{"file_name": "2024_10_1313_1343_EN.pdf", "text": "[2024] 10 S.C.R. 1313 : 2024 INSC 755\n\nRama Devi \nv. \nThe State of Bihar and Others\n\n(Criminal Appeal No(s). 2623-2631 of 2014)\n\n03 October 2024\n\n[Sanjiv Khanna,* Sanjay Kumar and R. Mahadevan, JJ.]\n\nIssue for Consideration\n\nWhether  the  High  Court  was  justified  in  reversing  the  judgment \nof  the  trial  court  and  acquitting  the  respondents  of  the  charges \npunishable under Sections 302, 307, 333, 355 and 379, all read \nwith Section 34 of the Penal Code, 1860, and Section 27 of the \nArms Act, 1959.\n\nHeadnotes†\n\nPenal  Code,  1860  –  ss.302,  307,  read  with  s.34  –  Murder  of \nan MLA and his bodyguard – Respondents convicted by Trial \nCourt – Conviction reversed by High Court – Challenge to:\n\nHeld:  In  view  of  the  evidence  and  materials  on  record,  charges \nagainst  A-4  and  A-8  under  Section  302  read  with  Section  34 \nand  Section  307  r/w  Section  34  proved  and  established  beyond \nreasonable doubt – Conviction and sentence awarded by the trial \ncourt  affirmed  and  restored  –  However,  benefit  of  doubt  given \nto  other  accused  persons  as  there  is  no  direct  ocular  evidence \nimplicating them and the charge of conspiracy is not substantiated, \ntheir acquittal upheld – Impugned judgment set aside. [Paras 42-45]\n\nFIR – Delay in forwarding the copy to magistrate – When not \nfatal:\n\nHeld:  The  incident  took  place  in  the  night  of  13.06.1998  – \n14.06.1998  being  a  Sunday,  the  FIR  was  forwarded  to  the \njurisdictional  magistrate  on  15.06.1998  –  Thus,  the  delay  in \nforwarding  the  copy  of  the  FIR  to  the  jurisdictional  magistrate \nwas  explained  –  Mere  delay  by  itself  is  not  sufficient  to  discard \nand  disbelieve  the  case  of  the  prosecution  unless  the  accused \ndemonstrate  how  this  delay  has  prejudiced  their  case  –  If  the \ninvestigation starts in right earnest and there is sufficient material \non record to show that the accused were named and pinpointed, \n\n*Author\n\n\f1314 \n\n[2024] 10 S.C.R.\n\nthe prosecution case can be accepted when evidence implicates \nthe  accused  –  The  requirement  to  dispatch  and  serve  a  copy \nof  the  FIR  to  the  jurisdictional  magistrate  is  an  external  check \nagainst ante dating or ante timing of the FIR to ensure that there \nis  no  manipulation  or  interpolation  in  the  FIR  –  Further,  if  the \ncourt  finds  the  witnesses  to  be  truthful  and  credible,  the  lack \nof  a  cogent  explanation  for  the  delay  may  not  be  regarded  as \ndetrimental. [Para 30]\n\nEvidence  –  Non-recovery  of  vehicles  and  weapons  used  in \nthe offence – Effect on credibility of eyewitnesses, if any:\n\nHeld:  The  ocular  version  of  the  witnesses  should  not  be \ndisregarded  solely  because  the  weapon  used  in  the  crime  and \nthe vehicles allegedly used by the accused were not located or \nseized by the police – On facts, the failure of the police to recover \nthe  vehicles  and  the  weapons  is  not  sufficient  to  undermine \nthe  credibility  of  the  eyewitness  accounts  or  the  corroborative \nevidence  regarding  the  cause  of  the  homicidal  deaths  of  both \nthe deceased. [Para 27]\n\nEvidence  –  Witness  with  criminal  background  –  Courts  to \nexercise  caution  but,  evidence  cannot  be  discarded  merely \non the ground of criminal background:\n\nHeld:  Criminal  background  of  a  witness  necessitates  that  the \ncourts approach their evidence with caution – The testimony of a \nwitness with a chequered past cannot be dismissed as untruthful \nor  uncreditworthy  without  considering  the  surrounding  facts  and \ncircumstances of the case, including their presence at the scene \nof the offence – In cases involving conflicts between rival gangs or \ngroups, the testimony of members from either side is admissible and \nrelevant – If the court is convinced of the veracity and truthfulness \nof  such  testimony,  it  may  be  considered  –  Courts  assess  the \nbroader  context  to  determine  if  there  is  sufficient  corroboration, \nas long as there are no valid reasons to discredit the evidence – \nThe crucial test is whether the witness is truly an eyewitness and \nwhether their testimony is credible – If their presence at the scene \nis established beyond doubt, their account of the incident can be \nrelied upon – Such evidence cannot be discarded merely on the \ngrounds of criminal background. [Para 20]\n\nEvidence  –  Presence  of  eyewitness  (PW-1)  at  the  place \nof  occurrence  (hospital)  proven,  however  there  was \n\nDigital Supreme Court Reports\f[2024] 10 S.C.R.  \n\n1315\n\nnon- compliance with hospital and prison protocols – Reliance \non testimony of PW-1, if proper – MLA and his bodyguard were \nmurdered in the hospital where the former was admitted for \ntreatment while in judicial custody – PW-1 did not seek prior \npermission from the court or jail authorities nor did he make \nany entry in the hospital register while visiting the deceased \nMLA in the hospital:\n\nHeld: Fardbeyan (Exhibit-50) and the ocular evidence of PW-24 \nand  PW25,  establish  the  presence  of  PW-1  and  other  visitors \nin  the  hospital  –  Once  the  presence  of  a  witness  at  the  place \nof  occurrence  is  proven,  their  testimony,  if  credible  and  truthful, \nshould  not  be  dismissed  solely  based  on  non-compliance  with \nhospital  and  prison  protocols  –  Further,  the  reasoning  given  by \nthe High Court to disregard and doubt the eyewitness account of \nPW-1, on the premise that he ought to have been the informant \nbecause  he  is  the  brother-in-law  of  the  deceased  MLA  and  was \npresent at the hospital at the time of occurrence, is conjectural and \nunfounded – Any person can be an informant of a case, and the \npolice may also register a case on their own – The rationale of the \nHigh Court for dismissing the testimony of PW-1 is fundamentally \nflawed. [Para 15]\n\nEvidence  –  Testimony  of  hostile  witness  –  Maxims  –  falsus \nin uno, falsus in omnibus – Inapplicability:\n\nHeld: Maxim falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus is not a sound rule \nto apply in the conditions of this country – This maxim does not \noccupy  the  status  of  rule  of  law  –  It  is  merely  a  rule  of  caution \nwhich involves the question of the weight of evidence that a court \nmay  apply  in  the  given  set  of  circumstances  –  Evidence  of  a \nhostile witness is not to be completely rejected, so as to exclude \nversions that support the prosecution – Rather, the testimony of \nthe hostile witness is to be subjected to close scrutiny, enabling \nthe  court  to  separate  truth  from  falsehood,  exaggerations  and \nimprovements  –  Only  reliable  evidence  should  be  taken  into \nconsideration  –  The  court  is  not  denuded  of  its  power  to  make \nan  appropriate  assessment  –  The  entire  testimony  of  a  hostile \nwitness is discarded only when the judge, as a matter of prudence, \nfinds the witness wholly discredited, warranting the exclusion of \nthe evidence in toto – The creditworthy portions of the testimony \nshould  be  considered  for  the  purpose  of  evidence  in  the  case. \n[Paras 16, 22]\n\nRama Devi v. The State of Bihar and Others\f1316 \n\n[2024] 10 S.C.R.\n\nCase Law Cited\n\nDeep Chand and Others v. State of Haryana (1969) 3 SCC 890; \nState  of  Rajasthan  v.  Daud  Khan  (2016)  2  SCC  607;  Ponnam \nChandraiah v. State of Andhra Pradesh [2008] 11 SCR 561 : (2008) \n11 SCC 640; State of U.P. v. Farid Khan and Others (2005) 9 SCC \n103; C. Muniappan and Others v. State of Tamil Nadu [2010] 10 \nSCR 262 : (2010) 9 SCC 567; Yogesh Singh v. Mahabeer Singh \nand  Others  [2016]  7  SCR  713  :  (2017)  11  SCC  195;  State  of \nRajasthan v. Arjun Singh and Others [2011] 10 SCR 823 : (2011) \n9 SCC 115 – relied on.\n\nList of Acts\n\nPenal Code, 1860; Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Arms Act, \n1959.\n\nList of Keywords\n\nMurder;  Member  of  the  Legislative Assembly;  MLA;  Bodyguard; \nPolitical  leader;  Benefit  of  doubt;  Acquittal;  Conspiracy  not \nproved/ substantiated; Motive; Charges proved beyond reasonable \ndoubt; Hospital; Prison protocols; Hospital register; Visitors; Delay \nin forwarding FIR to magistrate; Not fatal; Ante dating; ante timing; \nManipulation  or  interpolation  in  FIR;  Superficial  issues;  Memory \ntest; Witness with criminal background; Non-recovery of vehicles, \nweapons used in the offence; Ocular evidence; Informant; Hostile \nwitness;  Maxims;  falsus  in  uno,  falsus  in  omnibus;  Fardbeyan; \nEyewitness; Efflux of time.\n\nCase Arising From\n\nCRIMINAL APPELLATE  JURISDICTION:  Criminal Appeal  Nos.   \n2623-2631 of 2014\n\nFrom the Judgment and Order dated 24.07.2014 of the High Court \nof Patna in CRLAP No. 778, 898, 825, 859, 865, 899, 871, 874 and \n878 of 2009\n\nWith\n\nCriminal Appeal Nos. 2632-2640 of 2014\n\nAppearances for Parties\n\nTushar Mehta, Solicitor General, K M Nataraj, A.S.G., Siddharth \nAggarwal,  Ms.  Sonia  Mathur,  Mrs.  Ruchi  Kohli,  Mrs.  Archana \n\nDigital Supreme Court Reports\f[2024] 10 S.C.R.  \n\n1317\n\nPathak Dave, Surendra Singh, Sr. Advs., Arvind Kumar Sharma, \nAditya Singia, Vishwajeet Bhati, Harsh Yadav, Ritwik Saha, Sharad \nKumar  Puri,  Ms.  Parul  Sharma,  Mrs.  Pinki Aggarwal,  Mrs.  Priya \nPuri, Mukesh Kumar Maroria, Ms. Sairica S Raju, Rajesh Kumar \nSingh, Rajan Kumar Chourasia, P V Yogeswaran, Ms. Ronika Tater, \nMs.  Surbhi  Bhardwaj,  Ms.  Dipanshu  Krishnan,  Ms.  Madhumita \nKesavan,  Nikhil  Chandra  Jaiswal,  Tripurari  Ray,  D.  S.  Parmar, \nMs.  Sujeeta  Srivastava, Abhishek  Priyadarshi,  Ms.  Mrinal  Elker \nMazumdar, Saurabh Singh, Anirudh Ray, Ashutosh Ghade, Sunil \nKumar,  Nimit  Bhimjiyani,  Rahul  Raman,  Ms.  Sneha  Balapure, \nRaj  Kamal, Aseem Atwal,  Kartavya  Batra, Anurag  Chandra,  Ms. \nNupur Kaushik, Ms. Stuti, Ms. Aprajita Tyagi, Ms. Muskan Sidana, \nHarneet  Singh,  Ms.  Prerna  Singh,  Shantanu  Sagar,  Raj  Kumar, \nPrabhat  Ranjan  Raj, Anil  Kumar,  Gunjesh  Ranjan,  Mrs.  Divya \nMishra,  Shashank  Kumar  Saurav,  Sanjay  Jain,  Manu  Shanker \nMishra, Laxmi Narayan Sharma, Vivekanand Singh, Nishant Kumar, \nNithyananda Murthy P, Ms. Bhanu Prabha, Vaibha Kumar, Advs. \nfor the appearing parties.\n\nJudgment / Order of the Supreme Court\n\nJudgment\n\nSanjiv Khanna, J.\n\nThis  judgment  decides  two  sets  of  appeals,  one  by  the  State  of \nBihar,  through  the  Central  Bureau  of  Investigation,1  and  the  other \nby Rama Devi, wife of one of the deceased – Brij Bihari Prasad, a \nmember of the Bihar Legislative Assembly. The second deceased – \nLakshmeshwar Sahu – was the bodyguard of Brij Bihari Prasad and \na member of the Bihar police.\n\n2.  The  impugned  judgment  of  the  High  Court  of  Judicature  at  Patna \ndated 24.07.2014 reverses the judgment of the trial court and acquits \nthe  nine  accused2  of  the  charges  punishable  under  Sections  302, \n307, 333, 355 and 379, all read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal \nCode, 1860,3 and Section 27 of the Arms Act, 1959.4\n\n1 \n\n2 \n\n3 \n\n4 \n\nFor short, “CBI.”\n\nSuraj  Bhan Singh @ Suraj  Singh @ Suraj,  Mukesh Singh, Lallan  Singh, Mantu Tiwari,  Captain  Sunil \nSingh (since deceased), Ram Niranjan Chaudhary, Shashi Kumar Rai (since deceased), Vijay Kumar \nShukla @ Munna Shukla, Rajan Tiwari.\n\nFor short, “IPC”.\n\nFor short, “1959 Act”.\n\nRama Devi v. The State of Bihar and Others\f1318 \n\n[2024] 10 S.C.R.\n\n3.  The incident in question took place on 13.06.1998 at around 08:15 \np.m. at  the Indira Gandhi Institute of Medical  Science, Patna.5 On \nthe basis of the fardbeyan (Exhibit 50) of Amarendra Kumar Sinha \n(PW-10) recorded by S.S.P. Yadav, Inspector-cum-Officer-in-Charge, \nShastri  Nagar  Police  Station,6  on  13.06.1998  at  9:00  p.m.,  First \nInformation Report7 No. 336/1998, (Exhibit 51 and 51/1) was lodged \nunder Sections 302, 307, 34, 120B, 379 of the IPC and Section 27 \nof the 1959 Act at 12:15 a.m. on 14.06.1998.\n\nThe Prosecution Case\n\n4.  The prosecution case is as follows:\n\n(i)  On  13.06.1998  at  around  6:30  p.m.,  Brij  Bihari  Prasad,  who \nwas  in  judicial  custody  and  admitted  for  treatment  at  IGIMS \nhospital, was taking a walk outside the wardroom along with – \nAmarendra Kumar Sinha (PW-10), Arbind Singh (PW-13), Ram \nNandan Singh (PW-12), Mahant Ashwani Das (PW-25), Paras \nNath Chaudhury (PW-1), Onkar Singh and 2-4 others. \n\n(ii)  Brij Bihari Prasad was also accompanied by his bodyguard – \nLakshmeshwar  Sahu,  who  was  armed  with  a  carbine,  and \nother sepoys. \n\n(iii)  Two vehicles, a Sumo car, with registration number, BR-1P-1818, \nfollowed by an Ambassador car, registration number of which \ncould not be ascertained, entered the IGIMS hospital from the \nsouthern  main  gate,  Bailey  Road  side  and  stopped  near  Brij \nBihari Prasad. \n\n(iv)  Occupants of the said cars, namely – Mantu Tiwari (A-4), Vijay \nKumar Shukla @ Munna Shukla (A-8), Rajan Tiwari (A-9), and \nShri Prakash Shukla @ Shiv Prakash Shukla (since deceased), \nSatish Pandey (since deceased) and Bhupendra Nath Dubey \n(since deceased) came out of the vehicles. \n\n(v)  Mantu Tiwari(A-4) was armed with a sten gun and all others were \narmed with pistols. Bhupendra Nath Dubey (since deceased) \n\n5 \n\n6 \n\n7 \n\nFor short, “IGIMS Hospital”.\n\nS.S.P. Yadav subsequently expired and did not depose.\n\nFor short, “FIR”.\n\nDigital Supreme Court Reports\f[2024] 10 S.C.R.  \n\n1319\n\nabusively exhorted others to shoot at Brij Bihari Prasad while \nhe himself also fired at Brij Bihari Prasad with his pistol. \n\n(vi)  Mantu Tiwari (A-4) and Shri Prakash Shukla @ Shiv Prakash \nShukla (since deceased) fired at Brij Bihari Prasad from their \nsten gun and pistol respectively.\n\n(vii)  Satish Pandey, Vijay Kumar Shukla @ Munna Shukla (A-8) and \n\nRajan Tiwari (A-9) fired at Lakshmeshwar Sahu. \n\n(viii)  Both  Brij  Bihari  Prasad  and  Lakshmeshwar  Sahu  collapsed \n\nand died.\n\n(ix)  Rabindra  Bhagat  (PW-14)  suffered  a  gunshot  wound  in  the \n\ncross-fire.\n\n5.  The post-mortem reports dated 14.06.1998 (Exhibits 9 & 9/1), proved \nby Dr. Arvind Kumar Singh (PW-7), establish the homicidal death of \nBrij Bihari Prasad and Lakshmeshwar Sahu due to multiple gunshot \ninjuries resulting in haemorrhage and shock. The multiple gunshot \nwound  entries  are  consistent  with  successive  firing  from  firearms/\npistol. To this extent the prosecution version is unchallenged.\n\n6.  As  per  the  prosecution  case,  there  were  eleven  eye-witnesses, \nnamely,  Paras  Nath  Chaudhury  (PW-1), Amarendra  Kumar  Sinha \n(PW-10), Amod Kumar (PW-11), Ram Nandan Singh (PW-12), Arbind \nSingh (PW-13), Rabindra Bhagat (PW-14), Kamakhya Narain Singh \n(PW-15),  Bhola  Prasad  Premi  (PW-16),  Mahanth  Ashwani  Das  \n(PW-25), Shashi Bhushan Singh (PW-42) and Binod Kumar Singh \n(PW-19). However, Paras Nath Chaudhury (PW-1), Mahanth Ashwani \nDas (PW-25), Shashi Bhushan Singh (PW-42), and to some extent, \nAmarendra  Kumar  Sinha  (PW-10)  had  supported  the  prosecution \ncase.  Others were hostile  or partly hostile  as they  did not support \nthe prosecution case or did not name/identify the perpetrators.\n\n7.  Primarily  relying  on  the  testimonies  of  Paras  Nath  Chaudhury  \n(PW-1),  Mahant  Ashwani  Das  (PW-25),  Shashi  Bhushan  Singh  \n(PW-42)  and  Amarendra  Kumar  Sinha  (PW-10),  the  trial  court \nconvicted the respondents Suraj Bhan Singh (A-1), Mukesh Singh \n(A-2),  Lallan  Singh  (A-3),  Mantu Tiwari  (A-4),  Captain  Sunil  Singh \n(A-5) (since deceased),8 Ram Niranjan Chaudhary (A-6), Vijay Kumar \n\n8 \n\nIt is an accepted and admitted position that Captain Sunil Singh (A-5) has passed away. The appeal qua \nhim shall stand abated. \n\nRama Devi v. The State of Bihar and Others\f1320 \n\n[2024] 10 S.C.R.\n\nShukla @ Munna Shukla (A-8), Rajan Tiwari (A-9) and Shashi Kumar \nRai (A-7) (since deceased).9\n\nReasoning of the High Court\n\n8.  The judgment of the High Court refers to the evidence in detail, with \nthe acquittal of the respondents grounded in the following findings: \n\n(i)  FIR No. 336/1998, marked Exhibit 51, is ante-timed.\n\n(ii)  Shashi  Bhushan  Singh  (PW-42)  is  not  an  eye-witness,  but \nrather  a  planted  witness,  as  his  name  was  not  mentioned  in \nthe fardbeyan (Exhibit 50). His antecedents are questionable.\n\n(iii)  The testimony of Paras Nath Chaudhury (PW-1) implicating the \n\nrespondents-accused is unreliable because:\n\n(a)  he is Brij Bihari Prasad’s brother-in-law;\n\n(b)  he  should  have  been  the  informant  but  was  not,  which \n\nraises doubts about his presence at the IGIMS hospital;\n\n(c)  he contradicted the prosecution’s case by accepting that \nRajan Tiwari (A-9), whom he knew beforehand, was not \npresent  during  the  incident.  However,  in  his  statement \nunder  Section  161  of  the  Code  of  Criminal  Procedure, \n1973,10 he claimed that Rajan Tiwari (A-9) was one of the \nassailants of Lakshmeshwar Sahu; and\n\n(d)  he deposed under the pressure of his sister, Rama Devi \n(PW-24), who was present in the court during the recording \nof his evidence on all (three) days. \n\n(iv)  The deposition of Mahanth Ashwani Das (PW-25) is unreliable \n\non the following grounds:\n\n(a)  he is a convict in a murder case registered in the year 1979;\n\n(b)  he did not surrender after the dismissal of his appeal by the \nHigh Court and was accordingly declared an absconder;\n\n(c)  he was arrested on 04.05.2006 while deposing before the \n\ntrial court in the present case;\n\n9 \n\nThe  appeal  qua  Shashi  Kumari  Rai  (A-7)  stood  abated  on  account  of  his  demise  vide  order  dated \n28.02.2020.