Allowed

Guddu Yadav v. The State Of Bihar

Patna HC21 Jan 2025CR. APP (DB)/810/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court allowed criminal appeal, setting aside conviction and sentence. Court found prosecution evidence unreliable and contradictory due to inconsistencies in eyewitness accounts, failure to explain delays in FIR lodging, and lack of physical evidence at the scene. Appellant acquitted and discharged.

What did the court decide?

Impugned judgment and order set aside; appellant acquitted and discharged from bail liability.

Guddu Yadav Vs The State Of Bihar — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Patna HC (2025)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CRIMINAL APPEAL (DB) No.810 of 2016

¶2

Arising Out of PS. Case No.-96 Year-2011 Thana- MUNGER MUFFASIL District- Munger

¶3

======================================================

¶4

Guddu Yadav, Son of Indradeo Yadav, Resident of Village - Taufir Mai, P.S. - Muffasil, District - Munger.

¶5

The State of Bihar ===============	... Versus ... ... ===============================	... Appellant Respondent ========
Appearance :
For the Appellant	: Mr. Pankaj Kumar Sinha, Advocate Mr. Raunak Kumar Singh, Advocate
For the State	: Ms. Shashi Bala Verma, APP
For the Informant	: Mr. Ritesh Kumar Singh, Advocate

¶6

======================================================

¶7

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJEEV RANJAN PRASAD and

¶8

HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAMESH CHAND MALVIYA ORAL JUDGMENT (Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJEEV RANJAN PRASAD)

¶9

Date : 21-01-2025

¶10

Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State as also learned counsel for the informant.

¶11

2. This appeal has been preferred for setting aside the judgment of conviction dated 09.06.2016 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘impugned judgment’) and the order of sentence dated 14.06.2016 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘impugned order’) passed by learned 5^th Additional Sessions Judge, Munger (hereinafter referred to as the ‘learned trial court’) in Sessions

¶12

Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.810 of 2016 dt.21-01-2025 2/26

¶13

Trial No. 787 of 2012 arising out of Muffasil P.S. Case No. 96 of 2011.

¶14

3. By the impugned judgment, the appellant has been convicted for the offence punishable under Sections 302, 342, 147, 148, 386, 387 of the Indian Penal Code (in short ‘IPC’) and under Section 27 of the Arms Act. By the impugned order, the appellant has been ordered to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life under Section 302 IPC with a fine of Rs. 2000/-, for the offence under Section 342, he has to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year with a fine of Rs.2000/-, for the offence under Section 147 IPC, he has to undergo two years’ rigorous imprisonment with a fine of Rs.10,000/-, for the offence under Section 148 IPC, he has to undergo three years’ rigorous imprisonment with a fine of Rs.10,000/-, for the offence under Section 386 IPC, he has to undergo 10 years’ rigorous imprisonment with a fine of Rs.25,000/-, for the offence under Section 387 IPC, he has to undergo seven years’ rigorous imprisonment with a fine of Rs.10,000/- and under Section 27 of the Arms Act, he has to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years with a fine of Rs.10,000/-. All the sentences are to run concurrently. In default of payment,

¶15

Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.810 of 2016 dt.21-01-2025 3/26

¶16

Rs.1,67,000/- in total, the appellant shall undergo simple imprisonment for one year.

¶17

Prosecution Case

¶18

4. The prosecution story is based on the written application of Rakesh Kumar (PW-13). In his written application, he has stated that on 18.05.2011 at 05:00 PM, the informant along with his younger brother Pintu Yadav, Bipin Yadav and Randhir Yadav were present in the ‘ khalihan’ . In the meantime, (1) Maheshwar Singh, (2) Ramgulam Yadav, (3) Nirodh Yadav, (4) Mannu Yadav, (5) Manish Yadav, (6) Guddu Yadav (appellant), (7) Kaillu Yadav, (8) Yogendra Yadav, (9) Santosh Yadav, (10) Mastan Singh, (11) Pampam Singh, (12) Naim Khan and (13) Jaldhar Singh along with 15-20 unknown persons variously armed surrounded them and while abusing entered into his ‘ khalihan’ . Thereafter, Maheshwar Singh asked the informant to give Rs. 5 lakhs as rangdari and give his licensed weapon, else get ready to die and then Maheshwar Singh shot at Bipin Yadav which hit his leg and ordered other accused persons to kill all of them. On this, Mannu Yadav shot at the eye of Bipin Yadav, thereafter Manish Yadav shot at another eye of Bipin Yadav. Then Kaillu Yadav shot at the right hand of Bipin Yadav. Thereafter, Mastan Singh and Pampam Singh also shot at Bipin Yadav. In the meantime, Pintu

