CRIMINAL APPEAL 200 of 2003 on 30 April 2003

1. Sunil Yadav @ Kana, Son of Late Yugal Rai, Resident of Badi Badalpura,P.S. - Khagaul, District - Patna.P.S. - Khagaul, District - Patna.

2. Ranjan Kumar @ Benga, Son of Ram Sakal Rai, Resident of Village- BadiBadalpura, P.S. - Khagaul, District - Patna.Badalpura, P.S. - Khagaul, District - Patna.

3. Sharvan Kumar, Son of Suresh Rai, Resident of Village - Kothwan, P.S. -Khagaul, District - Patna, Bihar.Khagaul, District - Patna, Bihar.

... ... Respondents

with

CRIMINAL APPEAL (DB) No. 955 of 2024

Arising Out of PS. Case No.-200 Year-2003 Thana- DANAPUR District- Patna ======================================================Most Asha Devi, W/O Late Satyanarayan Sinha, Resident of Village- Sarari,P.S.- Shahpur, District- Patna, Bihar.

... ... Appellant

Versus

1. State of Bihar

2. Sunil Yadav @ Kana, S/O Late Yugal Rai, Resident of Village- BadiBadalpura, P.S.- Khagaul, District- Patna, Bihar.Badalpura, P.S.- Khagaul, District- Patna, Bihar.

3. Ranjan Kumar @ Benga, S/O Ram Sakal Rai, R/O Village- Badi Badalpura,P.S- Khagaul, Distt.- Patna, Bihar.P.S- Khagaul, Distt.- Patna, Bihar.

4. Shravan Kumar, S/O Suresh Rai, R/O Kothwa, P.S- Khagaul, Distt.- Patna,Bihar.Bihar.

... ... Respondents

Appearance :

(In GOVT. APPEAL (DB) No. 6 of 2024)For the Appellant/s:For the Respondent/s:

Mr. Ajay Mishra, APP

Mr. Rajendra Narayan, Sr. Advocate

Mr. P.N. Shahi, Sr. Advocate

Mr. Ghanshyam Tiwary, Advocate

Mr. Pawan Kumar Singh, Advocate

Ms. Annapurna Sinha, Advocate

Ms. Anju Narain, Advocate

(In CRIMINAL APPEAL (DB) No. 955 of 2024)For the Appellant/s:

Mr. Apurv Harsh, Advocate

Mr. Sudhanshu Trivedi, Advocate

Mr. Sujit Kumar, Advocate

Mr. Manu Tripurari, Advocate

Mr. Gaurav Sharma, Advocate

Mr. Raghu Raj Pratap, Advocate

Ms. Jaya Singh, Advocate

Mr. Aditi Sahay, Advocate

For the Respondent/s

:

Mr. Gajanan Mishra, APP

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJEEV RANJAN PRASAD and HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK KUMAR PANDEYCAV JUDGMENT(Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJEEV RANJAN PRASAD)

Date : 25-09-2025

Both the appeals have been preferred by the State andthe informant respectively for setting aside the judgment dated14.05.2024 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘impugned judgment’)passed in Sessions Trial No. 246 of 2006 arising out of DanapurP.S. Case No. 200 of 2003 passed by the learned AdditionalSessions Judge-III-cum-Special Judge MP/MLA, Patna(hereinafter referred to as the ‘learned trial court) by which thelearned trial court has been pleased to acquit the respondents inGovt. Appeal (DB) No. 6 of 2024 for the offences punishableunder Sections 148, 307 and 302 of the Indian Penal Code (inshort ‘IPC’) and Section 27 of the Arms Act.

Prosecution Case

2. The prosecution story is based on the writtenapplication of Asha Devi, Wife of Satyanarayan Sinha, Resident ofVillage- Sarari, PS- Shahpur, District- Patna in which she hasstated that on 30.04.2003 in between 11.00-11.30 AM, she wasgoing for her treatment along with Jivan Yadav, Sanjay Kumar,

Nageshwar Prasad, Dheeraj Kumar, Arun Kumar to Khagaul byher vehicle bearing Registration No. BR1T-0222. As soon as theyreached near the house of Rambabu Pathik, a Maruti Van wasstanding in front of the house of Rambabu Pathik, in such a waythat their vehicle could not proceed further. The vehicle was drivenby informant’s husband. He brought his head outside and asked forgiving passage. It is alleged that three persons came out of thevehicle and shouted “Satya Narayan Aa Gaya”. They all werearmed with weapons. After hearing the hulla Rambabu, RambabuPathik, Ritlal Yadav, Sunil Yadav @ Kana, Ranjan Kumar Bengaand 8-10 others variously armed with weapon came from thehouse of Rambabu Pathik. Rambabu Pathik while saying “SalaBarka Neta Banta Hai Jaan Se Maar Do”, pulled her husbandoutside and Ritlal Yadav, Sunil Yadav and Ranjan Kumar fired onher husband due to which, he fell down. Thereafter, at the instanceof Rambabu Pathik who said “Gari Me Baithe Logon Ko MaarDo”, all the 10-12 criminals started firing but they all were savedby hiding themselves under the seat of the vehicle. Sanjay andDheeraj were injured. There were dozen of marks of bullet on thevehicle. The accused persons assuming them dead entered intohouse of Rambabu Pathik. The informant identifies the otheraccused persons but does not remember the names. It is the claim of the informant that the accused persons namely Rambabu Pathik,Ritlal Yadav, Sunil Yadav @ Kana, Ranjan Yadav @ Benga andother criminals had killed her husband Satya Narayan Sinha, dueto enmity.

3. On the basis of the written report of the informant,Danapur P.S. Case No. 200 of 2003 dated 01.05.2003 wasregistered under Sections 147, 148, 149, 323, 307, 324 and 302IPC and Section 27 of the Arms Act.

4. After investigation, police submitted charge-sheetbearing no. 102 of 2004 dated 26.10.2004 under Sections 147,148, 149, 323, 324, 307 and 302 of the IPC and Section 27 of theArms Act against the accused persons. On submission of charge-sheet, cognizance was taken and record was committed to thecourt of Sessions on 31.01.2006 where Sessions Trial No. 246 of2006 was registered on 27.02.2006. In Sessions Trial No. 246 of2006 vide order dated 07.08.2007 case record of Ritlal Yadav wasseparated and the trial proceeded against accused namely (i)Sharvan Yadav, (ii) Sunil Kumar Rai and (iii) Benga Yadav towhom the learned trial court explained the charges in Hindi, whichthey denied and claimed to be tried accordingly vide order dated08.08.2007 charges were framed against them under Sections 148and 307 IPC and Section 27 of the Arms Act. Against Sunil Yadav and Benga Yadav separate charge under Section 302 was alsoframed and against Sharvan Yadav, charge under Section 302/149was framed.

5. On behalf of the prosecution, as many as elevenwitnesses deposed and some documentary evidences were alsomarked exhibits. The complete description of the prosecutionwitnesses and the documents marked exhibit are being providedhereunder for a ready reference:- List of Prosecution Witnesses List of Court witness CW-1Umesh Kumar List of Exhibits on behalf of prosecution List of exhibits on behalf of defence

6. At this stage, it is worth mentioning that SanjayKumar (PW-5), Nageshwar Prasad (PW-6) and Dheeraj Kumar(PW-7) were though examined by the I.O. and their statementswere recorded in paragraph ‘65’, ‘93’ and ‘98’ of the case diary butthey were not specifically made chargesheet witnesses, though theI.O. stated in the chargesheet that other witnesses may beexamined apart from the chargesheet witnesses. Thus, theprosecution filed a petition in the trial court to allow the

examination of these witnesses which was allowed vide orderdated 11.02.2013.

7. One of the witnesses, Rintu Singh (PW-8) wasallowed to be examined by the trial court vide order dated12.07.2013 after noting that PW-1, PW-2, PW-4 and PW-5 all hadstated about the presence of Rintu Singh at the time of occurrence.A criminal revision bearing number 606 of 2013 was preferred bythe accused-respondent no. 2 in the High Court which wasrejected. Again, on the request of the prosecution, the courtallowed the prosecution petition calling for the injury reports ofDheeraj (PW-7) and summons were issued to the treating doctorDr. N. K. Singh (PW-9), Dr. H. K. Jha (not appeared despiteissuance of warrant) and Dr. R. N. Prasad (not appeared despitesummons and warrant).

8. One more fact which is important to take note is thatthe trial court was able to secure the appearance Dr. Umesh Kumarin court after issuance of a non-bailable warrant only.

9. It appears on perusal of the trial court’s records in thistrial that the defence filed a petition stating therein that on perusalof the case diary, it is apparent that on the same date and time ofoccurrence of this case, a separate case was lodged by the sameSHO, Danapur vide Danapur P.S. Case No. 198 of 2003. The supervising authority of both the cases i.e. DIG, Central Range,Bihar, Patna directed the I.O. of the case to pray in the courtconcerned to amalgamate the cases. The I.O. of the case is also theI.O. in the said case. A prayer was made on behalf of the accusedthat the case diary of Danapur P.S. Case No. 198 of 2003 be calledfor further cross-examination of the I.O. This plea of the accusedwas contested by the Special Public Prosecutor for the State whoargued that on perusal of the case records, it is evident that thepolice is in collusion with the accused Ritlal Yadav and others andtried to spoil the case of the informant and for which informant hasalso filed a protest petition at the conduct of the police. It wassubmitted that Danapur P.S. Case No. 198 of 2003 was set up bythe police to help the accused and it has no concern at all with thiscase. After hearing the parties, the learned trial court, vide its orderdated 14.05.2015, held that at this stage of evidence ofprosecution, the prosecution has not relied upon the case diary ofDanapur P.S. Case No. 198 of 2003 to prove its case, therefore, atthis stage, the said case diary which the prosecution has found notreliable cannot be called for. Defence is free to call for the casediary in his defence evidence. We can also summon the I.O. toconfront to the case diary when his term of adducing evidence of defence witness comes. The petition filed by the defence to call forthe case diary of Danapur P.S. Case No. 198 of 2003 was rejected.

10. This Court has found from the ordersheets of thelearned trial court that at one stage, one of the accused, Sunil Raifiled a petition that Rabindra Kumar, DIG (Central Range), Patnabe directed to appear as a defence witness and he should besummoned for this purpose. In its order dated 08.03.2016, thelearned trial court has taken note of it, however, after hearinglearned counsel for the parties, vide order dated 14.06.2016, thelearned trial court rejected the said prayer. The court held that onperusal of the case diary, it was found that DIG Central RangeRabindra Kumar had conducted supervision of this case and hissupervision report has been mentioned in paragraph ‘114’ of thecase diary. The I.O. of this case has already been examined,therefore, the court can look into the supervision report of DIGCentral Range Rabindra Kumar. The defence counsel may alsoargue on the report of DIG Central Range, Patna during argument.Considering these facts, the court held that there was no need tocall DIG Central Range, Patna as defence witness.

11. This Court finds from the order dated 28.06.2016,passed in this trial case, that on behalf of accused Sunil Rai, apetition was filed praying for calling the case diary of Danapur P.S. Case No. 198 of 2003 in his defence. The learned trial courtallowed the said application and Office was directed to call forcase diary of Danapur P.S. Case No. 198 of 2003, however, in thesubsequent orders, which are available on the record, this Courtfinds no mention of the fact as to whether the case diary ofDanapur P.S. Case No. 198 of 2003 was received or not. Onrecord, the said case diary is available.

12. It appears from the order dated 10.01.2017 of thetrial court that the prosecution evidence was closed on 04.08.2015and the statement of the accused under section 313 were recordedon 01.09.2015, whereafter the records were fixed for defenceevidence. The court has recorded that the case diary ordered bythis court on 28.06.2016 had yet not been received, but there was adirection of the High Court to expedite the disposal of the case. Insuch circumstance, the defence was not granted furtheropportunity and the defence evidence was closed.

