Appeal partly allowed in farm murder case — Patna High Court, 2025

Case Background

The case arises from a long-running dispute over agricultural land in village Machha, Police Station Triveniganj, District Supaul. About 3–4 years before the incident, the informant had purchased 1 bigha, 18 kathas and 10 dhurs of land from one Hanuman (also referred to as Gopal) Agrawal.

This land was earlier being cultivated on contract by one Natai Yadav. Even after the sale, Natai allegedly did not allow the purchaser and his family to plough the field. A village panchayati was held, headed by the Mukhiya of Kuswaha Panchayat, Shiv Nandan Yadav. It was decided that the informant would pay Rs. 5,000/- to Natai, after which he would stop objecting. The informant says he deposited Rs. 5,000/- with the panches, but the dispute did not end.

On 05.09.1992, the informant’s son, Dilip Kumar Yadav, went early in the morning to plough the disputed land. On learning that Natai and his supporters had also gone there and were asking Dilip not to plough, the informant, his wife Murti Devi, and younger son Rajesh went to the field around 8 a.m. They found many persons assembled, some allegedly armed with pistol, bhala, farsa, lathi and arrows.

At about 10:45 a.m. on 05.09.1992, while under treatment at the hospital, the informant’s fardbeyan was recorded by the Sub-Inspector of Triveniganj Police Station. On this basis, Triveniganj P.S. Case No. 85 of 1992 was registered under various sections of the Indian Penal Code, including Sections 147, 148, 149, 323, 324, 326, 307, 302, 120B, 447 and 114, and Section 27 of the Arms Act.

After investigation, the police submitted charge-sheet on 03.12.1992 against the present appellants. Cognizance was taken on 19.04.1993. Charges were framed on 12.08.1996 under Sections 307, 324, 120B, 302, 147, 148 and 323 IPC; in addition, accused Vidyanand Yadav faced separate charges under Section 302 IPC and Section 27 of the Arms Act.

The trial in Sessions Trial No. 138 of 1994 ended on 29.01.2016 in conviction of all eight accused for multiple offences, including Section 302/120B IPC, and in the case of Vidyanand, also Section 27 Arms Act. Sentences were imposed on 09.02.2016, including life imprisonment under Section 302 IPC and three years’ rigorous imprisonment under Section 27 Arms Act. All sentences were to run concurrently.

Against this judgment, two criminal appeals were filed before the Patna High Court: Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 173 of 2016 by seven family members, and Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 315 of 2016 by Vidyanand Yadav, the alleged shooter.

What the Court Examined and Decided

The Division Bench of the Patna High Court (Hon’ble Mr. Justice Mohit Kumar Shah and Hon’ble Mr. Justice Nani Tagia) closely examined the oral and documentary evidence. Twelve prosecution witnesses and one defence witness were on record.

Key eyewitnesses for the prosecution were:

• PW 1 Rajesh Kumar Yadav – younger son of the informant, brother of the deceased, claims to be an eyewitness.
• PW 4 Ravi Yadav – the informant and father of the deceased, injured in the incident.
• PW 5 Anirudh Paswan – claimed eyewitness from a nearby field.

PW 2 (nephew of the informant), PW 9 (widow of the deceased) and PW 11 (brother of informant) were essentially hearsay or arrived after the incident. PW 3 (wife of the informant) and PW 6 and PW 8 were declared hostile. PW 7 and PW 10 were formal witnesses proving the formal FIR and inquest report. PW 12, Dr. Vijay Kumar Agrawal, conducted the post-mortem.

PW 1 deposed that he went with his father to the field and, fearing the armed mob, hid in nearby bushes. From there he saw the accused group, including the appellants, and heard Natai exhort to kill. According to PW 1, Vidyanand took out a pistol, went near Dilip and fired at his chest. Dilip fell and died. PW 1 also described subsequent attacks with bhala, lathi and farsa on his parents.

In cross-examination, PW 1 admitted that at one point, when the accused were assaulting his father, Vidyanand fired in the air to scare people and, on hearing that, PW 1 became unconscious. The defence tried to use this to argue he could not have seen the shooting. The High Court read his evidence carefully and held that PW 1 became unconscious only after the air shot fired later, not at the time when Vidyanand first shot Dilip. Therefore, his account of the actual shooting remained intact and credible.

PW 4, the informant, gave a consistent story: he had purchased the land, Natai objected, panchayati fixed Rs. 5,000/- as compensation, money was deposited but dispute continued. On the incident day, Dilip went to plough; PW 4, his wife and Rajesh followed. He saw Natai and others armed. He told Dilip to dismantle the plough and leave. As Dilip started returning, Natai exhorted and Vidyanand fired at Dilip’s chest. Dilip fell dead on the spot. Thereafter, PW 4 and his wife were assaulted.

