Case Background
This criminal appeal arose from a judgment dated 3 February 1994 of the 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Sitamarhi in Sessions Trial No. 229 of 1992/9 of 1993, which came from Sitamarhi P.S. Case No. 168 of 1992.
According to the prosecution, on 7 June 1992, deceased Mohan Singh, a co-villager of the informant Pramod Chandra Jha, asked him to collect Rs. 13,000 from his brick kiln. The informant claims he brought the money around 4:00 p.m. and handed it over at Ranjit Medical Hall. Mohan Singh allegedly went to pay this money to a coal dealer, while the informant returned home.
Later that night, around 9:30 p.m., Mohan Singh and coal dealer Ghoghar Mishra @ Baba allegedly visited the informant’s house, spoke for some time, and then Ghoghar Mishra left. Mohan Singh then asked the informant to accompany him towards his house. As they reached near Kiran Chowk, Mohan Singh supposedly asked for a cigarette and waited near Suman’s betel shop while the informant went to another nearby shop to buy one.
At this point, according to the fardbeyan, several accused, including the present appellants, arrived from the side of Singwahini market. A quarrel over “accounts” was said to have begun, followed by firing at Mohan Singh and an attempt on the life of the informant. Mohan Singh was taken on a “thela” (cart) to Sitamarhi Sadar Hospital, where he was declared dead.
The fardbeyan of the informant was recorded at Sitamarhi Sadar Hospital on 7 June 1992 by Sub-Inspector Praduban Singh. On its basis, Sitamarhi P.S. Case No. 168 of 1992 was registered against the appellants and others. The stated motive in the fardbeyan was a prior dispute between one Amrendra Mishra and accused Raghunath Singh regarding a partnership, in which the deceased had allegedly done “panchayati” against Raghunath Singh.
After investigation, charge-sheet was filed against the FIR-named accused. The Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sitamarhi took cognizance, supplied police papers under Section 207 Cr.P.C., and committed the case to the Court of Sessions.
Charges were framed under Sections 302/149, 148 and 307/34 of the Indian Penal Code against all accused. Additionally, accused Raghunath Singh, Dukhan Sahni and Jagdish Singh were charged under Section 27 of the Arms Act. The accused pleaded not guilty.
After trial, the Sessions Court convicted the present appellants under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC and sentenced them to life imprisonment. Appellant Dukhan Sahni was also convicted under Section 307 IPC and Section 27 of the Arms Act and sentenced to further terms of four years and two years respectively, to run concurrently. The appellants then approached the Patna High Court by way of this criminal appeal (DB) No. 114 of 1994.
What the Court Examined and Decided
The Division Bench of the Patna High Court, consisting of Hon’ble Mr. Justice A.M. Badar and Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sunil Kumar Panwar, heard the appeal. The judgment was authored by Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sunil Kumar Panwar and delivered on 1 December 2021.
The Court first confirmed, on the basis of the post-mortem report and the deposition of P.W.7 (the doctor), that the death of Mohan Singh was homicidal. The injuries were caused by a firearm and were sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death due to shock and haemorrhage.
The key question, therefore, was not whether Mohan Singh was murdered, but whether the prosecution evidence reliably proved that the appellants participated in the crime.
Assessment of prosecution witnesses
The prosecution examined ten witnesses. Among them, P.W.1 Anil Kumar Singh was a hearsay witness who reached the spot after the incident. P.W.2 Rajeshwar Singh, P.W.5 Arjun Singh (brother-in-law of the deceased) and P.W.6 Pramod Chandra Jha (informant) claimed to be eye-witnesses. P.W.7 was the doctor who conducted the post-mortem. P.W.8 and P.W.10 were investigating officers. P.W.3 and P.W.4 were formal inquest witnesses and P.W.9 was a clerk who proved sanction under the Arms Act.
P.W.1 stated that he found Mohan Singh lying in a pool of blood near Kiran Chowk under electric light, and that the informant narrated the incident to him. He also said he helped place the body on a thela and took it to hospital. In cross-examination, he admitted criminal antecedents, and crucially, admitted that a police Jamadar recorded the informant’s statement near the dead body before the body was taken to hospital and that he signed as a witness. This earlier document was not produced, raising questions about suppression of the first version of events.
P.W.2 Rajeshwar Singh claimed to have been at Ashoka Hotel for dinner with two others and to have witnessed the shooting under electric light. He described a quarrel over accounts, the appellants allegedly catching hold of Mohan Singh, and co-accused Raghunath and Jagdish firing at Mohan Singh with “nalkatua” in quick succession. He also narrated a misfired shot at the informant and said Mohan Singh was taken to hospital on a thela. In cross-examination, he admitted that he, the informant and the deceased were co-accused in earlier criminal cases, including an Arms Act case and a dacoity case, revealing their criminal background and close association.
