Patna High Court
THE STATE OF BIHARversusAman Singh
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISMISSED
Holding
The conviction and death sentence of the appellants under Sections 302/34 IPC are upheld, as the prosecution proved its case beyond reasonable doubt and the offence qualifies as the rarest of rare.
Summary
The State of Bihar convicted Aman Singh and Sonal Singh for murder under Sections 302 and 34 of the IPC, based on the testimony of the victims' widow and forensic evidence linking the accused to the use of swords. The appellants challenged the conviction, alleging procedural irregularities such as a delayed FIR, suppression of the earliest statement, and non‑examination of key witnesses. The High Court examined the credibility of the prosecution witnesses, the medical and forensic reports, and the alleged procedural lapses, finding that the evidence established the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. It held that the procedural issues raised did not vitiate the trial court’s findings. The Court also considered whether the death penalty was warranted, concluding that the crime qualified as "rarest of rare" and upheld the death sentence. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed and the death reference affirmed.
Issues considered
- The adequacy of the prosecution evidence in proving the guilt of the appellants under Sections 302/34 IPC.
- Whether the delay in lodging the FIR, alleged suppression of the earliest statement, and non‑examination of material witnesses merit setting aside the conviction.
- Whether the death penalty is justified as "rarest of rare" in the circumstances of the case.
Legislation cited
- Code of Criminal Procedure — s. 311, 313, 366(1)
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 293
- Indian Evidence Act, 1872 — s. 101, 106, 110
- Indian Penal Code — s. 302, 34
Subjects
- murder
- death penalty
- rarest of rare
- procedural delay
- FIR delay
- forensic evidence
- land dispute
- IPC 302
- IPC 34
- CrPC 366
- capital punishment
- appeal
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
DEATH REFERENCE No.2 of 2024
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-111 Year-2021 Thana- DARIHAT District- Rohtas
======================================================
The State of Bihar
... ... Petitioner
Versus
1. Aman Singh S/O Ajay Singh R/O -VillageKudrao/Khudraon, P.S.- Darihat,
Distt-Rohtas
2. Sonal Singh S/O Ajay Singh R/O -VillageKudrao/Khudraon, P.S.- Darihat,
Distt-Rohtas
... ... Respondents
======================================================
with
CRIMINAL APPEAL (DB) No. 691 of 2024
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-111 Year-2021 Thana- DARIHAT District- Rohtas
======================================================
1. Aman Singh S/O Ajay Singh R/O -VillageKudrao/Khudraon, P.S.- Darihat,
Distt-Rohtas
2. Sonal Singh S/O Ajay Singh R/O -VillageKudrao/Khudraon, P.S.- Darihat,
Distt-Rohtas
... ... Appellants
Versus
The State of Bihar ... ... Respondent
======================================================
Appearance :
(In DEATH REFERENCE No. 2 of 2024)
For the Petitioner : Mr. Anil singh, Amicus Curiae
Mr. Manoj Kumar No.1, Advocate
For the Respondent : Mr. Xxxxx
(In CRIMINAL APPEAL (DB) No. 691 of 2024)
For the Appellants : Mr. Pratik Mishra, Advocate
Mr. Vatsal Vishal, Advocate
Mr. Raushan Kumar, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Manish Kumar No. 2, Addl. PP
For the Informant : Mr. Ansul, Sr. Advocate
Mr. Dharmendra Kumar Singh, Advocate
Mr. Eashiita Raj, Advocate
Mr. Manoj Kumar, Advocate
Mr. Sada Nan Roy, Advocate
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJEEV RANJAN PRASAD
and
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SOURENDRA PANDEY
CAV JUDGMENT
(Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJEEV RANJAN PRASAD)
Patna High Court D. REF. No.2 of 2024 dt. 22-01-2026
2/67
Date : 22-01-2026
The death reference registered under Section 366 (1) of
the Code of Criminal Procedure (in short ‘CrPC’) and the Criminal
Appeal preferred by the two appellants are arising out of the
judgment of conviction dated 2nd May, 2024 (hereinafter referred
to as the 'impugned judgment') and the order of sentence dated 9th
May, 2024 (hereinafter referred to as the 'impugned order') passed
by learned Additional Sessions Judge-19, Rohtas at Sasaram
(hereinafter referred to as 'the learned trial court') in Sessions Trial
No. 10 of 2022 arising out of Darihat P.S. Case No. 111 of 2021
dated 13th July, 2021 registered under Section 302/34 of the Indian
Penal Code (in short ‘IPC’).
By the impugned judgment and order, the appellants have been
convicted for the offences punishable under Sections 302/34 IPC
and have been sentenced to death.
2. The appellants Aman Singh and Sonal Singh in
Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 691 of 2024 have prayed for setting aside
the impugned judgment and order of the learned trial court. The
prosecution case is based on the fardbeyan of Shakuntala Devi, wife
of Late Vijay Singh, Resident of Village Khudrao, P.S.-Darihat,
District-Rohtas recorded by ASI Bimlesh Kumar on 13 th July, 2021 at
23:00 Hrs. near postmortem house, Sadar Hospital, Sasaram. In her
Patna High Court D. REF. No.2 of 2024 dt. 22-01-2026
3/67
fardbeyan (Exhibit ‘3’), the informant, who is wife of one of the
deceased and has been examined as PW-4 in course of trial, has
stated as under:-
On 13.07.2021 at 18:00 Hours, when her husband Vijay Singh
and her son Deepak Singh were at home then, her Pattidars, namely,
(1) Ajay Singh, (2) Sonal Singh and (3) Aman Singh started
ploughing the disputed land adjacent to the house. When her husband
and her son went to stop them, then they started abusing them and
assaulted them with fist and lathi. Somehow, her husband and her son
fled away from there to Rang Bahadur Singh’s door. After some time,
the accused persons while chasing came to Rang Bahadur Singh’s
door and they abused her husband and her son and also started
assaulting them with lathi/danda. In the meanwhile, her younger son
Rakesh Singh also came there from Dehri and on seeing his father
and brother getting assaulted, after pacifying the fight he took his
father and brother to his old house towards kitta. Then the above
three accused persons armed with sword while chasing them reached
purana kitta and started hitting her husband and sons with sword.
Sonal Singh with an intention to kill, hit her elder son Deepak Singh
as a result of which he got cut on his neck, face, cheek, head and
chest and blood started oozing out and he became unconscious.
Aman Singh attacked her younger son Rakesh Singh with sword in
his hand with an intention to kill him, Rakesh got cuts on both his
Patna High Court D. REF. No.2 of 2024 dt. 22-01-2026
4/67
hands, face, neck and head and fell unconscious. When her husband
on seeing his children getting injured went to save them then Ajay
Singh hit him with sword on his neck as a result of which he got a
serious injury on his neck, he started bleeding profusely and he fell
unconscious. Meanwhile, Gayatri Devi wife of Ajay Singh came with
a spear in her hand and gave it to her husband and said that they
should not be left alive, attack with this spear. Thereafter, the
informant and her elder daughter-in-law reached there and asked for
help from neighbouring people but no one came to help them.
Thereafter, her niece Rajesh Singh, son of Rang Bahadur Singh came
there and when he was getting all the injured to hospital, no villager
came to help him. Then they informed the police. When police came,
the police took her injured husband and two sons to hospital where
doctor declared all three of them dead.
3. On the basis of the fardbeyan of the informant,
Darihat P.S. Case No. 111 of 2021 dated 13th July, 2021 was
registered under Section 302/34 IPC. The S.H.O. Darihat (PW-5)
took over the responsibility of investigation upon himself. After
investigation, PW-5 submitted a chargesheet on 30th April, 2021
vide Chargesheet No. 123 of 2021 under Section 302/34 IPC
against the accused persons including the appellants. One of the
charge-sheeted accused in this case namely Ajay Singh, who is the
Patna High Court D. REF. No.2 of 2024 dt. 22-01-2026
5/67
father of the two appellants before this Court, absconded and he
was declared a proclaimed offender.
4. The learned Magistrate took cognizance of the offence
vide order dated 8th October, 2021 and committed the records to
the court of Sessions where the session trial was registered. The
learned Sessions Judge, Rohtas transferred the records of these
appellants to the file of learned Additional Sessions Judge-XI for
trial and disposal of the case. Charges were framed on 10 th March,
2022 under Section 302/34 IPC against the appellants. The
contents of the charges were read over and explained to them in
Hindi which they denied and claimed to be tried.
5. In order to prove it’s case, the prosecution examined
as many as six witnesses and exhibited several documents. The list
of witnesses and the exhibits marked on behalf of the prosecution
are as under:-
List of Prosecution Witnesses
PW-1 Manish Kumar
PW-2 Sanju Devi
PW-3 Khushbu Kumari
PW-4 Shakuntala Devi
PW-5 Sudhir Kumar Singh
PW-6 Dr. Sidharath Raj Singh
List of Exhibits
Exhibit - P1-01 Signature of witness on seizure list
Exhibit - P2-01 Signature of Witness Sanju Devi on FIR
Exhibit - P3-02 Signature of Khushbu Kumari on FIR as witness
Patna High Court D. REF. No.2 of 2024 dt. 22-01-2026
6/67
Exhibit - P4-03 Fardbeyan
Exhibit - P5-04 Short Signature of witness Sudhir Kumar Singh
on Fardbeyan
Exhibit - P5-4/1 Formal FIR
Exhibit - P5-05 Seizure List
Exhibit - P5-X Deceased Rakesh Kumar Singh alias Kanu Singh,
Deepak Kumar Singh and Vijay Singh
Exhibit - P5-06 Chargesheet
Exhibit - P6-07 Postmortem Report of Deepak Kumar Singh
Exhibit - P6-7/1 Postmortem Report of Deceased Rakesh Kumar
Singh
Exhibit - P6-7/2 Postmortem Report of deceased Vijay Singh
Exhibit -08 F.S.L Report
6. After completion of the evidence on behalf of the
prosecution, the statement of the accused persons-appellants was
recorded under Section 313 CrPC. In their statements, they
claimed innocence and contended that they were innocent and
have been falsely implicated in this case.
7. The defence did not adduce any oral or documentary
evidence.
Findings of the Learned Trial Court
8. The learned trial court examined the oral and
documentary evidences adduced on behalf of the prosecution and
considered the submissions made on behalf of the prosecution as
well as the defence. The discrepancies and anomalies in the
prosecution evidence as pointed out by the learned defence
counsel have been discussed by the learned trial court in the
impugned judgment. In its ultimate analysis and conclusion, the
Patna High Court D. REF. No.2 of 2024 dt. 22-01-2026
7/67
learned trial court rejected the contentions of the defence. Certain
discrepancies have been held as not significant.
9. The learned trial court held that the defence has not
pointed out to any material enough to cast any doubt over the
credibility and reliability over the prosecution evidences. All the
three material eyewitnesses are the widows of the deceased
persons, they have lost their husbands in the alleged occurrence.
No major male person in their family is alive. The learned trial
court found that there cannot be any reason behind false
implication of the accused persons. Conspicuously enough, the
defence had not even dared to suggest that accused persons have
been falsely implicated in this case. The defence did not suggest
that the accused persons were not indulged in the occurrence. The
learned court held that evidence of PW-2, PW-3 and PW-4 stands
corroborated by the evidence of PW-5 and PW-6.
