Judgement records that in written application by informant, 24 persons and other unknown persons were named as accused, ex-MLA, Manoj Manzil's name figured at Serial No. 18
In Manoj Manzil vs. The State of Bihar (2025), Patna High Court's Division Bench of Justices Rajeev Ranjan Prasad and Ajit Kumar delivered a 72-page long judgement dated October 7, 2025, wherein, it upheld upon the judgment of conviction dated February 13, 2024 and the order of sentence dated February 13, 2024 passed by Special Judge of M.P/M.L.A. Court-cum-Additional Sessions Judge-III, Bhojpur at Ara in Sessions Trial No. 123 of 2019 which arose out of Azimabad, Bhojpur P.S. Case No. 51 of 2015. The judgment was delivered after hearing the three appeals against the judgement by the Special Judge. The High Court's Division Bench did not find any perversity in
the findings of the trial court. The judgements of the High Court's Division Bench was authored by Justice
Prasad. It is one of the nine judgments delivered by the High Court on October 7, 2025.
The other eight judgments were delivered in Ranjeet Sah vs. The State of Bihar, Ramesh Prajapati vs. The State of Bihar & Ors., Malvika Kumari vs. The State of Bihar & Ors., Ram Gopal Choudhary vs. The State of Bihar & Ors., Sanjeev Kumar Tiwari @ Sanjeev Kumar Tiwary vs. The State of Bihar & Ors., Gopal Krishna Tiwary vs. The State of Bihar & Ors., Amitabh vs. The State of Bihar & Ors. and Shamsher Singh Awadhwale vs. The State of Bihar & Ors.
In Manoj Manzil case, the trial court had convicted all the appellants for the offences punishable under Sections 302, 364 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) read with Section 149 IPC. The appellants have been ordered to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/- each for the offence punishable under Section 302/149 IPC and in case of default in payment of fine, they have to also undergo three months simple imprisonment. For the offence under Section 364/149 IPC, they have to undergo ten years rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/- each. For the offence punishable under Section 201/149 IPC, they have to undergo three years rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- each. All the sentences are to run concurrently.
The judgement has five sections, namely, Prosecution Case, Findings of the Learned Trial Court, Submissions on behalf of the Appellants, Submissions on behalf of the State and Consideration. From
page no. 30, page no. 24 onward, the High Court provided its "consideration" and findings till the final para no. 60 at page no. 72.
In the penultimate para of his judgment, Justice Prasad wrote:''Thus, the plea of the defence that the dead body was an unclaimed body which has been connected with the present case would not inspire confidence of this Court. There is no evidence at all that any Insurance claim was obtained by PW-8. We have already taken note of the judgment in the case of S. Kaleeswaran (supra) which says that conviction may take place even if the dead body is not found. Once PW-8 has been found to be a wholly reliable witness, his evidence with regard to killing of his father by the appellants at the place of occurrence and then the fact that the dead body could not be traced despite hectic search by him, his family members and the I. O. (PW-9) fully proved the prosecution case beyond all reasonable doubts.''
Justice Prasad concluded: "In ultimate analysis we find no plausible reason to interfere with the judgments of the learned trial court. All these appeals would fail, they are dismissed accordingly. 58. Appellant Manoj Manjil in Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 216 of 2024, appellants (1) Ravindra Chaudhary, (2) Guddu Chaudhary and (3) Rohit Chaudhary in Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 237 of 2024 and appellants (1) China Ram, (2) Manoj Chaudhary, (3) Nand Kumar Chaudhary, (4) Bharat Ram, (5) Triloki Ram, (6) Prem Ram, Babban Chaudhary, (8) Pawan Chaudhary, (9) Gabbar Chaudhary, (10) Ram Bali Chaudhary, (11) Shiv Bali Chaudhary, (12) Ramadhar Chaudhary, (13) Sarvesh Chaudhary, (14) Ramanand Prasad, (15) Tanman Chaudhary, (16) Prabhu Chaudhary, (17) Jai Kumar Yadav, (18) Nandu Yadav and (19) Chandra Dhan Rai of Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 510 of 2024 are on bail, their bail bonds are cancelled. 59. They are directed to surrender before the learned trial court within one week from today to serve the sentence as awarded by the learned trial court, failing which learned trial court shall immediately take appropriate coercive measures to secure their custody."
