Patna High Court
Sikander Das vs The State Of Bihar on 10 March, 2026
Author: Purnendu Singh
Bench: Purnendu Singh
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL APPEAL (SJ) No.233 of 2014
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-259 Year-1999 Thana- AMARPUR District- Banka
======================================================
Sikander Das S/o Late Musahru Das Resident of Village Kaushalpur, P.S.
Amarpur, District Banka.
... ... Appellant/s
Versus
The State Of Bihar
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Appellant/s : Mr. Sanjay Kumar Jha, Advocate
Mr. Kumar Kamal Nayan, Advocate
For the Respondent/s : Mr. Abhay Kumar, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PURNENDU SINGH
ORAL JUDGMENT
Date : 10-03-2026
Heard Mr. Sanjay Kumar Jha, along with Mr.
Kumar Kamal Nayan, learned counsels appearing on behalf of
the Appellant and Mr. Abhay Kumar, learned APP for the State.
2. The present appeal has been filed under Sections
374 (2) and 389(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure
challenging the judgment of conviction and order of sentence
dated 22.04.2014 passed by the learned First Additional
Sessions Judge, Banka arising out of Amarpur P.S. Case No. 259
of 1999 whereby and whereunder the sole accused has been
convicted for the offence punishable under Section 324 of the
Indian Penal Code and has been sentenced to undergo Simple
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.233 of 2014 dt.10-03-2026
2/10
Imprisonment for three years.
3. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the
aforesaid judgment of conviction and order of sentence, the
appellant has preferred the present appeal before this Court. The
appellant has assailed the impugned judgment primarily on the
ground that the learned trial court failed to appreciate the
evidence available on record in its proper perspective and has
wrongly recorded the conviction of the appellant despite the
existence of serious contradictions and deficiencies in the
prosecution case.
4. That the prosecution story, in brief, is that on the
written complaint of the informant, namely Prakash Das, stating
therein that four days prior to the occurrence, accused Sikandar
Das came to the house of the informant and demanded money
from the father of the informant for purchasing liquor, and when
the money was not paid, Sikandar Das threatened him with dire
consequences. On 05.02.1999 some altercation took place
between the wife of the informant, namely Radha Devi, and
Sikandar Das with regard to the purchase of “souda”, as the wife
of the informant runs a general store shop. When the informant
objected to the same, Sikandar Das and Narayan Das abused
him and assaulted him, and thereafter Sikandar Das gave a blow
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.233 of 2014 dt.10-03-2026
3/10
with an axe on the head of the informant, causing injuries to
him. Thereafter, both the accused persons fled away from the
place of occurrence.
5. After investigation, learned Chief Judicial
Magistrate, Banka took cognizance of the offence and by order
dated 05.04.2006 the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Banka
committed the case to the Court of Sessions and the learned
Trial Court framed charges against the appellant under Sections
307, 323, 341 of the Indian Penal Code. The learned Trial Court
convicted the appellant by the judgment dated 22.04.2014.
6. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
appellants submitted that the impugned judgment of conviction
and order of sentence passed by the learned Trial Court is
unsustainable in the eye of law, as the same is based on
inconsistent and unreliable evidence. It is contended that there
are material contradictions between the ocular testimony of the
prosecution witnesses and the medical evidence on record.
Learned counsel draws the attention of this Court to paragraph 6
of the testimony of P.W.1, wherein he has stated that the
informant sustained injury by the sharp edge of an axe. In
paragraph 8 of his deposition, the witness stated that the assault
was made twice with the sharp edge of the axe, and in paragraph
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.233 of 2014 dt.10-03-2026
4/10
9 of the cross-examination he further stated that on both
occasions the entire sharp edge of the axe struck the head of the
informant. However, the injury report shows that both the
injuries found on the person of the informant were lacerated
wounds. P.W.6, Dr. Sirv Narayan Kanth, who examined the
injured, has also stated that both the injuries were caused by a
hard and blunt substance. It is therefore submitted that the
medical evidence is inconsistent with the ocular testimony of
P.W.1, as an injury caused by the sharp edge of an axe would
ordinarily result in an incised wound and not a lacerated wound.
7. Learned counsel further submitted that in
paragraph 10 of his deposition P.W.1 has stated that after the
informant fell down, no one assaulted him with a lathi. In
paragraph 11 of the cross-examination, the witness has stated
that prior to the alleged assault there was “dhakka-mukki”
(scuffle) and that blood had fallen on the ground, however, the
Investigating Officer has not been examined in the present case.
Learned counsel has also referred to paragraph 12 of the
testimony of P.W.1, wherein the witness stated that when the
informant was being taken to the hospital there was hulla
(commotion), and upon hearing the same he and his wife
reached the place of occurrence. In paragraph 14 of the cross-
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.233 of 2014 dt.10-03-2026
5/10examination, the witness denied the suggestion that he had not
stated before the police about the occurrence of dhakka-mukki.
However, in the absence of the examination of the Investigating
Officer, the defence has been deprived of the opportunity to
confront the witness with his previous statement recorded
during investigation, and therefore the benefit of such omission
ought to go in favour of the appellants.
ARGUMENT ON BEHALF OF THE STATE
8. Per contra, learned APP appearing for the State
while opposing the appeal submitted that the learned District
court, after considering all the evidences on record and exhibits
submitted on behalf of the parties during the course of trial, has
rightly convicted the appellants for said offences as the offences
alleged against the appellants appears to be serious in nature and
also constitutes cognizable offence.
