Supreme Court reverses the order by Justice Sandeep Kumar in a murder case

In Aryan Kumar vs. The State of Bihar (2026), Supreme Court's Division bench of Justices K.V. Viswanathan and Arun Palli passed a 3-page long order, wherein, it concluded:"5. Keeping in view the overall facts and circumstances of the case and, particularly, the fact that the identically situated accused are on bail, we are inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail, pending trial. 6. We direct that the petitioner shall be enlarged on bail subject to the satisfaction of the Trial Court, pending trial. 7. The Special Leave Petition is disposed of in the above terms. 

The petition had questioned the correctness of the order dated October 10, 2025 passed by Justice Sandeep Kumar of the Patna High Court in Aryan Kumar vs. The State of Bihar (2025),  whereby the bail application of the petitioner was rejected.

The counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner had already undergone 3 years and 5 months in custody, since he was arrested on February 21, 2023. He drew attention to the Firs Information Report to submit that while the petitioner was named in the first part of the incident which did not cause injury to any person and only a reference to indiscriminate firing was made, there was no reference to the petitioner in the second part of the incident which resulted in the death of four persons. The counsel also drew attention to the fact that identically situated accused are on bail. The counsel further submitted that Bachcha Rai whose name figures in the second part of the incident was also on bail. 

In his order Justice Kumar had concluded:"I am not inclined to grant bail to petitioner no. 2, namely, Akhilesh Kumar, as the trial is on the verge of conclusion. 7. So far as the petitioner no. 1, namely, Aryan Kumar is concerned, this Court is inclined to grant bail on medical grounds so that he can get himself properly treated. 8. Accordingly, let the petitioner no. 1, above named, be released on bail on furnishing bail bonds of Rs. 10,000/- (ten thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned District and Additional Sessions Judge IV, Patna City, Patna/ concerned Court in connection with Nadi P.S. Case No. 76 of 2023, subject to the condition that both the bailors should be the close relative of the petitioner no. 1. 9. As a condition of this order, the petitioner no. 1, after being released on bail is directed to co-operate in the trial either by appearing personally or through his lawyer in the trial Court on each and every date fixed in the trial. Noncompliance of the condition will result in cancellation of the bail bonds of the petitioner no. 1. 10. The bail application is allowed with regard to petitioner no. 1 and is dismissed with regard to petitioner no. 2. 11. This bail petition stands partly allowed in the above terms." 

The petitioners had approached the High Court seeking bail in connection with Nadi P.S. Case No. 76 of 2023 registered for the offence punishable under Sections 147, 148, 149, 342, 448, 302, 307 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 27 of the Arms Act. From the report of the trial Judge, it appeared that out of nine chargesheeted witnesses, five witnesses were examined. 4. From the report of the Medical Officer, Beur Jail, Patna, it appeared that the petitioner no. 1 was seriously ill and he was admitted to PMCH again and again for his treatment. Notably, e. Earlier the prayer for bail of the petitioners were rejected by Justice Kumar by his order dated March 5, 2024. He had concluded: "Considering the fact that it is a case of four murders, I am not inclined to grant bail to the petitioners."

Justice Satyavrat Verma rejected bail in a murder case

In Brajnod Yadav vs. The State of Bihar (2026), Justice Satyavrat Verma passed an order dated February 26, 2026, wherein, he rejected the second attempt to secure bail in a case registered for the offences punishable under Sections 147, 148, 149, 341, 323, 342, 324, 307, 302, 337 and 504 of the Indian Penal Code. 

Earlier, Justice Verma had passed a 3-page long order dated July 14, 2023 wherein, he had concluded:"8. Considering the submissions made by the learned A.P.P. for the State and learned counsel for the informant, the Court is not inclined to extend the privilege of anticipatory bail to the petitioners in connection with a Madhuban P. S. case of 2022 pending in the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, East Champaran at Motihari/successor Court. 9. Accordingly, the prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioners is rejected."

The counsel for the petitioners submitted thatpetitioners are persons with clean antecedents. The informant alleged that while she along with her husband were returning home in the night, they were intercepted by the accused persons including the petitioners and they assaulted her husband by iron rod causing injury leading to his death. 

The counsel for the petitioners submitted that petitioners were falsely implicated in the present case. It was also submitted that it was night as such it cannot be alleged with certainty that it was the petitioners who had assaulted the husband of the informant by iron rod causing injury leading to his death. It was further submitted that during the course of investigation, it came out that the husband of the informant died on account of fall of a bamboo which was being erected. It was also submitted that even the witnesses have not supported the case of the prosecution during the course of investigation. It was also submitted that the viscera was preserved and sent to the FSL for examination. It was submitted that though it was alleged that both the petitioners assaulted the husband of the informant by an iron rod causing injury leading to his death but then during the postmortem only one injury was found on the deceased. 

The A.P.P. for the State and counsel for the informant opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioners and submitted that the police investigation was not admissible in evidence during the course of trial. 

Supreme Court says, Guddu Ray "shall not reside in or enter in the village Maqsoodpur, District-Patna, till the conclusion of the trial" in a murder case

In The State of Bihar & Anr. vs.  Baleshwari Devi (2026), Supreme Court's Division Bench of Justices M.M. Sundresh and N.K Singh passed a 3-page long order dated February 25, 2026. The order reads: "Despite notice served, none appears for the contesting respondent(s). Learned Senior counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that a threat was extended by the private respondent to the petitioner even very recently. The Trial Court has also ordered further investigation. It is a case of gruesome murder. The petitioner’s son has been shot dead at point blank range. Though the allegations are quite serious, we are not inclined to interfere with the impugned order(s) only for the reason that the bail was granted to the private respondents as early as on 13.11.2024 and 20.11.2024. However, in view of the prevailing situation and the fact that the safety of the petitioner and her family is in question, particularly, when threats have been exerted against them by the private respondent in SLP(Crl) No.8371/2025, we direct that the private respondent in SLP(Crl) No.8371/2025 shall not reside in or enter in the village Maqsoodpur, District-Patna, till the conclusion of the trial. However, liberty is granted to the petitioner to seek cancellation of bail in the future in the event of a threat at the instance of the private respondent in SLP(Crl) No. 8371/2025. The Special Leave Petitions stand disposed of, accordingly." It was filed in the Supreme Court on January 12, 2025, registered on February 12, 2025 and verified on February 13, 2025.

Earlier, in Guddu Ray @ Guddu Kumar vs. The State of Bihar & Anr. (2024), Patna High Court's Justice Chandra Prakash Singh had passed a 3-page long order dated November 13, 2024 concluded: "In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case as well as finding substance in the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant, the impugned order dated 24.06.2024 passed by the learned Exclusive Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Civil Court, Patna Sadar in Serial No. 158 of 2024 arising out of Shahpur P.S. Case No. 147 of 2024, is set aside against the appellant. The criminal appeal is allowed. 7. Accordingly, the above named appellant, is directed to be enlarged on bail on furnishing bail-bond of Rs. 20,000/- (Rupees twenty thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned Exclusive Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Civil Court, Patna Sadar in Serial No. 158 of 2024 arising out of Shahpur P.S. Case No. 147 of 2024, with the condition/s:- (i) The appellant is directed to remain physically present before the learned Court below on each and every date, failing which on two consecutive dates without reasonable cause, the bail bonds of the appellant are liable to be cancelled." The Respondent No.2 was Baleshwari Devi. The criminal appeal was filed on July 23, 2024 and registered on July 26, 2024

The order was passed after hearing an appeal under Section 14(A)(2) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 against the rejection of prayer for bail vide order dated June 27, 2024 passed by the Exclusive Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Civil Court, Patna Sadar in Serial No. 158 of 2024 which arose out of Shahpur P.S. Case of 2024 dated April 18, 2024 registered for the offence/s punishable u/ss 147, 148, 149, 341, 323, 307, 302, 338, 504, 506 of the Indian Penal Code, Section 27of the Arms Act and sections 3(1)(r)(s) / 3(2) (va) (v) of the SC/ST (POA) Act. 

As per the prosecution case, on April 14, 2024, the informant along with the some other people was celebrating Ambedkar Jyanti, in the meantime, some anti-social elements started abusing by taking her caste name for which the informant objected. Thereafter, on April 17, 2024, the appellant along with the other co-accused persons having arms came there and started pelting stones on her community members causing injuries to them. It was also alleged that they also fired on them due to that one Vikaram Kumar sustained gun shot injury and subsequently he died. The appellant submitted that the appellant was innocent and was falsely implicated in the case due to ulterior motive. The counsel also submitted that the caste name was not disclosed by anyone at the time of the alleged occurrence. As per FIR, no member of public was present at the relevant point of time of the alleged incident hence, no case was made out under section SC/ST Act. There was general and omnibus allegation against the appellant. There was no specific
allegation of firing against the appellant. The co-accused person was already granted regular bail by the High Court vide order dated August 22, 2024 passed in Cr. Appeal (SJ) No. 3192 of 2024. The appellant had no criminal antecedent. The appellant was in custody since April 19, 2024. 

