{"id":114650,"date":"2008-11-21T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2008-11-20T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/raju-singh-rajeev-ranjan-singh-vs-state-of-bihar-on-21-november-2008"},"modified":"2019-03-05T05:54:42","modified_gmt":"2019-03-05T00:24:42","slug":"raju-singh-rajeev-ranjan-singh-vs-state-of-bihar-on-21-november-2008","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/raju-singh-rajeev-ranjan-singh-vs-state-of-bihar-on-21-november-2008","title":{"rendered":"Raju Singh @ Rajeev Ranjan Singh @ … vs State Of Bihar on 21 November, 2008"},"content":{"rendered":"
Patna High Court<\/div>\n
Raju Singh @ Rajeev Ranjan Singh @ … vs State Of Bihar on 21 November, 2008<\/div>\n
Author: Smt. Mridula Mishra<\/div>\n
            DEATH REFERENCE No.17 OF 2007\n\n                           ***\n<\/pre>\n
STATE OF BIHAR———————————-APPELLANT
\n                           Versus\n<\/p>\n
1. BISHWANATH SINGH, SON OF LATE SARVAJEET SINGH\n<\/p>\n
2. PARVATI DEVI, WIFE OF LATE JHURI KAHAR
\nBOTH RESIDENTS OF VILLAGE KARUP, P.S. KARGAHAR,
\nDISTRICT ROHTAS ——————————RESPONDENTS<\/p>\n
                           With
\nCR. APP (DB) No.1463 of      2007
\nRAM PRIT SINGH, SON OF LATE SARVAJEET SINGH, RESIDENT OF
\nVILLAGE KARUP, POLICE STATION KARGAHAR, DISTRICT
\nROHTAS —————————————–APPELLANT
\n                           Versus
\nTHE STATE OF BIHAR—————————–RESPONDENT<\/p>\n
                           With
\nCR. APP (DB) No.1480 of      2007
\nRAJU SINGH @ RAJEEV RANJAN SINGH @ RAJEEV RANJAN, SON OF
\nRAMPRIT SINGH, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE KARUP, P.S. KARGAHAR,
\nDISTRICT ROHTAS———————————APPELLANT
\n                           Versus
\nSTATE OF BIHAR———————————RESPONDENT
\n                            With<\/p>\n
CR. APP (DB) No.1481 of      2007
\nPRADEEP KUMAR @ PRADEEP KUMAR SINGH, SON OF VISWANATH
\nSINGH RESIDENT OF VILLAGE KARUP, P.S. KARGAHAR, DISTRICT
\nROHTAS —————————————–APPELLANT
\n                           Versus
\nSTATE OF BIHAR———————————RESPONDENT
\n                            With<\/p>\n
CR. APP (DB) No.1499 of      2007\n<\/p>\n
1.PARVATI DEVI, WIFE OF LATE JHURI KAHAR\n<\/p>\n
2.BISHWANATH SINGH, SON OF LATE SARVAJEET SINGH,
\nBOTH RESIDENTS OF VILLAGE KARUP, P.S. KARGAHAR,
\nDISTRICT ROHTAS ——————————-APPELLANTS
\n                                     Versus
\nSTATE OF BIHAR———————————RESPONDENT<\/p>\n
                            ***<\/p>\n
Reference made by Sri Umesh Chandra Mishra, Additional
\nDistrict & Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court No.5), Rohtas
\nat Sasaram vide letter no.101 dated 4.12.2007 and Criminal
\nAppeals against the judgment dated 27.11.2007 and order
\ndated   30.11.2007  in  Sessions   Case  No.251\/1999\/Trial
\nNo.83\/2007
\n                           ***<\/p>\n
For the Appellants: Mr. Kanhaiya Prasad Singh,
\n                            Sr. Advocate with
\n                                                        2<\/span><\/p>\n
                                         M\/s Ashutosh Kumar, Atal Bihari &
\n                                             Jyotasana, Advocates<\/p>\n
            For the State            : Mr. Lala Kailash Bihari Prasad,
\n                                           Sr. Advocate<\/p>\n
            For the Informant : Mrs.Anjana Prakash, Sr. Advocate with
\n                                Mr. Rakesh Kumar Sinha, Advocate
\n                                        ***<\/p>\n
                                               P R E S E N T<\/p>\n
                        THE HON’BLE JUSTICE SMT. MRIDULA MISHRA
\n                        THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE SYED MD.MAHFOOZ ALAM
\n                                          ***<\/p>\n
Mridula Mishra, J. Death Reference No.17 of 2007 has been referred by<\/p>\n
            the trial court          to the High Court               for confirmation of<\/p>\n
            death       sentence    awarded       by       Sri    Umesh    Chandra      Mishra,<\/p>\n
            Additional        District     &   Sessions          Judge   (Fast   Track   Court<\/p>\n
            No.5), Rohtas at Sasaram to appellants, namely, Parvati<\/p>\n
            Devi    &    Bishwanath      Singh        in    Sessions      Case   No.251\/1999<\/p>\n
            \/Trial No.83\/1999 for the offence under Section 302 of the<\/p>\n
            Indian      Penal     Code   (in     short,      “I.P.C.”).      Besides      their<\/p>\n
            conviction and sentence under Section 302 of the I.P.C.,<\/p>\n
            these       two   appellants        have       also    been    convicted     under<\/p>\n
            Section 364\/34 and Section 201\/34 of the I.P.C. but no<\/p>\n
            separate sentence has been awarded to them since they have<\/p>\n
            been awarded death sentence. Other criminal appeals have<\/p>\n
            also been preferred against the same judgment and order of<\/p>\n
            conviction and sentence by Ram Prit                     Singh (Cr. Appeal No.<\/p>\n
            1463 of 2007), Raju Singh @ Rajeev Ranjan Singh @ Rajeev<\/p>\n
            Ranjan (Cr. Appeal No.1480 of 2007) and Pradeep Kumar @<\/p>\n
            Pradeep       Kumar    Singh       (Cr.    Appeal       No.1481).     For     their<\/p>\n
            conviction under Sections 302\/34, under Section 364\/34 and<\/p>\n
            under Section 201\/34 of the I.P.C. all these appellants
\n                                                 3<\/span><\/p>\n
have been sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for life and<\/p>\n
fine   of    Rs.5000\/-,          for      conviction         under       Section      363\/34<\/p>\n
they have been sentenced to R.I. for ten years and fine of<\/p>\n
Rs.3000\/- as well as for their conviction under Section<\/p>\n
201\/34 of the I.P.C. they have been sentenced to R.I. for<\/p>\n
three years and fine of Rs.1000\/-. In case of default in<\/p>\n
payment     of     fine       the    appellants            have    been     directed       to<\/p>\n
