The State of Bihar v. Rit Lal Yadav

Judgment

2. ====================================================== Appearance : (In GOVT. APPEAL (DB) No. 7 of 2024) For the Appellant/s For the Informant For the Respondent : : : Mr. Ajay Mishra, APP Mr. Apurv Harsh, Advocate Mr. P.N. Shahi, Sr. Advocate Mr. Ghanshyam Tiwary Mr. Amit Anand, Advocate (In CRIMINAL APPEAL (DB) No. 952 of 2024) : For the Appellant/s : For the State : For the Respondent Mr. Apurv Harsh, Advocate Mr. Ajay Mishra, APP Mr. P.N. Shahi, Sr. Advocate Mr. Ghanshyam Tiwari, Advocate Mr. Amit Anand, Advocate ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJEEV RANJAN PRASAD HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK KUMAR PANDEY CAV JUDGMENT (Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJEEV RANJAN PRASAD) Date : 25-09-2025 Both the appeals have been preferred by the State and the informant respectively for setting aside the judgment dated

14.05.2024 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘impugned judgment’) Patna High Court G. APP. (DB) No.7 of 2024 dt.25-09-2025 passed in Sessions Trial No. 246A of 2006 arising out of Danapur P.S. Case No. 200 of 2003 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-III-cum-Special Judge MP/MLA, Patna (hereinafter referred to as the ‘learned trial court) by which the learned trial court has been pleased to acquit Rit Lal Yadav (respondent no. 2) for the offences punishable under Sections 148, 307 and 302 of the Indian Penal Code (in short ‘IPC’) and Section 27 of the Arms Act. Prosecution Case

2. The prosecution story is based on the written application of Asha Devi (PW-1), Wife of Satyanarayan Sinha, Resident of Village- Sarari, PS- Shahpur, District- Patna in which she has stated that on 30.04.2003 in between 11.00-11.30 AM, she was going for her treatment along with her husband Satyanarayan Sinha, Jivan Yadav, Sanjay Kumar, Nageshwar Prasad, Dheeraj Kumar, Arun Kumar to Khagaul by her vehicle bearing Registration No. BR1T-0222. As soon as they reached near the house of Rambabu Pathik, a Maruti Van was standing in front of the house of Rambabu Pathik in such a way that her vehicle could not proceed further. The vehicle was being driven by informant’s husband. He took his head outside and asked for giving passage. It is alleged that three persons came out of the vehicle and shouted Patna High Court G. APP. (DB) No.7 of 2024 dt.25-09-2025 “Satya Narayan Aa Gaya”. They all were armed with weapons. After hearing the hulla, Rambabu Pathik, Ritlal Yadav, Sunil Yadav @ Kana, Ranjan Kumar Benga and 8-10 others variously armed with weapon came from the house of Rambabu Pathik. Rambabu Pathik while saying “Sala Barka Neta Banta Hai Jaan Se Maar Do”, pulled her husband outside, Ritlal Yadav, Sunil Yadav and Ranjan Kumar fired on her husband due to which, he fell down. Thereafter, at the instance of Rambabu Pathik who said “Gari Me Baithe Logon Ko Maar Do”, all the 10-12 criminals started firing but the informant and all were saved by hiding themselves under the seat of the vehicle. Sanjay and Dheeraj were injured. There were dozen of marks of bullet on the vehicle. The accused persons assuming them dead entered into house of Rambabu Pathik. The informant identifies the other accused persons but does not remember the names. It is the claim of the informant that the accused persons namely Rambabu Pathik, Ritlal Yadav, Sunil Yadav @ Kana, Ranjan Yadav @ Benga and other criminals had killed her husband Satya Narayan Sinha, due to enmity.

3. On the basis of the written report of the informant (Exhibit '1'), Danapur P.S. Case No. 200 of 2003 dated 01.05.2003 Patna High Court G. APP. (DB) No.7 of 2024 dt.25-09-2025 was registered under Sections 147, 148, 149, 323, 307, 324 and 302 IPC and Section 27 of the Arms Act.

4. After investigation, police submitted charge-sheet bearing no. 102 of 2004 dated 26.10.2004 under Sections 147, 148, 149, 323, 324, 307 and 302 of the IPC and Section 27 of the Arms Act against four accused persons including respondent Rit Lal Yadav. On submission of charge-sheet, cognizance was taken and record was committed to the court of Sessions on 31.01.2006 where Sessions Trial No. 246 of 2006 was registered on

27.02.2006.

5. In Sessions Trial No. 246 of 2006, the respondent no. 2 filed a discharge petition which stood rejected vide order dated

07.07.2007. Thereafter, he absconded and remained absconding for more than three years. On 12.04.2012, the charges were explained to him in Hindi which he denied and claimed to be tried. Accordingly, charges were framed against him for the offence punishable under Sections 148, 307 and 302 IPC and Section 27 of the Arms Act.

6. On behalf of the prosecution, as many as nine witnesses deposed and some documentary evidences were also marked exhibits. The complete description of the prosecution Patna High Court G. APP. (DB) No.7 of 2024 dt.25-09-2025 witnesses and the documents marked exhibit are being provided hereunder for a ready reference:- List of Prosecution Witnesses PW-1 PW-2 PW-3 PW-4 PW-5 PW-6 PW-7 PW-8 PW-9 Asha Devi Kalawati Devi Sanjay Kumar Nageshwar Prasad Yadav Dheeraj Kumar Rintu Singh Dr. Narendra Kumar Singh Arshad Jaman Umesh Kumar List of Exhibits on behalf of the prosecution Ext. 1 Written information of Asha Devi Ext. 1/11 Signature of 1.0 Arshad Jaman on the seizure list Ext. 1/12 Signature of 1.0. on the seizure list. Ext. 2 Ext. 3 Ext. 3/1 Ext. 3/2 Ext. 3/3 Ext. 3/4 Ext. 4 Ext. 5 Signature of the informant on the protest petition Signature of the informant on the seizure List Signature of the witness Sanjay Kumar on the seizure List Signature of witness Rajesh Kumar on the seizure list Signature of witness Sanjay Kumar on another seizure list Signature of witness Ramanand Rai on another seizure list PM report Injury report of Dhiraj Kumar Patna High Court G. APP. (DB) No.7 of 2024 dt.25-09-2025

7. On 01.09.2015, statement of the accused-respondent no. 2 was recorded under section 313 CrPC. The defence sought time to lead evidence. On 22.09.2015, the defence filed some documents for exhibiting which were allowed vide order dated

29.09.2015. Accordingly, Exhibit ‘A’ to Exhibit ‘P’ were marked. The records were kept pending awaiting the production of defence witnesses but no defence witness turned up on several dates whereafter on the request of the accused, the defence evidence was closed on 08.03.2016. In this case, the prosecution started its argument on 04.02.2017 and concluded it on 28.02.2017. On behalf of the accused, the arguments were concluded on

12.07.2017 and thereafter again on various dates the records were kept for argument of the public prosecutor. He ultimately concluded his arguments on 21.07.2017. The following documentary evidences were marked exhibits on behalf of Defence:- Ext. A-1 Certified copy of judgment of ST Case No. Ext. B-1 Certified copy of the written information and FIR of Danapur P.S. Case No. 198/2003, dated 30.04.2003 Ext. C-1 Certified copy of Charge-sheet of Danapur P.S. Case No. 198/2003 Ext. D-1 Certified copy of supplementary Charge- sheet of Danapur P.S. Case No. 198/2003 Ext. E-1 Certified copy of FIR of Khagaul P.S. Case No. 55/1996 Patna High Court G. APP. (DB) No.7 of 2024 dt.25-09-2025 Ext. F-1 Certified copy of Charge-sheet of Khagaul P.S. Case No. 55/1996 Ext. G-1 Certified copy of FIR of Khagaul P.S. Case No. 86/2005 Ext. H-1 Certified Copy of Charge-sheet of Khagaul P.S. Case No. 86/2005 Ext. I-1 Certified Copy of supplementary Charge- sheet of Khagaul P.S. Case No. 86/2005 Ext. J-1 Certified copy of order-sheet dated

29.02.1997 of ST. Case No. 1434/1998 Ext. K-1 Certified Copy of FIR of Danapur P.S. Case No. 232/1994 Ext. L-1 Certified copy of Charge-sheet of Shahpur P.S. Case No. 238/1994 corresponding to ST. Case No. 1434/1998 Ext. M-1 Certified copy of supplementary Charge- sheet of Shahpur P.S. Case No. 238/1994 corresponding to ST. Case No. 1434/1998 Ext. N-1 Certified copy of the order-sheet of A.C.J.M. Danapur of Khagaul P.S. Case No. Ext. O-1 Certified copy of application of 1.O. dated 28.12.2005 to A.C.J.M. Danapur Ext. P-1 Certified copy of application of 1.O. dated 25.02.2006 to A.C.J.M. Danapur

8. At this stage, it is worth mentioning that Sanjay Kumar (PW-3), Nageshwar Prasad (PW-4) and Dheeraj Kumar (PW-5) were though examined by the I.O. and their statements were recorded in paragraph ‘65’, ‘93’ and ‘98’ of the case diary but they were not specifically made chargesheet witnesses, though the I.O. stated in the chargesheet that other witnesses may be examined apart from the chargesheet witnesses. Thus, the prosecution filed a petition in the trial court to allow the Patna High Court G. APP. (DB) No.7 of 2024 dt.25-09-2025 examination of these witnesses which was allowed vide order dated 11.02.2013.

9. One of the witnesses, Rintu Singh (PW-6) was allowed to be examined by the trial court vide order dated

27.05.2013 after noting that PW-1 to PW-5 all had stated about the presence of Rintu Singh at the time of occurrence. A criminal revision bearing number 606 of 2013 was preferred by the accused-respondent no. 2 in the High Court which was rejected. Again, on the request of the prosecution, the court allowed the prosecution petition calling for the injury reports of Dheeraj (PW- 5) and summons were issued to the treating doctor Dr. N. K. Singh (PW-7), Dr. H. K. Jha (not appeared despite issuance of warrant) and Dr. R. N. Prasad (not appeared despite summons and warrant).

10. One more fact which is important to take note is that the trial court was able to secure the appearance of Arshad Jama, the I.O. (PW-8) only after issuance of a bailable warrant against him and Dr. Umesh Kumar (PW-9) was brought in court after issuance of a non-bailable warrant only.

11. On 05.02.2015, the defence filed a petition in the trial court with a request to stop the cross-examination of the prosecution witness in order to bring case diary of Danapur P.S. Case No. 198 of 2003. The prosecution alleged that police lodged Patna High Court G. APP. (DB) No.7 of 2024 dt.25-09-2025 Danapur P.S. Case No. 198 of 2003 to help the accused. It was also pointed out that the informant had filed a protest petition against the conduct of the police. The accused filed a petition for amalgamation of this case with Danapur P.S. Case No. 198 of 2003 but vide order dated 31.03.2015, the learned trial court rejected the said prayer of the accused.

