# Rama Devi v. The State of Bihar and Others

- **Citation:** 2024 INSC 755
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 2024-10-03
- **Case number:** Criminal Appeal Nos. 2623-2631 of 2014
- **Bench:** Sanjiv Khanna, Sanjay Kumar, R. Mahadevan
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/rama-devi-v-the-state-of-bihar-and-others-37236
- **Pages:** 31

## Headnote

Whether the High Court was justified in reversing the judgment
of the trial court and acquitting the respondents of the charges
punishable under Sections 302, 307, 333, 355 and 379, all read
with Section 34 of the Penal Code, 1860, and Section 27 of the
Arms Act, 1959.
Headnotes†
Penal Code, 1860 - ss.302, 307, read with s.34 - Murder of
an MLA and his bodyguard - Respondents convicted by Trial
Court - Conviction reversed by High Court - Challenge to:
Held: In view of the evidence and materials on record, charges
against A-4 and A-8 under Section 302 read with Section 34
and Section 307 r/w Section 34 proved and established beyond
reasonable doubt - Conviction and sentence awarded by the trial
court affirmed and restored - However, benefit of doubt given
to other accused persons as there is no direct ocular evidence
implicating them and the charge of conspiracy is not substantiated,
their acquittal upheld - Impugned judgment set aside. [Paras 42-45]
FIR - Delay in forwarding the copy to magistrate - When not
fatal:
Held: The incident took place in the night of 13.06.1998 -
14.06.1998 being a Sunday, the FIR was forwarded to the
jurisdictional magistrate on 15.06.1998 - Thus, the delay in
forwarding the copy of the FIR to the jurisdictional magistrate
was explained - Mere delay by itself is not sufficient to discard
and disbelieve the case of the prosecution unless the accused
demonstrate how this delay has prejudiced their case - If the
investigation starts in right earnest and there is sufficient material
on record to show that the accused were named and pinpointed,
*Author
1314
[2024] 10 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
the prosecution case can be accepted when evidence implicates
the accused - The requirement to dispatch and serve a copy
of the FIR to the jurisdictional magistrate is an external check
against ante dating or ante timing of the FIR to ensure that there
is no manipulation or interpolation in the FIR - Further, if the
court finds the witnesses to be truthful and credible, the lack
of a cogent explanation for the delay may not be regarded as
detrimental. [Para 30]
Evidence - Non-recovery of vehicles and weapons used in
the offence - Effect on credibility of eyewitnesses, if any:
Held: The ocular version of the witnesses should not be
disregarded solely because the weapon used in the crime and
the vehicles allegedly used by the accused were not located or
seized by the police - On facts, the failure of the police to recover
the vehicles and the weapons is not sufficient to undermine
the credibility of the eyewitness accounts or the corroborative
evidence regarding the cause of the homicidal deaths of both
the deceased. [Para 27]
Evidence - Witness with criminal background - Courts to
exercise caution but, evidence cannot be discarded merely
on the ground of criminal background:
Held: Criminal background of a witness necessitates that the
courts approach their evidence with caution - The testimony of a
witness with a chequered past cannot be dismissed as untruthful
or uncreditworthy without considering the surrounding facts and
circumstances of the case, including their presence at the scene
of the offence - In cases involving conflicts between rival gangs or
groups, the testimony of members from either side is admissible and
relevant - If the court is convinced of the veracity and truthfulness
of such testimony, it may be considered - Courts assess the
broader context to determine if there is sufficient corroboration,
as long as there are no valid reasons to discredit the evidence -
The crucial test is whether the witness is truly an eyewitness and
whether their testimony is credible - If their presence at the scene
is established beyond doubt, their account of the incident can be
relied upon - Such evidence cannot be discarded merely on the
grounds of criminal background. [Para 20]
Evidence - Presence of eyewitness (PW-1) at the place
of occurrence (hospital) proven, however there was
[2024] 10 S.C.R.
1315

## Text

_Characters 0–39,968 of 65,548. This is a partial read: ask again with offset=39968 for what follows._

[2024] 10 S.C.R. 1313 : 2024 INSC 755
Rama Devi
v.
The State of Bihar and Others
(Criminal Appeal No(s). 2623-2631 of 2014)
03 October 2024
[Sanjiv Khanna,* Sanjay Kumar and R. Mahadevan, JJ.]
Issue for Consideration
Whether the High Court was justified in reversing the judgment
of the trial court and acquitting the respondents of the charges
punishable under Sections 302, 307, 333, 355 and 379, all read
with Section 34 of the Penal Code, 1860, and Section 27 of the
Arms Act, 1959.