13. The case was fixed for arguments. The defence didnot question the order dated 10.01.2017 and agreed to start theargument. On 09.05.2017, the prosecution started its argument.The records were kept for hearing of the Special Public Prosecutorand the informant’s petition for adjournment was rejected videorder dated 24.07.2017. The prosecution seems to have closed its

Arguments

argument thereafter. Thereafter, the records were fixed for hearingthe learned counsel for the accused but for one reason or another,only formal orders were passed on several dates and in this way,the record remained pending for several years. This Court has alsonoticed that the records of this case have been transferred onseveral occasions which seems to be unusual. The ordersheets ofthe trial court would show that at one stage, on transfer of therecords to the court of learned Special Judge MP/MLA, it wasfound vide order dated 30.09.2020 that the records were thoughreceived from the court of ADJ-XXI with TC, the LCR was notattached with the record and the deposition of witness no. 7 wasnot on the record. The trial court called for a report regarding theLCR and the case diary of this case and for this purpose a letterwas written to the Bench Clerk of the earlier court, however, theoriginal case diary and the LCR were not made available to thetrial court. This situation continued for a long time. In its orderdated 19.04.2022, the trial court had recorded that the original casediary and the original LCR were not received. It was reported byRohit Kumar, the Clerk of the then Presiding Officer ADJ-XI thatthe original LCR relating to this case was not available. Thisshows how the hearing of this case was tried to be stalled.Ultimately, the informant had to approach this Court in Cr.WJC

No. 1124 of 2021. The High Court was informed that the recordsare missing and it was being deliberately done to delay thedisposal of the case. The learned writ court vide its order dated12.07.2022 issued directions which are being reproducedhereunder for a ready reference:- “Call for a report from the District Judge Incharge,Patna as to why the records of Sessions Trial No. 246and Sessions Trial No. 246A of 2006 arising out ofSpecial Case No. 122 of 2018 (Danapur P.S. Case No.200/2003) have not been sent to the Special Court ofA.D.J.III-cum-M.P./M.L.A. Court. There are seriousallegations that the order of this Court passed as backas on 13.05.2016 in Cr. Misc. No. 18493 of 2016 andthe order dated 17.01.2017 in Cr. Misc. No. 908 of2017 have not been complied with.

Mr. S.D.Sanjay, learned Senior Counsel for thepetitioner submits that in this case all the prosecutionwitnesses have been examined and after 313 Cr.P.C.stage the defence evidence was also closed and thecase was fixed for hearing. At this stage, it appearsthat efforts are being made for last several years bythe interested persons to drag the final hearing of thecase and disposal of the matter.

Let a comprehensive report be sent to this Court.

The District Judge Incharge, Patna shall while submittingthe report will examine as to whether there is an attempt inconnivance with the staffs of the Civil Court to somehowwithheld the records in order to drag the matter and avoidthe disposal of the case.”

14. This Court has recorded the entire facts showinghow the records of this case were kept pending and alsotransferred from one court to another. The trial court could finallydeliver its judgment only after the records were found pursuant tothe order of this Court.

15. On perusal of the records of Sessions Trial No. 246 of2006, it would appear that while the hearing of the case was goingon, the defence was referring to the evidences adduced in SessionsTrial No. 246A of 2006. This was opposed by the prosecution byfiling a petition dated 03.04.2024. The stand of the prosecution wasthat evidence of one session case cannot be referred in anothersession case even though the occurrence is the same. The prosecutionrelied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the caseof A.T. Mydeen and Another vs. Assistant Commissioner,Customs Department reported in (2022) 14 SCC 392. The petitionwas opposed by the defence by filing a rejoinder wherein it is statedthat after commitment, one of the co-accused namely Ritlal Yadavabsconded as such his trial was separated and charges were framedagainst three remaining accused persons who are facing SessionsTrial No. 246 of 2006. After examination of three witnesses in thistrial, the co-accused Ritlal yadav appeared and charges were framedagainst him and trial commenced as Sessions Trial No. 246(A) of2006. In the present trial, altogether twelve witnesses were examined whereas in Sessions Trial No. 246A/2006, ten witnesses have beenexamined. All the witnesses examined in both the cases are commonexcept PW-2 and PW-3 of Sessions Trial No. 246/2006. Thecontention was that since both the cases arise out of the same caseand the witnesses are same so it cannot be said that proceeding inboth the cases are different and the defence cannot refer the evidenceof the witnesses recorded in Sessions Trial No.246A/2006. Thelearned trial court considered the rival submissions and vide orderdated 16.04.2024 allowed the petition of the prosecution. Thus, thelearned trial court agreed with the stand of the prosecution that theevidence of Sessions Trial No. 246A/2006 could not be referred bythe defence in Sessions Trial No. 246/2006.

Judgment in the present trial is copy and paste of thejudgment in Trial No. 246A of 2006.

16. At the outset, we have noticed that the judgment ofthe learned trial court, the reasoning and rationale provided thereinin Sessions Trial No. 246 of 2006 is in the same words as that ofthe judgment in Sessions Trial No. 246A of 2006. It seems that inparagraph ‘22’ of the impugned judgment, the learned trial courthas not even taken care to apply its judicious mind that this wasgoing to be judgment in Sessions Trial No. 246 of 2006. The trialcourt has recorded in the very first line of paragraph ‘22’ asunder:- “22. First point which is important for the considerationthat the trial of case no 246/2006 and this trial 246a/2006have been originated from the same P.S. Case no. i.e.Danapur P.S. Case No. 200/2003.…”.

The words “this trial 246A of 2006” clearly show that the trialcourt is taking this case as if it is Trial No. 246A of 2006.

Findings of the learned Trial Court

17. As recorded hereinabove, since the trial court hasrecorded the findings in the present case in identical terms withthat of Trial number No. 246a of 2006, we record the findings ofthe trial court which we have noticed while dealing with theimpugned judgment in Govt. Appeal (DB) No.7 of 2024 andCriminal Appeal (DB) No. 952 of 2024 (arising out of SessionsTrial No. 246a of 2006).

18. The learned trial court having analysed the evidencesadduced on behalf of the prosecution and the defence recorded inparagraph ‘22’ of its judgment that the trial of Trial No. 246 of2006 and 246a of 2006 have originated from the same P.S. case i.e.Danapur P.S. Case No. 200 of 2003, so both the records will beperused for the ends of justice as well as for the better appreciationof the evidences. The trial court noted that the prosecutionwitnesses and the informant have stated that the occurrence tookplace near the house of Ram Babu Pathik, he had also been made an accused in this case by the informant but after investigation, thepolice did not find his role in the alleged occurrence, thereforesubmitted a closure report against him which has been accepted bylearned ACJM, Danapur. The prosecution never challenged thatorder, therefore, it will be deemed to have been accepted by theprosecution. The trial court further noted that the prosecution didnot draw the attention of the trial court towards Section 319 CrPC.The trial court observed that Ram Babu Pathik was said to be anorder giver and it is stated that all the accused persons came fromhis house, this becomes more relevant when there is another casefor the occurrence on the same day for which Danapur P.S. CaseNo. 198 of 2003 had been lodged (Exhibit ‘B’).

19. As regards the place of occurrence, the trial courtnoted that the I.O. has stated a different place of occurrence fromthat of the informant and other prosecution witnesses, therefore,the testimony of the prosecution witnesses is required to beperused carefully. After saying so, the trial court proceeded toconsider the evidence of PW-1. It is noted by way of observationthat PW-1 had never stated in her written information about RintuSingh. Rintu Singh has been examined as PW-8 but he was notmentioned in the witness column of the chargesheet.

Further, the trial court has noted that the name of ArunKumar is not stated in the evidence of PW-1, therefore, there issome hide and seek by the informant. The trial court hasconsidered the evidence of PW-1 adduced in Trial No. 246 of 2006in which in paragraph ‘20’ she had stated that Arun Kumar wasinjured in Danapur P.S. Case No. 198 of 2003 and other witnesseshave stated that he had died. Taking note of this evidence of PW-1in Trial No. 246 of 2006, the learned trial court raised a questionthat how it was probable that a man injured and died in anothercasewas sitting along with the deceased husband of the informant.The prosecution has failed to explain this aspect, said the learnedtrial court.

20. As regards the evidence of the injured witnesses, thetrial court noted that the informant has laidstress on their evidencebut thereafter the court proceeded to consider the evidence of PW-5 and PW-7. It has been observed that PW-5 has nowhere stated inhis examination-in-chief regarding the injuries sustained in theoccurrence. Likewise Dheeraj Kumar (PW-7) has stated in hisevidence that he and Sunil ji were injured but he has stated adifferent story as stated by the informant. The trial court took aview that PW-5 has stated that bullet crossed his hand but inparagraph ‘7’ of his cross examination, he had stated that it is not

true that there is no mark of firearm injuries on his hand but he hadnot shown any mark of injuries to the court during the evidence.Thus, the trial court took a view that his statement does not findany objective corroboration from the evidence of Dr. UmeshKumar (CW-1) who brought the alleged injury report of DheerajKumar (Exhibit ‘4’). The injury report did not show any firearminjury on his hand. The trial court, therefore, held that these are thematerial contradictions in the statement of this witness and the I.O.

21. The trial court has further taken a view that theevidence of the informant and the evidence of the I.O. ArshadJama have material contradictions. As per the informant, the placeof occurrence of the case is near the house of Ram Babu Pathiksituated in Jamaluddin Chak but the I.O. has mentioned the placeof occurrence on the Khagaul-Neora Main Road. The I.O. was notgiven suggestion by the prosecution on the point of place ofoccurrence so the prosecution failed to establish the exact place ofoccurrence of this case.

The trial court has further held that the I.O. has stated in hisevidence in paragraph ‘9’ of his cross-examination that after theoccurrence when he tried to take the statement of the informant,she did not give the same. He again tried to take the statement ofthe informant and the other witnesses, they do not turn up before him. He became known to the fact that witness Arun Kumar haddied in Danapur P.S. Case No. 198 of 2003. The trial court hasrelied upon the evidence of the I.O. Arshad Jama and recorded thathe had taken statement of the informant on 14.06.2003, on that dayhe had taken the statement of Munna Kumar and after that herecorded the statement of other witnesses like Nageshwar Prasadand Sanjay Kumar. These witnesses had given their statementbefore police after fifteen days of the occurrence. Prior torecording of their statement, the I.O. had taken the statement ofseveral other witnesses. According to the trial court, theprosecution had not examined them rather seventeen witnesseshave been given up for their examination by the prosecution andthe same was allowed vide order dated 11.02.2013 by thepredecessor court.

22. The learned trial court has dealt with another aspectsaying that the witnesses who have been examined for theprosecution are mostly out of other village than the place ofoccurrence. The informant had gone to her house by taking thedead body of her husband. It is stated by her that approximatelyforty people used to reside in the houses having same courtyardbut none of them have been examined by her. She has also not examined her own grown up children. For all these reasons, thetrial court doubted the occurrence.

It is further held by the learned trial court that there arestatement of the witnesses that the accused persons had fired fromthe front side of the vehicle and some marks of bullet occurred onthe vehicle also. The vehicle was produced by the informantherself to the I.O. and thereafter production-cum-seizure list wasprepared (Exhibit ‘1/5’ and ‘1/6’), the seizure lists do not show anymark of bullet on the seized vehicle. There was no FSL report ofthe material articles which were recovered from the vehicle as perthe seizure list. The bullet was removed from the body of thedeceased and was handed over to the Constable but there is noForensic Science Laboratory (FSL) report regarding this. As perseizure list there was no mark of bullet on the vehicle contrary tothe statement of the prosecution witnesses who have stated that theaccused have fired on the vehicle from the front side and severalmarks had occurred on the vehicle. The trial court disbelieved themanner of occurrence saying that while informant has stated thatthe accused fired on her husband when he was in the vehicle, theother witnesses have stated that her husband was dragged from thevehicle and was murdered by the accused persons on being shot tohim.

