IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CRIMINAL APPEAL (DB) No.451 of 2023 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-231 Year-2018 Thana- MAJHAULIA District- West Champaran ====================================================== Ajay Ram S/o Ramjee Ram Resident of Village- Parsa Mouze, P.S.- Majhauliya, District-West Champaran ... ... Appellant/s Versus The State of Bihar ... ... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Appellant/s : Mr. Ashok Kumar Choudhary, Sr. Advocate Mr. Baidya Nath Thakur, Advocate Mr. Anil Kumar Tiwary, Advocate For the Respondent/s : Mr. Dilip Kumar Sinha, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJEEV RANJAN PRASAD and HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SOURENDRA PANDEY CAV JUDGMENT (Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SOURENDRA PANDEY) Date : 08-12-2025 Heard Mr. Ashok Kumar Choudhary, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. Baidya Nath Thakur and Mr. Anil Kumar Tiwary, learned Advocates for the appellant and Mr. Dilip Kumar Sinha, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State. 2. The present appeal arises out of the judgment of conviction dated 01.02.2023 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘impugned judgment’) and the order of sentence dated 14.02.2023 (in short referred to as the ‘impugned order’) passed by the learned District & Sessions Judge, West Champaran in connection with Sessions Trial No. 09 of 2020, arising out of Majhauliya P.S. Case No. 231 of 2018. Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.451 of 2023 dt.08-12-2025 2/26 3. By the impugned judgment the appellant namely Ajay Ram has been convicted for the offences under Sections 354 and 302 of the Indian Penal Code (in short referred to as the ‘IPC’) and has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year for the offence under Section 354 of the IPC, to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/- and in default of payment of fine to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for one month and also has been sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for life for the offence under Section 302 of the IPC, to pay a fine of Rs. 10,000/- and in default of payment of fine to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year. Prosecution Case: 4. The prosecution case is based on the written application dated 11.06.2018 given by the informant (P.W. 1). In her written report, she has stated that on 10.06.2018 at 04:00 A.M., when she was returning from the call of nature the appellant had tried to outraged her modesty. The informant, anyhow, managed to escape from the clutches of the appellant. The informant narrated the story before her husband and other family members. On the following day, the informant’s husband and other family members went to tell the appellant as to why he did so. On this, nine accused persons started fighting with them. Sanjay Ram and Ramjee Ram Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.451 of 2023 dt.08-12-2025 3/26 caught hold of the informant’s husband and the appellant gave a tamhauk (farsa) blow to him on his head. He fell down unconscious. Surendra Ram, Binay Ram, Babunti Devi, Uma Devi and Lalmuni Devi armed with stick, farsa, tenguli assaulted father- in-law and elder brother-in-law of the informant. 5. On the basis of the aforesaid written application, Majhauliya P.S. Case No. 231 of 2018 dated 11.06.2018 under Sections 341, 323, 324, 307, 376/511, 302 and 34 of the IPC was registered. 6. After completion of investigation, the Investigating Officer (I.O.) (P.W. 3) submitted charge-sheet being Charge-Sheet No. 395 of 2018 dated 27.09.2018 under Sections 341, 323, 324, 307, 376/511, 302 and 34 of the IPC. 7. On the basis of the police report, cognizance was taken vide order dated 19.02.2019 under Sections 341, 323, 324, 307, 376/511, 302 and 34 of the IPC against the accused/appellant Ajay Ram. 8. Charges were read over and explained to the appellant/Ajay Ram in Hindi to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.451 of 2023 dt.08-12-2025 4/26 9. In course of trial, the prosecution examined as many as nine witnesses and exhibited several documents to prove the prosecution case. List of Prosecution Witnesses: P.W. 1 Kaushalya Devi P.W. 2 Jagdeo Ram P.W. 3 Shyam Bhadur Thakur P.W. 4 Raghunath Ram P.W. 5 Prabhu Ram P.W. 6 Bohla Ram P.W. 7 Dr. Sanjay Kumar P.W. 8 Rabindra Ram P.W. 9 Rajmati Devi List of Exhibits on behalf of the Prosecution: Ext.-01 Signature of witness Kaushalya Devi Ext.-02/P.W. 3 Post-mortem report Prishthakan Ext.-P-3/P.W. 3 Formal FIR Ext.-P-4/P.W. 4 Charge-Sheet No. 395/18 dated 27.09.2018 Ext.