Justice Chandra Prakash Singh 

Justices Bibek Chaudhuri, Dr. Anshuman set aside judgement, order in rape, murder case

In Shatrughan Ram @ Shatrudhan Das Vs. The State of Bihar (2026), Patna High Court's Division Bench of Justices Bibek Chaudhuri and Dr. Anshuman delivered a 16-page long judgement, wherein, it set aside the judgement of conviction and sentence passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track, 2nd Court at Patna on February 16, 2019, whereby and whereunder, the Trial Judge had held the appellant guilty for committing offence under Sections 376/302 of the Indian Penal Code and convicted and sentenced him to suffer rigorous imprisonment for life for the offence punishable under Section 376 of the IPC and rigorous imprisonment for life till the end of his natural life for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the IPC. It directed the appellant to be released at once.

On the basis of an oral statement made by one Jawahar Kumar Ray of village Mohaddipur, which was reduced to writing by Sub-Inspector, K. N. Paswan on December 17, 2007, S.K. Puri P.S Case of 2007 for the offence punishable under Sections 376 and 302 of the Indian Penal Code was registered. It was alleged by the informant that at the relevant point when the alleged incident took place, he used to reside at New Punaichak, Jhuggi-Jhopadpatti by the side of the railway line within Police Station-S. K. Puri. On December 16, 2007 in the evening, the wife of the informant, namely, Kachan Devi sent her daughter, since deceased, aged about 8 years, to collect waste papers. At that place, the appellant was also present. His child also went to collect papers. When the informant returned at about 08:30 P.M. on December 16, 2006, after pulling rickshaw, he did not find his minor daughter at home. He and his wife conducted a search for their daughter at nearby area and asked the local people about her whereabouts but the local people failed to give any reply to them. Then they suspected that his daughter might be in the room of the appellant. He went to the house of the appellant to find out his daughter but found that the house 3/16 and the entrance gate of the appellant were locked and dark inside. 

On the following morning at about 07:00. A.M., the informant again conducted search of his daughter. 

During search, he peeped through the closed door of the room of the appellant and found that her daughter lying dead inside the room of the appellant. With the help of local people, the lock of the entrance gate and the door of the room were broken. The informant and others saw the dead body of her daughter having injuries and scratch marks all over her body. Her undergarment and pant were found open and blood was found near her buttock. He suspected that the appellant who was also residing at the relevant point of time at New Punaichak, Jhuggi-Jhopadpatti committed rape upon his daughter and thereafter murdered her by throttling.

The S.H.O., S.K. Puri, Police Station instructed S.I. K. N. Paswan to take up the investigation of the case. During investigation, he recovered the dead body of the daughter of the informant; held inquest over the dead body of the deceased at the place of occurrence; seized blood-stained earth from the place of occurrence; and one photocopy of voter identity card from the room of the appellant. He also examined available witnesses and recorded their statement under Section 161 of the Cr.P.C. Thereafter, he sent the dead body of the deceased for post-mortem examination to P.M.C.H. He also obtained forensic report of the seized blood- stained earth and wearing apparels of the victim.

On conclusion of investigation, he submitted a charge-sheet against the appellant under Sections 376 and 302 of the IPC before the learned C.J.M., Patna on October 29, 2011. The Sessions Judge, Patna received the case record after commitment on January 4, 2012 and transferred the case to the 10th Court of the Additional Sessions Judge at Patna.

The Additional Sessions, 10th Court at Patna, received the case records and framed charge against the accused/appellant on May 9, 2012, punishable under Section 376 of the IPC. When the charge, so framed, was written over and explained to the appellant, he pleaded not guilty. Accordingly trial of the case commenced.

Justice Chaudhuri observed:"10. At the outset, we like to record that after commencement of trial, no sessions trial case can be transferred from one Trial Court to another by issuing administrative order by the learned Principle Sessions Judge, Patna. However, the said procedural wrong was committed by the learned Principle Sessions Judge by issuing memo no. 3052-3054 dated 4th of March, 2017, directing the learned Additional Sessions Judge, 10th Court at Patna to transfer the case to the 2nd Fast Track Court at Patna. 11. However, when the trial of the case was concluded by the learned 2nd Fast Track Court at Patna by passing judgement of conviction and sentence, we treat the above-mentioned anomaly as procedural irregularity and proceed with the hearing of the instant appeal.

During trial, in order to bring home the charge against the accused, the prosecution examined as many as five witnesses. 

20. The Trial Court convicted the appellant on the sole ground of recovery of dead body from the house of the appellant on the basis of presumption that since the dead body of the victim girl was found in the room of the appellant, he had special knowledge about what had happened to the deceased after she left her home in the evening of 16th of December, 2007. It was held by the Trial Court that the incident that took place with the victim after she departed her home to bring waste papers was within the special knowledge of the appellant and he failed to discharge his burden as to how the deceased was ravished and subsequently murdered.

Notably, Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act discusses the burden of proof on a person who has knowledge of a specific fact, such as being the last person known to have been with the victim.

Justice Chaudhary observed: "23. It is needless to say that in order to convict someone on the basis of circumstantial evidence invoking the last seen theory, the prosecution is under primary obligation to prove the circumstance beyond any shadow of doubt, the chain of which must lead to the inescapable conclusion of that person committing the crime. 24. In criminal cases, where direct evidences are hard to found, the entire case depends on the circumstantial evidence. The circumstantial evidences imply when all the evidences are clubbed together to form a complete chain of events in such a way that the accused may be convicted. The chain of events, so formed, must be without any reasonable doubt. Each circumstances and the evidences from which the chain is formed should be individually proved as direct evidences. The circumstantial evidence is always direct and primary which means the fact from which the existence of the fact in issue to be inferred must be proved by direct evidence. In case of circumstantial evidence, all the circumstances should be vested by absolute evidences and should form a complete chain to bring home the guilt of the accused without giving any alternative chance to any other hypothesis." 

He added:"25. In the instant case, there is absolutely no direct evidence against the appellant in support of the charge. Thus, the Trial Court bases its judgement of conviction on the basis of circumstantial evidence. 26. The only circumstance appearing against the appellant is that the dead body of the victim was found in his room in the morning of 17th of December, 2007. The victim was missing from the evening of 16th of December, 2007. Nobody saw the appellant enticing the victim to his house after her departure from her own house to bring some waste papers. 27. It is unfortunate to note that the incident took place on 16th of December, 2007. The appellant was arrested and produced before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate on the strength of warrant of arrest on 7th of August, 2011. Charge- sheet was filed on 29th of October, 2011. Charge was framed against the accused on 9th of May, 2012...."

The Court concluded: "29. After hearing the appeal, we are unfortunately note that the appellant was convicted and sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life on consideration of inadmissible evidence. The prosecution hopelessly failed to bring home the circumstances which were necessarily established beyond any shadow of doubt in order to come to a finding in support of hypothesis of guilt against the appellant. 30. This is a case where the appellant remained in custody for about 15 years though prosecution failed to produce any kind of evidence whatsoever against him during trial. However, we do not find any alternative but to lament for the unfortunate state of justice delivery system in our country and pray that timely justice shall be delivered both to the prosecution and defence in future. 31. In view of the above discussions, the instant Criminal Appeal is allowed on contest. 32. However, there shall be no order as to costs."

The transferee Court had received the record on March 10, 2017 and continued with the trial which was commenced before the 10th Court of the Additional Sessions Judge at Patna. From the date of arrest/production before the Court till date, he was in custody. The Trial Court delivered the impugned judgement on February 16, 2019. 

The appeal was filed before the High Court on May 22, 2019. The appeal was admitted for hearing by a Coordinate Bench of the High Court after a lapse of six years on March 28, 2025. Thereafter, date was fixed for production of lower court records on August 1, 2025. 28. Subsequently, a Coordinate Bench passed an order for substitute service of notice upon Respondent/informant by paper publication. The Coordinate Bench vide order, dated December 19, 2025 had refused the prayer for suspension of sentence and bail. 