12. On perusal of the records, this Court finds that for about four months thereafter the judgment was not delivered by

the learned trial court. On 20.11.2017, the records were transferred to the court of ADJ-IV, Patna and again the records were transferred on 05.03.2018 to FTC-II Court, on 21.05.2018, it was transferred to ADJ-IX-cum Special Court. The records were sent without the case diary on 07.08.2018, argument started once again but on 18.12.2018, the records were transferred to ADJ-IV-cum- MP/MLA Court. The records were again transferred on

18.01.2019, 05.03.2019,

05.04.2019,

06.04.2019, 27.05.2019,

05.09.2019 and 10.12.2019. The accused was earlier granted bail by the High Court vide order dated 14.11.2013 in Criminal Miscellaneous No. 10186 of 2013 but he had not submitted his bail bond as he remained in jail in connection with another case. On

20.01.2020, the accused filed a bail bond in this case after he was granted provisional bail in another case. On 12.02.2020, his bail Patna High Court G. APP. (DB) No.7 of 2024 dt.25-09-2025 bond was cancelled and production warrant was issued for his production from jail where he was lodged since 10.02.2020 in connection with another case (Special 271 of 2018). His bail bond was restored vide order dated 04.06.2020. Again on 18.08.2020, the records were transferred to ADJ-XXI, Patna. On 29.09.2020, the records were transferred to the court of ADJ-X, Patna citing Standing Order No. 36 of 2020 dated 26.09.2020. On 09.01.2021, the records were transferred to ADJ-III, Patna-cum Special Court MP/MLA. On 13.01.2021, records were transferred to ADJ-XII Patna citing Standing Order No. 05/21 dated 12.01.21. It appears from the records that the original LCR and the case diary in this case went missing. On 15.06.2022, a show cause was issued to the Bench Clerk namely Mr. Rajiv Kumar and on 24.06.2022, a direction was issued to initiate a proceeding against him. The informant moved High Court in Criminal Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 1124 of 2021 and brought it to the notice of the High Court that the records are missing and it is being deliberately done to further delay the trial. The writ court vide it's order dated

12.07.2022 issued certain directions which are being reproduced hereunder for a ready reference:- “Call for a report from the District Judge Incharge, Patna as to why the records of Sessions Trial No. 246 and Sessions Trial No. 246A of 2006 arising out of Patna High Court G. APP. (DB) No.7 of 2024 dt.25-09-2025 Special Case No. 122 of 2018 (Danapur P.S. Case No. 200/2003) have not been sent to the Special Court of A.D.J.III-cum-M.P./M.L.A. Court. There are serious allegations that the order of this Court passed as back as on 13.05.2016 in Cr. Misc. No. 18493 of 2016 and the order dated 17.01.2017 in Cr. Misc. No. 908 of 2017 have not been complied with. Mr. S.D.Sanjay, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner submits that in this case all the prosecution witnesses have been examined and after 313 Cr.P.C. stage the defence evidence was also closed and the case was fixed for hearing. At this stage, it appears that efforts are being made for last several years by the interested persons to drag the final hearing of the case and disposal of the matter. Let a comprehensive report be sent to this Court. The District Judge Incharge, Patna shall while submitting the report will examine as to whether there is an attempt in connivance with the staffs of the Civil Court to somehow withheld the records in order to drag the matter and avoid the disposal of the case.”

13. This Court has recorded the entire facts showing how the records of this case were kept pending and also transferred from one court to another. The trial court could finally deliver its judgment only after the records were found pursuant to the order of this Court. Findings of the learned Trial Court

14. The learned trial court having analysed the evidences adduced on behalf of the prosecution and the defence recorded in Patna High Court G. APP. (DB) No.7 of 2024 dt.25-09-2025 paragraph ‘22’ of its judgment that the trial of Trial No. 246 of 2006 and 246A of 2006 have originated from the same P.S. case i.e. Danapur P.S. Case No. 200 of 2003, so both the records will be perused for the ends of justice as well as for the better appreciation of the evidences. The trial court noted that the prosecution witnesses and the informant have stated that the occurrence took place near the house of Ram Babu Pathik, he had also been made an accused in this case by the informant but after investigation, the police did not find his role in the alleged occurrence, therefore submitted a closure report against him which has been accepted by learned ACJM, Danapur. The prosecution never challenged that order, therefore, it will be deemed to have been accepted by the prosecution. The trial court further noted that the prosecution did not draw the attention of the trial court towards Section 319 CrPC. The trial court observed that Ram Babu Pathik was said to be an order giver and it is stated that all the accused persons came from his house, this becomes more relevant when there is another case for the occurrence on the same day for which Danapur P.S. Case No. 198 of 2003 had been lodged (Exhibit ‘B’).

15. As regards the place of occurrence, the trial court noted that the I.O. has stated a different place of occurrence from that of the informant and other prosecution witnesses, therefore, Patna High Court G. APP. (DB) No.7 of 2024 dt.25-09-2025 the testimony of the prosecution witnesses are required to be perused carefully. After saying so, the trial court proceeded to consider the evidence of PW-1. It is noted by way of observation that PW-1 had never stated in her written information about Rintu Singh. Rintu Singh has been examined as PW-6 but he was not mentioned in the witness column of the chargesheet. Further, the trial court has noted that the name of Arun Kumar is not stated in the evidence of PW-1, therefore, there is some hide and seek by the informant. The trial court has considered the evidence of PW-1 adduced in Trial No. 246 of 2006 in which in paragraph ‘20’ she had stated that Arun Kumar was injured in Danapur P.S. Case No. 198 of 2003 and other witnesses have stated that he had died. Taking note of this evidence of PW-1 in Trial No. 246 of 2006, the learned trial court raised a question that how it was probable that a man injured and died in another case was sitting along with the deceased husband of the informant. The prosecution has failed to explain this aspect, said the learned trial court.

16. As regards the evidence of the injured witnesses, the trial court noted that the informant has laid stress on their evidence, the court proceeded to consider the evidence of PW-3 and PW-5. It has been observed that PW-3 has nowhere stated in Patna High Court G. APP. (DB) No.7 of 2024 dt.25-09-2025 his examination-in-chief regarding the injuries sustained in the occurrence. Likewise Dheeraj Kumar (PW-5) has stated in his evidence that he and Sunil ji were injured but he has stated a different story then that of as stated by the informant. The trial court took a view that PW-3 has stated that bullet crossed his hand, in paragraph ‘7’ of his cross examination, he had stated that it is not true that there is no mark of firearm injuries on his hand, but he had not shown any mark of injury to the court during the evidence. The trial court took a view that his statement does not find any objective corroboration from the evidence of Dr. Umesh Kumar (CW-1) who brought the alleged injury report of Dheeraj Kumar (Exhibit ‘5’). The injury report did not show any firearm injury on his hand. The trial court, therefore, held that these are the material contradictions in the statement of this witness and the I.O.

17. The trial court has further taken a view that the evidence of the informant and the evidence of the I.O. Arshad Jama have material contradictions. As per the informant, the place of occurrence of the case is near the house of Ram Babu Pathik situated in Jamaluddin Chak but the I.O. has mentioned the place of occurrence on the Khagaul-Neora Main Road. The I.O. was not given suggestion by the prosecution on the point of place of Patna High Court G. APP. (DB) No.7 of 2024 dt.25-09-2025 occurrence so the prosecution failed to establish the exact place of occurrence of this case. The trial court has further held that the I.O. has stated in his evidence in paragraph ‘9’ of his cross-examination that after the occurrence when he tried to take the statement of the informant, she did not give the same. He again tried to take the statement of the informant and the other witnesses, they did not turn up before him. He came to know the fact that witness Arun Kumar had died in Danapur P.S. Case No. 198 of 2003. The trial court has relied upon the evidence of the I.O. Arshad Jama and recorded that he had taken statement of the informant on 14.06.2003, on that day he had taken the statement of Munna Kumar and after that he recorded the statement of other witnesses like Nageshwar Prasad and Sanjay Kumar. These witnesses had given their statement before police after fifteen days of the occurrence. Prior to recording of their statement, the I.O. had taken the statement of several other witnesses. According to the trial court, the prosecution had not examined them rather seventeen witnesses have been given up for their examination by the prosecution and the same was allowed vide order dated 11.02.2013 by the predecessor court. Patna High Court G. APP. (DB) No.7 of 2024 dt.25-09-2025

18. The learned trial court has dealt with another aspect saying that the witnesses who have been examined for the prosecution are mostly out of other village than the place of occurrence. The informant had gone to her house by taking the dead body of her husband. It is stated by her that approximately forty people used to reside in the house having same courtyard but none of them have been examined by her. She has also not examined her own grown up children. For all these reasons, the trial court doubted the occurrence. It is further held by the learned trial court that there are statement of the witnesses that the accused persons had fired from the front side of the vehicle and some marks of bullet occurred on the vehicle also. The vehicle was produced by the informant herself to the I.O. and thereafter production-cum-seizure list was prepared (Exhibit ‘1/5’ and ‘1/6’), the seizure lists do not show any mark of bullet on the seized vehicle. There was no FSL report of the material articles which were recovered from the vehicle as per the seizure list. The bullet was removed from the body of the deceased and was handed over to the Constable but there is no Forensic Science Laboratory (FSL) report regarding this. As per seizure list there was no mark of bullet on the vehicle contrary to the statement of the prosecution witnesses who have stated that the Patna High Court G. APP. (DB) No.7 of 2024 dt.25-09-2025 accused have fired on the vehicle from the front side and several marks had occurred on the vehicle. The trial court disbelieved the manner of occurrence saying that while informant has stated that the accused fired on her husband when he was in the vehicle, the other witnesses have stated that her husband was dragged from the vehicle and was murdered by the accused persons on being shot to him. The learned trial court has also took into consideration the statement of the informant with regard to the post occurrence facts. The trial court held that there were material contradictions in the evidence of the informant (PW-1) and that of the other witnesses. The trial court has found that the evidence of the prosecution witnesses are not getting corroborated by the evidence of the I.O. Some of the witnesses are having criminal antecedents and they are also residents of different village, therefore, their testimonies would not be convincing to the court and that would cast shadow on the entire prosecution case. The I.O. has not been declared hostile by the prosecution. He was Dy.S.P. at the time of investigation and the statement of the informant and other prosecution witnesses were recorded by him in presence of the D.I.G. Central Range, Patna. In such situation, according to the Patna High Court G. APP. (DB) No.7 of 2024 dt.25-09-2025 learned trial court, it cannot be said that the I.O. was in collusion with the accused.

19. In ultimate analysis, the learned trial court held that the prosecution has only proved the death of Satyanarayan Sinha by adducing the evidence of Dr. Narendra Kumar Singh (PW-7) but failed to prove the fact as to who murdered the deceased. In such circumstance, the benefit of doubt will go in favour of the accused persons. The trial court, therefore, acquitted the accused- respondent no. 2 of all the charges giving him benefit of doubt. Submissions on behalf of the Appellants

20. Mr. Ajay Mishra, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State, submits that in this case, PW-1, PW-4, PW-5 and PW-6 are the eyewitnesses of the occurrence.

21. The trial court has recorded in its finding that the prosecution failed to prove the place of occurrence. Much significance and evidentiary value has been attached to the statement of the I.O. This finding of the learned trial court is not correct inasmuch as it may be found from the evidences available on the record that the I.O. (PW-8) had taken charge of the investigation only on 03.05.2003. According to him, the earlier I.O. had inspected the place of occurrence on 02.05.2003 and he had recorded that the place of occurrence is the Pakki Road Patna High Court G. APP. (DB) No.7 of 2024 dt.25-09-2025 adjacent to Khagaul and at the place of occurrence, the road had gone from east to west. In paragraph ‘12’ of the case diary he had not mentioned of anything found at the place of occurrence. It is evident that the first I.O. had not gone to the place of occurrence even on 02.05.2003 which may be found from the fact that when PW-8 went to the place of occurrence on 03.05.2003, he found blood-stained soil and the piece of broken glasses. It is evident that police was trying its best to save the accused persons who were close to the power as one of the accused in this case, Ram Babu Pathik, happened to be the samdhi of the then Chief Minister of Bihar. It is submitted that a close perusal of the evidences on the record would prove that there is no contradiction between the statement of the informant and that of the I.O. (PW-8) as regards the place of occurrence. In paragraph ‘8’ of his deposition, the second I.O. Arshad Jama (PW-8) has admitted that the place of occurrence, time of occurrence and the date of occurrence of the present case and that of Danapur P.S. Case No.198 of 2003 is the same and one.

22. Learned counsel submits that the testimony of Asha Devi (PW-1) is very consistent and the prosecution has been able to prove the place of occurrence, date of occurrence, time of occurrence and manner of occurrence. Patna High Court G. APP. (DB) No.7 of 2024 dt.25-09-2025

23. As regards the delay in registration of FIR, PW-1 has stated that police did not take her written information and the plea of PW-1 finds support from the fact that ultimately she had to file a protest petition in the court of learned Jurisdictional Magistrate complaining about indifferent attitude of police in the matter of investigation of the case. It is submitted that the first I.O. Indrajeet Tiwary has not been examined in this case which only strengthens the submissions of the appellant that the investigation of the case was thoroughly neglected under political pressure. In this regard, attention of this Court has been drawn towards paragraph (iv) and (v) of the deposition of Asha Devi (PW-1).