¶19

Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.810 of 2016 dt.21-01-2025 4/26

¶20

Yadav @ Navin Kumar was also shot at but he took out his Licensee Rifle in self defence and jumped into the water and all the accused persons chased Pintu Yadav. Then, Yogendra Yadav shot at him which hit his neck and Santosh Yadav also shot at Pintu Yadav which also hit his neck. After this, Pintu Yadav got drowned in the water and licensee rifle of Pintu Yadav was captured by Guddu Yadav (appellant). Thereafter, Ramgulam Yadav, Jaldhar Singh, Nirodh Yadav, Naim Khan, Mastan Singh and Pampam Singh all, with an intention to kill Randhir Yadav, kidnapped him. The informant alleged that he has suspicion that they would also kill Randhir Yadav. The informant stated that the above occurrence was witnessed by Gyani Kumar, Hindu Yadav and Sangin Yadav.

¶21

5. On the basis of this written application, Muffasil (Munger) P.S. Case No. 96 of 2011 dated 20.05.2011 was registered under Sections 147, 148, 149, 342, 323, 302, 387, 386 IPC and Section 27 of the Arms Act against 13 named including this appellant and 15-20 unknown persons. After investigation, Police submitted supplementary chargesheet bearing No. 308 of 2012 dated 30.09.2012 against this appellant under Sections 147, 148, 149, 342, 323, 302, 386, 387 IPC and Section 27 of the Arms Act. On the basis of this chargesheet, learned Chief Judicial

¶22

Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.810 of 2016 dt.21-01-2025 5/26

¶23

Magistrate, vide his order dated 19.10.2012 took cognizance of the offences under above-mentioned Sections and on 29.10.2012 committed the case to the court of sessions. After receiving the records, Sessions Trial No. 787 of 2012 was registered. Charges were read over and explained to the appellant in Hindi which he denied and claimed to be tried. Accordingly, vide order dated 01.03.2013, charges were framed under Sections 302/149, 147, 148, 386 and 387 IPC and Section 27 of the Arms Act.

¶24

6. In course of trial, the prosecution examined as many as fourteen witnesses and exhibited several documents to prove the prosecution case. The names of the prosecution witnesses and the exhibits are being shown hereunder in tabular form:-

¶25

List of Prosecution Witnesses

¶26

PW-1	Sangin yadav
PW-2	Channu Yadav
PW-3	Manoj Das
PW-4	Abodh Mahton
PW-5	Umesh Singh
PW-6	Devan Mandal
PW-7	Noor Kalim Khan
PW-8	Dr. Pinkesh Kumar
PW-9	Rajaram Choudhary
PW-10	Bhai Bharat Kumar
PW-11	Lukho Yadav
PW-12	Gyani Kumar Yadav
PW-13	Rakesh Kumar
PW-14	Satyendra Kumar

¶27

Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.810 of 2016 dt.21-01-2025 6/26

¶28

List of Exhibits

¶29

Exhibit ‘1’	Writing and signature on Post-mortem report of Randhir Yadav
Exhibit ‘2’	Writing and signature on Post-mortem report of Pintu Yadav
Exhibit ‘3’	Writing and signature on Post-mortem report of Bipin Yadav
Exhibit ‘4’	Written report
Exhibit ‘5’, ‘5/1’	Inquest Report
Exhibit ‘4/1’	Endorsement on written report

