The Patna High Court on Tuesday (October 13, 2026) set aside a trial court’s conviction order and acquitted 13 appellants in a 1996 quadruple murder case.
A Division Bench comprising Justice Rajeev Ranjan Prasad and Justice Kumar Manish delivered the ruling, citing grave lapses in the police investigation, lack of credible identification and a failure by the prosecution to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.
The case dates back to the intervening night of August 8-9, 1996, in the Karpi area of Jehanabad (now Arwal) district. According to the prosecution, a group of 30 to 40 armed individuals stormed a hut (jhopri) near the Keyal Aahar, where villagers were keeping watch over a water meant for irrigation.
The violent attack claimed the lives of four persons — Bharat Singh, Manger Singh, Ram Niwas Singh, and Nawlesh Singh — while injuring others, including Pramod Kumar.
Initially, an FIR was lodged against unknown extremists of the Mazdoor Kisan Sangram Parishad (MKSP). However, through subsequent supplementary statements and trial proceedings, several residents from the neighbouring Asadhi tola were implicated.
In April 2023, the Additional District and Sessions Judge-II, Jehanabad, had convicted the appellants under Sections 302/34, 307/34, and 148 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), alongside Section 27 of the Arms Act, sentencing them to rigorous imprisonment for life.
Challenging this verdict, senior counsels and advocates representing the appellants argued that the prosecution’s case suffered from vital contradictions.
They pointed out that none of the accused was named in the initial FIR despite the informant and witnesses claiming acquaintance with them. Furthermore, crucial material objects—such as torches, blood-soaked soil, and empty cartridge shells (khokha) — were never seized or produced before the court, and no Test Identification Parade (TIP) was ever conducted.
Defence teams also highlighted that the post-mortem reports and doctors who conducted them were never examined during the trial.
Accepting these contentions, the High Court strongly criticised the investigating agency for a “lacklustre” and compromised investigation. The Bench noted that the sole reliance on dock identification after an 8-year gap, without prior TIP or proper corroboration, violated settled rules of judicial prudence.
”We are living in an adversarial system of law where hundreds of culprits may go scot-free, but one innocent cannot be hanged,” the Court remarked, invoking the classic jurisprudential principle.
Expressing deep dismay over recurring shoddy police work in high-profile criminal trials, the High Court issued strict directives to the State administration.
It ordered the Director General of Police (DGP), Bihar, to constitute a three-member committee of senior police officers to probe the gross negligence of the initial investigating officers and take appropriate administrative action within three months.
Additionally, the Home Department was directed to review its policy on handling acquittals caused by investigative lapses. With the convictions annulled, the Court ordered the immediate release of the appellants unless they are wanted in any other case.