Meghnath Choupal @ Medhnath Choupal sharma vs The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL APPEAL (DB) No.762 of 2018
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-88 Year-2014 Thana- SHANKARPUR District- Madhepura
======================================================
Meghnath Choupal @ Medhnath Choupal Sharma, Son of Baldeo Choupal @
Baldeo Sharma, Resident of Village Raibheer, P.S. Shankarpur, District
Madhepura.
... ... Appellant/s
Versus
The State Of Bihar
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Appellant/s : Mr.Amarnath Jha, Advocate
For the Respondent/s : Mr.Abhimanyu Sharma, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BIBEK CHAUDHURI
and
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RANA VIKRAM SINGH
ORAL JUDGMENT
(Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BIBEK CHAUDHURI)
Date : 24-06-2026
The instant criminal appeal is directed against an
order of conviction and sentence passed by the learned Addl.
nd
Sessions Judge, 2 Court at Madhepura in Sessions Trial No.
163 of 2014 arising out of Shankarpur P.S. Case No. 88 of
2014 whereby and whereunder the learned Trial Judge by his
th
judgement dated 30 of May, 2018 convicted the appellant for
the offence under Sections 302 / 34 of the IPC read with
Section 27 Arms Act and sentenced him to suffer rigorous
imprisonment of life and also to pay fine of Rs. 50,000/-, in
default to suffer further imprisonment for 2 years. For the
offence under Section 27 of the Arms Act, the appellant was

Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.762 of 2018 dt.24-06-2026
2/11
sentenced to suffer imprisonment for 1 year. The aforesaid
judgment and order of conviction and sentence are under
challenge in the present appeal at the instance of the
convict/appellant.
2. Before we advert to the prosecution case, we
are constrained to record that the instant appeal is a classic
example of improper, lackadaisical, and indifferent
investigation on the part of the Investigating Officer keeping
material lacuna in the prosecution case.
nd
3. Prosecution case in brief is that on 22 of July,
2014 at about 4:00 P.M., the informant, namely, Arvind
Kumar @ Munnaji was returning to his house by a motorcycle
after attending the last rites of his aunt. The son of the
informant was the pillion rider. While he was proceeding
towards his house, he noticed near Chapariya Toll that some
persons were following them on about four motorcycles. They
crossed the motorcycle of the informant and registered them
to proceed. The informant further stated that immediately
thereafter, one Laltu Yadav and Birendra Choupal caught hold
of him and placed a pistol beneath his ear. They instructed the
informant not to raise any shout, failing which they would
open fire at him. One Meghnand Choupal (appellant herein),

Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.762 of 2018 dt.24-06-2026
3/11
Bilash Mahto and Umesh Yadav caught hold of the son of the
informant, namely, Anupam Ananad and Chandrahaas
Choupal instructed them to bring Anupam to him.
Chandrahaas was standing about 10 yards away on the
western side from the place of occurrence. The above-named
accused persons forcibly took away Anupam to Chandrahaas.
When the informant requested Chandrahaas to release his son,
the accused persons who caught hold of him assaulted him by
fists and blows. At that time Chandrahaas told others that
another vehicle is coming towards the place of occurrence.
Hearing this, the motorcycle rider started their motorbike to
proceed and on the instruction of Chandrahaas Choupal,
Meghnad Choupal (the appellant) opened fire at the son of the
complainant, touching pistol on his chest. All the accused
persons then left the place of occurrence. The informant raised
hue and cry and rushed towards his son, who was lying on the
ground in pool of blood oozing out from his wound. The
cousin brother of the informant, namely, Mantu Kumar and
Rupesh Kumar were also present there. Subsequently, other
relatives who went to attend the last ritual of the aunt of the
informant appeared there and the injured was taken to
Madhepura Hospital by a Scorpio Car. The Medical Officer

Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.762 of 2018 dt.24-06-2026
4/11
examined him and declared him dead.
4. On the basis of the said complaint, S.H.O.
Shankarpur Police Station, namely, Mahesh Kumar Rajak
took up the investigation by registering Shankarpur P.S. Case
rd
No. 88 of 2014, dated 23 of July, 2014. It appears from the
Lower Court Record that the investigation of this case
culminated in filing charge-sheet under Section 302 / 34 of the
IPC and Section 27 of the Arms Act against the present
appellant Meghnad Choupal and one Bilash Mahto. After
filing of the charge-sheet, the case was committed to the Court
of Sessions and subsequently it was transferred for trial and
nd
disposal to the Court of the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, 2
at Madhepura.
5. The Lower Court Record further shows that
prosecution examined all 8 witnesses, including the informant
(P.W. 8), The Medical Officer, who conducted post-mortem
(P.W. 6) and the Investigating Officer (P.W. 7). Amongst other
witnesses, P.W. 2, Tarni Sharma, was declared hostile by the
prosecution. Only P.W. 1 Subhash Yadav claimed to be the
eye-witness of the occurrence and on the basis of his
evidence, the Trial Court held the present appellant guilty for
committing offence under Sections 302 IPC and 27 of the

Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.762 of 2018 dt.24-06-2026
5/11
Arms Act and convicted and sentenced him accordingly.
6. Other witnesses being P.W. 3 Rajendra Sah,
who is a signatory to the seizure list. P.W. 4 Rupesh Kumar
who is the cousin brother of the informant and he did not see
the occurrence. P.W. 5 Rajesh Kumar is also a seizure list
witness but so far as the incident is concerned, his evidence is
in the nature of hearsay. P.W. 7 is the I.O. and P.W. 8 Arvind
Kumar @ Munnaji is the informant of the case. It is already.
recorded that P.W. 6 is the Autopsy Surgeon.
7. On perusal of the LCR, we find that the
learned Trial Judge relied on the evidence of P.W. 1 alone and
convicted the appellant on the ground that the Court can even
hold an accused guilty on the basis of solitary evidence of one
eye-witness only. In support of his contention, he refers to
series of decisions, viz, Jarnail Singh & Ors vs State Of
Punjab -2009 (9) SCC 719, Ramesh Krishna Madhusudan
Nayar vs State Of Maharashtra - AIR 2008 SC 927, Ramji vs
State of Bihar - 2007 (57) ACC 385 (SC), Syed Ibrahim vs
State Of Andhra Pradesh - AIR 2006 SC 2908, Chaudhari
Ramjibhai Narasangbhai vs State Of Gujarat And Ors - 2005 1
SCC 184 and Chhitar Lal vs State Of Rajasthan - 2003 6 SCC
397.

Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.762 of 2018 dt.24-06-2026
6/11
8. In the instant case, we have independently
examined the evidence on record. At the foremost, we inclined
to record that the informant who’s the author of the case did
not support his case and did not utter even a single word
against the appellant involving him in committing the offence.
Surprisingly enough, the informant was not declared hostile
by the prosecution. Therefore, his examination in-chief stands
firm on the ground and when an incident took place in
presence of the informant, the FIR was lodged by the
informant as an eye-witness. His contrary evidence on dock
suffers most. The Trial Court held that P.W. 1 Subhash Yadav
is the eye-witness of the incident. However, Trial Court failed
to consider the cross-examination of P.W. 1 when he stated
that he saw the deceased in injured condition. He received his
injury on his chest. Thus, if the examination-in-chief and the
cross-examination of P.W. 1 are taken together for
appreciation, a doubt arises as to whether P.W. 1 was present
at the place of occurrence before the deceased received injury
or he appeared after the victim suffered gun-shot injury and
was lying with blood oozing out from the wound. If we accept
the version of P.W. 1 to be true during the cross-examination,
then we find that P.W. 1 also reached the place of occurrence

Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.762 of 2018 dt.24-06-2026
7/11
after the deceased received the gun-shot injury.
9. In view of such contradiction, we are not in a
position to hold that the evidence of P.W. 1 is of sterling
character. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Rai Sandeep @
Deepu vs State Of Nct Of Delhi reported in 2012 (8) SCC 21
was pleased to describe a sterling witness as hereunder:-
“22. In our considered opinion,
the “sterling witness” should be of a very high
quality and calibre whose version should,
therefore, be unassailable. The court
considering the version of such witness should
be in a position to accept it for its face value
without any hesitation. To test the quality of
such a witness, the status of the witness would
be immaterial and what would be relevant is
the truthfulness of the statement made by such
a witness. What would be more relevant would
be the consistency of the statement right from
the starting point till the end, namely, at the
time when the witness makes the initial
statement and ultimately before the court. It
should be natural and consistent with the case
of the prosecution qua the accused. There
should not be any prevarication in the version
of such a witness. The witness should be in a
position to withstand the cross-examination of
any length and howsoever strenuous it may be
and under no circumstance should give room

Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.762 of 2018 dt.24-06-2026
8/11
for any doubt as to the factum of the
occurrence, the persons involved, as well as
the sequence of it. Such a version should have
co-relation with each and every one of other
supporting material such as the recoveries
made, the weapons used, the manner of offence
committed, the scientific evidence and the
expert opinion. The said version should
consistently match with the version of every
other witness. It can even be stated that it
should be akin to the test applied in the case of
circumstantial evidence where there should not
be any missing link in the chain of
circumstances to hold the accused guilty of the
offence alleged against him. Only if the
version of such a witness qualifies the above
test as well as all other such similar tests to be
applied, can it be held that such a witness can
be called as a “sterling witness” whose
version can be accepted by the court without
any corroboration and based on which the
guilty can be punished. To be more precise, the
version of the said witness on the core
spectrum of the crime should remain intact
while all other attendant materials, namely,
oral, documentary and material objects should
match the said version in material particulars
in order to enable the court trying the offence
to rely on the core version to sieve the other
supporting materials for holding the offender

Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.762 of 2018 dt.24-06-2026
9/11
guilty of the charge alleged.”
10. The above-mentioned decision was
subsequently followed in a very recent judgement passed by
the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Nirmal Premkumar and Anr.
v. State Rep. By Inspector of Police reported in 2024 SCC
Online SC 260 .
11. In view of the discrepancies pointed out, we
are not in a position to hold that the P.W. 1 is a witness of
sterling character and only on the basis of sole evidence of
P.W. 1, the appellant could be convicted. There are series of
lacunae in the prosecution case. During trial, the seizure list
witness was not confronted with their signatures on the
seizure list. Though they deposed but their signature on the
seizure list was not marked exhibit. In his cross-examination,
P.W. 5 stated that he put his signature on a blank paper under
the instruction of the Investigating Officer.
12. There is no doubt that the victim of this case
received gun-shot injury and succumbed to the said injury on
the way to Madhepura Hospital. From the evidence of
Investigating Officer, we find that he seized one motorcycle,
one Samsung Mobile phone and an empty cartridge from the
place of occurrence. Surprisingly enough, the ownership of
the motorcycle was not asserted by the I.O. Had it been

Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.762 of 2018 dt.24-06-2026
10/11
asserted at least this Court could have come to a conclusion as
to whether any of the FIR named accused persons were
present at the spot and left his motorcycle after the
occurrence. Ownership of Samsung Mobile Phone was also
not asserted. The empty cartridge was not sent to Forensic
Laboratory to ascertain as to whether the said empty cartridge
was used to commit murder of the son of the informant. These
were primary duties of the I.O. for investigation of a case like
this. It appears to us that either the I.O. did not know the basic
principles of investigation or purposefully withheld the
evidences which could have been brought during investigation
to save the accused persons.
13. In our view, the process of the investigation
by the I.O. of this case is a clear instance of dereliction of his
duty. Therefore, we direct Director General of Police, Bihar,
Patna to initiate departmental proceeding against the
Investigating Officer, namely, Mahesh Kumar Rajak, who was
nd
posted as S.H.O. Medhapur Police Station on 22 of July,
2014. Due to lackadaisical investigation, both the Trial Court
and this Court are deprived of having best evidence against
the real culprits of the incident.
14. For the reasons stated above, we are not in a

Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.762 of 2018 dt.24-06-2026
11/11
position to concur with the finding of the Trial Court.
15. The appeal is, therefore, allowed.
16. The judgment and order of conviction dated
th st
30 of May, 2018, and the order of sentence dated 31 of May,
2018, passed by the learned 2nd Additional Sessions Judge,
Madhepura, are hereby set aside.

(Bibek Chaudhuri, J)
( Rana Vikram Singh, J)
uttam/-
AFR/NAFR NAFR
CAV DATE NA
Uploading Date 29.06.2026
Transmission Date 29.06.2026