Dhrub Singh Etc vs The State Of Bihar

Non-Reportable

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
2026 INSC 935

Criminal Appeal Nos.1434-1438 of 2017


Dhrub Singh Etc.
…. Appellants

Versus

The State of Bihar …. Respondent

J U D G M E N T

K. VINOD CHANDRAN, J.
A murder in broad day light presumably on an election day
had led to the conviction of the six accused, five of whom are
st
before us in these appeals. The 1 accused has served his term
and was released on remission. The prosecution case was that the
deceased along with four others, a son, an employee, a nephew
and a villager was proceeding to his fields, when the accused
ambushed the party, started indiscriminate firing with
exhortation made to kill all and the deceased was shot in the back.
The victim succumbed to the gun shot injury and the persons who
Signature Not Verified
Digitally signed by
CHANDRESH
Date: 2026.09.01
18:21:12 IST
Reason:
accompanied him started running away when a patrol car came
Page 1 of 11
Crl.A. No.1434-1438 of 2017

with a Magistrate, presumably roaming around on the election
day, when the accused too ran away. The victim was taken to the
hospital where he was declared dead. The prosecution went to
trial with nine witnesses. The accused were convicted under
Sections 302 and 307 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal
Code, 1860 (IPC) . A1, A4 and A6 were also convicted under
Section 148 of the IPC and Section 27 of the Arms Act , while A2, A3
and A5 were convicted under Section 147 of the IPC. The
prosecution also had a motive, which we will deal with a little
later.

2. PW1, the employee of the deceased; PW2, a relative and
PW7, son of the deceased left home for their fields with a villager,
the last of whom, an independent witness, was not examined
before Court. The eyewitnesses spoke in one voice of an ambush
by the accused, but their testimonies were slightly different. PW1
and PW2 spoke of A5 having ordered the firing and A7 having
fired at the deceased from the back. According to them, A6 fired
at PW7 but missed. Then A2 exhorted that each one of them
should be killed, upon which there was firing by others,
scattering the party. Then the patrolling party in a car arrived at
the spot, when the accused ran away. PW7 however, spoke of A6
Page 2 of 11
Crl.A. No.1434-1438 of 2017

having fired at him in which he did not suffer any injury.
According to him, then A4 shot the deceased and A2 exhorted to
kill all of them. PW5 another son of the deceased arrived on the
spot who testified that PW7 told him that A7 shot at the deceased,
which was also spoken of by PW8, a relative of the witness, which
was not disclosed from his statement under Section 161 of the
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC) .
3. The inconsistency is not so stark as to disbelieve the
testimonies on that ground alone, since on an ambush, when
indiscriminate firing is made and persons scattered, they may not
later recite the events in the same chronology nor could they be
expected to speak in graphic detail about the incident. However,
the fact remains that there were no cartridges recovered from the
spot and none from the patrol party was examined.
4. Learned Government Advocate alertly pointed out that PW1
and PW2 spoke of the victims having proceeded on a ridge, which
was uneven. The nearby fields had grass with spikes, and the
crops had not been fully harvested. Hence, there was no
possibility of recovery of cartridges is the submission. It is also
stated that the scene of occurrence was graphically described in
the mahazar prepared by the Investigating Officer (I.O).
Page 3 of 11
Crl.A. No.1434-1438 of 2017

However, the I.O does not speak of any search having been made
for cartridges and when it was alleged that there was
indiscriminate firing definitely there would have been more than
one cartridge in the scene of occurrence. The one bullet, which
killed the deceased had exited his body, as is seen from the
postmortem report and that too was not recovered nor was any
attempt made to recover the weapons used by the accused.
5. What is more relevant is that though there was blood stained
earth collected from the scene of occurrence it was not send for
chemical analysis. The prosecution story thus is incomplete and
there is suspicion as to the scene of occurrence. But for the
testimonies there is no tell-tale evidence collected from the scene
to establish the ambush, firing and the murder itself. The
eyewitnesses were all close to the deceased, who, as we will
presently see had an axe to grind against the accused. Though
related witnesses cannot be always categorised as interested
witnesses, here coupled with the fact that the I.O, PW9 admits that
the inquest was carried out first and then the First Information
Statement (FIS) obtained, the entire narration becomes suspect.
This creates a doubt about the scene of occurrence, which the
eyewitnesses had not identified clearly in their prior statements.
Page 4 of 11
Crl.A. No.1434-1438 of 2017