The learned trial court has also taken into consideration thestatements of the informant with regard to the post occurrencefacts. The trial court held that there were material contradictions inthe evidence of the informant (PW-1) and that of the otherwitnesses. The trial court has found that the evidence of theprosecution witnesses are not getting corroborated by the evidenceof the I.O. Some of the witnesses are having criminal antecedentsand they are also residents of different village, therefore, theirtestimonies would not be convincing to the court and that wouldcast shadow on the entire prosecution case. The I.O. has not beendeclared hostile by the prosecution. He was Dy.S.P. at the time ofinvestigation and the statement of the informant and otherprosecution witnesses were recorded by him in presence of theD.I.G. Central Range, Patna. In such situation, according to thelearned trial court, it cannot be said that the I.O. was in collusionwith the accused.

In ultimate analysis, the learned trial court held that theprosecution has only proved the death of Satyanarayan Sinha byadducing the evidence of Dr. Narendra Kumar Singh (PW-9) butfailed to prove the fact as to who murdered the deceased. In suchcircumstance, the benefit of doubt will go in favour of the accused persons. The trial court, therefore, acquitted the accused-respondent no. 2 of all the charges giving him benefit of doubt.

Submissions on behalf of the State

23. Mr. Ajay Kumar Mishra, learned Additional PublicProsecutor for the State, submits that in this case, PW-1, PW-6,PW-7 and PW-8 are the eyewitnesses of the occurrence. PW-8 isalso an injured witness. They have given ocular evidence. PW-1 isthe star witness of this case. The doctor (PW-9) has proved thepostmortem report of the deceased, which corroborates the ocularevidence. The deceased was killed by firing and he had sustainedseveral firearm injuries from a close range. Thus, the manner ofoccurrence has been fully corroborated from the postmortemreport. It is submitted that the learned trial court has notappreciated the evidence of the eyewitnesses and without givingany positive findings on the point of manner and cause ofoccurrence, acquitted the accused persons. In his submissions, thetrial court has passed the judgment of acquittal in a mechanicalmanner. It is pointed out that from a reading of the concluding partof the judgment of the learned trial court in Sessions Trial No. 246of 2006 and Sessions Trial No. 246A of 2006 it would appear thatthe learned trial court has recorded verbatimly same and one thing and acquitted the accused. There is no separate consideration andappreciation of the evidences of the two different trials.

24. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor furthersubmits that Danapur P.S. Case No. 198 of 2003 and Danapur P.S.Case No. 199 of 2003 were registered only to help thedefence/accused because they were very close to the power of theState at the relevant time. One of the accused, Rambabu Pathik,happened to be the samdhi of the then Chief Minister of the Stateof Bihar, therefore, police was acting indifferently and not only theFIR in this case was lodged on the next day of the occurrence buteven on all other aspects of the investigation, the first I.O. of thecase and then the second I.O. (PW-10) ensured that the materialswhich are required to be collected immediately be allowed tovanish. It is submitted that the learned trial court has given muchemphasis on the evidence of the I.O. (PW-10) without realisingthat indifferent attitude of the I.O. would not discredit the otherprosecution witnesses and it would not enure benefit to theaccused.

25. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor has reliedupon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case ofGanesha vs. Sharanappa and Another reported in (2014) 1 SCC87 to submit that the Hon’ble Supreme Court has taken a view that in a case where the finding of acquittal is recorded on account ofmisreading of evidence or non-consideration of evidence orperverse appreciation of evidence, nothing prevents the HighCourt from setting aside the order of acquittal at the instance of theinformant in revision and directing fresh disposal on merit by thetrial court. In the event of such direction, the trial court shall beobliged to reappraise the evidence in light of the observation of theRevisional Court and take an independent view uninfluenced byany of the observations of the Revisional Court on the merit of thecase. By way of abundant caution, it has also been observed thatinterference with the order of acquittal in revision is called foronly in cases where there is manifest error of law or procedure andin those exceptional cases in which it is found that the order ofacquittal suffers from glaring illegality, resulting into miscarriageof justice.

26. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor has submittedthat the judgment of the learned trial court is only a cut and pastejudgment in both the trials and the evidence adduced in one trialhas been used in deciding the another trial. The entire judgmentsuffers from perversity, hence it is liable to be set aside and theaccused-respondents are liable to be convicted and sentencedaccordingly.

Submissions on behalf of the informant

27. Mr. Apurv Harsh, learned counsel for the informanthas endorsed the submissions of learned Additional PublicProsecutor for the State.

28. Learned counsel submits that the learned trial courthas completely erred in appreciation of the ocular and thedocumentary evidences available on the record. It is submitted thatthe learned trial court has failed to appreciate that in this case thedate, time and place of occurrence are fully established by theprosecution. The Police Inspector of Danapur Police Stationregistered Danapur P.S. Case No. 198 of 2003 on his ownstatement. It is submitted that the FIR of Danapur P.S. Case No.198 of 2003 was seen by learned A.C.J.M. only on 02.05.2003,even though it is shown to have been registered on 30.04.2003 at4:00 PM. This would strengthen the case of the informant that thepolice did not record the statement of the informant (PW-1) on thedate of occurrence at the place of occurrence and delayed thelodging of the FIR of the informant (PW-1) only in order to helpthe accused persons. The informant, Pramod Kumar Inspector ofPolice, Danapur and the first I.O. of Danapur P.S. Case No. 198 of2003 were not examined by the I.O. (PW-10) who subsequentlytook charge of the investigation and thereby the case of the informant that the police were in collusion with the accused getsestablished.

29. Learned counsel submits that the written informationand FIR of Danapur P.S. Case No. 198 of 2003 have been markedExhibit ‘B’ on behalf of the defence but in fact the writteninformation of this case has not been placed with the formal FIR.It would appear from the self-written statement of Pramod Kumar,Police Inspector of Danapur Police Station that he claims to havereceived information with regard to the occurrence which tookplace at about 11:35AM from an unknown person who informedhim that gang of criminals are engaged in firing in villageJamaluddin Chak. He reached there and got additional forces. Hehas written about the immediate circumstance which he foundthere. In his self-statement, he has recorded that when he reachedvillage Jamaluddin Chak, then he found that on Khagaul-Neoraroad from the house of Rajendra Rai towards the Sarari Gumti(railway crossing), in between 200-250 yards, about 1000-1500persons were in running condition (bhagdar) and some of thevehicles were burning. He had found that from the crowd and fromthe roof of the houses, stones were being thrown and firing werebeing made. The main target of stone-throwing was the house ofShri Rambabu Pathik. Near the house of Shri Pathik, from the roof of the house of Mahendra Rai also, stones were being thrown andfiring were taking place. To understand this situation, when hecame near the police force posted at the house of Shri Pathik, thein-charge Havaldar Sheikh Sattar told him that the criminals hadattacked the house of Shri Pathik and the armed forces who werewith him had made firing in the air in self-defence from SLR. Hehas recorded that Havaldar Sheikh Md. Sattar had given himwritten information in this regard which he claimed that he wasenclosing with his statement. Learned counsel submits that thewritten information given by Havaldar Sheikh Sattar is dated01.05.2003, therefore, it is evident that the self-statement ofPramod Kumar, Police Inspector, shown to have been recorded on30.04.2003 at 15:00 Hrs. is ante-dated and in fact it has beenrecorded only on 01.05.2003. On 30.04.2003, no self-statement ofPolice Inspector was recorded.

30. Learned counsel further submits that in his self-statement, the Police Inspector Pramod Kumar has furtherrecorded that he came to know that supporters of RJD were beingtaken in the rally called by RJD in Gandhi Maidan, Patna, theywere being taken to Gandhi Maidan by their leaders in severalvehicles. In the meantime, due to political rivalry and to showsupremacy, an attack was made on the rally supporters whereafter they came down from the vehicle and started running away.Amongst the criminals one person died there, whose name isSatyanarayan Sinha of village Sarari, the people told him that hewas an active criminal of the area and he was charged for variousoffences. He has further stated to have come to know that the otherside was being led by Mukhiya Ritlal Yadav, who had also gotinjured in the occurrence. Thereafter, he has stated about thesubsequent actions which were taken by him to control the crowdand in the process, ashru gas team was called and the crowdcontinued to throw bricks and stones and were firing from gun,rifle and countrymade pistols, in which he has named six policepersonnel who got injured. According to him, seven persons wereidentified by him and the police force, which included Chunnu Raiand Rintu. He has also mentioned in his self-statement that at theplace of occurrence, two persons had fallen down after gettinginjured from the firearm, they disclosed their name as (i) ArunKumar, son of Sher Bahadur Rai (ii) Santosh Kumar, son of RamBahadur Rai. They were not in a position to make their statements,hence, in order to save their life, they were sent to PMCH andarrested Rajendra Prasad Ram and Ram Bali Rai on chase. Theydisclosed that earlier Satyanarayan Sinha of village Sarari, P.S.

Sahapur was killed and his dead body has been taken away by hissupporters and the same has been concealed.

31. Learned counsel for the informant (PW-1) submitsthat the manner of occurrence as suggested by the Police InspectorPramod Kumar in his self-statement giving rise to Danapur P.S.Case No. 198 of 2003 is result of only an afterthought to weakenthe case of the informant. This self-statement was recorded onlyafter he had come to know the case of the informant (PW-1) asdisclosed to the Police Inspector and in her written statement.

32. Learned counsel further submits that in his own self-statement Pramod Kumar, Inspector has recorded that stones werebeing thrown and that firings were being done from the roof of thehouse of Mahendra Rai near the house of Shri Pathik. It would beevident from a bare reading of the self-statement of PramodKumar that he had received information about firing beingexchanged by two groups of criminals in village Jamaluddin Chakand he had also come to know that while Satyanarayan Sinha hadbeen killed there itself, the other side was being led by MukhiyaRitlal Yadav and he was also injured in the said occurrence offiring. It is submitted that Mukhiya Ritlal Yadav remainedabsconding in this case for several months and in course ofinvestigation, during raid in the house of Ritlal Yadav, several firearms and ammunition were recovered which has been recordedby the I.O. (PW-10) in the case diary.

33. Learned counsel submits that the indifferent attitudeof the senior police officers and the previous I.O. as well as thesecond I.O. (PW-10) in not only registering the case of theinformant but even subsequently in course of investigation wouldnot discredit the prosecution witnesses and their evidences arerequired to be examined independently but the learned trial courthas not done so. Learned counsel has relied upon the judgment ofthe Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Edakkandi Dineshanand Others vs. State of Kerala reported in (2025) 3 SCC 273 tosubmit that the principle of “falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus” isnot the rule applied by the courts in India. It is submitted that evena part statement of a witness can be believed even though somepart of the statement may not be relied upon by the court but inthis case the learned trial court has picked up some minorinconsistencies in the statement of the witnesses from here andthere in a scattered manner and by relying upon the same, the trialcourt discredited the prosecution witnesses. This is not the correctapproach to appreciate the ocular evidences.

34. Learned counsel further submits that in the case ofShahaja @ Shahajan Ismail Mohd. Shaikh vs. State of Maharashtra reported in (2023) 12 SCC 558, the Hon’bleSupreme Court has taken a view that the appreciation of ocularevidence is a hard task and there cannot be any fixed or straitjacketformula for appreciation of the ocular evidence. Learned counselhas relied upon paragraphs ‘29’ and ‘30’ of the judgment.

35. It is further submitted that in the case of HarendraRai vs. State of Biharand Others reported in (2023) 13 SCC563, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has observed inter alia thatfailure of the State machinery and failure of the trial court toensure a fair trial from the perspective of the victim side and theaspect of non-marking of the FIR and bayan tahriri as an exhibit,non-production of the formal witnesses in the trial would notvitiate the genuineness of the FIR. The Hon’ble Supreme Courtrefused to give any discount to the accused persons for non-exhibition of those documents. It is thus submitted that thejudgment of the learned trial court is liable to be set aside and anappropriate order be passed by this Court as an appellate court.

Submissions on behalf of the private respondents.

