Introduction

This case revolves around the brutal murder of Rohit Kumar, a young man from Bhagalpur, Bihar, who was shot dead at Sultanganj’s New Sidhighat near the Ganga River. The case saw two accused, Nepali Yadav and Nilesh Yadav, facing trial for murder under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and Section 27 of the Arms Act. The prosecution argued that the murder was premeditated, while the defense claimed false implication due to enmity. After years of legal proceedings, the Patna High Court delivered its final judgment in July 2022.

Background of the Case

The Incident (March 12, 2010)

On the afternoon of March 12, 2010, Rohit Kumar was at the New Sidhighat, a religious bathing site along the Ganga River in Sultanganj, Bhagalpur. He was reportedly engaged in catching goats that devotees had released into the river.

At around 12:30 PM, three accused—Nepali Yadav, Nilesh Yadav, and Vibhishan Yadav—arrived at the site and confronted Rohit Kumar. A quarrel broke out, and the confrontation quickly escalated into violence.

• Nepali Yadav fired a bullet at Rohit Kumar, hitting him on the left side of his nose.
• Vibhishan Yadav fired another bullet, hitting Rohit Kumar in the back.
• Nilesh Yadav fired shots in the air to create panic and prevent people from intervening.

As a result of the gunshots, Rohit Kumar collapsed and died on the spot. Witnesses fled the scene in terror.

The Investigation and Trial

Filing of the FIR

Rohit Kumar’s cousin, Kundan Kumar (P.W.5), ran to inform his family. His brother, Rahul Kumar (P.W.7), and mother, Vimla Devi (P.W.1), rushed to the spot and found Rohit’s lifeless body. The police, led by Station House Officer C.P. Yadav, arrived within 15 minutes and recorded the First Information Report (FIR) at 12:45 PM on the same day.

Key Witness Testimonies

The prosecution presented nine witnesses, including family members, eyewitnesses, and medical experts.

• P.W.5 Kundan Kumar (cousin) – An eyewitness who saw the shooting while bathing in the river. He stated that Nepali Yadav shot Rohit in the face and Vibhishan Yadav shot him in the back. He also confirmed that Nilesh Yadav fired in the air to create terror.
• P.W.6 Chhotu alias Rockey (cousin) – Also an eyewitness, he corroborated Kundan Kumar’s account and stated that the accused fled the scene after the shooting.
• P.W.3 Manilal Yadav (maternal uncle) – Present at the scene and provided a similar testimony.
• P.W.1 Vimla Devi (Mother) & P.W.7 Rahul Kumar (Brother) – They rushed to the scene after being informed and confirmed seeing Rohit’s body with bullet wounds.
• P.W.8 Dr. Yogesh Prasad Sah (Medical Expert) – Conducted the post-mortem and found three gunshot wounds on Rohit’s body:
  1. One bullet lodged in his skull.
  2. Another bullet pierced his back, damaging vital organs.
  3. A third bullet hit his hip bone.
     
     The medical report confirmed death due to hemorrhagic shock caused by gunshot wounds.

Arguments from the Defense

The defense argued that the police fabricated the case due to enmity between the families. Their main contentions were:

1. No independent witnesses were examined, even though many people were present at the site.
2. Delay in registering the FIR—While the FIR was recorded at 12:45 PM, the formal registration at the police station happened only at 5:00 PM, leading to suspicions of manipulation.
3. Contradictions in witness statements—Some described the shooting on the southern bank of the river, while others mentioned the northern bank, raising doubts about the accuracy of their testimonies.

Prosecution’s Counterarguments

The prosecution countered these claims effectively:

• Fear and panic explained why no independent witnesses came forward. People fled the scene after the shooting, as confirmed by multiple witnesses.
• The gap in the FIR registration was due to police completing legal procedures at the crime scene, such as recording statements, collecting evidence, and conducting inquests.
• Minor discrepancies in location details were not significant, as all evidence confirmed that the murder occurred at New Sidhighat.

The High Court’s Verdict

Key Findings

After examining all evidence, the Patna High Court dismissed the appeals of the accused, affirming their convictions. The court found:

1. The FIR was timely and credible. Despite a delay in police station registration, the police had acted promptly, recording the FIR at the crime scene itself.
2. The witnesses were reliable. The testimonies of P.W.3 Manilal Yadav, P.W.5 Kundan Kumar, and P.W.6 Chhotu alias Rockey were consistent and trustworthy.
3. Medical evidence confirmed the murder. The autopsy report matched the eyewitness accounts, proving that Rohit Kumar was shot multiple times.
4. The defense failed to prove false implication. The accused had a common intention to kill the victim, as evidenced by Nilesh Yadav firing in the air to intimidate people.

Final Judgment

The court upheld the life sentences awarded to:

• Nepali Yadav – Life imprisonment + ₹25,000 fine for murder, plus 2 years imprisonment + ₹2,000 fine under the Arms Act.
• Nilesh Yadav – Life imprisonment + ₹5,000 fine for murder, plus 2 years imprisonment + ₹1,000 fine under the Arms Act.

The sentences were to run concurrently.

Conclusion

The case of Rohit Kumar’s murder at Sultanganj highlights the importance of eyewitness testimony, forensic evidence, and timely investigation in securing justice. Despite attempts by the defense to discredit the prosecution, the consistent accounts of multiple witnesses, along with medical evidence, firmly established the guilt of the accused.

The Patna High Court’s decision reaffirmed that delays in procedural formalities do not necessarily indicate fabrication. The ruling serves as an important precedent in ensuring that murder trials are decided based on factual evidence rather than procedural technicalities.

Key Takeaways

• Eyewitness testimonies play a crucial role in criminal trials, especially when they align with forensic evidence.
• Delays in FIR registration are not always fatal to a case, as long as the sequence of events is logical and well-documented.
• Enmity between parties is not a valid defense if the prosecution’s case is supported by credible and independent evidence.
• Firing in the air can be considered an act of intimidation, establishing a common intention to commit a crime.

This case serves as a reminder that justice prevails when evidence is carefully examined, and legal technicalities do not overshadow the truth.

Read
the full judgement Below;

https://patnahighcourt.gov.in/viewjudgment/NDQjMzEjMjAyMCMxI04=-Cdg9XoSEJ9U=