¶30

7. The defence has examined two witnesses and exhibited several documentary evidences as per the following

¶31

description:-

¶32

List of Defence Witnesses

¶33

DW-1 Ashok Yadav DW-2 Vivekanand Yadav List of Exhibits on behalf of the Defence

¶34

Exhibit ‘A’	C.C. of petition of CrWJC No. 725/11
Exhibit ‘B’	C.C. of FIR of Mahesh Khut P.S Case No. 41/11
Exhibit ‘C’	C.C. of Final Form of Mahesh Khut P.S. 41/11
Exhibit ‘D’	C.C. of FIR of Mahesh Khut P.S. Case No. 42/11
Exhibit ‘E’	C.C. of FIR of Mahesh Khut P.S. Case No. 43/11
Exhibit ‘F’	C.C. of FIR of Khagaria P.S. Case No. 242/13
Exhibit ‘G’	C.C. of FIR of Mufassil P.S. 115/11
Exhibit ‘H’	C.C. of CS of Mufassil P.S. 115/11
Exhibit ‘I’	C.C. of FIR of Mansi P.S. 26/07
Exhibit ‘J’	C.C. of FIR of Mahesh Khut P.S. 89/08
Exhibit ‘K’	C.C. of FIR of Mansi P.S. 16/10

¶35

Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.810 of 2016 dt.21-01-2025 7/26

¶36

Findings of the Learned Trial Court

¶37

8. Learned trial court, after considering the entire materials available on the record, found that the evidences are good enough to warrant the guilt of the accused person. Learned trial court found that the prosecution has been able to prove its case beyond all reasonable doubts that all the three persons was killed by the members of unlawful assembly armed with deadly weapons like rifle, guns etc. and this appellant was a member of it and had actively participated in committing the murder. Learned trial court found that the injuries caused to all the three persons by gun shots were sufficient to cause their death in ordinary course of nature. Learned trial court also found that the occurrence took place due to a land dispute and in the revenge of previous attack made by the deceased persons, thus, it clearly establishes the intention and deliberate action to achieve the common object. Learned trial court, therefore, held this appellant guilty of the offences punishable under Sections 302, 342, 147, 148, 386, 387 of the IPC and Section 27 of the Arms Act and has been sentenced accordingly as mentioned above.

¶38

Submissions on behalf of the Appellant

¶39

9. Learned counsel for the appellant has assailed the impugned judgment on the ground that the learned trial court has failed to appreciate the materials brought on record by the

¶40

Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.810 of 2016 dt.21-01-2025 8/26

¶41

prosecution and has passed the impugned judgment and order based on surmises and conjectures.

¶42

10. It is submitted that in this case, the prosecution witnesses are closely related to the deceased and they have made contradictory statements to each other in material particulars. It is submitted that Rakesh Kumar (PW-13), who is the informant of the case, has stated in his evidence that the occurrence took place in his presence on 18.05.2011 but it would appear from the records that the case was lodged on 20.05.2011 and that he did not disclose anything with regard to the occurrence to anyone. He has stated that police had lodged an encounter case being Maheshkhut P.S. Case No. 42 of 2011. The Doctor has said in his evidence that he held postmortem examination on the dead body of Pintu Yadav and found time elapsed since death within 24 to 48 hours. In the postmortem of Randhir Yadav, the Medical Officer had found several injuries caused by firearm and also found time elapsed since death within 48 hours of the postmortem examination.

¶43

11. Learned counsel, therefore, submits that the prosecution has miserably failed to prove its case beyond all reasonable doubt, hence the judgment of conviction and order of sentence are liable to be set aside.

¶44

Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.810 of 2016 dt.21-01-2025 9/26

¶45

Submissions on behalf of the State and the informant

¶46

12. On the other hand, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State has opposed the appeal. It is submitted that PW-1, PW-11 and PW-12 have fully supported the prosecution case. These witnesses have stated that this appellant along with other accused persons assembled and surrounded Pintu, Bipin and Randhir and one Maheshwar Singh demanded rangdari of Rs. 5 lakhs and when they protested, all the accused persons started indiscriminate firing upon them.

¶47

13. It is submitted that the learned trial court has, after examining all the witnesses and considering the documents adduced by the parties, come to a conclusion that the prosecution has proved its’ case beyond all reasonable doubts against the accused persons, they have committed serious offence in which three persons have lost their life and the crime is heinous in nature.

¶48

Learned counsel for the informant has endorsed the submissions advanced on behalf of the State. It is submitted that informant is an eyewitness in this case. Other prosecution witnesses have also supported the prosecution case.

¶49

Consideration

¶50

14. In the present case, Rakesh Kumar (PW-13) is the informant who has stated that on 18.05.2011 at 5:00 PM, he was at his ‘ khalihan’ and was engaged in cleaning of wheats. With him, his younger brother Pintu, Bipin, Randhir and in the neighbouring ‘ khalihans’ , Gyani, Sangin, Lukho and other labourers were present.