undergo      simple       imprisonment              for     six    months       and     three<\/p>\n
months, respectively.\n<\/p>\n
2.           Nandeshwar         Singh       (P.W.7)          is    the    informant         of<\/p>\n
Kargahar P.S. Case No.77\/95. His fardbeyan was recorded by<\/p>\n
the Officer Inchrge of Kargahar P.S., Sri Ram Bharosha Das<\/p>\n
(P.W.11) on 6.6.1995 at 8.15 A.M. The fardbeyan discloses<\/p>\n
that the marriage of Arvind Singh younger brother of the<\/p>\n
informant was going to be solemnized on 6.6.95. On this<\/p>\n
occasion, his relatives and family members had assembled<\/p>\n
in the evening of 5.6.95 and feast was going on in the<\/p>\n
night of 5\/6.6.1995. The wife of the informant Dahrmsheela<\/p>\n
Devi (P.W.8) had made her son Vishal aged about two and<\/p>\n
half years, sleep on the roof of the house after feeding<\/p>\n
him milk and at least 6-7 children of other family members<\/p>\n
were   also      sleeping           on    the       roof    of    the    house        of   the<\/p>\n
informant.         At    about       11    P.M.       when       P.W.8    wife     of      the<\/p>\n
informant again went to see her child she did not find him<\/p>\n
on the roof of the house, and                          search was made here and<\/p>\n
there;      then    she       informed      the       informant          but    the    child<\/p>\n
Vishal aged about two and half years was not found. The<\/p>\n
fardbeyan     of        the   informant         discloses         that     he   suspected<\/p>\n
that some unknown persons had kidnapped his child Vishal<\/p>\n
with intention to kill him.                         On the basis of aforesaid<\/p>\n
fardbeyan,       Kargahar        P.S.      Case       No.    77\/95       was    registered
\n                                       4<\/span><\/p>\n
under Section 364 of the Indian Penal Code. The fact of<\/p>\n
the case discloses that subsequently, on the same day i.e.<\/p>\n
6.6.1995 at 6 O’ clock in the evening, the dead body of<\/p>\n
the son of the informant, namely, Vishal was found and<\/p>\n
Sections 302 and 201 of the I.P.C. were added.<\/p>\n
3.      The police, who arrived at the place of occurrence,<\/p>\n
during course of investigation, found the dead body of<\/p>\n
child lying on the platform of Shiv Mandir near the well.<\/p>\n
It    was   informed    to   the     Investigating    officer     by   the<\/p>\n
villagers that the dead body was found in a well and it<\/p>\n
was    taken   out.    The    inquest       report   prepared     by   the<\/p>\n
Investigating Officer does not show that the dead body was<\/p>\n
taken out in presence of the Investigating Officer rather<\/p>\n
it was already on the platform of the Shiv Mandir. The<\/p>\n
dead    body   of     the    child    was    sent    for   post    mortem<\/p>\n
examination. The post mortem was conducted by Dr. Srikant<\/p>\n
Prasad, (P.W.10, who was posted as Assistant Professor of<\/p>\n
Skin & V.D., N.M.C.H, Patna. The post mortem report which<\/p>\n
has been marked as Ext.3 discloses that the dead body was<\/p>\n
received for post mortem at 9.45 A.M. on 7.6.1995. It was<\/p>\n
first seen by P.W.10 at 10.30 A.M. on the same day and<\/p>\n
post mortem commenced at 11 A. M. on 7.6.1995. At the time<\/p>\n
of post mortem examination it was found that the dead body<\/p>\n
is of male child aged about two and half years. No rigor<\/p>\n
mortis could be ascertained. The face of the deceased was<\/p>\n
swollen, abdomen disturbed, greenish coloration of skin on<\/p>\n
the face and abdomen was found. Blood was found oozing<\/p>\n
through nostrils but no external injury was found on the<\/p>\n
dead body. Since on dissection, the cause of the death<\/p>\n
could not be ascertained by P.W.10, as such the viscera<\/p>\n
was presented for forensic examination and it was sent to
\n                                           5<\/span><\/p>\n
the Forensic Science Laboratory. The report of Forensic<\/p>\n
Science     Laboratory       has        been       marked       as        Ext.6.       Ext.6<\/p>\n
discloses    that    it    was     not        a    case    of    poisoning          as     no<\/p>\n
metallic, alkaloidal, glycosidal, pesticidal or volatile<\/p>\n
poison could be detected in the dark-brown fluid.<\/p>\n
4.       P.W.10 doctor, who conducted post mortem examination<\/p>\n
of the dead body, has stated in his deposition that since<\/p>\n
cause of death, in his opinion, could not be                               ascertained,<\/p>\n
viscera     was     preserved           for       forensic       examination.              He<\/p>\n
assessed    that    time     elapsed          since      death       to    post     mortem<\/p>\n
examination as within 32 to 72 hours. P.W.10 has further<\/p>\n
stated that time in vanishing the entire rigor mortis was<\/p>\n
complete within 36 hours. It starts disappearing from six<\/p>\n
hours of death. Since, in sum and substance, the evidence<\/p>\n
of P.W.10 is that cause of death could not be ascertained,<\/p>\n
as such he could not mention – whether it was a case of<\/p>\n
homicidal     death.      Considering             Exts.     3     and       6    and      the<\/p>\n
evidence of the doctor (P.W.10)), it is difficult to hold<\/p>\n
that it was a case of homicidal death.\n<\/p>\n
5.   The    prosecution,          in    order       to    prove      charges        framed<\/p>\n
against     the     accused       persons,          examined          altogether           11<\/p>\n
witnesses. The evidence of the doctor (P.W.10) has already<\/p>\n
been discussed above. P.W.1 Md. Ahsamuddin Khan, who is a<\/p>\n
formal    witness,     has    proved           Ext.1      formal          F.I.R;       other<\/p>\n
witnesses     examined       by        prosecution         are       P.W.2       Amrendra<\/p>\n
Singh, P.W.3 Shyamji Singh, P.W.4 Harendra Singh, P.W.5<\/p>\n
Shankar     Dayal    Singh,       P.W.6           Chandradeo         Singh,        P.W.     7<\/p>\n
Nandeshwar    Singh    and    P.W.8           Dharmsheela        Devi.          P.W.7     and<\/p>\n