-P-5/P.W. 7 Post-mortem report 10. The accused/appellant was examined under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure on 23.11.2022, wherein he stated that all the allegations are false and that he is innocent. Findings of the Learned Trial Court: 11. The learned Trial court has held that the three prosecution witnesses, namely, Kaushalya Devi, Jagdeo Ram and Prabhu Ram have all unanimously stated that it was Ajay Ram, Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.451 of 2023 dt.08-12-2025 5/26 who had assaulted Nagina Ram with farsa on his head and the same is corroborated by the Doctor, who has held the head injury to be the cause of death of Nagina Ram. The learned Trial Court has also opined that there are serious contradictions in the statements of the prosecution witnesses, as far as the accused Sanjay Ram, Ramjee Ram and Vijay Ram are concerned. It has been held that contrary to the statement of the prosecution witnesses about injuries being received by Ramchandra Ram, no injury report was brought on record to substantiate such claim. It has been observed by the learned Trial Court that specific allegations are upon Sanjay Ram, Surendra Ram and Vijay Ram to have assaulted one Prabhu Ram with lathi, however, there is no injury report of Prabhu Ram brought on record. 12. The learned Trial Court, with regard to the witnesses being interested witnesses, has opined that only Kaushalya Devi and Prabhu Ram are wife and brother respectively and it doesn’t stand to reason as to why they would falsely implicate anybody in this case. It has gone on to held that the independent witness, namely, Jagdeo Ram (P.W.2) has supported the prosecution case and there is no material contradiction in the statements of the prosecution witnesses and, therefore, there is no reason to disbelieve their statements and thus, it has been held that only Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.451 of 2023 dt.08-12-2025 6/26 because the prosecution witnesses are close relatives their evidence cannot be discarded. 13. The learned Trial Court has further held that the fardbeyan (Exhibit-1) and the subsequent deposition of the informant confirms, not only the time and date of the occurrence but also the place of occurrence. The learned Trial Court has observed that there has been no question put to the prosecution witnesses with regard to the date, time and place of occurrence and, therefore, the same has been established without any doubt. 14. The learned Trial Court, as far as the allegations under Sections 376/511 of IPC were concerned, has held that from the perusal of the evidences of the prosecution witnesses, the allegations that the accused Ajay Ram would have raped the informant does not arise and, therefore, the prosecution has not been able to prove the charges under Sections 376 and 511 of the IPC. 15. The learned Trial Court referring to the medical reports has held that the deceased Nagina Ram had an injury on his head measuring 5cm X 1cm and the Doctor (P.W.7) has stated that the weapon was heavy and long. The learned Trial Court has categorically held that the assault was made with all power on a vital part of the body and the injuries sustained by the deceased Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.451 of 2023 dt.08-12-2025 7/26 was the cause of death of Nagina Ram and, therefore, the prosecution has been able to prove the case under Section 302 of IPC against the appellant (Ajay Ram) of causing the death of Nagina Ram. Submissions on behalf of the appellant: 16. Mr. Ashok Kumar Choudhary, learned Senior counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant has submitted that though a few witnesses have claimed themselves to be an eyewitness, however, from the perusal of their evidence, it would be evident that they are in fact not eyewitnesses, P.W.1, informant in her evidence has stated that the appellant had given farsa blow on the head of the deceased causing his death, however, the said evidence does not find corroboration from the deposition of the Doctor (P.W.7), who in his cross-examination has stated that the injuries received by the deceased could have been caused by stone, brick or any hard blunt substance. It has been submitted that the Doctor had not found any sharp cutting injury on the body of the deceased and the weapon used by the appellant is stated to be farsa. 17. The learned Senior counsel has submitted that the police during the course of investigation has not recovered the weapon said to be used in the alleged incident and moreover, as Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.451 of 2023 dt.08-12-2025 8/26 per the contention of the informant that her bangles were broken while she had gone to attend the call of nature, even the same has not been collected or recovered by the police nor had the informant given her broken bangles and mud stained clothes. 18. The learned Senior counsel emphatically stated that five of the prosecution witnesses P.W. 2, 4, 6, 8 and 9 have stated in their deposition that they were not examined by the police during the course of investigation, however, they were brought as witnesses directly in the trial. 