¶51

Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.810 of 2016 dt.21-01-2025 10/26

¶52

According to him, the accused persons together with 1520 unknown persons armed with weapons came there, they were hurling abuses and demanded a sum of Rs. 5 lakhs and to hand over the licensee rifle which was objected to. Maheshwar Singh fired from his rifle and exhorted others to kill. According to this witness, Bipin received firing from Maheshwar, Mannu, Manish and Kailu. Pintu ran towards the water body with his rifle and jumped into the water body. He was chased and all the accused persons fired upon Pintu which hit Pintu on his neck and he drowned into the water. Guddu Yadav took possession of the licensee rifle of Pintu and while going, they took away Randhir Yadav who was on his tractor. He has stated that he had concealed himself between the two bundles and was watching the entire occurrence. After the darkness prevailed, he returned to his house. According to him, it was raining in the night, therefore, he did not go to his ‘ khalihan’ . On the next day in the morning, he went to ‘ khalihan’ with some people from the village where the dead body of Bipin was found in the ‘ khalihan’ and the dead body of Pintu was taken from the water. He claimed that he had gone with the two dead bodies to Khagaria Hospital where Daroga of Chitragupta Town Police Station recorded his statement and he had also given it in writing. He proved the written application which

¶53

Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.810 of 2016 dt.21-01-2025 11/26

¶54

according to him was written by one Pappu Singh (not examined), on which he had put his signature. The written application has been marked Exhibit ‘4’. This witness has also proved the inquest report (Exhibit ‘5’ and Exhibit ‘5/1’). He returned home with the two dead bodies. When he was going to hospital, he got information that the dead body of Randhir has been found and the same is also being brought to the hospital. This witness has stated that he reached the hospital with the dead body at 12 o’clock and postmortem started after 3:00 PM. Daroga from Chitragupta Nagar Police Station came at 3:00 PM with whom he met and made oral statement and also gave in writing. He has stated that he wrote after arrival of the Daroga but he is not aware of the name of the Daroga who had come.

¶55

15. Here, it is required to be noticed that on way to hospital, this witness had come to know that dead body of Randhir Singh was found and the same was being brought to the hospital, he submitted his written application to Daroga of Chitragupta Nagar Police Station after 03:00 PM in which he only expressed his apprehension that Randhir Yadav may be killed. So he despite knowledge of death of Randhir Yadav, did not mention it in his written application. He was apparently making a story but could not maintain consistency and reliability.

¶56

Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.810 of 2016 dt.21-01-2025 12/26

¶57

16. In paragraph ‘43’ of the deposition, this witness was suggested by defence that on the date of occurrence accused Maheshwar Singh had lodged a case against Pintu Yadav, Krishna Yadav and others at 1:30 PM which was registered as Maheshkhut P.S. Case No. 41 of 2011. In this case, the father and brother of the informant had allegedly confined them with an intention to kill. In the said case, the Officer-in-Charge of Maheshkhut Police Station went to the place of occurrence, there Pintu, Randhir, Bipin and others fired upon the police party, in defence, the police party had also fired in respect of which P.S. Case No. (Maheshkhut) 42 of 2011 was registered. This witness, though, denied the suggestion but when the I.O. Satyendra Kumar (PW-14) came to depose, he has stated that Maheshkhut P.S. Case No. 41 of 2011, Maheshkhut P.S. Case No. 42 of 2011 and Maheshkhut P.S. Case No. 43 of 2011 was lodged in which there was an encounter between the deceased Pintu and Bipin gang and the police party. He has stated in paragraph ‘21’ that several cases are registered against deceased Pintu, Bipin and Randhir of murder, loot and rangdari etc. The family members of the deceased had not given any information at the police station till 20^th . The I.O. has stated that the informant had not stated before him that Guddu had taken away the rifle by entering into the water. According to him, the place of occurrence

¶58

Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.810 of 2016 dt.21-01-2025 13/26

¶59

is ‘Taufir Diara’ Mahal within the jurisdiction of his police station but till the lodging of the FIR, no information with regard to the occurrence had been entered in the diary of the police station. The I.O. had gone to the ‘ khalihan’ but he did not find bundle of wheats there, he had not found any empty cartridge at the place of occurrence and there were no bushes. In paragraph ‘14’, he has stated that there were ‘ khalihans’ in the neighbourhood of the place of occurrence but he had not written as to those ‘ khalihan’ belonged to whom.

