Case Background
This case arose from an incident said to have taken place in village Jaffarnagar, under Munger Muffasil Police Station, District Munger, on 13.09.2010 at about 5:00 a.m.
According to the written complaint of the informant, his nephew was dragged out of the house by five accused persons and shot dead. The informant alleged that the killing happened because the accused had demanded Rs. 1 lakh as rangdari (extortion) from the deceased a day earlier, which he refused to pay.
On this basis, Mufassil P.S. Case No. 168 of 2010 was registered on 13.09.2010 under Section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 27 of the Arms Act against five persons, including the present two appellants.
The Sub-Inspector prepared an inquest report in the village at about 9:00 a.m. the same day. The body reached Sadar Hospital, Munger, also at about 9:00 a.m., and the post-mortem was conducted at 12:55 p.m. The case was formally registered at the police station at 3:00 p.m. on 13.09.2010.
After investigation, charge-sheet was submitted against the two appellants and one more accused. The investigation was kept pending against the remaining two FIR-named accused.
The Chief Judicial Magistrate, Munger, took cognizance and, after supplying police papers, committed the case to the Court of Session on 11.01.2011. One co-accused was found to be a juvenile and his case was sent to the Juvenile Justice Board, Munger.
On 07.02.2012, charges under Section 302/34 IPC and Section 27 Arms Act were framed against the appellants. They pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
The Trial Court (5th Additional Sessions Judge, Munger) examined nine prosecution witnesses, including the informant, family members of the deceased, the doctor, and the Investigating Officer. No defence witness was examined.
By judgment dated 06.09.2016, the Trial Court convicted the appellants for murder with common intention and under the Arms Act, and by order dated 09.09.2016 sentenced them to life imprisonment with fine, plus three years under the Arms Act, both sentences to run concurrently.
The appellants challenged this conviction before the Patna High Court through Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 1036 of 2016.
What the Court Examined and Decided
The Division Bench of the Patna High Court, speaking through Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ashwani Kumar Singh, examined the entire evidence to see whether the prosecution had proved the case beyond reasonable doubt.
There was no dispute that the deceased died a homicidal death. The post-mortem, conducted by Dr. Inamul Rahman (P.W.8), showed a firearm entry wound on the upper right chest and laceration of the right lung and great vessels. A bullet was recovered from the chest cavity. The doctor opined that death was due to these firearm injuries within 24 hours prior to the examination.
The key question, therefore, was whether the appellants were responsible for the killing.
Serious delay and irregularity in FIR
The Court closely analysed the timing of events. The incident allegedly occurred at around 5:00 a.m. on 13.09.2010. The informant said he informed the police on phone at about 6:30 a.m., after deliberations lasting about one and a half hours. The SHO (P.W.9) stated he received a telephonic message, made a station diary entry, left the police station after half an hour and reached the village at 8:30 a.m.
The inquest report showed it was prepared at 9:00 a.m. in the village. The post-mortem report recorded that the hospital received the body at 9:00 a.m., and the autopsy started at 12:55 p.m. But the formal FIR was registered at 3:00 p.m. on the same day.
The Bench noted that “a major part of the investigation” – inspecting the place of occurrence, preparing the inquest report and sending the body for post-mortem – had taken place before registration of the FIR.
The Court referred to Supreme Court decisions in Thulia Kali v. State of T.N. and State of Punjab v. Ramdev Singh, reiterating that while delay in lodging FIR is not always fatal, it puts the court on guard. The delay must be satisfactorily explained, else there is risk of embellishment and concoction.
Here, the station diary entry made on receiving the telephone call was never produced, depriving the Court of the earliest version of the incident. The informant himself admitted the telephonic information was given after long deliberation, meaning it was not a cryptic call but a considered version.
The Court criticised the SHO, who was also the Investigating Officer, for ignorance of law and procedure in starting substantial investigation without first registering an FIR. The Bench agreed with the defence that the FIR appeared to have been lodged belatedly after due deliberations and consultations, which created doubt about the prosecution story.
Credibility of related and inimical witnesses
The prosecution mainly relied on family members of the deceased – his wife, son, uncle and cousins. Defence argued they were interested and inimical witnesses because there were cross-cases pending between the families.