24. Learned counsel further submits that on perusal of paragraph ‘20’ of the impugned judgment, it would be found that the learned trial court has taken into consideration the evidences adduced by the parties in original trial no.246 of 2006 also on the ground that the same has also originated from Danapur P.S. Case No.200 of 2003. It is submitted that the consideration of the evidence of another trial was impermissible. The learned trial court has completely erred in looking into the records of another trial. It is submitted that the reasoning and rationale provided in paragraph ‘20’ of the judgment in this case is the copy and paste of paragraph ‘22’ of the judgment in original Trial No. 246 of 2006. Patna High Court G. APP. (DB) No.7 of 2024 dt.25-09-2025

25. Learned counsel further submits that the I.O.s of this case tried to save the accused persons from beginning. In this connection, it is pointed out that Khagaul P.S. Case No.6 of 2004 was registered for recovery of the firearms from the house of Ritlal Yadav in course of investigation of this case but no seizure list of arms was brought on record in this case.

26. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor has relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Ganesha vs. Sharanappa and Another reported in (2014) 1 SCC 87 and Rajeswar Prasad Misra v. State of W.B. and Another reported in AIR 1965 SC 1887 to submit that where the trial court has recorded an order of acquittal by misreading of the evidence or non-consideration of evidence or perverse appreciation of evidence, the appellate court would be competent to direct fresh disposal on merit by the trial court. Submissions on behalf of the Informant

27. Mr. Apurv Harsh, learned counsel for the informant has submitted that the judgment of the learned trial court is perversed for the reason that the learned trial court says that the place of occurrence is in question and the learned court has drawn adverse inference from the fact that the final form submitted against Ram Babu Pathik was not challenged by the prosecution. It Patna High Court G. APP. (DB) No.7 of 2024 dt.25-09-2025 is further submitted that the trial court has recorded that the I.O. has not been declared hostile but no reason has been provided as to why the I.O. should have been declared hostile.

28. Learned Counsel further submits that the learned trial court has taken an adverse view for the reason that PW-1 did not disclose the name of the doctor to whom she was going with her husband. Further, the trial court has taken a view against the prosecution for the reason that even the children of the deceased have not been examined. In this connection, it is submitted that what is important is the quality and not the quantity of the witnesses. Learned Counsel further submits that in the case of Shahaja @ Shahajan Ismail Mohd. Shaikh vs. State of Maharashtra reported in (2023) 12 SCC 558, (paragraph ‘29’ and ‘30), the Hon’ble Supreme Court has been pleased to discuss the principles governing the appreciation of ocular evidences. The same has been further discussed in the case of Edakkandi Dineshan and Others vs. State of Kerala reported in (2025) 3 SCC 273. Attention of this Court has been drawn towards paragraph ‘25’ to ‘27’ of the judgment in the case of Edakkandi Dineshan (supra) wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that lapses on the part of the Investigating Officer should not be taken in favour of the accused because such lapses may be Patna High Court G. APP. (DB) No.7 of 2024 dt.25-09-2025 committed designedly or because of negligence. In such situation, the prosecution evidence is required to be examined dehors such omissions to find out whether the said evidences are reliable or not. The accused would not be entitled to claim acquittal on the ground of faulty investigation done by the investigating agency.

29. Learned counsel for the informant has pointed out from the impugned judgment that on behalf of the prosecution, the judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Shahajan Ismail (supra), Manoj Suryavanshi vs. State of Chhattisgarh reported in (2020) 4 SCC 451, Bhagchandra vs. State of M.P. reported in (2021) 18 SCC 274, Balu Sudam Khalde and Another vs. State of Maharashtra reported in (2023) 13 SCC 365 and Harendra Rai vs. State of Bihar reported in (2023) 13 SCC 563 were cited to submit that there is no fixed or strait jacket formula for appreciation of ocular evidences and where there is inherently improbable minor discrepancies on trivial matters not touching the core of the issue, the witness cannot be discredited and a faulty investigation would not render the prosecution case weak. The trial court, however, did not even discuss those judgments while taking a final view on the matter in paragraph ‘20’ of its judgment. Patna High Court G. APP. (DB) No.7 of 2024 dt.25-09-2025

30. Learned Counsel further submits that by catena of judgments, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that evidence of related or interested witness does not suffer from any infirmity, the only requirement is to apply a rule of prudence that the evidence of such witness should be scrutinised with little care.

31. It is submitted that while examining the ocular evidences, the assessment of the value of the evidence of an eyewitness is to be done on two principal considerations - (i) Is it possible to believe the presence of the witness at the scene of occurrence or in such situations as would make it possible for them to witness the facts deposed to by the witness and (ii) whether there is anything inherently improbable or unreliable in their evidence. Pointing out to the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Shahajan Ismail (supra), learned Counsel submits that the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that 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.

32. Learned Counsel submits that in this case, the conduct of the I.O. (PW-8) may be found from his deposition. He Patna High Court G. APP. (DB) No.7 of 2024 dt.25-09-2025 has stated that he was posted as Dy.S.P. Sachivalaya in the year

2003. He was ordered to take charge of the investigation of the Case No. 200/03. He has stated in paragraph ‘5’ of his deposition that he had conducted raid in the house of Sunil Yadav and Ritlal Yadav and had effected attachment (kurki-japti). He has stated that from the place of Ritlal Yadav, firearms were recovered. However, this witness has not stated that he had prepared any seizure list or sent the said arms recovered from the house of Ritlal Yadav to FSL. PW-8 has not even recorded the statement of the earlier I.O. and had not even perused the case diary written by the earlier I.O. About the first I.O., PW-8 has stated that he had inspected the place of occurrence on 02.05.2003 i.e. after three days of the occurrence. He has further stated that he had taken over investigation of Danapur P.S. Case No. 198 of 2003, the said case was registered on the statement of Pramod Kumar, Inspector and in the said case, the place of occurrence, date of occurrence and time of occurrence is the same. It is submitted that in such circumstance where the place of occurrence, time of occurrence and the date of occurrence is the same and one, the conduct of Pramod Kumar, Inspector in not recording a case of murder of Satyanarayan Sinha on 30.04.2003 is nothing but a proof of fact that right from beginning, the police was under immense pressure Patna High Court G. APP. (DB) No.7 of 2024 dt.25-09-2025 to give this case a different colour and delayed the lodging of the case for killing of Satyanarayan Sinha. This was not unusual because the police was dealing with the case in which samdhi of the then Chief Minister of Bihar was an accused. In such circumstance, it was submitted that the lacuna on the part of the prosecution and the deficiencies on the part of the I.O.s of the case would not prove fatal to the prosecution.

33. Learned Counsel further submits that the judgment of the learned trial court is full of perversity which may also be found from the fact that the trial court has wrongly held that the seizure list of car does not show any bullet mark. It is submitted that in fact the I.O. (PW-8) had not mentioned anything like this in the seizure list. In paragraph ‘14’ of his deposition, the I.O. (PW-8) has stated that he had not produced the seized vehicle in court. He has stated to have seized one towel (gamcha) and blood scratch but he had not mentioned about any other mark in the case diary. Learned Counsel submits that the I.O. (PW-8) had not taken any photograph of the vehicle. In such circumstances, the learned trial court has recorded a perverse finding. The doctor (PW-7) has clearly stated that the firing was resorted to from a close range. On these grounds, learned Senior Counsel submits that the trial court Patna High Court G. APP. (DB) No.7 of 2024 dt.25-09-2025 judgment is liable to be upturned and the accused-respondents are liable to be convicted. Submissions on behalf of the Accused-Respondent No. 2

34. These appeals have been contested by Mr. P. N. Shahi, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Shri Ghanshyam Tiwari, learned Advocate. It is submitted that in this case, the genesis of occurrence has not been established by the prosecution. The story narrated by the informant that she was going to the doctor for the medical check-up would not inspire confidence as she did not disclose of what kind of disease she was suffering from and who was the doctor to whom she was going. It is submitted that the informant was going for her treatment but being a lady she was not being accompanied by her family members, especially female members although on the day of the alleged incident, there were several female members present in the family creates doubt over her statement. In this regard, attention of this Court has been drawn to paragraph ‘11’ of the evidence of PW-1.

35. Learned Senior Counsel submits that the statement of PW-1, that when she was giving written information to police in the village police did not take it whereafter she filed an application in the court, is highly doubtful. Her written report does not bear the date of application nor the informant has mentioned any date Patna High Court G. APP. (DB) No.7 of 2024 dt.25-09-2025 on the written report. Referring to some of the paragraphs of the evidence of PW-1, learned Senior Counsel submits that during trial, the prosecution failed to establish that the alleged written report which is the basis of the case was written by Rajnish. It is submitted that Rintu Singh (PW-6) has stated in paragraph ‘10’ that FIR was written by Asha Sinha (PW-1) in his presence which he had read and had put his signature thereon. It is submitted that the evidence of Rintu Singh (PW-6) falsifies the statement of Asha Devi (PW-1). It is submitted that the written report was not written by Rajnish, the informant very cunningly to hide the truth committed murder of Rajnish, the scribe of the alleged written report which has been proved by the defence side through Exhibit ‘G-1’ which is Khagaul P.S. Case No. 86 of 2005 in which PW-4 Nageshwar Prasad and Ashok Rai, brother of the deceased and bhaisur of the informant, Sonu Kumar and bhagina of the deceased are accused. Learned Senior Counsel has argued that the informant was not present in the vehicle at the time of occurrence. In this regard, it is submitted that in her written report, the informant has not stated about the presence of Rintu Singh but in examination-in-chief in paragraph ‘1’ she has stated that Rintu Singh was sitting at the front side of the Bolero vehicle. PW-1 did not mention about the presence of Arun Kumar in her Patna High Court G. APP. (DB) No.7 of 2024 dt.25-09-2025 examination-in-chief although in written report, the name of Arun Kumar has been mentioned. It is, thus, submitted that it would throw doubt over the prosecution story. Referring to the evidence of PW-5, learned Senior Counsel submits that he has stated that he was standing near gumti when his uncle came in the vehicle then he and Sugriv had boarded the vehicle. He has not stated about the presence of PW-1 in the Bolero vehicle. It is also submitted that Kalavati Devi (PW-2) has stated in her cross-examination in paragraph ‘3’ that perhaps she would have stated to Drogaji that if her bhabhi would not have reached then many people would have been killed. Learned Senior Counsel submits that the I.O. has stated in paragraph ‘17’ of his cross-examination that independent witnesses denied the presence of PW-1 with Satyanarayan Sinha (the deceased).

36. It is lastly submitted that the informant has herself failed to establish the presence of Bolero vehicle at the place of occurrence because Asha Devi (PW-1) has stated in her examination-in-chief that somehow they reached their village Sarari by a vehicle. The vehicle was produced after eleven days of the occurrence.

37. It is submitted that there are contradictory statements of the prosecution witnesses. The witnesses have stated that firing Patna High Court G. APP. (DB) No.7 of 2024 dt.25-09-2025 had taken place from the front side of the vehicle. PW-6 says that firing had taken place for five minutes. PW-6 is one of the eyewitnesses of the seizure list but the statement of the informant and PW-6 are contradictory. Learned Senior Counsel further submits that the informant has failed to explain the delay of 24 hours in lodging of the FIR. The date of occurrence is said to be

30.04.2003 at 11:30 AM but the information was given to the police on 01.05.2003 at 11:45 AM. It is his submission that although PW-1 claimed that she had filed application in the court but she had not produced the copy of the application.

38. Learned Senior Counsel has submitted that the arguments advanced by the prosecution-appellant are baseless, the judgment of the learned trial court does not suffer from perversity and in view of the settled judicial pronouncements on the subject, this Court need not interfere with the judgment of acquittal unless it is found to be perversed and the one and only irresistible conclusion is reached that the accused-respondent is guilty of committing the offence.