\n\n10  For short, “CrPC”.\n\nDigital Supreme Court Reports\f[2024] 10 S.C.R.  \n\n1321\n\n(d)  he was under the patronage and protection of Brij Bihari \n\nPrasad and his wife, Rama Devi (PW-24);\n\n(e) \n\n(f) \n\nthere  is  a  contradiction  between  the  versions  of  Shashi \nBhushan  Singh  (PW-42)  and  Mahanth  Ashwani  Das  \n(PW-25) regarding their presence in the hospital room of \nBrij Bihari Prasad at IGIMS hospital. While Shashi Bhushan \nSingh (PW-42) claims that Mahanth Ashwani Das (PW-25) \nwas in the hospital room when he arrived there, Mahanth \nAshwani Das (PW-25) states that Shashi Bhushan Singh \n(PW-42) was already present in the hospital room of Brij \nBihari Prasad when he (Mahanth Ashwani Das) reached \nthe hospital.\n\nthere  is  a  discrepancy  as  to  when  the  police  recorded \nthe statement of Mahanth Ashwani Das (PW-25) and his \nversion of events on 13.06.1998 and 14.06.1998. Mahanth \nAshwani  Das  (PW-25)  claims  that  after  the  occurrence \nhe and Rama Devi (PW-24) had proceeded to the official \nresidence  of  Brij  Bihari  Prasad  from  IGIMS  hospital  at \nabout 9:00-9:30 p.m. Mahanth Ashwani Das (PW-25) had \nleft for Muzzaffarpur Math in the night at about 12:30 a.m. \non 14.06.1998. Thus, the police could not have recorded \nthe  statement  of  Mahanth Ashwani  Das  (PW-25)  in  the \nIGIMS  hospital  at  12:30  a.m.  on  14.06.1998.  Further,  if \nMahanth Ashwani Das (PW-25) was present at the time \nof  occurrence,  as  deposed  by  him,  police  should  have \nrecorded his statement before he left the IGIMS hospital \ncampus around 9:30 p.m. \n\n(v)  Shashi Bhushan Singh (PW-42) was not an eye-witness, as his \npresence is not mentioned in the fardbeyan (Exhibit 50) or the \nFIR (Exhibits 51 and 51/1). His statement under Section 161 of \nthe CrPC was recorded belatedly, five days after the incident.\n\n(vi)  Rama Devi (PW-24) is not an eye-witness, as she had left the \nplace  of  occurrence  prior  to  the  incident.  The  police  did  not \nproduce Rama Devi’s statement under Section 161 of the CrPC \nrecorded on 13.06.1998 by the second investigating officer11 – \n\n11 \n\nFor short, “IO”.\n\nRama Devi v. The State of Bihar and Others\f1322 \n\n[2024] 10 S.C.R.\n\nShashi  Bhushan  Sharma  (PW-54),  who  had  taken  charge  of \nthe investigation in compliance with the instructions of Senior \nSuperintendent  of  Police,  Patna.  The  version  of  Rama  Devi \n(PW-24) that she learnt names and details of the assailants from \nthe visitors she had met earlier in the day in the hospital room \nis  not  mentioned  in  the  Section  161  CrPC  statements  dated \n18.10.1999  and  28.03.2001  given  by  her  to  Rai  Singh  Khatri \n(PW-62), IO of CBI. This is corroborated by the statement of Rai \nSingh Khatri (PW-62), IO of CBI, who testified that Rama Devi \n(PW-24) did not name the assailants. Since the initial statement \nof Rama Devi (PW-24) under Section 161 CrPC recorded by \nShashi Bhushan Sharma (PW-54) was not on record and she \nlater failed to disclose the name of the assailants in her Section \n161 CrPC statements to Rai Singh Khatri (PW-62), IO of CBI, \nher  deposition  in  court,  stating  that  Paras  Nath  Chaudhury \n(PW-1),  Ram  Niranjan  Chaudhary  (A-6),  Kamakhya  Narain \nSingh  (PW-15),  Arbind  Singh  (PW-13),  Amarendra  Kumar \nSinha (Informant/PW-10), Onkar Singh, Mahanth Ashwani Das  \n(PW-25),  Shashi  Bhushan  Singh  (PW-42)  and  others  were \npresent with the deceased, should not be relied on.\n\n(vii)  The eye-witnesses did not testify about the retaliatory firing by \nthe security personnel of Brij Bihari Prasad who were present at \nthe scene of the occurrence. The recovery of empty cartridges \nand  the  firearms  examination  report  (Exhibit-17)  indicate  that \nshots  were  fired  from  two  of  the  four  rifles  which  had  been \nissued to the security guards.\n\nCourt depositions and analysis of evidence\n\n9.  We will now examine in some detail the court depositions of Paras \nNath Chaudhury (PW-1), Mahanth Ashwani Das (PW-25), Amarendra \nKumar Singh (PW-10) and Rama Devi (PW-24), before scrutinising \nthe reasons given by the High Court to discredit their versions. Our \ndiscussion will also address the arguments raised by both sides, with \nparticular focus on the contention of the respondents that the court \ndepositions  of  Paras  Nath  Chaudhury  (PW-1),  Mahanth Ashwani \nDas  (PW-25), Amarendra  Kumar  Singh  (PW-10)  and  Rama  Devi \n(PW-24) should not be accepted.\n\n10.  At the outset, we express our agreement with the reasoning given \nby the High Court for disbelieving the presence of Shashi Bhushan \n\nDigital Supreme Court Reports\f[2024] 10 S.C.R.  \n\n1323\n\nSingh (PW-42) at the spot, and consequently, his deposition as an \neye-witness for the following reasons:\n\n(i)  Shashi Bhushan Singh (PW-42) is not mentioned as one of the \npersons  present  at  the  place  of  occurrence  in  the  fardbeyan \n(Exhibit-50), as also in the FIR (Exhibits 51 and 51/1). These \ndocuments  name  the  eyewitnesses.  Therefore,  the  absence \nof the name of Shashi Bhushan Singh (PW-42) is significant.\n\n(ii)  His  statement  under  Section  161  CrPC  was  recorded  on \n\n18.06.1998, i.e., 5 days after the date of occurrence;\n\n(iii)  Shashi Bhushan Singh (PW-42) has deposed about taking the \ndead body of Brij Bihari Prasad on 14.06.1998 from Patna to \nBehihari village, the native place of Brij Bihari Prasad. Therefore, \nthe delay in his Section 161 CrPC statement impairs his assertion \nof being an eyewitness, making it unworthy of acceptance;\n\n(iv)  Although  Paras  Nath  Chaudhury  (PW-1),  Mahant  Ashwani \nDas  (PW-25),  and  Rama  Devi  (PW-24)  have  testified  to  the \npresence of Shashi Bhushan Singh (PW-42) as an eyewitness, \nthis assertion should not be accepted. The fardbeyan (Exhibit \nP-50), being the first written account made immediately after \nthe incident, is unexceptionable. Furthermore, the unexplained \ndelay of five days in recording the statement of Shashi Bhushan \nSingh  (PW-42)  as  an  eyewitness  dents  the  credibility  of  his \naccount.\n\n(v)  For  the  same  reasons,  the  reliance  of  the  prosecution  on \nthe  court  testimony  of  Amarendra  Kumar  Sinha  (PW-10), \naverring  the  presence  of  Shashi  Bhushan  Singh  (PW-42)  at \nthe  place  of  occurrence,  contrary  to  his  fardbeyan,  is  erratic \nand untrustworthy. Amarendra Kumar Sinha (PW-10), did not \nentirely support the prosecution case, yet being conscious of \nthe fact that he was the informant of the fardbeyan, he could \nnot completely resile. His dock version about the presence of \nShashi Bhushan Singh (PW-42) has been rightly disbelieved.\n\nTestimony of Paras Nath Chaudhury (PW-1)\n\n11.  Paras  Nath  Chaudhury  (PW-1)  is  categoric  about  his  presence  in \nthe hospital at about 6:40–7:00 p.m. on 13.06.1998 to visit Brij Bihari \nPrasad.  He  named  the  persons  who  were  present  with  him  in  the \n\nRama Devi v. The State of Bihar and Others\f1324 \n\n[2024] 10 S.C.R.\n\nhospital room, which includes Mahanth Ashwani Das (PW-25). The \ntestimony captures the following:\n\n(i)  Brij Bihari Prasad went for a walk along with the people of his \nconstituency  and  supporters  who  had  come  to  see  him.  The \npolice personnel assigned for his protection also accompanied \nhim.\n\n(ii)  After some time, two vehicles – a white Sumo car (Registration \nNo. BR-1P-1818) and a white Ambassador car – came into the \nhospital and stopped at a distance of about 20 steps in front \nof Brij Bihari Prasad.\n\n(iii)  Bhupendra  Nath  Dubey  (since  deceased)  alighted  from  the \nSumo car, which was also carrying 2-3 more persons. 2-3 other \npeople also alighted from the Ambassador car.\n\n(iv)  Bhupendra Nath Dubey (since deceased) pointed towards Brij \nBihari Prasad and ordered that he be killed, while he himself \nalso started firing shots. Others joined him in the firing.\n\n(v)  Paras  Nath  Chaudhury  (PW-1)  specifically  identified  Satish \nPandey (since deceased) as an occupant of the Ambassador \ncar.\n\n(vi)  Vijay  Kumar  Shukla  @  Munna  Shukla  (A-8),  who  was  a \nlegislator from Lal Ganj, got down from the Ambassador car, \nwhile Mantu Tiwari (A-4), along with 1-2 more people, alighted \nfrom the Sumo.\n\n(vii)  Paras  Nath  Chaudhury  (PW-1)  saw  Mantu  Tiwari  (A-4)  but \ndid  not  know  his  name.  He  came  to  know  about  the  name \nsubsequently from Amarendra Kumar Sinha (PW-10) and Shashi \nBhushan Singh (PW-42).\n\n(viii)  Mantu Tiwari (A-4) was carrying a big firearm while Bhupendra \nNath Dubey (since deceased) was carrying a small firearm. The \nother assailants were carrying either a revolver or a small firearm.