IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA GOVT. APPEAL (DB) No.10 of 2000 ====================================================== The State of Bihar ... ... Appellant Versus 1. Dasharath Raut S/o Late Harco Raut R/o vill and P.O.- Kharsari, P.S.- Kawakole, Distt.- Nawada 2. Kalo @ Kauleshwar Yadav S/o Late Barho Yadav R/o vill and P.O.- Kharsari, P.S.- Kawakole, Distt.- Nawada 3. Indradeo Yadav S/o Late Jagdish Yadav R/o vill and P.O.- Kharsari, P.S.- Kawakole, Distt.- Nawada 4. Sadhu Yadav S/o Late Barho Yadav R/o vill and P.O.- Kharsari, P.S.- Kawakole, Distt.- Nawada ... ... Respondents ====================================================== Appearance : For the Appellant : Mr. Dilip Kumar Sinha, APP For the Respondents : Ms. Saloni Saran, Advocate ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE VIPUL M. PANCHOLI and HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL DUTTA MISHRA ORAL JUDGMENT (Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE VIPUL M. PANCHOLI) Date : 08-07-2025 This appeal under Section 378(1) and (3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure has been preferred by the State against the judgment dated 08.05.2000 passed by the 3rd Additional Sessions Judge, Nawada, in Sessions Trial No.40 of 95/99/96, whereby the trial court has acquitted all the respondents herein of the charges levelled against them. FACTUAL MATRIX: 2. Kawakol P.S. Case No. 89 of 1994 came to be registered based on the fard-beyan of informant, Rana Hare Ram Patna High Court G. APP. (DB) No.10 of 2000 dt.08-07-2025 2/32 Singh (PW 9), recorded by the Sub-Inspector of Police, Kawakol P.S. on 13.11.1994 at 22:30 PM, near Thakur Sthan in Kharasari. The informant, in his fard-beyan, has stated that, at about 04:00 PM, his brother Kumar Aniruddh Singh and his neighbour Shashi Bhushan Singh and Rajendra Singh went to visit the field in the south of the village. After sometime, the informant also went to his paddy field in south of the village to cut the marhi of his paddy and he saw from near Tikwa Khandha that his brother was asking the wife of Dasrath Raut, who was plucking the gram leaves from their field, to move out, despite which the lady kept on plucking the gram leaves. Thereafter his brother sternly told her to move out upon which, the lady started abusing his brother and started moving towards the village threatening him that she would teach a lesson. Thereafter, all the three persons started inspecting the gram field. At around 04:45 PM, Binay Raut armed with licensed rifle, Dasrath Raut armed with lathi and pasuli, Parmeshwar Raut, armed with gadasa, Suresh Raut, armed with pasuli, Subhash Raut, armed with country-made rifle, Niwas Raut, armed with pasuli, Binod Raut, armed with lathi and Tanik Raut armed with khanti rushed towards his field. Upon seeing them coming with arms, the informant hid in his paddy field keeping eye on their move and saw that his brother, Shashi Bhushan Singh and Patna High Court G. APP. (DB) No.10 of 2000 dt.08-07-2025 3/32 Rajendra Singh, upon seeing them coming, started running towards east. Then, the accused persons asked them abusively to stop and Parmeshwar Raut exhorted to kill them, upon which Binay Raut shot fire from his licensed rifle, which hit in the left side of chest of his brother, rest of the accused persons surrounded Shashi Bhushan Singh near gular tree. Rajendra Singh kept on running towards east. Dasrath Raut, Niwas Raut, Subhash Raut, threw Shashi Bhushan Singh in the ploughed field of Triveni Singh and Suresh Raut slit his throat by means of pasuli and put him in the water channel to the west of the field. Dasrath Raut also slit the throat of his brother after he received the gun shot. At that time, many people from village were working in their field and they also watched the incident. 2.1. The informant has further stated in his fard- beyan that Rajendra Singh, Mahesh Singh, Mithilesh Singh have seen the occurrence. They will tell that after commission of the occurrence, the accused persons went towards the village. When he came near the water channel, he saw that his brother Kumar Aniruddh Singh has sustained bullet injury in the left side below his chest, his throat was slit and several other injuries were there on his body. Shashi Bhushan Singh had also died of slitting of throat. The dead body of Shashi Bhushan Singh was lying in the Patna High Court G. APP. (DB) No.10 of 2000 dt.08-07-2025 4/32 north and that of his brother was lying three steps away in the south in the water channel. After sometime, many persons from village came and an information was sent to the police station through Chowkidar Bhagwan Das. 2.2. The informant has claimed in his fard-beyan that accused Binay Raut shot his brother by his licensed rifle and Dasrath Raut slit the throat of his bother leading to his death and Subhash Raut, Niwas Raut and Binod Raut threw Shashi Bhushan Singh and Suresh Raut slit his throat with pasuli. 2.3. On completion of investigation, charge-sheet was submitted against the respondents herein before the concerned Magistrate Court and as the case was exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions, the learned Magistrate committed the same to the Sessions Court under Section 209 of the Code, where the same was registered as Sessions Trial No. 40 of 1995/99 of 1996. 