Headnotes†
Penal Code, 1860 - ss.302, 307, read with s.34 - Murder of
an MLA and his bodyguard - Respondents convicted by Trial
Court - Conviction reversed by High Court - Challenge to:
Held: In view of the evidence and materials on record, charges
against A-4 and A-8 under Section 302 read with Section 34
and Section 307 r/w Section 34 proved and established beyond
reasonable doubt - Conviction and sentence awarded by the trial
court affirmed and restored - However, benefit of doubt given
to other accused persons as there is no direct ocular evidence
implicating them and the charge of conspiracy is not substantiated,
their acquittal upheld - Impugned judgment set aside. [Paras 42-45]
FIR - Delay in forwarding the copy to magistrate - When not
fatal:
Held: The incident took place in the night of 13.06.1998 -
14.06.1998 being a Sunday, the FIR was forwarded to the
jurisdictional magistrate on 15.06.1998 - Thus, the delay in
forwarding the copy of the FIR to the jurisdictional magistrate
was explained - Mere delay by itself is not sufficient to discard
and disbelieve the case of the prosecution unless the accused
demonstrate how this delay has prejudiced their case - If the
investigation starts in right earnest and there is sufficient material
on record to show that the accused were named and pinpointed,
*Author
1314
[2024] 10 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
the prosecution case can be accepted when evidence implicates
the accused - The requirement to dispatch and serve a copy
of the FIR to the jurisdictional magistrate is an external check
against ante dating or ante timing of the FIR to ensure that there
is no manipulation or interpolation in the FIR - Further, if the
court finds the witnesses to be truthful and credible, the lack
of a cogent explanation for the delay may not be regarded as
detrimental. [Para 30]
Evidence - Non-recovery of vehicles and weapons used in
the offence - Effect on credibility of eyewitnesses, if any:
Held: The ocular version of the witnesses should not be
disregarded solely because the weapon used in the crime and
the vehicles allegedly used by the accused were not located or
seized by the police - On facts, the failure of the police to recover
the vehicles and the weapons is not sufficient to undermine
the credibility of the eyewitness accounts or the corroborative
evidence regarding the cause of the homicidal deaths of both
the deceased. [Para 27]
Evidence - Witness with criminal background - Courts to
exercise caution but, evidence cannot be discarded merely
on the ground of criminal background:
Held: Criminal background of a witness necessitates that the
courts approach their evidence with caution - The testimony of a
witness with a chequered past cannot be dismissed as untruthful
or uncreditworthy without considering the surrounding facts and
circumstances of the case, including their presence at the scene
of the offence - In cases involving conflicts between rival gangs or
groups, the testimony of members from either side is admissible and
relevant - If the court is convinced of the veracity and truthfulness
of such testimony, it may be considered - Courts assess the
broader context to determine if there is sufficient corroboration,
as long as there are no valid reasons to discredit the evidence -
The crucial test is whether the witness is truly an eyewitness and
whether their testimony is credible - If their presence at the scene
is established beyond doubt, their account of the incident can be
relied upon - Such evidence cannot be discarded merely on the
grounds of criminal background. [Para 20]
Evidence - Presence of eyewitness (PW-1) at the place
of occurrence (hospital) proven, however there was
[2024] 10 S.C.R.
1315
Rama Devi v. The State of Bihar and Others
non- compliance with hospital and prison protocols - Reliance
on testimony of PW-1, if proper - MLA and his bodyguard were
murdered in the hospital where the former was admitted for
treatment while in judicial custody - PW-1 did not seek prior
permission from the court or jail authorities nor did he make
any entry in the hospital register while visiting the deceased
MLA in the hospital:
Held: Fardbeyan (Exhibit-50) and the ocular evidence of PW-24
and PW25, establish the presence of PW-1 and other visitors
in the hospital - Once the presence of a witness at the place
of occurrence is proven, their testimony, if credible and truthful,
should not be dismissed solely based on non-compliance with
hospital and prison protocols - Further, the reasoning given by
the High Court to disregard and doubt the eyewitness account of
PW-1, on the premise that he ought to have been the informant
because he is the brother-in-law of the deceased MLA and was
present at the hospital at the time of occurrence, is conjectural and
unfounded - Any person can be an informant of a case, and the
police may also register a case on their own - The rationale of the
High Court for dismissing the testimony of PW-1 is fundamentally
flawed. [Para 15]
Evidence - Testimony of hostile witness - Maxims - falsus
in uno, falsus in omnibus - Inapplicability:
Held: Maxim falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus is not a sound rule
to apply in the conditions of this country - This maxim does not
occupy the status of rule of law - It is merely a rule of caution
which involves the question of the weight of evidence that a court
may apply in the given set of circumstances - Evidence of a
hostile witness is not to be completely rejected, so as to exclude
versions that support the prosecution - Rather, the testimony of
the hostile witness is to be subjected to close scrutiny, enabling
the court to separate truth from falsehood, exaggerations and
improvements - Only reliable evidence should be taken into
consideration - The court is not denuded of its power to make
an appropriate assessment - The entire testimony of a hostile
witness is discarded only when the judge, as a matter of prudence,
finds the witness wholly discredited, warranting the exclusion of
the evidence in toto - The creditworthy portions of the testimony
should be considered for the purpose of evidence in the case.
[Paras 16, 22]
1316
[2024] 10 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
Case Law Cited
Deep Chand and Others v. State of Haryana (1969) 3 SCC 890;
State of Rajasthan v. Daud Khan (2016) 2 SCC 607; Ponnam
Chandraiah v. State of Andhra Pradesh [2008] 11 SCR 561 : (2008)
11 SCC 640; State of U.P. v. Farid Khan and Others (2005) 9 SCC
103; C. Muniappan and Others v. State of Tamil Nadu [2010] 10
SCR 262 : (2010) 9 SCC 567; Yogesh Singh v. Mahabeer Singh
and Others [2016] 7 SCR 713 : (2017) 11 SCC 195; State of
Rajasthan v. Arjun Singh and Others [2011] 10 SCR 823 : (2011)
9 SCC 115 - relied on.
List of Acts
Penal Code, 1860; Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Arms Act,
1959.
List of Keywords
Murder; Member of the Legislative Assembly; MLA; Bodyguard;
Political leader; Benefit of doubt; Acquittal; Conspiracy not
proved/ substantiated; Motive; Charges proved beyond reasonable
doubt; Hospital; Prison protocols; Hospital register; Visitors; Delay
in forwarding FIR to magistrate; Not fatal; Ante dating; ante timing;
Manipulation or interpolation in FIR; Superficial issues; Memory
test; Witness with criminal background; Non-recovery of vehicles,
weapons used in the offence; Ocular evidence; Informant; Hostile
witness; Maxims; falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus; Fardbeyan;
Eyewitness; Efflux of time.
Case Arising From
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal Nos.