19. The learned Senior counsel has further submitted that the two independent witnesses, i.e., P.W.8 (Rabindra Ram) and P.W.9 (Rajmati Devi) were declared hostile and they have not supported the prosecution case. It has been pointed out that from the same set of evidence with specific allegations upon Sanjay Ram, Surendra Ram and Vijay Ram, the learned Trial court has acquitted the three co-accused persons. The injured father-in-law, namely, Ramchandra Ram has not been examined despite the fact that he was allegedly assaulted by the appellant and others. In this case no injury report of any of the injured persons were brought on the record in order to substantiate the prosecution case of assault on the other family members of the informant. Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.451 of 2023 dt.08-12-2025 9/26 20. The learned Senior counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant has also submitted that the witnesses are interested witnesses. Kaushalya Devi and Prabhu Ram, happen to be the wife and brother respectively of the deceased and, therefore, their evidence should be considered with circumspection and case. Taking into account the serious contradictions in their statements, they being eyewitnesses becomes doubtful. It has, thus, been submitted that in the peculiar facts of the case the prosecution has not been able to prove the guilt of the appellant beyond all reasonable doubt and, therefore, the impugned judgment and order is fit to be set aside and the appellant be acquitted of all the charges. 21. The learned Senior counsel for the appellant has relied upon a few judgments rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court and of this Hon’ble Court, in order to support the arguments forwarded by him, which are Tulsiram & Ors. vs. State of Madhya Pradesh reported in (2008) 17 SCC 13; Ganesh Datt vs. State of Uttarakhand reported in (2014) 12 SCC 389; Gurmej Singh & Ors. vs. State of Punjab reported in 1991 Supp (2) SCC 75; Megaram Rajak vs. the State of Bihar reported in 1985 BLJ 44 and Ram Singh vs. State of Uttar Pradesh reported in (2024) 4 SCC 208. Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.451 of 2023 dt.08-12-2025 10/26 Submissions on behalf of the State: 22. Mr. Dilip Kumar Sinha, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State submits that from the evidences of the prosecution witnesses, it would be clear that everybody has specifically stated that it was Ajay Ram (appellant) who had given a farsa blow on the head of the deceased causing an injury which ultimately was the cause of his death. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor has submitted that the wife and brother of the deceased were eyewitness and they had categorically given the details of the incident and minor contradictions with respect to the nature of weapon used cannot be a ground to disbelieve the evidence of these witnesses as they are rustic village persons. 23. The learned APP for the State has further submitted that not only the ocular evidence but the postmortem report too confirms the cause of death and the ante-mortem injuries found on the body of the deceased, finds corroboration from the same and, therefore, there is no occasion to disbelieve the factum of the occurrence and the same being caused by the appellant (Ajay Ram). 24. The learned APP has replied to the contention raised on behalf of the appellant with regard to the witnesses being interested witnesses and has stated that it cannot be a reason to Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.451 of 2023 dt.08-12-2025 11/26 disbelieve the evidence brought on behalf of the prosecution and if the same is consistent and is being corroborated by the medical evidence there is no reason to disbelieve such evidence only because the witnesses are interested or immediate relatives of the deceased. 25. It has lastly been submitted that from the evidence on record, the charges levelled against the appellant have been proved beyond all reasonable doubt and, therefore, the learned Trial Court was justified in convicting the appellant for the offences under Sections 354 and 302 of the IPC. Consideration: 26. Having heard learned counsel for the appellant and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State and also on perusal of the records, this Court finds that the most important witness in the present case happens to be the informant (P.W.1), who is the wife of the deceased. The informant in her written report has stated that on 10.06.2018 at around 04:00 A.M. when she had gone to attend the call of nature, the appellant tried to outrage her modesty, however, she anyhow managed to free herself and ran towards her house and informed her husband (Nagina Ram), her father-in-law (Ramchandra Ram) and other members of the family. She has further stated that at around 05:00 Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.451 of 2023 dt.08-12-2025 12/26 A.M. her husband and other members of the family, went to the doors of the appellant, however, he had not returned by then and at around 06:00 A.M., when the appellant was found, the husband of the informant and her father-in-law inquired as to why the appellant had done this to the informant, it is alleged that the other named accused persons including the women family members of the appellant all got enraged and started assaulting her husband and father-in-law. She has alleged that accused Sanjay Ram and Ramjee Ram caught hold of her husband while Ajay Ram (appellant) gave a farsa blow on the head of her husband upon which his head was ripped open and he fell down unconscious. She has further alleged that the accused Surendra Ram, Vijay Ram and other lady accused persons assaulted her father-in-law and brother-in-law (HkSlqj) causing injury to them. She has stated that she took her husband in an unconscious state to Majhauliya Hospital from where the Doctor referred him to Bettiah and he was taken to MJK Hospital at Bettiah and from there he was further referred to Patna and where he was undergoing treatment. 