2.4. At the trial, the prosecution examined eleven witnesses and also produced documentary evidence. Thereafter, further statement of the accused was recorded under Section 313 of the Code and after completion of the trial, the Trial Court passed the impugned judgment and acquitted the accused persons of the charges framed against them against which the State has preferred the present appeal. Patna High Court G. APP. (DB) No.10 of 2000 dt.08-07-2025 5/32 3. Heard Mr. Dilip Kumar Sinha, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the appellant- State and Ms. Saloni Saran, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents-accused. SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANT-STATE :- 4. Learned APP appearing for the appellant-State would mainly submit that informant is the eye-witness of the occurrence in question and he is the brother of the deceased. It is further submitted that there are three eye-witnesses to the occurrence in question and all the eye-witnesses supported the case of the prosecution. Learned APP, therefore, urged that when the eye- witnesses have supported the case of the prosecution, the trial court ought to have convicted the respondents accused. Learned APP has also referred the deposition given by the IO (PW 11) and pointed out the manner in which the said IO has carried out the investigation and collected the evidence against the respondents accused. Learned APP urged that the impugned judgment be quashed and set aside and thereby the respondents accused be convicted for the alleged offence. SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENTS-ACCUSED: - Patna High Court G. APP. (DB) No.10 of 2000 dt.08-07-2025 6/32 5. On the other hand, learned Advocate Ms. Saloni Saran, appearing for the respondents accused has vehemently opposed the present appeal. It is submitted that there are major contradictions and inconsistencies in the deposition of the prosecution witnesses. 5.1. Learned counsel further submits that the trial court has not committed any error while passing the impugned judgment of acquittal. At this stage, learned counsel has placed reliance upon the decision rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Chandrappa and Ors. Vs. State of Karnataka, reported in (2007) 4 SCC 415 and contended that even if two views are possible one view taken by the trial court cannot be retracted. She, therefore, urged that the acquittal appeal be dismissed. DISCUSSION WITH REGARD TO THE DEPOSITION OF THE PROSECUTION WITNESSES :- 6. At this stage, we would appreciate the relevant evidence given by the witnesses. 6.1. PW 1, namely, Rajendra Singh, who claims to be an eye-witness, has mainly deposed in his examination-in-chief that the occurrence took place on 13.11.1994 at about 04:45 PM. On that day, at about 03:30 PM, he had gone to Tikwa Khanda Patna High Court G. APP. (DB) No.10 of 2000 dt.08-07-2025 7/32 with Aniruddh and Shashi Bhushan to the field of Kumar Aniruddh Singh, where gram and paddy crops were standing. Wife of Dasrath Raut was plucking the gram leaves there, when Aniruddh objected, she did not stop. When he went near her and asked her to stop, she started abusing and threatened him that she would teach him a lesson. They stayed in the field. After 15 minutes, Binay Raut armed with licensed rifle, Dasrath Raut armed with lathi and pasuli, Parmeshwar Raut, armed with gadasa, Suresh Raut, armed with pasuli, Subhash Raut, armed with country-made rifle, Niwas Raut, armed with pasuli, Binod Raut, armed with lathi and Tanik Raut armed with khanti reached there, upon which they started fleeing away. Thereafter, Parmeshwar Raut ordered, upon which Binay fired a shot from his rifle, which hit in the chest of Kumar Aniruddh Singh. Shashi Bhushan Singh was also surrounded, whom Niwas, Subhash and Dasrath threw in the ploughed field of Triveni Singh and thereafter Suresh slit his throat. Dasrath Raut slit the throat of Kumar Aniruddh Singh by means of hasuli. Aniruddh had also sustained injuries in his buttocks, which was caused by Tanik Raut by means of khanti. Niwas Raut inflicted hasuli blow in the right cheek. PW 1 fled away to the east of the river and hid in a sugarcane field. When both of them died, their dead bodies were put in the water channel, which is four steps Patna High Court G. APP. (DB) No.10 of 2000 dt.08-07-2025 8/32 away from the field of Triveni Singh. Thereafter, accused persons fled away. 6.2. PW 1 has further deposed in his examination- in-chief that the field in which he hid is 100 feet away from the place of occurrence. 6.3. In his cross-examination, PW 1 has mainly deposed that after the wife of Dasrath left, no one came. They sat in the field for 40-45 minutes, however, none came from the village. The accused persons were coming in a queue led by Binay Raut, who was wearing shirt and lungi. He does not know who were behind him and what they were wielding. 6.4. He has further deposed in paragraph 7 of his examination-in-chief that when Kumar Aniruddh Singh was shot, he was at a distance of 3-4 feet. He reached in the sugarcane field one minute after Aniruddh was shot and hid there, but he does not know whether accused persons saw him hiding. Within one or two seconds of hitting of shot, throat of Shashi Bhushan was slit. Three person had caught hold of Shashi Bhushan. After throat of Shashi Bhushan was slit, throat of Kumar Aniruddh Singh was also slit. Blood was spilled over there because of slitting of throats of Aniruddh and Shashi Bhushan. PW 1 remained hiding in the sugarcane field, but none came there. Patna High Court G. APP. (DB) No.10 of 2000 dt.08-07-2025 9/32 6.5. In paragraph 23 of his cross-examination, PW 1 has deposed that he was apprehensive that accused persons will kill him, he started running away uncontrollably from there through a ploughed field and looked behind also, but he was not being followed by any one and reached to the sugarcane filed, which was not dense and entered in it. He also sustained scratches in his hands by sugarcane leaves, which he did not show to Daroga. 