39. Learned Senior Counsel submits that the prosecution has failed to produce the injury report of Sanjay @ Chunnu Sharma and further the injury of Dheeraj Kumar is not a reliable piece of evidence. Dr Umesh Kumar (PW-9) who produced the Patna High Court G. APP. (DB) No.7 of 2024 dt.25-09-2025 papers has stated that he had brought the papers from the record of the hospital but he could not name the doctor who had written these papers. Thus, the doctor who had examined the injured Dheeraj Kumar has not been examined. It is also pointed out that the document produced by PW-9 is Exhibit ‘5’ which does not disclose any kind of firearm injury rather the paper discloses complain of pain.

40. Learned Senior Counsel has relied upon the judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Satguru Singh vs. State of Punjab reported in AIR 1995 SC 2449, State of Punjab vs. Ajaib Singh and Ors. reported in (2005) 9 SCC 94 to submit that in case of an unexplained delay in lodging of the FIR, the prosecution case becomes doubtful. He also relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Ganesh Bhavan Patel and Another vs. State of Maharashtra reported in AIR 1979 SC 135 to submit that despite repeated request, the informant and the witnesses did not give their statements under Section 161 CrPC but after a long delay i.e. on 14.06.2003, the witnesses gave their statement. However, Rintu Singh (PW-6) never appeared before police to give his statement under Section 161 CrPC and this witness lastly appeared in the court which would be evident from paragraph ‘3’ of his cross-examination. Patna High Court G. APP. (DB) No.7 of 2024 dt.25-09-2025 Thus, there is a long delay in the statements of the witnesses hence they are not trustworthy witnesses and no reliance can be placed on them.

41. Learned Senior Counsel has relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Babu Sahebagouda Rudragoudar and Ors. vs. State of Karnataka reported in (2024) 8 SCC 149 to strengthen his submissions that where the order regarding acquittal of an accused is based on a plausible and justifiable view emanating from the discussion of the evidence available on the record, the trial court’s judgment cannot be said to be suffering from any infirmity or perversity. He has further relied upon the judgment in the case of Ram Lakhan Singh and Others vs. State of U.P. reported in (1977) 3 SCC 268 to submit that some of the prosecution witnesses were not examined by the police nor were they cited in the charge-sheet, in a grave charge of murder, it will not be proper to place reliance on a witness who never figured during the investigation and was not named in the charge-sheet. In this case, it is submitted that Rintu Singh (PW-6) was neither examined by police nor he was named in the charge-sheet, thus no reliance may be placed on his evidence. Patna High Court G. APP. (DB) No.7 of 2024 dt.25-09-2025 Analysis of the evidences

42. Asha Devi (PW-1) is the informant of this case. In her deposition, she has stated that the deceased was her husband. The occurrence is of 30.04.2003 between 11:00-11:30 AM. At that time, she was going to a doctor for her treatment. She was going in her own vehicle of which the Registration No. is BR1T 0222. The vehicle was being driven by her husband, on the front seat, Rintu Singh was sitting, in the middle seat, Sanjay and Jeevan were sitting and on the backseat, Nageshwar and Dheeraj were sitting. She has stated that when the vehicle reached Jamaluddin Chak, near the house of Ram Babu Pathik, there one Maruti vehicle was standing in such a manner that her vehicle could not have moved, then her husband took out his head outside the vehicle and asked the said Maruti vehicle driver to give side. PW-1 has further stated that three persons came out from the said vehicle and shouted that “Satya Narayan aa gaya”. On hearing their shouts, Ram Babu Pathik, Ritlal Yadav, Sunil Yadav @ Kana, Ranjan @ Benga and 8-10 persons armed with weapon came out from the house of Ram Babu Pathik. Ram Babu Pathik said “sala barka neta banta haa jaan se maar do”, in the meantime, Ritlal, Sunil and Benga pulled out the husband of the informant and started firing. Her husband fell down after receiving firearm injury. Patna High Court G. APP. (DB) No.7 of 2024 dt.25-09-2025 Ram Babu told to kill all who were sitting in the vehicle, whereafter Ritlal, Sunil and Benga started firing but the informant and others concealed themselves under the seats of the vehicle. PW-1 has stated that Dheeraj and Sanjay got injured in the firing and the vehicle had also marks of several firings. All the accused persons fled away thinking that all had died. She has specifically stated in her examination-in-chief that police came in the village, she was giving a written complaint but police did not take it whereafter she had filed an application in the court. At her instance, the written information was submitted to the Officer-in- Charge which was in the handwriting of Rajnish, it has been marked Exhibit ‘1’. The protest petition submitted by PW-1 in the court has also been brought on record and marked Exhibit ‘2’. This witness has further stated that Ram Babu Pathik happened to be the samdhi of the then Chief Minister, therefore, police was not taking up the case in proper direction/proper way. She has also stated that one of the witnesses of this case namely Sanjay @ Chunnu has been murdered in the year 2009 by the accused Ritlal Yadav. In her cross-examination, she has admitted this suggestion that on that day there was a “Tel Pilawan Lathi” rally of Rashtriya Janata Dal. The place of rally was Gandhi Maidan. She denied any Patna High Court G. APP. (DB) No.7 of 2024 dt.25-09-2025 knowledge as to whether the fact that there was a rally that day was known to her husband or the persons sitting in the vehicle or not. The defence suggested as to whether any of the villagers did not tell them not to go because a rally/procession had been marching out. The witness said that nobody had told her and she had not made any statement before the I.O. that many people had told her not to go out because procession was going on. This witness has further stated that one Rajnish aged about 21- 22 years of a neighbouring village had written the FIR on her asking at her house. Many villagers were present in the house, the dead body of her husband was kept in the gosala and the vehicle was standing outside. She denied her awareness that with regard to the same occurrence, Danapur P.S. Case No. 198 of 2003 had been registered or not. In her cross-examination, she has further stated that when she had started from Sarari, Rintu Singh was with her, he was known but she did not know his village and father’s name. She has further stated that Sanjay @ Chunnu Sharma, Jeevan Yadav and Arun Kumar were also with her. About Arun Kumar, she has stated that he died as he was killed. She has stated that he was her co-villager. She expressed her unawareness that whether Santosh was injured that day in any occurrence. She knew that Arun had got injured. About the presence of the persons who were Patna High Court G. APP. (DB) No.7 of 2024 dt.25-09-2025 in the vehicle, she has stated that they were not called but they were occasionally visiting her house. In her house, there were about 20-21 persons. In her written application and protest petition, she had not written that for treatment of which disease she was going. The defence has questioned this witness with regard to the criminal antecedents of Chunnu Sharma and Rintu Singh suggesting that they were having criminal antecedents of serious offences. The defence has also questioned the antecedent of the deceased husband of the informant. The informant has stated that she was not aware of the number of cases pending against her husband. She was married in the year 1986 and after her marriage, her husband had gone to jail once for 4-5 months but in which case he had gone to jail was not known to her. She denied her knowledge that her husband was accused in Danapur P.S. Case No. 238 of 1994 under Section 302 IPC, Shahpur P.S. Case No. 44 of 1996 under Section 307 IPC, Shahpur P.S. Case No. 64 of 1996 under Section 302 IPC and Shahpur P.S. Case No. 76 of 1997 under Section 25(i) B of the Arms Act. In her cross-examination, she has further stated that her protest petition was filed on

13.06.2003. She did not know that the witnesses named in the protest petition were accused or not in P.S. Case No. 198 of 2003. She did not remember whether the I.O. had recorded the statement Patna High Court G. APP. (DB) No.7 of 2024 dt.25-09-2025 of her children during investigation or not. The defence suggested PW-1 that she was not in the vehicle rather she was with her children but this witness denied the suggestion. The witness also denied the suggestion that for this reason, the children were not produced for their statement. She denied the suggestion that she was seen going to the place of occurrence after the occurrence.

43. PW-1 has stated that in her written application she had mentioned the name of Rintu Singh but she did not remember whether she had mentioned his name in the protest petition or not. She had mentioned the name of Arun in written application as well as in the protest petition and had also given name of Amar Rai. She was not aware that her brother Abhay was accused in the murder case of Sanjeet in Khagaul P.S. Case No. 3/04. PW-1 has further stated that her witness Rajnish was killed in the year 2005. She was not aware that in the said case Nageshwar Rai who is witness in this case, Ashok Rai who is her bhaisur, Sonu, his son and her bhagina were accused. The defence suggested that because he was not ready to depose falsely in this case so he was killed.

44. In paragraph ‘18’ of her deposition, PW-1 has stated that she did not remember that in the past in Sessions Trial No. 246/08 she had stated about her knowledge of Danapur P.S. Case No. 198 of 2003. She did not remember that with regard to this Patna High Court G. APP. (DB) No.7 of 2024 dt.25-09-2025 occurrence, Danapur P.S. Case No. 198 of 2003 was registered and the said case was lodged against 1000-1500 unknown people. She did not remember to have stated in the said case in court that there was an exchange of firing between police and accused persons in which Arun had become injured. She did not remember to have stated in the said case that Arun was also an accused in the said case. In paragraph ‘19’ she has stated that her husband was a candidate in the Assembly Election of the year 2002 from Danapur Constituency as candidate of Bharatiya Janata Party and Dr. Ramanand Yadav was a candidate of the Rashtriya Janata Dal. In the said election accused Ritlal Yadav, Sunil, Benga and others were the supporters of RJD. Dr. Ramanand Yadav had won the election and at that time the accused was mukhiya of Kothwa Gram Panchayat. After this election, the said procession was taken out by RJD. The witness was suggested that in the said procession, the supporters of RJD were going in the rally, this witness denied her awareness about the same. While answering the question of the defence, PW-1 has stated that from Sarari via Kothwa to Gandhi Maidan there is no route for going from Kothwa to Sarari. There is a pakki road going from Kothwa to Bailley Road which is passing north-south. This road connects the road going to Patna at the canal. The place of occurrence is 5-6 kilometre west-south from Patna High Court G. APP. (DB) No.7 of 2024 dt.25-09-2025 Kothwa. She has stated that Jamaluddin Chak village is situated on the both sides north and south of the railway line. Straight south in Sarari there is a railway gumti and after crossing the gumti, Jamaluddin village is reached. This is a pakki road which goes to Patna via Khagaul, in between there is DRM Office. There is two route one from Lakhpat road and another passing through DRM Office.

45. PW-1 has further stated that at the time of occurrence, she had concealed herself under the seat and she had stated this in her protest petition also. She denied the suggestion that she could not have concealed herself under the seat. She has stated that she was lodging the case on the same day but police registered the case on the other day. She denied the suggestion of the defence that the case was lodged after much deliberation. The defence suggested to this witness that her husband had assembled the criminals to make the procession/rally unsuccessful. The witness denied this suggestion. Then the defence further suggested that about 150-200 persons armed with weapons along with her husband had attacked the house of Pathik Ji and the criminals had attacked with bricks, stones and firearms. This suggestion was also denied. The defence then suggested that the guard had informed the Officer-in-Charge whereafter he had called commandos as Patna High Court G. APP. (DB) No.7 of 2024 dt.25-09-2025 there was a threat to his life. This witness denied the suggestion of the defence that for saving the life of Pathik Ji and others, firing was made and despite that when they did not disperse then police had fired on the criminals and eight police personnel were injured in the occurrence. This suggestion was also denied by this witness. This witness was suggested that in this encounter only her husband and the co-villager Santosh had got injured. The witness further denied the suggestion that after looking into the FIR of Thana Road P.S. Case No. 198 of 2003, she had lodged the FIR. She denied the suggestion that in the earlier application no name was mentioned. She also denied the suggestion that to defame Lalu Ji, house of Pathik Ji was chosen. The witness denied the suggestion that in her earlier statement she had not stated that her husband was pulled out. She has stated to have made statement that Ritlal, Sunil and Benga had pulled out her husband and she had also stated that they were involved in firing upon her husband. Observations of this Court

46. On perusal of the evidence of PW-1, it appears that as regards the place of occurrence, this witness has stated in her examination-in-chief that when her vehicle reached near the house of Rambabu Pathik in Jamaluddin Chak, there was a Maruti Car Patna High Court G. APP. (DB) No.7 of 2024 dt.25-09-2025 standing on the road in such a way that her vehicle could not have moved. It is this place where the accused persons came out from the house of Rambabu Pathik, pulled out her husband and killed him. Even the defence has suggested to this witness that the husband of this witness along with 1000-1500 persons had attacked the house of Pathik Ji and there the guard had informed the police whereafter police had come and then there was a firing firstly for saving the life of Pathik Ji and others and thereafter when the people did not disperse, police had made the firing in which the criminals and eight police personnel were injured. This Court, therefore, finds that the occurrence near the house of Pathik Ji has not been contested by the defence rather suggestions have been given by the defence in this regard making the place, i.e. the house of Pathik Ji, as the place of occurrence where firing had taken place. The learned trial court has recorded in its finding that the prosecution has not been able to prove the place of occurrence. The court has noticed that while informant has stated that the place of occurrence is near the house of Rambabu Pathik situated in Jamaluddin Chak, the I.O. has mentioned the place of occurrence on the Khagaul-Neora Main Road. Taking note of this, the trial court has raised doubt and said that the prosecution has not proved the place of occurrence. In order to conclude as to the place of Patna High Court G. APP. (DB) No.7 of 2024 dt.25-09-2025 occurrence, we will take a view after taking note of the evidence of the I.O. (PW-8).