P.W.8 are parents of deceased, the unfortunate boy Vishal.<\/p>\n
P.W.7 is informant of this case.\n<\/p>\n
                                       6<\/span><\/p>\n
6.   P.W.2    has    admitted in paragraphs 2 and 10 of his<\/p>\n
evidence about his relationship with the informant. P.W.3<\/p>\n
has also admitted in paragraphs 2 and 21 of his evidence<\/p>\n
about his relationship with the deceased as well as the<\/p>\n
informant. P.W.8 is none else than mother of the deceased<\/p>\n
and wife of the informant. P.W.4 has also admitted his<\/p>\n
relationship     with    informant         in     paragraph      6     of    his<\/p>\n
evidence.      P.W.5     Shyamji          Singh     has       admitted        his<\/p>\n
relationship    with    the    informant          and   the    wife    of    the<\/p>\n
informant. He is maternal uncle of P.W.8. P.W.4 is                         cousin<\/p>\n
of the informant. P.W.4 has admitted in paragraph 6 of his<\/p>\n
deposition that he is related as brother of the informant.<\/p>\n
P.Ws. 5 and 6 are own brothers. They also have admitted in<\/p>\n
paragraph 6 and paragraph 1, respectively,                            of their<\/p>\n
evidence about their relationship. Their evidences go to<\/p>\n
show that they are very closely related to the informant.<\/p>\n
P.W.7 is father and P.W.8 is the mother of the deceased.<\/p>\n
7.   The first contention of the counsel appearing for the<\/p>\n
appellants is that this is a case in which there is no<\/p>\n
direct evidence either on the point of taking away the<\/p>\n
victim from the roof of the informant’s house by anyone or<\/p>\n
giving the child to the accused persons by Parwati Devi<\/p>\n
who has been awarded death sentence for her conviction<\/p>\n
under Sections 302 and 364\/34 of the Indian Penal Code. No<\/p>\n
other person than family members closely related to the<\/p>\n
informant has come forward to support the case of the<\/p>\n
prosecution     on     the    point       of      circumstance        to    show<\/p>\n
involvement      of     the     accused            persons.      Even        the<\/p>\n
circumstances, which have been brought by the prosecution<\/p>\n
by way of evidence of the witnesses, suggest that there<\/p>\n
are so many missing links in between the alleged taking
\n                                                7<\/span><\/p>\n
away    of    the     victim      boy        from       the    roof     and    finally         in<\/p>\n
recovery       of    the   dead     body           on    the    next    day.        There      is<\/p>\n
admitted       enmity      between       the        witnesses         and     the    accused<\/p>\n
persons.       In     paragraph         11    of        his     evidence,      P.W.2        has<\/p>\n
admitted enmity with appellant Bishwanath Singh. P.Ws. 7<\/p>\n
and 8 have admitted enmity in paragraphs 10 and paragraph<\/p>\n
7 of their respective evidence. All these witnesses have<\/p>\n
admitted       that    Bishwanath            Singh       was     made    accused          in    a<\/p>\n
criminal case under Section 377 I.P.C. Victim was Jitendra<\/p>\n
Singh    and    P.W.7      was     the       informant          of    the     case.       Other<\/p>\n
persons were          named as       witnesses            in this case. In that<\/p>\n
case,      Bishwanath        Singh       was        finally          acquitted       of     the<\/p>\n
charge. Subsequently, Bishwanath Singh’s son was killed in<\/p>\n
which criminal case was instituted by Bishwanath Singh and<\/p>\n
these witnesses were named as accused in the case.<\/p>\n
8.      Mr. Kanhaiya Prasad Singh, Senior Advocate appearing<\/p>\n
for the appellants has stated that in the given background<\/p>\n
of   the      case    where       all    the        prosecution          witnesses          are<\/p>\n
partisan and closely related to each other and that also<\/p>\n
when    they    have       deposed       in        the    background          of    admitted<\/p>\n
enmity       with    the   accused           persons,          how    reliance       can       be<\/p>\n
placed on their evidence for conviction of the appellants,<\/p>\n
when circumstances have not been proved by them, beyond<\/p>\n
reasonable doubt.\n<\/p>\n
9.      The    evidence      of    P.W.2           is    that    in     the    evening         of<\/p>\n
5.6.1995 pre-marriage celebrations were being solemnized<\/p>\n
of his cousin Arbind Singh. In that connection he went on<\/p>\n
the roof of Nandeshwar Singh. He had gone there to spread<\/p>\n
carpet       along    with     Rameshwar            Singh        to    make    space        for<\/p>\n
dinner. Children who were sleeping at that time on the<\/p>\n
eastern side of the roof of the house were brought to
\n                                           8<\/span><\/p>\n
the western sides. Carpet was being spread over the roof<\/p>\n
for the feast of the guests. After completion of the Ist<\/p>\n
round of feast, Parwati Devi had removed the plates for<\/p>\n
cleaning the ground. She continued to do her work, for<\/p>\n
sometime, but subsequently, when searched, she was found<\/p>\n
missing. Dinner completed at 11 P.M. and then mother of<\/p>\n
Vishal came on the roof of the house and searched him, but<\/p>\n
he was not found. She informed her husband P.W.7 about<\/p>\n
missing    of    the    child.      P.W.7      along   with   others    started<\/p>\n
searching the child here and there but he was not found.<\/p>\n
It has been admitted by P.W.2 that on disappearance of the<\/p>\n
child,    they    had    suspicion        against      Bishwanath   Singh    and<\/p>\n
others, who are inimical to the informant but out of fear,<\/p>\n
their names were not disclosed, even before the police.<\/p>\n
Evidence    of P.W.2         is that      in the night of occurrence,<\/p>\n
there were near about 100 persons assembled for dinner.<\/p>\n
This has been admitted by P.W.2 that he came down from the<\/p>\n
roof only when dinner completed at 11 O’ clock but till<\/p>\n
then he had no knowledge about the disappearance of the<\/p>\n