2623-2631 of 2014
From the Judgment and Order dated 24.07.2014 of the High Court
of Patna in CRLAP No. 778, 898, 825, 859, 865, 899, 871, 874 and
878 of 2009
With
Criminal Appeal Nos. 2632-2640 of 2014
Appearances for Parties
Tushar Mehta, Solicitor General, K M Nataraj, A.S.G., Siddharth
Aggarwal, Ms. Sonia Mathur, Mrs. Ruchi Kohli, Mrs. Archana
[2024] 10 S.C.R.
1317
Rama Devi v. The State of Bihar and Others
Pathak Dave, Surendra Singh, Sr. Advs., Arvind Kumar Sharma,
Aditya Singia, Vishwajeet Bhati, Harsh Yadav, Ritwik Saha, Sharad
Kumar Puri, Ms. Parul Sharma, Mrs. Pinki Aggarwal, Mrs. Priya
Puri, Mukesh Kumar Maroria, Ms. Sairica S Raju, Rajesh Kumar
Singh, Rajan Kumar Chourasia, P V Yogeswaran, Ms. Ronika Tater,
Ms. Surbhi Bhardwaj, Ms. Dipanshu Krishnan, Ms. Madhumita
Kesavan, Nikhil Chandra Jaiswal, Tripurari Ray, D. S. Parmar,
Ms. Sujeeta Srivastava, Abhishek Priyadarshi, Ms. Mrinal Elker
Mazumdar, Saurabh Singh, Anirudh Ray, Ashutosh Ghade, Sunil
Kumar, Nimit Bhimjiyani, Rahul Raman, Ms. Sneha Balapure,
Raj Kamal, Aseem Atwal, Kartavya Batra, Anurag Chandra, Ms.
Nupur Kaushik, Ms. Stuti, Ms. Aprajita Tyagi, Ms. Muskan Sidana,
Harneet Singh, Ms. Prerna Singh, Shantanu Sagar, Raj Kumar,
Prabhat Ranjan Raj, Anil Kumar, Gunjesh Ranjan, Mrs. Divya
Mishra, Shashank Kumar Saurav, Sanjay Jain, Manu Shanker
Mishra, Laxmi Narayan Sharma, Vivekanand Singh, Nishant Kumar,
Nithyananda Murthy P, Ms. Bhanu Prabha, Vaibha Kumar, Advs.
for the appearing parties.
Judgment / Order of the Supreme Court
Judgment
Sanjiv Khanna, J.
This judgment decides two sets of appeals, one by the State of
Bihar, through the Central Bureau of Investigation,1 and the other
by Rama Devi, wife of one of the deceased - Brij Bihari Prasad, a
member of the Bihar Legislative Assembly. The second deceased -
Lakshmeshwar Sahu - was the bodyguard of Brij Bihari Prasad and
a member of the Bihar police.
2.
The impugned judgment of the High Court of Judicature at Patna
dated 24.07.2014 reverses the judgment of the trial court and acquits
the nine accused2 of the charges punishable under Sections 302,
307, 333, 355 and 379, all read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal
Code, 1860,3 and Section 27 of the Arms Act, 1959.4
1
For short, "CBI."
2
Suraj Bhan Singh @ Suraj Singh @ Suraj, Mukesh Singh, Lallan Singh, Mantu Tiwari, Captain Sunil
Singh (since deceased), Ram Niranjan Chaudhary, Shashi Kumar Rai (since deceased), Vijay Kumar
Shukla @ Munna Shukla, Rajan Tiwari.
3
For short, "IPC".
4
For short, "1959 Act".
1318
[2024] 10 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
3.
The incident in question took place on 13.06.1998 at around 08:15
p.m. at the Indira Gandhi Institute of Medical Science, Patna.5 On
the basis of the fardbeyan (Exhibit 50) of Amarendra Kumar Sinha
(PW-10) recorded by S.S.P. Yadav, Inspector-cum-Officer-in-Charge,
Shastri Nagar Police Station,6 on 13.06.1998 at 9:00 p.m., First
Information Report7 No. 336/1998, (Exhibit 51 and 51/1) was lodged
under Sections 302, 307, 34, 120B, 379 of the IPC and Section 27
of the 1959 Act at 12:15 a.m. on 14.06.1998.
The Prosecution Case
4.
The prosecution case is as follows:
(i)
On 13.06.1998 at around 6:30 p.m., Brij Bihari Prasad, who
was in judicial custody and admitted for treatment at IGIMS
hospital, was taking a walk outside the wardroom along with -
Amarendra Kumar Sinha (PW-10), Arbind Singh (PW-13), Ram
Nandan Singh (PW-12), Mahant Ashwani Das (PW-25), Paras
Nath Chaudhury (PW-1), Onkar Singh and 2-4 others.
(ii)
Brij Bihari Prasad was also accompanied by his bodyguard -
Lakshmeshwar Sahu, who was armed with a carbine, and
other sepoys.
(iii) Two vehicles, a Sumo car, with registration number, BR-1P-1818,
followed by an Ambassador car, registration number of which
could not be ascertained, entered the IGIMS hospital from the
southern main gate, Bailey Road side and stopped near Brij
Bihari Prasad.
(iv) Occupants of the said cars, namely - Mantu Tiwari (A-4), Vijay
Kumar Shukla @ Munna Shukla (A-8), Rajan Tiwari (A-9), and
Shri Prakash Shukla @ Shiv Prakash Shukla (since deceased),
Satish Pandey (since deceased) and Bhupendra Nath Dubey
(since deceased) came out of the vehicles.
(v)
Mantu Tiwari(A-4) was armed with a sten gun and all others were
armed with pistols. Bhupendra Nath Dubey (since deceased)
5
For short, "IGIMS Hospital".
6
S.S.P. Yadav subsequently expired and did not depose.
7
For short, "FIR".
[2024] 10 S.C.R.
