IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
MOHIT KUMAR SHAH and SONI SHRIVASTAVA, JJ.
Criminal Appeal (DB) No.731 of 2015
(11.4.2025)
Prabha Devi ... Appellant
vs.
State of Bihar ... Respondent
Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Section 302 (BNS, 2023 – Section 103(1)) – Murder – Non-examination of I.O. – In absence of examination of the I.O., authenticity of all the documentary evidences right from the FIR to the seizure list and the inquest report gets severely and adversely affected, hence they are not proved – There is substantial delay in recording of the fardbeyan of the only eye witness who is also a child witness, whose evidence suffers from discrepancies and embellishments as he has developed the story during the course of trial, deviating from the initial statement made in the fardbeyan, coupled with the fact that other witnesses have also changed their version and no objective evidence has been brought on record – Motive for such a ghastly murder not proved at all – fardbeyan is totally silent on the point of any motive with which the offence would have been committed – conviction and sentence is not sustainable and accordingly, set aside. (Paras 37 to 39 & 60)
Indian Evidence Act, 1872 – Section 118 – (B.S.A., 2023 – Section 122) – Competency of child witness – The court has a bounden duty to see and analyze whether the evidence of such a witness is cogent, convincing and creditworthy or whether there has been enough scope for tutoring of the witness – As held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that it would be hazardous to rely on the sole testimony of the child witness in case the same has not been made immediately after the occurrence giving scope of possibility of tutoring him – Another factor in connection with reliability the evidence of a child witness for consideration is that trial court must record its satisfaction that the minor is able to understand the questions put to the witness who is able to respond and provide natural answers to the questions asked – In the present case, the learned court below has not satisfied itself with regard to the ability and capability of the witness of understanding question and giving rational answers and even not recorded his satisfaction with regard to the same – The P.W. 4 (Child witness does not have a ring of truth and in all likelihood, he has been subjected to tutoring. (Paras 41, 45, 48 & 52)
Soni Shrivastava, J. – The present appeal under Section 374(2) read with Section 389(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Cr.P.C.) has been preferred against the judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 29.06.2025 passed by the court of learned Additional District and Sessions Judge-III, Purnea in Sessions Case No.1074 of 2007, arising out of Rauta (Angarh) P.S. Case No.27 of 2007 dated 27.06.2007, whereby and whereunder the sole appellant has been convicted under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as the ‘IPC’) and she has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life with fine of Rs.50,000/- and in default thereof she has been directed to undergo simple imprisonment for six months.
2. The short facts of the case arising out of the First Information Report based on the fardbeyan of the informant Prem Lal Harijan (PW-4) recorded on 27.06.2007 at 10.30 AM, is that on 26.06.2007, the informant had gone to Majhgawan haat (market) along with his father Mahesh Lal Harijan (deceased) at 4.00 PM and his father after taking kerosene oil from the dealer, gave it to the informant and asked him to wait while he would go and get fish. It is alleged that after some time the father of the informant gave the fish to him and asked him to go to his house and also asked him to sell wheat and bring spices and other articles, whereafter the informant came back to his home with the fish, and went again to the village for selling the wheat at the shop. Meanwhile, the appellant and his father came together near the shop and the appellant Prabha Devi entered into a quarrel with the father of the informant and also tore his Lungi, whereupon the informant ran to the house of appellant Prabha Devi and informed her husband Chowkidar Madan Lal Harijan about the said quarrel and asked him to get the fight resolved, however, the later did not pay heed to his request. The informant has further stated in his fardbeyan that while he was taking the Lungi, his father and Prabha Devi had both come to the house of Prabha Devi, where he saw his father sitting along with Madan Lal and in the meantime, Prabha Devi got a sword from the house and gave a blow on the neck of the father of the informant twice, owing to which, the neck of the father of the informant got cut and he fell down. It is further stated that the informant rushed to his house and informed about the incident to his mother whereupon his mother started weeping and screaming and other villagers also came to the place of occurrence. The informant has stated in his fardbeyan that the occurrence took place around 5.45 PM. The fardbeyan was read over to the informant, which he had understood and finding the same to be correct, he had made his signature over the same in front of two witnesses (not examined).
3. On the basis of the aforementioned fardbeyan, a formal FIR bearing Rauta (Angarh) P.S. Case No.27 of 2007 was instituted on 27.06.2007 at 3.00 PM under Section 302 of the IPC against the sole accused being the present appellant. After investigation and finding the case to be true qua the appellant, the police had submitted charge-sheet against the appellant under Section 302 of the IPC on 27.08.2007. The learned court of C.J.M., Purnea had taken cognizance of the offence under Section 302 of the IPC vide order dated 26.10.2007. The case record was committed to the court of Sessions on 30.11.2007 and accordingly Sessions Case No.1074 of 2007 was instituted, whereafter the charges were framed by the learned trial court on 04.01.2008 under Section 302 of the IPC against the appellant to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
4. The prosecution, in order to substantiate its case, examined five witnesses during the course of trial, they being, PW-1 Pandit Lal Harijan (co-villager and cousin brother of the deceased), PW-2 Anti Lal Harijan (co-villager), PW-3 Jag Lal Harijan (brother of the deceased), PW-
Lahu Kamlakar Patil vs. State of Maharashtra
Bhagwan Singh vs. State of M.P.
Digamber Vaishnav vs. State of Chhattisgarh
K. Venkateshwarlu vs. State of A.P.
The conviction cannot stand if eyewitness testimony is contradictive and lacks corroboration, underscoring the necessity for reliability in criminal prosecutions.
Conviction under IPC 302/34 upheld on reliable sole eyewitness testimony corroborated by medical evidence and witnesses, despite minor discrepancies and non-examination of investigating officer/docto....
Conviction under Section 302/34 IPC unsustainable on uncorroborated, contradictory testimony of interested sole eyewitness; benefit of reasonable doubt mandates acquittal where prosecution fails to p....
Conviction on sole eyewitness unreliable due to contradictions in assault manner/place, house layout inconsistency, suspicious family conduct; benefit of doubt where guilt not proved beyond reasonabl....
Conviction can be upheld based on the reliable testimony of a sole eyewitness, irrespective of the presence of corroborating evidence or independent witnesses, as long as the evidence is credible.
(1) Child witness – Evidence of a child witness for all purposes is deemed to be on same footing as any other witness as long child is found to be competent to testify.(2) Murder of wife and disappea....
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.