47. Kalavati Devi (PW-2) is the sister of the deceased Satyanarayan Sinha. She has supported the prosecution case. She had gone to Jamaluddin Chak where she had seen the dead body of her brother and found that his wife was weeping. She had heard that Ritlal, Benga, Sunil and Shravan had killed her brother. We find that so far as this witness is concerned, she is not an eyewitness of the occurrence.

48. Sanjay Kumar (PW-3) is one of the witnesses of the production-cum-seizure list. He has identified his signature on the same which has been marked Exhibit ‘3/1’. He has also identified the signature of the another witness, Rajesh, which has been marked Exhibit ‘3/2’. He has stated that there was a blood-stained gamcha (towel) which was seized and blood was also there in the vehicle, there were also marks of firing on the vehicle. He has identified his signature on the another seizure list which has been marked Exhibit ‘3/3’. He has also identified the signature of Ramanand Rai, who is another witness, as Exhibit ‘3/4’. In his cross-examination, he has stated that the seizure list was prepared on 10.05.2003 after 15-20 days and after looking to the seizure list, he has stated that in the seizure list it is not stated that there was a Patna High Court G. APP. (DB) No.7 of 2024 dt.25-09-2025 towel on the driving seat. There was also no writing in the seizure list that on which part of the vehicle there were marks of firing.

49. Nageshwar Prasad Yadav (PW-4) has stated in his examination-in-chief that he was in the vehicle on 30.04.2003 in between 11:00-11.30 AM. Satyanarayan Sinha was driving the vehicle and in the said vehicle there were other people. He had left the house for going to the doctor. He has stated that in the western side when came in front of the house then they saw one Maruti parked from which 3-4 persons came out and shouted that “Satya Narayan aa gaya”. From the house of Pathik Ji, Ritlal Yadav, Sunil Yadav and Ranjan Yadav came out and Pathik Ji said that “sala barka neta banta hai jaan se maar do”. On this Ritlal Yadav, Sunil Yadav and Ranjan Yadav all the three started firing. After suffering the bullet, Satyanarayan Sinha fell down at the place of occurrence. He has stated that Sanjay Sharma @ Chunnu Sharma and Dheeraj had also suffered bullet. This witness has stated that Satyanarayan Sinha had died, they had brought the vehicle driving to the village. The defence has cross-examined this witness with regard to the distance. He has stated that he got acquainted with Satyanarayan Sinha in the year 2003. He first met him in Lakshmi Chak village in the house of Badri Rai who is his bhagina. This witness was suggested that he was accused with Sinha in Khagaul Patna High Court G. APP. (DB) No.7 of 2024 dt.25-09-2025 P.S. Case No. 86 of 2005 and he was also accused in Khagaul P.S. Case No. 4 of 2004, Khagaul P.S. Case No. 59 of 2003 and some other cases but the witness denied his knowledge about those cases. He denied the suggestion that he was knowingly suppressing that he was an accused in those cases. This witness has stated that he had gone to Sarari village by a motorcycle. The said motorcycle is registered in the name of his brother Mahendra Kumar. He has stated that the place of occurrence is in Danapur Sub-Division. This witness has also stated that on the date of occurrence there was a procession/rally of RJD which was arranged in the Gandhi Maidan. This witness has stated that he had correctly recorded his statement before Daroga Ji. He has stated that he had not given his statement in the chamber of DIG. He has stated that he had given his statement in the house of Sinha Sahab. He denied the suggestion that he had gone to DIG for the first time on 19.06.2003. He has also denied the suggestion that on the said day, Asha Devi, Chunnu Sharma and Dheeraj had gone. He has stated that he did not remember that the dead body was taken out after two days, but he has stated that the dead body was lifted from the Sarari house and postmortem was done in Danapur from where they had gone to the burning ghat. He has denied the various suggestions given by the defence. He also Patna High Court G. APP. (DB) No.7 of 2024 dt.25-09-2025 showed his unawareness that for the occurrence of the same day, police had registered Danapur P.S. Case No.198 of 2003. He denied the suggestion that police was regularly searching the witnesses. He has stated that he has given the same statement in court which he had given before police. He has stated that he had not stated before police that west to the house a Maruti car was seen parked rather he had stated that from the Maruti 3-4 persons had come out and they were saying that “Satya Narayan Aa Gaya”, from the house of Pathik Ji, Ritlal Yadav, Sunil Yadav and Ranjan Yadav came out and on the asking of Pathik Ji, Ritlal Yadav, Sunil Yadav and Ranjan Yadav all the three had fired upon Satyanarayan Sinha as a result whereof he fell down on the place of occurrence. He has stated that the 3-4 persons who had come out of the Maruti car could not be identified. He denied the suggestion that Satyanarayan Sinha had come to disturb the rally and he was planning it for 3-4 days. He denied the suggestion that people had attacked the house of Pathik Ji. He also denied the suggestion that unknown people had killed Satyanarayan Sinha. He has stated that he was not aware that in the neighbourhood of the place of occurrence there is any Railway Hospital or not. He has stated that he had not gone to the Railway Hospital. He denied the suggestion that arms and ammunition were kept in the vehicle Patna High Court G. APP. (DB) No.7 of 2024 dt.25-09-2025 for using the same in case of need. He also denied the suggestion that the vehicle was kept concealed for nine days. The defence suggested this witness that the house of Pathik Ji was attacked and police was compelled to fire in which two persons of Sarari village were killed and police personnel were also got injured, the witness said that he was not aware of this.

50. Dheeraj Kumar (PW-5) is the nephew of the deceased who claims that he was accompanying the deceased in the Bolero vehicle which was being driven by Satyanarayan Sinha. Regarding the place of occurrence, this witness has also stated that when near the house of Pathik Ji, the vehicle reached then a white colour Maruti was found standing there and his uncle asked them to keep the vehicle in a side whereafter they shouted that “Satya Narayan Aa Gaya”. This witness has stated that from the house of Pathik Ji, Ritlal Yadav, Sunil Yadav and Benga Yadav with 8-10 persons came out and on the asking of Pathik Ji, Satyanarayan Sinha was pulled out and three persons namely Ritlal, Sunil and Benga had fired at him as a result whereof he got injured and fell down. He has stated that he was treated in Railway Hospital and PMCH. He identified Ritlal and other accused persons. In his cross-examination, this witness has stated that after the occurrence, he had not gone to the Primary Health Center in Sarari Patna High Court G. APP. (DB) No.7 of 2024 dt.25-09-2025 village which is situated at a distance of one kilometer from the village. He had not given statement before police that he had got treatment of the firearm injury at Saguna More. He had not shown the treatment papers to the I.O. He has stated that the I.O. had told him that he would himself collect the papers. He has stated that at the time of occurrence, he was a student and he was studying in class 8th or 9th in a government school. He had left the school in the year 2006 and had done his Matriculation from the Maner area. He has denied the suggestion of the defence that he was standing near Sarari Gumti. He also denied the suggestion of the defence that he had been waiting at Sarari Gumti for a long time because there was no vehicle that day and on the same day when his uncle came in vehicle near the gumti, then he and Sugriv boarded the vehicle. He had shown his unawareness that his uncle had ever gone to jail. The defence has cross-examined this witness on the point of his treatment for the injury. This witness has stated that he was not aware that who had got him admitted in the hospital and he was not aware that in the paper what is the date of admission and what is the date of discharge. He denied the suggestion of the defence that he had made statement before police that while trying to flee away, he had suffered the firearm injury. He denied the suggestion that there was no mark of firearm injury on his hand. He denied Patna High Court G. APP. (DB) No.7 of 2024 dt.25-09-2025 the suggestion that he had stated about suffering of firearm injury only to become a witness. He also denied the suggestion that he was deposing as tutored by Asha Ji and Nageshwar Ji. He has further stated that he had made statement before police that when their vehicle reached near the house of Pathik Ji in Jamaluddin Chak, then Satyanarayan Ji told to give side to the Maruti vehicle from which three persons came out and they shouted that “Satya Narayan Aa Gaya” and then from the house of Pathik ji, Ritlal Yadav, Sunil Yadav, Benga and 8-10 persons had come out and then they had pulled out Satyanarayan Sinha and fired upon him. He has then stated that he and Chunnu had suffered firearm injury and he was treated in Railway Hospital and PMCH. He denied his knowledge that in the FIR of Danapur P.S. Case No.198 of 2003 many persons from his village and Jamaluddin Chak were accused. In the said occurrence, Arun and Santosh had suffered firearm injury in which Arun had died. He was not aware that eight police personnel had received injuries. He denied the suggestion that his uncle along with 200-250 people had attacked the house of Pathik Ji, police had tried to stop them and ultimately 104 rounds of firing were made in self-defence in which the people in the crowd and police personnel became injured. Patna High Court G. APP. (DB) No.7 of 2024 dt.25-09-2025 Observations of this Court

51. This Court has noticed from the pattern of cross- examination of the defence that there is no suggestion to the prosecution witnesses that Satyanarayan Sinha or people with him had made firing on the house of Pathik Ji rather the suggestion is that police had made 104 rounds of firing in self-defence in which people in the crowd and police personnel had got injured. Thus, the defence has itself suggested that police personnel got injured in the firing which had been done by police. On record, there is no injury report of any police personnel. No one of them is a witness in this case.

52. Rintu Singh (PW-6) has also supported the prosecution case and he has given the same place of occurrence and the manner of occurrence in his examination-in-chief. He has stated in his cross-examination that his statement was not taken, his name is there in the FIR but he had not recorded his statement before any police officer. He has been cross-examined by the defence and the defence has questioned his presence at the place of occurrence.

53. Dr. Narendra Kumar Singh (PW-7) was posted at Sub-Division, Danapur as Deputy Superintendent. He has stated that a Medical Board was constituted for the postmortem Patna High Court G. APP. (DB) No.7 of 2024 dt.25-09-2025 examination of Satyanarayan Sinha and his dead body was brought from Gosala at Village Sarari. The body was brought and identified by the Havaldar Lalan Singh, Ashok Rai and Rameshwar Rai. He had found the following injuries:- (i) Lacerated wound 2½” x 2” depth continued inside plus blackening around below the right ear. There was partial laceration over right ear lobule. It was the entry wound. (ii) Lacerated wound 5” x 3” depth continued with injury no. (i) in front of left ear and left side of face. This is exit wound. There is fracture of right side of mandible, left side of mandible and maxilla. (iii) Lacerated wound 3½” x 3½” depth continued inside in front and below right shoulder joint plus slide blackening around. It was the entry wound. (iv) Lacerated wound 5” x 3” depth continued with injury no. (iii) on the back of the neck. This is exit wound. (v) Lacerated wound 1” x 1” omentum sprouting outside of right side of abdomen plus blackening around the entry wound. External Examination:- Scalp – Meningal surface pale Thorax – There is slight laceration of right upper lobe of lung and blood collection in thoracic cavity. Right chamber full, left empty Abdomen - Vicera, liver, spleen, kidney and gut – general look pale. There is collection of blood and gas. Slight laceration of ilium. Urinary bladder is empty. Stomach contained undigested food. Small gut – Liquid, semidigested food and gas. Large gut contained faceas of gas. Fragments of bullet are found in the wall of abdomen and inside the wall of pidium which was handed over to the constable. Patna High Court G. APP. (DB) No.7 of 2024 dt.25-09-2025 (4) Time elapsed since death – 36 hours (5) Injuries from (i) to (v) were firearm injuries causing hemorrhage, shock and death. (6) This P.M. report in in the handwriting of Dr. H.K. Jha and written in my presence. It bears the signature of Dr. H.K. Jha, Dr. Ram Niwas Pd. And mine. The P.M. report was marked Exhibit – 4 (7) Blackening around injury suggests that firing was resorted to from close range. Observations of this Court

54. On perusal of the evidence of doctor (PW-7), it is found that Satyanarayan Sinha had suffered at least three firearm injuries. A fragment of bullet was found on the wall of abdomen and inside the wall of pidium which was handed over to the Constable. The time elapsed since death is recorded as ‘36’ hours and the cause of death were the injuries from 1 to 5 causing hemorrhage, shock and death. He has further stated that blackening around the injury suggested that firing was resorted to from close range. The injuries present on the body of the deceased and the fact that there were blackening around the injury only corroborates the manner of occurrence as stated by the informant and the other prosecution witnesses.