6.6. In paragraph 25 of his cross-examination, PW 1 has deposed that he entered in the sugarcane field from south. He had not shown the spot to anyone in the sugarcane field where he hid himself. In paragraph 27 he has deposed that the dead bodies were lifted one by one and drops of blood fell up to the place where the dead bodies were kept. 6.7. In paragraph 26 of his cross-examination, PW 1 has deposed that Aniruddh was shot while he was standing, blood oozed out, he fell down. Blood spilled there. Blood also fell on the ground where his throat was slit. The blood which came out of gunshot injury and that because of slitting of throat spilled nearly at the same place at a distance of one span, i.e., about 9 inches. Patna High Court G. APP. (DB) No.10 of 2000 dt.08-07-2025 10/32 6.8. He has deposed in paragraph 29 that throats of Shashi Bhushan and Aniruddh were slit by means of hasuli by the accused persons by pulling it and at a distance of three yards. In paragraph 30, he has deposed that Darogaji visited at the place of occurrence, but he did not go there, rather he gave his statement in the village on 14.11.1994, when he first meet Daroga. In paragraph 31, he has deposed that in the night of the date of occurrence, he did not meet Chowkidar. He met the informant and his family members that night around 09:30-10:00 PM and told them about the incident. He was not asked for advice for lodging of case. None from village took his advise. He also does not know from whom the informant took advice. 7. PW 2, Mithilesh Kumar Singh, is a seizure-list witness. 8. PW 3, Mahesh Prasad Singh, in his examination-in- chief, has narrated the incident in the same terms as PW 1. 8.1. In his cross-examination, PW 3 has stated that, for the first time, at about 06:00-07:00 AM on 14.11.1994, he has given his statement before Daroga and he has not told anything to anyone from village. In paragraph 12, he has deposed that at a distance of 20-25 feet, accused persons were chasing the deceased, however, till then they did not make fire or charged any weapon. Patna High Court G. APP. (DB) No.10 of 2000 dt.08-07-2025 11/32 The deceased entered in the water channel. He did not pay attention whether the clothes or the legs of the deceased were soaked with mud. He saw blood spilled where the head of the deceased were kept. 8.2. In paragraph 14 of cross-examination, PW 3 has deposed that Shashi Bhushan Singh was lying on the ground and three accused persons were surrounding him, total four accused persons from south direction were there. At that time, Dasrath Raut was near Kumar Aniruddh Singh from north direction and was slitting his throat. In paragraph 17, he has deposed that Kumar Aniruddh Singh sustained gunshot injury while he was fleeing and he fell down. He did not pay attention as to whether blood oozed out after the gunshot. Kumar Aniruddh Singh was lying straight with head in east and the legs in west direction. He did not see the slippers or shoes of the deceased. In paragraph 18, he has deposed that the dead bodies were not dragged to the water channel, rather they were lifted. He has further deposed that his statement was recorded by the police at his house and the statements of Rajendra Singh and Hareram Singh were also recorded at his house. 8.3. In paragraph 26 of the cross-examination, PW 3 has deposed that he told the police that he was working in Patna High Court G. APP. (DB) No.10 of 2000 dt.08-07-2025 12/32 Thekwa Khandha and that wife of Dasrath Raut had gone home after threatening. The licensed rifle is fitted with magazine and the other rifles did not contain magazines. He has deposed that he told the police that Binay was holding licensed rifle and that Kumar Aniruddh Singh sustained firearm injury below the left chest and Suresh slit the throat by means of fasuli. He told the police that accused persons were wearing shirt and denied that he told the police that accused persons were wearing vest. He also denied that Rajendra Singh was involved in commission of the occurrence and out of fear he did not say anything to any one in the night and to settle the score in a thoughtful manner he has falsely implicated the accused persons. He also denied that he did not see the occurrence and is giving his evidence out of enmity. 9. PW 4, Ram Chandra Singh, is the inquest-report witness. 10. PW 5, Shyam Sunder Singh, is a hearsay witness. 