In cross-examination, PW 4 admitted that after being injured he became unconscious and regained consciousness in hospital, where his statement was recorded. He also stated that only Vidyanand assaulted Dilip and that the other accused stood quietly at some distance of 2–3 bamboo lengths. This part of his evidence later became crucial for the co-accused.

PW 5 claimed to have been working in his own field and to have seen the shooting. However, in cross-examination he said he heard the gunshot at about 12 noon and then went to the place of occurrence. This conflicted with the consistent timing of the incident around 8–9 a.m. from the fardbeyan and other witnesses. The High Court, therefore, found his testimony unreliable as an eyewitness to the actual firing.

PW 12, the doctor, found one lacerated punctured wound, 1½” x ¾” x thoracic cavity deep, over the right side of the chest, 3″ medial to the right nipple, inverted in shape, indicating an entry wound. On internal examination, the right lung was lacerated and a bullet was recovered. He concluded that death was due to haemorrhage and shock leading to cardio-respiratory failure caused by firearm injury. In cross-examination he stated that, in his view, the shot was fired from beyond six feet.

The defence argued several points:

• Non-examination of the Investigating Officer caused serious prejudice and prevented them from proving contradictions or the exact place of occurrence.
• There were inconsistencies between the fardbeyan and evidence regarding the weapon, and no forensic examination of blood, clothes or bullet.
• Injuries on PW 3 and PW 4 were not supported by any injury report or doctor’s evidence, so the charge under Section 307 IPC was not made out.
• No evidence of “meeting of minds” for conspiracy under Section 120B IPC.

The State, on the other hand, argued that PW 1, PW 3, PW 4 and PW 5 supported the prosecution; minor discrepancies should not lead to acquittal; and that hostile witnesses can still be relied on to the extent their testimony is trustworthy.

The High Court carefully weighed these rival submissions. It held that:

• The core allegation that Vidyanand fired a gunshot into Dilip’s chest was firmly proved by the consistent, cogent and trustworthy evidence of PW 1 and PW 4, and fully supported by the medical evidence of PW 12.
• Minor variations in their statements did not affect the central truth of the prosecution case against Vidyanand.
• Under Section 134 of the Evidence Act, even the testimony of a single trustworthy witness is enough; here there were two strong ocular witnesses plus post-mortem support.
• Non-examination of the Investigating Officer did not, in these facts, cause prejudice. No material contradictions were shown which required his evidence, and the defence could not shake the core testimony of PW 1 and PW 4.

However, when it came to the seven co-accused in Appeal No. 173 of 2016, the Court took a different view. It noted:

• No injury report of PW 3 or PW 4 was brought on record, nor was any treating doctor examined, so the allegation of grievous or murderous assault on them was unproved.
• PW 4 himself clearly said in cross-examination that, except for Vidyanand, no other accused assaulted Dilip; the others were standing at a distance of 2–3 bamboo lengths.
• There was no clear evidence of any agreement or “meeting of minds” among the co-accused to commit murder, so the charge of conspiracy under Section 120B IPC failed.
• Without proof of conspiracy or active participation in the firing, the co-accused could not be held liable for murder with the aid of Section 120B IPC.

In these circumstances, the High Court extended the benefit of doubt to all seven appellants in Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 173 of 2016 and set aside their conviction and sentences.

For Vidyanand, in Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 315 of 2016, the Court upheld his conviction under Section 302 IPC and Section 27 of the Arms Act. It found “no reason to create any doubt” about his guilt, as the prosecution had proved beyond reasonable doubt that he fired the fatal shot. The Court noted that, once his life sentence under Section 302 and the three-year term under Section 27 Arms Act had been confirmed, his additional convictions under Sections 147, 148, 323, 324, 307 and 120B IPC lost practical significance, particularly in the absence of evidence that he assaulted any other family member.

Accordingly, the appeal of the seven co-accused was allowed and they were discharged from their bail bonds, while Vidyanand’s appeal was dismissed and he was directed to serve the remaining part of his life sentence, with both sentences (Section 302 IPC and Section 27 Arms Act) running concurrently.

Why This Judgment Matters

This judgment is important for families involved in land disputes and for criminal trials in Bihar and beyond.

First, it shows that the Patna High Court is willing to separate the guilty from the innocent, even when a trial court has convicted everyone together. The Court examined the evidence witness by witness, and refused to uphold convictions where the prosecution had not produced injury reports, doctors’ evidence, or clear proof of assault and conspiracy against the co-accused.