55. Arshad Jama (PW-8) was posted as Dy.S.P. Sachivalaya in the year 2003. He got the charge of investigation of Danapur P.S. Case No. 200/03 vide Memo No. 3007/XL dated Patna High Court G. APP. (DB) No.7 of 2024 dt.25-09-2025

02.05.2003. After taking charge of the investigation, he had inspected the place of occurrence. He has stated that the place of occurrence is the main road going from Danapur Station to Shivala. At a distance of 1200 yards there is Danapur Railway Station, in the west at 350 yards, there is Sarari Gumti and a chauraha where on the road in the diameter of 18 inch blood was found lying. He had seized the blood-soaked soil from there. He had also found broken glass pieces. He has stated that about 25 yards east to the place of occurrence, there is a 10-feet wide road which goes to Lanka Colony towards north and on the west side road culvert, he had found two scooter and one Maruti van in burnt condition. He has stated that about 30 yards east from the place of occurrence and north to the main road, there is house of Shri Mahendra Prasad Sinha, thereafter the house of Gauri Lal and behind the house of Mahendra Prasad Sinha and Gauri Lal, there is the house of Rambabu Pathik. According to this witness, at the time of occurrence, the people going to the rally were coming to Lanka Colony More from west Sarari-Gumti towards Jamaluddin Chowk. From the description of the place of occurrence given by the I.O., we find that the house of Rambabu Pathik is very close to the place of occurrence. Thus, the prosecution case with regard to the place of occurrence is, in fact, getting corroborated from the evidence of the Patna High Court G. APP. (DB) No.7 of 2024 dt.25-09-2025 I.O. (PW-8). The I.O. had found blood marks there and he had prepared the seizure list. It is evident from the postmortem report (Exhibit ‘4’) of the deceased that apart from the three firearm injuries, he had not suffered any other injury on his body, therefore, it cannot be said that he was attacked by the people going in the rally. The defence has suggested that he was killed in the firing made by police, but the bullet recovered from the body of the deceased was not sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory and no matching of the bullet was done with the firearm by which the firing had been done by police. The learned trial court has not considered these aspects of the matter. The I.O. has proved the seizure list (Exhibit ‘1/11’). He has stated about a second place of occurrence from where he had seized the Bolero Jeep and prepared the seizure list (Exhibit ‘1/12’). He has stated to have sent the seized material from the place of occurrence to the FSL and got 82- 83 process against Ritlal Yadav. He had taken Ritlal Yadav into custody after he surrendered. He has stated in paragraph ‘6’ that prior to his taking over the investigation, the earlier I.O. had done the investigation. He had taken over charge of the investigation on 03.05.2003 but he had not recorded in the diary that he had perused the case diary recorded by the earlier I.O. This witness has stated that the earlier I.O. had Patna High Court G. APP. (DB) No.7 of 2024 dt.25-09-2025 inspected the place of occurrence on 02.05.2003 and he had recorded that the place of occurrence is the pakki road adjacent to Khagaul and at the place of occurrence, this road has gone from east to west. At this place only, Satyanarayan Sinha was shot at. In paragraph ‘12’, the I.O. had not recorded as to finding of anything at the place of occurrence. Observations of this Court

56. An analysis of the evidence of the I.O. (PW-8) would show that even though the occurrence had taken place on

30.04.2003, the earlier I.O. had not gone to the place of occurrence and though PW-8 has stated that the earlier I.O. had gone to the place of occurrence on 02.05.2003, i.e., on the third day after the occurrence, he had not found anything at the place of occurrence but when PW-8 went to the place of occurrence, he found blood- stained soil and the pieces of broken glasses. To this Court, it appears that the police was completely indifferent to the occurrence of killing of Satyanarayan Sinha, the prosecution witness, particularly PW-1, has clearly suggested that Rambabu Pathik happened to be the samdhi of the then Chief Minister of the State, therefore, police was not doing proper investigation of the case. We find that the evidence of PW-8 clearly suggests and demonstrates Patna High Court G. APP. (DB) No.7 of 2024 dt.25-09-2025 that the police had not done anything after the occurrence to register the case and collect the evidences.

57. At this stage, we find that the informant (PW-1) filed a protest petition in the court of the learned jurisdictional Magistrate. The said protest petition has been brought on record in evidence. In the protest petition, she has alleged that the police was in collusion with the accused persons and the senior police officers of the Government of Bihar and the I.O. were not taking any legal action in the matter. The I.O. had not recorded the statement of the informant (PW-1) and that of the witnesses. This protest petition was filed in the court of learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Danapur on 13.06.2003, whereafter only the I.O. (PW- 8) recorded the statement of PW-1. In his statement, in course of trial, the I.O. (PW-8) has recorded that he reached Sarari village and wanted to take statement of Asha Devi (PW-1) but she was not willing to give her statement. In paragraph ‘14’ of the case diary, he had recorded that the earlier I.O. had reached Sarari and wanted to record the restatement of the informant and other witnesses but nobody appeared. There is no such recording by earlier I.O. This statement of PW-8 cannot be believed by this Court. The protest petition clearly states that police was not taking any action in the matter and only at a belated stage, a case was developed that PW-1 Patna High Court G. APP. (DB) No.7 of 2024 dt.25-09-2025 and other witnesses were not willing to record statement. He had not even examined the earlier I.O. but has on his own recorded in paragraph ‘14’ of the case diary that the earlier I.O. had tried to take statement of the informant but informant had denied to give statement. The I.O. has stated in paragraph ‘12’ of the deposition about the recording in paragraph ‘80’ and ‘81’ of the case diary. He has stated that the informant had told him that she would give her statement on 14.06.2003. This date of 14.06.2003 is to be read keeping in mind that the informant (PW-1) had filed her protest petition in the court on 13.06.2003 which came to the notice of the I.O. (PW-8) and thereafter in order to save himself he recorded that the informant (PW-1) had stated that she would make her statement on 14.06.2003. This Court further finds that in paragraph ‘13’ of his cross- examination, the I.O. (PW-8) has stated that in course of investigation he had not recorded in the case diary any report of the Forensic Science Laboratory. He had not recorded the statement of the earlier I.O. Indrajeet Singh was the I.O. of the Danapur P.S. Case No. 198 of 2003 but this witness (PW-8) had not recorded the statement of Indrajeet Singh because he did not think it proper to record his statement. Patna High Court G. APP. (DB) No.7 of 2024 dt.25-09-2025 It is evident from the statement of PW-8 that he was not at all taking interest in the investigation and he did not think it proper to even record the statement of the earlier I.O. of this case and that of the I.O. of Danapur P.S. Case No. 198 of 2003. He has stated to have recorded in paragraph ‘124’ of the case diary that he had submitted an application in the court of learned A.C.J.M., Danapur for amalgamation of Case No. 198/03, 199/03 and 200/03 on the direction of the Inspector General of Police. This witness had not done any photography of the place of occurrence, he had not prepared any sketch map of the place of occurrence. He has stated that the independent witnesses had denied to have seen PW-1 in the vehicle with Satyanarayan Sinha but no such witness has been examined on behalf of the defence.

58. This Court finds that the defence has suggested that the house of Rambabu Pathik was attacked by Satyanarayan Sinha and the people assembled with him but the I.O. (PW-8) has stated that he had not recorded the statement of the guards who were present at the house of Rambabu Pathik. He has admitted that at his house, the guards were on duty. This Court, therefore, finds that the defence has, though, suggested to the prosecution witnesses that the house of Rambabu Pathik was attacked but on this point no material at all has come. The I.O. (PW-8) has not stated in his examination- Patna High Court G. APP. (DB) No.7 of 2024 dt.25-09-2025 in-chief that there was any occurrence of attack on the house of Rambabu Pathik. He has, in fact, categorically admitted in paragraph ‘8’ of his deposition that the place of occurrence, time of occurrence and the date of occurrence of the present case and that of Danapur P.S. Case No. 198 of 2003 is the same and one.

59. This Court is of the opinion that the I.O. of this case had not at all done proper investigation of the case, he left several lacuna in the investigation but notwithstanding those lacunae, the prosecution has been able to prove the place of occurrence, date of occurrence and time of occurrence as also the manner of occurrence. The defence cross-examined I.O. (PW-8) with regard to the earlier statement of witness Asha Devi (PW-1). The I.O. has stated that PW-1 had not stated before him that she had hidden herself under the seat and she had not made a statement that Ritlal, Sunil and Benga were firing then she had hidden herself under the seat. She had stated that Sinha Ji had fallen down in the vehicle itself. This Court finds that the statement of the I.O. (PW-8) with regard to the statement of Asha Devi before him in course of investigation would not create any doubt over the prosecution case and it would not discredit the prosecution witness number 1. It is her consistent case that she was present in the vehicle with her husband when her husband was killed, there is no change in her Patna High Court G. APP. (DB) No.7 of 2024 dt.25-09-2025 statement and even in the protest petition the informant (PW-1) has stated that the accused persons had pulled out her husband and Ritlal Yadav, Sunil Yadav and Ranjan Kumar had fired upon her husband as a result whereof he had become injured and fallen down. She has, then stated that again Rambabu Pathik told them to kill the people sitting in the vehicle whereafter all the 10-12 criminals started firing but she had hidden herself in the vehicle under the seat. She had stated that the vehicle had several marks of firearm injuries but this I.O. (PW-8) had not sent the vehicle to the FSL. This witness has stated that the vehicle was produced by the informant after eleven days but he had not produced the vehicle seized in the court. He has admitted that from the vehicle one gamcha (towel) and blood scratch were found but he had not sent the said gamcha to the FSL.

60. Umesh Kumar (PW-9) was the doctor posted at Danapur Railway Hospital on 30.04.2003. He brought the treatment paper of Dheeraj Kumar (PW-5). He has stated that Dheeraj Kumar was kept in observation in the hospital on 30.04.2003 at 1:15 PM. He has stated that on treatment paper it is written that there is an injury on the right forearm. He was administered medicine and injection on an other paper name Dheeraj Kumar is written which is the record of hospital. He has identified his signature and writing on Patna High Court G. APP. (DB) No.7 of 2024 dt.25-09-2025 the paper which has been marked Exhibit ‘5’. In his cross- examination this witness has stated that one page is in his handwriting and no case number is mentioned on the injury report. He had not recorded about police requisition and Dheeraj Kumar had not put his signature in his presence. The evidence of the doctor (PW-9) could go on to demonstrate that Dheeraj Kumar (PW-5) was very much admitted in the Railway Hospital immediately after the occurrence on 30.04.2003 and he had received treatment there. Thus, the presence of PW-5 at the place of occurrence and his statement that he had suffered injury cannot be discarded. Consideration

61. A perusal of the entire evidence available on the record would lead this Court to take a view that the learned trial court has not properly appreciated the ocular and the documentary evidences available on the record. The evidence of the I.O. (PW-8) is that the place of occurrence of this case is the same and one which is the place of occurrence of Danapur P.S. Case No. 198 of

2003. It is near the house of Rambabu Pathik. The trial court has completely missed out to see that for the occurrence which took place immediately after murder of Satyanarayan Sinha, Shri Pramod Kumar, Inspector of Police, Danapur had registered Danapur P.S. Case No. 198 of 2003 on the basis of his self- Patna High Court G. APP. (DB) No.7 of 2024 dt.25-09-2025 statement. The FIR has though been shown registered on

30.04.2003 but it was sent to the court of learned ACJM, Danapur only on 02.05.2003, therefore at the time of sending the FIR of Danapur P.S. Case No. 198 of 2003, the police was fully aware of the case disclosed by the informant (PW-1) in her written information. The investigation of Danapur P.S. Case No. 198 of 2003 was entrusted to one Indrajeet Sinha, Sub-Inspector. For no plausible reason, neither Pramod Kumar, Inspector of Police nor Indrajeet Sinha the I.O. of the case were examined by the second I.O. (PW-8). PW-8 had taken charge of the investigation of Danapur P.S. Case No. 198 of 2003, 199 of 2003 and 200 of 2003 on

02.05.2003 and had visited the place of occurrence on 03.05.2003.