¶60

17. The informant has stated about presence of Gyani (PW-12), Sangin (PW-1) and Lukho (PW-11) at the place of occurrence. He has stated that there were other labourers but has not disclosed the name of the labourers in his deposition. We will deal with the evidence of these witnesses to find out whether they may be put in the category of an eyewitness and their evidence would transpire confidence of this Court.

¶61

18. Sangin Yadav (PW-1) has stated that he was in his ‘ khalihan’ when the accused persons 20-25 in numbers came there. In his examination-in-chief, he has stated that Pintu Yadav, Bipin Yadav and Randhir Yadav were there in the ‘ khalihan’ . This witness is not saying about presence of the informant Rakesh Yadav and the other witnesses namely Lukho Yadav and Gyani

¶62

Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.810 of 2016 dt.21-01-2025 14/26

¶63

Yadav. The three persons namely Pintu Yadav, Bipin Yadav and Randhir Yadav are the deceased only. In his cross-examination, he has stated that he reached his village after one hour taking a circuitous route. He reached his house at 6:00 PM and thereafter remained in his house, did not go anywhere. On the next day, he went to the place of occurrence. He has specifically stated that except him nobody had gone to the place of occurrence. This witness has stated that when he reached at the place of occurrence, he found that the dead body of Pintu Yadav was in the water and the dead body of other two deceased were lying in the ‘ khalihan’ . He has stated that he had returned his home previous evening after seeing the dead body of Pintu Yadav in the water. He had received shot near the water. In paragraph ‘7’, this witness has stated that he was not running with Pintu Yadav and he had concealed himself. In paragraph ‘8’ he has stated that he had never informed any police or police officer regarding the occurrence and he was not aware whether the family member of the deceased had given information regarding the occurrence to the police. This witness has stated that Mansi Police Station is near the place of occurrence and it takes one hour in reaching there by foot. Maheshkhut Police Station is at a distance of 5-6 kilometers from the place of occurrence and in paragraph ‘11’ he has stated that the family

¶64

Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.810 of 2016 dt.21-01-2025 15/26

¶65

members of Pintu had got the knowledge of his death on the same day. Family members of Randhir had also come to know about his death on the same day. He has stated that the family members of Pintu Yadav and Randhir Yadav had gone to the place of occurrence on the next day in the morning. They had not taken police with themselves. In paragraph ‘12’ he has stated that the family members of all the three deceased deliberated together and after deliberations and discussions, they had lodged the FIR in the police station.

¶66

19. PW-1 has stated that during the occurrence, the deceased Pintu Yadav was fleeing away with his rifle, he had fired on the accused persons. Pintu Yadav had practice of firing. This witness was suggested that Maheshkhut P.S. Case No. 41 of 2011, Maheshkhut P.S. Case No. 42 of 2011 and Maheshkhut P.S. Case No. 43 of 2011 was registered on the date of occurrence itself, but this witness said that he was not aware of the same.

¶67

20. From the evidence of PW-1, it is crystal clear that despite having knowledge of the occurrence and his claim to have seen the occurrence, he walked for one hour to reach his home at 6:00 PM but did not go to Mansi Police Station which he could have approached within the same time. According to him, the family members of the deceased Pintu and Randhir were also

¶68

Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.810 of 2016 dt.21-01-2025 16/26

¶69

aware of the death of both the persons on the same day but he was not aware whether they had given information to police. It is evident that Pintu Yadav was armed with rifle and he had also fired on the accused persons. He had practice of firing. The informant (PW-13) has also stated in the written application that Pintu was asked to hand over his licensee arm, therefore, it is evident that even the prosecution accepts that Pintu was armed with rifle. The prosecution has not brought on record any license of the said rifle which Pintu was holding. Till now, the conduct of the informant and this witness (PW-1) is found peculiar. Their conduct is not natural. Both of them claim to have seen the occurrence. The informant travelled to his home after occurrence and he took a circuitous route to reach his home in three hours but did not go to the police station. PW-1 reached home by foot taking one hour, according to him, Mansi Police Station is at a distance of one hour and Maheshkhut Police Station is at a distance of 5-6 kilometers. PW-1 being aged about 31 years only could have covered the distance of 5-6 kilometers well within one hour, therefore, he could have gone to either of the two police stations in the same time which he spent in reaching his home but he chose not to give any information to any police station or the police officer.

