Case Background
This case arose from a family incident in a village under Mehsi Police Station, District East Champaran, Motihari.
On 02.09.2019 at about 8:30 p.m., according to the written information later given to the police, a quarrel broke out between an old father and his son in the courtyard of their house. The son is the present appellant and the father is the deceased.
The written information was submitted by Pooja Devi (PW‑4). She is the daughter‑in‑law of the deceased and sister‑in‑law (Bhaisur) of the appellant. She stated that while the quarrel was going on, the appellant picked up a sharp cutting tool described as a “Dab” kept in the house and attacked the deceased on his leg and neck. The father‑in‑law fell down with serious injuries and later died.
On hearing her cries (hulla), local villagers assembled. On seeing the gathering, the accused allegedly fled from the spot.
On the basis of this written information, the Station House Officer, Mehsi, registered Mehsi P.S. Case No. 260 of 2019 on 02.09.2019 under Section 302 IPC. The SHO’s endorsement on the written report was proved during trial as Exhibit‑1.
Investigation was carried out by the Investigating Officer (PW‑5). He prepared an inquest report on the same day at 10:00 a.m. at the house of the deceased, inspected the place of occurrence, recorded the statements of witnesses, and collected details of the appellant’s criminal antecedent.
After investigation, a chargesheet (Chargesheet No. 233 of 2019 dated 17.10.2019) was submitted against the appellant under Section 302 IPC. On 08.11.2019, the learned A.C.J.M.-VI, Motihari took cognizance. On 10.01.2020, charges under Section 302 IPC were framed in Hindi. The appellant pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
The Sessions Trial was conducted as Sessions Trial No. 727 of 2019 before the 21st Additional District and Sessions Judge, Motihari, East Champaran. By judgment dated 18.03.2023, the trial court convicted the appellant under Section 302 IPC and, by order dated 21.03.2023, sentenced him to life imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 10,000/-, and one year rigorous imprisonment in default of payment of fine.
Aggrieved, the appellant filed Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 492 of 2023 before the Patna High Court, seeking to set aside both the conviction and sentence.
What the Court Examined and Decided
The Division Bench of the Patna High Court heard counsel for the appellant and the Additional Public Prosecutor for the State and examined the entire trial court record.
The defence argued that there was no independent eye‑witness to the incident, no clear motive, and that three witnesses (PW‑1, PW‑2, PW‑3) had not supported the prosecution. It was also contended that the Investigating Officer had not properly investigated, because he did not collect and send blood samples from the place of occurrence for forensic examination. On these grounds, the appellant claimed that the prosecution failed to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
The State supported the trial court judgment, submitting that the conviction was based on a correct appreciation of evidence and that the judgment was well reasoned.
The High Court first looked at the evidence of the independent villagers, Shiv Prasad (PW‑1) and Ramdhir Prasad (PW‑2). PW‑1 stated that he was sleeping in his house when his wife informed him that someone had died in the village. On reaching the spot, he found a person with his neck cut, lying dead. He was declared hostile, but in cross‑examination his attention was drawn to his earlier police statement, where he had said that at about 8:30 p.m. on 02.09.2019, the informant and her co‑sister (gotani) were shouting that their father‑in‑law had been killed by the appellant.
In cross‑examination by the defence, PW‑1 admitted that he had not seen anyone actually cutting the deceased, but he accepted that he had gone to the place of occurrence and seen the dead body there.
PW‑2 stated that he went to the place of occurrence on hearing hulla and saw the dead body of the deceased. He said he did not know who killed the deceased, but confirmed that he had seen the deceased at the spot.
From these testimonies, the High Court noted that both PWs 1 and 2 were not eye‑witnesses to the assault. However, their evidence established that the deceased was lying dead at the place of occurrence shortly after the incident and that there was immediate commotion and gathering in the house of the deceased.