child. It has also come in the evidence of this witness<\/p>\n
that the place from where the dead body of the child was<\/p>\n
recovered, is also within the temple premises. He had also<\/p>\n
admitted that he did not disclose names of the accused<\/p>\n
persons to any one due to apprehension                        that the child<\/p>\n
might be killed.\n<\/p>\n
10.      P.W.3 Shyamji Singh is the maternal uncle of P.W.8<\/p>\n
i.e. mother of the deceased. His evidence is that at about<\/p>\n
9.30   P.M.      he    had   gone    to       ease   himself.   When    he   was<\/p>\n
returning     back     he    saw    Bishwanath       Singh,   Ramprit   Singh,<\/p>\n
Raju Singh and Pradeep with a child on the shoulder of<\/p>\n
Bishwanath Singh. They were going towards north of the
\n                                           9<\/span><\/p>\n
village. He enquired from Bishwanath Singh as to where he<\/p>\n
was going and he replied that the child is being taken for<\/p>\n
some treatment. Thereafter he came at the Dalan of the<\/p>\n
informant (P.W.7), took his dinner and after taking dinner<\/p>\n
he went to sleep. When he was at his house he heard the<\/p>\n
alarm that Vishal has disappeared. He has admitted in his<\/p>\n
evidence that he took dinner in the last batch near about<\/p>\n
11 O’ clock. After coming to his house, he did not meet<\/p>\n
anyone. On the next day in the morning he remained at his<\/p>\n
residence till 11 O’ clock and only when Investigating<\/p>\n
Officer came he went at the door of Nandeshwar Singh. This<\/p>\n
witness, who is maternal uncle of P.W.8 and very close to<\/p>\n
the informant, did not go to enquire about the child till<\/p>\n
11 A.M. on the next date even after hearing the rumour<\/p>\n
about    disappearance      of     the        child    and    also   having         seen<\/p>\n
accused Bishwanath Singh with a child at 9 O’ clock. He<\/p>\n
did not disclose this fact to anyone that he has seen<\/p>\n
Bishwanath       going   with    a   child.            In    court     he    has     not<\/p>\n
disclosed that the dead body of the child which                                      was<\/p>\n
discovered on the next day in the evening, was of the same<\/p>\n
child    whom    he   had   seen     on       the     shoulder    of    Bishwanath<\/p>\n
Singh.\n<\/p>\n
11.     P.W.4 Harendra Singh is another eye-witness who had<\/p>\n
also claimed to have seen Bishwanath and other accused<\/p>\n
with a child in the night of occurrence. P.W.4 has deposed<\/p>\n
that on 5.6.1995 at 9.00 P.M. when he was going to ease<\/p>\n
out, he saw Ramprit Singh, Bishwanath Singh, Raju Singh<\/p>\n
and Pradeep Singh going towards north in haste. Bishwanath<\/p>\n
Singh had a child on his shoulder. The child was wrapped<\/p>\n
in a cloth. On that very night at about 11 O’ clock alarm<\/p>\n
was     raised    regarding      disappearance               of   the       child     of
\n                                       10<\/span><\/p>\n
Nandeshwar Singh. On the next day the dead body of the<\/p>\n
child was recovered from well in his presence. The Inquest<\/p>\n
report was prepared by the Sub-Inspector on which he and<\/p>\n
one Sant Bilash Singh put their signatures, (Exts. 2 and<\/p>\n
2\/4).    The     evidence      of   this         witness      P.W.4     is    that<\/p>\n
Nandeshwar      Singh    is related to him              as brother,      as per<\/p>\n
village relationship. He went to the house of Nandeshwar<\/p>\n
Singh at 8 O’ clock to attend the feast. Thereafter he<\/p>\n
came    from    his house.     In paragraph 1 of his deposition<\/p>\n
P.W.4 has stated that he saw Bishwanath Singh and others<\/p>\n
at about 9 P.M. with the child, when he was going to ease<\/p>\n
out. This goes to show that after taking dinner he went to<\/p>\n
ease out and seen Bishwanath and others with child. P.W.4<\/p>\n
has further deposed that he had seen the accused persons<\/p>\n
in the flash of the torch light. What makes his statement<\/p>\n
doubtful       that   even   though      he      came   to    know    about    the<\/p>\n
disappearance of the child in the night itself he did not<\/p>\n
go to the house of accused persons to verify as to who was<\/p>\n
that child and where the child was taken away. He did not<\/p>\n
disclose this fact to anyone that he had seen Bishwanath<\/p>\n
Singh carrying a child. In paragraph 11 he has stated that<\/p>\n
in that very night at 11.30 P.M. he met Nandeshwar Singh<\/p>\n
(P.W.7) but he did not disclose this fact to him.                               In<\/p>\n
paragraph 12 of his deposition he has stated that for the<\/p>\n
first time he made such statement before the Investigating<\/p>\n
Officer after one and half months of the occurrence. In<\/p>\n
paragraph 6 P.W.4 has admitted that during this period he<\/p>\n
has remained in the village itself. This witness has also<\/p>\n
not stated that the child whose body was recovered on the<\/p>\n
next    day    was    same   whom   he     saw    in    the   company    of    the<\/p>\n
accused. In sum and substance, on consideration of the
\n                                       11<\/span><\/p>\n
evidence of P.Ws. 3 and 4 it transpires that the identity<\/p>\n
of the child who was seen in the company of the accused<\/p>\n
persons has not been established.\n<\/p>\n
12.      So far as P.W.5 Shankar Dayal Singh is concerned,<\/p>\n
his evidence is that till 11 O’ clock in the night of<\/p>\n
5.6.1995 he was on the roof of Nandeshwar Singh                           where<\/p>\n
child was sleeping.            In the night when Parvati was not<\/p>\n
found on the roof of the house, he went to her house<\/p>\n
because she had left without taking meal. His evidence is<\/p>\n
that    when    the   dinner    was    going     on,   Parvati     Devi     was<\/p>\n
frequently coming from downstairs to upstairs because she<\/p>\n
was    engaged    for   cleaning      work.      Except   this,    there    is<\/p>\n
nothing in the evidence of P.W.5 to connect Parvati with<\/p>\n
kidnapping of victim child.\n<\/p>\n