¶70

Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.810 of 2016 dt.21-01-2025 17/26

¶71

21. This Court finds that according to the informant, the accused persons had taken away Randhir Yadav with them but PW-1 has stated that Randhir had also died in the ‘ khalihan’ itself and his dead body was found there. Thus, the evidence of the informant (PW-13) and PW-1 are at material variance, they are highly inconsistent to the extent of contradicting themselves.

¶72

22. Lukho Yadav (PW-11) is the another witness about whom the informant has said that he was present in the neighborhood ‘ khalihan’ . But this witness has stated in his examination-in-chief that he was present in the ‘ khalihan’ of Rakesh and with him Pintu Yadav, Bipin and Randhir Yadav were present and they were engaged in loading of wheats. It is to be noticed that PW-11 does not talk of presence of Rakesh Yadav (the informant) at the time of occurrence. According to PW-11, 25-30 persons came and surrounded the ‘ khalihan’ and they started firing. The shot hit Pintu, Randhir and Bipin and all the three died. To this Court, it seems highly improbable that while PW-11 was present with the three deceased persons, the firing hit the three deceased persons but PW-11 did not get any injury. In his crossexamination, PW-11 has stated that he had concealed himself, thereafter night prevailed and it started raining. He has stated that besides the ‘ khalihan’ of Pintu, there are ‘ khalihan’ of 2-3 persons

¶73

Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.810 of 2016 dt.21-01-2025 18/26

¶74

but he cannot say to whom those ‘ khalihan’ belong to. He has stated in paragraph ‘13’ that 20-25 labourers were there but all were outsiders, he could not take the name of the laborers. He has stated that wheats were being loaded on the tractor but he cannot say the number of tractor or the trailer or the name of the driver. He has stated in paragraph ‘18’ that accused persons had surrounded the ‘ khalihan’ from all the four sides, they had come from eastern side and this witness had stated that he was with 5-7 persons and 20-25 labourers. The prosecution side had seen the accused persons from a distance of 100 yards away from the ‘ khalihan’ . He has stated that accused persons were making indiscriminate firing and the people of the prosecution side had assembled in the middle. Whosoever received the shot, died on the spot and this witness claims that he fled towards the village raising hulla . He has stated in paragraph ‘25’ that he had told about the occurrence to the villagers but no one from the village went to the place of occurrence because it was raining. He had also informed the family members of Pintu, they came in the morning on the next day between 7-8 AM. In paragraph ‘28’ he has stated that among the deceased, his own brother is also there. Police officers came between 10 and 12 o’clock, they had come from Muffasil Police Station and after doing some reading and writing work, they had

¶75

Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.810 of 2016 dt.21-01-2025 19/26

¶76

taken away the dead bodies with them. In paragraph ‘30’ of his deposition, PW-11 has stated that before arrival of the police officers, the dead bodies had already arrived in the village.

¶77

23. On analysis of the evidence of PW-11, many things would appear. Firstly, he does not talk about the presence of informant (PW-13) and the prosecution witness (PW-1). While the informant has claimed that he had brought the two dead bodies to Khagaria Hospital, PW-11 has clearly stated that police had arrived in between 10 and 12 o’clock from Muffasil Police Station, some reading and writing were done and they had taken away the dead bodies with themselves. Prior to arrival of police, the dead bodies had come to the village thus, the evidence of PW-11 suggests that the occurrence took place on 18.05.2011 and after the information reached to the family members of the deceased, on the next day in the morning they went to the place of occurrence and brought the dead bodies to the village where police arrived between 10 and 12 o’clock from Muffasil Police Station and they had taken away the dead bodies. At this stage, it is worth mentioning that in the postmortem report of the deceased, which have been marked Exhibit ‘1’, Exhibit ‘2’ and Exhibit ‘3’ respectively, it is stated that the dead bodies were brought to the hospital by Chaukidar Kailash Paswan (not examined) and Rambali (not examined). It is,

¶78

Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.810 of 2016 dt.21-01-2025 20/26

¶79

therefore, evident that the statement of the informant and PW-11 are not even close to each other. If police had arrived in between 10 and 12 o’clock from Muffasil Police Station and had taken away the dead bodies with them to Sadar Hospital, Khagaria where inquest report was prepared in presence of the informant, it remains a mystery as to why the informant did not record his fardbeyan or submitted a written application to the Officer-inCharge of Muffasil Police Station.