36. Mr. Rajendra Narayan, learned Senior Counsel hasopposed the appeals. Defending the impugned judgment of thelearned trial court, learned Senior Counsel has submitted that noillegality, much less any perversity, may be found in the judgment of the learned trial court. He has relied upon the judgment of theHon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Muralidhar @ Gidda and Another vs. State of Karnataka reported in (2014) 5 SCC 730(paragraph 10 to 13 and 19) and the case of Ghurey Lal vs. Stateof U.P. reported in (2008) 10 SCC 450 (paragraph 36, 69-76).

37. Learned Senior Counsel for the respondents hassubmitted that in the case of Surajpal Singh and Others v. TheState reported in AIR 1952 SC 52, the Hon’ble Supreme Courthas, while dealing with the powers of the High Court in an appealagainst acquittal observed that the High Court has full power toreview the evidence upon which the order of acquittal wasfounded, but it is equally well settled that the presumption ofinnocence of the accused is further reinforced by his acquittal bythe trial court and the findings of the trial court which had theadvantage of seeing the witnesses and hearing their evidence canbe reversed only for very substantial and compelling reasons.Learned Senior Counsel submits that in catena of judgments, theHon’ble Supreme Court has reiterated the principles relating toappeals from a judgment of acquittal which are in line with thejudgment in case of Surajpal Singh (supra).

38. Learned Senior Counsel has further submitted that inthe case of Ghurey Lal (supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court has taken note of the main reasons for acquittal by the trial court andthe main reasons for reversal of the acquittal order whereafter theHon’ble Supreme Court disagreed with the High Court. Whiledisagreeing with the opinion of the High Court, the Hon’bleSupreme Court relied upon the judgment in case of Sheo Swarupvs. King-Emperor reported in AIR 1934 PC 227 (2) in which thescope and ambit of the powers of the appellate court in dealingwith an appeal against acquittal has been elucidated by the PrivyCouncil. It has been held that the appellate court is undoubtedlyhaving wide powers of reappreciating and re-evaluating the entireevidence but it would be justified in interfering with the judgmentof acquittal only when the judgment of the trial court is palpablywrong, totally ill-founded or wholly misconceived, based onerroneous analysis of evidence and non-existent material,demonstrably unsustainable or perverse [paragraph ‘43’ of thejudgment of Ghurey Lal (Supra)].

39. In sum and substance, learned Senior Counsel for therespondents has submitted that in this case, the learned trial courthas properly appreciated the entire evidences available on therecord, hence no interference is called for.

Analysis of the evidences

40. Asha Devi, who is the informant of this case, hasdeposed as PW-1. In her examination-in-chief, PW-1 has statedthat deceased was her husband. On the date of occurrence i.e. on30.04.2003 in between 11-11.30 AM, she was going for hertreatment to a doctor by her vehicle BR1T-0222. Her husband wasdriving the vehicle. Rintu Singh was sitting on the front side, in themiddle she, Sanjay and Jeevan were sitting. On the backseat,Nageshwar and Dheeraj were there. When her vehicle reachednear the house of Rambabu Pathik in Jamaluddin Chak then therewas a Maruti vehicle standing on the road in such a way that hervehicle could not have moved ahead. On this, her husband tookout his head outside the vehicle and asked for keeping aside theMaruti. In the meantime, three persons came out of the said Marutivan and shouted “Satya Narayan Aa Gaya”. They were armedwith weapon. This witness has further stated that Rambabu Pathik,Ritlal Yadav, Sunil @ Kana, Ranjan @ Benga and 8/10 personscame out from the house of Rambabu Pathik, all were armed withweapons. This witness has stated in paragraph ‘5’ of her depositionthat Rambabu Pathik told “Sala Barka Neta Banta Hai”, in themeantime Ritlal Yadav, Sunil Yadav and Ranjan fired on herhusband whereafter her husband fell down and he died. She has stated that Rambabu told to kill all the persons who were in thevehicle on which all the persons started firing, during this theinformant and others who were in the vehicle concealedthemselves under the seat. Sanjay and Dheeraj had sufferedfirearm injury and there were several marks of bullet on thevehicle. PW-1 has stated that all the accused persons went insidethe house of Rambabu Pathik. Thereafter she had gone to hervillage Sarari where police came.

In her cross-examination in paragraph ‘17’ she has stated thatpolice had come at the place of occurrence at 11:45 AM, therewere several police officers with Darogaji, she had lodged a case atthe place of occurrence but her statement was not recorded byDarogaji. She had got prepared a written information by RajnishKumar and had put her signature thereon. She had shown the placeof occurrence to police and had also shown the dead body of herhusband.

This witness has also stated in her deposition that police wasnot properly conducting investigation of the case becauseRambabu Pathik happened to be the samdhi of the then ChiefMinister of the State of Bihar. She had filed a protest petition inDanapur court. This witness has identified her signature on theprotest petition as Exhibit ‘1/1’ and has also identified the

signature of Anil Kumar Singh as Exhibit ‘1/2’. She has alsoidentified the signatures on the production-cum-seizure list asExhibit ‘1/5’ and Exhibit ‘1/6’ respectively. She has stated inparagraph ‘15’ of her deposition that her statement was also takenin front of DIG Sahab. She has stated in paragraph ‘19’ of herdeposition that the dead body of her husband was not sent forpostmortem on 30.04.2003. On 30.04.2003, police had lodgedDanapur P.S. Case No.198 of 2003 in which twelve persons werenamed and 1000-1500 unknown persons were made accused. Inthis Arun Kumar, who was an injured, was also an accused. Shehas stated in paragraph ‘20’ that in the firing done by the policeand accused persons Arun Kumar had got injured.

PW-1 has further stated that police was there because of therally. She had sent her written application to the police station on01.05.2003 but cannot say the name of the person through whomthe application was sent. She denied the suggestion of the defencethat police had seen the dead body of her husband on 01.05.2003at 11:00 AM. She has stated that police had taken away the deadbody of her husband from the gausala in the Sarari village. Thesaid gausala is at a distance of one kilometer from the place ofoccurrence. She has also stated in paragraph ‘26’ of her depositionthat police had seen the vehicle and the dead body was taken on the same vehicle to village Sarari. Police had seen the vehicle fromthe date of occurrence and police used to come and go from thedate of occurrence. Police seized the vehicle on 3[rd], no seizure wasmade at the door of the informant and police had taken away thevehicle for examination. PW-1 denied the suggestion of thedefence that for the first time the vehicle was produced beforepolice on 10.05.2003. She has stated that police had left thevehicle on her jimmenama.

In her further cross-examination, PW-1 has stated that after10-15 minutes of the occurrence, she had met the Inspector ofPolice, Danapur. He had not informed her about the lodgment ofthe case. She denied the suggestion of the defence that SunilKumar had informed her about the lodgment of the case. Shedenied any information that three cases were lodged with respectto the occurrence. She denied the defence suggestion that she hadlodged a fabricated case.

41. On the point of criminal antecedent of her husband,this witness was cross-examined by defence. She has stated thather husband had once gone behind the bars on the allegation ofmurder, there were 4-5 cases against him. She denied thesuggestion of the defence that her husband had gone to jail for 4-5times. She also denied the suggestion of the defence that no such occurrence had taken place. She also denied the suggestion of thedefence that she was not present at the place of occurrence at thetime of occurrence.

42. From the deposition of PW-1, it is evident that shehas deposed as an eyewitness of the occurrence. She has statedabout the place of occurrence, the date of occurrence and the timeof occurrence. She has also stated that police had arrived within10-15 minutes of the occurrence and she had made statementbefore Darogaji at 11:45 AM at the place of occurrence but it wasnot recorded. This witness has also stated that because of the rallypolice was already there. The defence has not suggested otherwise.It is also evident that PW-1 has stated that the dead body of herhusband was not sent for postmortem on 30.04.2003 and she wasnot informed that police had lodged any case on that day. To thisCourt, it appears that the statement of PW-1 that at the place ofoccurrence police had seen the vehicles that police kept on comingand going and were seeing the vehicle are required to beappreciated keeping in mind that in the kind of occurrence whichhad taken place, it cannot be believed that the vehicle may be keptconcealed that too when police had already arrived within 10-15minutes and that was a day when the ruling party in the State hadcalled for a rally and police were already there. Although the defence has suggested that PW-1 was not present at the time ofoccurrence but in the evidence of PW-1, we do not find anycontradiction taken with regard to her presence at the place ofoccurrence.

43. Baleshwar Rai (PW-2) has deposed as a hearsaywitness. He has stated that the wife of the deceased had told himabout the occurrence. At that time he was in his house and he hadnot seen who had murdered Satyanarayan Sinha.

44. Kamta Rai (PW-3) deposed that he did not knowanything about the occurrence and his statement was not recordedby police. This witness has been declared hostile and was cross-examined by the prosecution.

45. Kalavati Devi (PW-4) is the sister of the deceasedSatyanarayan Sinha. She has stated that Satyanarayan Sinha hadbeen going with his wife and 4-5 persons at about 11:00 AM. Herbrother was murdered, she had heard the sound of firing and whenshe came outside her house, then she heard people saying that herbrother was killed. Thereafter, she went to the place of occurrencewhere she found that the wife of Satyanarayan Sinha was present.There, this witness heard that Ritlalva, Bengva, Sunil andSarvanva had killed her brother.

In her cross-examination, she has stated that police hadrecorded her statement. Her husband was Mukhiya of SarariPanchayat at the time of occurrence. She has reiterated that herbhabhi Asha Devi was present at the place of occurrence. She hasstated that there was no police personnel, common people werethere and her bhabhi was alone weeping with the dead body. Thedefence suggested her that she had stated before police that if herbhabhi would not have reached there then many dead bodieswould have fallen. She denied the suggestion that she was makingher statement on the tutoring by her bhabhi. This witness hasstated that the place of occurrence is between thestationand thevillage. She has, however, stated that she had not seen theoccurrence. This Court finds that this witness is also a hearsaywitness as regards to the occurrence, however, she has deposed onthe circumstances immediately present at the place of occurrencewherein she has stated about the presence of her bhabhi Asha Devi(PW-1) at the place of occurrence.

46. Sanjay Kumar (PW-5) is a witness of the production-cum-seizure list of the Bolero vehicle bearing Number BR-1T/0222. He has identified his own signature and that of theanother witness Rajesh as Exhibit ‘1/7’ and Exhibit ‘1/8’respectively on the seizure list. He has stated that the vehicle is in the name of his bhabhi Asha Devi. In paragraph ‘2’ of hisexamination-in-chief, PW-5 has stated that a blood-stained towelwas seized from the vehicle, there were blood marks and marks offiring upon the vehicle. In this regard, a separate seizure list wasprepared. He identified his own signature thereon as Exhibit ‘1/9’and the signature of another witness Ramanand Rai as Exhibit‘1/10’.

In his cross-examination, the defence drew the attention ofthis witness that in the seizure list it was not mentioned that thetowel was found on the driving seat and it is also not mentionedthat on which part of the body of the vehicle there were marks offiring. The defence also drew the attention of this witness that theseizure list was prepared after 15-20 days of the occurrence. Thiswitness denied the suggestion that the seizure list was prepared tofalsely implicate the accused.

47. Nageshwar Prasad Yadav (PW-6) has deposed as aneyewitness of the occurrence. He has stated that on 30.04.2003, inbetween 11-11:30 AM, he was present in the vehicle of Sinha Ji.Sinha Ji was himself driving the vehicle. Rintu Singh was sittingand in the middle seat, Asha Ji, Jeevan Ji and Sanjay Sharma weresitting. On the backside seat, this witness and Dheeraj Kumar weresitting. He has stated that when the vehicle reached in front of the house of Pathik Ji, a Maruti van was standing there then Sinha Jitook his head outside, four persons came out of that and startedshouting that “Sinha Ji aa gaye” then from the house of Pathik Ji,Pathik Ji, Ritlal Yadav, Sunil and Ranjan Yadav came out. Thiswitness has stated that Pathik Ji told, “barka neta hai saale to golimaar do”. Ritlal Yadav, Sunil Yadav and Ranjan Yadav shot atSinha Ji whereafter he fell down. Pathik Ji came and said to kill allwhereon firing took place in which Sanjay Sharma and DheerajKumar got injured. All the accused persons went inside the houseof Pathik Ji after committing the occurrence. In paragraph ‘11’ ofhis deposition, this witness has stated that after the accusedpersons left, Rintu Singh drove the vehicle to the home. PW-6identified Sunil Yadav who had been present in court and claimedthat he can identify all other accused.