11. PW 6, Suresh Singh, is a chance witness. He has deposed in his examination-in-chief that while he went to see his paddy crop near the school, he heard the sound of gunshot. After 15-20 minutes, when he was going towards south of his field, he saw Binay Raut, Dasrath Raut, Suresh Raut, Parmeshwar Patna High Court G. APP. (DB) No.10 of 2000 dt.08-07-2025 13/32 Raut, Subhash Raut, Niwas Raut, Tanik Raut, Binod Raut coming towards south from north. Binay Raut was holding rifle and Parmeshwar was holding gandasa. Dasrath was having lathi and pasuli in his hands. Subhash was holding country-made rifle and Suresh was holding pasuli in their hands. They went towards the village. He has further deposed that Hareram Singh was also coming from that direction, who said that his brother Kumar Aniruddh Singh and Shashi Bhushan Singh have been killed in the field of Triveni Singh near gular tree. He saw the dead bodies. Aniruddh had sustained bullet injury and the throat of Shashi Bhushan was slit. He has deposed that he has given such statement to the police that when he asked Hareram Singh told that Binay Raut shot dead his brother and Dasrath Raut slit his throat. He also told that Suresh Raut slit the throat of Shashi Bhushan Singh. 11.1. In his cross-examination, PW 6 has mainly deposed that he told the police that while he was watching his paddy crops, he heard the sound of firing from south. He denied that he did not tell the police that when he was going towards south after 15-20 minutes, he saw Binay Raut, Dasrath Raut, Suresh Raut, Parmeshwar Raut, Subhash Raut, Niwas Raut, Tanik Raut, Binod Raut coming from south and that Binay was holding rifle, Parmeshwar was holding gandasa, Dasrath was holding lathi Patna High Court G. APP. (DB) No.10 of 2000 dt.08-07-2025 14/32 and pasuli, Subhash was holding country-made and Suresh was holding pasuli. 11.2. In paragraph 7 of his cross-examination, PW 6 has deposed that he had instituted Kawakol P.S. No.80/93 against accused Dasrath Raut as his leg was broken by him, prior to the present case. He deposed that he is Rajput by caste and denied that because of caste consideration he is giving false evidence. 12. PW 7, Baleshwar Prasad, has identified the signature of S.H.O. of Kawakol P.S., which has been marked as ext-3. 13. PW 8, Rajesh Kumar, identified the signatures of Rajendra Singh and Ram Chandra Singh, which have been marked as ext-1/2 and 1/3. 14. PW 9, Rana Hareram Singh, is the informant of the case and the brother of deceased Kumar Aniruddh Singh. He has deposed in his examination-in-chief that the occurrence took place at around 04:45 PM on 13.11.1994. At about 04:00 PM, his brother Kumar Kumar Aniruddh Singh and his neighbour Shashi Bhushan Singh and Rajendra Singh went to visit the field in the south of the village. After sometime, the informant also went to his paddy field in south of the village to cut the Bharinha of his paddy. He saw from near Tikwa Khandha that his brother was asking the Patna High Court G. APP. (DB) No.10 of 2000 dt.08-07-2025 15/32 wife of Dasrath Raut, who was plucking the gram leaves from their field, to move out. Despite that the lady kept on plucking the gram leaves. Thereafter, his brother sternly told her to move out, upon which the lady started abusing his brother and started moving towards the village threatening him that she would teach a lesson. Thereafter, all the three persons started inspecting the gram field. At around 04:45 PM, Binay Raut armed with licensed rifle, Dasrath Raut armed with lathi and pasuli, Parmeshwar Raut, armed with gadasa, Suresh Raut, armed with pasuli, Subhash Raut, armed with country-made rifle, Niwas Raut, armed with pasuli, Binod Raut, armed with lathi and Tanik Raut armed with khanti rushed towards his field. Upon seeing them coming with arms, the informant hid in his paddy field with eye on them and saw that his brother, Shashi Bhushan Singh and Rajendra Singh, upon seeing them coming, started running towards east. Then, the accused persons asked them abusively to stop and Parmeshwar Raut exhorted to kill them, upon which Binay Raut shot fire from his licensed rifle, which hit in the left side of chest of his brother, rest of the accused persons surrounded Shashi Bhushan Singh near gular tree. Rajendra Singh kept on running towards east. Dasrath Raut, Subhash Raut, Niwas Raut, threw Shashi Bhushan Singh in the ploughed field of Triveni Singh and Suresh Raut slit his throat Patna High Court G. APP. (DB) No.10 of 2000 dt.08-07-2025 16/32 by means of pasuli and threw the body in the water channel near the gular tree. Aniruddh was writhing because of gunshot injury, Tanik Raut charged him with khanti causing cut injury in his right buttock. Niwas Raut attacked him by means of pasuli causing cut injury in the left cheek. Binod Raut hit on his head by lathis and Dasrath Raut slit the throat. He has further deposed that when they went near them they were dead. Thereafter, Chowkidar Bhagwan Das came, who informed the police station. Darogaji came in the night at 10:30 PM and recorded his fard-beyan, which was read over to him and finding the same in order, he put his signature, which came to be marked as ext.-1/4. Darogaji prepared the inquest report in the morning in his presence. PW 9 has further deposed that his re-statement was recorded by Darogaji, who inspected the place of occurrence and seized certain articles from the place of occurrence. 14.1. In his cross-examination, he has deposed that he first informed about the occurrence to Chowkidar thereafter Darogaji. He did not visit police station after the occurrence. His family members were in the village, who asked Ram Chandra Singh, at around 06:00 PM, to go to police station, who went to police station and on coming back from there he told that he had informed the Bada Babu, however, the information was not Patna High Court G. APP. (DB) No.10 of 2000 dt.08-07-2025 17/32 recorded in writing. He has deposed that when Chowkidar Bhagwan Das first came at the place of occurrence, he stayed there for half an hour. When he left, Rajendra Singh, Mahesh Singh and other persons from village came at the place of occurrence. 