Case Background
This case arose from the death of a young man, Rajan Yadav, aged about 23–24 years, from village Ramavaliya in West Champaran district.
According to the prosecution, on the night of 16.01.2013, Rajan went to a neighbouring village, Semarahani (also referred to as Semrauli/Semrauli in the depositions), to watch a dance programme along with boys from his own village.
When he did not return home the next morning, his uncle, who later became the informant, went to village Sawna for irrigation work in his field. There he received information that Rajan’s dead body had been found thrown in the “Sareh” (field area) to the east of Semarahani village.
The uncle rushed to the spot and found the body. From the appearance of the body, he felt that somebody had killed his nephew by throttling him. However, he clearly stated that he did not know with whom Rajan had gone and did not know who had murdered him.
On the basis of this fardebyan, Simra P.S. Case No. 3 of 2013 was registered on 17.01.2013 under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code against unknown persons. Investigating Officer Rajesh Kumar (PW-15) investigated the case and ultimately submitted charge-sheet against four accused persons for the offence under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC.
The case was committed to the Court of Session and numbered as Sessions Trial No. 158 of 2015 before the Additional Sessions Judge-I, Bagaha, West Champaran. After full trial, by judgment dated 07.01.2020, the learned trial court acquitted all the accused, holding that the prosecution had failed to establish their guilt under Section 302/34 IPC.
Aggrieved, Suresh Yadav, the uncle of the deceased and informant (PW-13), filed Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 365 of 2020 before the Patna High Court seeking to set aside this acquittal.
What the Court Examined and Decided
The Division Bench of the Patna High Court, comprising Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajeev Ranjan Prasad and Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ashok Kumar Pandey, heard the appeal. The oral judgment was delivered on 22.10.2024 by Justice Rajeev Ranjan Prasad.
The Court carefully went through the entire trial court record, including the depositions of 15 prosecution witnesses and three documentary exhibits.
Prosecution evidence overview
The prosecution examined the following witnesses in the trial: PW-1 Radha Kishun Uraon, PW-2 Satyanarayan Yadav, PW-3 Shambhu Uraon, PW-4 Azad Khan, PW-5 Lambu Uraon, PW-6 Umesh Yadav, PW-7 Mahesh Yadav, PW-8 Manoj Uraon, PW-9 Sawan Uraon, PW-10 Bachchi Devi (mother of the deceased), PW-11 Birendra Yadav, PW-12 Avadhesh Yadav, PW-13 Suresh Yadav (informant and uncle of the deceased), PW-14 Dr. Ashok Kumar Tiwary (doctor who conducted the postmortem), and PW-15 Rajesh Kumar (Investigating Officer).
Three documents were exhibited: signatures of Umesh Yadav and Birendra Yadav on seizure lists (Exhibits 1 and 2), and the signature of Dr. Ashok Kumar Tiwary on the postmortem report (Exhibit 3). The seizure list of a “Bakua” (sharp cutting tool) of one feet one inch with a 3½ inch wooden handle was also proved by the I.O. as Exhibit 4.
Evidence of the informant and mother of the deceased
The High Court noted that the entire prosecution story started with the fardebyan of PW-13, the uncle of the deceased. In his deposition, he admitted that he had not witnessed the occurrence himself. In paragraph 6 of his evidence, he stated that he had not named any accused in the fardebyan.
He further admitted that whatever he knew about the occurrence was told to him by his “Bhabhi”, the mother of the deceased, who deposed as PW-10. Thus, his evidence was clearly second-hand and dependent on PW-10.
PW-10, the mother of the deceased, therefore became the most important witness from the prosecution side. In her examination-in-chief, she stated that Rajan had gone to watch the dance in village Semrauli with Manoj, Lambu and Chhote. According to her, Bhagirathi had telephoned Rajan and taken him to the dance, after which Rajan did not return.
However, in her cross-examination, she made crucial admissions. She stated that she had given the names of the accused persons only on the basis of suspicion. She clearly said that those who had come to call her son to watch the dance were not involved in the occurrence. She further stated that her son had no enmity with anyone.
The High Court placed significant reliance on this testimony. It treated her candid admission that the names were given merely on suspicion as fatal to the prosecution case.
Evidence of PW-5 and why it was rejected
In the appeal, the learned counsel for the appellant strongly relied upon the deposition of PW-5, Lambu Uraon. According to his examination-in-chief, he along with several others, including Chhote Lal, Manoj Uraon, Sarvan Uraon, Jitendra Shah, Pravesh Uraon and Manjeet Uraon, had gone to watch the dance show around 10:00 PM.
He stated that while they were watching the programme, Rajan received a phone call, got up and went away. He further claimed that two of the accused, Pahavari and Bhagirathi, were standing beside the stage. At about 1:00 AM, Rajan went away somewhere with them. According to PW-5, Pahavari and Bhagirathi later returned and told the group to go home, saying that Rajan had already gone back. The next morning, they learnt that Rajan had been murdered.
On this basis, counsel for the appellant argued that the deceased was last seen in the company of the accused, and the trial court should have relied on PW-5’s testimony to convict them.
The State, represented by the Additional Public Prosecutor, pointed out the weaknesses in PW-5’s evidence. In cross-examination, PW-5 admitted that Rajan was his friend but had never told him about any enmity with the accused. He also admitted that he had no personal information about the actual occurrence of murder, had not gone to see the dead body, and had not even attended the cremation. He stated that he had only heard about the occurrence and deposed on the basis of what he had heard. He also admitted that he was brought to court to depose by Sunil Yadav, the deceased’s brother.
The High Court agreed with the State that these answers showed PW-5 was a hearsay witness, not an eyewitness to any assault or killing. His conduct—claiming to be a close friend yet not going to see the body or cremation—further reduced the reliability of his testimony. The Court held that his evidence was “neither clinching nor would be a safe piece of evidence” to base a conviction upon.