\n\n(ix)  Bodyguard Lakshmeshwar Sahu who was carrying a carbine, \n\nwas also fired upon. \n\n(x)  As  a  result  of  the  firing,  both  Lakshmeshwar  Sahu  and  Brij \n\nBihari Prasad collapsed.\n\nDigital Supreme Court Reports\f[2024] 10 S.C.R.  \n\n1325\n\n(xi)  While leaving, Bhupendra Nath Dubey (since deceased) took \nthe carbine that belonged to Lakshmeshwar Sahu and raised \nthe slogan “Jai Bajrang Bali”.\n\n(xii)  After  the  assailants  left,  Paras  Nath  Chaudhury  (PW-1)  and \nother visitors went near the dead bodies of Brij Bihari Prasad \nand Lakshmeshwar Sahu.\n\n(xiii)  Paras Nath Chaudhury (PW-1) identified both Mantu Tiwari (A-4) \n\nand Vijay Kumar Shukla @ Munna Shukla (A-8) in the court.\n\n(xiv)  While  Paras  Nath  Chaudhury  (PW-1)  identified  Rajan  Tiwari \n(A-9) in the court, he testified that Rajan Tiwari (A-9) was not \npresent  at  the  place  of  occurrence.  Paras  Nath  Chaudhury \n(PW-1) had not seen Suraj Bhan Singh (A-1) and Shashi Kumar \nRai (A-7) at the place of occurrence.\n\n(xv)  Paras  Nath  Chaudhary  (PW-1)  establishes  the  presence  of \nAmarendra  Kumar  Sinha  (PW-10),  Arbind  Singh  (PW- 13), \nShashi  Bhushan  Singh  (PW-42),  Ram  Nandan  Singh  \n(PW-12),  Mahanth Ashwani  Das  (PW-25),  Rabindra  Bhagat \n(PW-14), one Kanti, resident of Jamui, Kamakhya Narain Singh \n(PW-15),  Ram  Niranjan  Chaudhary  (A-6),  Vijay  Jha  (PW-51) \nand 2-3 other persons at the IGIMS hospital.\n\n12.  The cross-examination of Paras Nath Chaudhury (PW-1) brings the \n\nfollowing aspects to light: \n\n(i) \n\nHe accepted that Rama Devi (PW-24) was his sister and that \nshe was present in the court on the day of the hearing but left \nwhile his evidence was being recorded. \n\n(ii)  He affirmed that Brij Bihari Prasad was admitted to the hospital \n\n10-12 days before the occurrence. \n\n(iii)  Before  the  date  of  occurrence,  he  met  Brij  Bihari  Prasad  in \n\nthe hospital on 4-5 occasions.\n\n(iv)  Brij Bihari Prasad, being in judicial custody, was admitted to \n\nIGIMS hospital by the jail administration. \n\n(v)  He accepted that his sister, Rama Devi (PW-24), had contested \nLok Sabha elections in the past. Rama Devi (PW-24) contested \nVidhan Sabha elections after the death of Brij Bihari Prasad. \n\nRama Devi v. The State of Bihar and Others\f1326 \n\n[2024] 10 S.C.R.\n\n(vi)  He states that he had also taken part in the election campaign \n\nof Rama Devi (PW-24). \n\n(vii)  He denied knowing the fact that Devendra Nath Dubey, one \nof the candidates of Motihari constituency, was the main rival \nof Rama Devi (PW-24). \n\n(viii)  He further denied that Brij Bihari Prasad along with his brother, \nShyam Bihari Prasad, murdered Devendra Nath Dubey. \n\n(ix)  He affirmed his presence at the place of occurrence and denied \n\nthe claim that he did not witness the incident.\n\n(x)  He refuted the suggestion that being the brother-in-law of Brij \n\nBihari Prasad, he is giving false evidence. \n\n(xi)  He also denied the claim that he was deposing at the behest \n\nof his sister Rama Devi (PW-24). \n\n(xii)  He reiterates that Mahanth Ashwani Das (PW-25) and others \n\nwere present at the hospital. \n\n(xiii)  Two guards, which included Lakshmeshwar Sahu, were walking \n\nbeside Brij Bihari Prasad. \n\n(xiv)  After  the  firing,  the  hospital  staff  and  other  people  present \n\nstarted running in different directions. \n\n(xv)  Rama  Devi  (PW-24)  came  to  the  hospital  after  the  incident. \nHe  testifies  to  seeing  her  cry  beside  the  dead  body  of  Brij \nBihari Prasad. \n\n(xvi)  Police officers examined the dead body of Brij Bihari Prasad \nand prepared an Inquest Report. He denies signing the Inquest \nReport or any other document.\n\n(xvii)  He had gone to the hospital the next morning on 14.06.1998. \n\n(xviii) He  mentioned  that  his  police  statement  was  recorded  about \n10 -12 hours12 after the incident but could not recall the exact \ndate since it was taken seven years ago.\n\n13.  Though  it  was  pointed  out  that  Paras  Nath  Chaudhury  (PW-1),  in \nhis testimony, could not remember the number of the hospital room \n\n12  See Trial Court Record, Vol. II, p.58.\n\nDigital Supreme Court Reports\f[2024] 10 S.C.R.  \n\n1327\n\nor whether it was south-facing or not, this aspect would not, in our \nopinion,  dent  his  core  testimony.  It  is  apposite  to  note  that  Paras \nNath Chaudhury (PW-1) was aware that the hospital room was on \nthe ground floor and there was a verandah after crossing 4-5 rooms \non the west side. He further stated that there was a cycle stand, a \nvacant place for sitting, and a road which joins Bailey Road on the \nwest side.\n\n14.  Paras  Nath  Chaudhury13  (PW-1)  accepts  that  he  did  not  seek \nprior  permission  from  the  court  or  the  jail  authorities  to  visit  Brij \nBihari  Prasad  in  the  hospital,  nor  did  he  make  any  entry  into  the \nhospital  register.  This  is  also  true  for  other  visitors,  a  position \naccepted  by  the  prosecution.  The  absence  of  a  register  entry  or \nprior  permission,  a  factor  to  be  taken  into  consideration,  is  not \nsufficient reason to discard bounteous and credible evidence and \nmaterial  establishing  that  Brij  Bihari  Prasad,  a  political  leader \nwith  influence,  had  numerous  visitors  and  supporters  meeting \nhim  at  the  hospital.  The  fardbeyan  (Exhibit-50)  and  the  ocular \nevidence  of  Rama  Devi14 (PW-24)  and  Mahanth  Ashwani  Das15  \n(PW-25), establish the presence of Paras Nath Chaudhury (PW-1) \nand other visitors. Further, the following witness accounts establish \nthe presence of visitors and eyewitnesses: \n ¾ Amarendra Kumar Sinha (PW-10) has deposed and accepted \nthe presence of Arbind Singh (PW-13), Shashi Bhushan Singh \n(PW-42), Ram Niranjan Chaudhary (A-6) and 7-8 other persons. \n ¾ Arbind  Singh  (PW-13),  who  was  declared  hostile,  accepted \nthat Amarendra Kumar Sinha (PW-10), Shashi Bhushan Singh \n(PW-42) and 5-7 other persons had come to the hospital. \n ¾ Rabindra  Bhagat  (PW-14),  the  injured  witness  who  also \nturned hostile, deposed to the presence of two other persons \naccompanying Brij Bihari Prasad. \n\nOnce the presence of a witness at the place of occurrence is proven, \ntheir  testimony,  if  credible  and  truthful,  should  not  be  dismissed \nsolely based on non-compliance with hospital and prison protocols.\n\n13  See para 11(xv).\n\n14  See para 23.\n\n15  See para 17(ii). \n\nRama Devi v. The State of Bihar and Others\f1328 \n\n[2024] 10 S.C.R.\n\n15.  The  reasoning  given  by  the  High  Court  to  disregard  and  doubt \nthe  eyewitness  account  of  Paras  Nath  Chaudhury  (PW-1),  on  the \npremise that he ought to have been the informant because he is the \nbrother-in-law of Brij Bihari Prasad and was present at the hospital \nat  the  time  of  occurrence,  is  conjectural  and  unfounded. This  fact \ncannot  ipso  facto  lead  to  the  disavowal  of  his  testimony.  Such  a \npresumption imposes a rigid formula for determining who should be \nan informant, which the law does not envision. It is an accepted and \nadmitted position that the name of Paras  Nath Chaudhury (PW-1) \nhas been mentioned in the fardbeyan and in the FIR as one of the \npersons present at the hospital. Any person can be an informant of \na case, and the police may also register a case on their own. The \nrationale  of  the  High  Court  for  dismissing  the  testimony  of  Paras \nNath Chaudhury (PW-1) is fundamentally flawed. \n\n16.  Yet  another  reason  for  rejecting  his  testimony  stems  from \ncontradictions about the presence of Rajan Tiwari (A-9) as an assailant \nat  the  hospital.  In  his  police  statement,  Paras  Nath  Chaudhury  \n(PW-1) identified Rajan Tiwari (A-9) as being at the hospital, but in \nhis court testimony, he stated that Rajan Tiwari (A-9) was not present. \nIn  our  considered  view,  this  contradiction  does  not  weaken  Paras \nNath Chaudhury’s (PW-1) account of witnessing Mantu Tiwari (A-4) \nand Vijay Kumar Shukla @ Munna Shukla (A-8) commit the offence. \nIndian law does not recognise the doctrine – falsus in uno, falsus in \nomnibus.  In  Deep  Chand  and  Others  v.  State  of  Haryana,16  this \nCourt had observed that the maxim falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus \nis  not  a  sound  rule  to  apply  in  the  conditions  of  this  country. This \nmaxim does not occupy the status of rule of law. It is merely a rule of \ncaution which involves the question of the weight of evidence that a \ncourt may apply in the given set of circumstances.17 In cases where \na witness is found to have given unreliable evidence, it is the duty \nof  the  court  to  carefully  scrutinise  the  rest  of  the  evidence,  sifting \nthe grain from the chaff. The reliable evidence can be relied upon \nespecially  when  the  substratum  of  the  prosecution  case  remains \nintact. The court must be diligent in separating truth from falsehood. \nOnly in exceptional circumstances, when truth and falsehood are so \n\n16 \n\n(1969) 3 SCC 890\n\n17  Ponnam Chandraiah v. State of Andhra Pradesh (2008) 11 SCC 640\n\nDigital Supreme Court Reports\f[2024] 10 S.C.R.  \n\n1329\n\ninextricably  connected  as  to  make  it  indistinguishable,  should  the \nentire body of evidence be discarded.\n\nTestimony of Mahanth Ashwani Das (PW-25)\n\n17.  The deposition of Mahanth Ashwani Das (PW-25) equally supports \n\nthe prosecution case. His testimony captures the following:\n\n(i)  On 13.06.1998, he reached IGIMS hospital at about 7:00 p.m. \n\nto meet Brij Bihari Prasad.\n\n(ii)  He confirmed the presence of Paras Nath Chaudhury (PW-1). \nAmarendra Kumar Sinha (PW-10), Arbind Singh (PW-13), Shashi \nBhushan Singh (PW-42), Ram Niranjan Chaudhary (A-6), Ram \nNandan Singh (PW-12), Onkar Singh and some other people \nat the hospital.\n\n(iii)  After a passing remark by Ram Niranjan Chaudhary (A-6) that \nit  was  hot  in  the  hospital  room,  Brij  Bihari  Prasad  stepped \noutside  for  a  stroll.  Brij  Bihari  Prasad  was  accompanied  by \nRam Niranjan Chaudhary (A-6), Lakshmeshwar Sahu and other \nsecurity personnel.\n\n(iv) \n\nIn the meanwhile, a Sumo car and an Ambassador car came \ninside the hospital campus. About 10-12 persons alighted from \nthe said vehicles and moved toward Brij Bihari Prasad.\n\n(v)  Mantu  Tiwari  (A-4)  was  carrying  a  carbine  and  others  were \n\ncarrying pistols.\n\n(vi)  He  specifically  identified  Bhupendra  Nath  Dubey  (since \ndeceased), Shri Prakash Shukla @ Shiv Prakash Shukla (since \ndeceased), Rajan Tiwari (A-9), Vijay Kumar Shukla @ Munna \nShukla (A-8) and Satish Pandey as the persons who alighted \nfrom the aforementioned vehicles.\n\n(vii)  Mantu Tiwari (A-4), Bhupendra Nath Dubey (since deceased) \nand  Shri  Prakash  Shukla  @  Shiv  Prakash  Shukla  (since \ndeceased)  fired  at  Brij  Bihari  Prasad.  Others  were  also  firing \nindiscriminately in different directions.\n\n(viii)  Vijay Kumar Shukla @ Munna Shukla (A-8), Satish Pandey and \n\nRajan Tiwari (A-9) shot at Lakshmeshwar Sahu.\n\n(ix)  On  being  shot,  Brij  Bihari  Prasad  and  Lakshmeshwar  Sahu \n\ncollapsed.\n\nRama Devi v. The State of Bihar and Others\f1330 \n\n[2024] 10 S.C.R.\n\n(x)  Bhupendra  Nath  Dubey  (since  deceased)  took  the  carbine \nbelonging to Lakshmeshwar Sahu and thereafter exclaimed that \nthe work had been done. He raised the slogan “Jai Bajrang Bali”.\n\n(xi)  His  signed  statement  (Exhibit-29)  was  also  recorded  by  a \n\njudicial magistrate.\n\n(xii)  The occurrence took place at about 8:30 p.m.\n\n(xiii)  The police and CBI had interrogated him in this regard.\n\n18.  We  have  carefully  scrutinized  the  cross-examination  of  Mahanth \n\nAshwini Das (PW-25). His cross-examination states:\n\n(i)  Mahanth Ashwani Das (PW-25) was introduced to Brij Bihari \nPrasad  in  1996.  This  was  around  the  same  time  Mahanth \nAshwani  Das  (PW-25)  became  a  disciple  under  Sanatan \nDharma.\n\n(ii)  He  had  also  known  Rama  Devi  (PW-24),  wife  of  Brij  Bihari \n\nPrasad, since 1996.\n\n(iii)  Rama Devi (PW-24) was present in the court while his testimony \nwas being recorded. However, Mahanth Ashwani Das (PW-25) \ndenies speaking to her.\n\n(iv)  Mahanth Ashwini Das (PW-25) states that while there was no \nparticular  reason  to  meet  Brij  Bihari  Prasad  on  13.06.1998, \nhe would generally meet Brij Bihari Prasad whilst in Patna.\n\n(v)  Earlier also he had visited Brij Bihari Prasad in the hospital on \nanother  occasion,  but  he  could  not  remember  the  date  and \ntime of this meeting.\n\n(vi)  He  met  Brij  Bihari  Prasad  approximately  8-10  days  prior  to \n\nthe date of incident.\n\n(vii)  He  did  not  know  the  specific  treatment  for  which  Brij  Bihari \nPrasad  was  admitted  to  the  hospital.  He  states  that  the \ntreatment had been going on for about one and a half months.\n\n(viii)  He denies having knowledge of any case(s) pending against \n\nBrij Bihari Prasad.\n\n(ix)  He  states  that  he  is  unaware  of  any  case  pending  against \nhim.  However,  he  accepts  that  way  back  in  1979,  a  murder \n\nDigital Supreme Court Reports\f[2024] 10 S.C.R.  \n\n1331\n\ncase was registered against him, for which he had remained \nin jail for 3-4 months.\n\n(x)  He  states  that  he  was  sentenced  to  life  imprisonment  and \nfiled an appeal in 1987; however, he was uncertain whether \nthe appeal was still pending or had been dismissed, and he \ncould not recall the grounds for the appeal.\n\n(xi)  He did not have any documentary proof of visiting the hospital \n\non 13.06.1998.\n\n(xii)  He had not made any signatures on the death summary report \n\nand the seizure memo.\n\n(xiii)  He did not know if the wife of Onkar Singh (since deceased) \nhad given a police statement that her husband was murdered \nby Brij Bihari Prasad due to a contract dispute.\n\n(xiv)  Mahanth Ashwani Das (PW-25) had deposed about remaining \nat the place of occurrence after the firing. He saw the police \ncoming and lifting the dead bodies of Brij Bihari Prasad and \nLakshmeshwar Sahu. He left the hospital for the residence \nof  Brij  Bihari  Prasad  at  9:30  p.m.,  where  several  people, \nincluding Kamakhya Narain Singh (PW-15), Shiv Ji Prasad, \nRam  Nandan  Singh  (PW-12),  Onkar  Singh,  and  Raj  Bala \nVerma  (Collector,  Patna),  had  already  gathered.  Later  that \nnight,  on  14.06.1998,  around  12:30  a.m.,  he  departed  for \nMuzzaffarpur Math.\n\n(xv)  He was arrested on 04.05.2006 in Patna. Thereafter, he was \ngiven protection by the Bihar Government to give evidence in \nthe present trial. Armed security guards, who were generally \nnot present with him, used to accompany him whilst going to \nthe court.\n\n(xvi)  He states that he used to reach Smriti Bhawan of Brij Bihari \nPrasad at about 5:00 a.m. Rama Devi (PW-24), her driver and \nsecurity guards reside at the Smriti Bhawan.\n\n(xvii)  During the firing he had hidden about 30-40 steps away from \n\nthe hospital room.\n\n(xviii) He denies the suggestion of giving false evidence due to his \n\nclose relationship with Brij Bihari Prasad.\n\nRama Devi v. The State of Bihar and Others\f1332 \n\n[2024] 10 S.C.R.\n\n19.  As  noted  above,  the  High  Court  has  rejected  the  testimony  and \ncomplicity of the accused by Mahant Ashwani Das (PW-25) on the \nground  that  he  is  himself  an  accused  in  a  murder  case  and  had \nabsconded despite being convicted in appeal, while he was being \nexamined as a witness in the present case. The High Court had also \nheld that Mahant Ashwani Das (PW-25) had the patronage of Rama \nDevi (PW-24) and the deceased Brij Bihari Prasad.\n\n20.  The criminal background of a witness necessitates that the courts \napproach their evidence with caution. The testimony of a witness with \na chequered past cannot be dismissed as untruthful or uncreditworthy \nwithout considering the surrounding facts and circumstances of the \ncase, including their presence at the scene of the offence. In cases \ninvolving conflicts between rival gangs or groups, the testimony of \nmembers  from  either  side  is  admissible  and  relevant.  If  the  court \nis  convinced  of  the  veracity  and  truthfulness  of  such  testimony,  it \nmay be considered. Courts typically assess the broader context to \ndetermine if there is sufficient corroboration, as long as there are no \nvalid reasons to discredit the evidence. The crucial test is whether \nthe  witness  is  truly  an  eyewitness  and  whether  their  testimony  is \ncredible. If their presence at the scene is established beyond doubt, \ntheir  account  of  the  incident  can  be  relied  upon.  Such  evidence \ncannot be discarded merely on the grounds of criminal background.18\n\nTestimony of Amarendra Kumar Sinha (PW-10)\n\n21.  No doubt, Amarendra Kumar Sinha (PW-10) turned hostile, but his \n\ncore deposition captures the following:\n\n(i)  He  accepts  having  recorded  the  fardbeyan  (Exhibit-50)  on \n13.06.1998 at about 9 p.m. It bears his signatures which are \nmarked Exhibits 12 and 12/1.\n\n(ii)  He had gone to the hospital at about 6:00 – 6:30 p.m. Some of \nthe people, including Arbind Singh (PW-13), Shashi Bhushan \nSingh  (PW-42)  and  7-8  other  persons,  whom  he  did  not \nremember, accompanied him.\n\n(iii)  He met Brij Bihari Prasad at about 6:30 p.m. in the ward. He \nstates that the incident took place at about 8:15 p.m., and he, \nalong with the others, stayed there till after the incident.\n\n18  See State of U.P. v. Farid Khan and Others (2005) 9 SCC 103\n\nDigital Supreme Court Reports\f[2024] 10 S.C.R.  \n\n1333\n\n(iv)  At the time of the incident, Amarendra Kumar Sinha (PW-10) \nalong  with  Arbind  Singh  (PW-13),  Shashi  Bhushan  Singh  \n(PW-42), Ram Niranjan Chaudhary (A-6) and some others, had \ncome out for a stroll with Brij Bihari Prasad.\n\n(v)  Two  vehicles,  a  Sumo  and  an  Ambassador  car,  had  come \nin.  5-6  persons  alighted  from  the  two  vehicles  and  moved \ntowards Brij Bihari Prasad. Thereafter, one of the assailants \npointed  towards  Brij  Bihari  Prasad,  identifying  him  as  the \nMinister. The assailants then started firing. Brij Bihari Prasad \nand  Lakshmeshwar  Sahu  were  shot  at,  and  they  collapsed. \nAmarendra  Kumar  Sinha  (PW-10)  and  others  ran  towards \nthe  parking  lot.  One  of  the  accused  took  the  carbine  of \nLakshmeshwar  Sahu.  While  exiting  the  hospital,  slogans  of \n“Jai Bajrang Bali” were raised by the assailants. They exited \nin the same vehicles from the east gate.\n\n(vi)  He does not remember the registration number of the vehicles. \nHe,  along  with  the  other  visitors  present  there,  had  informed \nthe hospital staff, who in turn, informed the police.\n\n(vii)  He  identified  Bhupendra  Nath  Dubey  (since  deceased)  and \nMantu  Tiwari  (A-4).  He  could  not  identify  the  other  accused. \nHe claimed that Bhupendra Nath Dubey (since deceased) and \nMantu Tiwari (A-4) were carrying pistols.\n\n(viii)  Mantu Tiwari (A-4) was not present in the court when Amarendra \nKumar  Sinha  (PW-10)  was  being  examined.  However,  he \nidentified Ram Niranjan Chaudhary (A-6) who was present in \nthe court.\n\n(ix)  As  he  did  not  recognize  the  other  accused,  he  was  declared \nhostile and was allowed to be cross-examined by the prosecution.\n\n(x) \n\nIn  his  cross-examination,  he  denied  that  Mantu  Tiwari  (A-4) \nfired from his sten gun.\n\n(xi)  He also denied the presence of Paras Nath Chaudhury (PW-1), \n\nclaiming that he had not seen him in the hospital.\n\n(xii)  However, he accepts in the cross-examination that he had put \n\nhis signatures on the fardbeyan. \n\n(xiii)  He was not cross-examined at length by the defence.\n\nRama Devi v. The State of Bihar and Others\f1334 \n\n[2024] 10 S.C.R.\n\n22.  We have already referred to judgments of this Court while examining \nthe doctrine of falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus. The same principles \nequally apply when the court examines the statement of a witness \nwho  has  been  declared  hostile  by  the  prosecution.  In  a  catena  of \njudgments,  this  Court  has  observed  that  the  evidence  of  a  hostile \nwitness is not to be completely rejected, so as to exclude versions \nthat  support  the  prosecution.  Rather,  the  testimony  of  the  hostile \nwitness is to be subjected to close scrutiny, thus enabling the court \nto separate truth from falsehood, exaggerations and improvements. \nOnly reliable evidence should be taken into consideration. The court \nis  not  denuded  of  its  power  to  make  an  appropriate  assessment. \nThe entire testimony of a hostile witness is discarded only when the \njudge, as a matter of prudence, finds the witness wholly discredited, \nwarranting the exclusion of the evidence in toto.19 The creditworthy \nportions  of  the  testimony  should  be  considered  for  the  purpose  of \nevidence in the case. It is in this context that we have to examine \nthe testimony of Amarendra Kumar Sinha (PW-10), the complainant/\ninformant,  who  gave  the  fardbeyan  (Exhibit  P-50)  on  which  basis \nthe FIR (Exhibit P-50/51) was registered.\n\nTestimony of Rama Devi (PW-24)\n\n23.  Rama  Devi  (PW-24)  confirmed  the  presence  of  the  witnesses  – \nParas  Nath  Chaudhury  (PW-1),  Mahanth Ashwani  Das  (PW-25), \nand Amarendra  Kumar  Sinha  (PW-10)  at  the  IGIMS  hospital.  On \n13.06.1998,  Rama  Devi  (PW-24)  had  taken  food  to  the  hospital \nat  about  2:50  p.m.  and  stayed  there  till  about  7:00  p.m.  From  the \nhospital,  she  went  to  Maurya  Lok  to  purchase  some  items  for  her \nsons  and  remained  there  for  about  one  and  a  half  hours.  Whilst \nleaving  Maurya  Lok,  she  learnt  about  the  attack  on  her  husband, \nBrij  Bihari  Prasad.  She  immediately  reached  IGIMS  hospital \nwhere  she  saw  Brij  Bihari  Prasad  and  Lakshmeshwar  Sahu  lying \ndead  in  a  pool  of  blood.  Several  people  had  gathered  there. \nShe  established  the  presence  of  Paras  Nath  Chaudhury  (PW-1),  \nMahanth  Ashwani  Das  (PW-25),  and  Amarendra  Kumar  Sinha  \n(PW-10) at the hospital. \n\n19  See C. Muniappan and Others v. State of Tamil Nadu (2010) 9 SCC 567\n\nDigital Supreme Court Reports\f[2024] 10 S.C.R.  \n\n1335\n\n24.  We will exclude the testimony of Rama Devi (PW-24) regarding the \nindividuals who arrived in the two vehicles and the detailed version \nabout the occurrence which she heard from the people present there, \nincluding  Paras  Nath  Chaudhury  (PW-1),  Mahanth Ashwani  Das \n(PW-25), and Amarendra Kumar Sinha (PW-10), which is hearsay. \nHowever,  her  testimony  establishing  the  presence  of  Paras  Nath \nChaudhury (PW-1), Mahanth Ashwani Das (PW-25), and Amarendra \nKumar Sinha (PW-10) is direct evidence and cannot be discarded. \nRama  Devi  (PW-24)  was  at  the  hospital  for  a  considerable  time \nbefore and after the incident. Her version is factually accurate and \nfosters confidence. Thus, the testimony of Rama Devi (PW-24) can \nbe used to partly corroborate and affirm the testimonies of Paras Nath \nChaudhury (PW-1), Mahanth Ashwani Das (PW-25), and Amarendra \nKumar Sinha (PW-10).\n\n25.  The testimony of Rama Devi (PW-24) is also relevant from the point \nof  view  of  motive,  a  question  which  is  not  contentious,  as  is  clear \nfrom the questions posed to her in her cross-examination. She has \naffirmed having contested the Lok Sabha elections against Devendra \nNath Dubey, who was murdered. Brij Bihari Prasad, her husband, was \nimplicated in the said case as an accused. Her husband was also \narrested in MEDHA scam by the CBI. He was subsequently lodged \nin  Beur  Jail.  Due  to  his  ill  health,  he  was  taken  to  Patna  Medical \nCollege from where he was referred to IGIMS hospital.\n\n26.  Mantu Tiwari (A-4) is the nephew of the late Bhupendra Nath Dubey \n(since deceased), who was the brother of Devendra Nath Dubey, a \npolitical rival of Rama Devi (PW-24). Devendra Nath Dubey was killed \na  day  before  the  re-poll  for  the  Motihari  Lok  Sabha  Constituency. \nBrij  Bihari  Prasad  was  named  as  an  accused  in  the  case.  The \nlongstanding  animosity  is  further  highlighted  by  the  fact  that  Vijay \nKumar Shukla @ Munna Shukla (A-8) is the brother of Chottan Shukla \nand  Bhutkun  Shukla,  who  were  allegedly  killed  by  the  henchmen \nof  Brij  Bihari  Prasad.  Further,  Rama  Devi  (PW-24)  testified  that  in \n1987, there was an assassination attempt on her husband, Brij Bihari \nPrasad,  statedly  orchestrated  at  the  behest  of  Raghunath  Pandey \n(chargesheeted in the present case but since deceased), with Vijay \nKumar Shukla @ Munna Shukla (A-8), Chottan Shukla and Bhutkun \nShukla involved in the attack. \n\nRama Devi v. The State of Bihar and Others\f1336 \n\n[2024] 10 S.C.R.\n\nIdentification and non-recovery of vehicles and weapons \n\n27.  Paras Nath Chaudhury (PW-1) and Mahanth Ashwani Das (PW-25) \nhave identified the vehicles used by the accused on 13.06.1998. They \nhave  specifically  deposed  about  a  Sumo  bearing  registration  no. \nBR-1P-1818. The Sumo and the Ambassador cars, which they have \nreferred  to  in  their  depositions,  were  not  recovered. The  weapons \nused in the offence, including the carbine belonging to the deceased \nLakshmeshwar Sahu, also could not be recovered. However, given \nthe facts and circumstances of the case, the failure of the police to \nrecover the vehicles and the weapons is not sufficient to undermine \nthe credibility of the eyewitness accounts or the corroborative evidence \nregarding the cause of the homicidal deaths of Brij Bihari Prasad and \nLakshmeshwar  Sahu.  The  ocular  version  of  the  witnesses  should \nnot  be  disregarded  solely  because  the  weapon  used  in  the  crime \nand the vehicles allegedly used by the accused were not located or \nseized by the police.20\n\n28. \n\nIt  is  significant  to  note  that  the  vehicle  No.  BR-1P-1818  (Sumo), \nas  per  the  deposition  of  the  second  IO,  Shashi  Bhushan  Sharma \n(PW-54),  had  been  taken  under  a  hire-purchase  agreement  by \nthe late Devendra Nath Dubey, brother of Bhupendra  Nath Dubey \n(since deceased), from a finance company – SBR Private Limited, \nCalcutta.  The  said  assertion  had  remained  unchallenged  in  the \ncross-examination of Shashi Bhushan Sharma (PW-54). The vehicle \nNo. BR-1P-1818 is also mentioned in the fardbeyan (Exhibit P-50) \nof Amarendra Kumar Sinha (PW-10).\n\nForwarding of the FIR\n\n29.  