In his cross-examination, this witness has stated that on thedate of occurrence, he had gone to the house of Sinha Ji when thevehicle was about to start. He has stated that he had gone bymotorcycle which belonged to his younger brother but he did notremember the number of the vehicle. This witness has furtherstated that on that day, there was a rally of Rashtriya Janta Dal inGandhi Maidan, Patna. There were crowds on the road and peoplewere coming by vehicles. On the asking of Sinha Ji, he sat in the

vehicle. This witness has stated that on the way, people weretalking in Bolero that they had to go to a doctor. He did not knowthe other persons who were sitting in the vehicle. He has statedthat Rintu Singh was sitting in the front seat in the left side ofSinha Ji who was on the driving seat. In the middle seat, AshaDevi, Jeevan Ji, Sanjay Sharma @ Chunnu were sitting but he didnot remember who was sitting which side. On the back seat, heand Dheeraj were sitting. He has stated that firing had taken placefrom the front side of the vehicle. In the said firing, the glass of thevehicle were broken. He has stated that all the firing had takenplace from the front side. He did not remember on which part ofthe body of Sanjay Sharma and Dheeraj, they were shot at. He didnot remember the places of the body where Sinha Ji had sufferedbullet shots. He has stated that they had brought the vehicle to thevillage. Sanjay and Dheeraj got down on the way. He has statedthat on 30.04.2003, police had not arrived. He did not rememberwhether police had arrived at the house in his presence or not. Hedid not remember that any written information was givenregarding the occurrence to police or not.

In paragraph (vi) he has deposed that he has no criminalantecedent. The defence suggested this witness that to control thecrowd, police had come and firing had been done on the police by people who were throwing stones. PW-6 denied the suggestionsand said that he was not aware of any such thing. He alsoexpressed his unawareness that to control the crowd, police hadfired in self-defence and he further expressed his unawareness thatpolice personnel were also injured in the firing. In paragraph (vii),this witness has stated that he had no business or personalrelationship with any of the accused engaged in firing. He did notknow them by name. He was not taken by police for identificationin test identification parade. This witness was suggested bydefence that he had not seen the occurrence and he did not knowanything. The stand of the defence was that unknown criminals orin the firing of the police in self-defence, murder had taken place.

This witness has stated that after 1-2 days of the occurrence,police had interrogated him. In his further cross-examination onbehalf of Sunil Rai, this witness has stated that he knew theaccused persons from before. Chunnu Sharma had informed himabout their names. This witness has given the description of theplace of occurrence wherein he has stated that the house of PathikJi is situated north to the place of occurrence. In south, there is arailway line and except in the north side of the place of occurrence,in no other direction there is any house. He had stayed at the placeof occurrence for 10-15 minutes, during this period, police or public had not arrived. He has further stated that police hadrecorded his statement at the house of Asha Devi (PW-1). Hedenied the suggestion of the defence that he was not present in thevehicle and had deposed in court falsely on tutoring.

48. Dheeraj Kumar (PW-7) has also supported theprosecution case. He has stated about presence of his aunty AshaSingh (PW-1), Jeevan Ji, Chunnu Ji, Rintu Ji, Nageshwar Ji andhimself. He has stated that the vehicle was being driven by hisuncle and when the vehicle reached in front of the house of PathikJi in Jamaluddin Chak, then a white-coloured Maruti was standingdiagonally on the road. He has stated that from the said Maruti vanthree persons came out shouting that “Satyanarayan aa gaya”,they were armed with weapons, from the house of Pathik Ji, RitlalYadav, Sunil, Ranjan @ Benga came out. Pathik Ji told “barkaneta banta hai maar do usko”, on this Ritlal, Sunil and Ranjan @Benga pulled out his uncle and fired at him. His uncle got injuredand fell down. Thereafter, Pathik Ji told to kill all in the vehicle, inthe occurrence, he had received one shot on his hand and hadbecome unconscious. He later on came to know that he was treatedin Railway Hospital and PMCH. He identified Sunil and Ranjan @Benga.

In his cross-examination, he has stated that he knew everyonepresent in the vehicle except Nageshwar Ji whom he saw for thefirst time. He has stated that on regaining consciousness in thehospital, he found his father in the hospital but he could not say thename of the hospital. He has stated that he had seen the treatmentpapers of the Railway Hospital and PMCH but those were not withhim. He had not shown the papers to police as they told him thatthey will collect the papers from the hospital. He had returnedfrom hospital after 8-10 days. He has stated that thereafter he wentto the house of his mausi in Jamaluddin Chak. Jamaluddin Chak isat a distance of two kilometer from his house. He has stated thatthe bullet had crossed into his hand from one side to another but hedid not know whether stitch was given on the wound. He had notgone to hospital thereafter. He did not remember that after howmany days police had recorded his statement. The defencesuggested him that he had fled away from the vehicle. This witnessdenied this suggestion. He denied the suggestion of the defencethat he had given statement before police that his treatment hadtaken place at Saguna More. He further denied the suggestion ofthe defence that he had stated before police that when firing startedon the vehicle, he came down and fled away. He denied thesuggestion that he had not taken name of Sunil, Ranjan and Benga.

He also denied the suggestion that he had not taken the name ofPathik Ji before police. He has stated that when he again went toJamaluddin Chak, he found that vehicle was burning and largenumber of crowd had assembled. The defence suggested him thathe had not seen the occurrence.

In his further cross-examination, this witness has stated thatwhen his uncle was pulled out from the vehicle, nobody tried tosave him because they could not get any time for that. He hasstated that he had not tried to get down and flee away. This witnesshas further stated that his uncle was shot at in standing condition.He did not know the parts of the body on which his uncle hadsuffered the bullet. He did not know that who had taken back theBolero vehicle. He did not know that who had taken away the deadbody of his uncle from there. The defence suggested this witnessthat to disturb the rally, his uncle and his supporters had madefiring and in the said firing, police had tried to control the situationwhich has arisen out of the firing and stampede. In the said firingdone by police, some persons got injured. He denied hisinformation that Arun and Santosh had received the bullet. Thiswitness was suggested that he had not suffered any bullet, thewitness denied it.

In this connection, this Court would also take note of theevidence of Dr. Umesh Kumar, (Court Witness no. 1). CW-1 hasdeposed that on 30.04.2003 he was posted at Danapur RailwayHospital. At the time of his deposition, CW-1 has disclosed that hewas posted as Additional Chief Medical Superintendent, DanapurHospital. He had brought the treatment paper of Dheeraj Kumar(PW-7). CW-1 has stated that Dheeraj Kumar was kept inobservation in his hospital on 30.04.2003 at 1:15 PM. In thetreatment paper it was written that there was injury on the rightforearm. He was administered medicine and injection. CW-1 hadbrought the papers from the record of the hospital but he could notname the doctor who had written the papers. He has admitted hissignature and writing on the other page. CW-1 has stated that hehad seen the patient.

In his cross-examination, this witness has stated that only onepage is written in his handwriting. He has stated that on the injuryreport no case number was mentioned. Only complaint is writtenwhich is relating to the injury of the case. He has stated that policesends requisition if it is a case of accident or any occurrence. Theinjury report of Dheeraj Kumar is available on the record whichwe would reproduce hereunder (Exhibit ‘4’):

“Dhiraj Kumar, S/o Ashok Kumar, Add. Sarari, Khagaul Cut mark on right ankle joint.

C/o injury at right forearm

Adv. Keep under observation

X-Ray Right forearm"

49. On perusal of the injury report of Dheeraj Kumar(Exhibit ‘04’) proved by CW-1, this much is proved that DheerajKumar (PW-7) had gone to the Railway Hospital, Danapur on30.04.2003 and he was admitted in the hospital for keeping himunder observation. The record of the hospital which has beenbrought on the trial court record would show that in the columnshowing the “days in hospital” “one” is written and he was alsosuggested x-ray of the right forearm. The doctor had found injuryover the right forearm and to that extent, it is proved that Dheerajhad suffered some injury on his right forearm but it is not clear thathe had suffered a firearm injury. No hospital document has beenbrought on the record to show that he was brought in the hospitalin unconscious condition.

50. Ravi Kumar Kishore @ Rintu (PW-8) has deposed asan eyewitness of the occurrence. Like other witnesses he has alsogiven the place of occurrence which is near the house of RambabuPathik. He has stated that three persons came out of the Marutivehicle, they were armed with weapons and loudly shouted that“Satyanarayan Sinha aa gaya” thereafter from the house ofRambabu Pathik, Ritlal Yadav, Sunil Yadav, Ranjan Yadav and other 8-10 persons came and after pulling out Sinha Ji from theBolero vehicle, Ritlal Yadav, Sunil Yadav and Ranjan Yadav firedat him. Due to said firing, Sinha Ji had got injured and RambabuPathik asked them to kill those who were sitting in the vehicle,thereafter all the three accused fired on the people who were in thevehicle. He has stated that in the said firing Sanjay @ Chunnu andMunna Babu got injured. Munna Babu is the alias name of Dheeraj(PW-7). This witness has stated about the presence of Asha Sinha,Sanjay Ji @ Chunnu, Nageshwar @ Mamu, Dheeraj @ Munna andJeevan Yadav in the vehicle at the time of occurrence. In paragraph‘2’ of his deposition, he has stated that he had come back to villageSarari taking the three injured.

In his cross-examination, this witness has stated that all thepersons in the vehicle sat in the Bolero from the house ofSatyanarayan Sinha itself. He did not remember that whether thepersons in the vehicle reached prior to his reaching or after hisreaching. This witness has also given the description of the placeof occurrence. He has stated that the accused persons had openedthe door of the vehicle and at that time also this witness and othersremained sitting in the vehicle because the accused were armedwith weapon. He has stated that the accused persons opened thedoor from the side of Sinha Ji only, though the vehicle had five

doors. He has stated that Sinha Ji was pulled out of the vehicle andhe was kept pushed to the vehicle side and was shot at. After theaccused persons fled away, then they put Sinha Ji in the vehicleand left towards Sarari village. He has stated that immediatelyafter the occurrence, crowd had not assembled at the place ofoccurrence, when they left for village Sarari, then crowd hadassembled. He could not say when he reached village Sarari, allthe people were in the vehicle and had stayed in the village.During the period when they were in the village, police had alsoarrived. In paragraph ‘7’ of his deposition, he has stated that afterthe day of occurrence he had gone to village Sarari in the shradh,he had not given statement earlier and he had deposed in the court.After the occurrence and shradh, he had not met Asha Sinha. Thiswitness was suggested that Satyanarayan Sinha was a veterancriminal of his area and he had also several criminal cases againsthim, this witness denied any awareness. He has stated that he is abuilder and director in a private limited company. He has given thename of the three partners. He has denied the suggestion of thedefence that he had connection with Shambhu Singh and MantuSingh gang of Muzaffarpur. He has denied the suggestion ofdefence that he was deposing on the direction of the MLA (PW-1).

51. Dr. Narendra Kumar Singh (PW-9) is the doctor whowas posted as Deputy Superintendent in Sub-Divisional Hospital,Danapur on 01.05.2003. He was a member of the Medical Boardwith Dr. Hemant Kumar Jha and Dr. Ram Niwas Prasad. He hadconducted the autopsy on the dead body of Satyanarayan Sinha.This witness has proved the postmortem report as Exhibit ‘5’. Asregards the injuries found on the body of the deceased, PW-9 hasstated as under:- “(i) Lacerated wound 2½” x 2” depth continuedinside plus blackening around below the right ear.There was partial laceration over right ear lobule. Itwas the entry wound.