PW1 in his statement under Section 161 of the CrPC said that
before the first shot was fired, he did not hear any noise or sound,
and they were all panic stricken and screaming while running
helter skelter; reducing the possibility of identifying the accused.
In his statement before the police, he did not state the names of
the accused nor was there any statement that the accused had
ambushed by surrounding them. The witness had also not stated
about all the accused carrying weapons.
6. PW1 was an employee and PW7 was the son and PW2 was a
relative of the deceased, whose presence at the time of the
murder is suspect. Especially since, though there is allegation of
indiscriminate firing, there is no injury caused on any of the
eyewitnesses. Now we come to the motive alleged, which is also
specious. The prosecution alleges that a girl from the village of
the accused was kidnapped by a boy from the village of the
deceased. The girl is said to be the sister of A3. The past Mukhiya
of the village from where the girl was kidnapped, the father of A1,
along with the other accused had approached the deceased to
help them to trace out the girl and boy. The ex-Mukhiya was
angered by the refusal of the deceased to help him. One other
motive alleged is of the nephew of the deceased having stood
Page 5 of 11
Crl.A. No.1434-1438 of 2017

against the ex-Mukhiya in the elections. There was nothing to
prove either the kidnapping of the girl as the witnesses alleged
nor is there anything to indicate a political rivalry between the
deceased and A1’s father. More importantly though the motive is
alleged on A1’s father, he has not been arrayed as an accused in
the case. The motive also does not inspire confidence so as to
convict the accused for murder.
7. That the father of PW7 was murdered cannot at all be
doubted, going by the expert evidence of the postmortem
examination. PW4 was the Doctor who indicated two lacerated
wounds. One of which was the entry wound and the other an exit
wound, indicating the bullet having gone through the body of the
deceased. There were also four abrasions, which would have
been caused by the body falling to the ground since all of them
were on the face. The Doctor spoke of the oval bullet injury and
its trajectory indicating that the victim was in a sitting position
while he was shot from the back, and that the shot had been fired
from a distance of three to four feet, which was the indication
coming out from the blackening and tattooing found on the dead
body; which expert opinion, in fact goes against the eyewitness
version of how the incident occurred.
Page 6 of 11
Crl.A. No.1434-1438 of 2017

8. The I.Os testimony goes contrary to what the Government
Advocate argued, of the victims having gone on a ridge. PW9
specifically speaks of the place of occurrence being a lane which
led from Madanpur Distributary Canal towards Arara on the east;
a clear pathway made for pedestrians. It is also stated by the I.O
that on both sides of the pathway there were fields, which were
ploughed recently. Though a sketch of the place of occurrence
was prepared, the blood stained earth seized from the place was
not sent for testing in a laboratory. He spoke of a tension in the
area due to the kidnapping of a girl and also spoke of naxalite
movement in the area. The I.O also did not seize the clothes of the
deceased or the clothes worn by the witnesses, who, allegedly
carried the body to the hospital, in the petrol car. The High Court
noticed that though the I.Os attention was drawn to the previous
statement of the witnesses, the cross examination was long,
winding and utterly undecipherable.
9. The High Court having narrated the prosecution case and
the testimonies of the witnesses, looked into the records of the
case and found a complaint against the I.O accusing him of having
made a collusive investigation. We cannot but notice that no such
complaint was elicited from any of the eyewitnesses and in any
Page 7 of 11
Crl.A. No.1434-1438 of 2017

event this does not explain the shoddy investigation carried out
by the I.O. However, the High Court relying on the complaint
made against the I.O found that this is the reason for not recording
the statements of the independent witnesses, the blood stained
earth being not sent for chemical examination and the failure to
seize the blood stained clothes of the deceased and the witnesses.
Observing that the investigation was collusive, reliance was
placed on the testimony of the witnesses, terming it as ‘ consistent
evidence ’ to accept their version, to convict the accused. The
expert evidence on the possibility of the deceased being shot in
a sitting position was brushed aside with the conjecture that a
shooting hand would shake and when the target is moving, the
shape of the injuries are not relevant. The High Court
peremptorily came to the finding that the accused armed with a
variety of weapons, ambushed the victim and fired
indiscriminately causing the death of one person thus proving the
common intention/object to commit murder of the deceased,
based only on the eye-witness testimony.
10. We cannot but observe that the motive projected is sticky to
say the least. The expert medical opinion was against the eye-
witness testimony on how the incident occurred. There was no
Page 8 of 11
Crl.A. No.1434-1438 of 2017

recovery of weapons nor were any cartridges seized from the
scene of occurrence; especially when the eye-witnesses spoke of
indiscriminate shooting. The eyewitnesses also spoke of five of
them walking in a straight line with the deceased leading from the
front. The clear case was that the accused came from the back and
shot at the deceased on the back. Very unlikely, when the party
led by the deceased was walking in a straight line and the ambush
as also the firing came from the back. The expert evidence that
there was an indication from the nature of the wound, that victim
was sitting and that the firing was made from close quarters
persuades us to disbelieve the eye-witness testimony. The
eyewitnesses were all close to the deceased and admittedly there
was a tension in the locality between the group led by the father
of A1 in the adjacent village and that led by the deceased; which
could have prompted the eyewitnesses to frame the accused. The
motive projected of the sister of A3 having been kidnapped by a
villager of the deceased cannot be believed since there is no
connection established between the boy, who is said to have
kidnapped the girl and the deceased. The eyewitnesses were all
related witnesses and their presence could have been
established by their clothes, which would have been blood-
Page 9 of 11
Crl.A. No.1434-1438 of 2017