10. The learned trial court held that no material
irregularity or defect has been pointed out in the evidence of the
I.O. (PW-5). The evidence of the doctor (PW-6), who conducted
the postmortem examination on the dead bodies and prepared
postmortem reports of the dead bodies (Exhibit ‘7’ ‘7/1’ and ‘7/2’),
has been held immensely crucial which corroborate the evidence
of material eyewitnesses and helps conclusively proving the
Patna High Court D. REF. No.2 of 2024 dt. 22-01-2026
8/67
prosecution evidences of material eyewitnesses supporting the
prosecution case, the charges as well as the manner of occurrence
of this case. The learned trial court has noticed that on dissection
the doctor (PW-6) had reported that there was a fracture of frontal
bone, brain matter lacerated and dark black collected in cranial
cavity. The other injuries found by the doctor (PW-6) have been
taken note of. All the injuries were found ante-mortem in nature
caused by sharp cutting weapon of heavy nature. The trial court
having noticed the FSL report (Exhibit ‘8’), which was proved in
the light of the provision contained in Section 293 CrPC, held that
the FSL report conclusively established that at the place of
occurrence, as stated by the prosecution witnesses and police, the
human dead bodies were found. The FSL report corroborated the
prosecution evidences with respect to the place of occurrence. It
further corroborated the recovery of sword from the place of
occurrence because the doctor after having taken the blood stains
from sword (talwar) had transmitted the same for test examination
to Forensic Science Laboratory (FSL), Patna.
11. It has been held that the prosecution witnesses have
consistently supported the time of occurrence, manner of
occurrence, place of occurrence and genesis of occurrence. There
is no ambiguity regarding time and date of occurrence. The trial
Patna High Court D. REF. No.2 of 2024 dt. 22-01-2026
9/67
court held that the intention and motive of occurrence need not be
reiterated, however, altogether there are five ante-mortem severe
external injuries each at the person of the deceased Deepak Kumar
Singh and Rakesh Kumar Singh. The dimensions of ante-mortem
external injuries scream in high pitch to disclose the severity and
brutality of the same. The injuries inflicted upon Vijay Singh is
echoes by and large the same brutalities and mercilessness of
accused persons. They have not only eliminated the chances of
survival of the deceased persons rather they have adopted the most
heinous and cruel manner to kill the deceased persons. The
ultimate finding of the learned trial court is that the accused
persons have committed an act with intention to causing inevitable
death of the deceased persons. It has been held that the prosecution
has proved its case beyond all reasonable doubts. The appellants
have been held guilty of murder.
12. In the matter of award of sentence, the learned trial
court has recorded the submissions advanced on behalf of the
parties and the guidelines of the Hon’ble Supreme Court as laid
down in case of Machhi Singh vs. State of Punjab reported in
AIR 1983 SC 957. It also referred the principles relied upon by
the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Bachan Singh vs. State of
Punjab reported in (1980) 2 SCC 684. The learned trial court held
Patna High Court D. REF. No.2 of 2024 dt. 22-01-2026
10/67
that in this case, three unarmed persons have been ruthlessly
butchered by the sword wielding convicts for a dispute pertaining
to a small piece of land. Altogether five ante-mortem severe
massive external and internal injuries were inflicted on the person
of each of the deceased. The trial court found that consequent upon
the death of the deceased persons, no male major person has been
left to perform the rights and rituals ordinarily required in Hindu
family. The happiness, pleasure and celebrations of the surviving
family members have been done away for whole of their lives. The
trial court found that the family of the deceased has been left in
huge dark and they are supposed to pass rest of their lives under
tremendous shock and anguish.
13. The trial court further considered as to whether there
can be a justification in life imprisonment of the convicts or not.
The court held that the incessant tears of the widows and the
children cannot be dried out, however, by way of capital
punishment, their sufferings are supposed to be mitigated. They
may console themselves if convicts are awarded capital
punishment. They are supposed to lead a secure and peaceful lives.
On the contrary, if the convicts are awarded life imprisonment,
they are supposed to come out after 14 years, only to revive the
wounds of the surviving family members of the deceased. The trial
Patna High Court D. REF. No.2 of 2024 dt. 22-01-2026
11/67
court considered the aggravated factors which exist in this case.
The nature and circumstances of the offence, the role of the
accused in the commission of such a heinous crime of
murder/massacre of the three deceased persons, the culpability of
the deceased persons. The trial court held that in the facts of the
case, the death penalty is the only sentence that can be given to the
convicts for their offence under Section 302/34 IPC.
Submissions on behalf of the appellants
14. Mr. Pratik Mishra, learned counsel for the
appellants, has raised the following issues/arguments:-
Unjustified delay in lodging the FIR
15. It is submitted that as per the case of prosecution, the
occurrence took place on 13.07.2021 at 6:00 PM. The information
regarding the occurrence was received at the police station on
13.07.2021 at 6:30 PM. It is evident that ASI Bimlesh Kumar had
reached the place of occurrence and had prepared inquest reports of
the three dead bodies. The inquest reports of the deceased Vijay
Singh, Deepak Singh and Rakesh Singh were prepared at 7:35
PM,7:40 PM and 7:45 PM respectively. The seizure list was also
prepared on 13.07.2021 at 7:35 ΡΜ. Manish Kumar (PW-1) is a
seizure witness at 7:35 PM but he is not a witness to the inquest
reports which were prepared at the same time by A.S.I. Bimlesh
Kumar. PW-1 is the brother of Khushboo Kumari (PW-3). He has
Patna High Court D. REF. No.2 of 2024 dt. 22-01-2026
12/67
stated in his deposition that he reached Khudrao village on
13.07.2021 at 6:30 PM and when he reached there police were
already present there but dead bodies were not there. Shakuntala
Devi (PW-4, informant) has stated in paragraph ‘16’ of her deposition
that the police had reached between 6:30 PM and 6:45 PM. She has
further stated in paragraph ‘18’ of her deposition that she was near
the dead bodies till 7:00 PM, and in the meanwhile, she had informed
the co-villagers about the occurrence. In such circumstance, it is
submitted that even as per prosecution case, the police had reached at
the place of occurrence in no time and after reaching the place of
occurrence, prepared the seizure list and inquest reports. The
fardbeyan of the informant was, however, not recorded when police
was preparing the inquest reports. Fadbeyan has been recorded at 11
PM in Sadar Hospital, Sasaram which is 40 kilometers away from
place of occurrence. It is submitted that the delay in lodging of the
FIR clearly indicates that the FIR has been lodged after much
thought, deliberations, discussions and consultations. In this case, the
delay of about four hours in lodging of the FIR would create doubt
over the prosecution case.
Suppression of the earliest version (FIR is Ante-timed)
16. Learned counsel submits that the prosecution has
suppressed the earliest version of the occurrence. The prosecution
witnesses namely PW-4 and her daughter-in-law Khusboo Kumari
Patna High Court D. REF. No.2 of 2024 dt. 22-01-2026
13/67
(PW-3) have disclosed in their deposition that police was informed
of the occurrence at around 6:00 PM and on such information
police arrived at the place of occurrence between 6:30 to 6:45 ΡΜ.
PW-4 has stated in paragraph ‘16’ of her deposition that it was
Rang Bahadur Singh (father of Rajesh Singh) who had informed
the police, however, Khusboo Kumari (PW-3) has stated in
paragraph ‘13’ of her deposition that it was Rajesh Singh who had
informed the police on 13.07.2021 at around 6:00 PM and upon
the information given by him, police had come to the place of
occurrence. It is submitted that on the basis of information given
by Rang Bahadur Singh and Rajesh Singh regarding commission
of a cognizable offence, no entry was made in the General Diary.
Manish Kumar (PW-1) has stated about the presence of Rajesh
Singh and more than 50 persons at the police station which he had
seen when he went to police station from the place of occurrence.
PW-1 has stated that he saw Rajesh Singh giving information
about the occurrence to the police at the police station. The I.O.
(PW-5) in his evidence is absolutely silent about the First
Information Report received by the police regarding commission
of a cognizable offence.
17. Learned counsel relies upon the judgment of the
Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Allarakha Habib Memon
Patna High Court D. REF. No.2 of 2024 dt. 22-01-2026
14/67
and Ors. vs. State of Gujarat reported in (2024) 9 SCC 546
(paragraph ‘17’ to ‘20’, ‘24’ and ‘28’).
18. To strengthen his submissions, learned counsel
submits that Shakuntala Devi (PW-4) has stated in paragraph ‘16’
of her deposition that when police arrived at the place of
occurrence between 6:30 PM and 6:45 PM, police asked her to
sign on a paper to which she signed without reading. Next day, at
11:00 A.M., she went to police station and lodged the case. PW-4
has further clarified that the only case she had dictated to the
police was at Darihat P.S. She has stated in paragraph ‘15’ that she
had signed on the written report at 10:00-11:00 AM and that
application was written by the police prior to her signature. It is
stated that Sanju Devi (PW-2) who is one of the daughter-in-laws
of the informant (PW-4) who signed on the FIR as a witness has
stated in paragraph ‘3’ of her deposition that she had signed on the
FIR on 14.07.2021 (next day) at Darihat P.S. PW-2 has stated that
the signature of PW-4 was already there and that before her
signature, she did not meet the police. It is submitted that PW-2
has never stated in her entire evidence that she had gone to the
Sadar Hospital, Sasaram.
19. It is pointed out that informant (PW-4) has stated
that she had signed on the fardbeyan in presence of her elder
Patna High Court D. REF. No.2 of 2024 dt. 22-01-2026
15/67
daughter-in-law but PW-2 has stated otherwise and has made a
categorical statement that she did not meet police before her
signature, therefore, the signature of PW-2 on the fardbeyan was
not recorded at 11:00 PM on 13.07.2021. It creates doubt on the
genuineness of the fardbeyan on record and seriously questions the
truth of the story of prosecution case.
20. Learned counsel has relied upon the judgment of the
Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Allarakha Habib Memon
(supra) (paragraph ‘23’).
21. Khushboo Kumari (PW-3) who is the another
daughter-in-law of PW-4 and has signed on the FIR has stated in
paragraph ‘3’ that even she had signed on the FIR on 14.07.2021
between 10;00 AM and 12:00 PM. She has stated that the
signatures of Sanju Devi (PW-2) and Shakuntala Devi (PW-4)
were already there. It is thus submitted that PW-2, PW-3 and the
informant (PW-4) had signed on it at different time (next day i.e.
on 14.07.2021). PW-3 has also not stated in her entire evidence
that she had gone to Sadar Hospital, Sasaram. It is submitted that
the delay in lodging of the FIR coupled with the fact that the
earliest version has been suppressed and even the FIR is ante-
timed would prove fatal to the prosecution.
Patna High Court D. REF. No.2 of 2024 dt. 22-01-2026
16/67
22. Learned counsel submits that the seizure list was
prepared on 13.07.2021 at 7:30 PM but at the top of it the case
number, date and the sections under which the case has been
registered are duly mentioned such as “Darihat P.S. Case No.