27. The informant was examined as P.W.1 and during her examination-in-chief she has reiterated what has been stated in the fardbeyan and has further stated that the lady members of the appellant’s family assaulted even her and her “ n;k nhu ” causing Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.451 of 2023 dt.08-12-2025 13/26 damage to her eyes. She has further stated that upon hulla Bharat Ram, Jagdeo Ram, Suresh Yadav, Raghunath Ram and Ramashray Ram came and they took her husband to Majhauliya Hospital. During her cross-examination, P.W.1 has stated that she is not literate, however, she could make her signature. On query, she has replied that she cannot tell as to who had drafted the application, which was given to the police and she does not recall as to what was written in the application. She has stated that during the assault many people of the village had assembled. On specific question with regard to the identification of the weapons, P.W.1 has categorically stated that she understand the difference between a lathi, tangi and farsa. She has stated in Paragraph ‘46’ that the farsa was a small one which was tied to a lathi. P.W.1 has admitted that she had not handed over her mud stained clothes or broken bangles to the police. 28. P.W.2 happens to be Jagdeo Ram, who has stated that he was at his home when the incident occurred and he has specifically stated that during the altercation the appellant (Ajay Ram) assaulted the husband of the informant on his head with farsa upon which he fell on the ground and thereafter his brother and father of Nagina Ram were also assaulted by Sanjay. He has Stated that the injured were taken to Majhauliya Hospital and from Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.451 of 2023 dt.08-12-2025 14/26 there they were referred to Bettiah and thereafter to Patna and during the treatment at Patna the husband of the informant died after two days of the occurrence. During his cross-examination, P.W. 2 has stated that there were around five hundred people assembled after the incident at the place of occurrence, however, he cannot tell the names of those persons. He has stood by his statement that there were hundreds of persons standing at the place of occurrence along with him and the accused persons were all carrying weapons in their hands while the villagers were not carrying any weapon. 29. P.W.3, Shyam Bhadur Thakur, is the I.O. of the case, who has stated that none of the injured had come to him and hence he had not sent anybody to the Doctor for examination and treatment. The I.O. during his cross-examination has admitted that he had not recovered any weapon said to be used in the incident and neither had he seized any blood stained tangi or talwar etc. from or around the place of occurrence though he has stated that during the course of investigation he had inspected the place of occurrence and had entered about the same in the diary. 30. P.W. 7, Dr. Sanjay Kumar, was the Doctor who had conducted the postmortem upon the deceased Nagina Ram. He, in his examination-in-chief, has elaborated upon the ante-mortem Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.451 of 2023 dt.08-12-2025 15/26 injuries found during the postmortem examination and dissection which are as follow: “The following antemortem injuries were found on postmortem examination and dissection:- (i) stitch wound- 4 cm. length present over mid portion of frontal area, 11 cm. from nasal bridge. (ii) There was contusion of scalp, which present of extra vessed blood and blood clots under neath of scalp. Both frontal and both parietal area dark reddish in colour on incision with linear fracture on both side frontal bone- right side 0.5 cm and left side- 3.5 cm corresponding tronal suture was separated. (iii) There was 5cm X 1cm common-united fracture of right side parieto-temporal bone V shaped and also linear fracture on left temporal parietal bone of skull 8cm in length. (iv) There was 6cm X 4cm extra dural heamotoma present over vertex corresponding with sub- dural heamotoma present both side cerebral surface and also blood clot present and base of brain. 6. Opinion (1) Cause of death was cranio cerebral damage resulting from head injury caused by hard and blunt force impact. (ii) Time since death within 24 hours (approximate) prior to postmortem examination.” 