62. PW-8 has given the description of the place of occurrence in paragraph ‘1’ of his examination-in-chief. He had found blood in 18” inch diameter in the middle of the road, he says about presence of the broken glass pieces and he had also found two scooters and one Maruti van in burnt condition near the place of occurrence. He has also stated that at the time of occurrence people going to the rally were coming from different vehicles to Lanka Colony More and from Western Sarari Gumti to Jamaluddin Chak. There are ample evidences on the record to show that on

30.04.2003, the ruling party in the state had organised a rally named Patna High Court G. APP. (DB) No.7 of 2024 dt.25-09-2025 and styled as “Tel Pilawan, Lathi gumawan” rally. From the deposition of the I.O. (PW-8) it is evident that near the place of occurrence, a Maruti van was found in burnt condition. It is the prosecution case that on 30.04.2003 at about 11:30 AM when Satyanarayan Sinha was going on in his Bolero vehicle and reached near that place, he found that a Maruti vehicle was standing on the way in such a position that his vehicle could not have moved ahead, on this he asked the persons to park the Maruti in one side and allow him to move. At this stage, some people came outside the Maruti and they shouted that “Satya Narayan aa gaya”. Thereafter, the accused persons came outside the house of Ram Babu Pathik and then the occurrence took place. Presence of blood at the place of occurrence has been found by the I.O. with broken glass pieces. It is evident that the first I.O., who was in charge of the case from

30.04.2003 to 02.05.2003, did not take any step save and except to register one FIR being Danapur P.S. Case No.198 of 2003 dated

30.04.2003 but the same was sent to the learned A.C.J.M. Court only on 02.05.2003, therefore, the informant has contended that P.S. Case No. 198 of 2003 was lodged to help the accused. A perusal of the formal FIR of Danapur P.S. Case No.198 of 2003 (Exhibit ‘B’) would show that the said case was registered on the basis of self- statement of Pramod Kumar, Inspector of Police. In connection with Patna High Court G. APP. (DB) No.7 of 2024 dt.25-09-2025 the said case, the informant prepared a seizure list on 30.04.2003 at 14:45 Hrs. Regarding the place from where the seizure was made, the seizure list says Khagaul-Neora Road, Village Jamaluddin Chak situated “Additional Primary Health Center, in front of Sarari Gumti Southern Road - found in scattered conditions here and there. It shows (i) seizure of nine 12 bore empty cartridges (ii) Two KF 8 mm cartridges and (iii) Three sacks of brick and stone pieces. In the chargesheet bearing No. 101/04 dated 26.04.2004, Rintu Singh @ Ravi Kamal Kishore Singh and Sanjay Kumar @ Chunnu Rai have been shown as accused persons. A perusal of the chargesheet/final form (Exhibit ‘D-1’) would show that the said case was registered under Sections 147, 148, 149, 307, 353, 337, 338, 435, 431 and 397 IPC read with Section 27 of the Arms Act and 26A of the Indian Railways Act. The investigation was initially handed over to Indrajeet Tiwari and in this case, twelve named and 1000-1500 unknown persons were made accused. Ultimately, the charge-sheet was filed against two accused persons as stated above and the investigation was kept pending against others.

63. On record, the copy of the written information giving rise to Danapur P.S. Case No. 198 of 2003 registered on 30.04.2003 by Pramod Kumar, Inspector is not available. In fact, the certified copy of the formal FIR of P.S. Case No. 198 of 2003 together with a Patna High Court G. APP. (DB) No.7 of 2024 dt.25-09-2025 written information submitted by Havaldar M.M. Sattar Sheikh of Bihar Military Police-9 dated 01.05.2003 is on the record. From this written information (Exhibit ‘B-1’), it appears that a force of 1-4 of Bihar Military Police-9, Jamalpur was placed at the house of Sri Rambabu Pathik, the samdhi of the then Chief Minister of Bihar, situated at Jamaluddin Chak, Danapur. He has alleged that on

30.04.2003 at about 12 noon, two criminals had an encounter with each other on Khagaul-Neora Road near Jamaluddin Chak. In this occurrence, 500-600 unknown persons attacked the house of Rambabu Pathik, they started throwing stones and bricks and firing from behind, the informant claimed that he tried to stop them by shouting but the crowd was agitated and they started burning the vehicles which were passing through the road, they also attacked on the informant and the force. On his order, the Constable 672 Sukhlal Tudu fired one round in the air for safety, in the meantime the police force from Danapur Police Station reached there. Havaldar M.M. Sattar handed over one empty cartridge shell. This Exhibit ‘B-1’ is addressed to the Officer-in-Charge of Danapur Police Station. It is evident that the application has been written by Havaldar on 01.05.2003 and it was sent to the court of learned ACJM, Danapur on 02.05.2003. The copy of the formal FIR of this case has not been exhibited but on perusal of the case diary of the Patna High Court G. APP. (DB) No.7 of 2024 dt.25-09-2025 present case, this Court finds that this was the second case which was registered in connection with an occurrence giving rise to Danapur P.S. Case No. 199 of 2003 and the investigation of this case was also handed over to PW-8.

64. The prosecution in this case has established that the killing of Satyanarayan Sinha took place on 30.04.2003 at 11:30 AM. Perusal of the written information of Havaldar M.M. Sattar would indicate that the occurrence reported by him took place soon after the killing of Satyanarayan Sinha. Although according to the Havaldar, the occurrence took place at 12 noon, but he submitted a written application in this regard only on the next day i.e. on

01.05.2003. Be that as it may, according to him, Sipahi Tudu had resorted to one round of firing only and the empty cartridge shell was handed over by him to the Officer-in-Charge of Police Station. The informant or the I.O. of P.S. Case No. 198 of 2003 have not been examined. PW-8 does not say that police force which arrived from Danapur resorted to the firing on the crowd. In that circumstance, a question would arise as to who were the persons who resorted to firing. Havaldar Sattar has said in Exhibit 'B-1' that two criminals had a fight with each other, he was required to be examined, but the I.O. (PW-8) neither examined him nor he examined any of the guards who were posted at the house of Patna High Court G. APP. (DB) No.7 of 2024 dt.25-09-2025 Rambabu Pathik. In this connection, he has stated in paragraph ‘17’ of his deposition that in paragraph ‘114’ of the case diary, he had recorded that Satyanarayan Sinha was killed in the position of sitting on the driver’s seat but he had not recorded the statement of the guards who were present at the house of Rambabu Pathik. PW-8 has admitted in paragraph ‘17’ of his deposition that the guards were on duty at the house. The defence suggested to this witness (PW-8) that whatever murder took place, it took place in the police encounter but the accused was falsely implicated, the I.O. (PW-8) denied this suggestion of the defence. This deposition of PW-8 would show that PW-8 has denied that the murder took place in the encounter with the police. In the above-mentioned background of the facts emerging from the records, the first seizure list dated

30.04.2003 prepared at 14:45 Hrs. received in the court of learned ACJM, Danapur on 02.05.2003 is important. This seizure list has been prepared in connection with Danapur P.S. Case No. 198 of

2003. The certified copy of the same has been brought on record. We would reproduce the seizure list hereinbelow:- “tIrh lwph izlax & nkukiqj Fkkuk dkaM la[;k & 198@03 fnukad 30@04@03 /kkjk &147@ 148@149@307@322@353@337@338@435@431@427 Hkk0n0fo0] 27 vkeZ ,DV ,oa 126A(2)bafM;u jsyos ,DV 1 tIrh dh frfFk ,oa le;%& fnukad 30-04-03 dks 14%45 cts Patna High Court G. APP. (DB) No.7 of 2024 dt.25-09-2025 2 LFkku tgk¡ tIr fd;k x;k %& 3 xokgksa dk uke irk ftuds le{k tIrh dh xbZA %& ¼4½ tIr lkekuksa dk fooj.k %& ¼5½ xokgksa dk gLrk{kj %& [kxkSy usmjk jksM esa xzke tekyqÌhu pd fLFkr "vfrfjDr izkFkfed LokLF; dsUn ljkjh xqeVh" ds lkeus nf{k.k jksM ij tgk rgk¡ xhjk gqvk] Fkkuk nkukiqj ftyk iVukA ¼1½ uohu pUnz is0 Jh jke pUnz izlkn eq0& 'khoiqjh] vHk; dkcZu QSDVªh ds ikl Fkkuk 'kkL=h uxj ftyk & iVuk A/P –QkekZ flLV] vfrfjDr izkFkfed LokLF; dsUnz] ljkjh xqeVh tekyqÌhu] Fkkuk nkukiqj] iVukA ¼2½ egknso jk; is0 yksVu xksi lk0& tekyqÌhupd] Fkkuk nkukiqj] ftyk & iVukA ¼i½ 12 cksjk dk [kks[kk & 9 ¼uo½ ¼ii½ K.F. 8 M.M. isVh ij vafde [kks[kk &2 ¼nks½ ¼iii½ rhu cksjk bZV iRFkj ds VqdM+s ¼i½ uohu pUnz 30&04&03 ¼ii½ egknso jk; 30&04&03 ¼6½ iqfyl inkf/kdkjh dk gLrk{kj %& g0@& 30@04@03 vk0 fu0 lg Fkk0 iz0 nkukiqj Fkkuk tekyqÌhu ”

65. The I.O. (PW-8) has deposed in paragraph ‘5’ of his deposition that he had conducted a raid at the places of Sunil Yadav and Ritlal Yadav, had seized firearms from the place of Ritlal Yadav. He had also recorded the criminal antecedent of Ritlal Yadav, Shravan Yadav and Sunil Yadav. In this connection, a perusal of the case diary would show what has been stated by the I.O. (PW-8) with regard to the criminal antecedents of the accused may be found in paragraph ‘162’ of the case diary wherein the following criminal antecedents of Ritlal Yadav (respondent no.2) have been recorded:- "1& [kxkSy Fkkuk dkaM la[;k 64@95 fnukad 01&09&95 /kkjk 302@34 Hkk0nåfoå ,oa 27 vkE~lZ ,DVA 2& [kxkSy Fkkuk dkaM la[;k 65@95 fnukad 02&09&95 /kkjk 25¼1&ch½,@26@35 vkE~lZ ,DVA Patna High Court G. APP. (DB) No.7 of 2024 dt.25-09-2025 3& [kxkSy Fkkuk dkaM la[;k 50@95 fnukad 01&05&95 /kkjk 302@34 Hkk0nåfoå 25¼1&ch½,@26@27 vkE~lZ ,DVA 4&[kxkSy Fkkuk dkaM la[;k 64@96 fanukad 5&7&96 /kkjk 323@324@341@307@34 Hkk0nåfoå A 5& [kxkSy Fkkuk dkaM la[;k 52@98 fnukad 01&08&98 /kkjk 35--------- Hkk0nåfoå 27 vkE~lZ ,DVA 6& [kxkSy Fkkuk dkaM la[;k 54 @ 98 fnukad 06&08&98 /kkjk 302@34 Hkk0nåfoå ,oa 27 vkE~lZ ,DVA 7&& [kxkSy Fkkuk dkaM la[;k 10@99 fnukad 04&02&99 /kkjk 302@34 Hkk0nåfoå] 27 vkE~lZ ,DV ,oa 3@4 fo0ink0vf/k0"

66. It is important to note that the further part of paragraph ‘162’ and then paragraph ‘163’ are missing in the case diary. After page no. 1928180, the next page available in 1928182. The page no. 1928181 is missing in the case diary.

