LexZAINUL versus THE STATE OF BIHAR
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2025] 11 S.C.R. 60 : 2025 INSC 1192 Zainul v. The State of Bihar (Criminal Appeal No. 1187 of 2014) 07 October 2025 [J.B. Pardiwala* and R. Mahadevan, JJ.] Issue for Consideration The High Court dismissed the appeal preferred by the appellants herein and thereby affirmed the judgment and order of conviction passed by the Trial Court in Sessions Case No. 124 of 1989 holding the appellants herein guilty of the offence of murder punishable u/s.302 r/w. s.149 of the Penal Code, 1860. Whether the High Court committed any error in passing the impugned judgment and order. Headnotes† Penal Code, 1860 – ss.302 and 149 – Prosecution case that PW-20 visited his agricultural field alongwith his brother – The accused nos. 2, 16, 17, and 21 respectively alongwith 400- 500 persons were hiding nearby the agricultural field of the PW-20 with weapons – They attacked PW-20 and his brother – PW-20’s brother was shot dead – Upon hearing the alarm, the PWs 3, 4, 5, 6, and 10 respectively alongwith one SM accompanied by other villagers reached at the place of occurrence – They were also assaulted by the accused and SM was shot dead – Statement of PW-20 was reduced in form of an FIR – 24 accused persons were put to trial – At the conclusion of the trial, 21 persons stood convicted – Out of the 21 convicts, 19 preferred appeals before the High Court – The High Court upheld the conviction of 12 and acquitted 7 – Therefore, 12 convicts whose conviction was affirmed came before this Court in appeal – However, the appeals stood abated in so far as two appellants were concerned – Accordingly, the instant two appeals concern 10 convicts: Held: The case in hand revolves around the evidence of five injured eyewitnesses, and two eyewitnesses to the occurrence – Upon a careful scrutiny of the evidence, this Court finds that the oral testimony of the prosecution witnesses is marred by material * Author [2025] 11 S.C.R. 61 Zainul v. The State of Bihar inconsistencies and embellishments striking at to the root of the matter – The oral evidence of PW-20, an injured eyewitness, on whose police statement the FIR was registered, would indicate that he had no dispute with the accused persons regarding the settlement of land – The deposition of the PW-20 stands at variance with his fardbeyan – In his oral testimony, the PW-20 admitted that he fell unconscious after the assault and, therefore, was unable to name the assailants who had attacked the PWs 3, 6, and 10 respectively – In stark contrast, his fardbeyan categorically records that the PWs 3, 5, 6, and 10 respectively had informed him that forty others, armed with various weapons, had participated in the assault – This contradiction strikes at the root of his credibility – To add to this, the PW-3 deposed that he had never disclosed the names of forty assailants to the PW-20, thereby further undermining the credibility of the witness – The PW-3, an injured eyewitness, in his oral evidence has attributed overt acts to the accused nos. 12 and 10 respectively – He stated that the accused no. 10 assaulted him with a gandasa on his leg – However, the medical evidence on record indicates not only the absence of any injury on the leg of the witness but also that an injury caused by a gandasa would ordinarily result in an incised wound – Further, there is conflict between the ocular version and the Medical evidence – The PW-5, an injured eye-witness, has in his oral evidence attributed overt acts to the accused nos. 8 and 6 respectively – However, the medical evidence does not support the version of assault as narrated by the witness – The oral testimony of the PW-4 is that he does not say anything about the presence of any of the appellants – On the contrary, he states that there were a large number of persons at the spot, and he was unable to distinguish between the assailants and the spectators – The accused nos. 7, 13, and 14 respectively have been implicated only by the PW-6 – Their presence or participation finds no support from the testimony of any other witness – There is no credible evidence even against the accused no. 17 except an omnibus identification by the PW-20 – This Court holds that the accused nos. 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, and 14 respectively are entitled to the benefit of doubt – Also, the statement of the PW-20 could not have been treated as the FIR, since the first information about the occurrence had already reached the
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.