The Court clarified that being related does not automatically make a witness “interested”. However, when witnesses are both related and on inimical terms, their evidence must be examined with great caution to rule out false implication.
In this case, it was undisputed that the deceased and his close relatives were accused in an earlier case (Mufassil P.S. Case No. 191 of 2007) lodged by one of the accused. So the Court carefully scrutinised their testimonies.
Contradictions about place of occurrence and movement of the body
The Bench found major inconsistencies on where exactly the murder took place and what happened to the body.
One witness (P.W.1) said the incident occurred in front of appellant Mallik Yadav’s house. Another (P.W.2) said it took place on the road between the houses of the accused and the deceased, and that after the killing, the accused dragged the body towards their own house, leaving blood stains and drag marks which the police supposedly saw.
However, the Investigating Officer (P.W.9) did not support this. He said the place of occurrence was away from the house of the appellants. He did not mention any signs of dragging, nor seizure of blood-stained soil or clothes. The doctor did not find any scratch injuries suggestive of the dead body being dragged.
The inquest report stated the body was found on a cot in front of the deceased’s house. Yet P.W.2 had claimed the inquest was prepared near the house of the accused. This confusion about basic facts like where the body lay, and from which house the deceased was dragged out, greatly weakened the prosecution version.
Contradictions on time and manner of occurrence
Even the time of occurrence varied. The informant put it at around 5:00 a.m., P.W.1 and P.W.6 at about 5:30 a.m., and P.W.2 at about 6:00 a.m.
There were sharper contradictions about how the incident happened:
• The informant, in his written complaint and deposition, said all five accused entered his house, dragged the deceased outside, and on the order of two of them, appellant Tulsi Yadav fired at the chest of the deceased.
• P.W.1 said he returned from answering the call of nature and saw the deceased and appellant Mallik Yadav quarrelling in front of Mallik’s house. According to him, Mallik and another co-accused caught hold of the deceased, and Tulsi Yadav fired at his chest.
• P.W.2 said four accused were quarrelling with the deceased. In the meantime, Tulsi came out of his house with a firearm and shot the deceased, who fell and died. He also claimed the body was later dragged.
The Court observed that these descriptions of the manner of occurrence did not match each other or the original complaint.
Presence of witnesses at the scene
The Court noticed further contradictions on who was actually present at the time of firing.
P.W.2 admitted in cross-examination that when he reached the place of occurrence, no one else was present and others came only after the incident of murder. This contradicted the claim that several family members witnessed the shooting.
P.W.6 stated he came to the scene on hearing noise after the deceased had already been shot, and that other close relatives (P.Ws.1, 2, 3, 4 and the informant) came after him. If his version is correct, none of these witnesses actually saw the firing.
Such internal contradictions among prosecution witnesses made the Court doubt whether any of them had truly seen the actual incident.
Non-production of crucial material and poor investigation
The Investigating Officer admitted several lapses:
- He seized no articles from the place of occurrence.
- No weapon was recovered from the appellants’ houses.
- Although the doctor handed over the recovered bullet after post-mortem, there was no seizure list prepared and the bullet was never produced before the Court.
- He did not note or collect blood-stained earth from the spot, despite witnesses claiming there was heavy bleeding and even dragged blood marks.
- He did not investigate whether the deceased had criminal antecedents, despite suggestions in cross-examination.
- He admitted that three independent nearby residents, whose statements he recorded, did not support the prosecution story and gave a different version of the incident and its cause.
Additionally, the author of the inquest report, a Sub-Inspector, was not examined in court. The Bench pointed out that the inquest showed the body as being at the village at 9:00 a.m., while the post-mortem report recorded that the body was received at the hospital at the same time.
The Court remarked that it was “surprising” how the body could be at both places simultaneously and suspected ante-dating of the inquest. Since the author was not examined, the defence lost an opportunity to question him, which prejudiced the defence.
Overall assessment and final decision
Taking all these factors together—the unexplained delay and irregularity in registering the FIR, the missing station diary entry, absence of proper seizure of material exhibits, contradictions regarding time, place and manner of occurrence, inconsistencies about who witnessed the incident, and the failure to examine material witnesses—the Bench held that the prosecution had not proved its case beyond reasonable doubt.