Second, it confirms that, in a murder case, strong and consistent eyewitness testimony, supported by medical evidence, can be enough to sustain a conviction, even if the investigating officer is not examined and forensic lapses exist. Where the Court is satisfied that a particular accused did the actual shooting, it will not interfere with a conviction merely because of technical defects in the investigation.

Third, the judgment clarifies that criminal conspiracy under Section 120B IPC is a serious and specific charge. Courts will not presume “meeting of minds” just because many people are present at the scene. There must be reliable evidence showing agreement to commit the crime. Without that, a person cannot be jailed for life for murder on the basis of conspiracy alone.

Finally, for laypersons, this decision sends a simple message: if someone actually fires the fatal shot, the Patna High Court will uphold a life sentence when credible witnesses and medical reports support the prosecution; but others will not be kept in jail unless their exact role is clearly proved.

Legal Issues and Answers

• Issue: Whether the prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt that Vidyanand Yadav fired the fatal shot that killed Dilip Kumar Yadav.
  Answer: Yes. The Court relied on the consistent and credible testimonies of PW 1 and PW 4, corroborated by the post-mortem, to affirm his conviction under Section 302 IPC and Section 27 Arms Act.
• Issue: Whether the seven co-accused could be held guilty of murder and other offences on the basis of common intention or conspiracy under Section 120B IPC.
  Answer: No. The Court found no reliable evidence of any agreement or meeting of minds to commit murder, and PW 4 stated that only Vidyanand assaulted Dilip while others merely stood at a distance. Their conviction was set aside and they were acquitted by giving benefit of doubt.
• Issue: Whether non-examination of the Investigating Officer and lack of forensic and injury reports fatally weakened the prosecution case.
  Answer: Partly. For the main shooter, these lapses did not create reasonable doubt because core eyewitness and medical evidence remained strong. For the co-accused, absence of injury reports and medical testimony contributed to failure of proof regarding their alleged assaults and conspiracy.

Cases Cited by the Court

• Behari Prasad v. State of Bihar, (1996) 2 SCC 317 – non-examination of Investigating Officer not automatically fatal; prejudice must be shown.
• Bahadur Naik v. State of Bihar, (2000) 9 SCC 153 – non-examination of Investigating Officer is of no consequence where no material contradictions or prejudice are shown.
• Krishna Mochi and Others v. State of Bihar, (2002) 6 SCC 81 – failure to prove FIR is not by itself a ground for acquittal if evidence otherwise proves the case.
• Other decisions such as Tulsi Dhadhi @ Dhari & Ors. v. State of Bihar (Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 592 of 2005), Munna Lal v. State of Uttar Pradesh, (2023) 3 SCR 224, Ravishwar Manjhi v. State of Jharkhand, (2008) 16 SCC 561, and Parveen @ Sonu v. State of Haryana, 2021 SCC OnLine SC 1184 were cited by counsel and discussed, mainly on non-examination of the Investigating Officer and proof of conspiracy.

Case Details

Case Number: Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 173 of 2016 with Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 315 of 2016; arising out of Triveniganj P.S. Case No. 85 of 1992; Sessions Trial No. 138 of 1994.

Case Title: Bhupendra Yadav & Ors. v. The State of Bihar (Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 173 of 2016); Vidyanand Yadav v. The State of Bihar (Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 315 of 2016).

Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Mohit Kumar Shah; Hon’ble Mr. Justice Nani Tagia.

Citation: 2025(3) PLJR 332.

Advocates: For the appellants in both appeals – Mr. Alok Kumar, Senior Advocate; Mr. Birendra Kumar Singh, Advocate; Mr. Raghwendra Pratap Singh, Advocate; Mr. Neeraj Kumar, Advocate. For the State – Mr. Dilip Kumar Sinha, APP.

Nature of the Case: Criminal appeals (Division Bench) under Section 374(2) read with Section 389(1) CrPC, challenging conviction and sentence in a murder case arising out of land dispute.

Date of High Court Judgment: 04.04.2025 (CAV judgment; CAV date 17.02.2025).

Result: Appeal of seven co-accused (Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 173 of 2016) allowed; they were acquitted and discharged from bail bonds. Appeal of main accused shooter (Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 315 of 2016) dismissed; his life sentence under Section 302 IPC and three-year sentence under Section 27 Arms Act affirmed, to run concurrently.

Link to Judgment:https://patnahighcourt.gov.in/viewjudgment/NSMxNzMjMjAxNiMxI04=-S5TQmTVlRW8=

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.