Simplified Explanation of the Judgment

On 5 April 2021, the Patna High Court delivered an important criminal appeal judgment in Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 820 of 2015, where the appellant, previously sentenced to life imprisonment, was acquitted due to lack of reliable evidence.

The case arose from a triple murder that occurred in 2006 in Karpi Police Station area, District Jehanabad (now Arwal). The appellant had been convicted by the Sessions Court under Sections 147, 148, and 302/149 IPC for participating in an unlawful assembly and committing the murders, while being acquitted of charges under Section 27 of the Arms Act and Section 379 IPC.

Upon appeal, a Division Bench of Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ashwani Kumar Singh and Hon’ble Mr. Justice Arvind Srivastava found that the trial court’s findings were unsustainable. The High Court noted serious inconsistencies, unreliable witness testimony, and investigative lapses that created reasonable doubt about the appellant’s guilt.

Background of the Case

The case originated from an FIR registered as Karpi P.S. Case No. 33 of 2006 based on an oral statement given by Shradha Devi, whose brother Putun Sharma and his two friends were shot dead while sleeping on the rooftop of a villager’s house.

She alleged that the appellant, along with two named individuals and several unknown persons, had fired gunshots at her brother and his companions due to previous enmity.

The police registered a case under Sections 147, 148, 149, 379, and 302 IPC and Section 27 of the Arms Act, and subsequently sent the three bodies for postmortem examination.

After investigation, a charge sheet was filed against the appellant alone, while the probe remained open for the other named and unknown persons. The trial culminated in a conviction and life sentence for the appellant.

Key Evidence and Trial Outcome

During the trial before the Additional Sessions Judge, Jehanabad:

• The prosecution examined 11 witnesses.
• Five witnesses (P.Ws. 3, 4, 7, 8, and 9) turned hostile.
• Two witnesses (P.Ws. 2 and 10) were formal witnesses (advocate clerks) who merely identified documents.
• The prosecution primarily relied on P.W. 1 (Shradha Devi), the informant and sister of one deceased, and P.W. 5 (Sri Niwas Sharma), her husband.
• P.W. 11, the doctor, confirmed multiple gunshot injuries on all three victims and concluded that the deaths were caused by firearm injuries leading to hemorrhage and shock.

The trial court accepted the testimony of P.Ws. 1 and 5 as credible and convicted the appellant for murder with common intention under Section 302/149 IPC, sentencing him to life imprisonment.

Appellant’s Argument in the High Court

The defense challenged the conviction on several grounds:

1. Non-examination of the Investigating Officer:
   The officer who recorded the FIR and investigated the case was never examined, depriving the defense of the opportunity to challenge the credibility of the investigation.
2. Hostile Witnesses and Weak Evidence:
   Most prosecution witnesses either turned hostile or had no knowledge of the crime.
3. Contradictions in Testimony:
   There were major contradictions between the informant’s FIR statement and her testimony during trial — including different timings, different accused names, and varying details of the incident.
4. Questionable Presence of Eyewitnesses:
   P.W. 5 admitted during cross-examination that he did not visit the crime scene, casting doubt on his claim of witnessing the murder.
5. Unnatural Conduct of Witnesses:
   Despite claiming to have witnessed the killings, neither P.W. 1 nor P.W. 5 attempted to take the victims to a hospital or call for help, which the defense argued was against normal human behavior.
6. Background of the Deceased:
   The defense suggested that one of the deceased had criminal antecedents and was killed in retaliation for another murder, making the prosecution story doubtful.

High Court’s Observations

The Division Bench made several critical findings:

• Investigative Gaps:
  The non-examination of the investigating officer and the officer who recorded the FIR created serious doubts about the authenticity and chain of evidence.
• Inconsistent Testimony:
  • The informant’s FIR stated she heard gunshots at midnight and saw accused persons descending from the rooftop, but during trial, she claimed to have witnessed the shooting directly.
  • The names of Kaushal and Kamala, who allegedly fired at two other victims, were never mentioned in the FIR.
  • The time of FIR recording (7 a.m.) conflicted with her claim that police arrived at 4 a.m.
• Doubtful Conduct of Witnesses:
  The witnesses’ failure to help the victims or report promptly indicated unnatural behavior, weakening their credibility.
• Medical Evidence Contradiction:
  The number of entry wounds found in postmortem reports did not match the number of gunshots allegedly fired by the accused, further eroding confidence in the prosecution case.
• Uncorroborated Presence of P.W. 5:
  He admitted he did not visit the site and may have been away in South India at the time of the incident.
• Principle of Reasonable Doubt:
  The Court reiterated that if two views are possible, the one favoring the accused must be adopted.

Court’s Decision

After analyzing the evidence, the Patna High Court held:

• The prosecution failed to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
• The testimonies of P.Ws. 1 and 5 were inconsistent and unreliable.
• The absence of the investigating officer’s testimony caused serious prejudice to the defense.
• The conviction was therefore unsafe and unsustainable.

Accordingly, the High Court set aside the trial court’s conviction and sentence, and acquitted the appellant of all charges.
The appellant, who was in custody, was directed to be released immediately, unless wanted in any other case.

Significance or Implication of the Judgment

• Reinforcement of Fair Trial Rights:
  The judgment reaffirms that fair investigation and reliable evidence are essential for conviction.
• Protection Against Wrongful Conviction:
  The Court’s scrutiny prevents life imprisonment based on weak or doubtful evidence, upholding the principle that “a thousand guilty may escape, but one innocent should not suffer.”
• Emphasis on Investigative Accountability:
  The non-examination of the investigating officer proved fatal, highlighting the duty of the prosecution to ensure a complete and transparent trial record.
• Guidance for Trial Courts:
  Trial courts must not rely solely on related witnesses without corroboration, especially where their behavior is inconsistent with natural human conduct.

Legal Issue(s) Decided and the Court’s Reasoning

• Whether conviction based on inconsistent witness testimony is valid?
  ❌ No. The High Court held that contradictory, uncorroborated evidence cannot sustain conviction.
• Whether non-examination of investigating officer affects the case?
  ✅ Yes. It deprived the defense of testing the prosecution’s version, leading to prejudice.
• Whether medical and ocular evidence were consistent?
  ❌ No. Postmortem findings contradicted the alleged firing pattern.
• Outcome:
  The conviction was set aside, and the accused was acquitted.

Judgments Referred by the Court

While no specific precedents were quoted, the Court applied general principles from established criminal law jurisprudence emphasizing reasonable doubt, fair investigation, and reliability of evidence.

Case Title

Appellant vs. The State of Bihar
(Criminal Appeal arising from Sessions Trial No. 165/2008, Karpi P.S. Case No. 33 of 2006)

Case Number

Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 820 of 2015

Citation(s)

2021(2) PLJR 601

Coram and Names of Judges

Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ashwani Kumar Singh
and Hon’ble Mr. Justice Arvind Srivastava

(Oral Judgment dated 05 April 2021)

Names of Advocates and who they appeared for

• Mr. Vikramdeo Singh & Mr. Paras Nath — for the appellant
• Mr. Satya Narayan Prasad, APP — for the State

Link to Judgment

NSM4MjAjMjAxNSMxI04=-A9Lt6MYRP0o=

If you found this explanation helpful and wish to stay informed about how legal developments may affect your rights in Bihar, you may consider following Samvida Law Associates for more updates.