31. During his cross-examination, P.W. 7 has stated that the type of injury sustained by the deceased can be caused by stone, brick or any hard blunt substance. He has stated that from the nature of injury, it can be said that the hard blunt substance was heavy and large. He has further deposed that such type of injury may be caused due to fall of any heavy substance like brick and wood log and in Paragraph ‘12’ of his cross-examination he has Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.451 of 2023 dt.08-12-2025 16/26 very categorically stated that “no sharp cutting injury was present on the body of the deceased”. 32. Another important witness, also stated to be an eyewitness and who happens to be the brother of deceased, namely, Prabhu Ram (P.W.5) has supported the prosecution case in his examination-in-chief. However, in Paragraph '7' he has stated that Ajay Ram (appellant) was carrying Kulhari in his hand while Vijay Ram was having farsa. In Paragraph '8' of his examination- in-chief he has categorically stated that Ajay Ram (appellant) assaulted with Kulhari on the head of Nagina Ram while Vijay Ram gave a farsa blow on the shoulder from the back. He has further stated that thereafter Ajay Ram (appellant), Sanjay Ram, Mohan Ram, Ramjee Ram, Surendra Ram and Vijya Ram all assaulted Nagina Ram and Kaushalya Devi with lathi. He has also stated that Ramjee Ram had also assaulted him with lathi on his back. He stated that his father, Ramchandra Ram was assaulted on his wrist by Kulhari and on his chest by accused Surendra Ram and thereafter by everybody. During his cross-examination, he has stated that there were almost two hundred people assembled at the place of occurrence, however, he cannot tell the name of those persons. He has stated that since there was weapon being used at the place of occurrence and, therefore, the people who had Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.451 of 2023 dt.08-12-2025 17/26 assembled there were watching it from a distance, however the co- villagers were trying to pacify them. 33. P.W.6, Bohla Ram admittedly is not an eyewitness and he has stated that he heard about the incident and that Nagina Ram has received injuries and he was being treated at Patna and thereafter he died during his treatment. 34. P.W.8, Rabindra Ram, is also a hearsay witness and he has also stated that when he came to the place of occurrence he saw that Nagina Ram was being taken upon a tempo and his head had ripped opened and during his treatment he died. This witness was, however, declared hostile at the request of the prosecution. P.W.9 (Rajmati Devi) too was declared hostile at the request of the prosecution. 35. We have very minutely perused the deposition of all the witnesses and it appears that the informant, Kaushalya Devi, who is the wife of deceased Nagina Ram was consistent in her statement made in the FIR and also during her deposition during the trial. We have observed that it was a case where several people were variously armed and they all were assaulting the prosecution side and it has been observed that P.W.1 in Paragraph '46' has stated that the farsa was a small one and was tied to a lathi. P.W.1 Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.451 of 2023 dt.08-12-2025 18/26 has stated that Ajay Ram (appellant) had given a farsa blow which ripped opened the head of her husband. 36. On conjoint reading of her statements, it is evident that the farsa was tied to a lathi and her husband was assaulted by the same causing a ripped injury on the head of her husband and, therefore, the part of the lathi with force tied to a farsa have caused a ripped injury on the head of the deceased and not a cut injury as being suggested by the defence side. 37. This fact is also supported from the evidence of the Doctor (P.W.7), who has stated that the hard blunt substance was heavy and large. In fact, the Doctor has also stated that the type of injury may be caused due to fall of any heavy substances like brick and wood log. 38. We have seen that P.W.1 has stated that the farsa was tied to a lathi and, therefore, what exactly hit the head of her husband could not be stated specifically, however, the assault causing an injury whereby the head of the deceased was ripped open ( फट गया). The other eyewitnesses have also used the same connotation for the injuries sustained by the deceased, i.e., the head of the deceased had ripped opened. 39. It is a known medical jurisprudence that when an injury is caused even by a sharp edged weapon but with heavy Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.451 of 2023 dt.08-12-2025 19/26 force behind it, a lacerated or ripped injury can be caused and no sharp cutting injury necessarily would occur. 40. We have perused the evidence of the witnesses and from perusal of the same it would be evident that there was an altercation and the witnesses have categorically stated that it was Ajay Ram (appellant) who had assaulted on the head of the husband of the informant upon which he fell down and, therefore, there is no inconsistency as far as the fact of the appellant having assaulted the deceased is concerned. 