The impugned judgment has observed that the FIR (Exhibits 51 and \n51/1) is ante-timed. The High Court, in its reasoning, highlights this \nas  one  of  the  grounds  for  acquitting  the  accused.  In  the  present \ncase, the first IO, SSP Yadav, passed away before he could depose. \nHowever,  registration  of  the  FIR  itself  is  not  in  doubt  and  debate \nand  has  been  deposed  to  by Amarendra  Kumar  Sinha  (PW-10). \nWe  have  evidence  with  regard  to  the  statement  of  eye-witnesses \nwhich  were  recorded  under  Section  161  CrPC  on  the  night  of \noccurrence, as is clear from the depositions of Paras Nath Chaudhury  \n\n20  See  Yogesh  Singh  v.  Mahabeer  Singh  and  Others  (2017)  11  SCC  195  which  refers  to  several  other \n\ndecisions. See also State of Rajasthan v. Arjun Singh and Others (2011) 9 SCC 115\n\nDigital Supreme Court Reports\f[2024] 10 S.C.R.  \n\n1337\n\n(PW-1),  Mahanth Ashwani  Das  (PW-25),  and Amarendra  Kumar \nSinha  (PW-10).  The  inquest  reports  of  Brij  Bihari  Prasad  and \nLakshmeshwar Sahu (Exhibits 42/1 and 52) were prepared on the \nsame night and, thereafter, the post-mortem was conducted by Dr. \nArvind Kumar Singh (PW-7) at 12:30 a.m. and 1:30 a.m. respectively \non 14.06.1998. \n\n30.  The occurrence having taken place at night on 13.06.1998, normally \nthe  FIR  should  have  been  sent  to  the  jurisdictional  magistrate  on \n14.06.1998. However, 14.06.1998 being a Sunday was a holiday. The \nFIR  was  forwarded  to  the  jurisdictional  magistrate  on  15.06.1998. \nThere  is,  therefore,  an  explanation  for  the  delay  in  forwarding  a \ncopy of the FIR to the jurisdictional magistrate in terms of Section \n157 of the CrPC. It is trite law that a delay in forwarding the FIR to \nthe jurisdictional magistrate is not fatal to the prosecution case. This \nCourt, in State of Rajasthan v. Daud Khan,21 has examined the case \nlaw on the subject and held that when there is a delay in forwarding \nthe  FIR  to  the  jurisdictional  magistrate  and  the  accused  raises  a \nspecific  contention  regarding  the  same,  they  must  demonstrate \nhow this delay has prejudiced their case. Mere delay by itself is not \nsufficient to discard and disbelieve the case of the prosecution. If the \ninvestigation starts in right earnest and there is sufficient material on \nrecord  to  show  that  the  accused  were  named  and  pinpointed,  the \nprosecution  case  can  be  accepted  when  evidence  implicates  the \naccused. The requirement to dispatch and serve a copy of the FIR to \nthe jurisdictional magistrate is an external check against ante dating \nor ante timing of the FIR to ensure that there is no manipulation or \ninterpolation in the FIR. If the court finds the witnesses to be truthful \nand credible, the lack of a cogent explanation for the delay may not \nbe regarded as detrimental.\n\nPolice Statements of Eye-witnesses\n\n31.  The High Court, in its reasoning, takes an exception on the minor \ndiscrepancies regarding the place and time of recording the statement \nunder Section 161 CrPC of Mahanth Ashwani Das (PW-25). Similarly, \nthe impugned judgment has adversely commented on the versions \ngiven by Shashi Bhushan Singh (PW-42) and Mahanth Ashwani Das \n(PW-25) as to who had reached the hospital at an earlier point in time. \n\n21 \n\n(2016) 2 SCC 607\n\nRama Devi v. The State of Bihar and Others\f1338 \n\n[2024] 10 S.C.R.\n\nConsidering the efflux of time of more than 4-6 years between the \ndate of occurrence and recording of court testimony, these issues are \nat best superficial and peripheral and would not warrant disregarding \nthe prosecution  case. The questions posed to the witnesses were \nmore in the nature of a memory test rather than questions posed to \ntest the truthfulness and credibility of their core testimony. Equally, \nthe observation of the High Court on the statement under Section \n161 CrPC of Rama Devi (PW-24) to Rai Singh Khatri (PW-62), IO of \nthe CBI, is inconsequential. Section 161 CrPC statement of Rama \nDevi, in which she had given the names and details of the persons \nwho  were  present  in  the  hospital,  cannot  be  brushed  aside  solely \non this ground. Statements under Section 161 CrPC are per se not \nevidence  in  the  court.  Rama  Devi’s  statement  under  Section  161 \nCrPC  was  recorded  on  13.06.1998  and  the  same  was  filed  along \nwith  the  chargesheet.  She  was  not  cross-examined  regarding  the \nsaid statement.\n\n32.  The  assertion  that  Rama  Devi’s  (PW-24)  Section  161  CrPC \nstatement  dated  13.06.1998  to  Shashi  Bhushan  Sharma,  IO  \n(PW-54),  has  not  been  included  in  the  record  is  solely  predicated \non  her  cross-examination  conducted  on  21.02.2006.  Rama  Devi’s \n(PW-24) acknowledgement during her cross-examination reflects a \nclear lapse in memory, likely due to the nearly eight-year gap and \nthe length of her questioning. It is a well-established fact that SSP \nYadav  was  the  IO  on  13.06.1998,  making  it  impossible  for  Shashi \nBhushan Sharma (PW-54) to have recorded her Section 161 CrPC \nstatement on that date. Moreover, Shashi Bhushan Sharma (PW-54) \nwas never questioned about whether he had recorded Rama Devi’s \n(PW-24) Section 161 CrPC statement on 13.06.1998. In fact, both \nthe  defence  and  prosecution  agree  that  Shashi  Bhushan  Sharma \n(PW-54) took over the investigation on 14.07.1998.\n\nAttesting Witnesses and Retaliatory Firing\n\n33.  The  contention  that  Paras  Nath  Chaudhury  (PW-1)  and  Mahanth \nAshwani Das (PW-25) were not attesting  witnesses to the inquest \nreport, fardbeyan, FIR, etc. is inconsequential and does not in any \nway  weaken  their  ocular  evidence.  Similarly,  the  contention  that \nthey were not injured during the cross-fire is nugatory as it is clear \nfrom the evidence on record that it was Brij Bihari Prasad who was \nthe target of the attack. The armed bodyguards who were attacked \n\nDigital Supreme Court Reports\f[2024] 10 S.C.R.  \n\n1339\n\nhad retaliated. Although it is true that the depositions of Paras Nath \nChaudhury (PW-1) and Mahanth Ashwani Das (PW-25) do not mention \nthe  retaliatory  firing  by  the  bodyguards,  an  independently  proven \nfact, this alone is not a sufficient ground to dismiss their presence \nat the spot or their versions including the culpability of the persons \nwho had committed the offence.\n\nOffence under Section 307 read with Section 34 of the IPC\n\n34.  Rabindra  Bhagat  (PW-14)  had  averred  to  his  presence  at  IGIMS \nhospital  on  13.06.1998  in  the  evening  at  about  7-7:30  p.m.  when \nhe  was  shot  at  and  received  a  bullet  injury  in  his  left  arm  during \nthe  attack  on  Brij  Bihari  Prasad.  He  called  his  brother,  Sanjeev \nKumar,  who  took  him  to  Alok  Nursing  Home  for  treatment. \nRabindra Bhagat (PW-14), however, did not identify the culprits. Dr. \nTarkeshwar Prasad Singh (PW-8) examined injured Rabindra Bhagat  \n(PW-14) on 13.06.1998 at 9:30 P.M. and issued the injury report dated \n08.08.1998  (Exhibit-10).  The  deposition  of  Dr.  Tarkeshwar  Prasad \nSingh (PW-8) refers to the entry and exit wounds on the left arm of \nRabindra Bhagat (PW-14) inflicted by a gunshot approximately two \nhours before the medical examination. In any case, it is proven that \nin spite of the number of people present, there was extensive firing \nand the use of firearms with intent to kill. The charge under Section \n307 of the IPC is, therefore, established and proved.\n\nThe Charge of Criminal Conspiracy\n\n35.  The case was transferred to CBI by Notification dated 07.03.1999, \npursuant to which it conducted an investigation. The CBI filed two \nsupplementary chargesheets implicating Suraj Bhan Singh (A-1), Ram \nNiranjan Chaudhary (A-6), Shashi Kumar Rai (A-7) and Raghunath \nPandey, who had since died, as conspirators who were responsible for \nthe incident. A supplementary chargesheet was filed against Shashi \nKumar Rai (A-7) on 08.11.2000, followed by a second supplementary \nchargesheet dated 20.04.2001 against Raghunath Pandey. \n\n36.  The prosecution case makes a charge of conspiracy based on an \nalleged  meeting  which  took  place  in  Beur  Jail  where  Suraj  Bhan \nSingh  (A-1)  was  incarcerated.  Suraj  Bhan  Singh  (A-1)  is  said  to \nhave  reportedly  met  with  Vijay  Kumar  Shukla  @  Munna  Shukla \n(A-8),  Lallan  Singh  (A-3)  and  Ram  Niranjan  Chaudhary  (A-6). \nHowever, the witnesses to this meeting, Sone Lal (PW-32) and Lal \n\nRama Devi v. The State of Bihar and Others\f1340 \n\n[2024] 10 S.C.R.\n\nBabu  Chaudhury  (PW-39),  turned  hostile  and  did  not  support  the \nprosecution  version.  