14.2. In his cross-examination in paragraph 10 he has deposed that the persons who came after the Chowkidar left, did not ask about the occurrence nor did he tell them about the manner of occurrence. He told about the occurrence apart from Chowkidar to Darogaji. In paragraph 16, he deposed that he had taken Darogaji to the gram field, but he did not show the place in the paddy field from where he watched the whole occurrence. In paragraph 17 he has deposed that when he first saw the accused persons, he became scared, however, he did not tell his brother and others to flee away to save their lives, rather he hid himself. Neither his brother nor his companion asked him to save himself though he was at a distance of 25 yards from them. 14.3. In paragraph 23, PW 9 has deposed that the dead body of Shashi Bhushan Singh was not thrown rather it was put in the water channel. He also saw the dead body of his brother being placed while hiding in the paddy field. While the firing was made, Rajendra Singh was running 5-6 steps ahead of his brother towards north-east direction. In paragraph 26, he has deposed that Patna High Court G. APP. (DB) No.10 of 2000 dt.08-07-2025 18/32 he saw blood at two places at the place of occurrence, where the throats of Aniruddh and Shashi Bhushan were slit and their dead bodies were lying 1-2 steps away from each other. In paragraph 26, he has deposed that Ram Chandra Singh (PW 4) had gone to the police station. In paragraph 28, he has deposed that his statement was once recorded by Darogaji and thereafter before the Dy.S.P., However, addressing the court he deposed that his re- statement was also recorded by Darogaji. He has deposed that while his first statement was recorded, Ram Chandra Singh, Mithilesh Singh and Parmanand and others, whose names he does not recall, were there and one police constable, name not known, was there. 14.4. In paragraph 32 of his cross-examination, PW 9 has deposed that his first statement and re-statement were recorded at the same place, upon which he had put his signature. He does not know what was recorded in his re-statement or whether any member from public put his signature on his re- statement, whereas on his first statement, persons present in public had put their signature. He had read both his statements around 2-2 and 1/2 years ago. 14.5. In his cross-examination in paragraph 34, PW 9 has deposed that when Daroga reached near the dead body first, Patna High Court G. APP. (DB) No.10 of 2000 dt.08-07-2025 19/32 neither torch or any light was there, he stayed near the dead bodies for whole night. Darogaji was having a torch, in the light of said torch he saw the dead bodies. The inquest report of both the dead bodies were prepared in the morning by Darogaji in his own pen. To a question that except the entries of column 8 of the inquest- report form, which was filled by Darogaji, rest of the entries were filled by the constable, he replied that the all the entries in the form was made by Darogaji himself. 15. PW 10, Dr. Bipul Kumar, is the doctor who conducted the post mortem examinations on the dead bodies of the deceased. 15.1. At 12:00 p.m. on 14.11.1994, he conducted the post mortem examination of Kumar Aniruddh Singh and found following ante mortem injuries:- “(I) Incised wound 10” x 4” x 2” bone deep one anterior and both lateral aspect of neck just above thyroid cartilage extending from 2” below and behind right angle of mandible to the 3” below and behind the left angle of mandible posteriorly lolling towards left lateral and posterior aspect cutting through trachea, esophagus, major vessels, both sternum mastoid muscles and major nerves. (II) Circular wound of half inch diameter with inverted margin over anterior aspect of chart 5” Patna High Court G. APP. (DB) No.10 of 2000 dt.08-07-2025 20/32 below the nipple at the level of 10th rib, i.e., wound of entrance. Fracture of 10th rib left side. (III) Incised wound of 2” x 1” x ½” over right buttock. (IV) Incised wound 1” x ½” ½” over left side of cheek. 2. On dissection- On tracing the wound track of injury no. 2, it was piercing chest wall descending column stomach and mesentry up to vertebral column at T-9 level. A metallic foreign body like bullet extracted from vertebral column and it was preserved in a glass veil and handed over to office. Other viscera were intact and pale. Heart both chamber empty. Bladder empty. Abdominal cavity was filled with blood clot. Cause of death- hemorrhage and shock produced by above mentioned injuries. Types of weapons used for injury no. (I), (III) & (IV) – sharp cutting weapon such as pasuli. For injury no. (II) caused by fire arm such as rifle. Time elapsed since death between 0 to 12 hours.” 15.2. On the same day, at 12:40 p.m., PW 10 conducted the post mortem examination of the dead body of Shashi Bhushan Singh and found following ante mortem injuries:- “(i) Incised wound 11” x 4” x 2” bone deep over antero lateral aspect of neck just above hyoid extending from 2” below and behind the left Patna High Court G. APP. (DB) No.10 of 2000 dt.08-07-2025 21/32 angle of mandible to 2” below and behind the right angle of mandible tailing towards left side laterally and posteriorly cutting through the trachea, oesophagus, major vessels and nerves. 