Case Background
The case arose from Marachi P.S. Case No. 17 of 2002. The FIR was based on the fardebayan of Ram Shankar Prasad Singh, recorded by Sub‑Inspector Satyendra Narayan Singh at Malpur near NH‑80 at 6:15 PM on 09.05.2002.
The informant stated that at about 4:45 PM the same day he was taking tuition classes when he received information that his elder brother, Gauri Shankar Prasad Singh, a member of Malpur Panchayat Samiti, had been shot dead by Sanjit Kumar Singh and one Bugan Sharma. By the time he reached the place of occurrence, villagers had already taken the injured to the hospital. The body was later brought back, and he was told that his brother had died on the way.
The alleged motive mentioned in the fardebayan was an earlier kidnapping case of the son of a school teacher, in which Sanjit Kumar Singh and Bugan Sharma were accused and arrested at Bakhtiyarpur. The informant’s brother was said to have helped get them released on bail through compromise. The informant suspected that after their release they committed the present offence.
On this basis, the police registered the case under Sections 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 27 of the Arms Act against Sanjit Kumar Singh and Bugan Sharma. After investigation, however, the first charge sheet was filed only against Ranjit Kumar Singh, keeping investigation pending against others. Later, a charge sheet was also filed against Janardan Singh and some other accused and separate sessions trials began.
Sessions Trial No. 70 of 2005 initially related to Janardan Singh alone. Ranjit Kumar Singh was being tried in Sessions Trial No. 809 of 2006. By order dated 02.05.2007, S.T. No. 809 of 2006 was amalgamated into S.T. No. 70 of 2005. Subsequently, Sanjit Kumar Singh, who was being tried in Sessions Trial No. 1218 of 2007 arising out of the same FIR, also had his case amalgamated with S.T. No. 70 of 2005 by order dated 05.11.2007.
In the amalgamated trial, charges under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC were framed against all three appellants. An additional charge under Section 27 of the Arms Act was framed against Sanjit Kumar Singh. After trial, the Additional Sessions Judge‑III, Barh, by judgment dated 21.12.2009 and order dated 05.01.2010, convicted all three under Section 302/34 IPC and sentenced them to life imprisonment with fine. Sanjit Kumar Singh was also convicted under Section 27 of the Arms Act and sentenced to three years’ rigorous imprisonment with fine. All sentences were to run concurrently.
Aggrieved, the three convicts filed Criminal Appeal (DB) Nos. 232, 254 and 422 of 2010 before the Patna High Court. As all appeals challenged the same judgment, they were heard together and decided by a Division Bench on 20.08.2024.
What the Court Examined and Decided
The core challenge before the Patna High Court was two‑fold: first, that the trial court had illegally relied on evidence of two witnesses which was not recorded in the presence of all three accused; and second, that even otherwise the prosecution case was based purely on circumstantial evidence and the chain of circumstances was incomplete.
On the procedural point, the High Court traced the sequence of trials and their amalgamation. In S.T. No. 70 of 2005, after it was clubbed with S.T. No. 809 of 2006 on 02.05.2007, two prosecution witnesses were examined:
P.W.1 – Ram Sagar Singh, examined on 21.07.2007, and
P.W.2 – Lalan Kumar Singh, examined on 05.09.2007.
These depositions were recorded before S.T. No. 1218 of 2007, relating to appellant Sanjit Kumar Singh, was amalgamated into S.T. No. 70 of 2005 on 05.11.2007. Thus, when P.W.1 and P.W.2 were examined, Sanjit Kumar Singh was not yet an accused in that particular joint trial, and he had no opportunity to cross‑examine them.
After the 05.11.2007 amalgamation, further witnesses (P.W.3 to P.W.8) were examined in the joint trial. However, P.W.1 and P.W.2 were not re‑examined in the presence of all three appellants, nor was any application filed by the prosecution to formally read their earlier depositions as evidence in the new joint trial with consent of all accused.
Despite this, the trial court relied upon the evidence of P.W.1 and P.W.2 while convicting all three. The High Court held that this approach was impermissible under Section 273 CrPC, which requires that evidence in a criminal trial be recorded in the presence of the accused or, where their presence is dispensed with, in the presence of their counsel. Only Section 299 CrPC permits recording evidence in absence of an absconding accused, which was not the situation here.
The Bench emphasised that when a later trial is amalgamated with an earlier one, a de novo trial must follow. The previous evidence stands wiped out as trial evidence and is reduced only to the status of prior statements, usable for contradiction but not as substantive evidence unless lawfully brought on record. The Court relied on the Supreme Court’s decision in Nasib Singh v. State of Punjab, (2022) 2 SCC 89, which clarified that de novo trial means a completely fresh trial where earlier evidence is treated as non‑existent for conviction purposes.