¶80

24. The Officer-in-Charge of Muffasil Police Station who took up investigation of this case on 20.05.2011 has been examined as PW-14. He has stated that he received the forwarded application from Khagaria Chitragupta Nagar Police Station, on the basis of which he had registered this case and had taken up the investigation. The fact as appearing from the evidence of PW-14 is that he not only received the forwarded application but also received the inquest report. PW-14 has stated that he had no information with regard to this occurrence in his police station prior to lodging of the FIR. He had checked the station diary also in which there is no mention of this fact. This witness has stated in paragraph ‘19’ about Maheshkhut P.S. Case No. 41 of 2011, Maheshkhut P.S. Case No. 42 of 2011 and Maheshkhut P.S. Case No. 43 of 2011 which is relating to an encounter between Pintu

¶81

Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.810 of 2016 dt.21-01-2025 21/26

¶82

and Bipin gang and the police personnel. The three FIRs of Maheshkhut Police Station have been brought on record by the prosecution which would raise huge doubt over the authenticity of the prosecution case. This gives rise to a suspicion that the true version of the story in which Pintu, Bipin and Randhir were killed have been suppressed by the prosecution. Paragraphs ‘15’ and ‘16’ of the impugned judgment discuss Exhibit ‘A’ to Exhibit ‘K’ produced by defence. The three FIRs relating to the three occurrences which took place on 18.05.2011 near the place of occurrence have been duly marked. Two defence witnesses have deposed to support the defence case but as it appears, the learned trial court has completely misconstrued the defence evidences.

¶83

25. The another witness named by the informant in his deposition is one Gyani Kumar Yadav (PW-12). He has stated that his ‘ khalihan’ is beside the ‘ khalihan’ of Rakesh. He claims his presence in his own ‘ khalihan’ on 18.05.2011 at the time of occurrence. According to him, the firing was taking place from all the four sides in which Bipin Yadav and Pintu Yadav received the shots. Randhir Yadav was taken away. Bipin Yadav and Pintu Yadav died. This witness has stated that after the darkness prevailed, he left the said place and came to the place of occurrence next day in the morning. After the occurrence, he came

¶84

Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.810 of 2016 dt.21-01-2025 22/26

¶85

to know that Maheshwar group had asked for rangdari of Rs. 5 lakhs from Rakesh Yadav and because this amount was not given, the occurrence had taken place. From this part of the deposition of PW-12 it would appear that he does not talk of presence of Rakesh (PW-13) at the place of occurrence on the date and time of occurrence. He does not talk of presence of either PW-1 or PW-11 at the place of occurrence. He also says that he left the place after the darkness prevailed but in paragraph ‘25’ he has stated that he was not in the surrounding of the accused persons and he had concealed himself at a distance of 10-15 yards in the bushes. He was lying flat in the bushes and he was concealing himself alone. This Court has already noticed from the deposition of PW-14 that in course of inspection of the place of occurrence, the I.O. had not found any bushes near the place of occurrence (Refer paragraph ‘13’ of PW-14). The conduct of this witness may be noticed in paragraph ‘28’ of his deposition in which he has stated that in the night he slept in his house and on the next day in between 7-8 AM he met Rakesh (PW-14) and at the same time he met Sangin (PW1) and Lukho (PW-11) at their house but they did not talk and there was only an eye contact. In paragraph ‘29’ he has stated that on the second day also he had no talk regarding this occurrence with any of the villagers. According to this witness, it took 10-15 minutes in

¶86

Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.810 of 2016 dt.21-01-2025 23/26

¶87

reaching to ‘ khalihan’ from house. It is evident from the deposition of PW-12 that he is not an eyewitness to the occurrence. His statement that he had concealed himself in the bushes at a distance of 10-12 yards from the place of occurrence would not be believable on the face of the evidence of the I.O. (PW-14) that there was no bushes near the place of occurrence. The conduct of this witness is highly suspicious and unnatural because despite the death of three persons, which he claims to have seen, he returns to his home and slept in the night. This witness was suggested that deceased were killed in police encounter which he denied but the fact remains that PW-14 has stated about Maheshkhut P.S. Case No. 41 of 2011, Maheshkhut P.S. Case No.42 of 2011 and Maheshkhut P.S. Case No.43 of 2011 which was lodged regarding the three occurrences including encounter of Pintu and Bipin gang with the police on 18.05.2011 near the place of occurrence.