(ii) Lacerated wound 5” x 3” depth continued withinjury no. (i) in front of left ear and left side of face.This is exit wound. There is fracture of right side ofmandible, left side of mandible and maxilla.

(iii) Lacerated wound 3½” x 3½” depth continuedinside in front and below right shoulder joint plusslide blackening around. It was the entry wound.

(iv) Lacerated wound 5” x 3” depth continued withinjury no. (iii) on the back of the neck. This is exitwound.

(v) Lacerated wound 1” x 1” omentum sproutingoutside of right side of abdomen plus blackeningaround the entry wound.

External Examination:-

Scalp – Meningal surface pale

Thorax – There is slight laceration of right upperlobe of lung and blood collection in thoracic cavity.Right chamber full, left empty Abdomen - Vicera, liver, spleen, kidney and gut –

general look pale. There is collection of blood and gas. Slight laceration of ilium.

Urinary bladder is empty. Stomach containedundigested food.undigested food.

Small gut – Liquid, semidigested food and gas.

Large gut contained faceas of gas. Fragments of bullet are found in the wall of abdomen and inside the wall of pidium which was handed over to theconstable.constable.

(4) Time elapsed since death – 36 hours

(5) Injuries from (i) to (v) were firearm injuries causing hemorrhage, shock and death.

(6) This P.M. report in in the handwriting of Dr.

H.K. Jha and written in my presence. It bears the

signature of Dr. H.K. Jha, Dr. Ram Niwas Pd. And mine. The P.M. report was marked Exhibit – 4

(7) Blackening around injury suggests that firing was resorted to from close range.”

52. In his cross-examination, PW-9 has stated that he was not a ballistic expert. Dr. H.K. Jha read the postmortem report onthe basis of his observation. He was sitting there. He and Dr. RamNivas Prasad signed on the postmortem report being members ofthe Board. About the recovered bullet from his stomach, thiswitness has stated that the same is not present in the court. It wasnot mentioned in the postmortem report that the bullet was sealedor not. The bullet was handed over to the Constable. It is notmentioned in the postmortem report that the recovered bullet waskept in the jar or not. Life of bullet and its fragment is not written in the postmortem report. As regards the direction of the injury, thedoctor (PW-9) has stated that the direction of injury was fromupper to downwards. He has stated that the time of death of 36hours is only a range. It may be two hours before or after. PW-9denied the suggestion that the postmortem report is collusive.

53. Arshad Jama(PW-10) was posted as Dy.S.P.(Sachivalaya) in the year 2003. In his examination-in-chief, he hasstated that on 02.05.2003, the DGP, Bihar ordered him to take overthe investigation of Danapur P.S. Case No. 200 of 2023. In thelight of the said order, he had assumed the investigation of the caseand inspected the place of occurrence.

In paragraph ‘2’ of his deposition, he has given the descriptionof the place of occurrence. The place of occurrence is the roadgoing from Danapur Station to Shivala. In East at a distance of1200 Yards, there is Danapur Railway Station, in West at adistance of 350 yards, there is Sarari Gumti and Chauraha. Theroad is 20 feet wide. He found blood fallen in the middle of theroad in diameter of 18 inch. The blood had dried down. Hecollected blood and sand from the place of occurrence. He hadfound broken glasses at the place of occurrence. He found 0.315bore cartridge shell at the place of occurrence. He prepared aseizure list of the same. He has proved the seizure list (Exhibit ‘3’)

and he has stated that Kamakhaya Prasad and Basant Rai had puttheir thumb impression on the same.

He has further stated in his examination-in-chief that in courseof investigation, he had interrogated Asha Devi and Kalavati Deviand seized the Bolero Vehicle No. BR1T-0222. He had takenstatement of Sanjay Kumar and filed application in the court ofChief Judicial Magistrate for sending the seized articles toForensic Science Laboratory. In paragraph ‘5’ of his examination-in-chief, he has stated that he had recorded the statement of theinformant in presence of DIG Central (Range). He had recordedstatement of the injured Munna @ Dheeraj and Nageshwar Prasad.He had conducted Kurki Japti in the house of accused Ranjan @Benga and seized the articles. He had recorded the criminalantecedent of Ranjan @ Benga and Sunil Yadav @ Kana. Afterinvestigation, he had submitted a charge-sheet showing Ranjan @Benga and Sunil Yadav as absconder.

In his cross-examination, this witness has stated that he hadnot mentioned in the case diary as who had shown him the place ofoccurrence. He had left for the place of occurrence fromSachivalaya at 14:00 Hrs. He had not recorded the time ofreaching to the place of occurrence. He had also not recorded thetime of inspection of the place of occurrence. He has stated in paragraph ‘8’ of his deposition that at the time of occurrence, therewas no BMP Camp there but police force was there. He had notrecorded the time of seizure of the cartridge shell and the time ofrecording of the statement of the witnesses. He had not recordedthe time of reaching to Sarari village for recording the statement ofAsha Devi (PW-1). He had not perused the investigation done bythe earlier I.O. prior to taking over the charge of the investigationin this case. He had got the charge of investigation on 3rd of May.

54. PW-10 has stated that the earlier I.O. had given thedescription of the place of occurrence which is not different fromthe description given by this witness. The earlier I.O. has recordedthat the place of occurrence in this case is Khagaul-Neora PakkiRoad. From the place of occurrence, this road goes from East toWest. At the place of occurrence, in North there is villageJammulddin Chak, in South there is boundary wall of the Railway,in East Danapur-Khagaul Railway Station and West the pakki roadgoing to Neora. The earlier I.O. had not recorded aboutcollection/seizure of blood or the empty cartridge shell. Thiswitness had not recorded in the case diary that he had perused thediary of the earlier I.O. On the same day, this witness had takenover the charge of investigation of Danapur P.S. Case No. 198 of2003. He has deposed that he had earlier stood as a witness in another trial in this case but he did not remember that the saidconnected trial is Sessions Trial No. 246A. This witness hasfurther stated that in the case diary of this case, he had notrecorded the time of registration of Danapur P.S. Case No. 198 of2003. He has stated that in the diary he had recorded that when hewent to take statement of the informant then she had refused togive her statement, when he asked for seizure of Bolero Vehicle,she asked her not to do and she did not disclose the name of thewitnesses. PW-10 has stated that he had recorded the statement ofwitnesses in paragraph ‘27’, ‘28’ and ‘30’ of the case diary. Someof the witnesses had stated that he had not seen any lady/femalesitting in the jeep. Nobody made such statement. He has stated thatsome of the witnesses who are named in paragraph ‘35’, ‘36’ and‘37’ of the case diary had not stated that who had shot atSatyanarayan Sinha. Regarding some other witnesses, PW-10 hasstated that they did not say about the role of any of the accusedperson in the murder.

55. PW-10 has stated in paragraph ‘15’ that according tothe report of the FSL, they had not found the finger prints as thosewere missing. The car was seized from the garage of Sinha Ji andseizure list was prepared on 10.05.2003. He had recorded inparagraph ‘76’ of the case diary that he reached to record the

statement of the witnesses but could not do so. He has, however,stated that he had not taken any action against the informant or anyof the witnesses. In paragraph ‘16’ of his deposition, he has statedthat there was no mention in the case diary as to where vehicle waskept after seizure. The vehicle was not produced in court. He hasstated that the vehicle was left on Jimmenama. He has stated thatin the case diary, there is no mention about the receipt of the reportof examination of blood etc. He has stated that he had come in thecourt with the seized article, blood, etc. He had not recorded thestatement of the earlier I.O. and he came to know that JeewanYadav, a witness of this case, was missing and absconding. Inparagraph ‘17’ of his deposition, he has stated that he had nottaken photographs or he had not prepared any seizure list of car ofthe place of occurrence. He had also not recorded statement of theguards who were present at the house of Rambabu Pathik. He hadrecorded the criminal antecedent.

56. Regarding the previous statement of the prosecutionwitnesses, PW-10 has stated that Kalawati Devi had not given himany information rather she had stated that “Agar ‘bhaujai’ghatnasthal par nahi jati to aur kai log maare jate”. She had notstated before police that she had seen the ‘bhaujai’ holding thedead body. She had brought her ‘bhaujai’ to the village.

57. Regarding Dheeraj Kumar (PW-7), I.O. has statedthat he had not made statement before him that when the vehiclereached in front of the house of Pathik Ji, a Maruti car was foundstanding there diagonally. He had not stated that three persons hadarrived from the van and shouted “Satyanarayan aa gya” and thatthey had arms in their hand. He had not made statement that fromthe house of Pathik Ji, Sunil, Ranjan @ Benga came outside. In hiscross-examination, he had not stated before police that Pathik Jihad told “Badka Neta Banta hai, goli maar do”. He had not madestatement that the three accused persons had pulled out his uncleand started firing in which his uncle became ill. He has stated thathe had suffered one shot on to his hand and he becameunconscious whereafter his treatment was done in RailwayHospital and PMCH.

In paragraph ‘19’, PW-10 has stated that witness Dheeraj hadnot taken name of Sunil, Ranjan @ Benga in the statement beforehim. In course of investigation, the informant or the witnessDheeraj had not produced his treatment papers before him. He hasstated that his treatment was done at Shaguna More. In paragraph‘20’ of his deposition, PW-10 has stated that Nageshwar wasexamined on 19.06.2003 and he had recorded his statement in DIGOffice. The statement of Sanjaywas also recorded in DIG Office.

It is important to note that PW-10 has stated that in course ofinvestigation, witness Arun Kumar was murdered/killed in policefiring. PW-10 denied the defence suggestion that to disturb therally, deceased Satyanarayan had assembled nearby house ofRambabu Pathik, with his 1500-2000 supporters and they hadstarted firing on the vehicles going to the rally, on seeing this, thepolice personnel present at the house of Pathik Ji and the thenOfficer Incharge reached there with force then the people startedthrowing stones and firing and they started burning the vehicleswhereafter in self-defence, police fired in which Arun Kumar andSatyanarayan Sinha suffered bullet. This witness denied thesuggestion of the defence. He also denied the suggestion that thewife of Satyanarayan Sinha is in politics and under her order, theaccused persons have been falsely implicated in this case. Thiswitness has further stated in paragraph ‘21’ that this case wasregistered after 24 hours of the occurrence. He had tried to recordthe statement of the informant on 03.05.2003, 05.05.2003,09.05.2003, 15.05.2003, 24.05.2003, 05.06.2003 and 10.05.2003.He found one towel which was not claimed by anyone. He was theInvestigating Officer of Danapur P.S. Case No. 198 of 2003, in thesaid FIR, it is mentioned that Satyanarayan Sinha was an activecriminal.

58. On analysis of the evidence of PW-10, it is foundthat he had taken over the investigation of the case after three daysof the occurrence but on the date of taking over the investigation,he had not perused anything with regard to the investigation doneby the earlier I.O. The earlier I.O. was not examined but the earlierI.O. had not recorded about seizure of blood or empty cartridgeshell from the place of occurrence. The informant (PW-1) hasstated in her deposition that after 10-15 minutes of the occurrence,she had a meeting with the Police Inspector, Danapur. She hasstated that on 30.04.2003 itself she had given information to thepolice station but in the police station, her statement was notrecorded. At the place of occurrence, at about 11:45 AM, Darogajihad come with a large number of police officers, she had lodgedthe case at the place of occurrence but her statement was notrecorded by Daroga. This Court finds that there is no explanationin the evidence of the I.O. (PW-10) as to why the earlier I.O. wasnot examined and has been withheld, he has not even been made achargesheet witness in this case. PW-10 has stated that he had leftvehicle on Jimmenama but why the vehicle was not sent to theForensic Science Laboratory for examination with regard to thebullet marks on the vehicle remained a question mark. PW-10 hasstated in his deposition that he had tried to record the statement of Asha Devi but she did not give her statement. In course ofsupervision also effort was made to take the statement of theinformant but she had refused.