Since there was no consent of the appellants and no order bringing the earlier depositions of P.W.1 and P.W.2 onto the record of the joint trial, the High Court concluded that the trial judge committed a legal error in treating them as prosecution evidence against all appellants.
The Bench considered whether to remit the case back to the trial court to re‑examine P.W.1 and P.W.2 in accordance with law. But it declined this option on practical grounds. The occurrence dated back to 09.05.2002, more than 22 years earlier. P.W.1 had been 62 years and P.W.2 42 years old in 2007. The Court noted that by now they might not even be alive, and a remand would be unrealistic. Therefore, it chose to decide the appeal on the evidence available excluding P.W.1 and P.W.2.
Turning to the remaining prosecution evidence, the Court first examined the testimony of P.W.3, the informant Ram Shankar Prasad Singh. In his examination‑in‑chief he merely repeated what he had said in the fardebayan. However, in cross‑examination he admitted that he had not seen the incident himself and that he had given his statement only on the basis of information from villagers. He further stated that Sanjit Kumar Singh had allegedly threatened the deceased from jail, but he conceded that no complaint about this threat was ever lodged.
P.W.4, Braj Kishore Singh, similarly was not an eye‑witness. He only reached the place of occurrence after hearing alarm and saw the deceased lying in a pool of blood. He helped in taking the injured towards the hospital, where he died on the way. His cross‑examination did not add any incriminating material against the appellants.
P.W.5, Malti Devi, widow of the deceased, gave the closest account to the occurrence. She stated that on the date of incident she and her husband were returning from Barhiya to their village Malpur. At the village, her husband stopped on the road to talk to Sanjit Kumar Singh, Bugan Sharma, Ranjit Kumar and Janardan Singh. According to her, Sanjit and Bugan were holding pistols. She then went ahead towards home. On reaching home she heard the sound of two shots and later learned from villagers that her husband had been shot and died while being taken for treatment. She admitted that she did not return to the spot and that, when she was sick and nearly unconscious, villagers told her that her husband had been killed by two accused persons.
P.W.6, Ganga Prasad Singh, the village postmaster, also stated that he heard sounds of firing and came to the spot where he learnt from villagers that the accused persons had killed the deceased by shooting. He too was not an eye‑witness.
P.W.7, Dr. Raj Kumar Mandal, conducted the post‑mortem on 10.05.2002 at Sadar Hospital, Barh. He found gunshot injuries on the left and right temporal regions of the head and one lacerated wound on the right hip. The skull bones were fractured, brain tissue lacerated, and internal organs mostly pale. He opined that death was due to haemorrhage and shock caused by firearm injuries and that the time since death was 6 to 36 hours.
P.W.8, Investigating Officer Satyendra Narayan Singh, stated that he carried out part of the investigation while another officer, S.I. Mithilesh Kumar Sinha, who was not examined at trial, completed it. He confirmed that the place of occurrence was in village Malpur. Crucially, in cross‑examination he admitted that no witness claimed to be an eye‑witness. He also deposed that P.W.4, Braj Kishore Singh, had not told him that Sanjit and Janardan were present at the time of occurrence, and that P.W.2, Lalan Kumar, had not stated to him that he saw any of the accused fleeing from the place of occurrence with pistols.
The defence examined three witnesses. D.W.1, Janardan Singh himself, said he was physically handicapped and worked as a teacher and treasury messenger. He claimed that on 09.05.2002 he had gone to Mokama Sub‑Treasury with pay bills. D.W.2, a retired teacher of the middle school, deposed regarding Janardan’s work at the primary school and his role as messenger, though he admitted there was no formal authority order for assigning treasury work. D.W.3, another teacher, produced the messenger book of Middle School Dumra and the signature of Janardan Singh to show that he had gone to SBI, Mokama on 09.05.2002.
After reviewing all evidence, the High Court concluded that the prosecution case rested entirely on circumstantial evidence. Referring to the Supreme Court’s landmark decisions in Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra, (1984) 4 SCC 116, Padala Veera Reddy v. State of A.P., 1989 Supp (2) SCC 706, Shailendra Rajdev Pasvan v. State of Gujarat, (2020) 14 SCC 750, Neeraj Dutta v. State (NCT of Delhi), (2023) 4 SCC 731, and Pritinder Singh v. State of Punjab, (2023) 7 SCC 727, the Bench reiterated the settled “five golden principles” governing conviction on circumstantial evidence. These require that every link in the chain of circumstances be firmly proved and must lead only to the conclusion of guilt, ruling out any other hypothesis.
The Court also noted later Supreme Court decisions including Shankar v. State of Maharashtra, 2023 SCC OnLine SC 268, Indrajit Das v. State of Tripura, AIR Online 2023 SC 150, Nandu Singh v. State of Chhattisgarh, 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1454, and Shivaji Chintappa Patil v. State of Maharashtra, (2021) 5 SCC 626, which underline that in a case based on circumstantial evidence, motive assumes greater importance. While motive alone cannot prove guilt, complete absence of motive weighs in favour of the accused.