ANALYSIS AND CONCLUSION
9. Heard the parties.
10. I have perused the lower court records and
proceedings and also taken note of the arguments canvassed by
learned counsel appearing on behalf of the parties.
11. The learned trial court, on the basis of materials as
collected during the course of investigation, passed the
Judgment of Conviction dated 22.04.2014 for the offences under
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.233 of 2014 dt.10-03-2026
6/10
Section 324 of the IPC.
12. During the trial, the prosecution has examined
altogether seven witnesses, namely:
(i) (P.W.-1),- Bhagirath Das
(ii) (P.W.-2),- Prakash Das/Informant
(iii) (P.W.-3),- Ashok Yadav
(iv) (P.W.-4/ ,- Ramchee Das
(v) (P.W.-5),- Shiro Das
(vi) (P.W.-6),- Dr. Shiv Narayan Kanth
(vii) (P.W.-7),- Dr. Chandramouli Upadhaya.
13. The prosecution has also relied upon following
documents exhibited during the course of trial:-
(i) Signature of the informant on the written
application.(Exhibit-1),
(ii) Injury report of the informant (Exhibit-2),
(iii) Photo copy of the supplementary injury report
of the informant (Exhibit-2/1),
(iv) Identification of the photo copy of discharge
ticket of the informant (Exhibit-x)
(v) Identification of the photo copy of C.T. Scan
Report of the informant (Exhibit-x/1)
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.233 of 2014 dt.10-03-2026
7/10
14. On the basis of materials surfaced during the trial,
the appellant/accused was examined under Section 313 of the
Cr.PC by putting incriminating circumstances/evidences
surfaced against him, which he denied and shows his complete
innocence.
15. It would be apposite to discuss the
oral/documentary evidences as available on record to re-
appreciate the evidences for just and proper disposal of the
present appeal.
16. It would be appropriate to reproduce the
provisions of Section 324 of the IPC for the sake of convenience
and better understanding of the facts, which are as under:
“324. Voluntarily causing hurt by
dangerous weapons or means.–
Whoever, except in the case provided for by
section 334, voluntarily causes hurt by means of
any instrument for shooting, stabbing or cutting,
or any instrument which, used as weapon of
offence, is likely to cause death, or by means of
fire or any heated substance, or by means of any
poison or any corrosive substance, or by means
of any explosive substance or by means of any
substance which it is deleterious to the human
body to inhale, to swallow, or to receive into the
blood, or by means of any animal, shall be
punished with imprisonment of either description
for a term which may extend to three years, or
with fine, or with both.”
17. Based on the analysis of the evidences and the
facts and law, in the present case, it appears that several
prosecution witnesses have not supported the prosecution case
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.233 of 2014 dt.10-03-2026
8/10
and have been declared hostile. The medical evidence also does
not support the prosecution case as the doctor PW 6 did not find
any injury on the informant caused by hard and blunt substance.
18. Upon a careful re-appraisal of the evidence
available on record, I find that the medical evidence tendered by
PW-6, the Medical Officer, assumes considerable significance.
PW-6 has categorically stated in the medical report as well as
during deposition that he did not find any injury on the body of
the informant. The evidence of PW-6, therefore, does not lend
corroboration to the prosecution case creating a serious doubt
about the occurrence.
19. It is well settled that the Court is required to
examine the prosecutrix’s testimony with greater caution. The
inconsistencies between the ocular and medical evidence create
uncertainty which goes to the root of the prosecution case. In
Sadashiv Ramrao Hadbe v. State of Maharashtra, reported in
(2006) 10 SCC 92, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that when
the version of the prosecutrix is not of sterling quality and is
inconsistent with the medical evidence, and when the
surrounding circumstances render the prosecution story
doubtful, the accused is entitled to the benefit of doubt. The
Court further held that conviction cannot be sustained where the
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.233 of 2014 dt.10-03-2026
9/10
prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable
doubt.
20. Applying the aforesaid legal principles to the
facts and the evidences of the present case, in light of the
conflicting versions of the prosecutrix, from what was stated in
the FIR and what was deposed before Court, results in material
inconsistencies and cannot be relied upon. The unequivocal
medical evidence of PW-6 indicating absence of injuries on the
body of the informant caused by hard and blunt substance, also
don’t corroborate with the versions of the prosecutrix, I am of
the view that the prosecution has miserably failed to establish
the charge beyond reasonable doubt. Consequently, the
appellant is entitled to the benefit of doubt and the conviction of
the appellant cannot be sustained.
21. In view of aforesaid discussions of factual and
legal aspects, the present appeal is allowed.
22. The impugned judgment of conviction and
order of sentence dated 22.04.2014 passed by the learned First
Additional Sessions Judge, Banka arising out of Amarpur P.S.
Case No. 259 of 1999 is hereby set aside. Consequently, the
above-named appellant/accused is acquitted from all the charges
levelled against him. Since the appellant is on bail, as such, he is
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.233 of 2014 dt.10-03-2026
10/10
discharged from the liability of his bail bond. The fine deposited
by the appellant, if any, shall be refunded to him.
(Purnendu Singh, J)
Ashishsingh/-
AFR/NAFR NAFR CAV DATE NA Uploading Date 16.03.2026 Transmission Date 16.03.2026