Case Background
The case arose from a violent incident on 3 July 1993 in Village Sehan under Chand Police Station, in the then District Bhabhua (now Kaimur), Bihar.
According to the prosecution, there was a long-standing land dispute between the informant’s family and one of the accused. On the evening of 3 July 1993, around 5:00 PM, accused Ram Kishun Dubey allegedly started constructing a boundary wall by encroaching on the informant’s land.
The informant, Kesh Nath Dubey (P.W. 8), went to the spot with his father, Ram Surat Dubey, to protest. A quarrel followed, and within a short time, the situation turned deadly. Ram Surat Dubey was shot and killed, and his dead body was allegedly carried away and concealed in the house of co-accused Vijay Bahadur Dubey.
On the same night at about 8:30 PM, the Sub-Inspector of Chand Police Station, Mr. R.K. Singh, recorded the fardbeyan of informant Kesh Nath Dubey in Village Sehan. On its basis, Chand P.S. Case No. 20 of 1993 was registered, and investigation started.
After investigation, the police filed a charge-sheet against three accused persons: Ram Kishun Dubey, Rama Shanker Dubey and Vijay Bahadur Dubey. The case was committed to the Court of Session and registered as Sessions Trial No. 557/206 of 1993 before the 3rd Additional Sessions Judge, Kaimur at Bhabhua.
By judgment and order dated 21 December 1995, the Trial Court convicted all three accused for offences under Sections 302/34 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code. In addition, Rama Shanker Dubey was convicted under Section 27 of the Arms Act, and Ram Kishun Dubey under Section 114 read with Section 302 IPC. They were sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for life for the offences under Sections 302/34 and 201 IPC. No separate sentence was passed for the Arms Act and Section 114 read with Section 302 IPC counts.
Against this judgment, two separate criminal appeals were filed before the Patna High Court: Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 7 of 1996 and Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 54 of 1996. During the pendency of the appeals, one appellant, Vijay Bahadur Singh (also described as Vijay Bahadur Dubey), died, and by order dated 9 December 2021, the appeal stood abated against him. The appeals then continued only for appellant Ram Kishun Dubey in Appeal No. 7 of 1996 and appellant Rama Shanker Dubey in Appeal No. 54 of 1996.
What the Court Examined and Decided
The Division Bench of the Patna High Court, comprising Hon’ble Mr. Justice A. M. Badar and Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sunil Kumar Panwar, heard both appeals together. The judgment was authored by Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sunil Kumar Panwar and delivered on 16 December 2021.
The central question before the Court was whether the Trial Court was right in holding that the appellants had murdered Ram Surat Dubey and then concealed his body, and whether the evidence on record supported their conviction beyond reasonable doubt.
The prosecution examined nine witnesses in total. P.W. 1 Sheo Pujan Pandey, P.W. 2 Ram Ashray Paswan and P.W. 3 Ravindra Kumar Pandey were formal witnesses. P.W. 4 Dr. Ranjeet Kumar was the doctor who conducted the postmortem. P.W. 5 Narad Prasad and P.W. 6 Janardan Prasad Dwivedi, who had claimed to be eyewitnesses before the police, turned hostile in Court. P.W. 7 Shambhu Nath Dubey and P.W. 8 Kesh Nath Dubey were the star witnesses, being sons of the deceased, and P.W. 9 Raj Kumar Singh was the Investigating Officer.
P.W. 8, the informant, gave a detailed account of the incident. He stated that on 3 July 1993 at about 5:00 PM, he saw appellant Ram Kishun Dubey constructing a wall by encroaching over his land. His father, Ram Surat Dubey, pushed the wall, causing some stone blocks to fall. On this, Ram Kishun Dubey called appellant Rama Shanker Dubey and appellant Vijay Bahadur Dubey, and told them that Ram Surat was not allowing him to construct the wall.
According to P.W. 8, Rama Shanker and Vijay Bahadur arrived armed with a double barrel gun. On the order of Ram Kishun, Rama Shanker fired from his country-made pistol at Ram Surat. The deceased fell down in the field and died. The informant, fearing for his life, fled. He said that Vijay Bahadur also fired at him from behind, but the shot did not hit him.
P.W. 8 further deposed that all three accused then lifted the dead body of Ram Surat and took it to the house of Vijay Bahadur. On his alarm, his brother, P.W. 7 Shambhu Nath Dubey, came there. P.W. 8 said that P.W. 5 and P.W. 6 had witnessed the occurrence from their doorsteps. He also spoke of a long-standing dispute between his family and the accused for about 13 years. He identified his signature on the fardbeyan, which was marked as Exhibit-3.
