of the deceased, apart from the
assailant, he saw wife and two relatives of the deceased Jung
Bahadur Singh. P.W.3 stated that she heard the knocking sound
from the dalan and her husband went there, and on hearing
alarm she rushed there. The time she reached dalan, Pritam
Gosai (P.W.2) was already present and thereafter her nephew
came there. These admissions strike at the root of the
prosecution case, as the identity of the accused becomes
doubtful. Coupled with this, the non-examination of material
independent witnesses, namely Manoj Singh and Sachidanand
Singh, without furnishing any proper reason, further weakens
the prosecution case. In view of such contradictions,
improvements and doubtful identification, this Court is of the
considered opinion that the prosecution has failed to prove the
charges against the appellant beyond reasonable doubt, and the
benefit of doubt must necessarily go in favour of the accused.
32. Moreover, in the facts of the present case, the
Patna High Court CR. REV. No.506 of 2009 dt.28-04-2026
30/33
conduct attributed to Sachida and Manoj, who are close relatives
of the deceased, stated to have been present at the time of
occurrence, creates serious doubt regarding their actual presence
and the veracity of the prosecution version. Despite the
prosecution case that they arrived at the place of occurrence
during the assault, there is no convincing evidence to show that
they made any genuine effort either to intervene and protect the
deceased or to immediately arrange for medical assistance after
he had sustained grievous injuries and fallen unconscious. Their
alleged inaction and passive conduct, particularly in a situation
where a close family member was being brutally assaulted,
appears wholly unnatural and casts a grave doubt on their
presence at the place of occurrence as eye-witnesses. This
unexplained and unnatural conduct, therefore, weakens the
prosecution case and renders their purported presence highly
doubtful.
33. This Court further finds that the I.O. has failed
to recover the alleged weapon i.e., ‘khanti’ which was alleged to
have used by the appellant to commit the crime, though not fatal
to the prosecution’s case. Also, the soil drenched with blood was
neither produced before the learned Trial Court nor was sent for
lab examination. Moreover, the admitted delay in providing
Patna High Court CR. REV. No.506 of 2009 dt.28-04-2026
31/33
medical treatment and the fact that the deceased was taken to
hospital only on the following morning and thereafter treated at
another hospital for several days before his death, create a
reasonable doubt as to whether the death was the direct and
proximate result of the alleged assault. In absence of clear and
cogent evidence establishing an unbroken chain between the
alleged act and the ultimate death, it would be unsafe to hold the
appellant responsible for the same. Thus, the medical evidence,
instead of lending assurance to the prosecution case, leaves
room for doubt, which must enure to the benefit of the accused.
It is also pertinent to note that the FIR was registered with a
delay of around 12 hours from the time of occurrence and I.O.
has admitted that in the meantime no such information had
reached the police station. It is noteworthy that the distance
from the place of occurrence to the nearest police station, where
the F.I.R. was registered is just 5 kilometer, yet it took the
informant around 12 hours from the time of occurrence to
register the said F.I.R.
34. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Bhaskarrao
and Ors. v. State of Maharashtra (supra) has held as under:
“54. …………It is always the duty of the
Court to separate chaff from the husk and to
dredge the truth from the pandemonium of
statements. It is but natural for human
Patna High Court CR. REV. No.506 of 2009 dt.28-04-2026
32/33
beings to state variant statements due to time
gap but if such statements go to defeat the
core of the prosecution then such
contradictions are material and the Court
has to be mindful of such statements [See:
Tahsildar Singh v. State of U.P., AIR 1959
SC 1012 : 1959 Cri LJ 1231] .”
35. In view of the aforesaid discussion, this Court
is of the considered opinion that the prosecution has failed to
bring home the charges against the opposite party no.2/appellant
beyond all reasonable doubts. The findings recorded by the
learned Trial Court, even to the extent of conviction under
Sections 325, 452 and 323 of the IPC, are not sustainable in the
eyes of law, being based on evidence suffering from material
contradictions, doubtful identification and lack of reliable
corroboration. Accordingly, the impugned judgment of
conviction and order of sentence dated 11.06.2008 are hereby
set aside and the appellant is acquitted of all the charges. The
appeal preferred by the appellant is allowed.
36. Resultantly, the criminal revision preferred by
the petitioner seeking conviction of Fauzdar Yadav under
Section 302 of the IPC stands dismissed.
37. The appellant, Fauzdar Yadav, is acquitted for
the charges leveled against him, since, the appellant is already
on bail, he is discharge from the liability of his bail bonds.
Patna High Court CR. REV. No.506 of 2009 dt.28-04-2026
33/33
38. The Trial Court Records of the instant revision/
appeal be returned to the Trial Court, forthwith.
39. I.A.(s), if any, stands disposed of.
(Sunil Dutta Mishra, J)
Ritik/-
AFR/NAFR NAFR
CAV DATE 03.04.2026
Uploading Date 28.04.2026
Transmission Date 28.04.2026
Checking your session…