Supreme Court approves verdicts of Trial Court and High Court acquitting murder accused persons from Khagaria

In Saudagar Singh@Dhana Singh vs. The State of Bihar Through Chief Secretary, Home Department & Ors. (2025) Criminal Appeal No.577 of 2018, the Division Bench of the Supreme Court comprising Justices J.B. Pardiwala and R. Mahadean heard and dismissed an appeal saying, "we are of the view that there is no good reason for us to interfere with the impugned Judgment and Order passed by the High Court. There are concurrent findings of two Courts below, i.e., the Trial Court and the High Court." Supreme Court's order was passed on January 30, 2025. 

The appellant, a resident of Etharua, Alauli, Khagaria was a de-facto complainant who was dissatisfied with the judgment and order passed by the Patna High Court in Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 299 of 2014 by which the acquittal appeal filed by the appellant before the High Court came to be dismissed, affirming the judgment and order of acquittal passed by the Trial Court. 

In this case the original accused persons were put to trial for the offence of murder punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The deceased was the son of the appellant in the Supreme Court. The Trial Court had acquitted all the accused persons of the offence of murder. The appellant was dissatisfied with the acquittal and he preferred an appeal before the High Court. But the High Court dismissed his appeal and affirmed the judgment and order of acquittal passed by the Trial Court. 

In Saudagar Singh@Dhana Singh vs. The State of Bihar & Ors. Criminal Appeal (DB) No.299 of 2014, the High Court's Division Bench of Justices V.N. Sinha and Jitendra Mohan Sharma had passed the 6-page long order on May 2, 2014.  The other respondents were: Khagaria residents, Paro Singh, Ramashish Singh and Fulchand Yadav @ Kapil Yadav @ Mukul Yadav from Srinagar, Sahebpur Kamal, Begusarai. It was authored by Justice V.N. Sinha.  

The appellant had assailed the judgment dated February 7, 2014, passed by 1st Ad hoc Additional Sessions Judge, Khagaria, in a Sessions Trial because as Private Respondent Nos. 2 to 4  (Paro Singh, Ramashish Singh and Fulchand Yadav @ Kapil Yadav @ Mukul Yadav) were acquitted of the charge under Section 302/34 of the IPC. 

The trial Court had concluded in paragraph 14 of the impugned judgment that on April 17, 2012 there was a police camp established in Amausi village but the police camp was not informed about the occurrence in the night of the occurrence, which is indicative of the fact that the prosecution party came to know about the incident in the morning and thereafter lodged the First Information Report on April 18, 2012 at 8:15 A.M. 

The prosecution case as set out in the fardbeyan of Saudagar Singh is  that on April 17, 2012 at about 7.30 P.M. he was at his Basa along with his son Pandav Singh, situated in Amausi Bahiyar (outer area of Amausi village). The three respondents along with two others came to the Basa of the informant armed with country made pistol and lathi, abused the informant and asked as to why did he not give Rs. 50,000/- for making Pairvi in Amausi murder case. Informant pleaded his inability to pay on the ground of being poor. Respondents forcibly caught his son Pandav Singh and dragged him towards the outer area of the village threatening both would be killed. It is alleged in the fardbeyan that informant attempted to save his son. The accused persons, however, threatened to kill both father and son but dragged the son of the informant Pandav Singh to Modo Bahiar. Informant also followed from behind and saw that the accused persons throttled his son by tying thin Gamcha (towel) in his neck. 

During trial this version was supported by Raj Kumar Singh (P.W.1) and Satya Narayan Singh (P.W.2) as it is said that on thrashing his wheat crop near the place of occurrence and P.W.2 was also present along with him. Umesh Singh (P.W.8) has also supported the occurrence. Hare Ram Singh (P.W.9) has deposed that there was alarm raised in the village (Icharua) that Pandav Singh has been killed and on hearing the alarm he along with villagers including informant (P.W.10) went to the place of occurrence.

The trial court disbelieved the prosecution case as set out by the informant in the fardbeyan as also in Court that on the date, time of occurrence he along with his son was at his hut (Basa in Amausi Bahiar) and in his presence son of the informant was dragged and taken by the accused persons and that the informant also followed the accused persons and in his presence his son was strangulated with the help of a thin Gamcha (towel) in the light of the evidence of P.W.9 in paragraph 2 that there was alarm raised in the village (Icharua) that Pandav Singh has been killed and on hearing the alarm P.W.9 along with villagers including informant had gone to the place of occurrence, which is indicative of the fact that at the time of occurrence informant was not at his Basa in Amausi Bahiar but was at his village Icharua. 

The informant was also disbelieved on the ground that in the First Information Report he had claimed that he even attempted to save his son but in paragraph 3 of his deposition informant stated that he did not try to save his son nor did he raise any alarm. The trial court has chosen not to place reliance on the evidence of P.Ws. 1, 2 as they failed to disclose any source of identification though P.W.2 admitted that it was a dark night and in the adjoining field there was maize crop of the height of 6 ft., as such, according to the trial court, it would not have been possible for P.Ws. 1, 2 to identify the miscreants in the dark night as in paragraph 2 P.W.2 has deposed that he was also under fear of death and that in paragraph 3 he has stated that he did not dare to light his torch. P.W.8 has been disbelieved as he has admitted that he did not make any statement in respect of the occurrence before any authority earlier. 

The informant (P.W.10), the Investigating Officer (P.W.12) the trial Court had concluded in paragraph 14 of the impugned judgment that on April 17, 2012 there was a police camp established in Amausi village but the police camp was not informed about the occurrence in the night of the occurrence, which was indicative of the fact that the prosecution party came to know about the incident in the morning and thereafter lodged the First Information Report on 18.4.2012 at 8:15 A.M.

In paragraph 18 of the impugned judgment, the trial Court had disbelieved the claim of the informant that he was an eye-witness of the occurrence with reference to the evidence of P.W. 2, which appears to be a mistake for P.W. 9 as in the earlier paragraph 13 of the judgment the trial Court with referenced to the evidence of P.W. 9 paragraph 2 had concluded that P.W. 9 and other villagers including informant went to the place of occurrence from their village after hearing alarm and thereby held that informant was not an eye-witness.

The High Court concluded: "it would appear that the trial Court has taken a plausible view of the evidence led by the prosecution party and there does not appear any perversity in appreciation of such evidence. In the circumstances, we are not inclined to proceed with the appeal any further, which is dismissed."