67. The respondent no.2 was absconding since the occurrence of 30.04.2003, on information that he had come to village Kothwa, the I.O. (PW-8) conducted a raid on 12.01.2004. He has stated about the seizure of firearms, the details of which may be found in paragraph ‘132’ of the case diary. Police had recovered two carbine, two magazine, fifteen live cartridges of 9 mm, one country-made pistol, 0.315 bore three live cartridges and five cartridges of 12 bore. In this connection, police registered Khagaul P.S. Case No. 6 of 2004 dated 22.01.2004 under Sections 25(1-b)a/26/35 of the Arms Act against respondent no.2 and others. (emphasis supplied) Patna High Court G. APP. (DB) No.7 of 2024 dt.25-09-2025

68. In his deposition, PW-8 has stated that the I.O. of Danapur P.S. Case No. 198 of 2003 was Indrajeet Singh but he had not recorded his statement after taking over the charge of investigation because he did not think it necessary to do so. In paragraph ‘15’, PW-8 has stated that there was no grievance with respect to the investigations done by him (Indrajeet Singh) in the two cases. In paragraph ‘8’ of his deposition, PW-8 has stated that he cannot say as to from whom he had taken charge of Case No. 198/03.

69. In paragraph ‘9’, PW-8 has stated that regarding Arun Kumar, he had come to know that witness Arun Kumar had died in the police firing in connection with Danapur P.S. Case No. 198 of

2003. From the deposition of PW-8 itself it is found that at the relevant time, the police was under immense pressure, otherwise there was no reason as to why a First Information Report giving rise to Case No. 198 of 2003 would not disclose about the murder of Satyanarayan Sinha in the occurrence which had already taken place at 11:30 AM on 30.04.2003. The Danapur P.S. Case No. 198 of 2003 was registered on 30.04.2003 at 16:00 hours and the time of receipt of information of the occurrence as shown in the formal FIR is 11:35 AM. The distance between police station and the place of occurrence has been shown as seven kilometer only, on that day as Patna High Court G. APP. (DB) No.7 of 2024 dt.25-09-2025 has come in the deposition of the witnesses the ruling political party had called for a rally known as “Tel Pilawan, Lathi gumawan” and Rambabu Pathik, who was the samdhi of the then Chief Minister, had arranged for snacks and beverages for the people attending the rally at his house. In this connection, the I.O. has stated in paragraph ‘2’ of his deposition that the people going to rally were going by different vehicles to Lanka Colony More towards Jamaluddin Chak vide Western Sarari Gumti. Armed force of 1-4 was also posted at the house of Rambabu Pathik and I.O. has stated in paragraph ‘7’ of his deposition that the earlier I.O. had inspected the place of occurrence on 02.05.2003 and had recorded that the place of occurrence is Khagaul-Neora Pakki Road and at the place of occurrence this road had gone from east to west and on the date of occurrence, on this road itself Satyanarayan Sinha was shot at but in paragraph ‘12’ of his deposition he had recorded that the I.O. did not find anything at the place of occurrence. This statement of PW- 8 in paragraph ‘7’ of his deposition clearly establishes that the I.O. of the case had not even visited the place of occurrence prior to

02.05.2003 and he had tried to mislead the investigation of the case by not recording that the place of occurrence of Danapur P.S. Case No. 198 of 2003 and that of the present case (Danapur P.S. Case Patna High Court G. APP. (DB) No.7 of 2024 dt.25-09-2025 No. 200 of 2003) was the same and one, from where several rounds of fired cartridges shells were seized on 30.04.2003 at 14:45 Hrs.

70. It is also evident that from the place of respondent no. 2, 12 bore cartridges were seized in course of raid and from the place of occurrence also nine cartridges shells of 12 bore were seized. The seizure list was made in course of investigation of the present case, but the I.O. (PW-8) did not take any step to collect evidence by sending those firearms and seized cartridges to the FSL. In paragraph ‘15’ of his deposition the I.O. has stated that in course of investigation the report of forensic science is to be entered in the case diary but in diary he had not entered forensic science report or any other report. In fact the I.O. (PW-8) has stated in paragraph ‘14’ that he had not recorded in the case diary whether he had received the examination report of the seized blood.

71. The conduct of the investigation in this case has been done with completely indifferent attitude firstly by the first I.O. and then by PW-8. In the name of investigation, only some paper work in the nature of formalities have been done, still the learned trial court has rejected the prosecution case by pointing out the lacunas in investigation.

72. This Courts finds on perusal of the order dated

11.02.2013 that the prosecution had filed a petition dated Patna High Court G. APP. (DB) No.7 of 2024 dt.25-09-2025

16.01.2013 to issue summons to the witnesses Sanjay Kumar, Dheeraj Kumar and Nageshwar Prasad which was allowed. It was the submission of the defence at that stage that the prosecution does not want to examine seventeen chargesheet witnesses saying that they are hearsay witnesses but this is factually incorrect and those witnesses are the eyewitnesses of the occurrence. The learned trial court accepted the plea of the prosecution and allowed the petition. This order attained finality, therefore no adverse inference could have been drawn by the learned trial court against the prosecution for not examining the seventeen chargesheet witnesses who according to the prosecution were not material witnesses and they were hearsay witnesses.

73. In the above background, the evidence of PW-1 in paragraph (v) that she had to submit an application-cum-protest petition in the court becomes important. In Exhibit ‘2’ she had complained to the court that police was not conducting investigation properly, the statement of the witnesses were not being recorded and because the samdhi of the Chief Minister of the State is involved in this case, therefore, the senior police officer and the I.O. have not taken any legal action in the matter. Exhibit ‘2’ was filed in court on 13.06.2003. PW-1 has stated that the vehicle had got dozens of marks of firing but this Court finds that when the Patna High Court G. APP. (DB) No.7 of 2024 dt.25-09-2025 I.O. (PW-8) prepared the seizure list of the Bolero vehicle bearing registration no. BR-1T/0222, on 10.05.2003 in the description of the seized vehicle only the color, registration number, engine number and chassis number of the vehicle were written. PW-8 did not mention about the condition of the vehicle in which it was seized on 10.05.2003. The vehicle was not sent to the FSL for examination but in order to explain this inaction, in paragraph ‘10’ of his deposition, PW-8 has stated that in paragraph ‘24’ of the case diary he had recorded that when he contacted the informant to give her statement, she refused to give her statement and when he requested her to send the Bolero vehicle to the Forensic Science Laboratory, she refused to do it. She also refused to give the complete name and address of the witnesses of the FIR. This statement of the I.O. must be looked into with reference to the case diary in order to get a complete picture of the progress of investigation. Paragraph ‘24’ and ‘25’ are recorded on 03.05.2003, the time is not mentioned. The vehicle was seized on 10.05.2003 and it was in lawful possession of the I.O. From the case diary it appears that on or after 10.05.2003, the I.O. did not take any step to send the vehicle to the FSL. It is, therefore, evident that despite being in lawful possession of the vehicle at least on 10.05.2003, the I.O. (PW-8) did not send the vehicle to FSL. It only strengthens the Patna High Court G. APP. (DB) No.7 of 2024 dt.25-09-2025 claim of the informant (PW-1) as stated in her protest petition (Exhibit ‘2’) that the senior police officers and the I.O. of the case were not taking legal action in the matter, as one of the accused in the case was the samdhi of the then Chief Minister.

74. PW-8 has stated in paragraph ‘14’ of his deposition that he had not produced the seized vehicle in the court, he had found one towel and blood scratch in the vehicle, but he had not mentioned about any other mark apart from these two things in the case diary. He had also mentioned about the release of the vehicle in the case diary. He had also not conducted any investigation that during the eleven days before seizure of the vehicle, the vehicle had gone to which place or places

75. This Court, while appreciating the evidences on the record, would rely upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Shahajan Ismail (supra). Paragraph ‘29’ and ‘30’ of the judgment are being reproduced as under:- “29. The appreciation of ocular evidence is a hard task. There is no fixed or straitjacket formula for appreciation of the ocular evidence. The judicially evolved principles for appreciation of ocular evidence in a criminal case can be enumerated as under: 29.1. While appreciating the evidence of a witness, the approach must be whether the evidence of the witness read as a whole appears to have a ring of truth. Once that impression is formed, it is undoubtedly necessary for the Court to scrutinise the evidence more particularly keeping in view the deficiencies, drawbacks and infirmities pointed out in Patna High Court G. APP. (DB) No.7 of 2024 dt.25-09-2025 the evidence as a whole and evaluate them to find out whether it is against the general tenor of the evidence given by the witness and whether the earlier evaluation of the evidence is shaken as to render it unworthy of belief. 29.2. If the Court before whom the witness gives evidence had the opportunity to form the opinion about the general tenor of evidence given by the witness, the appellate court which had not this benefit will have to attach due weight to the appreciation of evidence by the trial court and unless there are reasons weighty and formidable it would not be proper to reject the evidence on the ground of minor variations or infirmities in the matter of trivial details. 29.3. When eyewitness is examined at length it is quite possible for him to make some discrepancies. But courts should bear in mind that it is only when discrepancies in the evidence of a witness are so incompatible with the credibility of his version that the court is justified in jettisoning his evidence. 29.4. Minor discrepancies on trivial matters not touching the core of the case, hypertechnical approach by taking sentences torn out of context here or there from the evidence, attaching importance to some technical error committed by the investigating officer not going to the root of the matter would not ordinarily permit rejection of the evidence as a whole. 29.5. Too serious a view to be adopted on mere variations falling in the narration of an incident (either as between the evidence of two witnesses or as between two statements of the same witness) is an unrealistic approach for judicial scrutiny. 29.6. By and large a witness cannot be expected to possess a photographic memory and to recall the details of an incident. It is not as if a video tape is replayed on the mental screen. 29.7. Ordinarily it so happens that a witness is overtaken by events. The witness could not have anticipated the occurrence which so often has an element of surprise. The mental faculties therefore cannot be expected to be attuned to absorb the details. Patna High Court G. APP. (DB) No.7 of 2024 dt.25-09-2025

29.8. The powers of observation differ from person to person. What one may notice, another may not. An object or movement might emboss its image on one person's mind whereas it might go unnoticed on the part of another.

29.9. By and large people cannot accurately recall a conversation and reproduce the very words used by them or heard by them. They can only recall the main purport of the conversation. It is unrealistic to expect a witness to be a human tape recorder.

29.10. In regard to exact time of an incident, or the time duration of an occurrence, usually, people make their estimates by guess work on the spur of the moment at the time of interrogation. And one cannot expect people to make very precise or reliable estimates in such matters. Again, it depends on the time-sense of individuals which varies from person to person.

29.11. Ordinarily a witness cannot be expected to recall accurately the sequence of events which take place in rapid succession or in a short time span. A witness is liable to get confused, or mixed up when interrogated later on.

29.12. A witness, though wholly truthful, is liable to be overawed by the court atmosphere and the piercing cross-examination by counsel and out of nervousness mix up facts, get confused regarding sequence of events, or fill up details from imagination on the spur of the moment. The subconscious mind of the witness sometimes so operates on account of the fear of looking foolish or being disbelieved though the witness is giving a truthful and honest account of the occurrence witnessed by him. Patna High Court G. APP. (DB) No.7 of 2024 dt.25-09-2025

29.13. A former statement though seemingly inconsistent with the evidence need not necessarily be sufficient to amount to contradiction. Unless the former statement has the potency to discredit the later statement, even if the later statement is at variance with the former to some extent it would not be helpful to contradict that witness. [See Bharwada Bhoginbhai Hirjibhai v. State of Gujarat8, Leela Ram v. State of Haryana9 and Tahsildar Singh v. State of U.P.10]

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 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.”