P.W. 7 corroborated part of this version. He said that he was in his house when he heard two gunshots. When he came out, he saw his father’s dead body being taken towards the house of Vijay Bahadur. Later, the Investigating Officer recovered the dead body from Vijay Bahadur’s house. P.W. 7 confirmed that the accused had removed the body from the place of occurrence.
P.W. 9, the Investigating Officer, described the physical evidence. He stated that he found blood at the spot where a new wall was being constructed by accused Ram Kishun Dubey. He also noticed blood trails from this spot to the house of Vijay Bahadur Dubey. This supported the prosecution claim that the murder occurred at the boundary wall site and that the body was then carried to Vijay Bahadur’s house.
P.W. 1 and P.W. 3 corroborated this aspect by stating that the police (Darogaji) had collected and seized blood-stained earth from the place of occurrence where the wall stood.
The medical evidence by P.W. 4, Dr. Ranjeet Kumar, also supported the prosecution case. He conducted the postmortem on 4 July 1993 and found multiple gunshot injuries on the body of the deceased, including pellet injuries on the right side of the abdomen, left ring finger, and left thigh, with one exit wound on the thigh. He opined that injury numbers 1 and 2 were sufficient to cause death, and the time of death matched the alleged time of occurrence. The Court held that there was no conflict between the medical findings and the eyewitness accounts.
The defence, however, tried to project a completely different picture. Appellant Vijay Bahadur filed a written petition (Exhibit-A) from jail before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bhabhua. In this version, he claimed that the deceased, the informant and P.W. 7 had gone to the place where the wall was being constructed in Ram Kishun’s land and pushed it, causing some stones to fall. According to this petition, the three then chased Vijay Bahadur to his house, and P.W. 7 allegedly fired at Vijay but the shot mistakenly hit the deceased in Vijay’s courtyard, causing his death.
It was also suggested that Vijay had gone to Chand Police Station to lodge an FIR based on this version but the Officer-in-Charge refused to register it, proceeded to village Sehan, and on returning arrested Vijay and sent him to jail.
The High Court closely examined this defence. It noted that the Investigating Officer did not find any blood mark or sign of firing in Vijay Bahadur’s house. In contrast, he had found clear blood stains and a trail starting from the place where the wall was being built, up to Vijay’s house. The Court held that this strongly indicated that the killing took place at the boundary wall site, not in the courtyard of Vijay Bahadur.
The Court also pointed out that in Exhibit-A, Vijay had admitted that the deceased and the informant went to the place where the wall was being constructed and that the deceased pushed the wall, causing some stones to fall. However, there was no mention in that petition that the informant’s side had carried any firearms or lethal weapons. Therefore, the defence claim that P.W. 7 accidentally shot his own father in Vijay’s courtyard was considered unreliable and imaginary.
The defence of alibi was raised by appellant Rama Shanker Dubey. He claimed that at the time of the occurrence, he was on duty as a teacher at a school in village Saraian from 10:30 AM to 4:30 PM. To support this, the Headmaster of the school, D.W. 3 Ram Kunwar Singh, was examined, and the attendance register was produced and marked as Exhibit-B.
The Court scrutinised this claim and noted that village Saraian was only about 10 km from the place of occurrence. The incident occurred around 5:00 PM. The Bench observed that it was quite possible for Rama Shanker to have travelled the 10 km distance and be present at the spot at 5:00 PM, even if he had been in school earlier in the day. The Court reiterated the settled principle that alibi must be proved with absolute certainty so as to completely rule out the possibility of the accused being at the scene of the crime. In this case, that standard was not met. Hence, the alibi did not help the appellant.
The defence also highlighted that most prosecution witnesses were related to the deceased and therefore “interested”. The Court accepted that P.W. 7 and P.W. 8 were indeed related, being sons of the deceased. However, it emphasised the settled law that evidence of related witnesses is not to be discarded solely on that ground. Such evidence must be scrutinised with care and caution, and if found trustworthy, it can form the basis of conviction.
After a close reading of their depositions, the Court found that P.W. 7 and P.W. 8 were consistent on the place, time and manner of occurrence. Only minor contradictions appeared, which the Court considered natural in human testimony and not affecting the core of the case. It commented that a “parrot like version” would actually raise suspicion, and that small variations often support the genuineness of an account.
