Patna High Court acquits four in double-murder case, orders senior-police panel to review investigation lapses

The prosecution alleged that, on 2 November 2018, eleven assailants arrived on motorcycles and fired at Deepak Kumar and Dinkar Singh @ Sunny near a snack shop; both later died.

The informant, Sudhir Singh (PW-2), named the accused in his fardbeyan, and the four appellants were charged under Sections 302/34 IPC and Section 27(i) of the Arms Act.

The trial court relied principally on the evidence of PW-1, PW-2 and PW-5, convicted the appellants, and sentenced them to life imprisonment under Section 302/34 IPC and three years’ imprisonment under the Arms Act, with the sentences to run concurrently.

In appeal, the appellants challenged the identification evidence and highlighted inconsistencies, omissions and deficiencies in the investigation.

1. Whether the prosecution evidence reliably established the appellants’ participation in the shootings and proved their guilt beyond reasonable doubt

2. Whether the investigation’s deficiencies, considered alongside the evidentiary weaknesses, created reasonable doubt requiring the appellants’ acquittal

The appellants were convicted under Sections 302/34 IPC, concerning murder committed in furtherance of common intention, and Section 27(i) of the Arms Act.

The prosecution was required to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt; where reasonable doubt remained, its benefit had to be given to the accused. Relying on Kali Ram v. State of Himachal Pradesh, the Court emphasised that conviction requires proof that the accused “must be,” not merely “may be,” guilty.

The Court also cited Mahavir Singh v. State of Madhya Pradesh on the importance of a diligent and fair investigation, and State of Gujarat v. Kishanbhai and Ankush Maruti Shinde v. State of Maharashtra concerning review and accountability for investigative or prosecutorial lapses.

The Court found that the principal identification witnesses were not wholly reliable. PW-2’s account and the site layout cast doubt on whether he could have witnessed the shooting; his evidence indicated that he arrived as the accused were fleeing.

PW-1’s account was inconsistent with the prosecution evidence, while PW-5’s evidence materially conflicted with PW-2’s account of how Deepak was taken to hospital and did not establish a clear opportunity to observe the shooting.

PW-4, a named eyewitness, did not support the prosecution.

The investigation added to the doubt: the investigating officer did not adequately examine nearby residents or the shopkeeper, send relevant material for forensic testing, or produce a recorded statement from Deepak; the Court also questioned the case-diary entries concerning the officer’s visit to the scene.

Although the medical evidence established firearm injuries, the Court concluded that the prosecution had not reliably connected the appellants to the killings.

It set aside the convictions and sentences and allowed all three appeals; the appellants were to be released forthwith unless required in another case.

The Court also directed the Director General of Police, Bihar, to constitute a three-member committee of senior police officers to review the investigation and take an appropriate administrative decision within three months, with the action reported to the appellants.

It further directed the Bihar Home Department to report on its policy and inquiries concerning investigative and prosecutorial lapses.