The informant (PW-8), namely, Chandan Kumar Singh in his written application had alleged that his father, namely, Jay Prakash Singh was abducted and after his murder his dead body has been hidden. The informant and his father were coming together when (1) China Ram, (2) Bharat Ram, (3), Triloki Ram, (4) Prabhu Chaudhary, (5) Ramanand Prasad, (6) Chandraghan Ram, (7) Jai Kumar Yadav, (8) Nandu Yadav, (9) Tantan Chaudhary, (10) Manoj Chaudhary, (11) Sarvesh Chaudhary, (12) Pavan Chaudhary, (13) Nand Kumar, (14) Ram Bali, (15) Guddu Chaudhary, (16) Gabbar Chaudhary, (17) Prem Ram, (18) Manoj Manjil, (19) Jawahir Paswan, (20) Baban Chaudhary, (21) Ramadhar Chaudhary, (22) Ravindra Chaudhary, (23) Shiv Bali, (24) Rohit Chaudhary, and other unknown persons caught the informant’s father when his Aam Sabha had come to an end. While returning home, they caught hold of his father and started assaulting him by lathi, danda, bricks and stones instigating to kill him as he belongs to an upper caste. The informant somehow saved his life. The accused persons assaulted his father mercilessly as a result whereof he died on the spot. They also hid his dead body. The time of the occurrence was about 06:00-06:30 Hours.
On the basis of this written application, Azimabad P.S. Case No. 51 of 2015 dated August 22, 2015 was registered under Sections 364/34, 302, 201 IPC against the accused persons. After investigation police submitted first chargesheet being Chargesheet No. 70 of 2015 dated December 31, 2015 under Sections 364/302/201/34 IPC against Manoj Manjil and Manjoj Chaudhary who were in custody and 14 others showing them absconder keeping investigation open against other accused. Thereafter, a supplementary chargesheet being Chargesheet No. 26 of 2016 dated May 31, 2016 was submitted under Sections 364/302/201/34 IPC against (1) Ramadhar Chaudhary, (2) Sarvesh Chaudhary, (3) Chandra Dhan Rai, (4) Ramanand Prasad keeping investigation open against other accused. Another supplementary chargesheet bearing Chargesheet No. 08 of 2018 dated January 31, 2018 was submitted under Sections 364/302/201/34 IPC against (1) Jai Kumar Yadav, (2) Nandu Yadav and (3) Prabhu Chaudhary.
The trial court vide order dated March 15, 2019 took cognizance of the offences under the mentioned Sections and committed the records to Sessions Court. Thereafter, Sessions Trial No. 123 of 2019 was registered.
The charges were read over and explained to the appellants in Hindi to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried, accordingly, vide order dated April 13, 2022, charges were framed under Sections 364/34, 302/34 and 201/34 IPC. Thereafter, the statements of the appellants were recorded under Section 313 of the CrPC. The appellants denied all the allegations and took a plea that they are innocent.
Justice Prasad has recorded: ''The defence has not adduced any oral or documentary evidence.''
The trial court had relied upon paragraph ‘6’ of the judgment of the Supreme Court in Sivaji Sahabrao Bobade vs. State of Maharashtra reported in (1973) 2 SCC 793, to arrive at a conclusion that the prosecution has proved and established its case beyond all reasonable doubts. Accordingly, it had passed the judgment of conviction.