The defence highlighted that P.W.2 had changed his story. According to the Investigating Officer (P.W.8), P.W.2’s earlier statement to the police was that first Raghunath fired at the right side of Mohan Singh’s head from a very close range, causing him to fall, and then Jagdish placed his small arm near Mohan Singh’s neck and fired. Thus, the earlier version was of two separate point-blank shots, whereas in Court P.W.2 spoke of firing “in quick succession”.
P.W.5 Arjun Singh said he was at Mohan Singh’s house between 9:30 and 9:45 p.m. when four known accused and two unknown persons, with gamcha around their mouths, came enquiring about Mohan Singh. He and his sister (Mohan Singh’s wife) allegedly told them that Mohan Singh was likely in the market. Suspicious, he followed them and claimed to have witnessed the shooting near Praveen Store, giving a version similar to P.W.2 regarding how Mohan Singh was caught and shot, and how the informant was attacked but escaped.
The defence questioned why, if P.W.5 had seen the occurrence, he was not named as a witness in the fardbeyan. The Investigating Officer admitted that when the FIR was recorded, no statement of P.W.5 had been taken. P.W.5 had not signed the fardbeyan. Further, as per the I.O. (para 18), P.W.5 had earlier described to police that the shots were fired by Raghunath and Jagdish from point-blank range, first at the head and then at the neck, again inconsistent with his court statement about “quick succession”.
P.W.6, the informant, was projected as the star witness. He broadly repeated the version in his fardbeyan about accompanying Mohan Singh, going to buy a cigarette, and then seeing the accused catch and shoot Mohan Singh, followed by attempts on his life. Yet, P.W.8 deposed that P.W.6 had earlier said Raghunath and Jagdish fired from point-blank range and not that they fired in quick succession. This again created a mismatch between earlier and later versions.
Medical evidence versus ocular version
The post-mortem evidence became a turning point. P.W.7, the doctor, found essentially one firearm entry wound on the left side of the neck and one exit wound on the right side of the skull, with extensive internal damage. He described it clearly as a single shot injury, where the bullet entered from the neck and exited through the head. He also noted a fractured incisor tooth and missing skull bone pieces at the exit point.
The Court compared this with the prosecution story. According to the witnesses’ earlier police statements, there were two distinct shots: first at the head, then at the neck. In Court, they shifted to describing “quick succession” firing by two accused. Either way, their account suggested two separate shots at different parts of the body.
However, the doctor’s evidence was of only one entry and one exit wound, consistent with a single bullet travelling from neck to head. The High Court held that this medical evidence “clearly falsifies the story of the witnesses and proves that none of the witnesses had seen the occurrence”. The Bench relied on a Supreme Court decision reported in 1980 Cri.L.J. 1298, which held that when the prosecution version about a vital aspect is inherently improbable and contradicted by medical evidence, the latter must be preferred.
Place of occurrence and physical evidence
The defence also attacked the proof of the place of occurrence. The doctor had found that one incisor tooth was broken and that about three inches of skull bone at the exit point were missing. Yet, the Investigating Officer admitted that no broken tooth, no skull bone pieces, and no footwear of the deceased were found at the alleged spot, though the informant had said the deceased wore leather chappals.
This absence of expected physical evidence made the alleged spot doubtful. Blood seized from the spot was also under a cloud: the seizure list witnesses were not examined; the seizure list did not bear the signature of the sub-inspector said to have prepared it; and the I.O. admitted that there was no case-diary note about directing seizure or about depositing bloodstains in the malkhana.
Electricity supply and visibility
An important part of the prosecution story was that the eye-witnesses identified the accused in electric light from an electric pole. To counter this, the defence examined D.Ws.1, 3, 5 and 6, employees of the Bihar State Electricity Board, and produced official records (Exts. F, F/1 and G). These showed that in the night of 7 June 1992 there was no electricity supply in Sitamarhi town from about 20:35 hours or 21:15 hours onwards till the next morning.
The High Court held that these records, maintained by public servants in the regular course of duty, could not be lightly discarded. The trial court had erred in ignoring them. If there was in fact no power, the claim that the accused were seen and identified in electric light became highly doubtful.
Motive and prior enmity
The alleged motive was the deceased’s role in a panchayati between one Amrendra Mishra and accused Raghunath Singh. The Court noted that the informant admitted he had not mentioned the date, time or place of this panchayati in the FIR. No independent evidence or written record of the panchayati was produced. Thus, the claimed motive was not proved.