41. At this juncture, the reliance placed by the learned Senior counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant on the judgment in the case of Ganesh Datt vs. State of Uttarakhand (Supra) seems misplaced as that was a case where the witnesses had stated that the accused had fired shots with their pistol and gun, however, no gun shot injury was found on the part of the body of the deceased and, therefore, the Court had held that the ocular evidence is totally inconsistent with the medical evidence with respect to the assault and, therefore, had gone on to disbelieve the evidence of the prosecution witnesses. However, in the present case the witnesses might be interested or related witnesses, however, the ocular testimony finds corroboration from the injuries found by the Doctor during the postmortem. The number Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.451 of 2023 dt.08-12-2025 20/26 of injuries found upon the person of the deceased is completely supported by the deposition of the witnesses, who have stated that all the accused persons had assaulted and the injury caused by the appellant proved to be fatal. 42. Similarly, the reliance placed by the learned Senior counsel for the appellant in the case of Ram Singh vs. State of Uttar Pradesh (Supra) with regard to non-recovery of weapon of the crime is concerned, the Hon'ble Apex Court in Paragraph '34' has clearly observed that by non-recovery of the weapon of crime itself would not be fatal to the prosecution case. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has opined that “when there is a direct eyewitness account which is found to be credible, omission to obtain basaltic report and non-examination of basaltic expert may not be fatal to the prosecution case….…”. Taking a leaf out of the said observations when we apply the same in the present case, we find that though the weapon use in the crime was not recovered or seized by the police, however, the nature of injury found on the body of the deceased goes on to corroborate the eyewitness account and, therefore, even if we take the evidence of the informant alone the same can itself be sufficient to prove the prosecution case. That answers another point raised about the case being based on the evidence of seemingly interested witnesses. It Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.451 of 2023 dt.08-12-2025 21/26 is a settled law that it is the quality of evidence which is of importance and not the quantity. We have seen that co-villagers generally refrain from standing as witnesses in a dispute between two families or persons to avoid any differences with either of them. 43. It is relevant to note here that from perusal of the records, we have found that the incident occurred on 10.06.2018 and the accused Sanjay Ram and Ajay Ram (appellant) had evaded for 20 days and ultimately surrendered on 30.06.2018 and, therefore, there were ample opportunity with them to dispose of the weapon used in the crime and, therefore, no adverse inference could be drawn merely because the weapon was not recovered or seized by the police. 44. An important question with regard to the nature of weapon and the nature of injuries has been raised by the learned Senior counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant and he has placed reliance upon the judgment of Gurmej Singh & Ors. (Supra). In support of his arguments, Mr. Ashok Kumar chaudhary, learned Senior Counsel has submitted that like the present case even in the aforesaid case the appellant was alleged to be armed with a Gandasi and he had given a blow with it on the chest of the deceased and ordinarily a Gandasi blow would cause an incised Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.451 of 2023 dt.08-12-2025 22/26 wound whereas the deceased had no incised wound on his chest and was stated to have caused by hard and blunt substance and, therefore, the injury found on the chest could not have been attributed to the said appellant, who stated to have used Gandasi. 45. The aforesaid contention made on behalf of the appellant, prima facie, seems to be of some merit, however, as we have already observed hereinabove P.W.1 had categorically stated that the farsa was tied to a lathi and the farsa blow was given on the head of the deceased, however, P.W.1 was neither questioned with regard to the exact impact of the weapon given to her husband nor any such specific question was put to the Doctor. However, from perusal of the ante-mortem injuries and the opinion of the Doctor about the head injury being caused by a heavy object caused by force corroborates the ocular evidence of P.W.1 wherein the head of the deceased had ripped open and had not received a sharp cutting injury. 46. We, therefore, do not see any merit in such submission, as already discussed above, it was on account of heavy force used by the appellant in assaulting the deceased the said injury was caused and which was ultimately the cause of his death. Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.451 of 2023 dt.08-12-2025 23/26 47. In view of such discussion made hereinabove, it is seen that in the testimonies of the eyewitnesses or other witnesses, the allegation was of assault by means of farsa, tangi and lathi those allegations are being corroborated by the injuries received by the deceased as per the statement of the Doctor (P.W.7), in this regard, the testimony of eyewitness (P.W.1) is worthy to wholly rely upon and its corroboration by medical evidence is enough to prove the case and, therefore, non-recovery of weapon used in the said crime would not lead to disbelieve the factum of the incident. 48. The Hon'ble Supreme Court on several occasions has retreated that non-recovery of the weapons cannot be considered fatal to the case of prosecution, if there is consistent medical and ocular evidence. In the case of State of Rajasthan vs. Arjun Singh & Ors. reported in (2011) 9 SCC 317, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held as under: “18. As rightly pointed out by the learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the State that mere non- recovery of pistol or cartridge does not detract the case of the prosecution where clinching and direct evidence is acceptable. Likewise, absence of evidence regarding recovery of used pellets, bloodstained clothes, etc. cannot be taken or construed as no such occurrence had taken place. As a matter of fact, we have already pointed out that the gunshot injuries tallied with medical evidence. It is also seen Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.451 of 2023 dt.08-12-2025 24/26 that Raghuraj Singh and Himmat Raj Singh, who had died, received 8 and 7 gunshot wounds respectively while Raj Singh (PW 2) also received 8 gunshots scattered in front of left thigh. All these injuries have been noted by the doctor (PW 1) in his reports, Exts. P- 1 to P-4.” ( Emphasis supplied ) 49. In Nankaunoo vs. State of Uttar Pradesh reported in (2016) 3 SCC 317, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that where in light of unimpeachable oral evidence is corroborated by the medical evidence, non-recovery of murder weapon does not materially affect the case of prosecution. Any omission on the part of the Investigating Officer cannot go against the prosecution’s case. Story of the prosecution has been examined de hors such omission by the investigating agencies. 50. The present case is based on ocular evidence and the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that the ocular evidence is the basic evidence unless there are reasons to doubt in. In the case of Shahaja @ Shahajan Ismail Mohd. Shaikh vs. State of Maharashtra reported in (2023) 12 SCC 558 the Hon'ble Court has held thus: “30. To put it simply, in assessing the value of the evidence of the eyewitnesses, two principal considerations are whether, in the circumstances of the case, it is possible to believe their presence at the scene Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.451 of 2023 dt.08-12-2025 25/26 of occurrence or in such situations as would make it possible for them to witness the facts deposed to by them and secondly, whether there is anything inherently improbable or unreliable in their evidence. In respect of both these considerations, the circumstances either elicited from those witnesses themselves or established by other evidence tending to improbabilise their presence or to discredit the veracity of their statements, will have a bearing upon the value which a court would attach to their evidence. Although in cases where the plea of the accused is a mere denial, yet the evidence of the prosecution witnesses has to be examined on its own merits, where the accused raise a definite plea or puts forward a positive case which is inconsistent with that of the prosecution, the nature of such plea or case and the probabilities in respect of it will also have to be taken into account while assessing the value of the prosecution evidence. 31. There is nothing palpable or glaring in the evidence of the two eyewitnesses on the basis of which we can take the view that they are not true or reliable eyewitnesses. Few contradictions in the form of omissions here or there is not sufficient to discard the entire evidence of the eyewitnesses.” (Emphasis supplied) 51. Thus, from the aforesaid discussion, we do not have any doubt in our minds that the present appellant was armed with a deadly weapon and had assaulted the deceased upon his head with the same and ultimately the injury caused by the appellant was the Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.451 of 2023 dt.08-12-2025 26/26 reason behind the death of the said person and, therefore, he has rightly being held guilty of causing murder of Nagina Ram, the husband of the informant, and therefore, the appeal is without any merit and the same stands dismissed. 52. Let the trial court’s records along with a copy of this judgment be sent down to learned trial court. krishna/manoj- (Sourendra Pandey, J) Rajeev Ranjan Prasad, J: (Rajeev Ranjan Prasad, J) AFR/NAFR NAFR CAV DATE 27.11.2025 Uploading Date 08.12.2025 Transmission Date 08.12.2025