Supreme Court sets aside bail denying order by Justice Sandeep Kumar

In Bansilal Yadav @ Gautam Kumar Ydav vs. The State of Bihar (2026), Supreme Court's Division Bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta passed a 3-page long order dated February 2, 2026, wherein, it concluded, "....we direct that the present petitioner(s) be released on bail on such terms and conditions as may be imposed by the Trial Court in connection with Sessions Trial No.675 of 2023 arising from FIR No.83 of 2023 dated 01.04.2023 registered at Police Station Laukaha, District Madhubani, Bihar. The Special Leave Petition(s) and pending application(s) are disposed of accordingly. The case arose out of impugned order dated July 18, 2025 by Patna High Court's Justice Sandeep Kumar. The petitioner had sought bail in connection with a Sessions Trial (which arose out of Laukaha P.S. case  of 2023) registered for the offences under Sections 147, 148, 149, 341, 323, 324, 307, 302, 120(B), 504 of the Indian Penal Code.  Justice Kumar had observed:"4. From the report it appears that it is accused persons who are delaying the trial. 5. In these circumstances, no ground for reviewing the order dated 13.12.2023 passed in Cr. Misc. No.66935 of 2023 is made out. Accordingly, this application stands dismissed." Earlier the prayer for bail of the petitioner was rejected by the High Court on December 13, 2023.

In his earlier order dated December 13, 2023 Justice Kumar had observed:"3. As per the prosecution case, due to land dispute, three persons from the prosecution side was killed by the accused persons and some other persons sustained grievous injury.....6. Considering the fact that the petitioner has participated in the killing of three persons, I am not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner. This application is dismissed. 7. The Court below is directed to expedite the trial of the petitioner." The counsel for the petitioner had submitted that the petitioner was in custody since April 2, 2023, he was quite innocent and has not committed any offence. A.P.P. had vehemently opposed the prayer for bail and had submitted that there was sufficient material available on record to connect the petitioner with the crime.

Supreme Court observed: "Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the period of incarceration undergone by the petitioner(s), and the fact that out of ten named accused, six have already been granted bail and two have not been sent up for trial, we are inclined to grant bail to the present petitioner(s)."

Justice Sandeep Kumar quashes rejection order by Bihar State Remission Board for pre-mature release of a life convict

In Ashok Yadav vs. The State of Bihar & Ors. (2025), Patna High Court's Justice Sandeep Kumar delivered a 15-page long judgement dated October 10, 2025, wherein, he quashed the order dated September 12, 2023 passed by Bihar State Remission Board rejecting the proposal of the petitioner for his pre-mature release saying, the petitioner was not eligible for grant of pre-mature release. It was one of the two judgements delivered by the High Court on October 10, 2025. 

Justice Kumar concluded: ''13. The petitioner is given liberty to approach the authorities for remission in light of the aforesaid judgment and if such an application is filed, the same shall be considered by the remission board in accordance with law and in light of the judgment of this Court in the case of Ajit Kumar Mishra Vs. The State of Bihar and Ors. (Supra). The application of the petitioner shall be disposed of within three months of its filing.''

The petitioner had prayed for issuance of an appropriate writ in the nature of CERTIORARI for quashing the decision of the State Remission Board dated September 12, 2023 so far it relates to the petitioner, whereby the State Remission Board had rejected the proposal of the petitioner for his pre-mature release interalia on the ground that under clause (iv) (ka) and (kha) of notification No. 3106 dated December 10, 2002 the petitioner was not eligible for grant of pre-mature release. He had also prayed for issuance of an appropriate writ in the nature of MANDAMUS commanding and directing the Respondent Authorities to consider the case of the petitioner for pre-mature release and release him in connection with Sessions Trial No. 55 of 2006 arising out of Fulwaria P.S. Case No. 1 of 2006 on the ground that now the petitioner has already completed more than 22 years of sentence with remission and more than 17 years of his physical incarceration, taking into consideration that the case of the petitioner has been covered under 1984 Policy prevailing at the relevant time of his conviction since the petitioner was convicted on April 10, 2006 and the notification no. 3106 dated December 10, 2002 came into force with effect from July 2, 2007.

The petitioner was aggrieved by the rejection of his application for early release as he had completed 19 years in actual imprisonment. The petitioner was convicted under section 364, 302, 201 of the Indian penal Code and were sentenced to death by the District & Sessions Judge, Gopalganj in Sessions Trial No. 55 of 2006 arose out of Phulwari P.S. Case No. 1 of 2006 vide Judgement dated April 5, 2006 and order on the point of sentence dated April 10, 2006. Subsequently, the High Court in Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 329 of 2006 had commuted the death sentence of the petitioner to life imprisonment. 

The petitioner had previously approached the High Court through Cr.W.J.C. No. 103 of 2022, for pre-mature release after completing 14 years of actual imprisonment and the same was disposed vide order dated July 18, 2023. The relevant paragraphs of the order reads:-

“8. From perusal of the impugned order of the State Remission Board dated 19.05.2021 so far as it relates
to the petitioner, it transpires that the proposal of premature release of the petitioner has been rejected by merely quoting the provisions of Clause IV (क) of the Remission Policy and no further reasons have been assigned by the Board as to how the nature of offences committed by the petitioner comes under the purview of any other offence having similar effect of rape, dacoity and terrorist activities and as such is covered under Clause IV (क) of the Remission Policy. The impugned order is cryptic and non-speaking in nature, as such, in my opinion, the same is not sustainable under the law.

9. Accordingly, the impugned order of State Remission Board dated 19.05.2021 so far as it relates to the 
petitioner is set aside and the matter is remanded back to the State Remission Board for reconsideration of the proposal of premature release of the petitioner, in accordance with law.

10. It is made clear that the proposal of premature release of the petitioner shall be considered and disposed by a reasoned order by the State Remission Board within a period of six months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order.”

The contention of the petitioner was that his case is squarely covered by the judgment of this Court passed in the case of Ajit Kumar Mishra vs. The State of Bihar and Ors. (Cr.W.J.C. 1195 of 2021) and Pradeep Kumar Srivastava vs. The State of Bihar and Ors. (Cr.W.J.C. 453 of 2021).

Justice Kumar recorded that the counsel for the State Prabhu Narayan Sharma could not defend the impugned order rejecting the prayer of the petitioner in view of the judgment of the High Court in Ajit Kumar Mishra vs. The State of Bihar and Ors. and Pradeep Kumar Srivastava vs. The State of Bihar and Ors.

Relying on the decision of the co-ordinate Bench of the High Court in the case of Ajit Kumar Mishra, after quoting the minutes of the meeting dated December 23, 2020, Justice Kumar observed: "In view of the afore-quoted judgments, the impugned order cannot be sustained." 
 

Supreme Court recalls order of non-bailable warrant, directs release of Supan Rai, an from the judicial custody

In Baleshwari Devi vs. The State of Bihar & Anr. (2025), Supreme Court's Division Bench of Justices M.M. Sundresh and Satish Chandra Sharma passed a 3-page long order dated October 10, 2025. The Special Leave to Appeal (Criminal) was filed on September 21, 2024, registered on October 4, 2024 and verified on October 6, 2024. The Court recalled the order of non-bailable warrant and directed release of Supan Rai, the Respondent No. 2 from the judicial custody who is an accused for the offence/s punishable under Sections 147, 148, 149, 341, 323, 307, 302, 338, 504, 506 of the Indian Penal Code and sections 3(1) (r)(s) / 3(2) (va) (v) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.

Supreme Court's list of order, judgements and record of proceedings reveals that the Court passed orders on October 10, 2025, September 26, 2025, September 10, 2025, July 31, 2025, May 23, 025, April 28, 2025, March 28, 2025, March 25, 2025, February 21, 2025, February 17, 2025, February 4, 2025, January 2, 2025 and October 15, 2024. The Court's record of the I.A.s and SLPs mention the order dated April 18, 2024 passed in SLP(Crl.) No.13924/2024 titled Baleshwari Devi vs. State of Bihar & Ors but the same is not there Court's list of order, judgements and record of proceedings.  

On January 2, 2025, Supreme Court's Division Bench of Justices Bela M. Trivedi and Satish Chandra Sharma passed an order reads:'' 2. Let bailable warrant of Rs.25,000/- be issued against the respondent no.2 for remaining present before this Court on 04.02.2025, either personally or through an Advocate. 3. The bailable warrant be executed through the SHO of the concerned Police Station.'' It recorded: ''Nobody appears for the respondent no.2 though duly served.'' 

On February 4, 2025, Supreme Court's Division Bench of Justices Bela M. Trivedi and Prasanna B. Varale passed an order which reads: ''1. None has filed appearance on behalf of the respondent No.2, though the bailable warrant issued by the Court vide the order dated 02.01.2025 has been served. 2. Hence, let the non-bailable warrant be issued against the respondent No.2, to be executed through the SHO of the Police
Station concerned. 3. List on 21.02.2025.''

On February 17, 2025, Supreme Court's Division Bench passed an order in Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No(s). 2332/2025 which arose out of impugned final judgment and order dated November 13, 2024 in Criminal Appeal (SJ) No. 3487/2024 passed by the Patna High Court in Baleshwari Devi vs. The State of Bihar  and Special Leave to Appeal (Criminal) No. 2353/2025 which arose out of impugned final judgment and order dated November 13, 2024 in CRASJ No. 3698/2024 passed by the Patna High Court. It issued notice and tagged both the petitions with SLP(Crl.) No.13924/2024.    