The senior counsel for the appellants had submitted that the FIR was lodged belatedly on 22.08.2015 with respect to an incident which took place in the evening of August 20, 2015. The FIR at once alleged both kidnapping (implying that the complainant’s father was still alive) and being killed on the spot. Two days after the alleged incident, the FIR was registered both under Sections 304 and 302 read with 201 IPC.
Responding to this submission, Justice Prasad observed: ''The same
issue of delay in registering FIR came to be considered more recently in
Hariprasad v. State of Chhattisgarh reported in (2024) 2 SCC 557. In
the said case, there was a delay of over one year and three months in
lodging of the FIR. The Hon’ble Supreme Court considered the settled
legal position that the receipt and recording of the information report
by the police is not a condition precedent to set into motion a criminal
investigation as held in Apren Joseph v. State of Kerala reported in
(1973) 3 SCC 114 and it was held that no doubt unreasonable delay in
lodging the FIR may give rise to suspicion which puts the court on guard
to look for the possible motive and the explanation for the delay and
consider its effect on the trustworthiness or otherwise of the
prosecution version.'' He also noted:''This Court is of the considered opinion that on the face of the evidence of PW-8 and PW-9 who are trustworthy witnesses of the prosecution, the delay in registration of the FIR and sending the same to the jurisdictional court would not prove fatal to the prosecution.''
Justice Prasad relied upon paragraphs 10, 11 and 13 of the judgment of the Supreme Court in Animireddy Venkata Ramana and Ors. vs.Public Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra Pradesh reported in AIR 2008 SC 1603, to assert that Supreme Court's observations ''duly answers the plea of the defence that the FIR in this case would be hit by Section 162 CrPC.''
With regard to submission of counsel for the appellants which drew on the judgment of the Supreme Court in Amar Singh vs. State (NCT of Delhi) reported in (2020) 19 SCC 165 to submit that in this case the sole testimony of PW-8 is not a cogent and reliable piece of evidence to base the conviction of the accused on his testimony, Justice Prasad observed:''We have found that the facts of the present case are quite different and distinct.''
As of part of the Division Bench, Justice Prasad observed: We find that the informant (PW-8) is a natural witness of this case and he has withstood the test of cross-examination so well that we find his testimony cogent and reliable. The law is well settled that the testimony of a single witness may be found sufficient to prove the prosecution case. We would rely upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Vadivelu Thevar v. State of Madras reported in AIR 1957 SC 614." He referred to para ‘10’ of the judgment in this regard. He also referred to Supreme Court's decision in Lallu Manjhi vs. State of Jharkhand reported in (2003) 2 SCC 401, wherein, it reiterated that one credible witness would outweigh the testimony of number of other witnesses of indifferent character.
Justice Prasad was impressed with these submissions of counsel for the appellants who contended that the prosecution witnesses were related witnesses, therefore, it would not be safe to rely upon their evidences. The submission was that Badgaon is a very large village with panchayat functionaries and a formal post of Chaukidar was there but no independent witness came to support the prosecution case. Justice Prsad drew on Supreme Court's decision in Mallanna vs. State of Karnataka reported in (2007) 8 SCC 523, wherein, it held that merely because witnesses are related and interested and not injured, their evidences cannot be discarded if they are natural witnesses and their testimonies are otherwise found to be credible, especially when they support the prosecution case in material particulars. Justice Prasad observed: ''In this case, we cannot lose sight of the fact that one of the accused in this case was a sitting Member of the Legislative Assembly (MLA) from Agiaon Constitutency and in the present day circumstances where normal people are afraid of becoming a witness in a criminal case, absence of an independent witness cannot be taken as fatal to the prosecution.''