1319
Rama Devi v. The State of Bihar and Others
abusively exhorted others to shoot at Brij Bihari Prasad while
he himself also fired at Brij Bihari Prasad with his pistol.
(vi) Mantu Tiwari (A-4) and Shri Prakash Shukla @ Shiv Prakash
Shukla (since deceased) fired at Brij Bihari Prasad from their
sten gun and pistol respectively.
(vii) Satish Pandey, Vijay Kumar Shukla @ Munna Shukla (A-8) and
Rajan Tiwari (A-9) fired at Lakshmeshwar Sahu.
(viii) Both Brij Bihari Prasad and Lakshmeshwar Sahu collapsed
and died.
(ix) Rabindra Bhagat (PW-14) suffered a gunshot wound in the
cross-fire.
5.
The post-mortem reports dated 14.06.1998 (Exhibits 9 & 9/1), proved
by Dr. Arvind Kumar Singh (PW-7), establish the homicidal death of
Brij Bihari Prasad and Lakshmeshwar Sahu due to multiple gunshot
injuries resulting in haemorrhage and shock. The multiple gunshot
wound entries are consistent with successive firing from firearms/
pistol. To this extent the prosecution version is unchallenged.
6.
As per the prosecution case, there were eleven eye-witnesses,
namely, Paras Nath Chaudhury (PW-1), Amarendra Kumar Sinha
(PW-10), Amod Kumar (PW-11), Ram Nandan Singh (PW-12), Arbind
Singh (PW-13), Rabindra Bhagat (PW-14), Kamakhya Narain Singh
(PW-15), Bhola Prasad Premi (PW-16), Mahanth Ashwani Das
(PW-25), Shashi Bhushan Singh (PW-42) and Binod Kumar Singh
(PW-19). However, Paras Nath Chaudhury (PW-1), Mahanth Ashwani
Das (PW-25), Shashi Bhushan Singh (PW-42), and to some extent,
Amarendra Kumar Sinha (PW-10) had supported the prosecution
case. Others were hostile or partly hostile as they did not support
the prosecution case or did not name/identify the perpetrators.
7.
Primarily relying on the testimonies of Paras Nath Chaudhury
(PW-1), Mahant Ashwani Das (PW-25), Shashi Bhushan Singh
(PW-42) and Amarendra Kumar Sinha (PW-10), the trial court
convicted the respondents Suraj Bhan Singh (A-1), Mukesh Singh
(A-2), Lallan Singh (A-3), Mantu Tiwari (A-4), Captain Sunil Singh
(A-5) (since deceased),8 Ram Niranjan Chaudhary (A-6), Vijay Kumar
8
It is an accepted and admitted position that Captain Sunil Singh (A-5) has passed away. The appeal qua
him shall stand abated.
1320
[2024] 10 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
Shukla @ Munna Shukla (A-8), Rajan Tiwari (A-9) and Shashi Kumar
Rai (A-7) (since deceased).9
Reasoning of the High Court
8.
The judgment of the High Court refers to the evidence in detail, with
the acquittal of the respondents grounded in the following findings:
(i)
FIR No. 336/1998, marked Exhibit 51, is ante-timed.
(ii)
Shashi Bhushan Singh (PW-42) is not an eye-witness, but
rather a planted witness, as his name was not mentioned in
the fardbeyan (Exhibit 50). His antecedents are questionable.
(iii) The testimony of Paras Nath Chaudhury (PW-1) implicating the
respondents-accused is unreliable because:
(a) he is Brij Bihari Prasad's brother-in-law;
(b) he should have been the informant but was not, which
raises doubts about his presence at the IGIMS hospital;
(c)
he contradicted the prosecution's case by accepting that
Rajan Tiwari (A-9), whom he knew beforehand, was not
present during the incident. However, in his statement
under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure,
1973,10 he claimed that Rajan Tiwari (A-9) was one of the
assailants of Lakshmeshwar Sahu; and
(d) he deposed under the pressure of his sister, Rama Devi
(PW-24), who was present in the court during the recording
of his evidence on all (three) days.
(iv) The deposition of Mahanth Ashwani Das (PW-25) is unreliable
on the following grounds:
(a) he is a convict in a murder case registered in the year 1979;
(b) he did not surrender after the dismissal of his appeal by the
High Court and was accordingly declared an absconder;
(c)
he was arrested on 04.05.2006 while deposing before the
trial court in the present case;
9
The appeal qua Shashi Kumari Rai (A-7) stood abated on account of his demise vide order dated
28.02.2020.
10
For short, "CrPC".
[2024] 10 S.C.R.
1321
Rama Devi v. The State of Bihar and Others
(d) he was under the patronage and protection of Brij Bihari
Prasad and his wife, Rama Devi (PW-24);
(e) there is a contradiction between the versions of Shashi
Bhushan Singh (PW-42) and Mahanth Ashwani Das
(PW-25) regarding their presence in the hospital room of
Brij Bihari Prasad at IGIMS hospital. While Shashi Bhushan
Singh (PW-42) claims that Mahanth Ashwani Das (PW-25)
was in the hospital room when he arrived there, Mahanth
Ashwani Das (PW-25) states that Shashi Bhushan Singh
(PW-42) was already present in the hospital room of Brij
Bihari Prasad when he (Mahanth Ashwani Das) reached
the hospital.
(f)
there is a discrepancy as to when the police recorded
the statement of Mahanth Ashwani Das (PW-25) and his
version of events on 13.06.1998 and 14.06.1998. Mahanth
Ashwani Das (PW-25) claims that after the occurrence
he and Rama Devi (PW-24) had proceeded to the official
residence of Brij Bihari Prasad from IGIMS hospital at
about 9:00-9:30 p.m. Mahanth Ashwani Das (PW-25) had
left for Muzzaffarpur Math in the night at about 12:30 a.m.
on 14.06.1998. Thus, the police could not have recorded
the statement of Mahanth Ashwani Das (PW-25) in the
IGIMS hospital at 12:30 a.m. on 14.06.1998. Further, if
Mahanth Ashwani Das (PW-25) was present at the time
of occurrence, as deposed by him, police should have
recorded his statement before he left the IGIMS hospital
campus around 9:30 p.m.