On February 21, 2025, Supreme Court's Division of Justices Bela M. Trivedi and Prasanna B. Varale passed an order in Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No(s). 13924/2024. It reads: ''The learned counsel for the respondent-State submits that the non-bailable warrant could not be executed as the respondent no.2 is not found at the given address. He seeks more time to get the whereabouts of the respondent no.2 to serve the non-bailable warrant.'' In Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No(s). 2332/2025 and other connected matters, its order reads:''As per the office report, notice could not be issued to the respondents as the counsel for the petitioner(s) has not filed spare copies. Learned counsel for the petitioner(s) shall do the needful in that regard. However, liberty is sought on his behalf to serve the learned Standing Counsel for the respondent-State. Liberty, as sought for, is granted. Learned counsel for the respondent-State seeks time to file vakalatnama and counter affidavit.'' The case arose out of impugned final judgment and order dated August 22, 2024 in CRLA(SJ) No. 3192/2024 passed by the Patna High Court. 

On March 25, 2025, Supreme Court's Division of Justices Bela M. Trivedi and Prasanna B. Varale passed an order which reads: ''1. The matter has been taken up on oral mentioning being done by the learned counsel for the respondent No.1 – State, though not listed today on the board. 2. According to him, pursuant to the order passed by this Court on 21.02.2025, the respondent No.2 – accused has been arrested and has been brought to this Court. 3. Let the respondent No.2 be taken into judicial custody of the concerned jurisdictional Court. 4. The SLP be listed in normal course.'' The case arose out of impugned final judgment and order dated August 22, 2024 in CRLA(SJ) No. 3192/2024. 

On March 28, 2025, Supreme Court's Division Bench of Justices Bela M. Trivedi and Satish Chandra Sharma passed an order which reads:'' 1. Let the notice be issued to the respondents. 2. Additionally, liberty is granted to serve notice upon the Standing Counsel for the State of Bihar. 3. Tag alongwith SLP (Crl.) No.13924 of 2024.'' 

On April 28, 2025, Supreme Court's Division of Justices Bela M. Trivedi and Prasanna B. Varale passed an order, which reads: "1. It appears that pursuant to the non bailable warrant issued by this Court, respondent no.2 in SLP(Crl.) No. 13924/2024 was arrested and now, he is in judicial custody. 2. It appears that respondent nos.2 and 3 in SLP(Crl) No. 4153/2025 and respondent no.2 in rest of the matters, are not served. 3. Let fresh notice be issued to the unserved respondents, to be served through the concerned SHO, returnable after three weeks."

On May 23, 2025, Supreme Court's Division of Justices Bela M. Trivedi and Prasanna B. Varale passed an order in SLP (Crl.) Diary No(s). 2135/2025. The order reads: "Delay condoned. 2. Application for exemption from filing Official Translation is allowed. 3. Issue notice. 4. Tag with SLP (Crl.) No. 13924 of 2024."  The case arose out of impugned final judgment and order dated November 20, 2024 in CRASJ No. 3726/2024 passed by the Patna High Court.

On July 31, 2025, Supreme Court's Record of Proceedings states that ''Respondent no.1 is duly represented. Despite service being complete, none has entered appearance for respondent no.2. Let the matter be processed for listing before the Hon’ble Court, as per rules. As sought, respondent no.1 may file counter affidavit, in the meantime, if any'' in SLP(Crl.) No.13924/2024 and 8371/2025. 

The order in SLP(Crl.) Nos.2353, 2358 and 2332/2025 reads:'' Respondent no.1 is duly represented. As sought, respondent no.1 may file counter affidavit, in the meantime, if any. Service report with regard to respondent no.2 from concerned S.H.O has not been received. Issue reminder. List again on 10.09.2025.'' In SLP(Crl.) No.4153/2025, the order reads: ''Respondent no.1 is duly represented. As sought, respondent no.1 may file counter affidavit, in the meantime, if any. Service report with regard to respondent nos.2 and 3 from concerned S.H.O has not been received. Issue reminder.''

On September 10, 2025 also the Supreme Court had passed an order.  

After Patna High Court's Justice Chandra Prakash Singh passed a 3-page long order dated August 22, 2024 in Supan Rai vs. The State of Bihar Patna & Anr. (2025). Justice Singh had set aside the impugned order dated June 24, 2024 passed by the Pankaj Chauhan Special Judge, SC/ST (POA) Act, Patna in a P.S. case of 2024 against the appellant. The criminal appeal was allowed and the appellant, was directed to be enlarged on bail. The appellant was in custody since April 19, 2024. The Respondent No.2 is Baleshwari Devi, wife of Harbans Ram, resident of Maksudpur, Ward No. 03, Shahpur, Patna. The criminal appeal was filed before the Single Judge of the High Court on July 4, 2024. It was registered on July 10, 2024. 

The Supreme Court recorded: ''It is a case where the petitioner being the complainant has come forward to file this instant petition. Even as per the case of the prosecution, a group of 18 persons came and attacked the deceased and several other persons were injured. Admittedly, only one gun was used at the time of the incident. The main accused is stated to have been absconding.'' It observed: ''Taking into consideration the aforesaid fact, coupled with the fact that no specific overt act is attributed against respondent No.2, we are not inclined to interfere with the impugned order. However, liberty is given to the petitioner to file an application for cancellation of bail, if the subsequent development warrants the same. Accordingly, the order of non-bailable warrant issued to the respondent No.2, stands recalled, and he is directed to be released from the judicial custody, as per the terms and conditions already imposed upon him by the High Court. The Special Leave Petition stands disposed of in above terms.''   

Justice Singh of the High Court had passed the order after hearing an appeal under Section 14(A)(2) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 against the rejection of prayer for bail vide order dated June 24, 2024 passed by the Pankaj Chauhan Special Judge, SC/ST (POA) Act, Patna in Serial No. 158 of 2024 which arose out of Shahpur, Patna P.S. Case No. 147 of 2024 dated April 18, 2024 registered for the offence/s punishable under Sections 147, 148, 149, 341, 323, 307, 302, 338, 504, 506 of the Indian Penal Code and sections 3(1) (r)(s) / 3(2) (va) (v) of the SC/ST (POA) Act. 

According to the prosecution case, on April 14, 2024, the informant along with the some other people was celebrating Ambedkar Jyanti, in the meantime, some anti-social elements started abusing by taking her caste name for which the informant objected. Thereafter, on April 17, 2024, the appellant along with the other co-accused persons having arms came there and started pelting stones on her community members causing injuries to them. It was also alleged that they also fired on them due to that one Vikaram Kumar sustained gun shot injury and subsequently he died.

The counsel for the appellant submitted that the appellant was falsely implicated in this case due to ulterior motive. He also submitted that the caste name was not disclosed by anyone at the time of the alleged occurrence. As per FIR, no member of public was present at the relevant point of time of the alleged incident hence no case was made out under section SC/ST Act. There was general and omnibus allegation against the appellants. There is no specific allegation of firing against the appellant. The appellant had no criminal antecedent as stated in the bail petition. 

The counsel for Baleshwari Devi, the respondent no. 2 as well as Special Public Prosecutor for the State was opposed the bail petition of the appellant in the High Court. 

Justice Singh had concluded: "6. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case as well as finding substance in the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant, the impugned order dated 24.06.2024 passed by the learned Pankaj Chauhan Special Judge, SC/ST (POA) Act, Patna in Serial No. 158 of 2024 arising out of Shahpur P.S. Case No. 147 of 2024, is set aside against the appellant. The criminal appeal is allowed. 7. Accordingly, the above named appellant, is directed to be enlarged on bail...." 

Notably, Supreme Court too has directed the release of Supan Rai ''from the judicial custody in terms and conditions already imposed upon him by the High Court'' but it granted liberty to Baleshwari Devi saying, "However, liberty is given to the petitioner to file an application for cancellation of bail, if the subsequent development warrants the same." The order dated October 10, 2025 concluded: ''The Special Leave Petition stands disposed of in above terms. Accordingly, IA No. 245017/2025 also stands disposed of.'' It is noteworthy that SLP(Crl.) No. 013924/2024 was heard along with Interlocutory Application No.(s) 231152/2024, 231153/2024, 231155/2024, 281558/2024 with SLP (Criminal) No.(s) 2332/2025, 2353/2025 and 2358/2025.

