Patna HC Acquits Murder Convict, Orders Departmental Action Against IO for Shoddy Investigation

The Patna High Court set aside a life-sentence conviction under Section 302 IPC, finding the sole eye-witness unreliable and the investigation riddled with deliberate or negligent gaps.

A Division Bench of the Patna High Court, comprising Justice Bibek Chaudhuri and Justice Rana Vikram Singh, on 24 June 2026 allowed the criminal appeal of Meghnath Choupal, who had been convicted of murder and sentenced to life imprisonment by the Additional Sessions Judge, Madhepura. The bench set aside the conviction and sentence under Sections 302/34 of the IPC read with Section 27 of the Arms Act, recording that the prosecution's sole eye-witness failed the test of a “sterling witness” and that the Investigating Officer had left multiple primary evidential duties unperformed. The court went further and directed the Director General of Police, Bihar, to initiate departmental proceedings against the Investigating Officer by name.

The Shooting at Chapariya Toll and the Trial Below

The prosecution case arose from an incident on 22 July 2014 at approximately 4:00 P.M. The informant, Arvind Kumar @ Munnaji, was returning home by motorcycle after attending his aunt's last rites, with his son Anupam Anand riding pillion. Near Chapariya Toll, a group travelling on about four motorcycles overtook him, blocked his path, and restrained him at gunpoint. His son was separated from him and taken towards one Chandrahaas Choupal, who was standing roughly ten yards away. On Chandrahaas's instruction, the appellant Meghnad Choupal pressed a pistol to Anupam's chest and fired. Anupam was taken to Madhepura Hospital, where he was declared dead.

S.H.O. Shankarpur Police Station, Mahesh Kumar Rajak, registered Shankarpur P.S. Case No. 88 of 2014 on 23 July 2014 and investigated the matter. A charge-sheet was filed against Meghnad Choupal and one Bilash Mahto under Sections 302/34 IPC and Section 27 of the Arms Act. The case was committed to the Sessions Court and assigned to the 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Madhepura, who, by judgment dated 30 May 2018 and sentence order dated 31 May 2018, convicted the appellant and sentenced him to rigorous imprisonment for life and a fine of Rs. 50,000/-, with a further two years' imprisonment in default. A concurrent one-year sentence was imposed for the Arms Act offence.

The trial court relied on the evidence of P.W. 1, Subhash Yadav, as the sole eye-witness, invoking a line of Supreme Court decisions that permit conviction on the basis of a single credible witness.

Why the Sole Eye-Witness Did Not Pass Muster

The High Court independently examined the evidence on record. Justice Bibek Chaudhuri, writing for the bench, identified a critical internal contradiction in P.W. 1's deposition. During examination-in-chief, P.W. 1 claimed to have witnessed the incident. However, in cross-examination, he stated that he saw the deceased in an injured condition, with a wound on his chest. That phrasing, the bench found, raised a genuine doubt as to whether P.W. 1 was present at the place of occurrence before the shooting or arrived only after Anupam had already been shot and was lying on the ground.

The bench applied the standard laid down by the Supreme Court in Rai Sandeep @ Deepu v. State of NCT of Delhi, (2012) 8 SCC 21, which defines a “sterling witness” as one whose version is unassailable, consistent from first statement to testimony, and corroborated by all attendant material. The bench noted that this standard was followed again in Nirmal Premkumar and Anr. v. State Rep. by Inspector of Police, 2024 SCC Online SC 260. Against that standard, the bench concluded that P.W. 1 did not qualify.

The informant himself — who lodged the FIR as an eye-witness and was present when his son was killed — did not support the prosecution case at trial and did not utter a single word implicating the appellant. Despite this, the prosecution chose not to declare him hostile. The bench observed that his examination-in-chief therefore stood on the record in full, and his silence about the appellant's role was a substantial gap the trial court had failed to reckon with. The trial court had recognised that a conviction can rest on one witness's evidence but had not asked whether that one witness was of the required quality.

Cascading Failures in the Investigation

Beyond the witness evidence, the bench catalogued what it described as a “classic example of improper, lackadaisical, and indifferent investigation.” Three specific failures were highlighted.

The Investigating Officer seized a motorcycle, a Samsung mobile phone, and an empty cartridge from the place of occurrence. He did not, however, assert the ownership of either the motorcycle or the mobile phone. The bench noted that establishing ownership of the motorcycle could at minimum have indicated whether any of the accused named in the FIR had been present at the spot. Ownership of the phone was equally unexplored.

The empty cartridge — a primary piece of physical evidence in a firearms death — was never sent to a Forensic Science Laboratory to determine whether it had been used to kill Anupam. The bench stated plainly that this was among the primary duties of an Investigating Officer in a case of this nature.

At trial, the seizure-list witnesses were not confronted with their signatures on the seizure list; the signatures were not exhibited. P.W. 5 went further and stated in cross-examination that he had signed a blank paper at the Investigating Officer's instruction. That admission further undermined the documentary trail the prosecution needed to establish.

The bench declined to choose between two explanations for these omissions: that the I.O. did not know the basic principles of criminal investigation, or that he had purposefully withheld evidence to protect the accused. Either way, the court held, the conduct amounted to a clear dereliction of duty. Both the trial court and the High Court were, as a consequence, deprived of the best available evidence against the real perpetrators.

Direction to Director General of Police

The bench directed the Director General of Police, Bihar, Patna to initiate departmental proceedings against the Investigating Officer, Mahesh Kumar Rajak, who was posted as S.H.O. of Shankarpur Police Station on 22 July 2014. The direction was made as part of the judgment itself, not as a separate notice.

Outcome

The appeal was allowed. The judgment of conviction dated 30 May 2018 and the order of sentence dated 31 May 2018, passed by the 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Madhepura, were set aside in their entirety. Meghnath Choupal stands acquitted of the charges under Sections 302/34 of the IPC and Section 27 of the Arms Act.