(v)
Shashi Bhushan Singh (PW-42) was not an eye-witness, as his
presence is not mentioned in the fardbeyan (Exhibit 50) or the
FIR (Exhibits 51 and 51/1). His statement under Section 161 of
the CrPC was recorded belatedly, five days after the incident.
(vi) Rama Devi (PW-24) is not an eye-witness, as she had left the
place of occurrence prior to the incident. The police did not
produce Rama Devi's statement under Section 161 of the CrPC
recorded on 13.06.1998 by the second investigating officer11 -
11
For short, "IO".
1322
[2024] 10 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
Shashi Bhushan Sharma (PW-54), who had taken charge of
the investigation in compliance with the instructions of Senior
Superintendent of Police, Patna. The version of Rama Devi
(PW-24) that she learnt names and details of the assailants from
the visitors she had met earlier in the day in the hospital room
is not mentioned in the Section 161 CrPC statements dated
18.10.1999 and 28.03.2001 given by her to Rai Singh Khatri
(PW-62), IO of CBI. This is corroborated by the statement of Rai
Singh Khatri (PW-62), IO of CBI, who testified that Rama Devi
(PW-24) did not name the assailants. Since the initial statement
of Rama Devi (PW-24) under Section 161 CrPC recorded by
Shashi Bhushan Sharma (PW-54) was not on record and she
later failed to disclose the name of the assailants in her Section
161 CrPC statements to Rai Singh Khatri (PW-62), IO of CBI,
her deposition in court, stating that Paras Nath Chaudhury
(PW-1), Ram Niranjan Chaudhary (A-6), Kamakhya Narain
Singh (PW-15), Arbind Singh (PW-13), Amarendra Kumar
Sinha (Informant/PW-10), Onkar Singh, Mahanth Ashwani Das
(PW-25), Shashi Bhushan Singh (PW-42) and others were
present with the deceased, should not be relied on.
(vii) The eye-witnesses did not testify about the retaliatory firing by
the security personnel of Brij Bihari Prasad who were present at
the scene of the occurrence. The recovery of empty cartridges
and the firearms examination report (Exhibit-17) indicate that
shots were fired from two of the four rifles which had been
issued to the security guards.
Court depositions and analysis of evidence
9.
We will now examine in some detail the court depositions of Paras
Nath Chaudhury (PW-1), Mahanth Ashwani Das (PW-25), Amarendra
Kumar Singh (PW-10) and Rama Devi (PW-24), before scrutinising
the reasons given by the High Court to discredit their versions. Our
discussion will also address the arguments raised by both sides, with
particular focus on the contention of the respondents that the court
depositions of Paras Nath Chaudhury (PW-1), Mahanth Ashwani
Das (PW-25), Amarendra Kumar Singh (PW-10) and Rama Devi
(PW-24) should not be accepted.
10. At the outset, we express our agreement with the reasoning given
by the High Court for disbelieving the presence of Shashi Bhushan
[2024] 10 S.C.R.
1323
Rama Devi v. The State of Bihar and Others
Singh (PW-42) at the spot, and consequently, his deposition as an
eye-witness for the following reasons:
(i)
Shashi Bhushan Singh (PW-42) is not mentioned as one of the
persons present at the place of occurrence in the fardbeyan
(Exhibit-50), as also in the FIR (Exhibits 51 and 51/1). These
documents name the eyewitnesses. Therefore, the absence
of the name of Shashi Bhushan Singh (PW-42) is significant.
(ii)
His statement under Section 161 CrPC was recorded on
18.06.1998, i.e., 5 days after the date of occurrence;
(iii) Shashi Bhushan Singh (PW-42) has deposed about taking the
dead body of Brij Bihari Prasad on 14.06.1998 from Patna to
Behihari village, the native place of Brij Bihari Prasad. Therefore,
the delay in his Section 161 CrPC statement impairs his assertion
of being an eyewitness, making it unworthy of acceptance;
(iv) Although Paras Nath Chaudhury (PW-1), Mahant Ashwani
Das (PW-25), and Rama Devi (PW-24) have testified to the
presence of Shashi Bhushan Singh (PW-42) as an eyewitness,
this assertion should not be accepted. The fardbeyan (Exhibit
P-50), being the first written account made immediately after
the incident, is unexceptionable. Furthermore, the unexplained
delay of five days in recording the statement of Shashi Bhushan
Singh (PW-42) as an eyewitness dents the credibility of his
account.
(v)
For the same reasons, the reliance of the prosecution on
the court testimony of Amarendra Kumar Sinha (PW-10),
averring the presence of Shashi Bhushan Singh (PW-42) at
the place of occurrence, contrary to his fardbeyan, is erratic
and untrustworthy. Amarendra Kumar Sinha (PW-10), did not
entirely support the prosecution case, yet being conscious of
the fact that he was the informant of the fardbeyan, he could
not completely resile. His dock version about the presence of
Shashi Bhushan Singh (PW-42) has been rightly disbelieved.
Testimony of Paras Nath Chaudhury (PW-1)
11. Paras Nath Chaudhury (PW-1) is categoric about his presence in
the hospital at about 6:40-7:00 p.m. on 13.06.1998 to visit Brij Bihari
Prasad. He named the persons who were present with him in the
1324
[2024] 10 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
hospital room, which includes Mahanth Ashwani Das (PW-25). The
testimony captures the following:
(i)
Brij Bihari Prasad went for a walk along with the people of his
constituency and supporters who had come to see him. The
police personnel assigned for his protection also accompanied
him.
