Lexpedia — Digital Smart Study
Latest Judgement

Rajeev Singh @ Rajeev Kumar v. State of Bihar, 2026

Patna High Court ·7 May 2026
Rajeev Singh @ Rajeev Kumar v. State of Bihar, 2026
Share:

Judgement Details

Court

Patna High Court

Date of Decision

7 May 2026

Judges

Justice Bibek Chaudhuri and Justice Ansul

Citation

Acts / Provisions

Section 13(1)(ia), Hindu Marriage Act, 1955

Section 25, Hindu Marriage Act, 1955

Facts of the Case

  • The informant (PW-3) lodged the FIR based on his fardbeyan.

  • On 17.02.2012 at about 8:30 PM, the informant and his brother were at their shop when:

    • Several co-villagers along with others arrived.

    • The accused persons asked the informant’s brother to accompany them.

    • The brother went with them.

  • The informant allegedly followed and witnessed:

    • The accused assaulting the deceased near a well.

    • The accused forcibly taking him away on a motorcycle.

  • The deceased could not be traced despite searches conducted during the night.

  • Allegation: murder due to a ₹5 lakh monetary dispute.

  • Trial court convicted the accused under Sections 302/34, 364/34, and 120B IPC.

Issues

  1. Whether the prosecution has proved the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt based on circumstantial evidence and last seen theory?

  2. Whether contradictions in witness testimony affect the credibility of the prosecution case?

  3. Whether the FIR assumes relevance under Section 11 of the Evidence Act when it is based on a witness’s version?

  4. Whether failure to produce station diary entries and call detail records weakens the prosecution case?

  5. Whether the prosecution established a complete chain of circumstantial evidence pointing to guilt?

Held

  • The prosecution failed to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt.

  • The conviction and sentence were set aside.

  • The appeals were allowed, resulting in acquittal of the accused.

Analysis

  • The Court reaffirmed that FIR is not a substantive piece of evidence.

  • It can be used only for corroboration or contradiction.

  • Exception applied from Ram Kumar Pandey v. State of M.P., where FIR may gain relevance under Section 11 Evidence Act.

  • The Court emphasized the importance of a complete chain of circumstantial evidence.

  • Key investigative lapses noted:

    • Absence of station diary entries

    • Non-production of call detail records

    • Contradictions in witness statements

  • The judgment strongly relied on the principle of benefit of doubt.

  • It highlighted that the last seen theory alone is insufficient without corroboration.