13.    P.W.6     Chandradeo     Singh       in   paragraph    10     of     his<\/p>\n
evidence has admitted that in the night of the occurrence<\/p>\n
no one had seen the child being taken away by anyone. It<\/p>\n
has    been      admitted      by     him     that     immediately        after<\/p>\n
disappearance police was not informed. This question was<\/p>\n
put to him as to whether child was on the roof when he had<\/p>\n
gone to take the meal his answer was that he did not<\/p>\n
notice it. So there is no specific evidence in deposition<\/p>\n
of P.W.6 that either he had seen Parvati Devi taking away<\/p>\n
the child or doing any suspicious act to connect her with<\/p>\n
disappearance of the child, except that in between the<\/p>\n
completion of dinner she disappeared. For the first time<\/p>\n
disappearance of child was noticed when P.W.8 had gone to<\/p>\n
feed milk to her child, till then no suspicion was made<\/p>\n
against Parvati that she kidnapped the child.<\/p>\n
14.     P.W.7    Nandeshwar     Singh       is   the   informant    of     this<\/p>\n
case. His evidence is that till the dinner was finished no
\n                                          12<\/span><\/p>\n
one had taken notice of disappearance of the child. At 11<\/p>\n
O’ clock in the night when his wife came on the roof for<\/p>\n
feeding the child Vishal and he was not found, then only<\/p>\n
search was made at several places.                        He has also admitted<\/p>\n
that children sleeping in the eastern side of the roof of<\/p>\n
the house were removed to the western side but it has not<\/p>\n
been stated that Parvati, in any manner participated in<\/p>\n
removing       children      from   eastern          to    western      side.   The<\/p>\n
evidence of P.W.7 is that Parvati, while on the roof was<\/p>\n
collecting plates when dinner was going on. He has also<\/p>\n
stated    that       since   Parvati      Devi       without     informing      his<\/p>\n
family members left the place, he had confirm opinion that<\/p>\n
she had taken away the child and given him to Bishwanath<\/p>\n
Singh, with whom he has enmity. P.W.7 has not stated in<\/p>\n
his evidence that Parvati was seen either in lifting or<\/p>\n
taking away the child and giving the child to the accused<\/p>\n
persons or to any one in conspiracy with other accused.<\/p>\n
There     is    no    evidence      to        show    that      there    was    any<\/p>\n
consultation         in   between        Parvati          and   Bishwanath      for<\/p>\n
kidnapping of the child.\n<\/p>\n
15.      P.W.8 Dahrmsheela Devi, mother of the deceased is<\/p>\n
also not specific on the point of                         kidnapping.     She has<\/p>\n
stated that she laid her son to sleep on the roof at 7 O’<\/p>\n
clock    in    the    night.   Thereafter,           she    became   engaged     in<\/p>\n
other works. Thereafter she went on the roof to feed the<\/p>\n
child at about 11 P.M. and then only she detected that her<\/p>\n
child was not present. She has stated that search was made<\/p>\n
in the village in the night but has not disclosed the<\/p>\n
places where search was made. From the evidence of P.W.8<\/p>\n
as well evidence of P.W.4 and P.W.3 it transpires that in<\/p>\n
spite of disappearance of a child, the normal activities
\n                                             13<\/span><\/p>\n
were    going      on    in     the      family      peacefully.                P.W.8       has<\/p>\n
admitted      that      on     6.6.95      in    the     evening       Barat       of       his<\/p>\n
bother-in-law           went    for      solemnization          of     marriage,            and<\/p>\n
family members joined the Barat party.\n<\/p>\n
16.     Counsel    for       the   appellants           has    submitted          that      the<\/p>\n
evidence      of   P.Ws.       3    and    4     that    they       saw     the    accused<\/p>\n
persons in the company of a “child” at 9 P.M. to 9.30 P.M.<\/p>\n
in the night of 5.6.95 is not sufficient to fasten the<\/p>\n
accused persons with the charge of Section 364 of the<\/p>\n
Indian Penal Code for the reason that these witnesses have<\/p>\n
not stated even in the court that the child with whom they<\/p>\n
saw    accused     persons         was    the    child        who    disappeared            and<\/p>\n
subsequently       whose        dead      body    was     recovered         from        well.<\/p>\n
Since    identification            of     the    child    itself          has    not     been<\/p>\n
established, the accused persons cannot be held guilty of<\/p>\n
kidnapping of the child whose dead body was recovered on<\/p>\n
the next day.            For roping the accused                     persons       with      the<\/p>\n
charge of Section 364\/34 of the Indian Penal Code, it was<\/p>\n
essential that identity of the kidnapped child should have<\/p>\n
been established. It has been submitted by the counsel for<\/p>\n
the    appellants        that      this    is    a   case      where       there       is    no<\/p>\n
direct evidence either on the point of kidnapping or on<\/p>\n
the point of murder of child Vishal. This is a case in<\/p>\n
which conviction is based on circumstantial evidence. So<\/p>\n
far    as    conviction        under      Section        302    of    the       I.P.C.       is<\/p>\n
concerned, for that there was no evidence on record as<\/p>\n
none of the witnesses has stated that the appellants have<\/p>\n
killed the child. The evidence of the doctor (P.W.10) as<\/p>\n
well as Exts. 3 and 6 on record shows that the cause of<\/p>\n
death was not ascertained. Unless it is proved that it was<\/p>\n
a     case   of    homicidal            death     in     which        the       appellants
\n                                              14<\/span><\/p>\n
participated,          they    could     not      have    been       convicted            under<\/p>\n
Section 302 of the I.P.C. The trial court has convicted<\/p>\n
the     appellants           merely     on        conjectures,            surmises            and<\/p>\n