111/21 dated 13.07.2021 under Section 302/34 IPC”. It is
submitted that when the fardbeyan was recorded at 11:00 PM and
on that basis the formal FIR was lodged at 11:50 PM, the presence
of case number on the siezure list which was prepared at 7.35 PM
indicates that the FIR was already lodged at the time of seizure
probably on the basis of the earliest information received. Hence
the seizure list prepared at 7:35 PM contained P.S. Case Number
and penal provisions. The seizure list witnesses are Rajesh Singh
(not examined) and Manish Kumar (PW-1). PW-1 has stated in
paragraph ‘12’ that he had signed on the seizure list at police
station (not at the place of occurrence) and he did not remember
the date of his signature. It is submitted that if a person will sign
on the seizure list on the day it was recovered and seized, he will
definitely remember that he had signed on it the very same day.
Non-recording of the statement and non-examination of the
material witnesses in course of trial
23. Learned counsel submits that in this case several
material witnesses were either not made chargesheet witnesses or
Patna High Court D. REF. No.2 of 2024 dt. 22-01-2026
17/67
were not produced in trial as a court witness. One of the most
important witnesses in this case is ASI Bimlesh Kumar who on
receiving the earliest information reached the place of occurrence
immediately, prepared the seizure list and inquest and had also
recorded the fardbeyan of the informant. Submission is that
surprisingly his statement was never recorded by the I.O. in course
of investigation, hence he was not made a chargesheet witness.
The I.O. (PW-5) has stated in paragraph ‘21’ that ASI Bimlesh
Kumar was still very much in service. In such circumstance, non-
examination of ASI Bimlesh Kumar has caused serious prejudice
to the defence. Further, it is submitted that PW-2, PW-3 and PW-4
have stated that it was Rajesh Singh who along with Sanoj Singh
and Krishna Singh took the bodies to the hospital but none of these
persons have been examined in course of investigation, they have
not been made chargesheet witnesses and their non-examination
during the trial has caused serious and irreparable prejudice to the
defence. Learned counsel has relied upon the judgments in the
case of State of Madhya Pradesh vs. Ratan Singh reported in
(2020) 12 SCC 630 (paragraph ‘5’ to ‘9’), Pulen Phukan & Ors.
vs. State of Assam reported in (2023) 13 SCC 41 (paragraph ‘13’)
and Sachin Kumar Singhraha vs. State of Madhya Pradesh
reported in (2019) 8 SCC 371 (paragraph ‘17’).
Patna High Court D. REF. No.2 of 2024 dt. 22-01-2026
18/67
No one has witnessed the actual occurrence
24. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that
during trial PW-2, PW-3 and PW-4 have claimed that they are
eyewitnesses to the occurrence but in his submissions none of
them would be an eyewitness. Referring to the deposition of Sanju
Devi (PW-2) in paragraph ‘30’, learned counsel submits that this
witness has stated to have reached Khudraon after the occurrence
and stayed there till 7:00 PM. She had come from Dehri along
with Khusboo Kumari (PW-3). She has stated that when they
reached Khudraon, all the injured were in unconscious condition.
She has stated to have met police next day at Darihat Police
Station between 8:00-9:00 AM. Thus, PW-2 has admitted in her
evidence that she along with PW-3 had come from Dehri after the
occurrence and saw the injured in unconscious condition. It is
submitted that PW-2 and PW-3 cannot be put in the category of an
eyewitness. It is stated that the I.O. (PW-5) has stated in paragraph
‘17’ that in paragraph ‘43’ (it is in fact paragraph ‘44’) of the case
diary he has mentioned that Khusboo Kumari (PW-3), wife of the
deceased Rakesh Singh had received the information about the
occurrence at Pali Road, Dehri and upon receiving such
information she came there. From all these evidences on the
record, learned counsel for the appellants would submit that PW-2
Patna High Court D. REF. No.2 of 2024 dt. 22-01-2026
19/67
and PW-3 were not even present at the village Khudraon at the
time when the occurrence took place. In such circumstance, it is
submitted that the evidence of the informant (PW-4) has to be
examined with great caution and requires heightened scrutiny.
The place of occurrence
25. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that in
her fardbeyan, the informant has stated that there are three places
of occurrence i.e., (i) the disputed land, (ii) door of Rang Bahadur
Singh and (iii) the old house. She has stated in the fardbeyan that
after the occurrence, she along with her daughter-in-law Sanju
Devi (PW-2) ran and reached there and asked for help from the
locals. The claim of the informant to have witnessed the
occurrence along with PW-2 gets falsified from the evidence of
none other but her own daughter-in-law Sanju Devi (PW-2) who
has stated that she came there along with Khusboo Kumari (PW-3)
after the occurrence. PW-2 has stated in paragraph ‘28’ and ‘29’
that she had never ever gone to the first place of occurrence and
had absolutely no idea about the approximate distance between the
second and the third place of occurrence. The informant examined
as PW-4 on 28.07.2022 after PW-2 and PW-3 were already
examined has changed the story of her fardbeyan of witnessing the
occurrence with PW-2. A suggestion was given to her in paragraph
Patna High Court D. REF. No.2 of 2024 dt. 22-01-2026
20/67
‘20’ that she had not witnessed the occurrence and the name of the
appellants were not there in the earliest version. The informant is
neither witness to inquest nor seizure which were prepared at the
place of occurrence, therefore, her presence at village Khudrao at
the relevant time could have been testified either by Rajesh Singh
or ASI Bimlesh Kumar but they were neither made chargesheet
witnesses nor examined during trial. However, Manish Kumar
(PW-1) has stated in paragraph ‘6’ that he reached Khudrao at 6.30
PM. In his evidence, PW-1 has nowhere stated about the presence
of the informant (PW-4) at the place of occurrence at 6.30 PM. He
had stayed at the place of occurrence for 10-12 minutes but there
was no discussion with anyone regarding the occurrence. He has
stated that after the postmortem examination when he went to their
house, the informant told him about the occurrence and the
involvement of the appellants in the same.
26. It is submitted that after the postmortem, the dead
bodies were taken to the Dehri house of the deceased and the
cremation also took place at Dehri so PW-1 got information about
the occurrence and the involvement of the appellants from the
informant at Dehri after arrival of the dead bodies. It is submitted
that on appreciation of the evidence of PW-4 and PW-1, it may be
found that the name of the real culprit was not known and the
Patna High Court D. REF. No.2 of 2024 dt. 22-01-2026
21/67
earliest version has been purposely suppressed just to falsely
implicate the appellants. Presence of the informant at the place of
occurrence and at the time of occurrence has not been corroborated
by any other witness. It is submitted that the conduct of the
informant shows that when she received information about the
occurrence, she went to the police station next day to lodge a case
which she had admitted in her evidence.
Time of occurrence has not been proved by the prosecution
27. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that as
per the fardbeyan, the alleged occurrence took place in the
disputed land (first place of occurrence) from where deceased
went to the door of Rang Bahadur Singh (second place of
occurrence) and then again in continuation near the old house
(third place of occurrence). Therefore, as per the fardbeyan, the
occurrence started at the first place of occurrence at 6:00 PM but
Sanju Devi (PW-2) has stated in paragraph ‘28’ that the fight
between the parties in the field took place at 2.30 PM. She was
informed about the fight by co-villagers, however, not a single co-
villager has been examined in this case. On the other hand,
Khusboo Kumari (PW-3) has stated in paragraph ‘1’ that the two
deceased namely Vijay Singh and Deepak Singh were assaulted at
the disputed land (first place of occurrence) in the morning then
Patna High Court D. REF. No.2 of 2024 dt. 22-01-2026
22/67
they ran and reached the house of Rang Bahadur Singh (second
place of occurrence) where the third deceased Rakesh Singh also
came, pacified the fight and they came back home, in the
meanwhile, the appellants along with Ajay Singh came with
swords in their hands and started assaulting them. It is thus
submitted that the three witnesses PW-2, PW-3 and PW-4 are
stating about three different time of occurrence i.e. morning,
afternoon and evening, thus, on this score alone, the prosecution
story is liable to be rejected.
28. To strengthen his submissions with regard to time of
occurrence, learned counsel has relied upon the evidence of Dr.
Siddhartha Raj (PW-6) who found rigor mortis present in all four
limbs of all the deceased. It is submitted that the postmortem of
Deepak Kumar Singh was conducted on 13.07.2021 at 10.40 PM.
As per the informant, the time of occurrence is 6:00 PM. The
doctor (PW-6) has stated in paragraph ‘15’ that rigor mortis
remains present on the four limbs upto 12 to 16 hours, according
to environment. After 12 to 16 hours, it starts disappearing,
according to the environment. According to Modi - A Textbook of
Medical Jurisprudence and Toxicology, in general, rigor mortis
sets in one to two hours after death and is well developed from
head to foot in about 12 hours. Even the Review of Forensic
Patna High Court D. REF. No.2 of 2024 dt. 22-01-2026
23/67
Medicine and Toxicology explains the order of appearance of rigor
mortis. It is submitted that the fact that rigor mortis were present in
all the four limbs as indicated in the postmortem report, shows that
the occurrence was much prior to 6:00 PM as stated by PW-2 and
PW-3.
Genesis of occurrence has not been proved by the prosecution
29. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that in this
case, the prosecution has failed to prove the genesis of occurrence. It
is submitted that from the evidence of Sanju Devi (PW-2) it would
appear that wife of Kunj Bihari Singh had written her share of land to
the mother of the appellant two to three years prior to the occurrence.
She has stated that her father-in-law had already done verbal partition
and the share of land of Anandi Kunwar (wife of Kunj Bihari Singh)
was in possession of Ajay Singh (father of appellants) and the dispute
was of the said land. Khushboo Kumari (PW-3) has stated that the
dispute was between Ajay Singh and Vijay Singh and the disputed
land was in possession of Ajay Singh. The I.O. (PW-5) has stated in
his evidence in paragraph ‘18’ that he did not investigate about the
ownership, area and location of the said land. The submission is that
even as per the evidence of the prosecution witnesses, the land was in
possession of the accused persons and the mother of the appellants
was the legal owner of the said land and it was the accused persons
who came to stop them from ploughing the land.
Patna High Court D. REF. No.2 of 2024 dt. 22-01-2026
24/67
30. Relying upon Section 110 of Indian Evidence Act,
1872- Burden of proof as to ownership, learned counsel submits that
when the question is whether any person is owner of anything of
which he is shown to be in possession, the burden of proving that he
is not the owner is on the person who affirms that he is not the owner.
It is submitted that there is not a single eyewitness to the first place
of occurrence i.e. disputed land. The prosecution has neither
exhibited any document nor brought any material on record to
demonstrate and prove that the mother of the appellants was not the
owner of the said land. Therefore, the prosecution has miserably
failed to prove the genesis of the occurrence.
Medical Evidence falsifies the manner of occurrence
31. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that as
per the fardbeyan of PW-4, deceased Vijay Singh and Deepak
Singh were assaulted with fists, slaps, lathi and danda at the first
place of occurrence. The two deceased were again assaulted with
lathi and danda at the second place of occurrence. It is alleged that
at the third place of occurrence Sonal assaulted Deepak with a
sword and cut his neck, face, ears, chest and head and Aman
assaulted Rakesh with a sword in his hand and cut his both hands,
face, neck and head. Ajay is said to have assaulted Vijay on his
neck with a sword. The informant (PW-4) has stated in paragraph
‘1’ that the appellants and Ajay had cut various parts of the body of
Patna High Court D. REF. No.2 of 2024 dt. 22-01-2026
25/67
the three deceased with swords. Thus, according to the prosecution
witnesses, the weapons allegedly used in the occurrence are lathi,
danda and sword.