This  evidence  is  based  on  the  testimony  of \nShashi Bhushan Sharma (PW-54) that Sone Lal (PW-32) and Lal \nBabu Chaudhury (PW-39) informed him about the said jail meeting on \n19.08.1998, nearly two months after the date of occurrence. Shashi \nBhushan Sharma (PW-52) failed to establish how he discovered the \npurported  version  of  Sone  Lal  (PW-32)  and  Lal  Babu  Chaudhury \n(PW-39).  He  was  also  unable  to  establish  that  Sanjay  Singh,  the \ninmate whom Sone Lal (PW-32) and Lal Babu Chaudhury (PW-39) \nhad allegedly visited, was present in Beur Jail 2-3 days before the \nincident.  There  is  no  record  of  Sone  Lal  (PW-32)  and  Lal  Babu \nChaudhury (PW-39) visiting Beur Jail. \n\n37.  Further, the claim of the prosecution regarding the dubious character \nof Ram Niranjan Chaudhary (A-6) and that he encouraged Brij Bihari \nPrasad  to  go  outside  his  hospital  room  for  a  walk  is  not  directly \nimplicatory. Rather, it is an assumption requiring substantial evidence \nto  be  established.  It  only  expresses  doubt  about  Ram  Niranjan \nChaudhary (A-6), an insider who could have given information. \n\n38.  To  prove  the  charge  of  conspiracy,  the  prosecution  further  relied \nupon  the  telephone  records  of  Mokama  landline  number  32772, \nwhich  was  supposedly  subscribed  to  by  Suraj  Bhan  Singh  (A-1). \nThe  telephone  records  indicate  calls  made  from  Mokama  landline \nnumber 32772 to Shashi Kumar Rai (A-7), Sunil Singh (A-5) (since \ndeceased) and Munna Shuka (A-8). The prosecution relied on the \nreport dated 29.10.1999 (Exhibit-1) submitted by Shiya Sharan Ram \n(PW-2), Sub-Divisional Engineer (Vigilance), Bharat Sanchar Nigam \nLimited,  which  stated  that  the  landline  number  was  subscribed  in \nthe  name  of  one  Shrawan  Kumar Agrawal  but  was  operational  in \nthe  house  of  Suraj  Bhan  Singh  (A-1)  at  Mokama.  However,  the \nsaid report of Shiya Sharan Ram (PW-2) is based on the physical \nverification of S.M.M. Rahman, Sub-Divisional Engineer, Barh and \nJitan  Mehta,  Junior  Telecom  Officer,  Hatida,  both  of  whom,  have \nnot been examined. Further, Shrawan Kumar Agrawal has also not \nbeen  examined.  The  original  report  prepared  by  S.M.M.  Rahman \nand  Jitan  Mehta  is  also  not  on  record.  The  prosecution  version \nestablishing the landline number as belonging to Suraj Bhan Singh \n(A-1) hinges on the testimony of M.L. Meena (PW-60), Assistant IO, \nCBI.  However,  M.L.  Meena  (PW-60)  accepts  in  his  testimony  that \n\nDigital Supreme Court Reports\f[2024] 10 S.C.R.  \n\n1341\n\nhe  did  not  enter  the  house  to  verify  the  existence  of  a  telephone \nset.  Rather,  his  entire  version  is  based  on  his  interaction  with  the  \nstep-mother  of  Suraj  Bhan  Singh  (A-1).  The  telephone  records \nindicating the exchange of calls between 11.05.1998 and 11.06.1998, \nas deposed by Rai Singh Khatri (PW-62), do not substantively prove \nand  establish  the  conspiracy  charge  in  the  absence  of  revelatory \nand weighty incriminating material.\n\n39.  The CBI also relied upon the post-incident celebration held in village \nKhanjah Ghat on 15.06.1998 at the behest of Vijay Kumar Shukla \n@ Munna Shukla (A-8). Amod Kumar (PW-11), Sushil Kumar Singh \n(PW-35)  and  Pooja  (PW-37),  who  were  statedly  witnesses  to  the \npost-incident celebration turned hostile. The statement of Avadhesh \nKumar Singh (PW-36), who did not turn hostile, was recorded one \nyear and two months after the date of occurrence. The prosecution \nhas not placed any material on record to showcase how M.L. Meena, \nIO, CBI (PW-60) had traced Avadhesh Kumar Singh (PW-36), though \nRai  Singh  Khatri,  IO,  CBI  (PW-62)  had  stated  that  M.L.  Meena, \nIO,  CBI  (PW-60)  had  got  in  touch  with  Avadhesh  Kumar  Singh  \n(PW-36).  The  evidence  of Avadhesh  Kumar  Singh  (PW-36)  and \nPooja  (PW-37)  establishing  the  presence  of  Shashi  Kumar  Rai  \n(A-7), since deceased, in the post-incident celebration is not entirely \ncredible. In any case, Shashi Kumar Rai (A-7) passed away during \nthe pendency of the present appeals. \n\n40.  To fortify the charge of conspiracy, the prosecution has further relied \non the fax message (Exhibit-6) regarding the threat to the life of Brij \nBihari  Prasad.  This  fax  message  would  not  help  the  prosecution \nimplicate  the  accused  persons  –  Suraj  Bhan  Singh  (A-1),  Mukesh \nSingh (A-2), Lallan Singh (A-3) and Captain Sunil Singh (A-5) (since \ndeceased) – on the charge of criminal conspiracy.\n\nDiscrepancy regarding the presence of Rajan Tiwari (A-9)\n\n41.  As noticed above, Paras Nath Chaudhury (PW-1) in his deposition \nhad  categorically  stated  that  Rajan  Tiwari  (A-9)  was  not  present \nwith  the  other  accused  who  had  murdered  Brij  Bihari  Prasad \nand  Lakshmeshwar  Sahu.  Even  though  Mahanth  Ashwani  Das  \n(PW-25) had referred to the presence of Rajan Tiwari (A-9), given \nthe discrepancy in the statement of the two eye-witnesses, we feel \nthat the benefit of doubt must be given to Rajan Tiwari (A-9).\n\nRama Devi v. The State of Bihar and Others\f1342 \n\n[2024] 10 S.C.R.\n\nConclusion\n\n42.  Even  if  we  completely  exclude  the  testimony  of  Shashi  Bhushan \nSingh (PW-42), the depositions of Paras Nath Chaudhury (PW-1), \nMahanth Ashwani Das (PW-25) and, to some extent of Rama Devi \n(PW-24) and Amarendra Kumar Sinha (PW-10) with other evidence \nand  material  are  conclusive  enough  to  prove  the  charge  against \nMantu Tiwari (A-4) and Vijay Kumar Shukla @ Munna Shukla (A-8). \nBhupendra Nath Dubey and Captain Sunil Singh (A-5) are no more, \nand,  therefore,  we  need  not  consider  the  evidence  against  them. \nSimilarly, we need not examine the depositions implicating Shashi \nKumar  Rai  (A-7),  who  died  during  the  pendency  of  the  present \nappeals.\n\n43.  Regarding  the  question  of  conspiracy  and  the  evidence  against \nSuraj Bhan Singh (A-1), Mukesh Singh (A-2), Lallan Singh (A-3) and \nRam Niranjan Chaudhary (A-6), there is no direct ocular evidence \nimplicating them through the testimonies of Paras Nath Chaudhury \n(PW-1)  and  Mahanth Ashwani  Das  (PW-25).  Since  the  charge  of \nconspiracy is not substantiated, we will not interfere with the judgment \nof the High Court acquitting them, and they are entitled to the benefit \nof the doubt.\n\n44. \n\nIn light of the above discussion, we hold and direct as under:\n\na)  The  charge  under  Section  302  read  with  Section  34  of  the \nIPC  against  Mantu  Tiwari  (A-4)  and  Vijay  Kumar  Shukla  @ \nMunna  Shukla  (A-8)  for  the  murders  of  Brij  Bihari  Prasad \nand  Lakshmeshwar  Sahu  is  proven  and  established  beyond \nreasonable doubt.\n\nb)  The charge under Section 307 read with Section 34 of the IPC \nagainst Mantu Tiwari (A-4) and Vijay Kumar Shukla @ Munna \nShukla (A-8) for attempting to murder, as held in paragraph 34 \nabove, is proven and established beyond reasonable doubt.\n\nc)  The  conviction  and  sentence  awarded  to  Mantu  Tiwari  (A-4) \nand  Vijay  Kumar  Shukla  @  Munna  Shukla  (A-8)  by  the  trial \ncourt under Sections 302 and 307 read with Section 34 of the \nIPC are affirmed and restored.\n\nd)  Consequently, Mantu Tiwari (A-4) and Vijay Kumar Shukla @ \nMunna  Shukla  (A-8)  shall  have  to  undergo  imprisonment  for \n\nDigital Supreme Court Reports\f[2024] 10 S.C.R.  \n\n1343\n\nlife with a fine of Rs. 20,000/- (Rupees Twenty Thousand Only) \neach under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the IPC, and \nin addition to undergo rigorous imprisonment for five years with \na  fine  of  Rs.  20,000/-  (Rupees Twenty Thousand  Only)  each \nunder Section 307 read with Section 34 of the IPC. Both the \nsentences shall run concurrently. Section 428 of the CrPC shall \napply. As default punishment was not imposed by the trial court, \nwe direct that in case of non-payment of fine on each account, \nMantu Tiwari (A-4) and Vijay Kumar Shukla @ Munna Shukla \n(A-8) shall undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months. \n\ne)  Mantu Tiwari (A-4) and Vijay Kumar Shukla @ Munna Shukla \n(A-8) are directed to surrender within two weeks from today to \nthe  concerned  jail  authorities/court  to  serve  the  remainder  of \ntheir respective sentences. In case of failure to surrender, the \nauthorities shall take appropriate measures to arrest and detain \nthem in accordance with law.\n\nf) \n\nInsofar as Suraj Bhan Singh (A-1), Mukesh Singh (A-2), Lallan \nSingh (A-3), Ram Niranjan Chaudhary (A-6) and Rajan Tiwari \n(A-9) are concerned, we give them benefit of doubt and uphold \ntheir acquittal.\n\n45.  The appeals are partially allowed and the impugned judgment is set \naside in terms and vide the directions issued in paragraph 44 above. \nPending applications, if any, shall also stand disposed of.\n\nResult of the case: Appeals partly allowed.\n\n†Headnotes prepared by: Divya Pandey\n\nRama Devi v. The State of Bihar and Others\f"}