Patna High Court Upholds Acquittal in Murder Case Citing Lack of Eye-Witnesses

The Patna High Court has refused to overturn a judgment of acquittal in a thirty-two-year-old murder case, reinforcing the principle that appellate interference is unwarranted unless the trial court’s findings are demonstrably perverse. The court underscored that the prosecution's failure to produce credible eye-witnesses and the non-examination of the Investigating Officer and medical expert created an insurmountable shadow of doubt over the entire case.

A Division Bench comprising Justice Rajeev Ranjan Prasad and Justice Sourendra Pandey heard the appeal filed by the informant against the acquittal of the accused persons. The Bench examined whether the trial court had erred in its appreciation of evidence concerning an incident that dated back to 1992, involving an alleged fatal assault with spears and sticks.

Key Takeaways

Appellate Restraint in Acquittals

The judgment affirms that in appeals against acquittal, the High Court will not interfere unless the trial court's view is impossible or legally perverse, ensuring the presumption of innocence remains robust.

Credibility of Eye-Witnesses

The ruling highlights that mere presence at the scene does not qualify a witness as a reliable eye-witness if their testimony contradicts physical evidence or the initial prosecution narrative.

Impact of Procedural Lapses

The non-examination of the Investigating Officer (I.O.) and the doctor, coupled with the absence of Forensic Science Laboratory (FSL) reports for seized weapons, can be fatal to the prosecution's case in criminal trials.

Court Dissects Witness Credibility and Investigative Gaps

The Court observed that while the prosecution examined seven witnesses, their testimonies failed to inspire confidence. The Bench noted significant discrepancies between the initial fardbeyan and the oral evidence regarding the manner of assault. Specifically, while the informant initially claimed a spear was used to strike the deceased, subsequent witness statements suggested the spear was used as a 'lathi' (stick). Furthermore, the prosecution failed to provide a plausible reason for the non-appearance of the doctor who conducted the postmortem and the Investigating Officer.

The Court, in its reasoning, observed: "neither the informant nor any other prosecution witness may be put in the category of an eyewitness. The learned Trial Court has upon analyzing the evidences on record rightly concluded that none of the prosecution witnesses is an eye-witness. Although they have claimed themselves eye-witnesses of the occurrence but that would not inspire confidence of the Court."

Ratio

In an appeal against acquittal, the appellate court should not interfere with the trial court's findings unless it arrives at an irresistible conclusion of guilt. The failure to examine the Investigating Officer and the medical expert, combined with material contradictions in witness testimonies regarding the weapon of offense and the place of occurrence, entitles the accused to the benefit of the doubt.

Background

The case originated from an incident on September 19, 1992, where the father of the appellant was allegedly surrounded and assaulted by several individuals in Village Lakhachak, under Belchhi Police Station. The informant (P.W.-3) alleged that Sitaram Prasad and others attacked his father with spears and sticks due to an old rivalry, leading to his death at Barh Hospital. Following an investigation, a charge-sheet was filed under Section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code.

During the protracted trial, several accused persons passed away, leaving only Sitaram Prasad and Satyendar Yadav to face judgment. The Trial Court acquitted them on December 4, 2024, noting that the prosecution witnesses were unreliable, the place of occurrence was not corroborated, and the FSL report for the seized spear was never produced. The High Court, after re-evaluating the evidence, found no perversity in the Trial Court's reasoning and dismissed the appeal.

Case Details:
Case No.: CRIMINAL APPEAL (DB) No.307 of 2025
Case Title: Upendra Kumar vs. The State of Bihar & Ors.
Appearances:
For the Petitioner(s): Mr. Raj Kishor Prasad, Advocate; Mr. Dhaneshwar Prasad Gupta, Advocate
For the Respondent(s): Mr. Shashi Bala Verma, APP

Source: 2026 CaseBase(PAT) 2709