32. The witnesses namely PW-2, PW-3 and PW-4 have
nowhere sated in their evidence that the blunt side of the weapon
(sword) was used in the assault. The doctor who conducted the
postmortem examination on the body of the three deceased has
been examined as PW-6. He found lacerated wounds on different
parts of the bodies of the deceased persons and has opined that
those were caused by sharp cutting weapons of heavy nature. In
his cross-examination, in paragraph ‘5’, PW-6 has stated that when
any injury is caused by sharp cutting weapon, there will be incised
injuries and also said that sharp weapon caused laceration. He has
stated in paragraph ‘6’ that even in this case the injuries are caused
by hard and blunt weapon, the injuries will be incised as well as
lacerated. This witness has stated that the injuries which he had
found lacerated may be possible by fall. The injuries which he had
mentioned in external examination, injury no. 5 fracture may be
due to that. Learned counsel submits that the medical evidence
does not corroborate the ocular testimony of the prosecution
witnesses as to the weapons used in causing assault.
Patna High Court D. REF. No.2 of 2024 dt. 22-01-2026
26/67
33. Learned counsel submits that the weapon said to
have been seized was neither shown to the doctor nor produced in
the court. Clothes of the deceased were not seized and the blood
found on the weapon were not got matched with the blood of the
deceased. The fact is that the seizure list was not prepared at the
place of occurrence. The I.O. (PW-5) has stated that he had
nowhere mentioned in the case diary as to when the weapon
allegedly recovered was kept in the Malkhana and who was the
custodian of the same. No effort was taken to match the blood
found on the weapon with the blood of the three deceased,
therefore, merely recovery of a weapon from the joint house of the
appellants and the informant and blood found on the weapon
cannot ipso facto enable the court to arrive at the conclusion that
the same was used in the alleged offence. If the prosecution was so
confident about the recovery, then what prevented them from
showing the weapon to the doctor (expert) and ascertain whether
such weapon would have caused such injuries on the persons of
three deceased. Learned counsel has relied upon the judgment of
the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Sunil Kundu and Anr.
vs. State of Jharkhand reported in (2013) 4 SCC 422 (paragraph
‘29’) and Allarakha Habib Memon (supra) (paragraph ‘42’ and
‘43’).
Patna High Court D. REF. No.2 of 2024 dt. 22-01-2026
27/67
34. Learned counsel for the appellants lastly submits that
weakness in the defence cannot become the strength of the
prosecution. It is submitted that the case of the prosecution has to
stand on its own legs. Learned counsel submits that no
explanation/false explanation by the appellants by any means
relieve the prosecution to prove its case beyond shadows of all
reasonable doubts. He relies on Section 101 of Indian Evidence
Act. It is submitted that in criminal cases, the burden of proof is on
the prosecution and Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act is
certainly not intended to relieve it. The word “especially” means
facts that are pre-eminently or exceptionally within the knowledge
of the accused. It is evident from the inquest report that the dead
bodies were found at 7:15 PM near the house of the deceased,
hence, not in the special knowledge of the appellants. The answer
of the appellant Sonal Singh in his 313 CrPC statement that his
hand was cut by the sword blow of Rajesh Singh was not recorded
on oath, thus it is not an evidence. Whether such statement of the
appellant was probable, true or completely false cannot be a basis
of conviction. It is well settled in law that an adverse inference can
be taken against the accused only and only if the incriminating
materials stood fully established. In this connection, he has relied
upon the judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of
Patna High Court D. REF. No.2 of 2024 dt. 22-01-2026
28/67
Raj Kumar Singh vs. State of Rajasthan reported in (2013) 5
SCC 722 (paragraph ‘41’ and ‘44’), Satye Singh and Anr. vs.
State of Uttarakhand reported in (2022) 5 SCC 438 (paragraph
‘20’), Vikramjit Singh @ Vicky vs. State of Punjab reported in
(2006) 12 SCC 306 (paragraph ‘13’-‘15’) and Jaikam Khan vs.
State of Uttar Pradesh reported in (2021) 13 SCC 716
(Paragraph ‘73’, ‘74’, ‘76’, ‘77’, ‘84’ and ‘85’).
Submissions on behalf of the informant
35. Mr. Ansul, learned Senior Counsel representing the
informant, submits at the outset that in this case, the records would
show that the Investigating Officer has not acted fairly and has
created a mess by deliberately omitting to do what ought to have
been done. It is submitted that the accused persons/defence cannot
be allowed to take benefit of such acts or omissions of the
prosecution which seem to have been deliberately done to favour
the accused persons, otherwise it would amount to give premium
to the accused for the wrongs of the prosecution which in the
present case is apparently committed designedly to favour the
appellants.
36. Learned Senior Counsel has relied upon the
judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Ram
Bihari Yadav vs. State of Bihar reported in (1998) 4 SCC 517
Patna High Court D. REF. No.2 of 2024 dt. 22-01-2026
29/67
(paragraph ‘13’) and Harendra Rai vs. State of Bihar reported in
(2023) 13 SCC 563 wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held
that the three main stakeholders in a criminal trial, namely the
Investigating Officer, Public Prosecutor, and the Judiciary, all
utterly failed to keep up their respective duties and responsibilities
cast upon them. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has taken note of the
subsequent conduct of the accused and has drawn adverse
inference. The Hon’ble Apex Court has taken judicial notice of the
judgment in the habeas corpus petition regarding conduct of the
accused, the investigating agency, the Public Prosecutor and the
Presiding Officer conducting the trial.
37. It is submitted that in this case, one of the
chargesheeted accused, namely Ajay Singh, is still absconding.
The conduct of the accused Ajay Singh, who is father of these
appellants, may be found from the order dated 09.08.2021 and
16.08.2021 whereunder it is recorded that the accused, namely
Ajay Singh and Gayatri Devi, were absconding and they were
disposing of their assets, therefore, prayer was made to issue kurki
warrant under Section 83 CrPC. On the request of the I.O., the
learned court issued the kurki warrant under Section 83 CrPC,
which the I.O. received. Publication was also done but they did not
appear and are still at large.
Patna High Court D. REF. No.2 of 2024 dt. 22-01-2026
30/67
38. Learned Senior Counsel submits that the submission
on behalf of the appellants that the information given by Rang
Bahadur Singh and Rajesh Singh regarding commission of a
cognizable offence was not entered in the general diary by police
and the I.O. (PW-5) is completely silent on this cannot be taken
against the prosecution. It is submitted that when the I.O. (PW-5)
came to be examined in course of trial, he has stated in paragraph
‘13’ of his deposition that information of a quarrel/assault in
village Khudraon was received in the police station and on that
information, Bimlesh Kumar, ASI, had reached the police station
but this witness has admitted that he had not recorded the
statement of said ASI Bimlesh Kumar.
39. Learned Senior Counsel submits that it is evident
from the statement of the I.O. (PW-5) that on the information
received in the police station, ASI Bimlesh Kumar had reached the
place of occurrence, therefore, he was a material witness but
neither his statement was recorded by the I.O. nor he was
examined in course of trial as a court witness. Not only the I.O.,
even the Public Prosecutor and the learned trial court failed to do
their respective duties in the interest of justice. It is submitted that
under Section 311 CrPC, the court has wide power at any stage of
any inquiry, trial or other proceedings under the code to summon
Patna High Court D. REF. No.2 of 2024 dt. 22-01-2026
31/67
material witness or examine persons present. Power to recall and
re-examine a witness is also vested in the court. The edifice of
Section 311 CrPC is based on the concept that it should be
essential for the just decision of the case.
40. Learned Senior Counsel submits that the
submissions of learned counsel for the defence that there is
suppression of the earliest version and the FIR is ante-timed has no
basis to stand. It is submitted that in this case, the occurrence took
place on 13.07.2021 at 06:00 PM. It has come in evidence that ASI
Bimlesh Kumar (not examined) had reached the place of
occurrence and had prepared the inquest report of three dead
bodies at 07:35 PM, 07:40 PM and 07:45 PM respectively. The
seizure list was also prepared at the same time. PW-1, who is one
of the seizure list witnesses, has admitted that he reached
Khudraon village at 13.07.2021 at 06:30 PM and when he reached
there, police were already present there but dead bodies were not
there. PW-4 has though stated that she was near the dead bodies
till 07:00 PM but she has stated in her fardbeyan recorded by ASI
Bimlesh Kumar in Sadar Hospital, Sasaram on the same day at
11:00 PM that on information received by police, police came and
took her husband and both the sons to hospital where they were
declared dead.
Patna High Court D. REF. No.2 of 2024 dt. 22-01-2026
32/67
41. It is submitted that Sadar Hospital, Sasaram is
situated at a distance of 40 kilometers from the place of occurrence
and the evidence of the doctor (PW-6) would show that he had
conducted the postmortem on the dead bodies at 10:40 PM. In his
evidence, PW-6 has stated that dead body was brought from
Khudraon approx 40 kilometers from dead house and brought by
Chowkidar 4/02 Vijay Kumar Ram and Rajesh Kumar Singh,
cousin brother of dead person. Once again, the I.O. failed to make
Vijay Kumar Ram and Rajesh Kumar Singh chargesheet witnesses,
hence they have not been examined but it is evident that the dead
body was brought from the village Khudraon and it was initially
placed in the dead house from where they were brought to the
doctor (PW-6) for conducting postmortem. It is, therefore, evident
that all the three victims had died in the village and police reached
there from where the dead bodies were lifted and taken to Sadar
Hospital. I.O. (PW-5) had joined the Darihat Police Station as
Officer-in-Charge on the same day at 21:15 Hrs. and he had
registered the FIR at 23:50 Hrs.
42. It is submitted that Shakuntala Devi (PW-4) is the
star witness of this case. She has narrated the manner of
occurrence, place of occurrence and time of occurrence. She has
stated in her examination-in-chief that she had given her statement
Patna High Court D. REF. No.2 of 2024 dt. 22-01-2026
33/67
to Darogaji in the hospital. She identified her signature and the
photographs present on the fardbeyan and also identified the
signature of her two daughters-in-law, namely Sanju Devi and
Khushboo Devi. At her instance, the fardbeyan has been marked
Exhibit ‘3’. She has given the genesis of occurrence being land
dispute. She has proved herself an eyewitness of the occurrence
and denied the suggestion of the defence that neither her gotiya
nor had she given the name of the accused persons in the
information furnished to the police station but later on her
signature was obtained. It is submitted that in paragraph ‘10’ of her
deposition, PW-4 has stated that her husband was engaged in
agriculture work and she was regularly living in the house at
Khudraon whereas her daughters-in-law used to visit during
festivals.