Taking into account the credible testimonies of P.W. 7 and P.W. 8, the corroborating physical evidence of blood stains and trails as recorded by P.W. 9, and the medical evidence from P.W. 4, the Court concluded that the prosecution had proved beyond reasonable doubt that the deceased died due to firearm injuries intentionally inflicted by accused Rama Shanker Dubey at the instance of accused Ram Kishun Dubey, during a dispute over wall construction. The removal of the body to Vijay Bahadur’s house attracted liability under Section 201 IPC.
Finding no major discrepancies or contradictions and no merit in the alternative versions put forward by the defence, the Patna High Court upheld the findings of the Trial Court. It held that the credibility of the prosecution witnesses inspired confidence and that the case was proved beyond reasonable doubt.
Accordingly, the appeals were dismissed and the convictions and life sentences under Sections 302/34 and 201 IPC were affirmed. The earlier finding of guilt under Section 27 of the Arms Act and Section 114 read with Section 302 IPC remained undisturbed, though no separate sentence had been imposed thereunder.
Why This Judgment Matters
This judgment is significant for criminal cases arising from village land disputes and family enmity. It shows how the Patna High Court deals with situations where the main eyewitnesses are close relatives of the victim.
The Court made it clear that the evidence of such related witnesses will not be rejected only because of their relationship. Instead, the Court will carefully test whether their accounts are consistent, supported by medical and physical evidence, and free from major contradictions.
The ruling also illustrates that false or imaginative defence stories, including petitions filed from jail and claims of accidental shooting, will not be accepted when they clash with hard evidence such as blood stains, blood trails and postmortem findings.
Further, the judgment stresses that a plea of alibi is a serious defence that must be proved with certainty. Simply showing that the accused was at another place earlier in the day will not be enough if it is still possible for him to reach the place of occurrence at the relevant time.
For families facing similar violence linked to land disputes, this decision signals that courts can and do rely on the testimony of close relatives, provided it is trustworthy and supported by objective evidence.
Legal Issues and Answers
- Issue: Whether the prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt that the appellants murdered Ram Surat Dubey and removed his body, justifying conviction under Sections 302/34 and 201 IPC (and allied provisions).
Answer: Yes. The Patna High Court held that the consistent evidence of P.W. 7 and P.W. 8, corroborated by the Investigating Officer’s findings and the postmortem report, established intentional firearm homicide and subsequent removal of the body. - Issue: Whether the defence version that the deceased was accidentally shot by his own son in the courtyard of Vijay Bahadur Dubey could raise reasonable doubt.
Answer: No. The Court found this story imaginary and unsupported, as no blood or firing marks were found in Vijay’s house and the blood trail clearly started from the wall construction site. - Issue: Whether the plea of alibi of appellant Rama Shanker Dubey, claiming he was on school duty at the relevant time, was believable.
Answer: No. The Court held that the alleged place of duty was only 10 km away and the time difference allowed his presence at the crime scene. The alibi did not exclude his possible presence and therefore failed.
Cases Cited by the Court
- The judgment does not mention or rely upon any specific earlier decided cases by name or citation. It only refers generally to settled legal principles regarding plea of alibi, reasonable doubt and evaluation of related witnesses.
Case Details
Case Number: Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 7 of 1996 with Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 54 of 1996
Case Title: Ram Kishun Dubey & Anr v. The State of Bihar; Rama Shanker Dubey v. The State of Bihar
Citation: 2022(1) PLJR 414
Court: High Court of Judicature at Patna
Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice A. M. Badar and Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sunil Kumar Panwar
Date of Judgment: 16-12-2021
Advocates (Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 7 of 1996): Mr. Prince Kumar Mishra, Amicus Curiae for the appellant; Mr. Rajesh Kumar, Advocate for the appellant; Mr. Vinod Kumar Seth, Advocate for the appellant; Mr. Rajesh Kumar Singh, Senior Advocate for the informant; Mr. S. N. Prasad, APP for the State.
Advocates (Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 54 of 1996): Mr. Prince Kumar Mishra, Amicus Curiae for the appellant; Mr. Baxi S.R.P. Sinha, Senior Advocate for the appellant; Mr. Rajni Kant Pandey, Advocate for the appellant; Mr. Rajesh Kumar Singh, Senior Advocate for the informant; Mr. D. K. Sinha, APP for the State.
Nature of the Case: Criminal appeals (Division Bench) against conviction and sentence in Sessions Trial No. 557/206 of 1993 arising out of Chand P.S. Case No. 20 of 1993, relating to offences under Sections 302/34, 201 and 114 IPC and Section 27 of the Arms Act.
Link to Full Judgment: Click here to read the complete judgment on the Patna High Court website
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.
