The Patna High Court on January 22 examined a death reference and connected criminal appeals arising from a brutal triple murder in Bihar’s Rohtas district, where a land dispute within a family allegedly escalated into a sword attack that left three men dead. The case involves the confirmation of death sentences awarded by a trial court to two brothers, Aman Singh and Sonal Singh.
The matter was heard by a Division Bench of Justice Rajeev Ranjan Prasad and Justice Sourendra Pandey, which closely scrutinised evidence, witness testimony, and the conduct of the investigation.
Background of the Case
The prosecution story dates back to 13 July 2021, when a quarrel allegedly broke out over cultivation of a disputed piece of land in village Khudrao, under Darihat police station. According to the FIR lodged by Shakuntala Devi, her husband Vijay Singh and sons Deepak Singh and Rakesh Singh were first assaulted during an argument over ploughing the land.
The dispute, the prosecution claimed, did not end there. The accused - Aman Singh, Sonal Singh, and their father Ajay Singh - allegedly chased the victims to different locations before finally attacking them with swords near the family’s old house. All three injured men were taken to Sadar Hospital, Sasaram, where doctors declared them dead.
Police registered the case under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the IPC. After trial, the Additional Sessions Judge, Rohtas, convicted Aman Singh and Sonal Singh and sentenced them to death, while their father Ajay Singh absconded and was declared a proclaimed offender.
Evidence Before the Trial Court
During the trial, the prosecution examined six witnesses, including the informant, two daughters-in-law of the deceased, the investigating officer, and the doctor who conducted the post-mortem examinations.
Read also:- Maternity Leave Can’t Be Denied for Third Child: Madras High Court to Registry
Medical evidence showed multiple ante-mortem injuries on all three bodies. The post-mortem reports described deep incised wounds, fractured bones, and extensive bleeding, which doctors said were caused by sharp, heavy weapons. Forensic reports also confirmed the presence of human blood at the scene and on the recovered sword.
The trial court found that the eyewitness accounts were consistent on the core aspects of the incident. It held that minor contradictions did not weaken the prosecution case and concluded that the murders were committed in a “brutal and merciless manner” over a small land dispute.
Arguments Before the High Court
Challenging the conviction and sentence, defence counsel argued that the FIR was delayed and possibly ante-timed, claiming the earliest version of events had been suppressed. The defence also pointed to alleged contradictions in witness statements regarding the time and place of occurrence.
Read also:- UGC Equity Rules Face Supreme Court Challenge as Students, MPs Raise Alarm Over 'Biased' 2026 Regulations
Another major argument was that key witnesses, including the police officer who first reached the spot, were not examined, and that the investigation suffered from serious lapses. It was further contended that medical evidence did not fully support the prosecution’s version of how the attack unfolded.
On the other hand, counsel for the informant and the State argued that investigative lapses should not benefit the accused. They maintained that the evidence of the main eyewitness, the widow of one of the deceased, was natural and reliable.
“The court must separate deliberate falsehood from minor human error,” the informant’s counsel submitted, stressing that the core of the prosecution case remained intact.
Read also:- Arrest Illegal for Not Telling Reasons: Tripura High Court Grants Bail in NDPS Case
Court’s Observations
The High Court noted that while the investigation showed shortcomings, the defence had not seriously suggested false implication during cross-examination of key witnesses. The Bench observed that the testimony of close family members could not be discarded merely because of their relationship with the deceased.
Referring to settled Supreme Court law, the court remarked that criminal trials do not require “mathematical precision” and that rustic witnesses may narrate events differently without undermining the truth of the incident.
“The evidence must be read as a whole, not dissected line by line to search for trivial inconsistencies,” the Bench observed during the hearing.
Decision
After considering the prosecution evidence, defence submissions, and the trial court record, the Patna High Court proceeded to examine the death reference under Section 366 of the CrPC along with the criminal appeal filed by the convicts, arising from the judgment and sentence passed by the Rohtas sessions court.
Case Title: State of Bihar v. Aman Singh & Anr.