43. Learned Senior Counsel submits that much has been
argued on the statement of PW-4 recorded in paragraph ‘16’ of her
deposition, however, a close reading of the statements would show
that the defence only tried to create a confusion by putting some
leading questions. This witness has stated that the distance
between the village Khudraon and Ayar Kotha Police Station is
two kilometer. It is not known why the defence asked about the
distance between Khudraon and Ayar Kotha Police Station. She
Patna High Court D. REF. No.2 of 2024 dt. 22-01-2026
34/67
has stated that information of the occurrence was given by her
bhaisur Rang Bahadur Singh to police station at 06:00 PM and on
that information, Darogaji had come to village Khudraon. She has
stated that Darogaji had come on 13.07.2021 between 06:30 PM -
06:45 PM but by that time, all the three persons had died. She has
stated that Darogaji had taken her signature on a paper and she had
put her signature thereon but she has not stated that she had made
her statement before Darogaji. It is submitted that ASI Bimlesh
Kumar has not been examined in this case. She has stated that she
had gone to the police station and had got written the case again at
Darihat Police Station. She has stated that she had not got written
any case except the one which she had got written in Darihat
Police Station. It is submitted that the I.O. (PW-5) had already
taken over charge of the investigation on 13.07.2021 itself and he
has stated that the case was already registered on 13.07.2021 at
11:50 PM. He has stated that the FSL team had visited the place of
occurrence on 14.07.2021 at 12:00 noon and they had collected the
blood-soaked soil.
44. It is also submitted that from the ordersheets of the
learned jurisdictional Magistrate, it would appear that the FIR
dated 13.07.2021 was received in the court of learned
jurisdictional Magistrate on 14.07.2021. Two accused persons (the
Patna High Court D. REF. No.2 of 2024 dt. 22-01-2026
35/67
appellants) were arrested and produced in court on 15.07.2021 and
the I.O. (PW-5) filed an application through APO to send the
material exhibit to FSL, Bihar, Patna. The said application was
allowed by the learned court and the material exhibit was sent to
the FSL, Patna for examination and report.
45. Mr. Anil Singh, Advocate assisted by Mr. Manoj
Kumar No.1, Advocate has appeared as Amicus Curiae. Learned
counsel submits that in this case he would endorse the submissions
of learned senior counsel for the informant that the I.O. has
deliberately and intentionally did not record the statement of the
S.I. Bimlesh Kumar who had recorded the fardbeyan of PW-4 and
had also prepared the seizure lists. He had not verified during
investigation as to whom the disputed land belonged to, its area
and the place where it is situated. In his deposition, he stated on
27.09.2022 that the FSL report had not yet been received although
the same was sent to the court on 26.04.2022. The I.O. had,
therefore, tailored the investigation in such a manner with a
purposeful design that it may ultimately result in giving benefit of
doubt to the accused. Relying upon the judgment of the Hon’ble
Supreme Court in the case of Dayal Singh Vs. State of
Uttranchal (2012) 8 SCC 263, learned counsel submits that it has
been the consistent view of the Hon’ble Supreme Court that if the
Patna High Court D. REF. No.2 of 2024 dt. 22-01-2026
36/67
lapse or omission is committed by the investigating agency,
negligently or otherwise, the prosecution evidence is required to be
examined dehors such omissions to find out whether the said
evidence is reliable or not. In the case of Paras Yadav v. State of
Bihar (1999) 2 SCC 126, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that the
contaminated conduct of officials should not stand in the way of
evaluating the evidence by the courts, otherwise the designed
mischief would be perpetuated and justice would be denied to the
complainant party. Learned counsel has relied upon the recent
judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of
Edakkandi Dineshan @ P. Dineshan & Ors. Vs. State of Kerela
2025 INSC 28 to submit that on account of defective
investigation, the benefit would not accrue to the accused persons
on that ground alone. Variance in statement of witnesses if minor
would not drive their testimony unworthy. In Goverdhan & Anr.
Vs. State of Chhattisgarh (2025) 3 SCC 378, their Lordships of
the Hon’ble Supreme Court has reiterated that minor discrepancies
in details not touching the core of the case do not affect credibility
and corroboration cannot be expected with mathematical precision.
It has been held that in case of rustic witnesses- appreciation of
evidences from rural background witnesses, behavourial pattern
and perceptive habits must be judged. Accordingly discrepancies,
Patna High Court D. REF. No.2 of 2024 dt. 22-01-2026
37/67
contradictions and embellishments in essential parts do not
militant against the core truth if there is impress of truth and
conformity to probability. The plea of alibi requires substantiation
by leading evidence.
46. It is submitted that keeping in view the judicial
pronouncements when the evidences are examined, it would be
found that the prosecution has duly proved the motive behind the
occurrence. It is a land dispute which is the genesis of the
occurrence and it has been the consistent case of the prosecution
right from the fardbeyan to the deposition of the prosecution
witnesses, who have fully supported the prosecution case. It is
submitted that PW-2, PW-3 and PW-4 have duly supported the
prosecution case and in this case PW-4 who is the informant of the
case is the star witness.
47. Mr. Manish Kumar No.2, Advocate who is the
learned Addl.P.P. in this case has defended the judgment and order
of the learned trial court.
Consideration
48. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, learned
Amicus Curiae and learned Addl.P.P. for the State as also on
perusal of the learned trial court records, I find that the learned
trial court has noticed and rightly so that when the prosecution
Patna High Court D. REF. No.2 of 2024 dt. 22-01-2026
38/67
witnesses such PW-2, PW-3 and PW-4 came to depose, the
defence has not even cared to suggest that the accused persons
have been falsely implicated in this case. I find that in her
examination-in-chief, PW-2 has stated that all the three accused
persons came out with a sword from the house, Sonal Singh
attacked on the neck of her husband by the sword, he also
assaulted him on his chest and head whereafter he started bleeding
and fell down becoming unconscious. This witness has precisely
stated about the place of occurrence being the house of the
deceased and the accused persons. She has narrated the manner of
occurrence but in course of her cross-examination, the defence did
not question the place of occurrence. In her cross-examination, this
witness has stated in paragraph ‘13’ that “Humlogo ka makan ek hi
hai.” During her cross-examination, this witness has stated that
Marpit had taken place at 2.30 PM on the plot but in the said
Marpit no one was injured. This witness has stated in paragraph
‘30’ that on the date of the occurrence she was in the house and
whatever quarrel had taken place inside the house had happened in
the verandah of the courtyard. She has stated that towards the
southern verandah the two rooms are in possession of the accused
persons. Blood had fallen on the said verandah. After the
occurrence all the people were at the Darwaza. This witness has
Patna High Court D. REF. No.2 of 2024 dt. 22-01-2026
39/67
stated that she reached Khudrao after the occurrence and had
stayed till 7.00 PM. When she reached there all the people were
unconscious. It is evident from the deposition of PW-2 that she had
reached the place of occurrence which is the house of both the
parties after the occurrence and had seen the immediate
circumstances present at the place of occurrence. The defence did
not suggest to this witness that the occurrence had not taken place
at the place stated by her. As regards the place of occurrence and
the time of occurrence the statement of this witness (PW-2) has not
been questioned by the defence. The only question of the defence
was that she had not seen the occurrence.
49. Khusboo Kumari (PW-3) has deposed that her
husband was a contractor in the construction department and her
Bhaisur was an engineer. Her father-in-law was engaged in
agricultural work. The distance between the village Khudrao and
her Dehri house is 12 ½ kms. She has stated that she had seen the
dead body of her husband on 06.07.2021 at 6.00 PM on the street
outside the Darwaza and three dead bodies were lying there. This
street is 5 ft. in width and on both the sides of Gali there are
houses. At a distance of ten steps from the Darwaza the dead body
of Vijay Singh was lying and at a distance of 2-3 hands the dead
body of Dipak Kumar and then at a distance of another 2-3 hands
Patna High Court D. REF. No.2 of 2024 dt. 22-01-2026
40/67
the dead body of Rakesh Kumar were lying. From the evidence of
PW-3 again it is evident that she had reached the place of
occurrence immediately and had seen the dead bodies at 6 O’ clock
in front of the Darwaza of the house. The distance between
Khudrao and her Dehri house is only 12 ½ kms, therefore, her
immediate arrival at the place of occurrence cannot be doubted.
The defence did not question the place, time and manner of
occurrence as stated by PW-3. The only suggestion put to this
witness was that she had not seen the occurrence from her own
eyes as at the time of occurrence she was in Dehri. It is evident
from the pattern of cross-examination of PW-2 and PW-3 that
while cross-examining them the defence did not question there
assertion that both the sides were living in the same house, the
occurrence had taken place as stated in the said common house
and the three deceased of the case died because of the repeated
sword injuries inflicted upon their person. The defence did not
suggest to these witnesses that the accused-appellants were not
present in the house on the date and time of occurrence. It is
evident from paragraph ‘5’ of the deposition of PW-3 that in the
common house in which the both the parties are living, there are
six rooms, one Puja room and one kitchen in which her father-in-
law and Ajay Singh (the absconder accused) were living and the
Patna High Court D. REF. No.2 of 2024 dt. 22-01-2026
41/67
deceased Rakesh Kumar Singh and Dipak Kumar Singh were
periodically visiting there from Dehri. Her father-in-law Vijay
Singh was engaged in agricultural work.
50. In the case of Ram Vijay Singh Vs. State of U.P.
2021 SCC OnLine SC 142, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has
discussed the settled position that falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus
(false in one thing, false in everything) principle is foreign to our
criminal law jurisprudence. A Three Judges Bench of the Hon’ble
Supreme Court held that “….. A part statement of a witness can
be believed even though some part of the statement may not be
relied upon by the Court….” I, therefore, find from the evidence
of PW-2 and PW-3, it can be safely deduced that their depositions
with regard to the place of occurrence, time of occurrence and
manner of occurrence have gone unquestioned.
51. Shakuntala Devi (PW-4) is the wife of Vijay Singh
(one of the victims). She has deposed as an eye witness of the
occurrence. She has given the genesis of the occurrence and has
stated that the occurrence took place on 13.07.2021 at 6.00 PM.
She has stated about the first occurrence which took place on the
plot when Ajay Singh, Sonal Singh and Aman Singh had gone to
plough the field, her husband Vijay Singh and son Dipak Singh
had gone to tell them not to do so whereafter they were assaulted
Patna High Court D. REF. No.2 of 2024 dt. 22-01-2026
42/67
by lathi, danda and fists blow. Vijay Singh and Dipak Singh had
run away and reached to the Darwaza of Rang Bahadur Singh
where also Ajay Singh, Sonal Singh and Aman Singh started
assaulting them by lathi, danda, in the meantime, her youngest son
Rakesh Singh reached and somehow took away his father Vijay
Singh and brother Rakesh Singh from the clutch of the accused
persons and took them to the old house. This witness has stated
that behind them Ajay Singh, Sonal Singh and Aman Singh
reached there and they took out sword from their house (room).
She has narrated the occurrence in which Sonal Singh assaulted
Dipak Singh by sword causing injuries on his neck, chest etc.
whereafter he started bleeding and fell down becoming
unconscious. Aman Singh assaulted her youngest son Rakesh
Singh by sword and cut both the hands whereafter he was cut on
his nose, mouth etc. as a result whereof he fell down and became
unconscious. When her husband Vijay Singh ran to save his sons,
Ajay Singh assaulted him by a sword on his neck causing cut of
his neck and he started bleeding and fell down. Wife of Ajay Singh
came with a spear and gave it to Ajay Singh and told him to kill
everyone and not to leave anyone. This witness has stated that she
was shouting but no one came to save them. Police reached then
Sanoj Singh, Krishna Singh and Rajesh Singh all the three persons
Patna High Court D. REF. No.2 of 2024 dt. 22-01-2026
43/67
lifted the injured and took them to Sadar Hospital, Sasaram where
all the three injured were declared dead. PW-4 has stated that she
had given her statement to Darogaji in the hospital. She identified
her signature and photograph on the fardbeyan which was marked
exhibit-3. She has identified the signature of her daughter-in-law
Sanju Devi and Khusboo Singh. In her cross-examination, this
witness has stated that house of the accused and her is the same
and one. No partition of house has taken place. She has stated that
in the Dehri house the children of Rakesh and Dipak were living
and studying who were being looked after by their mothers. In
paragraph ‘5’, she has stated that she was visiting Dehri house
sometimes and whenever she was going there she used to cook
food for her husband. She has reiterated that in Khudrao all the co-
sharers have the same and one house. Sonal and Aman were her
Devars who were engaged in agriculture work in the village. She
has stated that Kunja Singh had gifted his property to Gayatri Devi
but when no partition had taken place as such gifting had no
significance.