(ii)
After some time, two vehicles - a white Sumo car (Registration
No. BR-1P-1818) and a white Ambassador car - came into the
hospital and stopped at a distance of about 20 steps in front
of Brij Bihari Prasad.
(iii) Bhupendra Nath Dubey (since deceased) alighted from the
Sumo car, which was also carrying 2-3 more persons. 2-3 other
people also alighted from the Ambassador car.
(iv) Bhupendra Nath Dubey (since deceased) pointed towards Brij
Bihari Prasad and ordered that he be killed, while he himself
also started firing shots. Others joined him in the firing.
(v)
Paras Nath Chaudhury (PW-1) specifically identified Satish
Pandey (since deceased) as an occupant of the Ambassador
car.
(vi) Vijay Kumar Shukla @ Munna Shukla (A-8), who was a
legislator from Lal Ganj, got down from the Ambassador car,
while Mantu Tiwari (A-4), along with 1-2 more people, alighted
from the Sumo.
(vii) Paras Nath Chaudhury (PW-1) saw Mantu Tiwari (A-4) but
did not know his name. He came to know about the name
subsequently from Amarendra Kumar Sinha (PW-10) and Shashi
Bhushan Singh (PW-42).
(viii) Mantu Tiwari (A-4) was carrying a big firearm while Bhupendra
Nath Dubey (since deceased) was carrying a small firearm. The
other assailants were carrying either a revolver or a small firearm.
(ix) Bodyguard Lakshmeshwar Sahu who was carrying a carbine,
was also fired upon.
(x)
As a result of the firing, both Lakshmeshwar Sahu and Brij
Bihari Prasad collapsed.
[2024] 10 S.C.R.
1325
Rama Devi v. The State of Bihar and Others
(xi) While leaving, Bhupendra Nath Dubey (since deceased) took
the carbine that belonged to Lakshmeshwar Sahu and raised
the slogan "Jai Bajrang Bali".
(xii) After the assailants left, Paras Nath Chaudhury (PW-1) and
other visitors went near the dead bodies of Brij Bihari Prasad
and Lakshmeshwar Sahu.
(xiii) Paras Nath Chaudhury (PW-1) identified both Mantu Tiwari (A-4)
and Vijay Kumar Shukla @ Munna Shukla (A-8) in the court.
(xiv) While Paras Nath Chaudhury (PW-1) identified Rajan Tiwari
(A-9) in the court, he testified that Rajan Tiwari (A-9) was not
present at the place of occurrence. Paras Nath Chaudhury
(PW-1) had not seen Suraj Bhan Singh (A-1) and Shashi Kumar
Rai (A-7) at the place of occurrence.
(xv) Paras Nath Chaudhary (PW-1) establishes the presence of
Amarendra Kumar Sinha (PW-10), Arbind Singh (PW- 13),
Shashi Bhushan Singh (PW-42), Ram Nandan Singh
(PW-12), Mahanth Ashwani Das (PW-25), Rabindra Bhagat
(PW-14), one Kanti, resident of Jamui, Kamakhya Narain Singh
(PW-15), Ram Niranjan Chaudhary (A-6), Vijay Jha (PW-51)
and 2-3 other persons at the IGIMS hospital.
12. The cross-examination of Paras Nath Chaudhury (PW-1) brings the
following aspects to light:
(i)
He accepted that Rama Devi (PW-24) was his sister and that
she was present in the court on the day of the hearing but left
while his evidence was being recorded.
(ii)
He affirmed that Brij Bihari Prasad was admitted to the hospital
10-12 days before the occurrence.
(iii)
Before the date of occurrence, he met Brij Bihari Prasad in
the hospital on 4-5 occasions.
(iv)
Brij Bihari Prasad, being in judicial custody, was admitted to
IGIMS hospital by the jail administration.
(v)
He accepted that his sister, Rama Devi (PW-24), had contested
Lok Sabha elections in the past. Rama Devi (PW-24) contested
Vidhan Sabha elections after the death of Brij Bihari Prasad.
1326
[2024] 10 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
(vi)
He states that he had also taken part in the election campaign
of Rama Devi (PW-24).
(vii) He denied knowing the fact that Devendra Nath Dubey, one
of the candidates of Motihari constituency, was the main rival
of Rama Devi (PW-24).
(viii) He further denied that Brij Bihari Prasad along with his brother,
Shyam Bihari Prasad, murdered Devendra Nath Dubey.
(ix)
He affirmed his presence at the place of occurrence and denied
the claim that he did not witness the incident.
(x)
He refuted the suggestion that being the brother-in-law of Brij
Bihari Prasad, he is giving false evidence.
(xi)
He also denied the claim that he was deposing at the behest
of his sister Rama Devi (PW-24).
(xii) He reiterates that Mahanth Ashwani Das (PW-25) and others
were present at the hospital.
(xiii) Two guards, which included Lakshmeshwar Sahu, were walking
beside Brij Bihari Prasad.
(xiv) After the firing, the hospital staff and other people present
started running in different directions.
(xv) Rama Devi (PW-24) came to the hospital after the incident.
He testifies to seeing her cry beside the dead body of Brij
Bihari Prasad.
(xvi) Police officers examined the dead body of Brij Bihari Prasad
and prepared an Inquest Report. He denies signing the Inquest
Report or any other document.
(xvii) He had gone to the hospital the next morning on 14.06.1998.
(xviii) He mentioned that his police statement was recorded about
10-12 hours12 after the incident but could not recall the exact
date since it was taken seven years ago.
13. Though it was pointed out that Paras Nath Chaudhury (PW-1), in
his testimony, could not remember the number of the hospital room
12
See Trial Court Record, Vol. II, p.58.
[2024] 10 S.C.R.