4. On dissection all visceras found intact and pale. Heart both chambers empty. Bladder empty. Stomach contains semi digested food materials. 5. Cause of death- Hemorrhage and shock, produced by above mentioned injury. The injury was caused by sharp cutting weapon may be “Pasuli”. Time elapsed since death may be from 0 to 20 hours.” 16. PW 11, Paras Nath Singh, is the Investigating Officer of the case. He has deposed in his examination-in-chief that on 13.11.1994 he was posted as the S.H.O. of Kauwakol P.S. On that day, at about 10:30 PM, he went to Kharsari Village and recorded the fard-beyan of Rana Hareram Singh and thereafter took over the investigation of the case. He prepared the inquest report of the dead body of Kumar Aniruddh Singh and Shashi Bhushan Singh and obtained signatures of Ram Chandra Singh and Hareram Singh on it. In course of investigation, he made inspection of the place of occurrence and found blood stains at two places in the ploughed field of Triveni Singh, where marks of human foot were noticed. The bodies of two deceased were lying Patna High Court G. APP. (DB) No.10 of 2000 dt.08-07-2025 22/32 in the water channel where large amount of blood was spilled. He found a pair of leather chappal, one pair of slippers, one pair of plastic shoes and the cut sacred string near the dead body, which were seized along with blood stained soil and a seizure list was prepared and signatures of witnesses were obtained on it. He also recorded the re-statement of the informant and sent the dead bodies for post mortem to Sadar Hospital, Nawada, in the morning. 16.1. In his cross-examination, PW 11 has deposed that he closed the diary at the place of occurrence on 13.11.1994. He had commenced the investigation before returning back to police station and upon reaching there he registered the formal FIR. He has deposed that on 13.11.1994, on an information given by Chowkidar Bhagwan Das, he made a sanha entry No. 269 and proceeded for the place of occurrence and found the information sitting at the Thakurbari near the place of occurrence with 20-25 villagers. After recording the fard-beyan, be camped there. Deputing the Chowkidar and Dafadar to look after the dead bodies, he proceeded for conducting raids in the village. He recorded the statement of Rajendra Singh in the village at 12:10 PM on 14.11.1994. He recorded the statement of witness Kapil Choudhary on the direction of Dy. S.P. He also inspected the field where the wife of accused was plucking the gram leaves. He did Patna High Court G. APP. (DB) No.10 of 2000 dt.08-07-2025 23/32 not find any mark of dragging in the filed of Triveni Singh. He did not recorded the distance of the blood stains found in the field of Triveni Singh. 16.2. In paragraph 7 of his cross-examination, he had deposed that he did not seize the clothes worn by the deceased and did not send the blood seized for chemical examination. OBSERVATIONS AND REASONING: - 17. We have re-appreciated the entire evidence led by the prosecution. At the outset, it is pertinent to note that the fard-beyan of the informant (PW 9) came to be recorded at 10:30 PM on 13.11.1994 for the incident which took place at 04:45 PM. It is the case of the informant in the fard-beyan that his brother had gone with one Shashi Bhushan Singh and Rajendra Singh to field. The informant also went to the field and, as per his case, he is eye- witness to the occurrence in question. In the fard-beyan, he has narrated the manner in which the incident took place. As per his fard-beyan, Rajendra Singh is also a witness to the incident in question. It is his specific case in the fard-beyan that after the incident took place, Chowkidar Bhagwan Das came at the place of occurrence and the informant gave information to him and sent him to the police station for informing the police. Patna High Court G. APP. (DB) No.10 of 2000 dt.08-07-2025 24/32 17.1. Keeping in view the aforesaid fard-beyan, if the deposition of PW 1, Rajendra Singh, which we have discussed hereinabove, is carefully examined, it is revealed that PW 1, Rajendra Singh, has also projected himself as eye-witness. In examination-in-chief, he has also narrated in detail the manner in which the incident took place. However, he has specifically admitted in cross-examination in paragraph 9 that when he hid himself in the field, nobody else came there. Further, in paragraph 28, it is his specific case that Kumar Aniruddh Singh (deceased) sustained bullet injury when he was in standing position. Further, in paragraph 31 of the cross-examination, the said witness has stated that on the date of occurrence, he did not meet Chowkidar. He has also stated that he met the informant and his family members on the date of occurrence at about 09:30-10:00 PM and at that time he informed the said persons with regard to the incident in question. 17.2. However, at this stage, it is required to be observed that PW 3, Mahesh Prasad Singh, has also projected himself as an eye-witness. However, during the cross-examination in paragraph 4, the said witness has admitted that he did not inform to the village people. He had informed about the incident to Daroga only and not to any other person of the village. He has also Patna High Court G. APP. (DB) No.10 of 2000 dt.08-07-2025 25/32 stated that he informed to the Daroga at 06:00-07:00 AM on 14.11.1994. Further, in paragraph 17 of his cross-examination, the said witness has stated that bullet hit Kumar Aniruddh Singh when he was running. 