presumptions. There being no legal evidence to connect the<\/p>\n
appellants with the death of the child, the judgment of<\/p>\n
the trial court for their conviction under Section 302 of<\/p>\n
the I.P.C. is against the evidence on record and such<\/p>\n
judgment must be set side by this Court.\n<\/p>\n
17.      Counsel       for     the    appellants         has       further         submitted<\/p>\n
that so far as Section 364 of the I.P.C. is concerned it<\/p>\n
is    based      on     circumstantial            evidence.          In        a    case      of<\/p>\n
circumstantial           evidence,       it       is   well     settled            that       the<\/p>\n
circumstance           from    which     conclusion           of    guilt          is     drawn<\/p>\n
should      be    fully       proved    and       such    circumstance              must      be<\/p>\n
conclusive        in    nature.        All    the      circumstances               should      be<\/p>\n
complete and there should be no lacuna in the chain of<\/p>\n
circumstance.          The     circumstances           must    be     consistent              and<\/p>\n
pointing      towards         only     hypothesis        of    the        guilt         of    the<\/p>\n
accused and are totally inconsistent with their innocence.<\/p>\n
In the present case, there are many gaps in the chain of<\/p>\n
the circumstances. The first gap is that no one had seen<\/p>\n
Parwati Devi taking away the child. Second gap is that no<\/p>\n
one   had     seen      Parvati       Devi    either      before          or       after      the<\/p>\n
occurrence in the company of the accused. No one had seen<\/p>\n
Parvati giving child to any one or to                               accused persons.<\/p>\n
The fact is that Parwati was arrested from her house on<\/p>\n
the next day. This conduct of Parwati shows that she did<\/p>\n
not have any knowledge about occurrence. A case which is<\/p>\n
based    on      circumstantial         evidence         if    there       are       so      many<\/p>\n
missing links to connect the accused with kidnapping of
\n                                           15<\/span><\/p>\n
the victim and finally with his murder, there cannot be<\/p>\n
any conviction.\n<\/p>\n
18.      Mr.    Lala     Kailash    Bihari       Prasad,        counsel     for      the<\/p>\n
State has stated that the conduct of Parvati is first<\/p>\n
circumstane to show her involvement in the disappearance<\/p>\n
of the child. Parvati, as per evidence of the prosecution<\/p>\n
witness and the prosecution case, was engaged for throwing<\/p>\n
away the eaten-plates. She worked for some time and in the<\/p>\n
mid   way      she    disappeared      without      informing        anyone.        This<\/p>\n
conduct indicates that both child and Parvati disappeared<\/p>\n
simultaneously. It has further been submitted that this<\/p>\n
circumstance against Parvati connects her with Bishwanath<\/p>\n
Singh who was seen by P.W.3 and P.W.4 with a child. These<\/p>\n
circumstances           which      surfaced         in     the       evidence         of<\/p>\n
prosecution          witnesses,    were    put    to      the    accused      persons<\/p>\n
when their statement was recorded under Section 313 of the<\/p>\n
Cr.P.C. but they failed to explain these circumstances.<\/p>\n
Except simple denial no explanation came from the accused.<\/p>\n
This is also a circumstance to connect them with crime.<\/p>\n
19.      I find that the circumstances on which reliance is<\/p>\n
being placed by State Counsel were, in fact, not placed<\/p>\n
before      the      accused    when      their     statements         were        being<\/p>\n
recorded        under     Section      313     of        the     Cr.P.C.            This<\/p>\n
circumstance was not put to Parvati Devi as to why she<\/p>\n
left the place without informing family members, when she<\/p>\n
was engaged for doing the cleaning work and throwing away<\/p>\n
the eaten-plates. The              circumstance which was put to the<\/p>\n
accused at the time of recording statements under Section<\/p>\n
313, Cr.P.C. was that they participated in killing of the<\/p>\n
child     though       this     circumstance        has        not   come     in     the<\/p>\n
evidence of any of the prosecution witnesses. None of the
\n                                            16<\/span><\/p>\n
prosecution       witnesses        have         stated    that     they    saw     the<\/p>\n
accused     persons       participating            in     the     murder   of      the<\/p>\n
deceased. In case, circumstance would have been legally<\/p>\n
placed to the accused persons then only non-explanation<\/p>\n
could    have    been    taken     as      a     circumstance      against       them.<\/p>\n
Circumstance relied upon by State Counsel in order to show<\/p>\n
their guilt, is insufficient and chain of circumstances is<\/p>\n
not complete.\n<\/p>\n
20.     Mrs. Anjana Prakash, Senior Advocate, who appeared on<\/p>\n
behalf    of    the     informant,         has    based     her    submission       on<\/p>\n
motive. She has stated that in a case of circumstantial<\/p>\n
evidence,       motive   of   the      accused       persons       plays   a     vital<\/p>\n
role. On account of admitted enmity accused persons had<\/p>\n
motive to commit offence. The enmity is so strong that<\/p>\n
P.W.2, P.W.3, P.W.4 and P.W.5 were again made accused in a<\/p>\n
subsequent       case    filed        by    Bishwanath          because    of     this<\/p>\n
motive, disappearance of the child connects the accused<\/p>\n
with the alleged occurrence specially when P.Ws. 3 and 4<\/p>\n
had seen Bishwanath Singh with the child in the night of<\/p>\n
occurrence and immediately thereafter the child was found<\/p>\n
missing in continuation of the chain of circumstances on<\/p>\n
the next day the dead body was found. I do not find this<\/p>\n
submission convincing for the reason that the motive or<\/p>\n
enmity,    if    accepted,       it     cuts      both    ways.    There    can     be<\/p>\n