From the Archives:A Memorandum No. 641/2025 dated February 19, 2025 addressed to the Senior Superintendent of Police, Patna with reference to Office Memorandum No. 441/Vi.Co. Dated 202/2025 (sic) SLP(Crl.) 13924/2024 titled Baleshwari Devi Vs. State of Bihar & Ors. on the subject ''Regarding compliance of the order dated 18.04.24(sic) passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court New Delhi in PS Shahpur Case No.147/24'' from SHO Police Station, Shahpur, Patna is in public domain. It reads: ''Sir, With reference to the above mentioned subject, it is to be respectfully apprised that in the light of the points mentioned in the order dated 18.04.24 (sic) passed in SLP(Crl.) No.13924/2024 titled Baleshwari Devi vs. State of Bihar & Ors. by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, New Delhi, in PS Shahpur Case No.147/24, a non-bailable warrant NBW has been  received for arresting accused Supan Rai son of late Jodha Rai resident of Maksudpur, Ward No.03, Police Station Shahpur, District Patna and producing him before the Hon'ble Supreme Court.'' 

 

SHO Police Station, Shahpur, Patna wrote: ''When I conducted continuous raids for the arrest of the above accused, it was found that he does not reside at home. After collecting information, it was found that he lives somewhere else due to fear of arrest, yet I am conducting raids at various places for his arrest. As soon as he is arrested, he will be produced before the Hon'ble Supreme Court. Therefore, it is respectfully submitted for information.''

 

Patna High Court sets aside judgement by Vinay Prakash Tiwary, the trial court judge in Satyanarayan Sinha murder case, reverses acquittal of Rit Lal Yadav

"10. This Court, in State of Uttar Pradesh vs. Ambarish, (2021) 16 SCC 371 held that while deciding a criminal appeal on merits, the High Court is required to apply its mind to the entirety of the case, including the evidence on the record before arriving at its conclusion. In this regard, we may also refer to the orders passed by this Court in Shakuntala Shukla vs. State of Uttar Pradesh, (2021) 20 SCC 818 and State Bank of India vs. Ajay Kumar Sood, (2023) 7 SCC 282."

 -Supreme Court's Division Bench of Justices B.V. Nagarathna and H. Mahadevan on September t 18, 2025 in The State of Uttarakhand va. Anil & Ors. 

Patna High Court sets aside judgement by Vinay Prakash Tiwary, the trial court judge in Satyanarayan Sinha murder case, reverses acquittal of Rit Lal Yadav

On September 25, 2025, Patna High Court delivered 24 judgements in Shailendra Kumar vs. Girindra Kumar, RAHMAT Rozy vs. Sushil Kumar @ Sushil Kumar BH, Rohit Kumar vs. Anita Devi @ Anita Pandey, Kumar Karunesh Kaithal vs. Seema Kaithal, Anjan Kumar Roy, vs. Smt. Mala Devi, Ajeet Kumar Singh vs. Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd., Mohd Abul Kalam @ Md. Abdul Kalam, vs. The Indian Oil Corporation Limited, Jitendra Chaudhary vs. The State of Bihar, Most Asha Devi vs. The State of Bihar, Most Asha Devi vs. State of Bihar, Amar Kumar Yadav @ Amar Prasad Yadav vs. The State of Bihar, Satyanarayan Sharma vs. Smt. Champa Devi, Aadarsh Kumar vs. The State of Bihar, Manti Devi vs. The State of Bihar & Ors., I.K. College of Pharmacy vs. The State of Bihar, Chandrashekhar Roy vs. The State of Bihar, Anil Kumar Singh vs. The State Of Bihar & Ors., Nityanand Singh vs. The State of Bihar, Lalan Singh vs. The State of Bihar Through Principal Secretary, Department of Home, Govt. of Bihar, Uday Mahton vs. State of Bihar, Md. Taslim vs. State of Bihar, The State of Bihar through the District Magistrate, Patna vs. Sunil Yadav @ Kana, The State of Bihar through the Dist. Magistrate, Patna vs. Rit Lal Yadav and Anil Kumar Roy and Ors Vs. Janak Singh and Ors. 

In Most Asha Devi Wife of Late Satyanarayan Sinha vs. The State of Bihar & Anr. (2025), High Court's Division Bench of Justices Rajeev Ranjan Prasad and Ashok Kumar Pandey delivered a 114-page long judgment dated September 25, 2025, wherein, it set aside the impugned judgment dated May 14, 2025 by Vinay Prakash Tiwary, the then District and Additional Sessions Judge of Patna (May 11, 2022-March 25, 2025), which had acquitted Rit Lal Yadav in the murder case of 2003. The judgement was authored by Justice Prasad. This criminal appeal was heard along with the government appeal The State of Bihar through the Dist. Magistrate, Patna vs. Rit Lal Yadav (2025). 

The High Court has recorded that the judgment of acquittal was delivered on May 14, 2024 but a copy of the judgment was placed before Prashant Kumar Shahi, the Advocate General on November 20, 2024.  

The criminal appeal against acquittal by Tiwari, the trial court judge was filed by Asha Devi, the wife of Satyanarayan Sinha on July 31, 2024 and registered on August 3, 2024 and some four months later, the government appeal against Tiwari, the trial court judge was filed on November 28, 2024 and registered on December 3, 2024. Tiwari is currently the District and Additional Sessions Judge, Kaimur at Bhabhua. The High Court has described the judgement by Tiwari, the trial court (Additional Sessions Judge-III-cum-Special Judge MP/MLA, Patna) acquitting Rit Lal Yadav, the Respondent no. 2 for the offences punishable under Sections 148, 307 and 302 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 27 of the Arms Act to be perverse. The judgement by the trial court seems to be a case study on the subject of how not to write a judgement. 

The High Court's judgment recorded the findings of the trial court of Tiwari. It recorded that the trial court having analysed the evidences adduced on behalf of the prosecution and the defence recorded in paragraph ‘22’ of its judgment that the trial of Trial No. 246 of 2006 and 246A of 2006 originated from the same P.S. case i.e. Danapur P.S. Case No. 200 of 2003, so both the records were 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 stated that the occurrence took place near the house of Ram Babu Pathik, he was 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 was been accepted by Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate (ACJM), Danapur. The prosecution never challenged that order, therefore, it will be deemed to have been accepted by the prosecution.  The trial court also noted that the prosecution did not draw the attention of the trial court towards Section 319 Cr.PC. 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. 

Tiwari, the trial court judge seemed to have feigned ignorance of the provisions of Section 319 of Cr.PC which deals with the power to proceed against other persons appearing to be guilty of offence, if any person not being the accused appears to have committed any offence for which such person could be tried together with the accused, the power of the trial court judge to proceed against such person for the offence which he appears to have committed.

It reads:319 "(1) Where, in the course of any inquiry into, or trial of, an offence, it appears from the evidence that any person not being the accused has committed any offence for which such person could be tried together with the accused, the Court may proceed against such person for the offence which he appears to have committed.
(2) Where such person is not attending the Court, he may be arrested or summoned, as the circumstances of the case may require, for the purpose aforesaid.
(3) Any person attending the Court, although not under arrest or upon a summons, may be detained by such Court for the purpose of the inquiry into, or trial of, the offence which he appears to have committed.
(4) Where the Court proceeds against any person under sub-section (1), then—(a) the proceedings in respect of such person shall be commenced afresh, and the witnesses re-heard;
(b) subject to the provisions of clause (a), the case may proceed as if such person had been an accused person when the Court took cognizance of the offence upon which the inquiry or trial was commenced."

The High Court recorded that 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, 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 trial court.

The High Court's judgement recorded that 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 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.

The High Court judgement has recorded that the trial court also took 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 occurrence so the prosecution failed to establish the exact place of occurrence of this case. The trial court also held that the I.O. 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. 

The High Court has recorded that the trial court 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, 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 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 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 learned trial court, it cannot be said that the I.O. was in collusion with the accused. In ultimate analysis, the 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. 

The High court's judgement records: "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."  

Taking note of the questionable and dubious nature of the judgement by the trial court, the Division Bench remitted "the matter to the trial court once again for fresh consideration after taking on the records the documents which have already been marked exhibit but not placed on the record of the trial court or the records which are there on the record, signatures thereon have been marked exhibits but the whole document has not been marked. 113. The learned trial court shall hear the parties and dispose of the matter as early as possible. This Court would place on record that earlier the trial of this case has already been delayed, therefore, all endeavours and efforts be made to decide the matter without granting unnecessary adjournments. It is expected that the trial court would decide the matter preferably within a period of four months from the date of receipt of this order with the trial court records. 114. The trial court shall reappraise the evidences and take an independent view uninfluenced by any of the observations of this Court on merit." At present, Dhananjay Kumar Mishra is the District and Additional Sessions Judge, Patna since March 29, 2025. 

The High Court found that the trial court's finding that "the prosecution witnesses have given different statement in the court than the statement to the police" is completely baseless and unfounded". It noticed that it was ''one of the reasons for acquittal'' of Rit Lal Yadav, the accused-respondent no. 2, as recorded in the impugned judgment.

