2026 Supreme(Pat) 254

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
RAJEEV RANJAN PRASAD, J.
The State of Bihar – Appellant 
Versus
Lamboo Sharma @ Munna Sharma @ Sachidanand Sharma - Respondent
DEATH REFERENCE No.1 of 2024 with CRIMINAL APPEAL (DB) Nos.1150 of 2019, 1162 of 2019, 1185 of 2019, 1210 of 2019, 1246 of 2019, 1271 of 2019 and 1290 of 2019
Decided On : 26-03-2026

Headnote:

Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Sections 302, 307, 326, 353, 115, 120(B), 224, 216 and 303 – Explosive Substances Act, 1908 – Sections 3, 4 and 5 – Double murder, attempt to murder and conspiracy – Death sentence – Circumstantial evidence – There is no direct evidence that deceased woman caused bomb blast in connivance with accused persons – Injured witnesses have not supported prosecution case – Speculation, conjecture, surmises or suspicion by a witness holds no evidentiary value in a Court of law – There is no cogent evidence on record that on the date of occurrence, in Court complex, deceased woman was trying to give any bag containing bomb to appellants – Recital made in F.I.R. cannot be used as substantive evidence – Prosecution has not succeeded by adducing cogent evidence in establishing any previous meeting between deceased woman and appellants – CDR cannot be legally admissible since there is no certificate as required under Section 65B(4) of Evidence Act – Prosecution has miserably failed to establish that there was any criminal conspiracy between accused persons and that appellants in connivance with each other had set up deceased woman to commit bomb blast in Court premises which facilitated escape of appellants from judicial custody – Mere absconding of appellants from judicial custody may not be alone sufficient to hold that they in connivance with others caused bomb blast – From articles recovered at scene of occurrence and from some of appellants, link of any of appellants with the crime cannot be said to be established – Impugned judgment and order of conviction set aside and they are acquitted of all charges – Death Reference answered in negative. (Paras 27, 28, 29, 32, 33, 34, 36.2 and 37)

Criminal Law – Circumstantial evidence – In a case based on circumstantial evidence, there is always a danger that conjecture or suspicion may take place of legal proof – Court has to be watchful and ensure that suspicion howsoever strong should not be allowed to take place of proof – Moral opinion, howsoever strong or genuine and suspicion, howsoever grave, cannot substitute a legal proof – A very careful, cautious and meticulous appreciation of evidence is necessary when case is based on circumstantial evidence – Prosecution must elevate its case from realm of 'may be true' to plane of `must be true'. (Para 27)

Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Section 313 – Examination of accused – Section 313 of Cr.P.C. is not an empty formality – Improper examination/inadequate questioning under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. amounts to serious lapse on part of trial Court and is a ground for interference with conviction – Provisions of Section 313 of Cr.P.C. are not meant to nail accused to his disadvantage but are meant for his benefit – Provisions are based on salutary principles of natural justice and maxim 'audi alteram partem' has been enshrined in them – Examination under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. has to be of utmost fairness. (Para 30)

Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Section 164 – Indian Evidence Act, 1872 – Section 145 – Statement of a witness recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. is not substantive evidence – Statement of a witness under Section 164 Cr.P.C. is recorded being sponsored by investigating agency – Statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. can be used either for corroboration of testimony of a witness under Section 157 of Evidence Act or for contradiction thereof under Section 145 of Evidence Act. (Para 31)

Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Section 120(B) – Criminal conspiracy – Meeting of minds of two or more persons for doing an illegal act or an act by illegal means is sine qua non of criminal conspiracy but it may not be possible to prove agreement between them by direct proof – Existence of conspiracy and its objective can be inferred from surrounding circumstances and conduct of accused – Incriminating circumstances must form chain of events from which conclusion about guilt of accused could be drawn – Offence of conspiracy is a substantive offence and renders mere agreement to commit an offence punishable even if an offence does not take place pursuant to illegal agreement. (Para 34)

Criminal Law – Appreciation of evidence – Mere absconding by itself does not constitute guilty mind as even an innocent man may feel panicky and may seek to evade police when wrongly suspected of being involvement as an instinct of self-preservation – Act of absconding is a relevant piece of evidence to be considered along with other evidence but its value would always depend on circumstances of each case – Normally, Courts are disinclined to attach much importance to act of absconding, treating it as a very small item in evidence for sustaining conviction – It can scarcely be held as a determining link in completing chain of circumstantial evidence which must admit of no other reasonable hypothesis than that of guilt of accused. (Para 34)

Criminal Law – Appreciation of evidence – Prosecution cannot derive any advantage from falsity or other infirmities of defence version, so long as it does not discharge its initial burden of proving its case against accused beyond all reasonable doubts – Prosecution has bounden duty to lead an impenetrable chain of evidence suggesting guilt of accused and it must stand on its own leg without borrowing credence from falsity of defence evidence – If evidence on record fails to point to guilt of accused beyond reasonable doubt, it is of no consequence whether or not defence version is false. (Para 36.4)