The appellant, Meghnath Choupal @ Medhnath Choupal Sharma, was convicted by the Additional Sessions Judge, Madhepura, for the offences punishable under Sections 302 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 27 of the Arms Act. The conviction arose from an incident on 22 July 2014, when the informant and his son were allegedly intercepted by a group of persons on motorcycles while returning home after attending the last rites of a relative. According to the prosecution, the appellant fired a shot at the informant’s son on the instruction of another accused, causing the victim’s death from a gunshot injury.
The trial court relied principally on the testimony of a solitary eye‑witness to record a finding of guilt, holding that a conviction could be sustained on the evidence of a single witness if found reliable. The appellant preferred a criminal appeal before the Patna High Court challenging the judgment of the trial court.
Observations of the High Court
A Division Bench comprising Justice Bibek Chaudhuri and Justice Rana Vikram Singh took up the appeal. Before examining the merits, the Bench made a preliminary observation that the present appeal constitutes a classic example of improper, lackadaisical and indifferent investigation on the part of the Investigating Officer, which left material lacunae in the prosecution case.
The Court noted that the informant, who had lodged the First Information Report as an eye‑witness, did not support the prosecution case during the trial and did not implicate the appellant. Despite this, the prosecution did not declare the informant hostile. The Bench further examined the testimony of the prosecution’s alleged eye‑witness and found material contradictions between his examination‑in‑chief and cross‑examination, concluding that his evidence could not be regarded as of sterling quality. Consequently, the High Court held that the conviction could not be sustained solely on such evidence.