Justice Prasad observed: "115. While parting with this judgment, this Court would express its anguish on the manner in which the records of the case have been maintained. We have noticed that a number of important documents are lying on the record in torn condition and are getting destroyed. This Court would, therefore, direct the learned Registrar General of this Court to issue appropriate direction to the concerned Section/Office of this Court to get the records properly arranged and safely preserved. The documents which are getting damaged and destroyed be preserved in digital form. 116. Let this exercise be done within a period of two weeks from today and thereafter the trial court records with a copy of the judgment be sent to the court of learned Additional Sessions Judge-III-cum-Special Judge MP/MLA Court through a special messenger. 117. The accused-private respondent shall surrender in the trial court within two weeks from today, if he is on bail, then the trial court shall obtain fresh bail bond from the accused-private respondent. 118. It is made clear that the observations of this Court hereinabove shall not cause prejudice to the case of the either parties. 119. The appeals are allowed to the extent indicated hereinabove."

Both the appeals were preferred by the State and the informant respectively for setting aside the judgment dated May 14, 2024 passed in a Sessions Trial of 2006 which arose out of Danapur P.S. case of 2003 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge-III-cum-Special Judge MP/MLA, Patna by which the trial court has been pleased to acquit Rit Lal Yadav, the Respondent no. 2 for the offences punishable under Sections 148, 307 and 302 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 27 of the Arms Act.

The prosecution story was 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 stated that on April 30, 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 was alleged that three persons came out of the vehicle and shouted  “Satya Narayan Aa Gaya”. They all were armed with weapons. After hearing the hulla, Rambabu Pathik, Rit Lal 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, Rit Lal 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 was the claim of the informant that the accused persons namely Rambabu Pathik, Rit Lal Yadav, Sunil Yadav @ Kana, Ranjan Yadav @ Benga and other criminals had killed her husband Satya Narayan Sinha, due to enmity.

On the basis of the written report of the informant (Exhibit '1'), Danapur P.S. Case No. 200 of 2003 dated May 1, 2003 was registered under Sections 147, 148, 149, 323, 307, 324 and 302 IPC and Section 27 of the Arms Act. 

In the High Court, the Additional Public Prosecutor relied upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Ganesha vs. Sharanappa and Another reported in (2014) 1 SCC 87 and Rajeswar Prasad Misra vs. State of W.B. and Another reported in AIR 1965 SC 1887 to submit that where the trial court 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.

The informant's counsel relied on paragraph ‘29’ and ‘30 of the Supreme Court's decisions in Shahaja @ Shahajan Ismail Mohd. Shaikh vs. State of Maharashtra reported in (2023) 12 SCC 558, wherein, the Court was dwelt on the principles governing the appreciation of ocular evidences. He also drew on paragraph ‘25’ to ‘27’ of the Court's decision in Edakkandi Dineshan and Others vs. State of Kerala reported in (2025) 3 SCC 273, wherein, it was held that lapses on the part of the Investigating Officer should not be taken in favour of the accused because such lapses may be 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.

The informant's counsel also relied on Supreme Court's decisions in 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 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. He also submitted that by catena of judgments, the 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. It was 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. 

Justice Prasad observed:"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 judgement records: ''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 written information submitted by Havaldar M.M. Sattar Sheikh of Bihar Military Police-9 dated 01.05.2003 is on the record.'' The prosecution established that the killing of Satyanarayan Sinha took place on April 30, 2003 at 11:30 AM. 

The High Court has recorded: ''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.''

The High Court's judgement records that Rit Lal Yadav, 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.'' 

Justice Prasad observed:''We take judicial notice of the fact that one of the accused in this case was the samdhi of the then Chief Minister of the State of Bihar, the informant (PW-1) has specifically stated so in her protest petition (Exhibit ‘2’) and she has stated that the police officers were not taking any legal action in the matter.'' 

The Division Bench also observed: ''We are of the opinion that no doubt the investigation of the case has not been done properly, there are huge lapses on the part of the investigating agency for obvious reasons that the investigating agency was under the ultimate control of the then Chief Minister of the State, however, in course of trial the I.O. (PW-8) has supported the prosecution case on certain aspects of the matter such that PW-8 has stated that the place, date and time of occurrence in this case is the same as that of Danapur P.S. Case No. 198 of 2003. It was the duty of the learned trial court to consider as to whether the lapses on the part of the investigating agency may confer any benefit to the accused.'' 

It drew on the Supreme Court's decision in Harendra Rai vs. State of Bihar reported in (2023) 13 SCC 563, wherein, it observed that "the failure of the State machinery and failure of the trial court to ensure a fair trial from the perspective of the victim side and the aspect of non-marking of the FIR and bayan tahriri as an exhibit, non-production of the formal witnesses in the trial would not vitiate the genuineness of the FIR and bayan tahriri. The Supreme Court observed: “… We refuse to give any discount to the accused persons for non-exhibition thereof….” 

The High Court relied on the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Ram Bihari Yadav vs. State of Bihar reported in 1998 4 SCC 517, the Court referred to paragraph 13 of the decision in case of Harendra Rai (supra). It reads: “13. Before parting with this case, we consider it appropriate to observe that though the prosecution has to prove the case against the accused in the manner stated by it and that any act or omission on the part of the prosecution giving rise to any reasonable doubt would go in favour of the accused, yet in a case like the present one where the record shows that investigating officers created a mess by bringing on record Ext. 5/4 and GD Entry 517 and have exhibited remiss and/or deliberately omitted to do what they ought to have done to bail out the appellant who was a member of the police force or for any extraneous reason, the interest of justice demands that such acts or omissions of the officers of the prosecution should not be taken in favour of the accused, for that would amount to giving premium for the wrongs of the prosecution designedly committed to favour the appellant. In such cases, the story of the prosecution will have to be examined dehors such omissions and contaminated conduct of the officials otherwise the mischief which was deliberately done would be perpetuated and justice would be denied to the complainant party and this would obviously shake the confidence of the people not merely in the law-
enforcing agency but also in the administration of justice.”

In view of these judicial pronouncements, Justice Prasad observed: ''we are of the considered opinion that the learned trial court was obliged to examine the materials available on the record even though there was a mess created by the I.O.s of this case and there was a deliberate attempt to omit to do something which they ought to have done to bail out the accused.'' 

On the effect of lapses on the part of the Investigating Officer, the Supreme Court in Paras Yadav vs. State of Bihar reported in (1999) 2 SCC 126 observed:-“8. … the lapse on the part of the investigating officer should not be taken in favour of the accused. It may be that such lapse is committed designedly or because of negligence. Hence, the prosecution evidence is required to be examined dehors such omissions to find out whether the said evidence is reliable or not…”  

The High Court's Division Bench considered ''the evidence on the record to take a view as to whether the learned trial court has appreciated the evidence in a proper manner to acquit the accused.'' It noted that on April 30, 2003, the ruling political party in the state of Bihar had called for a rally under name and style “Tel Pilawan, Lathi gumawan”. It came in evidence that the people who had come to attend the rally were coming to the house of Rambabu Pathik where there were arrangements for snacks and beverages for them. The deceased Satyanarayan Sinha had contested the assembly election against the candidate of the ruling party, he had lost the election. It was also an admitted position that there was a political rivalry between the deceased and the accused-respondent no.2 as it has come in evidence that the accused- respondent no.2 had contested election on the ticket of Bharatiya Janata Party against Dr. Ramanand Yadav of the ruling political party RJD. 

In paragraph ‘19’ of her deposition PW-1 stated that at that time respondent no.2 was Mukhiya of Kothwa Gram Panchayat. She has also stated in her deposition that her husband was a Ward Commissioner. It has also come in evidence that in the said election, the accused-respondent no.2 and other accused persons were the supporters of the RJD, therefore the political rivalry between the two was established by the prosecution. 

The genesis of the occurrence was established from the evidence on the record that on the date of rally when the deceased was going in his Bolero vehicle and was passing through the road near the house of Rambabu Pathik, a Maruti vehicle was parked there in such a way that the vehicle of the deceased could not have moved ahead. It was at this place that Satyanarayan Sinha was killed. The trial court while analysing the evidence in paragraph ‘20’ of its judgment took into consideration the evidences adduced in a Trial of 2006 in the name of the ends of justice and for the better appreciation of evidences. This, in our opinion would not be a correct approach. 

In the case of A.T. Mydeen and Another vs. Assistant Commissioner, Customs Department reported in (2022) 14 SCC 392, the Supreme Court referred the judgment in the case of State of Kerala and Others vs. Joseph @ Baby and Others reported in (2014) 16 SCC 385. In the said case, the High Court had considered the evidence of one sessions case which tried some of the accused in another sessions case, which was trying another set of co-accused arising out of same offence and acquitted all the accused. The Hon’ble Supreme Court held that the High Court was not right in considering the evidence of one case for another case and accordingly set aside the judgment of the High Court and remanded the matter to the High Court for fresh disposal. We, therefore, find that the learned trial court has erred on this count also.