59. This Court has noticed from the evidence of PW-1that she has a different say about this. She has stated that policewas not taking interest in recording of the statement of thewitnesses, therefore, she filed a protest petitionin the court of thelearned Jurisdiction Magistrate. The Protest Petition was filedon13.06.2003. She had made a complaint that the Senior Officersand the I.O. were not taking interest in the matter. They wereshowing indifferent attitude as one of the accused in the casehappened to be the Samadhi of the then Chief Minister of the Stateof Bihar. To this Court, it appears that the I.O. (PW-10) and theearlier I.O. both had not taken interest in the proper investigationof the case.

Consideration

60. On going through the evidences available on therecord and upon perusal of the impugned judgment, it appears thatthe learned trial court has passed the impugned judgment in boththe trials i.e. Sessions Trial No. 246 of 2006 and Sessions Trial No.246A of 2006 in the same words verbatimly. In the present trial i.e.Sessions Trial No. 246 of 2006, the learned trial court has briefly discussed the deposition of the witnesses under the heading‘Findings’ from paragraph ‘9’ to ‘19’. In paragraph ‘20’ of theimpugned judgment, the learned trial court has recorded thesubmissions advanced on behalf of the prosecution and theinformant. Some judgments referred by and on behalf of theprosecution have been taken note of but not even briefly discussed.One of the judgments relied upon on behalf of the prosecution wasthe judgment in the case of Harendra Rai (supra). The signatureof PW-1 on her written information has been marked Exhibit '1'but the written information has not been marked Exhibit. Thesignature of the informant on her protest petition has been markedExhibit '1/1', her lawyers' signature on that is Exhibit '1/2' but theprotest petition has not been exhibited. In paragraph ‘21’ of theimpugned judgment, the trial court has recorded the submissionson behalf of the defence. On behalf of the defence as well, somejudgments were placed for consideration before the learned trialcourt but nowhere considered. It appears that the learned trial courthas considered the case in paragraph ‘22’ of the judgment. Thisparagraph ‘22’ of the judgment in Sessions Trial No. 246 of 2006is verbatimly the same and one as that of paragraph ‘20’ of theimpugned judgment in Sessions Trial No. 246A of 2006. In fact, inparagraph ‘22’ of the judgment in Sessions Trial No. 246 of 2006, the trial court has referred this trial as Sessions Trial No. 246A of2006.

61. A perusal of the list of exhibits of the defence asmentioned in the impugned judgment of Sessions Trial No. 246 of2006 would show that Exhibit No. ‘B’ is the certified copy of thewritten information and the FIR of Danapur P.S. Case No. 198 of2003 dated 30.04.2003 but on perusal of the records of theexhibits, this Court found that only formal FIR of Danapur P.S.Case No. 198 of 2003 dated 02.05.2003 is available on the recordbut the written information submitted by Pramod Kumar, Inspectorof Police, Danapur giving rise to Danapur P.S. Case No. 198 of2003 has not been brought on record. In Sessions Trial No. 246Aof 2006, only the written information submitted by Hawaldar M.M. Sattar giving rise to Danapur P.S. Case No. 199 of 2003 hasbeen exhibited as Exhibit ‘B-1’, therefore, this Court finds that thelearned trial court has wrongly recorded in both the judgmentsabout the description of Exhibit ‘B’ and Exhibit ‘B-1’ respectively.It is also evident that while the written information of Danapur P.S.Case No. 198 of 2003 has not been perused by the trial court, thewritten information of M. M. Sattar, Hawaldar giving rise toDanapur P.S. Case No. 199 of 2003 has not at all been considered.

62. The trial court has committed grave error by takinginto consideration the records of one trial for purpose of its judgment in another trial. The trial court says that because both thetrials have originated from same P.S. Case i.e. Danapur P.S. caseNo. 200 of 2003, so both the records will be perused for the ends ofjustice as well as for the better appreciation of evidences. The trialcourt seems to have forgotten it's own order dated 16.04.2024whereby the Court restrained the defence from citing evidenceadduced in one trial in course of hearing of another trial. To thisCourt, there is no iota of doubt that the learned trial court hascompletely erred by taking into consideration the evidencesrecorded in Sessions Trial No. 246A of 2006 in delivering itsjudgment in Sessions Trial No. 246 of 2006. In the originalSessions Trial No. 246 of 2006, eleven prosecution witnesses andone court witness had deposed, whereas in Sessions Trial No. 246Aof 2006, nine prosecution witnesses and one court witness deposed.Similarly, as regards the documentary evidences in Sessions TrialNo. 246 of 2006, the prosecution exhibited writing of Rajnish onwritten report (Exhibit ‘2’ with objection) and injury report ofDheeraj Kumar (Exhibit ‘4’ with objection) but in Sessions TrialNo. 246 A of 2006, writing of Rajnish was not exhibited and injuryreport of Dheeraj Kumar was marked Exhibit ‘5’ (withoutobjection). It would appear that in paragraph ‘22’ of the impugnedjudgment in Sessions Trial No. 246 of 2006 and paragraph '20' ofthe judgment in Trial No. 246A of 2006, the learned trial court referred the injury report of Dheeraj Kumar as Exhibit ‘4’ even asin one of the trials, it is marked Exhibit '5'.

63. This Court further finds that in the impugnedjudgment, the learned trial court has taken a view that PW-3 SanjayKumar has nowhere stated in his examination-in-chief regarding theinjuries sustained in the occurrence. The trial court seems to havefallen in error by taking PW-3 as the same Sanjay @ ChunnuSharma who according to the informant (PW-1) had sustainedfirearm injury in the occurrence of the present case. In thisconnection, this Court would refer paragraph ‘1’ of the depositionof PW-1 in which she has stated that in the middle seat, she alongwith Sanjay @ Chunnu were sitting. From perusal of the evidenceof Nageshwar Prasad Yadav (PW-6), it would appear that he hasnamed Sanjay Sharma as one of the persons who was sitting withAsha Ji and Jeevan ji in the middle seat. This very witness hasstated that he had got information about the accused from ChunnuSharma. Dheeraj Kumar (PW-7) has stated that in the same vehicle,his aunt Asha Sinha, Chunnu Ji, Jeevan Ji, Rintu Ji, Nageshwar Jiand he was himself sitting. When the deposition of Dheeraj Kumar(PW-7) is further read, it may be noticed that in paragraph (x) of hiscross-examination, he has stated that he was not aware about theplace of residence of Sanjay @ Chunnu, thus, PW-7 has made itclear that Sanjay @ Chunnu is the same and one person. Rintu

Singh (PW-8) has also taken name of Sanjay Ji @ Chunnu. Aperusal of the evidence of the defence would show that SanjaySharma @ Chunnu Sharma was murdered and in this regard hismother Usha Devi had lodged a case giving rise to Bihta P.S. CaseNo. 280 of 2009. In the said case, Ritlal Yadav and some otheraccused of this case were charged of the offences under Sections307/120B IPC and 302/120B IPC for the murder of Sanjay @Chunnu Sharma. During this period, Rit Lal Yadav was absconding.The informant had alleged that he was a witness against RitlalYadav in the murder case of Satyanarayan Sinha, therefore, he waskilled. Despite presence of the certified copy of the judgment of thesaid case on the record (Exhibit 'A'), the learned trial court hasmisunderstood the seizure list witness Sanjay Kumar, son ofChhattu Rai (PW-5) as injured witness and made a comment inparagraph ‘22’ of its judgment that PW-3 has nowhere stated in hisexamination-in-chief regarding the injury sustained in theoccurrence. This is a gross mistake committed by the learned trialcourt.

64. On perusal of the records of Sessions Trial No. 246 of2006, it appears that vide order dated 04.12.2015, the learned trialcourt allowed the defence documents to be taken on record andmarked exhibit. It is worth noting that even though the defencedocuments have been marked exhibits but those have not been taken into consideration. The formal FIR of Danapur P.S. Case No.198 of 2003 clearly shows that it was sent to the court of learnedACJM, Danapur only on 02.05.2003 i.e. after two days of theoccurrence, therefore, the submission of the prosecution thatDanapur P.S. Case No. 198 of 2003 was registered with anafterthought to help the accused persons was required to beconsidered seriously but the trial court has given a go by to the saidsubmission. The trial court could not notice from the records thatthe written information of P.S. Case No. 198 of 2003 was not therewith the certified copy of formal FIR instead C.C. of the writteninformation dated 01.05.2003 of Havildar M.M. Sattar was onrecord. Nothing has been discussed by the learned trial court. Thecase diary of Danapur P.S. Case No. 198 of 2003 was called for bya judicial order dated 28.06.2016 but that was not received on therecord of Sessions Trial No. 246 of 2006, still, the defence evidencewas closed and then the case was fixed for hearing.

65. In its order dated 14.06.2016, the learned trial courtrecorded the submissions of the parties, perused the case recordalong with the case diary and found that DIG Central RangeRavindra Kumar had conducted supervision of this case and hissupervision report had been mentioned in paragraph ‘114’ of thecase diary. The trial court held that the I.O. of this case has alreadybeen examined, therefore, the court can look into the supervision report of the DIG Central Range Ravindra Kumar. This Court findsthat despite this order of the trial court, the said supervision reportas contained in paragraph ‘114’ of the case diary was neitherexhibited nor looked into by the learned trial court but the trialcourt went on recording that the statement of the prosecutionwitnesses had been recorded in presence of DIG Central Range,therefore, it cannot be said that the I.O. (PW-10) was in collusionwith the accused persons. In the opinion of this Court, the findingof the learned trial court with regard to the conduct of the I.O. (PW-10) is not based on correct appreciation of the evidences on therecord and the circumstances pointing out to the indifferent attitudeof the investigating agency in carrying on the investigation of thiscase. The finding is perverse.

66. As regards the place of occurrence, the trial court hasrecorded that the I.O. of the case has given a different place ofoccurrence than that of the place stated by the informant (PW-1).On perusal of the evidence of I.O. (PW-10), we have noticed that hehas categorically stated that place of occurrence of the present caseis the same and one which is the place of occurrence of DanapurP.S. Case No. 198 of 2003. The learned trial court seems to haveerred in appreciation of the evidences.

67. This Court has found that the conduct of investigationin this case has been done with completely indifferent attitude initially by the first I.O. and then by the second I.O. (PW-10). In thename of investigation only some paperworks were done in thenature of formalities. The fact that the FIR of Danapur P.S. CaseNo. 198 of 2003 was sent to the court of learned ACJM, Danapuronly 02.05.2003 would require a serious consideration as it primafacie appears that the FIR has been ante-dated.

68. The trial court has not taken into consideration theprotest petition which was filed by the informant (PW-1). She hadcomplained to the court that police was not conductinginvestigation properly, the statement of the witnesses were notbeing recorded and because the samdhi of the Chief Minister of theState was involved in this case, therefore, the senior police officersand the I.O. have not taken any legal action in the matter. Exhibit‘2’ was filed in court on 13.06.2003. Only thereafter the I.O. (PW-10) recorded the statement of the informant on 14.06.2003.

69. This Court has further found from the evidence of theI.O. (PW-10) on the record that while preparing the seizure list ofthe Bolero vehicle bearing Registration Number BR1T-0222 on10.05.2003, he recorded only the colour, registration number,engine number and chassis number of the vehicle in the descriptionpart of the seizure list. The vehicle was not sent to the FSL forexamination but in order to explain this inaction, the I.O. has statedthat in case diary he had recorded that when he contacted the informant to give her statement, she refused to give her statementand when he requested her to send the Bolero vehicle to the FSL,she refused to do it. She had also refused to give the complete nameand addresses of the witnesses of the FIR. This Court is of theopinion that this statement of the I.O. (PW-10) is required to beconsidered with reference to the case diary and the relevant date onwhich he recorded it and in order to get a complete picture of theprogress in investigation. The vehicle was seized on 10.05.2003 andit was a lawful possession of the I.O. From the case diary it appearsthat on or after 10.05.2003, the I.O. did not take any step to sendthe vehicle to the FSL, therefore, despite being in lawful possessionof the vehicle, the I.O. did not take further action to collect theevidences. This only strengthens the claim of the informant (PW-1)as stated in her protest petition that the senior police officers andthe I.O. of the case were not taking legal action in the matter as oneof the accused in this case was the samdhi of the then ChiefMinister of the State.

