Patna High Court Acquits All Accused in Political Murder Case, Citing Eyewitness Contradictions and Lack of Evidence

In a significant judgment Patna High Court overturned the conviction of three individuals accused of murdering a local political leader, citing inconsistencies in eyewitness accounts, delays in filing the First Information Report (FIR), and contradictions in forensic evidence. The accused—Abhay Kumar @ Abhay Sahni, Jai Shankar Chaudhary, and Ram Babu Sahni—had been convicted of murder and related charges in connection with the 2018 killing of a Block Pramukh during a politically charged no-confidence motion proceeding.

The Division Bench of Justice Ashutosh Kumar and Justice Rajesh Kumar Verma allowed the appeals in Abhay Kumar @ Abhay Sahni and Others v. The State of Bihar and directed the immediate release of the appellants unless detained in other cases.

On August 13, 2018, the victim, Manish Kumar, a newly elected Block Pramukh (head of the local administrative block), was shot dead near the Block office in Vaishali district, Bihar. The case, rooted in political rivalry, alleged that the appellants—Jai Shankar Chaudhary (the ousted Pramukh) and his associates Abhay Kumar @ Abhay Sahni and Ram Babu Sahni—conspired and executed the murder due to Kumar's victory in a no-confidence motion.

The prosecution relied on eyewitness testimonies and forensic evidence to convict the appellants under Sections 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and Section 27 of the Arms Act. The trial court sentenced the appellants to life imprisonment and imposed fines. Five other accused were acquitted during the trial for lack of evidence.

The High Court critically examined the testimonies of the prosecution’s key witnesses, including P.W. 7 (the deceased’s brother and informant) and several "chance witnesses." The Court observed glaring inconsistencies in their accounts:

Delay in Statements: Several eyewitnesses, including P.W. 1, P.W. 5, and P.W. 6, gave their statements to the police several days after the incident without providing any reasonable explanation for the delay.

Unexplained Presence: The Court found that these chance witnesses—who claimed to have been at the Block office for unrelated work—failed to explain their presence at the scene of the crime convincingly.

Inconsistencies with Forensic Evidence: The testimonies were inconsistent with the post-mortem report, which indicated that the gunshots were fired from a higher elevation—a fact not corroborated by any eyewitness account.
"Eyewitness accounts, particularly from chance witnesses, must be scrutinized with great care. In this case, their delayed depositions and contradictory statements severely undermine their credibility," the Court stated.

The forensic evidence raised further doubts about the prosecution’s narrative:

Gunshot Trajectory: The post-mortem report revealed that the entry wounds were on the upper part of the body, while the exit wounds were on the lower part, suggesting that the shots were fired from a higher elevation. However, the eyewitnesses claimed the assailants were at the same ground level as the deceased.

Charred Wounds: The presence of charred entry wounds indicated close-range firing, contradicting the prosecution’s version that the shots were fired from a distance.

Number of Gunshots: While eyewitnesses claimed multiple gunshots were fired indiscriminately, the post-mortem identified only two gunshot wounds.
"The forensic evidence does not support the prosecution's theory of indiscriminate firing at ground level. This creates a serious gap in the chain of evidence," the Bench remarked.

The FIR was lodged 24 hours after the incident, despite the police station being only 100 yards away from the crime scene and police officers being present at the hospital where the deceased was taken. The Court found this delay unjustified and indicative of possible deliberation or fabrication.

"Unexplained delays in lodging the FIR, especially in cases of political rivalry, cast a shadow of doubt over the prosecution's case. This delay undermines the credibility of the informant’s account," the judgment stated.

Interestingly, two other FIRs filed on the same day—by the local Block Development Officer (BDO) and the investigating officer—made no mention of the appellants as suspects, further weakening the prosecution's case.

The prosecution argued that the murder stemmed from political rivalry. The deceased had recently defeated appellant Jai Shankar Chaudhary in a no-confidence motion, and the informant (P.W. 7) was later elected Pramukh unopposed. However, the Court found this motive insufficient to convict the appellants in the absence of reliable evidence.

"While the political rivalry is evident, it cannot substitute for concrete evidence proving the guilt of the accused. The prosecution has failed to bridge the gap between motive and the actual commission of the crime," the Court observed.

The defense successfully argued that the accusations were politically motivated to eliminate rivals, particularly since five other accused were acquitted during the trial for lack of evidence.

The Court cited several precedents, including Ganesh Bhavan Patel v. State of Maharashtra [(1978) 4 SCC 371] and Jarnail Singh v. State of Punjab [(2009) 9 SCC 719], to emphasize the importance of consistency and promptness in eyewitness testimonies. It held that delayed and contradictory statements weaken the prosecution's case.

"The testimony of chance witnesses, though admissible, must withstand heightened scrutiny. In this case, the delay in their statements and inconsistencies in their accounts render them unreliable," the judgment read.

The Court relied on Balakrushna Swain v. State of Orissa [(1971) 3 SCC 192] to highlight that unexplained delays in filing the FIR raise questions about the prosecution’s credibility and suggest possible afterthoughts.

The Bench underscored the need for forensic evidence to corroborate eyewitness accounts. In this case, the ballistic and post-mortem findings contradicted the prosecution’s narrative, creating reasonable doubt.

Conviction Quashed: The Court set aside the trial court's conviction of the appellants under Sections 302/34 IPC and Section 27 of the Arms Act.

Immediate Release Ordered: The appellants—Abhay Kumar @ Abhay Sahni, Jai Shankar Chaudhary, and Ram Babu Sahni—were ordered to be released immediately unless detained in other cases.

Prosecution Failed to Prove Case: The Court held that the prosecution failed to establish the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt.

"The evidence presented by the prosecution is riddled with inconsistencies, contradictions, and gaps. The accused are entitled to the benefit of doubt," the judgment concluded.

Date of Judgment: November 18, 2024