¶88

26. This Court finds that so far as other witnesses namely PW-2 Chano Yadav and PW-3 Manoj Das are concerned, they cannot be put in the category of an eyewitness and as regards demand of rangdari , they themselves admit to have heard about it. The learned trial court has held that the genesis of occurrence is a land dispute. It is, thus, evident that the very genesis of the occurrence which is said to be a demand of Rs. 5 lakhs as

¶89

Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.810 of 2016 dt.21-01-2025 24/26

¶90

‘ rangdari’ by Maheshwar group has not been duly proved by the prosecution. In fact PW-‘3’ has stated that the occurrence took place because of a quarrel over land, therefore, he has given a different reason behind the occurrence. From the deposition of PW-‘3’ itself it would appear that he is one of the labourers and he has stated that there were indiscriminate firing but he could not see who were firing. According to him, police came after one hour from the time of first occurrence of firing. On arrival of police, again firing took place but this witness had not seen who was firing, later on he came to know that three persons were killed in the firing. He was standing at some distance when police came. This witness seems to be an independent witness. He has stated in paragraph ‘7’ that at about 11-12 during the day time when the criminals were firing in the field, Maheshwar Singh reached Maheshkunth Police Station from where Daroga Ji came with police force and thereafter firing took place between the criminals and the police in which three criminals were killed. In paragraph ‘8’ this witness had stated that Pintu Yadav gang is indulged in looting of crops.

¶91

27. It appears that PW-3, who is an independent witness, has not supported the prosecution case, still he has not been declared hostile.

¶92

Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.810 of 2016 dt.21-01-2025 25/26

¶93

28. Ashok Mahato (PW-4) has also deposed on the line of PW-3 only. He has also stated about the encounter between the police and the deceased persons. This witness is also not declared hostile.

¶94

29. Umesh Singh (PW-5) is another witness who has stated that he could not identify as to who were firing. In his crossexamination, he has stated that the persons who were killed had come for looting the crops and he has further stated that when Police came from Mansi Police Station and Maheshkunth Police Station then the miscreants had fired upon police also.

¶95

30. Devan Mandal (PW-6) has also deposed on the line of other labourers and he has not supported the prosecution case.

¶96

31. Noor Alam Khan (PW-7) has stated that there was an encounter between the police and the miscreants who had come for looting the crops. In the encounter between the police and the miscreants, three persons were killed.

¶97

32. We have discussed the prosecution evidence in detail and find that the prosecution is unable to stand on its own leg. The learned trial court seems to have completely ignored the evidences of the independent prosecution witnesses such as PW-3, PW-4, PW-5, PW-6 and PW-7. The trial court has though noted their

¶98

Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.810 of 2016 dt.21-01-2025 26/26

¶99

statements with regard to the encounter between the police and the miscreants but the learned trial court has simply ignored the same.

¶100

33. We are afraid that the findings of the learned trial court are liable to held perversed and is not based on correct appreciation of the evidences on the record.

¶101

34. The impugned judgment and order of the learned trial court cannot sustain the scrutiny which we have undertaken hereinabove. The appellant would be entitled for acquittal of the charges giving him benefit of doubt.

¶102

35. In result, this appeal is allowed. The impugned judgment and order of the learned trial court are set aside. The appellant is on bail, he is discharged from the liability of his bail bonds.

¶103

36. The trial court records together with a copy of the judgment shall be sent down to the learned trial court.

¶104

(Rajeev Ranjan Prasad, J)

¶105

(Ramesh Chand Malviya, J)

¶106

Rishi/-

¶107

AFR/NAFR
CAV DATE
Uploading Date	21.02.2025
Transmission Date	21.02.2025

Guddu Yadav v. The State Of Bihar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Guddu Yadav v. The State Of Bihar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Paramhansh Paswan Vs the State of Bihar

Ritesh Kumar @ Vikas Kumar @ Vikash @ Ritesh Vs The State of Bihar

Ravindra Musahar Vs the State of Bihar

Yogendra Yadav Vs The State of Bihar

Takshila Educational Society, Vs The Assessment Unit

Maheshwar Singh Vs The State of Bihar