52. In paragraph ‘11’ of her cross-examination, she has
stated that she was regularly living in Khudrao house and her
daughter-in-laws were visiting there during festivals. The defence
has pointed out that during her cross-examination, this witness has
Patna High Court D. REF. No.2 of 2024 dt. 22-01-2026
44/67
stated that she had put her signature on a written application at
10.00-11.00 AM and the application which was written was
written by Darogaji. She has stated that distance of Ayarkotha
police station from Khudrao village is two kilometers, her Bhaisur
Rang Bahadur Singh had given information to the police station at
6.00 PM. On information, Darogaji had come to Khudrao in the
evening of 13.07.2021 in between 6.30-6.45 PM, by that time all
the three had died. She has stated that when Darogaji had come,
she had got her signature but what was written on the paper was
not read by her, she had put her signature. She has stated that on
the next day, she had gone to Darihat police station and again got
written her case. It is this statement of PW-4 present in paragraph
‘15’ and ‘16’ of her deposition which have been made a subject
matter of discussions by learned counsel for the appellants.
53. It has been submitted that the first information given
to police has been suppressed by the prosecution and the fardbeyan
of this case is ante-dated and ante-timed. I, however, find no
reason to accept this plea of learned counsel for the appellants. The
informant (PW-4) is the wife of one of the deceased. The defence
unlike PW-2 and PW-3 did not suggest her that she was not present
in the village on the date of the occurrence and time of the
occurrence. The defence only suggested that she had not seen the
Patna High Court D. REF. No.2 of 2024 dt. 22-01-2026
45/67
occurrence by her own eyes but she denied the same. She also
denied the suggestion of defence that in the information which was
given by her gotiya or herself to the police station she had not
given the name of these persons as accused but later on her
signature was obtained.
54. PW-4 has proved the fardbeyan on which her photo
and signature were present. The defence has not suggested to PW-
4 that the fardbeyan was ante-dated and ante-timed. The fardbeyan
was recorded by ASI Bimelsh Kumar on 13.07.2021 at 3.00 PM at
Sadar Hospital, Sasaram near postmortem house, the statement of
this ASI was not recorded by the I.O. and he has not been made a
charge-sheet witness. The submission of learned senior counsel for
the informant and learned Amicus Curiae that the I.O. was acting
designedly with an intention to do something which may result
into giving benefit of doubt to the accused, is a valid submission.
The statement of PW-4 that her Bhaisur Rang Bahadur Singh had
given information to the police station and Darogaji had come
Khudrao between 6.30-6.45 PM on 13.07.2021 but by that time all
the three persons had died, is fully consistent with the prosecution
case. Her further statement in paragraph ‘16’ that Darogaji had
taken her signature but she had not read what were written on the
paper and put her signature and then her statement that this is the
Patna High Court D. REF. No.2 of 2024 dt. 22-01-2026
46/67
FIR which has been shown in the court proves the prosecution
case that the Darogaji had obtained her signature on the fardbeyan
which is the basis of the FIR. As stated above, she has proved her
signature and photographs on the fardbeyan. Her further statement
that on the next day, she had gone to Darihat police station to
register/lodge/ written a case may be a result of her
misunderstanding with regard to the statements recorded by the
I.O. during investigation. For this purpose, I have found that on
14.07.2021, the I.O had recorded the restatement/further statement
of the informant and her daughter-in-law Sanju Devi at their Dehri
house. There is no material on the record to show that the
informant had gone to Darihat police station on the next day of the
occurrence and got written a case. The order-sheet of the learned
trial court duly shows that on 14.07.2021, the FIR had already
been received in the court of learned Judicial Magistrate and the
learned Judicial Magistrate has seen the same. I am, therefore, of
the considered opinion that the defence is not able to create any
doubt that the First Information Report was ante-dated and ante-
timed. This plea is liable to be rejected.
55. The defence has raised an issue with regard to delay
in lodging of the FIR as, according to them, FIR was lodged with a
delay of about 4 hours. It is well settled that a mere delay in
Patna High Court D. REF. No.2 of 2024 dt. 22-01-2026
47/67
lodging of the FIR cannot be a ground to throw away the
prosecution case. Reference in this regard is made to the judgment
of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Chotkau v. State of
U.P. reported in (2023) 6 SCC 742. The credibility of the
prosecution witnesses would be required to be looked into. In this
case, I find that the occurrence is said to have taken place at 6 O’
Clock. Police arrived some where between 6.30-6.45 PM, three
male persons of the family had been killed and as it appears from
the evidences on the record the deceased Vijay Singh was residing
with his wife (PW-4) in the village. Thus, PW-4 was left alone
before arrival of her two daughter-in-laws namely, PW-2 and PW-
3 at the place of occurrence. One can imagine the circumstances
present on the spot where three dead bodies were lying, it could
not be expected that the informant (PW-4) would have shown
coherent and cohesive to first ask the police officer to record her
fardbeyan. Bimlesh Kumar, ASI, who prepared the inquest report
of the deceased persons has not been made a charge-sheet witness,
therefore, he has not been examined by the prosecution. Only he
could have been in a position to explain as to why he did not
record the fardbeyan of PW-4 at the time of preparation of the
inquest report. When PW-4 came in the witness box, the defence
Patna High Court D. REF. No.2 of 2024 dt. 22-01-2026
48/67
did not call upon her to explain the delay and no question was put
to her or the I.O.
In the case of Chotkau (supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court
has observed in paragraph ‘64’ as under:-
“64. To come to the above conclusion, reliance was
placed upon a decision of a three-Judge Bench in
Balram Singh v. State of Punjab6. In Balram Singh6,
the three-Judge Bench of this Court rejected the
contention with regard to the delay in transmitting the
FIR to the Magistrate, on the ground that : (SCC p.
291, para 10)
“10. … while considering the complaint in regard to
the delay in the FIR reaching the jurisdictional
Magistrate, we will have to also bear in mind the
creditworthiness of the ocular evidence adduced by the
prosecution and if we find that such ocular evidence is
worthy of acceptance, the element of delay in
registering a complaint or sending the same to the
jurisdictional Magistrate by itself would not in any
manner weaken the prosecution case.”
(underline is mine)
56. The I.O. Sudhir Kumar Singh (PW-5) has proved
the formal FIR which was written in the hand writing of Bimlesh
Kumar Singh. Bimlesh Kumar had seized the blood-stained sword
from the place of occurrence and had prepared the seizure list
which has been proved by the I.O. (PW-5). He has also proved the
photographs of the inquest reports which were marked Exhibit-
‘X’. In course of investigation, he had entered the fardbeyan in the
6. (2003) 11 SCC 286 : 2004 SCC (Cri) 149
Patna High Court D. REF. No.2 of 2024 dt. 22-01-2026
49/67
case diary and thereafter all the three inquest reports. He had gone
to the place of occurrence in Khudrao village which is at a distance
of three kilometers from Darihat police station. PW-5 has stated
that he had gone to disputed land where both the parties had
quarrel and physical assault. He has given the boundary of the
plot. PW-5 has also given the description of second place of
occurrence which is the under constructed house of Rang Bahadur
Singh in village Khudrao. Thereafter, he has given the description
of the third place of occurrence where actually three persons were
killed. The I.O. has stated that it is common house made of brick
and there is a street going north east-west to the said house. From
the evidence of PW-5, it is noticed that near the place where the
dead bodies were found, he had found huge amount of blood and
PW-5 has found that from courtyard of the house to the main door
and outside that blood in abundant quantity was lying. After
inspection of the place of occurrence, he went to Dehri house of
the informant where he recorded her restatement. He arrested
Aman Singh and thereafter Suman Singh and both were produced
in the court. He sent the seized exhibits to the FSL, Patna, obtained
the postmortem report of all the three deceased and entered in the
case diary. He had submitted the charge-sheet against (i) Aman
Singh (ii) Suman Singh and two accused Ajay Singh and Gayatri
Patna High Court D. REF. No.2 of 2024 dt. 22-01-2026
50/67
Devi who were shown absconding. The I.O. has proved the
charge-sheet which is in his writing as exhibit- 6.
57. In his cross-examination, this witness has stated that
he had joined Darihat police station on the same day at 9.15 PM.
At 23.50 PM, the case was registered and investigation was
started. He started writing the diary on 13.07.2021 at 23.50 hrs. He
has stated that inquest reports were prepared before registration of
the FIR, case number was written there in somebody else’s
handwriting which he cannot say, as he had not verified that who
had written the same. PW-5 had not taken the statement of ASI
Bimlesh Kumar. The information with regard to the occurrence
was received in the police station that some quarrel had taken
place in Khudrao police station and on this information Bimlesh
Kumar had reached there. PW-5 had come to know about the place
of occurrence from Mahal Chowkidar but he had not recorded the
statement of Mahal Chowkidar in course of investigation. He has
stated that FSL team had seized blood-soaked soil from the place
of occurrence on 14.07.2021 at 12.00 Noon. On his request, FSL
team had come but he had not recorded it in the case diary. PW-5
has stated that the FSL report had not been received. I, however,
find that the FSL report had already been received long back
which has been marked exhibit-8 without objection.
Patna High Court D. REF. No.2 of 2024 dt. 22-01-2026
51/67
58. A perusal of the FSL report (Exhibits-8), it would
appear that swab from four finger ring blood (Exhibit-A) to gauze
swab blood (Exhibit-B) some grasses blood (Exhibit-C) some
earth blood (Exhibit-D) some earth blood (Exhibit-E) swab taken
from talwar blood (Exhibit-F) were sent to FSL. The result of the
examination shows that the nature of the stains were human blood
on all these exhibits. ABO grouping results of some of the exhibits
have been mentioned, however, the prosecution did not collect the
blood of the deceased for matching. The weapon seized by police
was also sent to the FSL and the result of the examination has been
noted as under:- (a) The exhibit marked ‘A’ noted in item (1) is a
four finger knucle weapon of size (9.5X5.6) cm approximate. It is
not a part of cartridge of fire-arm. It is not used in ballistics
ammunition arms. It is evident from the FSL report that on all the
exhibits which were sent to the FSL, blood were found and those
were human blood. The defence has never suggested that at the
place of occurrence no blood had fallen. It can be safely held in
this case that the killing of all the three persons at the place of
occurrence, time of occurrence and manner of occurrence have
been duly proved by the prosecution beyond any reasonable doubt.
The blood found from the verandah of the house to the main door
and outside where the dead bodies were lying leaves no iota of
Patna High Court D. REF. No.2 of 2024 dt. 22-01-2026
52/67
doubt that all the three persons were repeatedly attacked inside the
common house where these appellants were very much present by
a sword. The deceased being totally unarmed were repeatedly
assaulted by a deadly weapon like talwar.