The Court concluded that there were “glaring loopholes in investigation” and “material inconsistencies” in evidence, and that the manner and place of occurrence were not established.
Accordingly, the appeal was allowed. The High Court set aside the conviction judgment dated 06.09.2016 and the sentence order dated 09.09.2016 passed by the Trial Court in Sessions Trial No. 44 of 2011.
The appellants Mallik Yadav and Tulsi Yadav were acquitted of all charges and directed to be released from jail forthwith, unless required in any other case.
Why This Judgment Matters
This Patna High Court judgment is important for both accused persons and victims’ families because it shows what can happen when criminal cases are not investigated and recorded carefully.
The Court did not say that the murder did not happen. It accepted that there was a killing by gunshot. But it refused to uphold a life sentence when the police did not follow basic legal steps like prompt FIR registration, proper seizure of evidence and calling key officers as witnesses.
For families of victims, the case is a warning that weak or confused statements and poor investigation can result in acquittal, even in serious offences like murder. It underlines the need to give clear, consistent accounts at the earliest stage and to insist that police follow procedure.
For accused persons, it reaffirms that they cannot be convicted on doubtful, shaky evidence. Courts are bound to give the benefit of doubt where the prosecution story keeps changing, or where important documents like early station diary entries are hidden or not produced.
In short, the judgment reinforces that in criminal law, especially in the Patna High Court, a conviction for murder must rest on strong, reliable and lawfully collected evidence, not on suspicion or family pressure.
Legal Issues and Answers
-
Issue: Whether the delayed and irregular registration of FIR and prior investigation steps affected the reliability of the prosecution case.
Answer: Yes. The Court held that substantial investigation before FIR, non-production of the station diary entry, and unexplained delay in FIR registration created serious doubt about the prosecution version. -
Issue: Whether the prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt that the appellants committed the murder of the deceased with common intention.
Answer: No. Due to material inconsistencies about time, place, and manner of occurrence, contradictions among related and inimical witnesses, and poor investigation, the Court found that the prosecution failed to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt. -
Issue: Whether the conviction under Section 302/34 IPC and Section 27 Arms Act could be sustained on the available evidence.
Answer: No. The High Court set aside the conviction and sentences and acquitted the appellants of all charges.
Cases Cited by the Court
- Thulia Kali v. State of T.N., AIR 1973 SC 501 (on the importance of prompt FIR and danger of embellishment due to delay).
- State of Punjab v. Ramdev Singh, (2004) 1 SCC 421 (on how courts should treat delay in lodging FIR).
Case Details
Case Number: Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 1036 of 2016; arising out of Muffasil P.S. Case No. 168 of 2010; Sessions Trial No. 44 of 2011.
Case Title: Mallik Yadav & Anr v. The State of Bihar.
Court: High Court of Judicature at Patna.
Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ashwani Kumar Singh and Hon’ble Mr. Justice Madhuresh Prasad.
Date of High Court Judgment: 01.12.2021.
Trial Court: Court of the 5th Additional Sessions Judge, Munger.
Trial Court Judgment and Sentence: Conviction dated 06.09.2016 and sentence dated 09.09.2016 under Section 302/34 IPC (life imprisonment and fine of Rs. 25,000 each) and Section 27 Arms Act (three years rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs. 5,000 each), sentences to run concurrently.
Citation: 2022(1) PLJR 278.
Advocates: Mr. Bindhyachal Singh, Senior Advocate, with Mr. Sanjay Sinha and Mr. Md. Fazle Karim, Advocates for the appellants; Mr. Abhimanyu Sharma, APP, for the State; Mr. Tarkishor Verma, Advocate, for the informant.
Nature of Case: Criminal appeal (Division Bench) against conviction and sentence for offences under Section 302/34 IPC and Section 27 of the Arms Act.
Final Outcome: Appeal allowed; conviction and sentence set aside; appellants acquitted and directed to be released unless required in any other case.
Link to Judgment: Full text of Patna High Court judgment
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.