motive for false implication also.\n<\/p>\n
21.      Now the next question which arises for consideration<\/p>\n
is whether it was a fit case in which death sentence could<\/p>\n
have     been    awarded      to      Parvati       and    Bishwanath.            Only<\/p>\n
evidence which has come against appellant Parwati is that<\/p>\n
she was engaged for cleaning and throwing away the eaten-<\/p>\n
plates on 5.6.95. P.W.8 in her evidence has stated that
\n                                             17<\/span><\/p>\n
normally, she was not working as house-maid but for that<\/p>\n
very day she was engaged for doing the cleaning work. This<\/p>\n
is also a circumstance which raises suspicion regarding<\/p>\n
presence of Parvati in the house on 5.6.95.                               Even if the<\/p>\n
evidence      of     the    prosecution          witnesses        is    accepted      that<\/p>\n
Parvati was engaged for cleaning work, then the question<\/p>\n
which falls for consideration is as to whether the fact<\/p>\n
that she simply left the work without completing it, can<\/p>\n
connect her with the kidnapping of the child as well as<\/p>\n
for     killing of the child. There is no eye-witness on this<\/p>\n
point.        It has come in the evidence of the prosecution<\/p>\n
witnesses that Parvati was more than 50 years of age at<\/p>\n
the   time      of     occurrence          and     if     there    is    such     lapses<\/p>\n
attributed      to her          –   whether this           can be       considered as<\/p>\n
circumstance         to     connect       her     with     disappearance         of    the<\/p>\n
child    or     alleged         killing      of     the    child.       The     evidence<\/p>\n
against appellant Bishwanath Singh which connects him with<\/p>\n
disappearance of the child is in deposition of P.W.3 and<\/p>\n
P.W.4. P.W.3 is very much close to the informant and his<\/p>\n
wife. He has even admitted that after he saw Bishwanath<\/p>\n
Singh going with child and he remained in the house of<\/p>\n
informant       till       11       O’    clock,        when   alarm      was    raised<\/p>\n
regarding disappearance he did not disclose this fact to<\/p>\n
anyone. He came to his house, remained sitting in                                      his<\/p>\n
house on the next day till 11 A.M.                         For the first time on<\/p>\n
the   next      date       when     he    came     to     informant’s         house,    on<\/p>\n
arrival    of      the     I.O.      he   did     not    disclose       this    fact    to<\/p>\n
anyone.       So far as P.W.4 is concerned, in the night when<\/p>\n
he heard alarm he went to the house of the informant and<\/p>\n
till 11.30 P.M. he remained in the company of P.W.7. He<\/p>\n
did   not disclose           that he had seen the accused                        persons
\n                                                18<\/span><\/p>\n
carrying a child. He disclosed this fact for the first<\/p>\n
time after one and half months that he had seen Bishwanath<\/p>\n
Singh in the night of occurrence going with a child. How<\/p>\n
relying      on     such       evidence        anyone    can    be   convicted       and<\/p>\n
sentenced to death.                  I am conscious of the fact that for<\/p>\n
proving the crime, it is not necessary that it must have<\/p>\n
been seen being committed by witnesses but it is very much<\/p>\n
essential that all the circumstances must be proved by<\/p>\n
direct or ocular evidence by the persons who have seen<\/p>\n
either       full     or       any      part    of     the     commission     of     the<\/p>\n
occurrence. What is required that if vital evidence is not<\/p>\n
disclosed immediately, it creates doubt and the benefit of<\/p>\n
this doubt always goes to the accused. Considering these<\/p>\n
aspects of the matter, specially when the evidence is not<\/p>\n
sufficient even for conviction, it cannot be held that the<\/p>\n
accused persons could have been awarded death sentence. By<\/p>\n
no    stretch       of    imagination,          present      case    on    account   of<\/p>\n
fragile and scanty evidence can be brought in the category<\/p>\n
of    “rarest       of     the    rare     cases”.      The     circumstances        are<\/p>\n
tilted towards the innocence of the accused.<\/p>\n
22.         For   the     reasons        aforementioned,         I   hold    that    the<\/p>\n
prosecution has not been able to prove the charges framed<\/p>\n
against the appellants either under Section 302 or 302\/34<\/p>\n
of    the    I.P.C.       as     well    as    under    Section      364\/34    of    the<\/p>\n
Indian Penal Code. Not being found guilty of the charges<\/p>\n
framed against the appellants, they are acquitted of the<\/p>\n
charges framed by the trial court. As a result, Death<\/p>\n
Reference         No.17     of    2007     is       answered    in   the    negative.<\/p>\n
Criminal Appeal Nos. 1463 of 2007 (DB), 1480 of 2007 (DB),<\/p>\n
1481 of 2007 (DB) and 1499 of 2007 (DB) are allowed and<\/p>\n
the conviction and sentence passed against the appellants,
\n                                          19<\/span><\/p>\n
    namely, Ram Prit Singh, Raju Singh @ Rajeev Ranjan Singh @<\/p>\n
    Rajeev    Ranjan,     Pradeep      Kuamr     @     Pradeep     Kumar    Singh,<\/p>\n
    Parvati    Devi   and     Bishwanath       Singh    are    set    aside.     The<\/p>\n
    appellants    who     are   on     bail,     are    discharged        from   the<\/p>\n
    liability    of   their     bail    bonds.       Since    Parvati     Devi   and<\/p>\n
    Bishwanath Singh, who are in custody, have been awarded<\/p>\n
    death     sentence,     they       are     directed       to     be    released<\/p>\n
    forthwith, if not wanted in any other case.<\/p>\n
                                               (Mridula Mishra, J.)<\/p>\n
Syed Md. Mahfooz Alam, J. I agree.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
                                             (Syed Md. Mahfooz Alam, J.)<\/p>\n