The  High Court observed: "91. We further notice from the judgment of the learned trial court that the trial court has relied upon the fact that Rambabu Pathik was not chargesheeted by the investigating agency, the final form submitted by police was accepted by learned jurisdictional Magistrate and even in course of trial, the prosecution did not invoke Section 319 CrPC to summon Rambabu Pathik. The trial court observed that the prosecution witnesses including the informant have stated in their evidence that Rambabu Pathik was order giver and prior to this, all the accused persons came from his house. The trial court observed that such things becomes more relevant. In our opinion, this finding of the trial court is completely perversed. The learned trial court had before it the statement of the prosecution witnesses and the court was aware of the provision of Section 319 CrPC. If the trial court was satisfied from the evidence that any person not being an accused has committed any offence for which such person could be tried together with the accused, the court could have proceeded against the said person and under subsection (2) of section 319 CrPC such person could have been summoned. Instead of acting in accordance with law, the trial court drew an adverse inference against the prosecution case."

Before concluding the High Court observed: "111. In the present case, since we have noticed that the trial
court has not only failed to ensure that the exhibits are to be properly marked but has also mistaken Sanjay Kumar (PW-4) as an injured witness and has drawn adverse inference from his deposition, for the various reasons which we have discussed hereinabove, we are of the considered opinion that the judgment of the trial court in this case is only a cut and paste judgment of Sessions Trial No. 246 of 2006. Paragraph ‘20’ of this judgment is verbatimly the same and one as that of paragraph ‘22’ of the judgment in Sessions Trial No. 246 of 2006. The impugned judgment is, therefore, apparently in the nature of a routine and mechanical judgment without properly appreciating the evidences on the record. We have discussed the evidences and have given some observations hereinabove only for pointing out how the learned trial court has missed out in appreciation of the evidences on the record."

It is noteworthy that in Most Asha Devi vs. The State of Bihar and Anr.(2024), in his order dated November 27, 2024, Justice Prasad recorded: ''2. It appears that due to typographical inadvertence, in the order dated 30.10.2024, the designation of the learned court has been mentioned as 'the court of learned Additional Sessions Judge III-cum-Special Judge, PMLA, Danapur' instead of 'the court of learned Additional Sessions Judge-III-cum-Special Judge, MP/MLA, Patna'.'' Was the typographical error really inadvertent? 

Prior to this in Most Asha Devi vs. The State of Bihar and Anr.(2024), in his order dated October 23, 2024 High Court's Division Bench of Justices Ashutosh Kumar and Rajesh Kumar Verma reads: ''Four weeks’ time is granted to the learned counsel for the appellant to remove the defects as pointed out by the Stamp Reporter. 2. Once the defects are removed, let this case be listed under the appropriate heading on 25th of November, 2024.' The order was authored by Justice Kumar. 

In Most Asha Devi vs. The State of Bihar and Anr.(2024), High Court's Division Bench of Justices Prasad and Ashok Kumar Pandey passed an order dated December 17, 2024. It reads: ''At the outset, learned counsel for the appellant submits that he has not mentioned the age of the respondent no.2 in the cause title portion of the brief for the reason that the age of the respondent is not mentioned in the trial court’s judgment. 2. Taking note of the aforesaid submissions, we ignore the defect for not recording the age. 3. The trial court’s records have been received. 4. Issue notice to respondent no. 2 through both modes i.e. under registered cover with A/D as well as by ordinary process for which requisites etc. must be filed within one week, failing which this appeal shall stand dismissed as against the concerned respondent without further reference to a Bench. 5. This Court has been informed that the State of Bihar has preferred Govt. Appeal (DB) No.6 of 2024 and Govt. Appeal (DB) No.7 of 2024 against the impugned judgment. An another appeal preferred by the informant is Cr.Appeal (DB) No.952 of 2024 which is listed today. 6. Let all the appeals arising out of the impugned judgment be listed together on 17.02.2025 under the same heading maintaining their position."

From February 17, 2025, both the criminal appeal dated July 31, 2024 and the government appeal dated November 28, 2024 against Tiwari, the trial court judge were heard together.  

The order dated February 17, 2025 by the High Court's Division Bench of Justices Prsaad and Shailendra Singh revealed that besides Govt. Appeal (DB) No.7 of 2024 and Criminal Appeal (DB) No.952, Govt Appeal (DB) No.6 of 2024 (The State of Bihar through the District Magistrate, Patna vs. Sunil Yadav @ Kana & Ors. (2024) was being heard together. The other two respondents were Ranjan Kumar @ Benga and Sharvan Kumar. Notably, Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 955 of 2024 (Most Asha Devi vs. State of Bihar Bihar & Ors. (2024) was also heard along with these appeals. The other three respondents were: Sunil Yadav @ Kana, Ranjan Kumar @ Benga and Shravan Kumar. The order dated February 17, 2025 reads:"Issue notice to respondent nos. 2 and 3 in limitation as well as admission matter through both by ordinary process as well as under registered cover with A/D for which requisites etc. must be filed within two weeks from today, failing which this appeal shall stand dismissed without further reference to the Bench.2. The trial court’s record has already been called for in Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 952 of 2024 and the same has been received. 3. Mr. Gajanan Mishra, learned counsel has entered appearance on behalf of respondent no. 1 of this case in the connected appeal being Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 955 of 2024. He has filed Vakalatnama in the said case only today. Learned counsel undertakes to file Vakalatnama on behalf of respondent no. 1 in the present case within two weeks from today. 4. In Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 952 of 2024, this Court has issued notice to respondent no. 2 vide order dated 17.12.2024 and as per the office report, notice has been validly served upon him vide process server report which is at Flag ‘C’ in Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 952 of 2024. The respondent no. 2 has, however, not entered appearance in the said appeal. 5. By way of abundant caution, this Court issues notice to the sole respondent in limitation as well as in G.Appeal (DB) No. 7 of 2024 through both by ordinary process as well as under registered cover with A/D for which requisites etc. must be filed within two weeks from today, failing which this appeal shall stand dismissed without further reference to the Bench. 6. Perused the office notes. It appears that notices have been validly served upon respondent no. 2 in this case, however, respondent no. 2 has not entered appearance. 7. It appears on perusal of the office notes provided in Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 952 of 2024 that notices to respondent nos. 2, 3 and 4 in Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 955 of 2024 were issued, it has been validly served upon respondent nos. 3 and 4 vide process server report which is kept at Flag ‘D’ in Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 955 of 2024. 8. As regards respondent no. 2 in Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 955 of 2024, it is stated that his notice has been received by his staff. We find from the records that respondent no. 2 in Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 955 of 2024 has entered appearance through Mr. Gajanan Mishra, learned Advocate, therefore, all the respondents in Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 955 of 2024 have been validly served. 9. These four appeals are being tagged for consideration simultaneously. 10. List these matters after four weeks i.e. on 24.03.2025 under appropriate heading." The order was authored by Justice Prasad. 

The High Court's order dated March 27, 2025 recorded: "5. This Court has been informed that the Trial Court Records have already been received."

Fate of case arising out of Danapur P.S. Case No. 198 of 2003 dated April 30, 2003 not known 

The High Court's judgment dated September 25, 2025 has recorded that on February 5, 2015, the defence had 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 Danapur P.S. Case No. 198 of 2003 to help the accused. 

Asha Devi, the informant had filed a protest petition against the conduct of the police. The accused had filed a petition for amalgamation of this case with Danapur P.S. Case No. 198 of 2003 but vide order dated March 31, 2015, the trial court had rejected the said prayer of the accused. The High Court's perusal of the records revealed that for about four months thereafter, the judgment was not delivered by the trial court.  

On November 20, 2017, the records were transferred to the court of ADJ-IV, Patna and again the records were transferred on March 5, 2018 to FTC-II Court, on May 21, 2018, it was transferred to ADJ-IX-cum Special Court. The records were sent without the case diary on August 7, 2018, argument started once again but on December 18, 2018, the records were transferred to ADJ-IV-cum-MP/MLA Court. The records were again transferred on January 18, 2019, March 5, 2019, April 5, 2019, April 6, 2019, May 27, 2019, September 5, 2019 and December 10, 2019. Ritalal Yadav, the accused was earlier granted bail by the High Court vide order dated November 14, 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 Janaury 20, 2020, the accused filed a bail bond in this case after he was granted provisional bail in another case. On February 12, 2020, his bail bond was cancelled and production warrant was issued for his production from jail where he was lodged since February 10, 2020 in connection with another case (Special 271 of 2018). His bail bond was restored vide order dated June 4, 2020. Again on August 18, 2020, the records were transferred to ADJ-XXI, Patna. On September 29, 2020, the records were transferred to the court of ADJ-X, Patna citing Standing Order No. 36 of 2020 dated September 26, 2020. On January 9, 2021, the records were transferred to ADJ-III, Patna-cum Special Court MP/MLA. On Jnaury 13, 2021, records were transferred to ADJ-XII Patna citing Standing Order No. 05/21 dated January 12, 21. It appeaed to the High Court from the records that the original LCR and the case diary in this case went missing. On June 15, 2022, a show cause was issued to the Bench Clerk namely Rajiv Kumar and on June 24, 2022, a direction was issued to initiate a proceeding against him. 