The Investigating Officer, Mohammad Anas (PW‑5), corroborated the scene. He stated that he inspected the place of occurrence, which he described as the “Sahan” land and “Darwaza” in front of the pucca house of the deceased. He prepared the inquest report (Exhibit‑3) at the house of the deceased on 02.09.2019 at 10:00 a.m., recording that death appeared to be from sharp cutting injuries to the leg and neck.
PW‑5 also testified that he reached the place of occurrence on the date of incident itself and found blood marks and the dead body where blood had fallen, though he admitted that he did not send the blood for forensic test. He recorded the re‑statement of the informant and statements of several witnesses, including Manisha Devi (PW‑3) and Shiv Prasad (PW‑1). He also collected details of one criminal antecedent of the appellant, relating to a dowry case registered as Case No. 53 of 2016.
The Court then analysed the evidence of Manisha Devi (PW‑3), who is the wife of the appellant. The written information to the police had been scribed by one Kameshwar Prasad and bore the signature of Manisha Devi as witness. However, her signature on the written information was not shown to her during trial.
In court, PW‑3 claimed that she did not know how the deceased was murdered and even said that her statement was not recorded by police. She was declared hostile and was cross‑examined with reference to her earlier police statement, where she had supported the prosecution. In cross‑examination by the defence, she admitted that the accused was her husband and she identified him. Later she said she did not know anything about the occurrence. The High Court noted that she appeared to be trying to save her husband during trial.
The most important evidence came from the informant Pooja Devi (PW‑4), the daughter‑in‑law of the deceased. In her chief examination, she repeated the allegations from her written information: on 02.09.2019, her Bhaisur (appellant) and her father‑in‑law were quarrelling. During the quarrel, the appellant picked up a “Dab” and assaulted her father‑in‑law on the leg and neck, causing him to fall, suffer injuries, and die. She identified her thumb impression on the written application given to the police.
In cross‑examination, PW‑4 said that at the time of the occurrence she was inside the house, and she reached the place of occurrence about 15 minutes later. When she reached, she saw her father‑in‑law being assaulted. She admitted that the appellant used to go outside the village to earn and said that on the date of occurrence also he was earning outside, but then clarified that she had actually seen him assaulting her father‑in‑law.
She stated that her husband worked in Delhi and that she had no prior quarrel with the appellant. She also stated that the appellant used to quarrel intermittently with his father and sometimes with his own wife. She firmly reiterated that, on the date of occurrence, she saw the appellant assaulting her father‑in‑law on his neck with the “Dab”.
The defence suggested that there used to be quarrels between the appellant and her husband and that the appellant had been falsely implicated because of this. PW‑4 denied this suggestion and pointed out that her husband was living in Delhi to earn his livelihood. The defence did not mention any prior case between her husband and the appellant and, importantly, did not suggest to her that the appellant was not present at the spot at the relevant time.
The High Court found that PW‑4’s testimony was consistent and that there was no material contradiction affecting her credibility. She had withstood detailed cross‑examination and there was no proven motive for her to falsely implicate her Bhaisur.
The medical evidence by Dr. Sachidanand Singh (PW‑6) supported the prosecution version. As Medical Officer at Sadar Hospital, Motihari, he conducted the post‑mortem on 02.09.2019. He found:
(i) all structures in the neck on the back right side and front were sharply cut, including spinal cord, spine, neuro‑vascular bundle, muscles and windpipe, with only a tag of skin on the left side remaining;
(ii) an incised wound over the left knee, 5″ x 3″, bone deep;
(iii) an incised wound on the upper right front of the chest, 3″ x 1″ x 1½″, cutting the right clavicle.
He opined that the injuries were caused by a sharp‑edged weapon, possibly a “Garasi”, and that death was due to haemorrhage and shock, within 24 hours. He proved the post‑mortem report as Exhibit‑4. The High Court held that the medical evidence fully corroborated PW‑4’s eye‑witness account of a sharp cutting attack on the neck and leg.