17.3. At this stage, we would also like to discuss the deposition of PW 9 Rana Hare Ram Singh (informant), who has also projected himself as an eye-witness. The said witness in paragraph 9 has admitted that he informed the Chowkidar with regard to the incident in question. Thereafter, Chowkidar went to the police station. Thereafter, one Ram Chandra Singh (PW 4) came at the place of occurrence at 06:00 PM. The informant asked him to go to the police station at 06:00 PM. Therefore, Ram Chandra Singh also went to the police station at 06:00 PM. After returning, Ram Chandra Singh informed the informant that he had already informed to the police station with regard to the incident. Further, PW 9 has also admitted that Chowkidar Bhagwan Das stayed at the place of occurrence for half an hour and after Bhagwan Das left the place of occurrence, Rajendra Singh (PW 1) and Mahesh Prasad Singh (PW 3) and other persons of the village came. Further, PW 9 has also admitted in paragraph 10 that after Chowkidar went from the place of occurrence, the persons who came at the said place, he did not information to the said persons Patna High Court G. APP. (DB) No.10 of 2000 dt.08-07-2025 26/32 how the incident took place. In paragraph 23, the said witness has also admitted that when the firing took place, Rajendra Singh was running 4-5 steps ahead of deceased Kumar Aniruddh Singh towards north-east direction. 17.4. Thus, from the aforesaid deposition given by the so-called eye-witnesses, it transpires that there are major contradictions, inconsistencies and discrepancies in the deposition of the so-called eye-witnesses. One eye-witness has stated that the bullet hit the deceased Kumar Aniruddh Singh when he was in standing position, whereas another eye-witness has said that the bullet hit the deceased when he was running. Further, as per the case of the informant, PW 1 was running 4-5 steps ahead of Kumar Aniruddh Singh (deceased). Thus, it is not possible for PW 1 to see who had shot the fire. Further, as per PW 1, so-called eye- witness, the incident took place at 04:45 PM and he remained at the place of occurrence till 09:30-10:00 PM and at that time, the informant and his family members came at the said place. Thus, it can be said that the informant is not an eye-witness to the occurrence in question. Further, it is the case of the informant that he is the eye-witness to the occurrence in question and the Chowkidar Bhagwan Das came at the place of occurrence after the occurrence had taken place. The informant, therefore, narrated Patna High Court G. APP. (DB) No.10 of 2000 dt.08-07-2025 27/32 about the manner in which the incident took place to the Chowkidar. Informant asked Chowkidar to go to the police station and inform to the police with regard to the incident in question. It is the specific case of the informant that after the Chowkidar Bhagwan Das left the place, PW 1 and PW 3 came at the said place. We are of the view that, looking to the aforesaid major contradictions and inconsistencies in the story of the prosecution, the deposition given by the so-called eye-witnesses cannot be accepted. 17.5. At this stage, we would also like to observe that PW 10, Dr. Bipul Kumar, who had conducted the post mortem of the dead bodies of the deceased, has specifically deposed before the court that the entry wound was found on the chest of the deceased Kumar Aniruddh Singh. At this stage, we may recall that as per the case of the informant in the fard-beyan as well as as per the case of the informant in his deposition before the court, the bullet hit the deceased when he was running. Similarly, it is the case of PW 3 that the bullet hit Kumar Aniruddh Singh when he was running. We are, therefore, of the view that even the medical evidence does not support the version given by the so-called eye- witness. Patna High Court G. APP. (DB) No.10 of 2000 dt.08-07-2025 28/32 17.6. At this stage, we would also like to discuss with regard to the deposition given by PW 11, Paras Nath Singh, the Investigating Officer. In paragraph 5 of his cross-examination, the said witness has admitted that on the basis of the information given by Chowkidar Bhagwan Das on 13.11.1994, entry no. 269 came to be entered into the station diary and thereafter, as per the information given by Chowkidar, the police force rushed to the place of occurrence. Thus, from the aforesaid deposition of the IO, it can be said that Chowkidar Bhagwan Das informed to the police with regard to the occurrence in question and, therefore, entry was made in the station diary. 17.7. At this stage, we may observe that, as per the case of the informant, he informed the Chowkidar Bhagwan Das, who came at the place of occurrence at about 06:00 PM, about the manner in which the incident took place and the informant asked him to go to the police station. Thus, Chowkidar Bhagwan Das was aware about the manner in which the incident took place, name of the deceased as well as the assailants. However, the prosecution did not produce the station diary entry before the court. What was the information given by the said Chowkidar to the police has not been brought before the court. Thus, it appears that the prosecution has suppressed the material aspect. Further, Patna High Court G. APP. (DB) No.10 of 2000 dt.08-07-2025 29/32 the information given by the Chowkidar Bhagwan Das to the police with regard to the incident in question was required to be treated as the first information report. However, the IO thought it fit to record the fard-beyan of the informant at the place of occurrence. 