SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2025 Supreme(Online)(Pat) 1796

PATNA HIGH COURT
ALOK KUMAR PANDEY, J
BHARATH SINGH – Appellant
Versus
The State of Bihar – Respondent
CRIMINAL APPEAL (SJ) No.793 of 2004 | S.T. No. 65 of 2004 | Tr. No. 56 of 2004



Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Mr. Prabhojot Singh, Amicus Curiae
For the Respondents: Mrs. Anita Kumari Singh, A.P.P.

Conviction under IPC Sections 364(A) and 395 reversed due to witness inconsistencies and insufficient evidence of identity and guilt.

Headnote:(A) Indian Penal Code - Sections 364(A) and 395 - Conviction and sentencing for kidnapping and robbery - Appellant sentenced to seven years rigorous imprisonment and fine - Prosecution witnesses, including victim, failed to identify the accused; crucial inconsistencies in testimonies - Prosecution's position deemed not credible, leading to reversal of conviction. (Paras 3, 39)

(B) Criminal procedure - The evidentiary weight of witness statements varies based on consistency and corroborative quality - A 'sterling witness' must maintain a consistent narrative throughout, and divergence in testimony undermines the case. (Paras 31, 36)

Facts of the case:
The appellant was convicted and sentenced based on the alleged kidnapping of the victim and claimed payment of ransom for his release; however, the key witnesses, including the victim, denied identifying the accused and provided inconsistent statements.

Findings of Court:
The trial court's judgment was found to be in error as it relied on unsubstantiated witness accounts, leading to the conclusion that prosecution evidence was insufficient for a conviction.

Issues: The court addressed whether the evidence presented met the legal standard for establishing guilt under Sections 364(A) and 395 of IPC.

Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the inconsistencies in witness testimony, particularly from the victim who failed to identify the appellant during crucial moments, significantly undermined the prosecution's case, warranting acquittal.

Result: The appeal was allowed, the conviction was set aside, and the appellant was discharged from liability.

Table of Content
1. factual background of the case (Para 2 , 3 , 4 , 5)
2. arguments on behalf of the appellant regarding lack of evidence (Para 10 , 11)
3. arguments presented by the state (Para 12 , 32 , 34)
4. court's observations on witness credibility (Para 13 , 14 , 15 , 18 , 20 , 22 , 25 , 33)
5. judgment and final conclusions on the appeal (Para 39 , 40 , 41 , 42 , 43 , 44)

ORAL JUDGMENT

Date : 06-12-2025

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

2. The present appeal has been directed against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 05.10.2004 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, F.T.C No. 5, Kaimur at Bhabua in S.T. No. 65 of 2004, Tr. No. 56 of 2004, arising out of Bhabua P.S. Case No. 74 of 2003 whereby and whereunder the appellant has been convicted for the offences punishable under Section 364(A)/395 of IPC and has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven years along with fine of Rs. 2,000/- each under Section 364(A)/395 of IPC and in case of default of payment of fine, appellant has to undergo further simple imprisonment for two months each.

3.According to fardbeyan of informant/Satya Nararaian Sah (PW 7), he was cooking food for his owner (Ram Bali Sah) and two other staffs. It is alleged that his owner and Mintu Sah (PW 1) were sleeping and Chunnu Bind (PW 3) was operating Mill. It is further alleged that at about 11:00 PM in the night, suddenly nine miscreants entered into the Mill out of which six miscreants were armed with one barrel gun and three miscreants were empty handed. It is further alleged that two armed miscreants pointed weapon on informant and armed persons pointed weapon on informant’s owner and Chunnu Sah and asked about the money. Upon which, informant’s owner said that there was no money, then, miscreants continued to surround the informant and others by pointing weapon on them. It is further alleged that two armed persons checked the box and scattered the documents. It is alleged that one of the miscreants snatched informant’s Kohinoor watch and he started to take away the informant and his owner by catching their hands. At the same time, two miscreants out of nine miscreants, who were dressed in dhoti-kurta and was holding plane muffler, were aged about 50-52 years and at the behest of one of the miscreants, informant was being left out by the miscreants and informant’s owner was taken away by them and three miscreants closed the gates and stood outside and threatened of dire consequences in case they raised hulla. After some time, at the corner from north side when the informant peeped, then, he saw that there was no one at the gate, thereafter, he informed the Police. Thereafter, informant disclosed that two miscreants were short, mid color, aged about 20-25 years persons and four armed miscreants were of normal height and aged about 30-32 years. Four armed miscreants were wearing full pant(white) and shirt and other armed persons were wearing lungi and shirt. One miscreants who was empty handed, was wearing lungi and shirt, aged about 30 years, remain stood at the gate and keep saying from there to make it fast. Informant further disclosed that all miscreants were speaking local language. The informant further disclosed that about 20 days ago, a meeting (Panchayati) was held between informant’s owner and Bharat Koyeri of Govarach at the brick kiln of Adeshwar Singh in which many people had participated and Bharat Koyeri and his associates had threatened the informant’s owner stating that they would not allow the informant’s owner mill to operate and they would not let them live.

4. On the basis of fardbeyan of informant, Bhabua P.S. Case No. No. 74 of 2003 was registered under Sections 364/379 of the IPC against 9 unknown persons. Routine investigation followed. Statement of witnesses came to be recorded and charge sheet has been submitted against the appellant under Sections 364(A)/379 of the IPC whereas

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top