    Patna High Court, Patna
\n    The 21st November, 2008
\n    A.F.R. (B.T.)\n <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Patna High Court Raju Singh @ Rajeev Ranjan Singh @ … vs State Of Bihar on 21 November, 2008 Author: Smt. Mridula Mishra DEATH REFERENCE No.17 OF 2007 *** STATE OF BIHAR———————————-APPELLANT Versus 1. BISHWANATH SINGH, SON OF LATE SARVAJEET SINGH 2. PARVATI DEVI, WIFE OF LATE JHURI KAHAR BOTH RESIDENTS OF VILLAGE KARUP, P.S. […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[8,26],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-114650","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-patna-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nRaju Singh @ Rajeev Ranjan Singh @ ... vs State Of Bihar on 21 November, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/raju-singh-rajeev-ranjan-singh-vs-state-of-bihar-on-21-november-2008\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Raju Singh @ Rajeev Ranjan Singh @ ... vs State Of Bihar on 21 November, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/raju-singh-rajeev-ranjan-singh-vs-state-of-bihar-on-21-november-2008\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2008-11-20T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2019-03-05T00:24:42+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"27 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\/\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/raju-singh-rajeev-ranjan-singh-vs-state-of-bihar-on-21-november-2008#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/raju-singh-rajeev-ranjan-singh-vs-state-of-bihar-on-21-november-2008\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Raju Singh @ Rajeev Ranjan Singh @ … vs State Of Bihar on 21 November, 2008\",\"datePublished\":\"2008-11-20T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2019-03-05T00:24:42+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/raju-singh-rajeev-ranjan-singh-vs-state-of-bihar-on-21-november-2008\"},\"wordCount\":5360,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"High Court\",\"Patna High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/raju-singh-rajeev-ranjan-singh-vs-state-of-bihar-on-21-november-2008#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/raju-singh-rajeev-ranjan-singh-vs-state-of-bihar-on-21-november-2008\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/raju-singh-rajeev-ranjan-singh-vs-state-of-bihar-on-21-november-2008\",\"name\":\"Raju Singh @ Rajeev Ranjan Singh @ ... vs State Of Bihar on 21 November, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2008-11-20T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2019-03-05T00:24:42+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/raju-singh-rajeev-ranjan-singh-vs-state-of-bihar-on-21-november-2008#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/raju-singh-rajeev-ranjan-singh-vs-state-of-bihar-on-21-november-2008\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/raju-singh-rajeev-ranjan-singh-vs-state-of-bihar-on-21-november-2008#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Raju Singh @ Rajeev Ranjan Singh @ … vs State Of Bihar on 21 November, 2008\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\",\"https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Raju Singh @ Rajeev Ranjan Singh @ ... vs State Of Bihar on 21 November, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/raju-singh-rajeev-ranjan-singh-vs-state-of-bihar-on-21-november-2008","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Raju Singh @ Rajeev Ranjan Singh @ ... vs State Of Bihar on 21 November, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/raju-singh-rajeev-ranjan-singh-vs-state-of-bihar-on-21-november-2008","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2008-11-20T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2019-03-05T00:24:42+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"27 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/raju-singh-rajeev-ranjan-singh-vs-state-of-bihar-on-21-november-2008#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/raju-singh-rajeev-ranjan-singh-vs-state-of-bihar-on-21-november-2008"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Raju Singh @ Rajeev Ranjan Singh @ … vs State Of Bihar on 21 November, 2008","datePublished":"2008-11-20T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2019-03-05T00:24:42+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/raju-singh-rajeev-ranjan-singh-vs-state-of-bihar-on-21-november-2008"},"wordCount":5360,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["High Court","Patna High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/raju-singh-rajeev-ranjan-singh-vs-state-of-bihar-on-21-november-2008#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/raju-singh-rajeev-ranjan-singh-vs-state-of-bihar-on-21-november-2008","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/raju-singh-rajeev-ranjan-singh-vs-state-of-bihar-on-21-november-2008","name":"Raju Singh @ Rajeev Ranjan Singh @ ... vs State Of Bihar on 21 November, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2008-11-20T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2019-03-05T00:24:42+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/raju-singh-rajeev-ranjan-singh-vs-state-of-bihar-on-21-november-2008#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/raju-singh-rajeev-ranjan-singh-vs-state-of-bihar-on-21-november-2008"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/raju-singh-rajeev-ranjan-singh-vs-state-of-bihar-on-21-november-2008#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Raju Singh @ Rajeev Ranjan Singh @ … vs State Of Bihar on 21 November, 2008"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/114650","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=114650"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/114650\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=114650"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=114650"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=114650"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}