17.8. Looking to the entire evidence led by the prosecution, as discussed hereinabove, we are of the view that the prosecution has failed to prove the case against the accused beyond reasonable doubt. 17.9. At this stage, we would like to refer the decision rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Chandrappa and Ors. Vs. State of Karnataka, reported in (2007) 4 SCC 415. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has laid down the principle regarding the powers of the Appellate Court while dealing with an appeal against an order of acquittal. In Para-42 of the said decision, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has observed as under:- “42. From the above decisions, in our considered view, the following general principles regarding powers of the appellate court while dealing with an appeal against an order of acquittal emerge: (1) An appellate court has full power to review, re-appreciate and reconsider the evidence upon which the order of acquittal is founded. (2) The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 puts no limitation, restriction or condition on exercise of such power and an appellate court Patna High Court G. APP. (DB) No.10 of 2000 dt.08-07-2025 30/32 on the evidence before it may reach its own conclusion, both on questions of fact and of law. (3) Various expressions, such as, “substantial and compelling reasons”, “good and sufficient grounds”, “very strong circumstances”, “distorted conclusions”, “glaring mistakes”, etc. are not intended to curtail extensive powers of an appellate court in an appeal against acquittal. Such phraseologies are more in the nature of “flourishes of language” to emphasize the reluctance of an appellate court to interfere with acquittal than to curtail the power of the court to review the evidence and to come to its own conclusion. (4) An appellate court, however, must bear in mind that in case of acquittal, there is double presumption in favour of the accused. Firstly, the presumption of innocence is available to him under the fundamental principle of criminal jurisprudence that every person shall be presumed to be innocent unless he is proved guilty by a competent court of law. Secondly, the accused having secured his acquittal, the presumption of his innocence is further reinforced, reaffirmed and strengthened by the trial court. (5) If two reasonable conclusions are possible on the basis of the evidence on record, the appellate court should not disturb the finding of acquittal recorded by the trial court.” 17.10. In the case of Nikhil Chandra Mondal Vs. State of West Bengal, reported in (2023) 6 SCC 605, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has observed, in Para-22, as under:- “22. Recently, a three-Judge Bench of this Court in Rajesh Prasad v. State of Bihar [Rajesh Prasad v. State of Bihar, (2022) 3 SCC 471 : (2022) 2 SCC (Cri) 31] has considered various earlier judgments on the scope of interference in a case of Patna High Court G. APP. (DB) No.10 of 2000 dt.08-07-2025 31/32 acquittal. It held that there is double presumption in favour of the accused. Firstly, the presumption of innocence that is available to him under the fundamental principle of criminal jurisprudence that every person shall be presumed to be innocent unless he is proved guilty by a competent court of law. Secondly, the accused having secured his acquittal, the presumption of his innocence is further reinforced, reaffirmed and strengthened by the court. It has been further held that if two reasonable conclusions are possible on the basis of the evidence on record, the appellate court should not disturb the finding of acquittal recorded by the trial court.” 17.11. Thus, from the aforesaid decisions rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, it can be said that Appellate Court must bear in mind that in case of acquittal, there is double presumption in favour of the accused. Firstly, the presumption of innocence is available to him under the fundamental principle of criminal jurisprudence that every person shall be presumed to be innocent unless he is proved guilty by a competent Court of law. Secondly, the accused having secured his acquittal, the presumption of his innocence is further reinforced, reaffirmed and strengthened by the Trial Court. Further, if two reasonable conclusions are possible on the basis of the evidence on record, the Appellate Court should not disturb the finding recorded by the Trial Court. CONCLUSION: - 18. Keeping in view the aforesaid decisions rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, we have carefully Patna High Court G. APP. (DB) No.10 of 2000 dt.08-07-2025 32/32 examined the evidence led by the prosecution as well as the impugned judgment of acquittal rendered by the trial court, we are of the view that the prosecution has failed to prove the case against the accused beyond reasonable doubt and the trial court has not committed any error while passing the impugned judgment of acquittal. 19. In view of the aforesaid discussion, we are of the view that no interference is required in the impugned judgment rendered by the trial court 20. Accordingly, this appeal is dismissed. Pawan/- (Vipul M. Pancholi, J) (Sunil Dutta Mishra, J) AFR/NAFR A.F.R. CAV DATE N.A. Uploading Date 14.07.2025. Transmission Date 14.07.2025.