Shatrughan Ram @ Shatrudhan Das vs The State of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL APPEAL (DB) No.469 of 2019
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-228 Year-2007 Thana- SHRIKRISHNAPURI District- Patna
======================================================
Shatrughan Ram @ Shatrudhan Das Son of Lalchand Ram, Resident of
Tezpratap Nagar, P.S-Beur, District-Patna, At present New Punaichak
(Jhoparpatti), P.S.-S.K. Puri, District-Patna.
... ... Appellant/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar
2. Jawahar Ram Son of Babu Lal R/o New Punaichak(Jhoparpatti), P.S. - S.K.
Puri, Dist. - Patna.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Appellant/s : Ms. Kahkashan Alam, Advocate
Mr. Kamlesh Kumar, Advocate
Ms. Akanksha Varma, Advocate
Mr. Santosh Kumar, Advocate
Mr. Kaushal Kishor, Advocate
For the Informant : Ms. Smriti Bharti, Amicus Curiae
For the State Mr. Sujeet Kumar Singh, Advocate
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BIBEK CHAUDHURI
and
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DR. ANSHUMAN
CAV JUDGMENT
(Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BIBEK CHAUDHURI)
Date : 24-02-2026
1. The instant criminal appeal is directed against a
judgement of conviction and sentence passed by the learned
nd
Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track, 2 Court at Patna on
th
16 of February, 2019, whereby and whereunder, the learned
Trial Judge held the appellant guilty for committing offence
under Sections 376/302 of the Indian Penal Code and
convicted and sentenced him to suffer rigorous imprisonment
for life for the offence punishable under Section 376 of the

Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.469 of 2019 dt.24-02-2026
2/16
IPC and rigorous imprisonment for life till the end of his
natural life for the offence punishable under Section 302 of
the IPC.
2. On the basis of an oral statement made by one
Jawahar Kumar Ray of village Mohaddipur, which was
th
reduced to writing by Sub-Inspector, K. N. Paswan on 17 of
December, 2007, S.K. Puri P.S Case No. 228 of 2007, dated
th
17 of December, 2007, for the offence punishable under
Sections 376 and 302 of the Indian Penal Code was registered.
3. It is alleged by the informant that at the relevant
point when the alleged incident took place, he used to reside
at New Punaichak, Jhuggi-Jhopadpatti by the side of the
th
railway line within Police Station-S. K. Puri. On 16 of
December, 2007 in the evening, the wife of the informant,
namely, Kachan Devi sent her daughter, since deceased, aged
about 8 years, to collect waste papers. At that place, the
appellant was also present. His child also went to collect
papers. When the informant returned at about 08:30 P.M. on
th
16 of December, 2006, after pulling rickshaw, he did not find
his minor daughter at home. He and his wife conducted a
search for their daughter at nearby area and asked the local
people about her whereabouts but the local people failed to

Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.469 of 2019 dt.24-02-2026
3/16
give any reply to them. Then they suspected that his daughter
might be in the room of the appellant. He went to the house of
the appellant to find out his daughter but found that the house
and the entrance gate of the appellant were locked and it was
dark inside. On the following morning at about 07:00. A.M.,
the informant again conducted search of his daughter. During
search, he peeped through the closed door of the room of the
appellant and found that her daughter lying dead inside the
room of the appellant. With the help of local people, the lock
of the entrance gate and the door of the room were broken.
The informant and others saw the dead body of her daughter
having injuries and scratch marks all over her body. Her
undergarment and pant were found open and blood was found
near her buttock. He suspected that the appellant who was also
residing at the relevant point of time at New Punaichak,
Jhuggi-Jhopadpatti committed rape upon his daughter and
thereafter murdered her by throttling.
4. The S.H.O., S.K. Puri, Police Station instructed
S.I. K. N. Paswan to take up the investigation of the case.
During investigation, he recovered the dead body of the
daughter of the informant; held inquest over the dead body of
the deceased at the place of occurrence; seized blood-stained

Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.469 of 2019 dt.24-02-2026
4/16
earth from the place of occurrence; and one photocopy of
voter identity card from the room of the appellant. He also
examined available witnesses and recorded their statement
under Section 161 of the Cr.P.C. Thereafter, he sent the dead
body of the deceased for post-mortem examination to
P.M.C.H. He also obtained forensic report of the seized blood-
stained earth and wearing apparels of the victim.
5. On conclusion of investigation, he submitted a
charge-sheet against the appellant under Sections 376 and 302
th
of the IPC before the learned C.J.M., Patna on 29 of October,
2011.
6. The learned Sessions Judge, Patna received the
th
case record after commitment on 4 of January, 2012 and
th
transferred the case to the 10 Court of the Additional
Sessions Judge at Patna.
th
7. The learned Additional Sessions, 10 Court at
Patna, received the case records and framed charge against the
th
accused/appellant on 9 of May, 2012, punishable under
Section 376 of the IPC. When the charge, so framed, was
written over and explained to the appellant, he pleaded not
guilty. Accordingly trial of the case commenced.
8. During trial, one Shobha Devi was examined as

Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.469 of 2019 dt.24-02-2026
5/16
th
P.W. 1 on 25 of February, 2013. One Dharmendra Ray was
th
examined by the Trial Court on 10 of April, 2013.
9. Subsequently, when the trial was in progress
th
before the 10 of Court of the learned Additional Sessions,
Patna, the learned Sessions Judge, Patna issued memo no.
th
3052-3054 dated 4 of March, 2017 and the Sessions Trial
nd
No. 20 of 2012 was transferred to the Fast Track, 2 Court of
the learned Additional Sessions Judge. The transferee Court
th
received the record on 10 of March, 2017 and continued with
th
the trial which was commenced before the 10 Court of the
learned Additional Sessions Judge at Patna.
10. At the outset, we like to record that after
commencement of trial, no sessions trial case can be
transferred from one Trial Court to another by issuing
administrative order by the learned Principle Sessions Judge,
Patna. However, the said procedural wrong was committed by
the learned Principle Sessions Judge by issuing memo no.
th
3052-3054 dated 4 of March, 2017, directing the learned
th
Additional Sessions Judge, 10 Court at Patna to transfer the
nd
case to the 2 Fast Track Court at Patna.
11. However, when the trial of the case was
nd
concluded by the learned 2 Fast Track Court at Patna by

Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.469 of 2019 dt.24-02-2026
6/16
passing judgement of conviction and sentence, we treat the
above-mentioned anomaly as procedural irregularity and
proceed with the hearing of the instant appeal.
12. During trial, in order to bring home the charge
against the accused, the prosecution examined as many as five
witnesses. Some documents were marked as Exhibit-1 to
Exhibit-9/1. We propose to state the nature of exhibited
documents subsequently in the body of the instant judgement.
Amongst the witnesses, P.W. 1, Shobha Devi is the paternal aunt
of the deceased. P.W. 2, Dharmendra Ray used to reside in the
adjacent house of father of the deceased. P.W. 3, K. N. Paswan
is the first Investigating Officer. P.W. 4, Dr. Arun Kumar Singh
was posted as a tutor in the department of Forensic Medicine in
Patna Medical College and Hospital. He conducted post-mortem
over the dead-body of the deceased girl and prepared the post-
mortem report. P.W. 5 is a Serological Expert in the Forensic
Science Laboratory at Patna. No other witness was examined
during the trial of the case.
13. Thus, it appears that during trial, prosecution
failed to produce the informant who is the father of the deceased
and his wife. In other words, parents of the deceased were not
examined. The learned Trial Court passed the impugned

Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.469 of 2019 dt.24-02-2026
7/16
judgement convicting the accused for the offence punishable
under Section 376 and Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code
mainly on the basis of the evidence of P.W. 1, P.W. 2 coupled
with the report submitted by the Autopsy Surgeon.
14. During trial, the Investigating Officer proved the
fard beyan recorded on the basis of the statement of the
informant, Jawahar Kumar Ray by P.W. 3. One Anil Kumar
Ram put his signature on the said fard beyan as a witness of left
thumb impression affixed by the informant on the said fard
beyan . The said Anil Kumar Ram was also not examined.
However, the fard beyan was marked as Exhibit-3 and the
endorsement of P.W. 3 on the fard beyan was marked as Exhibit-
3/1. The formal F.I.R. recorded on the basis of the said fard
beyan was marked as Exhibit-4.
15. As the informant was not examined during trial,
the prosecution failed to prove the contents of the F.I.R.
Similarly, the defence did not get any opportunity to ascertain as
to whether there was any contradiction in the F.I.R.
16. From the evidence of P.W. 1, it is ascertained that
on the date of incident, in the evening, mother of the deceased
asked her to collect some waste papers to burn Chulah (home
made stove) for cooking. The little girl left the house to collect

Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.469 of 2019 dt.24-02-2026
8/16
some waster papers. Thereafter, she went missing. P.W. 1, his
brother (informant) and sister-in-law (mother of the deceased)
conducted search for the girl and during search, they went to the
house of the appellant. They found the house of the appellant
locked and dark. According to P.W. 1, she asked the father of the
appellant about his son and he told her that he was sleeping in
his room since the evening on the date of occurrence. On the
following morning, P.W. 1 again went to the house of the
appellant and found his house locked. She peeped through the
door inside the hut (jhopdi) and found the little girl of the
informant lying dead inside the hut. Then, the brother of P.W. 1,
his wife and P.W. 1 herself informed the incident to the police.
The police came to the place of occurrence and broke out the
door and entered into the house. There was mark of
strangulation around the neck of the deceased. Her body had
bite marks on her face and chest. Blood was found lying on the
floor of the room. Police sent the dead body of the deceased to
Patna Medical College and Hospital for post-mortem
examination. Police seized blood stained soil from the place of
occurrence. At that time, the accused was not present in his
house.
17. The evidence of P.W. 2 is more less the same as

Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.469 of 2019 dt.24-02-2026
9/16
that of P.W. 1. P.W. 2 knew the deceased. It is ascertained from
the evidence of P.W. 2, Dharmendra Ray, who is a neighbour of
the informant that the house of the appellant is just adjacent to
the house of the deceased. In the year 2007, when the incident
took place, the deceased was aged about 8 years. The witness
personally saw the dead body of the deceased at the residence of
the appellant. He noticed that the undergarment of the deceased
were stained with blood. Her neck appeared to have been
forcibly compressed and there were bite marks on her chick. He
suspected that the deceased was murdered by the appellant after
he committed rape upon her.
18. On perusal of the evidence of P.W. 1 and P.W. 2,
this Court does not find that either of the above-named two
witnesses were present in the house of the informant on 16th of
December, 2007, when the deceased was asked by her mother to
bring some waste papers to burn Chulah. They also did not see
the appellant in association with the deceased after she departed
from her home to bring waste papers in the evening of 16th of
December, 2007. The prosecution failed to produce any witness
to prove that the appellant and the deceased were last seen
together before she got missing till recovery of the dead body of
the deceased.

Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.469 of 2019 dt.24-02-2026
10/16
19. It is true that from the evidence of P.W. 1 and
P.W. 2, this Court finds that the dead body of the deceased was
found in the room of the appellant but from the evidence of P.W.
1 as well as statement made in the fard beyan , it is ascertained
that the room of the deceased was under lock and key from the
late evening of 16th of December, 2007 and also on 17th of
December, 2007, till it was broken in the morning of 17th of
December, 2007. At the time of recovery of the dead body, the
appellant was not found. In the night of 16th of December,
2007, P.W. 1 saw the house of the appellant under lock and key
and there was no lit inside the room.
20. The Trial Court convicted the appellant on the
sole ground of recovery of dead body from the house of the
appellant on the basis of presumption that since the dead body
of the victim girl was found in the room of the appellant, he had
special knowledge about what had happened to the deceased
after she left her home in the evening of 16th of December,
2007. It was held by the Trial Court that the incident that took
place with the victim after she departed her home to bring waste
papers was within the special knowledge of the appellant and he
failed to discharge his burden as to how the deceased was
ravished and subsequently murdered.

Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.469 of 2019 dt.24-02-2026
11/16
21. The burden of proving fact, especially within the
knowledge of the accused can be found within Section 106 of
the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, corresponding to Section 109 of
the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023.
22. Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act discusses
the burden of proof on a person who has knowledge of a
specific fact, such as being the last person known to have been
with the victim.
23. It is needless to say that in order to convict
someone on the basis of circumstantial evidence invoking the
last seen theory, the prosecution is under primary obligation to
prove the circumstance beyond any shadow of doubt, the chain
of which must lead to the inescapable conclusion of that person
committing the crime.
24. In criminal cases, where direct evidences are hard
to found, the entire case depends on the circumstantial evidence.
The circumstantial evidences imply when all the evidences are
clubbed together to form a complete chain of events in such a
way that the accused may be convicted. The chain of events, so
formed, must be without any reasonable doubt. Each
circumstances and the evidences from which the chain is formed
should be individually proved as direct evidences. The

Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.469 of 2019 dt.24-02-2026
12/16
circumstantial evidence is always direct and primary which
means the fact from which the existence of the fact in issue to
be inferred must be proved by direct evidence. In case of
circumstantial evidence, all the circumstances should be vested
by absolute evidences and should form a complete chain to
bring home the guilt of the accused without giving any
alternative chance to any other hypothesis.
25. In the instant case, there is absolutely no direct
evidence against the appellant in support of the charge. Thus,
the Trial Court bases its judgement of conviction on the basis of
circumstantial evidence.
26. The only circumstance appearing against the
appellant is that the dead body of the victim was found in his
room in the morning of 17th of December, 2007. The victim
was missing from the evening of 16th of December, 2007.
Nobody saw the appellant enticing the victim to his house after
her departure from her own house to bring some waste papers.
Secondly, when the parents of the victim and P.W. 1 were
searching for her, they found the room of the appellant under
lock and key and dark. Presumably, there was nobody in the
house of the appellant, when the parents and P.W. 1 went to the
house of the appellant. There is absolutely no evidence collected

Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.469 of 2019 dt.24-02-2026
13/16
by the Investigating Officer to prove that the victim was
sexually assaulted by the appellant. The serological report
submitted by P.W. 5 in respect of the blood stained earth,
underwear cutting with stain of blood, payajama cutting with
stain of blood and payajama cutting with stain of semen
suggested that the forensic examination failed to identify the
blood group on the afore-mentioned seized articles. Therefore, it
was also not proved that victim was raped before her murder by
the appellant. The prosecution hopelessly failed to establish the
charge against the appellant and in spite of absolute lack of
evidence, the Trial Court passed the impugned judgement of
conviction and sentence. As a result of the impugned judgement
delivered by the Trial Court, the appellant remains in custody
for about 15 years.
27. It is unfortunate to note that the incident took
th
place on 16 of December, 2007. The appellant was arrested and
produced before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate on the
th
strength of warrant of arrest on 7 of August, 2011. Charge-
th
sheet was filed on 29 of October, 2011. Charge was framed
th
against the accused on 9 of May, 2012. Subsequently, when the
th
trial was in progress before the 10 of Court of the learned
Additional Sessions, Patna, the learned Sessions Judge, Patna

Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.469 of 2019 dt.24-02-2026
14/16
th
issued memo no. 3052-3054 dated 4 of March, 2017 and the
Sessions Trial No. 20 of 2012 was transferred to the Fast Track,
nd
2 Court of the learned Additional Sessions Judge. The
th
transferee Court received the record on 10 of March, 2017 and
th
continued with the trial which was commenced before the 10
Court of the learned Additional Sessions Judge at Patna. From
the date of arrest/production before the Court till date, he was in
custody. The Trial Court delivered the impugned judgement on
th
16 of February, 2019. The instant appeal was filed before this
nd
Court on 22 May, 2019. Unfortunately enough, the appeal was
admitted for hearing by a Coordinate Bench of this Court after a
th
lapse of six years on 28 of March, 2025. Notice upon the
informant/Respondent No. 2 was served as per the Process
th
Servers Report on 30 of June, 2025. Thereafter, date was fixed
st
for production of lower court records on 1 of August, 2025.
28. Subsequently, however, a Coordinate Bench
passed an order for substitute service of notice upon
Respondent/informant by paper publication. The appellant took
step for publication of notice by paper publication, which was
th
accepted by a Coordinate Bench on 11 of December, 2025 and
th
the Coordinate Bench vide order, dated 19 of December, 2025
refused the prayer for suspension of sentence and bail of the

Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.469 of 2019 dt.24-02-2026
15/16
appellant in spite of the fact that the appellant is in incarceration
for about 15 years.
29. After hearing the appeal, we are unfortunately
note that the appellant was convicted and sentenced to suffer
imprisonment for life on consideration of inadmissible evidence.
The prosecution hopelessly failed to bring home the
circumstances which were necessarily established beyond any
shadow of doubt in order to come to a finding in support of
hypothesis of guilt against the appellant.
30. This is a case where the appellant remained in
custody for about 15 years though prosecution failed to produce
any kind of evidence whatsoever against him during trial.
However, we do not find any alternative but to lament for the
unfortunate state of justice delivery system in our country and
pray that timely justice shall be delivered both to the
prosecution and defence in future.
31. In view of the above discussions, the instant
Criminal Appeal is allowed on contest.
32. However, there shall be no order as to costs.
33. The judgement of conviction and sentence passed
nd
by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track, 2 Court
th
at Patna on 16 of February, 2019, whereby and whereunder, the

Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.469 of 2019 dt.24-02-2026
16/16
learned Trial Judge held the appellant guilty for committing
offence under Sections 376/302 of the Indian Penal Code and
convicted and sentenced him to suffer rigorous imprisonment
for life for the offence punishable under Section 376 of the IPC
and rigorous imprisonment for life till the end of his natural life
for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the IPC, is set
aside.
34. The appellant be released at once.


(Bibek Chaudhuri, J)
(Dr. Anshuman, J)
skm/-
AFR/NAFR NAFR
CAV DATE 18.02.2026
Uploading Date 24.02.2026
Transmission Date 24.02.2026