In his examination under Section 313 CrPC, the appellant took a plea of alibi, claiming that he was not present at the place of occurrence, and further claimed that he was falsely implicated due to Case No. 53 of 2016 (a dowry case). The High Court noted that this plea was vague. He did not disclose where he actually was at the time of the incident. His version did not fit with the consistent prosecution evidence that he was present, attacked his father, and then fled on seeing villagers gather.
The Court also observed that the Investigating Officer had recorded the appellant’s criminal antecedent relating to the dowry case in the case diary. However, this by itself did not weaken the otherwise strong evidence against him.
On the argument that no independent eye‑witness had seen the assault, the High Court reasoned that the place of occurrence was the house of the deceased. In such a situation, outsiders may not be present when the attack took place. The absence of independent eye‑witnesses therefore could not by itself create doubt, especially when the daughter‑in‑law, a natural witness present in the house, had given a reliable account.
The Court rejected the argument about failure to send blood for forensic examination. PW‑5 had clearly stated that he saw blood marks at the spot. The inquest report and post‑mortem findings matched the prosecution story. Non‑sending of blood samples did not, in these facts, shake the core of the prosecution case.
After reviewing all the evidence, the High Court agreed with the trial court’s conclusion that the prosecution had proved its case against the sole accused beyond all reasonable doubt. The Bench found no infirmity in the trial court’s reasoning, particularly the analysis in paragraph 16 of the trial judgment that the appellant had assaulted his father with a “Dab”, causing his death on the spot.
Consequently, the Patna High Court dismissed the criminal appeal, upheld the conviction under Section 302 IPC, and maintained the sentence of life imprisonment with fine.
Why This Judgment Matters
This judgment shows how the Patna High Court treats murder cases arising within the family, especially when the main witness is a close relative like a daughter‑in‑law.
The Court made it clear that a conviction can be upheld even if there is only one eye‑witness, provided that witness is natural, reliable, and stands firm in cross‑examination. Here, PW‑4’s evidence, backed by medical and investigation records, was enough.
The decision also shows that minor lapses in investigation, such as not sending blood for forensic tests, will not by themselves overturn a conviction, if the main facts are otherwise clearly proved.
For families and villagers, this case underlines that serious violence inside the home, even during a quarrel, will be treated as murder when a sharp weapon is used in a way that clearly causes death. For accused persons, it indicates that vague pleas of “I was not there” without details or supporting evidence will not help in appeal.
Legal Issues and Answers
- Issue: Whether the conviction of the appellant for murdering his father under Section 302 IPC could stand when there was only one eye‑witness and some alleged lapses in investigation.
Answer: Yes. The Patna High Court held that the eye‑witness testimony of the daughter‑in‑law was trustworthy and fully supported by medical and other evidence, and minor investigative lapses did not create reasonable doubt. - Issue: Whether the appellant’s plea that he was not present at the place of occurrence (plea of alibi) and claim of false implication due to a prior dowry case could weaken the prosecution case.
Answer: No. The Court found the plea of alibi to be vague, as the appellant did not disclose where he was at the time of the incident, and he failed to explain the incriminating circumstances put to him under Section 313 CrPC.
Cases Cited by the Court
- No prior judgments have been cited or relied upon in the text of this judgment.
Case Details
Case Number: Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 492 of 2023; arising out of Mehsi P.S. Case No. 260 of 2019; Sessions Trial No. 727 of 2019
Case Title: Pramod Bhagat v. The State of Bihar
Citation: 2026(1) PLJR 403
Court: High Court of Judicature at Patna
Date of Judgment: 10.12.2025 (Uploading Date 12.12.2025)
Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajeev Ranjan Prasad; Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sourendra Pandey
Advocates: Mr. Rajesh Kumar, Advocate for the appellant; Mr. Abhimanyu Sharma, Additional Public Prosecutor for the State
Nature of the Case: Criminal appeal (Division Bench) against judgment of conviction dated 18.03.2023 and order of sentence dated 21.03.2023 passed by the 21st Additional District and Sessions Judge, Motihari, East Champaran, in a murder case under Section 302 IPC.
Link to Full Judgment: Click here to read the complete 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.