Asha Devi 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 were missing and it was being deliberately done to further delay the trial. The writ court vide it's order dated July 12, 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 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.” 

High Court's judgement dated September 25, 2025 reads:"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." 

The High Court's order dated May 7, 2025 in Cr. Appeal (DB) Nos. 952 and 955 of 2024 and Govt. Appeal (DB) Nos. 6 and 7 of 2024 reads:''3. In both these appeals, applications have been filed seeking condonation of delay of 148 days and 147 days respectively. Mr. Ajay Kumar Mishra, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State submits that the judgment of acquittal was delivered on 14.05.2024, however, a copy of the judgment was placed before the learned Advocate General on 20.11.2024. 4. It is submitted that again on 20.11.2024, the records of the present case were handed over to the learned Additional Public Prosecutor by the learned Advocate General to file Government Appeal. Thereafter, the memo of appeal and limitation petition of government appeal were drafted by the Additional Public Prosecutor and the authority was competent to sworn affidavit was informed. 5. It is stated that the authority competent came to sworn affidavit on 27.11.2024 whereafter the appeals were drafted. 6. There is no opposition to this application. 7. Learned counsel for the private respondents would however submit that there is some bureaucratic delay in filing of the appeal for which this Court may pass an appropriate order. 8. Having regard to the submissions noted hereinabove and on finding that against the same judgment of acquittal, there are two appeals preferred by the informant also which are being heard together, this Court is of the considered opinion that delay in filing of the appeals is condoned. The appellant shall pay a cost of Rs. 2,000/- in each of the appeals. Such deposits shall be made with the Patna High Court Legal Service Committee within four weeks’ from today. 9. Let all the appeals be listed simultaneously for further consideration.''

The order dated June 25, 2025 by Division Bench of the High Court comprsing Justices Rajeev Ranjan Prasad and Ashok Kumar Pandey reads: "While the hearing was still going on and Mr. Rajendra Narayan, learned senior counsel was arguing the matter, it transpired that in this case Exhibit-‘D’ is the FIR giving rise to Danapur P.S. Case No. 198 of 2003. This Court made certain queries with respect to the said case, however, neither learned counsel for the State, the informant nor learned counsel for the defence/respondents are aware of the present stage of the said case. 2. Mr. Ajay Mishra, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State, Mr. Apurva Harsh, learned counsel for the informant and Mr. Rajendra Narayan, learned Sr. counsel for the respondents have jointly requested that they may be allowed some time to inspect the records of the trial court arising out of Danapur P.S. Case No. 198 of 2003. 3. The Trial Court shall make available the records for inspection immediately after it is applied for by the parties. 4. List these matters for further hearing on 01st of July, 2025."

After counsel for the parties concluded their arguments, the Division Bench of Justices Prasad and Pandey had reserved the judgment by its order dated July 3, 2025.
 

 

 

 

Patna High Court upholds conviction of first appellant, sets aside conviction of second appellant under Section 302

In Kamakhya Singh & Anr. vs. State of Bihar, Patna High Court's Division Bench of Justice Bibek Chaudhuri and Dr. Anshuman delivered a 45-page long judgement dated September 11, 2025 after hearing an appeal against the judgement and order of conviction and sentence passed by the 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Bhojpur at Ara on 2November 27, 1995 in Sessions Trial No. 271 of 1991, whereby and whereunder, the appellants were held guilty and convicted of the charges under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and also under Sections 149/302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for life. Both the appellants were also sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years for the offence punishable under Section 148 of the I.P.C. and Section 27 of the Arms Act, 1959. It was directed by the Trial Court that substantive sentences of rigorous imprisonment shall run concurrently. This was one of the three judgements delivered on September 13 by the High Court. 

The Division Bench of Justices Chaudhary and Dr. Anshuman drew on Supreme Court's decision in Shyamal Ghosh vs. State of West Bengal, reported in (2012) 7 SCC 646, wherein, the name of the accused was not stated in the F.I.R. He was not identified in police custody but the Court relied on the statement of PW-8 with regard to the role of the accused, on the basis of his identification in Court.

The Division Bench also relied on Supreme Court's decision in Tika Ram vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, reported in (2007) 15 SCC 760, while rejecting the argument that name of the accused was not mentioned in the F.I.R. held that this would not by itself be sufficient to reject the prosecution case as against the accused. The Court further held that where the prosecution was able to establish its case, such omission by itself would not be sufficient to give benefit of doubt to the accused.

Justice Chaudhari who authored the judgement observed: "In the instant case, appellant-Kamakhya Singh is not entitled to get benefit of doubt on the same logic laid down by the Apex Court in the above-mentioned decision on the ground that in the F.I.R. his name was not mentioned as the assailant of Jagannath Kahar." He placed reliance on Supreme Court's decision in Paresh Kalyandas Bhavsar Vs. Sadiq Yakubbhai Jamadar & Ors., reported in AIR 1993 SC 1544, wherein, it held that mere interestedness was not a ground to reject the evidence of the eye witnesses, particularly those who were injured. Firstly, their presence during the occurrence cannot be doubted. Secondly, the injured witnesses would be the last persons to leave out the real culprits and implicate others falsely.

He also relied on Supreme Court's decision in Rajju @ Prakash vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, reported in 1993 Supp (4) SCC 667 because it deemed it almost similar to the incident like the case in hand.  He referred to decisions in Gangadhar Behera & Ors. vs. State of Orissa, reported in (2002) 8 SCC 381, Chanakya Dhibar (dead) vs. State of West Bengal & Ors., reported in (2004) 12 SCC 398 and Dani Singh & Ors. vs. State of Bihar, reported in 2005 SCC (Crl) 127 and in Ramachandran & Ors. vs. State of Kerala, reported in (2011) 9 SCC 257, Taijuddin vs. State of Assam & Ors., reported in (2022) 1 SCC 395, Pulen Phukan & Ors. vs. State of Assam, reported in (2023) 13 SCC 41 and Naresh @ Nehru v. State of Haryana, reported in (2023) 10 SCC 134. 

The Division Bench judgement reads: "On examination of the lower court records and the case-diary for a limited purpose, we are astonished to note that even the sketch map of the place of occurrence was not drawn by the Investigating Officer. 61. In our view, the investigation of the case was conducted in a very perfunctory manner. At this stage, question that arises for consideration is as to whether a wrong and perfunctory investigation would go in favour of the appellants when the evidence on record sufficiently proves the role of each of the appellants, precisely and without any shadow of doubt. It is needless to say that we are not in a position to discard the evidence of the injured witnesses."

It observed: "77. We have already stated that the appellants would not get any advantage due to perfunctory and lackadaisical investigation of the Investigating Officer. It is obvious that in a village house, source of light is by lantern and naturally lanterns were burning at about 08.00 P.M. on the date of occurrence in the house of the victims. Moreover, the appellants are residents of the same village and they are known to the witness from before. Therefore, no suspicion can be raised over identification of the appellants. 78. For the reasons stated above, we are of the view that the Trial Court rightly convicted and sentenced appellant Kamakhya Singh for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code to the imprisonment for life and also to pay fine of Rs. 50,000/-, in default, simple imprisonment to six (6) months. 79. However, for the reasons, recorded hereinabove, we are of the view that the prosecution failed to prove the charge of offence under Section 302/149 of the I.P.C. against the accused Binod Singh on the ground of vicarious liability in prosecution of common object. Specific act alleged against Binod Singh is causing gun shot injury to Baleshwar Prasad on his right hand. 80. Therefore, while setting aside the order of conviction and sentence against appellant Binod Singh under Section 302 read with Section 149 of the I.P.C., this Court holds that appellant Binod Singh is liable to be punished for the offence under Section 307 of the I.P.C."

The Division Bench concluded: "81. Thus, this Court holds that appellant no. 2 Binod Singh be sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for seven years with fine of Rs. 10,000/-, in default, to suffer further simple imprisonment for six months for the offence punishable under Section 307 of the I.P.C. 82. In case of appellant Binod Singh, the period of incarceration which he had undergone during investigation, trial of the case, after passing of the sentence by the Trial Court till the grant of bail to him, shall be set up against the actual period of punishment. 83. The appellants are directed to surrender before the Trial Court within a period of two weeks from the date of this order, failing which the Trial Court is at liberty to issue warrant of arrest against them."