Applying these standards, the Bench held that only four facts were proved beyond reasonable doubt: there was prior enmity between the deceased and the appellants; the deceased was shot in his village on 09.05.2002; he died the same day on the way to hospital; and the death was due to ante‑mortem firearm injuries. These facts did not form a complete chain pointing only to the guilt of the appellants. There were several missing links, and there was no reliable evidence placing the appellants at the scene at the time of firing or showing that they were the shooters.
The Court stressed that suspicion, however strong, cannot replace legal proof. In absence of a complete chain of circumstances, the benefit of doubt must go to the accused.
As a result, the Division Bench held that the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. The impugned judgment of conviction and the order of sentence were set aside. The appeals were allowed, and since the appellants were already on bail, they were discharged from their bail bond liabilities.
Why This Judgment Matters
This Patna High Court judgment has important lessons for murder cases based purely on circumstantial evidence, especially in rural settings where rumours and village talk can quickly turn into criminal accusations.
First, it reinforces that when trials are amalgamated, earlier depositions cannot automatically be used against a new accused unless lawfully brought on record and the accused gets a chance to cross‑examine. This protects the basic right of an accused to confront witnesses.
Second, for families of victims and villagers, the decision shows that courts cannot convict only because there is enmity or because “people are saying so”. The law demands a clear, unbroken chain of proven facts directly linking the accused to the crime.
Third, for lawyers and investigating officers, the judgment highlights the need to secure eye‑witnesses or strong forensic and recovery evidence, and to strictly follow procedure when multiple sessions trials are merged. Any lapse can ultimately lead to acquittal, even in serious offences like murder.
Legal Issues and Answers
- Issue: Whether the trial court could rely on the evidence of P.W.1 and P.W.2 recorded before amalgamation of the third accused’s trial, when that accused had no chance to be present or to cross‑examine them.
Answer: No. Under Section 273 CrPC and as per the law on de novo trials, earlier evidence stood wiped out and could not be treated as substantive evidence against all appellants without proper procedure or consent. - Issue: Whether the circumstantial evidence on record, excluding the inadmissible depositions, formed a complete chain to prove that the appellants committed the murder under Section 302/34 IPC and that one of them used a firearm under Section 27 Arms Act.
Answer: No. The proven facts showed only prior enmity and that the deceased died of firearm injuries, but there was no complete chain of circumstances pointing solely to the guilt of the appellants. They were therefore entitled to benefit of doubt.
Cases Cited by the Court
- Nasib Singh v. State of Punjab, (2022) 2 SCC 89
- Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra, (1984) 4 SCC 116
- Padala Veera Reddy v. State of A.P., 1989 Supp (2) SCC 706
- Shailendra Rajdev Pasvan v. State of Gujarat, (2020) 14 SCC 750
- Neeraj Dutta v. State (NCT of Delhi), (2023) 4 SCC 731
- Pritinder Singh v. State of Punjab, (2023) 7 SCC 727
- Shankar v. State of Maharashtra, 2023 SCC OnLine SC 268
- Indrajit Das v. State of Tripura, AIR Online 2023 SC 150
- Nandu Singh v. State of Chhattisgarh, 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1454
- Shivaji Chintappa Patil v. State of Maharashtra, (2021) 5 SCC 626
Case Details
Case Numbers:
Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 232 of 2010
with Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 254 of 2010
with Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 422 of 2010
Arising out of Sessions Trial No. 70 of 2005 (with amalgamated S.T. Nos. 809 of 2006 and 1218 of 2007), Marachi P.S. Case No. 17 of 2002.
Case Title:
Janardan Singh v. State of Bihar
Ranjit Kumar Singh @ Manjhi Singh @ Ranjit Singh @ Ranjit Kumar v. State of Bihar
Sanjit Kumar Singh v. State of Bihar
Citation: 2024(4) PLJR 605
Court: High Court of Judicature at Patna, Division Bench
Coram:
Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ashutosh Kumar
Hon’ble Mr. Justice Jitendra Kumar
Date of Judgment: 20.08.2024
Advocates:
For the appellants (in all three appeals): Mr. Deepak Kumar Sinha, Advocate
For the State in Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 232 of 2010: Mr. D. K. Sinha, APP
For the State in Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 254 of 2010: Mr. A. K. Singh, APP
For the State in Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 422 of 2010: Mr. D. K. Sinha, APP
Nature of Case: Criminal appeals (division bench) against conviction and life sentence for offences under Section 302/34 IPC and Section 27 of the Arms Act.
Link to Full Judgment: Click here to read the official judgment of the 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.