The senior counsel for the appellants submitted that since the alleged murder and hiding the body is central to the prosecution case, the body that was recovered by police eight days later and in some other area, must have first been shown to belong to the complainant’s father but there was no effort to match the body with the complainant’s father. It was submitted that there was enough indicators to prove that it was some other totally unconnected body that was randomly recovered and sought to be joined to this case. To strengthen his submission, Senior Counsel submitted that the postmortem report indicated that the body belongs to a man in age younger (40-45 years) while the postmortem report (Exhibit ‘1’) stated that son claims his father was around 55 years. The trial court had relied upon the family’s identification without giving the reasons and it recorded that the medical evidences corroborates the ocular version. It was submitted that the postmortem’s age estimate contradicted the family’s 55 year claim and decomposition made visual identification inherently unsafe. It was also submitted that the postmortem report did not indicate any injuries matching the one described in the prosecution case. If dozens of people had assaulted the deceased with rod, stones and bricks, surely the body would indicate multiple fractures and severe injuries. The cause of death with respect to the recovered body is shown as strangulation which does not match the allegations. The time of death was stated to be between 23rd and 25th August, 2015 which does not match the facts of the present case.
The senior Counsel for the appellants submitted that the dead body was displaying heightened stage of putrefaction and decomposition. It was bloated and discoloured and the prosecution witnesses did not identify it explicitly and categorically. The prosecution witnesses claim to have recognized him through vague criteria like a mark on stomach, hair cut and hair dye. It was submitted that in such advanced putrefaction with bloating, skin slippage/discolouration, any small scar would be distorted/obscured. It was pointed out that the samples of skin, nails and hair were collected from the complainant and his brothers and from the dead body and sent for the DNA testing, however, the results were never submission is that since the FSL report was never produced to confirm the identity. His submission is that since the FSL report was never produced, an adverse inference should be drawn for withholding the best (‘DNA’) evidence.
Relying upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in S. Kaleeswaran vs. State by the Inspector of Police Pollachi Town East Police Station, Coimbatore District, Tamil Nadu reported in (2022) 17 SCC 699, senior counsel submitted that in the said case it was held that since the superimposition report was not supported by any other reliable medical evidence like the DNA report or the postmortem report, it would be very risky to convict the accused believing the identification of the dead body of the victim through the superimposition test. In the present case, even a superimposition test was not done. The postmortem report indicated every sign of it being a third person’s body not matching in age, or other descriptions.
On the use of superimposition technique in Indian investigation, senior counsel relied upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in Pattu Rajan vs. The State of Tamil Nadu reported in (2019) 4 SCC 771.
The senior counsel submitted that in the present case, PW-1 states that there were 100-150 people in the group. He also said that he recognized people from his own village but did not recognize outsiders. PW-3 stated that there were 200 people present on the spot. The Investigating Officer has admitted that ‘Badgaon’ is a very large village with Panchayat functionaries and a formal post of Chaukidar, however, none has been examined. Thus, there was not a single independent witness amongst the prosecution witnesses. No test identification parade was held to identify the outsiders to the village who were not known to the prosecution witnesses. Reliance has been placed upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in Masalti and Others vs. State of Uttar Pradesh reported in 1964 SCC OnLine SC 30 (paragraph ‘16’) and in BusiKoteswara Rao vs. State of Andhra Pradesh reported in (2012) 12 SCC 711 (paragraphs ‘13’ and ‘15’) to submit that in a case that pertains to an offence involving a large number of offenders, the Court has held that conviction may be sustained only if it was supported by two or three or more witnesses who give a consistent kind of the incident. In Golbar Hussain and Others vs. State of Assam and Another reported in (2015) 11 SCC 242 (paragraphs ‘10’ and ‘11’), it has been held that when two witnesses contradict each other then unless one of their statements is otherwise corroborated by an independent witness, the accused will have to be granted the benefit of doubt.
With regard to the reference of the senior counsel to the decision of the Supreme Court in Masalti case, Justice Prasad observed: ''Supreme Court has, in fact, reiterated the settled legal position that quality of evidence matters and not the number of witnesses who give such evidence. It, however, says “But sometimes it is useful to adopt a test like the one which the High Court has adopted in dealing with the present case.” He added: "In our considered opinion, Masalti (supra) case would not help the appellants in the present case.''
