A 1980 Patna murder, a conviction in 1996 and an appeal decided only in 2026: the Patna High Court has acquitted two brothers, sentenced to life, on the benefit of doubt after finding that the medical evidence contradicted the weapons the eyewitnesses described.
Patna: The Patna High Court has set aside the life sentences of Vijay Kumar Rai and Prabhu Narayan Rai, convicted in 1996 for the death of Purushottam Prasad during a quarrel at a rented house in Patna on February 25, 1980, holding that the medical evidence contradicted the weapons the eyewitnesses attributed to them and that neither the Investigating Officer nor the post-mortem doctor was examined [Vijai Kumar Rai @ Vijay Kumar and Another v. The State of Bihar].
A Division Bench of Justice Anil Kumar Sinha and Justice Vikash Kumar allowed Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 132 of 1996 on October 30, 2026. Justice Anil Kumar Sinha wrote the judgment, and Justice Vikash Kumar concurred.
Where the wounds and the witnesses part ways
The doctor who examined Purushottam in the emergency ward found two incised injuries caused by a sharp cutting weapon and ruled out an iron rod. Yet every eyewitness said no sharp weapon was used by the appellants. The Bench noted that this was not a mere omission:
“Here, the medical evidence does not merely fail to corroborate the prosecution; it specifically contradicts the alleged weapon attributed to one of the appellants and identifies a different nature of weapon altogether.”
The witnesses also gave differing accounts of where the deceased and the assailants stood, and no independent person from the crowd that gathered was examined.
The prosecution case and the 1996 conviction
According to the informant, Gokul Yuvraj Lal, a tenant objected to dust as his mother swept the verandah around 7:30 am. Abuse followed, and the prosecution alleged that tenants from both floors, including the two appellants, came down with sticks, rods and a mosquito-net rod and assaulted the informant’s family. When his brother-in-law Purushottam Prasad tried to take his wife away, Vijay allegedly struck him on the head. He died in hospital at about 6 pm the same day.
The case was registered under assault provisions and later charge-sheeted with Section 302. The fifth Additional Sessions Judge, Patna, convicted Vijay under Section 302 IPC and Prabhu Narayan under Section 302 read with Section 34, sentencing both to life imprisonment and a fine of Rs 5,000 each, on March 26-27, 1996. The other co-accused were acquitted.
The witnesses who never came
The Court held that the absence of the Investigating Officer caused real prejudice because the defence could not prove contradictions with the earlier police statements or test the seizure and the scene. The post-mortem doctor was also not examined, and neither the post-mortem nor the inquest report was proved, leaving the precise cause of death unestablished.
“The real question, however, is not whether Purshottam died an unnatural death after an occurrence, but whether the prosecution has proved beyond reasonable doubt that the injuries causing his death were inflicted by Vijay Kumar and Prabhu Narayan in the manner alleged.”
Acquittal on the benefit of doubt
Noting that co-accused tried on the same evidence had been acquitted, and finding nothing qualitatively stronger against the appellants, the Bench set aside the conviction and acquitted both on the benefit of doubt. As they were on bail, they were discharged from their bail bonds. The Court recorded the assistance of Law Assistants Ram Lal Sharan and Atul Kumar.
What the judgment signals
Medical evidence is usually treated as corroborative, so minor gaps with eyewitness accounts rarely upset a conviction. The ruling marks the line: where the medical findings positively contradict the weapon and manner of assault described by the witnesses, and nobody explains how the fatal injuries were caused, the prosecution has not linked the accused to the death.
It also adds to a run of Patna High Court rulings on unexamined Investigating Officers and post-mortem doctors, and is a stark example of delay: an occurrence of 1980, a trial that ended in 1996 and an appeal decided only in 2026.
Case Title: Vijai Kumar Rai @ Vijay Kumar and Another v. The State of Bihar
Case No.: Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 132 of 1996
Bench: Justice Anil Kumar Sinha and Justice Vikash Kumar, Patna High Court
Date of Judgment: October 30, 2026
Appearances: Ajay Kumar Thakur, Rajesh Kumar, Priyanshu Ranjan and R. Pranshu Singh for the appellants; Sujit Kumar Singh for the State