59. The postmortem reports which are exhibits-7, 7/1
and 7/2 respectively would prove that the deceased had suffered
multiple injuries. The kind of injuries present on the body of the
deceased by Dr. Sidharath Raj Singh, the Medical Officer of Sadar
Hospital, Sasaram (PW-6) are being extracted hereunder for a
ready reference:-
“Examination of Deepak Kumar Singh
Appearance-
Rigor mortis present in all four limbs, hair black, right eye
open, left eye closed, mouth closed, face smeared with
blood and clots, multiple lacerated wound over face and
upper part of chest of various shape and sizes, multiple
abrasion and bruises present over upper part of chest.
External examination-
Appearance as mentioned in column no. 6
1. lacerated over left side occipital bone, measure approx
6"x2"x bone deep.
2. A horizontal lacerated wound over right cheek
extending till right pinna measure approx 8"x1" x bone
deep.
3. Horizontal lacerated wound over left cheek 3"x/2"x
muscle deep.
4. Lacerated wound over neck (front) measure approx
4"x2"x cavity deep.
5. Lacerated wound over left forearm measure approx 8"x
2"x bone exposed with Laceration of finger
On dissection:-
There is fracture of frontal bone, brain matter lacerated &
dark blood collected in cranial cavity, there is fracture of
right upper jaw, right pinna lacerated, there is fracture of
larynx, collection of blood in larynx, thoracic bony cage
intact, lungs are intact & pale, heart intact, right chamber
of heart contained little amount of dark blood, left
chamber empty, stomach contained semi solid food
Patna High Court D. REF. No.2 of 2024 dt. 22-01-2026
53/67
particles, intestine small and large both contained liquid
and faces, Liver, spleen and both kidneys are intact and
pale, urine bladder contained 40 M.L urine. There is
fracture of left radius and ulna. There is fracture of 1, 2, 3,
and 4 metacarpal bones of left hand.
Opinion (1) All above mentioned injuries are antemortem
in nature, caused by sharp cutting weapon of heavy nature.
(2) Death is due to excessive hemorrhage and shock, due
to above mentioned injuries, leading to C.R. failure.
(3) Time elapsed between death and autopsy is approx
withing 24 hours.
Examination of Rakesh Kumar Singh @ Kaju Singh
aged about 37 years
Appearance -
Rigor mortis present in all four limbs, hair black, both eye
open, lips apart, teeth visible, face smeared with blood and
clots, multiple abrasion and bruises present over upper part
of chest.
External examination -
Appearance as mentioned in column no. 6
1. Lacerated wound over neck measure approx 8"x1/2"x
muscle deep.
2. Lacerated wound over vault of head measure approx
4"x2"x skin deep.
3. Massively lacerated left forearm and wrist.
4. Lacerated wound over right palm and wrist joint.
5. Depression of skull on occipital region.
On dissection:-
There is fracture of occipito parietal bone, brain matter
underneath is lacerated, collection of dark blood in cranial
cavity. There is no bony injury in neck, thoracic bony cage
intact, lungs intact & pale, heart intact, right chamber of
heart contained little amount of dark blood, left chamber
empty, stomach contained semi digested food material,
intestine small and large both contained gas, liquid and
faces, Liver, spleen and both kidneys are intact and pale,
urine bladder contained 40 M.L. of urine. There is fracture
of left forearm and wrist (radius and ulna) joint, Muscles
vein and artery are cut down. There is fracture of D/E
Radius & ulna and 1, 2nd, 3rd, and 4th metacarpal bones,
muscles, brain and artery are massively lacerated.
Opinion 1. All above mentioned injuries are antemortem in
nature, caused by sharp cutting weapon of heavy nature.
2. Death is due to excessive hemorrhage and shock, due to
above mentioned injuries, leading to C.R. failure.
Time elapsed between death and autopsy is approx withing
24 hours.
Examination of Vijay Singh aged about 62 years, male
Appearance -
Patna High Court D. REF. No.2 of 2024 dt. 22-01-2026
54/67
Rigor mortis present in all four limbs, hair white,
moustache white, both eyes open, mouth closed, lacerated
wound over both cheek and massively lacerated right side
neck and smeared with blood and clots.
External examination -
Appearance as mentioned in column no. 6
1. Lacerated wound over right side of cheek in vertical
position, measure approx 10"x2"x skin deep.
2. Lacerated wound over left cheek measure approx
8"x1/2" x skin deep.
3. Massively lacerated right side neck measure approx
8"x2" x cavity deep.
On dissection:-
Skull- intact, brain matter intact and pale. There is fracture
of cervical bone 4, 5 and 6, Massively laceration of
muscles, vein and artery on right side of neck. Thoracic
bony cage intact, lungs intact & pale, heart intact, right
chamber of heart contained little amount of dark blood, left
chamber empty, stomach contained semi digested food
material, intestine small and large both contained gas,
liquid and faces, Liver, spleen and both kidneys are intact
and pale, urine bladder contained 40 M.L. of urine.
Opinion 1. All above mentioned injuries are antemortem in
nature, caused by sharp cutting weapon of heavy nature.
2. Death is due to excessive hemorrhage and shock, due to
above mentioned injuries, leading to C.R. failure.
3. Time elapsed between death and autopsy is approx
withing 24 hours.”
60. The doctor has opined that all the above injuries
were ante-mortem in nature, caused by sharp cutting weapon of
heavy nature.
61. Learned counsel for the appellants has strenuously
argued that the lacerated wounds cannot be caused by a
sword/talwar. In this regard, he has relied upon the Modi- A
Textbook of Medical Jurisprudence and Toxicology. It is also his
submission that rigor mortis was present on all the four limbs
which in general sets in one to two hours after death and is well
developed from head to foot in about 12 hours. Thus, it is his
Patna High Court D. REF. No.2 of 2024 dt. 22-01-2026
55/67
submission that the occurrence was much prior to 6.00 PM. I am,
however, not impressed with this submission. The Doctor (PW-6)
has stated that “rigor mortis remains present on the four limbs up
to 12 to 16 hours according to the environment”.
A perusal of the evidence adduced by the doctor (PW-6)
would show that rigor mortis were present in all four limbs. In his
cross-examination, he has stated that all the injuries were ante-
mortem in nature, caused by sharp cutting weapon of heavy nature.
He has further opined that when any injury is caused by sharp
cutting weapon, there will be incised injuries. He has further stated
that sharp weapon caused laceration. In paragraph ‘14’ of his
deposition, he has stated that rigor mortis remains present on the
four limbs up to 12 to 16 hours. After 12 to 16 hours, it starts
disappearing, according to environment. The doctor has opined
that the time elapsed between death and autopsy is approximately
within 24 hours. In this regard, when I examine the case laws on
the subject, I find no reason to take a view that the death had
occurred much before 6:00 PM as claimed by learned counsel for
the appellants. The finding of PW-6 is consistent with the Modi’s
Text and Standard Indian Forensics Scenarios. It is scientifically
said that if the death is sudden (for example, hemorrhage,
stabbing), rigor mortis may be accelerated. The date of occurrence
Patna High Court D. REF. No.2 of 2024 dt. 22-01-2026
56/67
in this case is 13.07.2021, which normally remains hot during this
period with the onset of monsoon, sometimes it is raining. In such
circumstance, where the death has been caused with sharp-cutting
heavy weapon and injuries like massive lacerated wounds have
been found, and the doctor has recorded that death is due to
excessive hemorrhage, it is highly likely that the rigor should set in
and would spread over the limbs.
62. In the case of Baso Prasad & Ors. vs. State of
Bihar reported in (2006) 13 SCC 65, the Hon’ble Supreme Court
has observed, inter alia, with regard to the presence of rigor mortis
in the following words:-
“….. The start of rigor mortis depends on the
temperature and weather conditions…”
63. So far as the submissions of learned counsel for the
appellants on the nature of weapon is concerned, I find that the
witnesses are consistent that the appellants had repeatedly
assaulted the deceased persons with sword. In this regard, I find
that sword injuries causes serious, penetrating wounds from cuts
(slicing or thrusts), causing damage to skin, muscles, tendons and
vital organs. The heavier swords can cause fractures and blunt
force trauma characteristics. A lacerated wound may occur from a
sword when the blade’s edge tears through skin and tissue, often
Patna High Court D. REF. No.2 of 2024 dt. 22-01-2026
57/67
with a crushing or stretching action creating irregular, ragged
edges, unlike the clean cuts of an incised wound, and can result
from heavy blows or dragging the blade, leading to severe tissue
damage, bleeding, and potential deep internal injuries. A heavy
blow or dragging a sharp edge across skin can stretch and tear the
tissue. A close perusal of the findings recorded by PW-6 in the
postmortem reports would show that the kind of injuries found on
the persons of the deceased corresponds to the nature of weapon
i.e. sword (ryokj). I do not have any iota of doubt that the
prosecution case with respect to the weapon of crime has also been
proved beyond all reasonable doubts.
64. The result of overall analysis of the entire materials
which I have discussed hereinabove is that the prosecution has
fully proved its’ case beyond all reasonable doubts. PW-4 in this
case is a natural eye witness. She has narrated the entire
occurrence. The place of occurrence is a common house in which
both the parties were living and the occurrence has taken place
inside the said house. The deceased persons were attacked by a
deadly weapon like talwar repeatedly by the accused persons due
to an enmity on account of a land dispute. I have already pointed
out the pattern of cross-examination of the defence. In course of
their cross-examination of the prosecution witnesses, the defence
Patna High Court D. REF. No.2 of 2024 dt. 22-01-2026
58/67
has not suggested that these appellants were not present in the
house on the date and time of the occurrence or they did not
possess the talwar which was the weapon of crime and seized from
their house. In course of their statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C.
the appellant did not deny the land dispute, they did not deny the
occurrence which had taken place in the common house, they did
not deny the fact that the deceased persons were attacked by talwar
by the appellants as a result of which the deceased received several
injuries, started bleeding, fell down and became unconscious
whereafter they were declared dead. For the first time, the
appellant Aman Singh said that he was innocent and at the time of
occurrence he had gone with his brother Sonal Singh to Darihat
police station. Sonal Singh has stated that he was innocent, at the
time of occurrence he was in Darihat police station, his hand was
cut by the sword attacked given by Rajesh Singh and he had gone
with Aman Singh to lodge the FIR. The explanation of alibi
offered by the appellants in their 313 Cr.P.C. statements have no
leg to stand rather it appears that they have made false statements
while recording their statements under Section 313 Cr.P.C. It is
nowhere their case that they were in Darihat police station at the
time of occurrence. When the I.O. (PW-5) came to depose, the
defence did not whisper this in course of his cross-examination.
Patna High Court D. REF. No.2 of 2024 dt. 22-01-2026
59/67
65. I, therefore, find that in this case the prosecution
case fully stands on its own legs. There is no reason to interfere
with the impugned judgment of the learned trial court whereby
these appellants have been convicted for the offences punishable
under Section 302/34 IPC. I affirm the judgment of conviction
dated 2nd May, 2024 passed in Sessions Trial No. 10 of 2022
arising out of Darihat P.S. Case No. 111 of 2021 and the direction
of the learned trial court to the District Legal Services Authority,
Rohtas, Sasaram for award of maximum compensation under the
scheme to each of the three widows. The compensation must be
paid, if not already paid, within a period of one month from the
date of this judgment.