The counsel for the appellant Manoj Manzil had argued that the testimonies with regard to the role of the appellants were not at all reliable and were conflicting.
Responding this submission, Justice Prasad observed that PW-8 who was accompanying his father at the time of occurrence had specifically stated that Manoj had caught hold of his father and slammed him down on the Kharanja Road and started assaulting him by lathi. In his cross-examination on behalf of Manoj Manjil, there is no suggestion that Manoj Manjil was not present among the persons who had come running to the father of the informant and had assaulted him. PW-1 also stated that Manoj Manjil had slammed down his father on the Kharanja Road. He stated that he had seen him with others assaulting his father. Similarly, PWs-2, 3 and 4 all attributed specific role to Manoj Manjil.
Justice Prasad relied on Supreme Court's decision in State of Punjab vs. Jagir Singh reported in (1974) 3 SCC 277, wherein, it held that a criminal trial concerns itself with the question as to whether the accused arraigned at the trial is guilty of crime with which he is charged. In arriving at the conclusion about the guilt of the accused charged with the commission of a crime, the court has to judge the evidence by the yardstick of probabilities, its intrinsic worth and the animus of witnesses. He quoted para 23 of the judgment in Jagir Singh's case. It reads: “23. A criminal trial is not like a fairy tale wherein one is free to give flight to one's imagination and phantasy. It concerns itself with the question as to whether the accused arraigned at the trial is guilty of the crime with which he is charged. Crime is an event in real life and is the product of interplay of different human emotions. In arriving at the conclusion about the guilt of the accused charged with the commission of a crime, the court has to judge the evidence by the yardstick of probabilities, its intrinsic worth and the animus of witnesses. Every case in the final analysis would have to depend upon its own facts. Although the benefit of every reasonable doubt should be given to the accused, the courts should not at the same time reject evidence which is ex facie trustworthy on grounds which are fanciful or in the nature of conjectures.” Justice Prasad has underlined that he had to judge the evidence by the yardstick of probabilities, its intrinsic worth and the animus of witnesses.
Relying on this principle, Justice Prasad observed: ''we have found that on the date of occurrence, there was a meeting of Malle party in the Badgaon village in which Manoj Manjil who was local MLA from Agiaon Constituency was present. The statements were being made in the sabha against a caste. It has come in the statement of the prosecution witnesses that one Satish Yadav was killed and in the revenge of said occurrence, the accused persons caught hold of Jai Prakash Singh, assaulted him and took him away who could not be traced despite hectic search made by police immediately after receipt of the information as recorded hereinabove. The defence has not either by the pattern of the cross-examination of the prosecution witnesses or by adducing any evidence tried to create any dent on the prosecution version that Manoj Manzil and other accused persons named by the prosecution had caught hold of the father of PW-8 and had assaulted him whereafter he was abducted. We, therefore, take a view that even this argument of learned counsel for the appellant Manoj Manzil would not impress this Court.''
The senior counsel had submitted that the testimonies with regard to the role of the appellants were not at all reliable and were conflicting. PW-1 stated only that the accused appellants were wrestling the complainant’s father on the ground. PW-2 only makes very broad based and general allegation saying that the appellants were part of a large crowd that was taking the complainant’s father. No specific role was attributed to the appellant Manoj Manjil who was admittedly part of a large group of persons. PW-3 mentioned that the accused collectively gave almost a hundred lathi blows to his father causing his head to split, however, the recovered body exhibited no such signs. PW-3 did not name the people who caused this particular injury. PW-4 alleged that the appellant was wrestling and shoving and also using rods and stones in the presence of many other people. PW-8 alleged wrestling on the ground and hitting with a rod while several other people were assaulting him with stones and bricks even if believed, none of those matches to any form of assault that may result in strangulation or chocking. On these grounds, submissions were made to set aside the impugned judgment and order of the trial court and acquit the appellants.
