Patna High Court Overturns Attempt to Murder Conviction in 22-Year-Old House Trespass Case | Identification Based Only on ‘Younger Son’ Termed Shaky and Unreliable
Safiya Malik
The High Court of Judicature at Patna Single Bench of Justice Alok Kumar Pandey has set aside a conviction and sentence imposed upon an appellant by the trial court. The Court declared that the prosecution had failed to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt and directed that the appellant be released forthwith, subject to not being required in any other case. The judgment recorded that the trial court had erred in law and in appreciation of facts, and accordingly, the conviction dated 29 March 2023 and the sentence dated 5 April 2023 were quashed. The matter concluded with the Court allowing the appeal in full and ordering the immediate release of the appellant.
The appeal was filed challenging the judgment of conviction dated 29 March 2023 and the order of sentence dated 5 April 2023, both issued by the Additional District and Sessions Judge-I cum Special Judge, SC/ST (P.O.A.) Act, Buxar, in connection with SC/ST Case No. 173 of 2021. The case originated from Brahmpur (Krishna Brahm) Police Station Case No. 84 of 2003.
According to the prosecution’s version, the incident occurred during the night of 25/26 May 2003 at approximately 12:30 AM. The informant, who was sleeping with his family, reported that three to four individuals entered his house. On being questioned, the intruders allegedly instructed the family to remain silent. The informant claimed that he identified one of the intruders as the younger son of late Naga Yadav of Lali Ke Dera village, though he did not know his name at the time. It was further alleged that when a torch was switched on, the intruder’s face was seen, and the miscreant fired, causing injuries to the informant’s wife on her arm and chest. The informant himself also sustained an injury on his arm.
Based on the informant’s fardbeyan, the police registered Brahmpur P.S. Case No. 84 of 2003 under Sections 324, 448, 307, 34 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 27 of the Arms Act. During investigation, the charge sheet was filed under Sections 452, 324, 307, 34 of IPC, Section 27 of the Arms Act, and Section 3(i)(xi) of the SC/ST (P.O.A.) Act. Cognizance was taken accordingly. Charges were framed on 4 August 2006, and the accused pleaded not guilty.
The prosecution examined seven witnesses. These included P.W. 1, Sunita Devi, wife of the informant and an injured witness; P.W. 2, Binod Kumar Ram, the informant himself; P.W. 3, Vishwanath Ram; P.W. 4, Virendra Ram; P.W. 5, Ramesh Kumar Ram; P.W. 6, Ram Kripal Mahto, Investigating Officer; and P.W. 7, Dr. Kamal Kishore Ojha, who examined the injured. Documentary evidence included the informant’s signature on the fardbeyan (Exhibit 1), the injury report of Sunita Devi (Exhibit 2), and her supplementary injury report (Exhibit 2/1).
The defence case was one of total denial, and the accused did not lead any evidence.
The trial court convicted the appellant under Sections 324, 307, 452 of IPC, Section 27 of the Arms Act, and Section 3(i)(xi) of the SC/ST (P.O.A.) Act. Sentences were imposed as follows: seven years imprisonment with fine under Section 307 IPC, two years under Section 324 IPC, four years with fine under Section 452 IPC, three years with fine under Section 27 Arms Act, and two years with fine under Section 3(i)(xi) SC/ST Act. All sentences were directed to run concurrently, except default sentences.
On appeal, the appellant challenged the conviction primarily on the grounds of improper identification, contradictions in prosecution evidence, absence of injury report for P.W. 2, and the non-examination of the Investigating Officer. The appellant’s counsel submitted that P.W. 1 admitted in cross-examination that only her husband identified the accused as the younger son of late Naga Yadav and that she had never visited the village of the accused. It was further argued that P.W. 2’s statement about identifying the appellant was unreliable, as he admitted he learned the accused’s name only four days after the incident. The absence of a Test Identification Parade (TIP) was also stated.
The State, however, supported the trial court’s judgment, submitting that the testimony of P.W. 1 and P.W. 2, both injured witnesses, was sufficient to uphold the conviction.
The Court considered whether the prosecution had proved the case beyond reasonable doubt. Justice Pandey noted that “from the perusal of FIR, it is evident that name of the appellant has not been mentioned and physical features of the appellant has not been reflected.” It was observed that although four intruders were alleged to have entered the house, the informant had not identified any of the others nor described their features.
On the testimony of P.W. 1, the Court recorded that she claimed to have identified the appellant but admitted in cross-examination that she had never visited his village. The Court further stated: “From the perusal of FIR, it appears that the gunfire hit the chest of P.W. 1… On this point, version of FIR is found totally contradictory that if P.W. 1 is behind her husband at the time of firing, then, how the firing hit on chest of P.W. 1?”
Regarding P.W. 2, the Court noted that although he claimed injury, no medical report was available to support his statement. The Court stated: “So far as the identification of appellant is concerned, P.W. 2 has himself admitted in paragraph 7 of his cross-examination that he cannot point out the description of physical features of five sons of late Naga Yadav.” It was further recorded that P.W. 2 admitted he learned the appellant’s name only four days after the incident.
The Court considered the absence of TIP, stating: “Dock identification has no meaning at all where the Investigating Officer has not been examined and TIP is not available on record. Dock identification by few witnesses is not reliable.”
The Court referred to Supreme Court precedents, including Wahid v. State of Govt. of NCT of Delhi (2025), Wakil Singh v. State of Bihar (1981), and Vishwanatha v. State of Karnataka (2024). The Court quoted the Supreme Court’s caution that in cases where the accused is not named in the FIR, courts should proceed cautiously, particularly in night incidents and where no TIP has been conducted. It also cited the principle that absence of description or features of accused in FIR renders single witness identification unsafe.
Justice Pandey concluded: “On the point of identification, prosecution has measurably failed to prove the case against the appellant.” The Court observed multiple infirmities, including the non-examination of the Investigating Officer, lack of medical report for P.W. 2, contradictions in testimony, and the absence of credible identification.
The Court concluded that “prosecution case suffers from several infirmities, as noticed above, and it was not a fit case where conviction could have been recorded.” Justice Pandey held that “the learned trial court fell in error of law as well as appreciation of facts of the case in view of settled criminal jurisprudence.” Accordingly, the judgment of conviction dated 29 March 2023 and order of sentence dated 5 April 2023 were set aside. The appeal was allowed, and the Court ordered: “The appellant is in custody. Let the appellant be released forthwith, if he is not warranted in any other case.”
It was further directed that interlocutory applications, if any, stand disposed of. The Court ordered: “Let a copy of this judgment be transmitted to the Superintendent of the concerned jail for compliance and for record. The records of this case be also returned to the concerned trial court forthwith.”
Advocates Representing the Parties
For the Appellants: Mr. Umesh Kumar Singh, Advocate
For the Respondents: Ms. Usha Kumari, A.P.P.
Case Title: Haresh Yadav v. State of Bihar
Case Number: Criminal Appeal (SJ) No. 2304 of 2023
Bench: Justice Alok Kumar Pandey