1327
Rama Devi v. The State of Bihar and Others
or whether it was south-facing or not, this aspect would not, in our
opinion, dent his core testimony. It is apposite to note that Paras
Nath Chaudhury (PW-1) was aware that the hospital room was on
the ground floor and there was a verandah after crossing 4-5 rooms
on the west side. He further stated that there was a cycle stand, a
vacant place for sitting, and a road which joins Bailey Road on the
west side.
14. Paras Nath Chaudhury13 (PW-1) accepts that he did not seek
prior permission from the court or the jail authorities to visit Brij
Bihari Prasad in the hospital, nor did he make any entry into the
hospital register. This is also true for other visitors, a position
accepted by the prosecution. The absence of a register entry or
prior permission, a factor to be taken into consideration, is not
sufficient reason to discard bounteous and credible evidence and
material establishing that Brij Bihari Prasad, a political leader
with influence, had numerous visitors and supporters meeting
him at the hospital. The fardbeyan (Exhibit-50) and the ocular
evidence of Rama Devi14 (PW-24) and Mahanth Ashwani Das15
(PW-25), establish the presence of Paras Nath Chaudhury (PW-1)
and other visitors. Further, the following witness accounts establish
the presence of visitors and eyewitnesses:

3⁄4
Amarendra Kumar Sinha (PW-10) has deposed and accepted
the presence of Arbind Singh (PW-13), Shashi Bhushan Singh
(PW-42), Ram Niranjan Chaudhary (A-6) and 7-8 other persons.

3⁄4
Arbind Singh (PW-13), who was declared hostile, accepted
that Amarendra Kumar Sinha (PW-10), Shashi Bhushan Singh
(PW-42) and 5-7 other persons had come to the hospital.

3⁄4
Rabindra Bhagat (PW-14), the injured witness who also
turned hostile, deposed to the presence of two other persons
accompanying Brij Bihari Prasad.
Once the presence of a witness at the place of occurrence is proven,
their testimony, if credible and truthful, should not be dismissed
solely based on non-compliance with hospital and prison protocols.
13
See para 11(xv).
14
See para 23.
15
See para 17(ii).
1328
[2024] 10 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
15. The reasoning given by the High Court to disregard and doubt
the eyewitness account of Paras Nath Chaudhury (PW-1), on the
premise that he ought to have been the informant because he is the
brother-in-law of Brij Bihari Prasad and was present at the hospital
at the time of occurrence, is conjectural and unfounded. This fact
cannot ipso facto lead to the disavowal of his testimony. Such a
presumption imposes a rigid formula for determining who should be
an informant, which the law does not envision. It is an accepted and
admitted position that the name of Paras Nath Chaudhury (PW-1)
has been mentioned in the fardbeyan and in the FIR as one of the
persons present at the hospital. Any person can be an informant of
a case, and the police may also register a case on their own. The
rationale of the High Court for dismissing the testimony of Paras
Nath Chaudhury (PW-1) is fundamentally flawed.
16. Yet another reason for rejecting his testimony stems from
contradictions about the presence of Rajan Tiwari (A-9) as an assailant
at the hospital. In his police statement, Paras Nath Chaudhury
(PW-1) identified Rajan Tiwari (A-9) as being at the hospital, but in
his court testimony, he stated that Rajan Tiwari (A-9) was not present.
In our considered view, this contradiction does not weaken Paras
Nath Chaudhury's (PW-1) account of witnessing Mantu Tiwari (A-4)
and Vijay Kumar Shukla @ Munna Shukla (A-8) commit the offence.
Indian law does not recognise the doctrine - falsus in uno, falsus in
omnibus. In Deep Chand and Others v. State of Haryana,16 this
Court had observed that the maxim falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus
is not a sound rule to apply in the conditions of this country. This
maxim does not occupy the status of rule of law. It is merely a rule of
caution which involves the question of the weight of evidence that a
court may apply in the given set of circumstances.17 In cases where
a witness is found to have given unreliable evidence, it is the duty
of the court to carefully scrutinise the rest of the evidence, sifting
the grain from the chaff. The reliable evidence can be relied upon
especially when the substratum of the prosecution case remains
intact. The court must be diligent in separating truth from falsehood.
Only in exceptional circumstances, when truth and falsehood are so
16
(1969) 3 SCC 890
17
Ponnam Chandraiah v. State of Andhra Pradesh (2008) 11 SCC 640
[2024] 10 S.C.R.
1329
Rama Devi v. The State of Bihar and Others
inextricably connected as to make it indistinguishable, should the
entire body of evidence be discarded.
Testimony of Mahanth Ashwani Das (PW-25)
17. The deposition of Mahanth Ashwani Das (PW-25) equally supports
the prosecution case. His testimony captures the following:
(i)
On 13.06.1998, he reached IGIMS hospital at about 7:00 p.m.
to meet Brij Bihari Prasad.
(ii)
He confirmed the presence of Paras Nath Chaudhury (PW-1).
Amarendra Kumar Sinha (PW-10), Arbind Singh (PW-13), Shashi
Bhushan Singh (PW-42), Ram Niranjan Chaudhary (A-6), Ram
Nandan Singh (PW-12), Onkar Singh and some other people
at the hospital.
(iii) After a passing remark by Ram Niranjan Chaudhary (A-6) that
it was hot in the hospital room, Brij Bihari Prasad stepped
outside for a stroll. Brij Bihari Prasad was accompanied by
Ram Niranjan Chaudhary (A-6), Lakshmeshwar Sahu and other
security personnel.
(iv) In the meanwhile, a Sumo car and an Ambassador car came
inside the hospital campus. About 10-12 persons alighted from
the said vehicles and moved toward Brij Bihari Prasad.
(v)
Mantu Tiwari (A-4) was carrying a carbine and others were
carrying pistols.