stained if they carried the victim in the patrol car to the hospital.
Their presence is doubtful and they had a running dispute with
the accused, coupled with the non-examination of independent
witnesses puts the prosecution case under a cloud and makes it
highly doubtful.
11. We are unable to find the prosecution having established
the culpability of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. As we
noticed, the eye-witness testimony does not inspire confidence
and there are no recoveries made or seizures effected as would
have been done in a proper investigation. The case is not of a
faulty investigation but of no investigation having been carried
out. Even the inquest was carried out before the FIS was
recorded; making it pre-meditated. The High Court egregiously
erred in looking at a complaint against the I.O not produced in the
trial, to find the evidence led to be clinching insofar as the
culpability of the accused. A faulty investigation cannot inure to
the benefit of the accused, but when there is no reliable evidence,
merely because the I.O was recalcitrant or a complaint of
collusion was raised against him, the Court cannot presume the
guilt of the accused. There is complete lack of evidence in the
Page 10 of 11
Crl.A. No.1434-1438 of 2017

present case and the testimonies, as we observed, do not inspire
confidence.
12. We, hence, acquit the accused and direct that they be
released forthwith if any of the appellants are in custody, if not
required in any other case, and if they were released on bail, their
bail bonds shall stand cancelled.
13. The Appeals stand allowed.
14. Pending application(s), if any shall stand disposed of.


.……………………………... J.
(J. B. PARDIWALA)




..………….…………………. J.
(K. VINOD CHANDRAN)

NEW DELHI;
SEPTEMBER 01, 2026.
Page 11 of 11
Crl.A. No.1434-1438 of 2017

ITEM NO.1501 COURT NO.6 SECTION II-A
S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Criminal Appeal Nos. 1434-1438/2017
DHRUB SINGH ETC Appellant(s)
VERSUS
THE STATE OF BIHAR Respondent(s)
[ HEARD BY : HON. J.B. PARDIWALA AND HON. K. VINOD CHANDRAN, JJ. ]

Date : 01-09-2026 These appeals were called on for pronouncement of
judgment today.
For Appellant(s) : Mr. Pankaj Kumar Mishra, AOR

Mr. Adarsh Kumar Tiwari, AOR
Ms. Vartika Maurya, Adv.
Ms. Akanksha Raj Mishra, Adv.
Mr. Amritesh Anand, Adv.
Mr. Vinit Pathak, Adv.
Mr. Sagar Khaushik, Adv.
Mr. Rajeev Kumar Dubey, Adv.
Mr. Anand Mishra, Adv.


Mr. Rajiv Nanda, Sr. Adv.
Mr. Manish Kumar Vikkey, AOR
Mr. Loveleen Kaithwas, Adv.
Mr. Kanchan Kumar Jha, Adv.

For Respondent(s) :
Mr. Manish Kumar, AOR
Mr. Divyansh Mishra, Adv.
Mr. Kumar Saurav, Adv.

1. HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE K. VINOD CHANDRAN pronounced the judgment
of the Bench comprising HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE J.B. PARDIWALA and His
Lordship.
2. The appeals are allowed in terms of the signed non reportable
judgment.
3. The relevant part of the signed non reportable judgment is as
under:-
“11. We are unable to find the
prosecution having established the
culpability of the accused beyond
reasonable doubt. As we noticed, the eye-
witness testimony does not inspire
confidence and there are no recoveries
made or seizures effected as would have
been done in a proper investigation. The
case is not of a faulty investigation but
of no investigation having been carried
out. Even the inquest was carried out
before the FIS was recorded; making it
pre-meditated. The High Court egregiously
erred in looking at a complaint against
the I.O not produced in the trial, to find
the evidence led to be clinching insofar
as the culpability of the accused. A
faulty investigation cannot inure to the
benefit of the accused, but when there is
no reliable evidence, merely because the
I.O was recalcitrant or a complaint of
collusion was raised against him, the
Court cannot presume the guilt of the
accused. There is complete lack of
evidence in the present case and the
testimonies, as we observed, do not
inspire confidence.
12. We, hence, acquit the accused and
direct that they be released forthwith if

any of the appellants are in custody, if
not required in any other case, and if
they were released on bail, their bail
bonds shall stand cancelled.
13.The Appeals stand allowed.”
4. Pending application(s), if any, stands disposed of.
(CHANDRESH) (POOJA SHARMA)
ASTT. REGISTRAR-cum-PS COURT MASTER (NSH)
(Original signed non reportable judgment is placed on the file)