The counsel for the appellant made submissions that the findings of the trial court with regard to the identity of the dead body were completely erroneous. With regard to senior counsel's submission drawing on Supreme Court's decision in S. Kaleeswaran vs. State by the Inspector of Police Pollachi Town
East Police Station, Coimbatore District, Tamil Nadu reported in (2022)
17 SCC 699, in this case it was
held that the superimposition report was not supported by any
other reliable medical evidence like the DNA report or the postmortem
report, Justice Prasad observed that on going through the judgment of the Supreme Court in S. Kaleeswaran, the High Court noticed that in that case admittedly, the entire prosecution case rested on the circumstantial evidence. In that case the Supreme Court was appreciating the evidences keeping in view the well-settled principles known as five golden principles laid down by the Court in Sharad Birdhichand Sarda vs. State of Maharashtra reported in (1984) 4 SCC 116. The Supreme Court had outlined the conditions which were required to be fulfilled, before a case based on circumstantial evidence against an accused can be said to be fully established. The case was based on theory of last seen together. The dead body or the skeleton remains of dead body was found after almost five months from the date of incident. The prosecution case was that the dead body of the victim was discovered from the place shown by the accused, therefore, in that context, the Supreme Court observed inter alia “….. It is true that in the case based on circumstantial evidence, if the entire chain is duly proved by cogent evidence, the conviction could be recorded even if the corpus is not found, but when as per the case of prosecution, the dead body of the victim was discovered from the place shown by the accused, it is imperative on the part of the prosecution to prove that the dead body or the skeleton found at the instance of the accused was that of the victim and of none else.”
Justice Prasad observed: ''On a bare reading of the aforesaid observations of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, it would be evident that the prosecution case in the present case is completely different and distinct. At first instance, it is not based on circumstantial evidence. The dead body has not been recovered from the place shown by an accused. In this case, the dead body has been found within seven days of the occurrence and the accusation against the appellants is based on direct evidence. The prosecution witnesses have attributed the assault and abduction of Jai Prakash Singh to the appellants. It is evident from the judgment in S. Kaleeswaran (supra) that even in a case based on circumstantial evidence, if the entire chain is duly proved by cogent evidence, the conviction should be recorded even if the corpus is not found. That principle laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of S. Kaleeswaran (supra) only helps the prosecution in this case.''
As to senior counsel's reliance upon para 22 and 23 of the judgment of the Supreme Court in Pattu Rajan vs. The State of Tamil Nadu reported in (2019) 4 SCC 771, Justice Prasad responded:''52. We are afraid that the judgment in the case of Pattu Rajan does not help the appellants from any point of view. In the present case, a bare perusal of the written information submitted by the informant (PW-8) would show that there is a specific allegation of assault and thereby causing death of Jay Prakash Singh at the place of occurrence and thereafter taking away of his dead body by the appellants. In such circumstance, police has rightly investigated the case taking the offence under Sections 364 and 302 IPC committed in course of the same transaction. The judgment in the case of Pattu Rajan (supra) would rather help the prosecution in answering the plea of the defence that non-production of DNA evidence would lead to an adverse inference against the prosecution.''
He quoted para 49 to 52 of the decision in Pattu Rajan's case and drawing on the observations of the Supreme Court, Justice Prasad concluded: ''It is evident on bare reading of the aforesaid paragraphs that absence of DNA evidence would not lead to draw an adverse inference against the prosecution in the present case on the face of the other cogent and reliable evidence on the record.''
The submissions made on behalf of the appellants could not convince the High Court's Division Bench about the innocence Manoj Manzil and others. Now only Supreme Court can consider the appeal of Manoj Mazil and other appellants.
The ripple created by the judgment is likely/unlikely to have some electoral impact in the Bihar's assembly election in Bhojpur/Shahabad region.
Also read: 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