70. The case of Harendra Rai (supra) was cited onbehalf of the prosecution but it has not been even looked into by thelearned trial court. In the case of Harendra Rai (supra), theHon’ble supreme court has observed inter alia that the failure of theState machinery and failure of the trial court to ensure a fair trialfrom the perspective of the victim side and the aspect of non- marking of the FIR as an exhibit, non-production of the formalwitnesses in the trial would not vitiate the genuineness of the FIRand bayan tahriri. The Hon’ble Supreme Court observed “… Werefuse to give any discount to the accused persons for non-exhibition thereof….”.

71. Relying upon the judgment of the Hon’ble SupremeCourt in the case of Ram Bihari Yadav vs. State of Biharreported in (1998) 4 SCC 517, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in thecase of Harendra Rai (supra) quoted paragraph ‘13’ thereof asunder:- “13. Before parting with this case, we consider itappropriate to observe that though the prosecutionhas to prove the case against the accused in themanner stated by it and that any act or omission onthe part of the prosecution giving rise to anyreasonable doubt would go in favour of the accused,yet in a case like the present one where the recordshows that investigating officers created a mess bybringing on record Ext. 5/4 and GD Entry 517 andhave exhibited remiss and/or deliberately omitted todo what they ought to have done to bail out theappellant who was a member of the police force orfor any extraneous reason, the interest of justicedemands that such acts or omissions of the officersof the prosecution should not be taken in favour ofthe accused, for that would amount to givingpremium for the wrongs of the prosecutiondesignedly committed to favour the appellant. Insuch cases, the story of the prosecution will have to be examined dehors such omissions andcontaminated conduct of the officials otherwise themischief which was deliberately done would beperpetuated and justice would be denied to thecomplainant party and this would obviously shakethe confidence of the people not merely in the law-enforcing agency but also in the administration ofjustice.”

72. At this stage, we rely upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Paras Yadav and Others vs.State of Bihar reported in (1999) 2 SCC 126, in paragraph ‘8’ ofthe said judgment the following observations have been made:- “8. … the lapse on the part of the investigatingofficer should not be taken in favour of theaccused. It may be that such lapse is committeddesignedly or because of negligence. Hence, theprosecution evidence is required to be examineddehors such omissions to find out whether thesaid evidence is reliable or not. .…”

73. Keeping in view the aforementioned judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court when we examine the impugnedjudgment in the present case, it is found that the lapses on the partof the investigation has been used against the prosecution and thebenefit thereof has been given to the accused without properlyappreciating the evidence of the prosecution witnesses from theperspective of the victim side.

74. We rely upon the judgment of the Hon’ble SupremeCourt in the case of Edakkandi Dineshan (supra) wherein it hasbeen held that a part of the statement of the witness can bebelieved even though some part of the statements may not berelied upon by the court. Paragraph ‘20’ and ‘21’ of the judgmentare quoted hereunder for a ready reference:- “20. Either a partial, untrue version of one of thewitnesses or an exaggerated version of a witnessmay not be a sole reason to discard the entireprosecution case which is otherwise supported byclinching evidence such as truthful version of thewitnesses, medical evidence, recovery of theweapons, etc. At this stage, it may not be out ofplace to refer to the principle called as “falsus inuno, falsus in omnibus”.

21. It is a settled position that “falsus in uno, falsusin omnibus” (false in one thing, false in everything)that the above principle is foreign to our criminallaw jurisprudence. This aspect has been consideredby this Court in a plethora of judgments. In RamVijay Singh v. State of U.P.[5], a three-Judge Bench ofthis Hon'ble Court had held that : (SCC pp. 254-55,paras 20-21)

"20. We do not find any merit in the argumentsraised by the learned counsel for the appellant. Apart statement of a witness can be believed eventhough some part of the statement may not berelied upon by the court. The maxim falsus inuno, falsus in omnibus is not the rule applied bythe courts in India. This Court recently in ajudgment in Ilangovan v. State of T.N.[6] held thatIndian Courts have always been reluctant to applythe principle as it is only a rule of caution. It washeld as under : (SCC p. 536, para 11)

5. (2021) 15 SCC 241

6. (2020) 10 SCC 533 : (2021) 1 SCC (Cri) 137

‘11. The counsel for the appellant lastly arguedthat once the witnesses had been disbelievedwith respect to the co-accused, theirtestimonies with respect to the present accusedmust also be discarded. The counsel is, ineffect, relying on the legal maxim “falsus inuno, falsus in omnibus”, which Indian Courtshave always been reluctant to apply. A three-Judge Bench of this Court, as far back as in1957, in Nisar Ali v. State of U.P.[7 ] held on thispoint as follows : (SCC OnLine SC paras 9-10)

“9. … This maxim has not received generalacceptance in different jurisdictions in Indianor has this maxim come to occupy the statusof a rule of law. It is merely a rule of caution.All that it amounts to is that in such cases thetestimony may be disregarded and not that itmust be disregarded. …

10. The doctrine merely involves the questionof weight of evidence which a court may applyin a given set of circumstances, but it is notwhat may be called “a mandatory rule ofevidence”.”

21. Therefore, merely because a prosecutionwitness was not believed in respect of anotheraccused, the testimony of the said witnesscannot be disregarded qua the presentappellant. Still, further, it is not necessary forthe prosecution to examine all the witnesseswho might have witnessed the occurrence. It isthe quality of evidence which is relevant incriminal trial and not the quantity.”

(emphasis in original)”

75. We further find that the consideration of theevidences adduced in Sessions Trial No. 246A of 2006 in the nameof ends of justice and for the better appreciation of evidences is notcorrect. In this regard, the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Courtin the case of A.T. Mydeen (supra) and the judgment in the case ofState of Kerala vs. Joseph reported in (2014) 16 SCC 385 whichhas also been referred by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in A.T.Mydeen (supra) are laying down the law. In the said case, the HighCourt had considered the evidence of one sessions case which triedsome of the accused in another sessions case, which was tryinganother set of accused arising out of same offence and acquitted allthe accused. The Hon’ble Supreme Court held that the High Courtwas not right in considering the evidence of one case for anothercase and accordingly set aside the judgment of the High Court andremanded the matter to the High Court for fresh disposal. Thus, inthe present case, we find that the learned trial court has erred on thiscount also.

76. The trial court has taken an adverse inference for thefact that Rambabu Pathik was not chargesheeted by theinvestigating agency, the final form was submitted by police whichwas accepted by learned jurisdictional Magistrate and even incourse of trial, the prosecution did not invoke Section 319 CrPC tosummon Rambabu Pathik. According to the trial court, such things are more relevant. In our opinion, this finding of the trial court iscompletely perversed. The trial court had before it the statement ofthe prosecution witnesses and the court was aware of the provisionof Section 319 CrPC. If the court was satisfied from the evidencesthat any person not being an accused has committed any offence forwhich such person could be tried together with the accused, thecourt could have proceeded against the said person and undersubsection (2) of Section 319 CrPC such person could have beensummoned. Instead of acting in accordance with law, the trial courtdrew an adverse inference against the prosecution case to fail it.

77. We have further noticed that the learned trial courthas doubted the statement of PW-1 also for the reason that in herwritten information, she had stated that Arun Kumar was in theBolero vehicle but in course of trial, in paragraph ‘20’ of herdeposition, she has stated that Arun Kumar was injured in DanapurP.S. Case No. 198 of 2003 and other witnesses have stated that hehad died. The trial court has raised a doubt that as to how it wasprobable that a man injured and died in another case was sittingalong with deceased husband of the informant. In our consideredopinion, the learned trial court has completely missed out inappreciating and co-relating the sequence of events and seems tohave gone by the date of registration of the cases. In thisconnection, the trial court did not notice that Danapur P.S. Case No.

198 of 2003 was though shown registered on 30.04.2003 but theFIR was sent to the court of learned jurisdictional magistrate on02.05.2003 only. The written information giving rise to the saidcase was not before the learned trial court, otherwise it would havethrown much light on the sequence of events. The trial court did notnotice that though Exhibit ‘B’ is said to be the written informationand FIR of Danapur P.S. Case No. 198 of 2003 but on record it wasonly the formal FIR and not the written information which was thebasis of the FIR. This has led to recording of a finding on the basisof half hearted facts present on the record.

78. We have earlier noticed the judgments placed beforeus by learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State. We are ofthe considered opinion that on the face of the several perversefindings of the learned trial court and the other reasons which wehave stated hereinabove, the impugned judgment of acquittal isliable to be set aside. In the case of Ganesha (supra) the Hon’blesupreme court has observed as under:- “… where the finding of acquittal is recorded onaccount of misreading of evidence or non-consideration of evidence or perverseappreciation of evidence, nothing prevents theHigh Court from setting aside the order ofacquittal at the instance of the informant inrevision and directing fresh disposal on merit bythe trial court. In the event of such direction, the trial court shall be obliged to reappraise theevidence in light of the observation of theRevisional Court and take an independent viewuninfluenced by any of the observations of theRevisional Court on the merit of the case. ... ”

79. On going through the judgment of the learned trialcourt, we have found that it is not only a cut and paste in reasoningand rationale, the learned trial court has not at all appreciated theocular evidences independently. The trial court seems to have beenswayed away by taking into consideration the lacunae in theinvestigation of the case. This has resulted in miscarriage ofjustice. Since this Court has found that some of the documentswhich were properly available on the record and on which thesignature of the prosecution witnesses have been marked exhibits,but the documents have not been marked exhibit, the documentwhich has been marked exhibit (certified copy of the writteninformation of Danapur P.S. Case No. 198 of 2003) is not availableon the record of the trial court and the trial court has not taken anyeffort to discuss those important documents, this Court is of theconsidered opinion that the impugned judgment of the trial courtwould be liable to be set aside. Accordingly, we set aside theimpugned judgment and remit the matter to the learned trial courtfor a fresh consideration after ensuring that the documents asdiscussed above be duly taken on record and marked exhibits.

80. The learned trial court shall hear the parties anddispose of the matter as early as possible. This Court would placeon record that earlier the trial of this case has already beendelayed, therefore, all endeavours and efforts be made to decidethe matter without granting unnecessary adjournments. It isexpected that the trial court would decide the matter preferablywithin a period of four months from the date of receipt of thisorder with the trial court records.

81. While parting with this judgment, this Court wouldexpress its anguish on the manner in which the records of the casehave been maintained. We have noticed that a number of importantdocuments are lying on the record in torn condition and are gettingdestroyed. This Court would, therefore, direct the learned RegistrarGeneral of this Court to issue appropriate direction to theconcerned Section/Office of this Court to get the records properlyarranged and safely preserved. The documents which are gettingdamaged and destroyed be preserved in digital form.

82. Let this exercise be done within a period of twoweeks from today and thereafter the trial court records with a copyof the judgment be sent to the court of learned Additional SessionsJudge-III-cum-Special Judge MP/MLA Court through a specialmessenger.

83. The accused-private respondents shall surrender inthe trial court within two weeks from today, if they are on bail,then the trial court shall obtain fresh bail bonds from the accused-private respondents.

84. It is made clear that the observations of this Courthereinabove shall not prejudice the case of the either parties andthe trial court shall conduct an independent reappraisal of theentire evidences and take a view uninfluenced by the observationsof this Court on merit.

85. The appeals are allowed to the extent indicatedhereinabove.

(Rajeev Ranjan Prasad, J)

(Ashok Kumar Pandey, J)