Patna High Court Frees Murder Convicts: FIR Omissions Expose Shaky Prosecution Story

In a significant ruling on circumstantial evidence and FIR credibility, the Patna High Court has acquitted two men sentenced to life imprisonment for murder and kidnapping. Justices Bibek Chaudhuri and Ansul overturned the trial court's convictions of Rajeev Singh @ Rajeev Kumar and Vinay Kumar @ Vinay Singh, citing glaring contradictions in witness testimonies, a deficient investigation, and the failure to establish a complete chain of circumstances. The Division Bench emphasized that when a witness's account shapes the FIR, it becomes a litmus test for the entire prosecution case under Section 11 of the Evidence Act.

A Village Shop Turns Deadly: The Alleged Crime Unravels

The case stemmed from Barauni P.S. Case No. 47 of 2012, where brothers Sanjay Sah and Raj Kumar Sah ran a kirana shop in Bihat market, Begusarai. On February 17, 2012, around 8:30 PM, Vinay Singh—named in the FIR—along with Jugnu Singh, Champak Jha, and two others allegedly arrived on motorcycles, lured Raj Kumar away, assaulted him near a well, and abducted him at gunpoint. Sanjay claimed a motive: Vinay owed Rs. 5 lakhs from a loan, sparking a village panchayat.

Raj Kumar's body, shot dead, was found the next morning in Banwari Bahiyar. The FIR, lodged by Sanjay at 10:30 AM, accused the group of kidnapping (Section 364 IPC), murder (Section 302/34 IPC), criminal conspiracy (Section 120B IPC), and Arms Act violations. Rajeev Singh emerged later during investigation. The trial court convicted them in 2019, imposing life terms and fines, but the High Court appeals painted a different picture.

Prosecution's 'Last Seen' Gamble vs. Defense's Doubt Arsenal

Prosecutors leaned on "last seen" evidence: multiple witnesses allegedly saw the accused abduct Raj Kumar, a tight timeline to body recovery, a loan dispute motive, and confessions from Rajeev and another. PW-3 Sanjay Sah (informant), his mother Pancha Devi (PW-1), brother Rajeev Kumar (PW-2), and others claimed eyewitness status to the initial assault and ride-off. The IO (PW-4) cited confessions and supported the first occurrence site.

Defense counsel hammered inconsistencies: Witnesses contradicted each other's presence—no mutual corroboration at the scene. Pancha Devi and others absent from the FIR despite claiming prior knowledge. No eye-witness to the shooting, faulty probe (no call records, no DySP/OIC statements, no motorcycle traces), and ante-dated FIR suspicions. Hostile witnesses (PW-5, PW-6) and uncle PW-7's mismatched tale fueled false implication claims over old feuds.

Bench Dissects Cracks: From FIR to Failed Circumstantial Links

Drawing on Ram Kumar Pandey vs. State of M.P. (1975) 3 SCC 815, the court held the FIR relevant under Section 11 Evidence Act when witnesses' versions informed it—omissions like Pancha Devi's presence invalidated later claims. Witnesses' timelines clashed: FIR silent on family presence; no docs for Rs. 5 lakh loan despite high shop earnings claimed.

The IO admitted lapses—no second-site visit, no recovery from Rajeev, no station diary or calls verifying night searches. Invoking Sharad Birdhichand Sarda (1984) 4 SCC 116 and Hanumant vs. State of MP , the bench stressed circumstantial evidence must form an unbroken guilt chain, excluding innocence hypotheses. Pankaj vs. State of Rajasthan (2016) 16 SCC 192 warned against convicting on doubtful genesis. "Last seen" crumbled without cogent proof.

As noted in legal commentary on the ruling, this reinforces FIR scrutiny where witnesses underpin it, testing prosecution veracity holistically.

Key Observations

"If the version of a witness has gone into making of the FIR then the entire prosecution case can be tested with reference to the FIR as the FIR then becomes a relevant fact under Section 11 of the Evidence Act." (Para 18, citing Ram Kumar Pandey)

"The witnesses clearly do not attest to the presence of each other at the place of occurrence rather they completely contradict each others presence... the story seems to have been woven after the dead body was recovered." (Para 30)

"In cases where the evidence is of a circumstantial nature, the circumstances... should be such as to exclude every hypothesis but the one proposed to be proved." (Para 33, citing Hanumant)

"Suspicion, howsoever strong, cannot be allowed to take the place of proof." (Para 38, citing Jaharlal Das)

Acquittal Granted: A Win for Doubt Over Suspicion

The appeals succeeded: "The impugned judgment... is hereby set aside. Consequently, the above named appellants are acquitted from the charges." (Para 42) Bail bonds discharged, records returned.

This sets a precedent for rigorous FIR-witness alignment in circumstantial cases, mandating thorough probes. Future trials may face stricter "last seen" scrutiny, benefiting accused where chains snap—upholding "must be" guilt over "may be."