On the point of sentence
66. Learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that
keeping in view the developments which have taken place in the
matter of sentencing, this Court may modify the death sentence
awarded to the appellants to a life imprisonment. In this regard,
learned counsel submits that the learned trial court has though
referred the judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of
Bechan Singh Vs. State of Punjab 1980 (2) SCR 864 and Machhhi
Singh & Ors. Vs. State of Punjab (1983) 3 SCC 470: 1983
Supreme Court Cases (Cri) 681, the learned trial court has not
taken into consideration the mitigating circumstances including that
Patna High Court D. REF. No.2 of 2024 dt. 22-01-2026
60/67
there are chances of reformation of the appellants. Learned counsel
has relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the
case of Navas @ Mulanavas Vs. State of Kerala (2024) 14 SCC
82. The attention of this Court has been drawn towards various case
laws discussed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court to lay down the
principle of proportionality. Paragraphs ‘78’ and ‘79’ of the judgment
in the case of Navas @ Mulanavas (supra) read as under:-
“78. A journey through the cases set out
hereinabove shows that the fundamental
underpinning is the principle of proportionality.
The aggravating and mitigating circumstances
which the Court considers while deciding
commutation of penalty from death to life
imprisonment, have a large bearing in deciding
the number of years of compulsory
imprisonment without remission, too. As a
judicially trained mind pores and ponders over
the aggravating and mitigating circumstances
and in cases where they decide to commute the
death penalty they would by then have a
reasonable idea as to what would be the
appropriate period of sentence to be imposed
under the Swamy Shraddananda10 principle too.
Matters are not cut and dried and nicely weighed
here to formulate a uniform principle. That is
where the experience of the judicially trained
mind comes in as pointed out in V. Sriharan13.
79. Illustratively, in the process of arriving at the
number of years as the most appropriate for the case
at hand, which the convict will have to undergo
before which the remission powers could be
invoked, some of the relevant factors that the courts
bear in mind are:
10. Swamy Shraddananda (2) v. State of Karnataka, (2008) 13 SCC 767 : (2009) 3 SCC (Cri) 113
13. Union of India v. V. Sriharan, (2016) 7 SCC 1 : (2016) 2 SCC (Cri) 695
Patna High Court D. REF. No.2 of 2024 dt. 22-01-2026
61/67
(a) the number of deceased who are victims of that
crime and their age and gender;
(b) the nature of injuries including sexual assault if
any;
(c) the motive for which the offence was
committed;
(d) whether the offence was committed when the
convict was on bail in another case;
(e) the premeditated nature of the offence;
(f) the relationship between the offender and the
victim;
(g) the abuse of trust if any;
(h) the criminal antecedents; and whether the
convict, if released, would be a menace to the
society.
Some of the positive factors have been:
(1) age of the convict;
(2) the probability of reformation of convict;
(3) the convict not being a professional killer;
(4) the socio-economic condition of the accused;
(5) the composition of the family of the accused;
and
(6) conduct expressing remorse.”
67. I have considered the submissions on the point of
sentencing keeping in view the facts and circumstances of this case. I
find that the learned trial court has considered this aspect of the
matter in the impugned order of sentence, in detail. The learned trial
court has noticed that in this case altogether three unarmed persons
have been ruthlessly butchered by these appellants who were armed
with sword, for a dispute pertaining to a small piece of land.
Altogether five antemortem severe massive external and internal
injuries inflicted on the person of each deceased. The dimensions
of the antemortem external injuries detailed in the postmortem
Patna High Court D. REF. No.2 of 2024 dt. 22-01-2026
62/67
report speaks the story of brutality/savagery adopted by the
convicts.
68. The learned trial court has further taken into
consideration the fact that upon death of the deceased person, no
male major person has been left to perform the rites and ritual,
ordinarily required in Hindu family. The happiness, pleasure and
celebrations of the survival family members have been done away
for whole of their lives. It has been observed that the children of
the family have lost the moment of happiness for whole of their
lives. Consequent upon the demise of all three male members of
the family, a huge dark hole has been created, wherein these
female members have to lead rest of their agony and suffocating
lives. We should not loose sight of the permanent scar which has
been left in the mind and soul of the three women, whose
husbands have been done to death by their own blood.
69. The learned trial court has further noticed that none
of the convicts was injured in the occurrence, the severity and
brutalities of the offences committed by the convicts would no
way justify their acts. The other two accused persons have been
absconding till date and they have not surrendered before the court
nor they have been arrested. The matter could have been resolved
Patna High Court D. REF. No.2 of 2024 dt. 22-01-2026
63/67
through civil litigation but the temperament of the convicts did not
suit the same.
70. In paragraphs ‘79’, ‘80’ and ‘81’ of its order, the
learned trial court has considered as to whether there can be
justification in life imprisonment of the convicts or not? I
reproduce these three paragraphs of the order of the learned trial
court hereunder for a ready reference:
“ 79. This court has to consider as to whether there
can be justification in life imprisonment of the
convicts or not? As delineated above; altogether 3
male persons of the same family have been brutally
and incessantly assaulted upon to eliminate them for
ever; inorder to retain a small piece of land, situated
by the side of their house. No major male family
member survives to look after the female members
and children, if any, of the family. They are
supposed to lead a terrific lives; filled with shock,
anxiety, misery as well as poverty. One of the
deceased persons was Engineer whereas another was
a contractor. Obviously, they were the earning
members of the family and the livelihood of the
family depended upon their earnings. After ghastly
murder of these deceased persons, there is no any
major male person to look them after and to care for
their needs and livelihood. These convicts have done
away the source of livelihood of surviving family
members of the deceased persons. Since the death of
the deceased persons, the incessant tears of their
widows and the children, if any, cannot be dried out,
however, by way of capital punishment, their
sufferings are supposed to be mitigated. They may
console themselves if convicts are awarded capital
punishment. They are supposed to lead a secured
and peaceful lives. And contrary to it, if convicts are
awarded life imprisonment; they are supposed to
come out after 14 years, only to revive the wounds
surviving family members. Altogether, 3 widows
Patna High Court D. REF. No.2 of 2024 dt. 22-01-2026
64/67
have been deprived from putting vermilion on their
heads. They have been deprived of their pride and
dignity. The happiness and celebrations have, now,
no meaning for them as well as for their children, if
any. The widows are supposed to be the living dead
bodies, leading a life of indignities, shock and
poverty. Imprisonment of life is routine punishment
which hardly can heal their wounds. Considering the
above facts and circumstances, this court is of the
strong view that the act of commission of murder of
the deceased persons, under given fact and
circumstances, come under sphere of the rarest of
rare category. Therefore, in my view, imprisonment
for life is inadequate and in no way justifiable and
same cannot be conscientiously be exercised, having
regard to the nature and circumstances of the case.
Therefore, the option of exception, ie capital
punishment, has to be opted for the sake of justice.
80. The aggravating factors which exist in this case
are as follows:-
a. Nature and circumstances of the offence: - So
far, nature and circumstances of the crime are
concerned; it is stated that murder/massacre of the
deceased persons was committed, consequent upon
the trivial land dispute pertaining to a small piece of
land situated by the side of the joint house of
informant and the convicts. The offences of murder
of 3 deceased persons did not result consequent
upon spur of the moment rather same resulted after
an interval of time. The deceased persons kept on
escaping and the convicts kept on chasing them
wherever they went and finally the deceased were
incessantly and brutally assaulted upon to be
eliminated for ever. There is no any evidence;
available with the record suggesting counter attack
by the deceased persons or causing any injury on the
person of the convicts.
b. Both the convicts have, as delineated above,
played a major role to execute the commission of
such a heinous crime of murder/massacre of the 3
deceased persons.
c. So far, the culpability of the deceased persons is
concerned, save and except an attempt to prevent the
convicts from cultivating the disputed land, deceased
Patna High Court D. REF. No.2 of 2024 dt. 22-01-2026
65/67
persons had played no role in the said culpability of
the offence.
d. So far, post circumstances are concerned; the
entire surviving family members have been left with
incessant tears, shock, poverty and agony. The
surviving family members have been permanently
deprived of happiness, celebrations and dignity.
e. So far, the circumstances leading to the offence
are concerned; the same have been detailed above
time and again. It need not reiterated. There was no
any such circumstance to justify the commission of
the massacre.
f. So far, mitigating factors are concerned; there is
any fact to mitigate the seriousness of the penalty. If
the convicts are sentenced for life imprisonment,
they are supposed to come out after 14 years and
they are supposed to create havoc and terror in the
minds of surviving family members of the deceased
persons and even in society.
81. In view of above delineations, this court comes
to the conclusion that it is an exceptional crime of
murder wherein the 3 persons were brutally,
incessantly and severely assaulted with deadly
weapons, i.e. swords by the convicts to leave no
probability for their survival. The option to impose
sentence of imprisonment of life cannot be
conscientiously exercised having regard to the
nature and circumstances of the crime and all the
relevant circumstances”
71. I have once considered as to whether there can be
any justification in imposing a life imprisonment or a special
sentence upon the convicts or not. As discussed hereinabove, the
aggravating factors in this case are not leaving any room for the
mitigating factors to take a view that life imprisonment or a
special sentence to the appellants would be justified. I, therefore,
Patna High Court D. REF. No.2 of 2024 dt. 22-01-2026
66/67
confirm the death sentence in Death Reference No. 2 of 2024 and
dismiss the Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 691 of 2024 preferred by the
appellants.
(Per: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SOURENDRA PANDEY)
72. I have gone through the judgment recorded by my
esteemed brother, Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajeev Ranjan Prasad.
While I entirely agree with the views expressed above, I am
reminded of the great epic “Mahabharat” which is a tale of
devastating feud over land and power between cousins. The
Kauravas were the aggressors, who attempted to kill relatives for
property or to seize the reign of the empire. Mahabharat
culminates with a message that aggressors meet a tragic end as
divine punishment for their “adharm”, i.e. to try to kill their
brother (cousins) to seize power.
73. The story of Mahabharat leads us to one and only one
conclusion that the appellants, who were the aggressors should be
punished for their sin/crime, which has not only taken the three
human lives but have also killed three women who after loosing their
husbands have become lifeless, their children have been left to cry
all over their lives and therefore I uphold the conviction of the
appellants. I agree that it is one of the rarest of the rare cases in
which the option to impose sentence of imprisonment of life or a
Patna High Court D. REF. No.2 of 2024 dt. 22-01-2026
67/67
special sentencing cannot be consciously exercised. I confirm the
sentence imposed by the learned trial court.
74. This Court acknowledges the assistance rendered by
Mr. Anil Singh and Mr. Manoj Kumar No.1, the two learned
Advocates as Amicus Curiae during the hearing. In token of their
assistance, we direct that each of them shall be paid a consolidated
sum of Rs. 15,000/- (Rupees Fifteen Thousand) by the Patna High
Court Legal Services Committee within one month from the date of
receipt of a copy of this judgment.
(Rajeev Ranjan Prasad, J)
Sourendra Pandey, J:- I agree.
(Sourendra Pandey, J)
Rishi/Arvind-
AFR/NAFR AFR
CAV DATE 13.11.2025
Uploading Date 22.01.2026
Transmission Date 22.01.2026
Checking your session…