Other witnesses and hostile evidence
The trial court and High Court also looked at other witnesses. PW-1 was found not to be a witness to the material facts and had only heard about the occurrence from villagers. PW-2, PW-3 and PW-4 did not support the prosecution and were declared hostile. PW-5, as noted, was hearsay.
PW-6 was a formal witness who only proved the seizure list. PW-7, PW-8 and PW-9 similarly did not support the prosecution and were declared hostile. PW-11, another seizure-list witness, had nothing to say about the circumstances of the case. PW-12 was again a hostile witness.
The Court noted that the persons whom PW-5 said had gone with him to the dance, such as Manoj Uraon (PW-8) and Sawan Uraon (PW-9), when examined in court, did not support the prosecution and were declared hostile. This further weakened any “last seen together” theory.
Medical evidence and timing of death
PW-14, Dr. Ashok Kumar Tiwary, conducted the postmortem examination on the deceased’s body. In his opinion, the time since death was between 24 to 36 hours.
The Additional Public Prosecutor argued, and the Court noted, that if the prosecution theory was that the deceased had gone with the accused at around 10:00 PM and the body was found the next morning, this timing did not perfectly match the medical opinion of 24–36 hours since death. This mismatch created additional doubt about the exact time and manner of the occurrence.
Investigating Officer and unexhibited confession
The Investigating Officer, PW-15 Rajesh Kumar, stated that during investigation he first arrested Bhagirathi Yadav and Pahavari Yadav. According to him, they made confessional statements, and Pahavari also made a statement under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
However, the High Court noted that this Section 164 Cr.P.C. statement was never exhibited during trial. Further, the Magistrate before whom the alleged confessional statement was recorded was not examined as a witness. Therefore, this alleged confession could not be relied upon as evidence.
High Court’s conclusion
After evaluating all the evidence, the Patna High Court concluded that the trial court had correctly appreciated the material on record. The key reasons were:
First, the informant (PW-13) had admitted he had no direct knowledge, and the names of the accused did not appear in the original fardebyan.
Second, the most important witness, PW-10 (mother of the deceased), clearly stated that she had given the names of the accused only on suspicion and that those who had called her son to watch the dance were not involved in his murder.
Third, PW-5 was only a hearsay witness. He admitted he had no personal information about the killing and deposed on the basis of what he had heard, and his behaviour did not match that of a close friend of the deceased.
Fourth, most independent witnesses did not support the prosecution and were declared hostile, and nothing helpful could be obtained even after their cross-examination by the prosecution.
Fifth, the medical evidence regarding the time since death (24–36 hours) raised doubt about the prosecution’s suggested time-line of events.
In these circumstances, the Court held that there was no error in the trial court’s decision to acquit the accused. The appeal against acquittal was found to be without merit and was dismissed.
Why This Judgment Matters
This judgment is important for families of victims and for anyone involved in criminal cases in Bihar and beyond. It shows that even in serious offences like murder under Section 302 IPC, courts require strong and reliable evidence before they can convict.
The Patna High Court made it clear that suspicion, however strong, is not enough. When the primary family member herself says that she named the accused only on suspicion, and when witnesses turn hostile or admit they only heard about the events from others, the Court cannot send people to jail for life.
The judgment reinforces that hearsay evidence and unproved confessional statements cannot form the basis of conviction. It also underlines the duty of the prosecution to properly exhibit documents like Section 164 Cr.P.C. statements and to produce the Magistrates who recorded them.
For common people, this decision underscores the importance of giving accurate, complete information in the first statement to police and of ensuring that witnesses with direct knowledge come forward and testify truthfully.
Legal Issues and Answers
Issue: Whether the acquittal of the accused persons for the charge of murder under Section 302/34 IPC, based mainly on weak and hearsay evidence, should be reversed in appeal by the Patna High Court?
Answer: No. The High Court held that the prosecution failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt, and the trial court had correctly appreciated the evidence. The appeal against acquittal was dismissed.
Issue: Can the Court rely on a witness who admits he has no personal knowledge of the occurrence and only heard about it from others to convict accused persons in a murder case?
Answer: No. The Court treated such testimony as hearsay and unsafe to base a conviction upon, particularly when other independent witnesses did not support the prosecution.
Issue: What is the effect when a key family witness states that the names of the accused were given merely on suspicion and there is a mismatch between medical evidence and the alleged time of occurrence?
Answer: Such admissions and inconsistencies create serious doubt in the prosecution case. In this case, they strengthened the presumption of innocence and justified maintaining the acquittal.
Cases Cited by the Court
- The judgment text does not mention or rely upon any specific earlier case law. No precedents are cited by name.
Case Details
Case Number: Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 365 of 2020; arising out of Simra P.S. Case No. 3 of 2013; Sessions Trial No. 158 of 2015
Case Title: Suresh Yadav v. The State of Bihar & Ors.
Citation: 2024 (4) PLJR 662
Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajeev Ranjan Prasad; Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ashok Kumar Pandey
Advocates: For the appellant – Mr. Prithvi Nath Mishra, Advocate; For the State – Mr. Satya Narayan Prasad, Additional Public Prosecutor
Nature of the Case: Criminal appeal (Division Bench) against judgment of acquittal in a murder case under Section 302/34 IPC passed by the Additional Sessions Judge-I, Bagaha, West Champaran.
Final Outcome: Appeal dismissed; acquittal of all accused persons affirmed.
Link to Judgment: View full judgment of Patna High Court
If you found this explanation helpful and wish to stay informed about
how legal developments may affect your rights in Bihar,
you may consider following Samvida Law Associates for more updates.