(vi) He specifically identified Bhupendra Nath Dubey (since
deceased), Shri Prakash Shukla @ Shiv Prakash Shukla (since
deceased), Rajan Tiwari (A-9), Vijay Kumar Shukla @ Munna
Shukla (A-8) and Satish Pandey as the persons who alighted
from the aforementioned vehicles.
(vii) Mantu Tiwari (A-4), Bhupendra Nath Dubey (since deceased)
and Shri Prakash Shukla @ Shiv Prakash Shukla (since
deceased) fired at Brij Bihari Prasad. Others were also firing
indiscriminately in different directions.
(viii) Vijay Kumar Shukla @ Munna Shukla (A-8), Satish Pandey and
Rajan Tiwari (A-9) shot at Lakshmeshwar Sahu.
(ix) On being shot, Brij Bihari Prasad and Lakshmeshwar Sahu
collapsed.
1330
[2024] 10 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
(x)
Bhupendra Nath Dubey (since deceased) took the carbine
belonging to Lakshmeshwar Sahu and thereafter exclaimed that
the work had been done. He raised the slogan "Jai Bajrang Bali".
(xi) His signed statement (Exhibit-29) was also recorded by a
judicial magistrate.
(xii) The occurrence took place at about 8:30 p.m.
(xiii) The police and CBI had interrogated him in this regard.
18. We have carefully scrutinized the cross-examination of Mahanth
Ashwini Das (PW-25). His cross-examination states:
(i)
Mahanth Ashwani Das (PW-25) was introduced to Brij Bihari
Prasad in 1996. This was around the same time Mahanth
Ashwani Das (PW-25) became a disciple under Sanatan
Dharma.
(ii)
He had also known Rama Devi (PW-24), wife of Brij Bihari
Prasad, since 1996.
(iii)
Rama Devi (PW-24) was present in the court while his testimony
was being recorded. However, Mahanth Ashwani Das (PW-25)
denies speaking to her.
(iv)
Mahanth Ashwini Das (PW-25) states that while there was no
particular reason to meet Brij Bihari Prasad on 13.06.1998,
he would generally meet Brij Bihari Prasad whilst in Patna.
(v)
Earlier also he had visited Brij Bihari Prasad in the hospital on
another occasion, but he could not remember the date and
time of this meeting.
(vi)
He met Brij Bihari Prasad approximately 8-10 days prior to
the date of incident.
(vii) He did not know the specific treatment for which Brij Bihari
Prasad was admitted to the hospital. He states that the
treatment had been going on for about one and a half months.
(viii) He denies having knowledge of any case(s) pending against
Brij Bihari Prasad.
(ix)
He states that he is unaware of any case pending against
him. However, he accepts that way back in 1979, a murder
[2024] 10 S.C.R.
1331
Rama Devi v. The State of Bihar and Others
case was registered against him, for which he had remained
in jail for 3-4 months.
(x)
He states that he was sentenced to life imprisonment and
filed an appeal in 1987; however, he was uncertain whether
the appeal was still pending or had been dismissed, and he
could not recall the grounds for the appeal.
(xi)
He did not have any documentary proof of visiting the hospital
on 13.06.1998.
(xii) He had not made any signatures on the death summary report
and the seizure memo.
(xiii) He did not know if the wife of Onkar Singh (since deceased)
had given a police statement that her husband was murdered
by Brij Bihari Prasad due to a contract dispute.
(xiv) Mahanth Ashwani Das (PW-25) had deposed about remaining
at the place of occurrence after the firing. He saw the police
coming and lifting the dead bodies of Brij Bihari Prasad and
Lakshmeshwar Sahu. He left the hospital for the residence
of Brij Bihari Prasad at 9:30 p.m., where several people,
including Kamakhya Narain Singh (PW-15), Shiv Ji Prasad,
Ram Nandan Singh (PW-12), Onkar Singh, and Raj Bala
Verma (Collector, Patna), had already gathered. Later that
night, on 14.06.1998, around 12:30 a.m., he departed for
Muzzaffarpur Math.
(xv) He was arrested on 04.05.2006 in Patna. Thereafter, he was
given protection by the Bihar Government to give evidence in
the present trial. Armed security guards, who were generally
not present with him, used to accompany him whilst going to
the court.
(xvi) He states that he used to reach Smriti Bhawan of Brij Bihari
Prasad at about 5:00 a.m. Rama Devi (PW-24), her driver and
security guards reside at the Smriti Bhawan.
(xvii) During the firing he had hidden about 30-40 steps away from
the hospital room.
(xviii) He denies the suggestion of giving false evidence due to his
close relationship with Brij Bihari Prasad.
1332
[2024] 10 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
19. As noted above, the High Court has rejected the testimony and
complicity of the accused by Mahant Ashwani Das (PW-25) on the
ground that he is himself an accused in a murder case and had
absconded despite being convicted in appeal, while he was being
examined as a witness in the present case. The High Court had also
held that Mahant Ashwani Das (PW-25) had the patronage of Rama
Devi (PW-24) and the deceased Brij Bihari Prasad.
20. The criminal background of a witness necessitates that the courts
approach their evidence with caution. The testimony of a witness with
a chequered past cannot be dismissed as untruthful or uncreditworthy
without considering the surrounding facts and circumstances of the
case, including their presence at the scene of the offence. In cases
involving conflicts between rival gangs or groups, the testimony of
members from either side is admissible and relevant. If the court
is convinced of the veracity and truthfulness of such testimony, it
may be considered. Courts typically assess the broader context to
determine if there is sufficient corroboration, as long as there are no
valid reasons to discredit the evidence. The crucial test is whether
the witness is truly an eyewitness and whether their testimony is
credible. If their presence at the scene is established beyond doubt,
their account of the incident can be relied upon.