On the other hand, it was an admitted fact that the prosecution witnesses and the accused had long-standing enmity and shared criminal backgrounds. The Court observed that if, as claimed, the accused had fired at Mohan Singh in the presence of the informant, who was also their enemy, there was no reason they would allow him to escape unharmed to become a star witness.
Overall appreciation and final decision
After examining all these aspects, the High Court concluded that:
- There was no consistency in the evidence of eye-witnesses regarding the time, place and manner of occurrence.
- Their versions conflicted with the clear medical evidence indicating a solitary shot, not two separate shots as described.
- The place of occurrence was not satisfactorily proved due to absence of expected physical material and doubtful seizure.
- Electricity Board records, which showed power failure at the relevant time, undermined the claim of identification in electric light.
- The prosecution witnesses were interested and inimical to the accused, and their evidence suffered from serious infirmities.
- The alleged motive was not established.
Given these doubts, the Court held that the prosecution had failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt regarding the place of occurrence, the manner of occurrence and the involvement of the appellants.
Accordingly, in paragraph 36, the Bench set aside the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 3 February 1994. In paragraph 37, it allowed the appeal and acquitted the appellants of all charges. Since they were already on bail, in paragraph 38, they were discharged from the liabilities of their bail bonds.
Why This Judgment Matters
This Patna High Court judgment is important for both accused persons and crime victims because it shows that criminal cases must stand on solid, reliable evidence.
The Court did not simply rely on the seriousness of the allegation. It checked whether the eye-witness accounts matched medical reports, physical evidence at the spot, official records like electricity logs, and the conduct of the investigating officers.
Where there were major gaps and contradictions, and especially when the key witnesses were themselves in long-standing enmity and had criminal antecedents, the Court refused to uphold a life sentence. It reinforced the principle that suspicion, however strong, cannot replace proof beyond reasonable doubt.
For ordinary citizens, the case underlines the value of accurate medical reports, proper seizure and documentation at crime scenes, and truthful statements at the earliest stage. For lawyers, it highlights how cross-examination on prior statements, official records (such as electricity supply registers) and missing physical evidence can decisively shift the outcome of a criminal trial.
Legal Issues and Answers
-
Issue: Did the prosecution prove beyond reasonable doubt that the appellants participated in the murder of Mohan Singh and the alleged attempt on the informant’s life?
Answer: No. The Patna High Court held that inconsistencies between eye-witness accounts and medical evidence, doubtful identification due to alleged power failure, unproved place of occurrence, and unreliable interested witnesses meant the prosecution failed to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt. The convictions were therefore set aside and the appellants were acquitted. -
Issue: Could the trial court properly ignore official Electricity Board records about power supply when accepting eye-witness identification in electric light?
Answer: No. The High Court held that the trial court erred in discarding these official records maintained by public servants. Since they indicated non-supply of electricity at the relevant time, the prosecution’s version of identification in electric light became doubtful. -
Issue: Was the prosecution’s alleged motive for the murder established on the evidence produced?
Answer: No. The Court found that the alleged panchayati involving the deceased was not supported by any date, time, place, or independent proof. Hence the motive, as asserted by the prosecution, remained unproved.
Cases Cited by the Court
- The judgment refers to a Supreme Court decision reported in 1980 Cri.L.J. 1298, particularly paragraph 13, where the Apex Court held that when the prosecution’s account of a vital fact is inherently improbable and contradicted by medical evidence, it cannot be accepted over the medical expert’s testimony.
Case Details
Case Number: Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 114 of 1994
Case Title: Wazul Miyan @ Anjul Miyan & another v. The State of Bihar
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: 01.12.2021
Citation: 2022(1) PLJR 520
Advocates:
- For the appellants: Mr. Prasoon Sinha, Advocate
- For the State: Mr. Ajay Mishra, learned Additional Public Prosecutor (also noted earlier as Mr. Dilip Kumar Sinha, APP)
Nature of the Case: Criminal appeal (Division Bench) against conviction and sentence passed by the 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Sitamarhi in Sessions Trial No. 229 of 1992/9 of 1993 arising out of Sitamarhi P.S. Case No. 168 of 1992.
Offences Involved at Trial:
- Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC (murder with common intention)
- Section 307 IPC (attempt to murder) – against appellant no. 2
- Sections 148, 149, 307/34 IPC (framed at trial against all accused)
- Section 27 of the Arms Act – against some accused including appellant no. 2
Outcome in Appeal: Conviction and sentences set aside; appellants acquitted of all charges; bail bonds discharged.
Link to Full Judgment: Click here to read the original 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.
