Patna High Court
Arvind Kumar Singh And Ors vs The State Of Bihar on 22 April, 2026
Author: Purnendu Singh
Bench: Purnendu Singh
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL APPEAL (SJ) No.282 of 2011
======================================================
1. Arvind Kumar Singh S/O Shanker Singh R/O Village- Dhandiha, P.S-
Koelwar, Distt- Bhojpur.
2. Munna Singh @ Munna Kr.Singh S/O Shivaji Singh R/O Village- Dhandiha,
P.S- Koelwar, Distt- Bhojpur.
3. Pran Singh @ Pran Kr. Singh S/O Shivaji Singh R/O Village- Dhandiha, P.S-
Koelwar, Distt- Bhojpur.
... ... Appellant/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Appellant/s : Mr.Kamal Kishor Singh, Advocate
Mr.Tej Pratap Singh, Advocate
For the State : Mr.Rajendra Nath Singh, Spl.PP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PURNENDU SINGH
CAV JUDGMENT
Date : 22-04-2026
Heard Mr. Kamal Kishore Singh along with Mr.
Tej Pratap Singh, learned counsels appearing on behalf of the
appellants and Mr. Rajendra Nath Singh, learned Special PP 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 dated 14.09.2010 and
order of sentence dated 17.09.2010 passed by the learned
Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court I), Ara in Sessions
Trial No.212 of 2003 arising out of Koelwar P.S.Case
No.138/2000 corresponding to G.R.Case No.2967/2000,
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.282 of 2011 dt.22-04-2026
2/17
whereby and whereunder the appellants have been convicted for
the offence punishable under Section 307/34 of the Indian Penal
Code and have been sentenced to undergo Rigorous
Imprisonment for ten years under Sections 307/34 of Indian
Penal Code along with fine Rs.2000/- each.
3. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the
aforesaid judgment of conviction and order of sentence, the
appellants have preferred the present appeal before this Court.
The appellants have 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 appellants despite the
existence of serious contradictions and deficiencies in the
prosecution case.
4. The prosecution case is based on the fardbeyan
of the informant and injured Santosh Kumar Singh, recorded on
03.11.2000
at about 8:30 P.M. at Primary Health Centre,
Koilwar, wherein he alleged that on the same day at about 5:00
P.M., while he was standing near a gumti situated to the south of
Bajrangbali Temple in his village, accused Arvind Kumar Singh
came and started abusing him, and upon his objection, co-
accused Munna Singh and Pran Singh arrived armed with fasuli
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.282 of 2011 dt.22-04-2026
3/17
and katta; on the exhortation of Pran Singh, Munna Singh
assaulted him with a fasuli, causing injury on the left side of his
head and also on his hand when he tried to defend himself,
whereafter Pran Singh advanced towards him with a katta,
compelling him to flee to his house to save his life, and
subsequently, co-villagers took him to the hospital for treatment.
ARGUMENT ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANTS
5. 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
wholly unsustainable in the eyes of law as the same is based on
misappreciation of evidence and material available on record. It
is contended that out of 11 prosecution witnesses examined,
material witnesses, namely P.Ws. 1 to 4 and 8, have been
declared hostile and have not supported the prosecution case,
thereby seriously denting the prosecution version. The only
substantive evidence remains that of the informant (P.W. 9),
which, in absence of reliable corroboration, cannot be made the
sole basis of conviction under Section 307/34 IPC.
6. Learned counsel further submitted that even
from the prosecution case, the allegation is of a single blow by
fasuli causing injury on the head and hand, and there is no
evidence to suggest intention or knowledge to cause death so as
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.282 of 2011 dt.22-04-2026
4/17
to attract Section 307 IPC. The nature of injury, the manner of
occurrence, and the surrounding circumstances clearly indicate
that at best the case falls within the ambit of simple hurt or
grievous hurt, and not an attempt to murder. It is also argued
that there is admitted enmity between the parties arising out of a
prior dispute over irrigation water, which provides motive for
false implication.
7. Learned counsel further contended that the
learned Trial Court failed to properly appreciate the
contradictions and inconsistencies in the prosecution evidence
and has erroneously convicted the appellants under Section
307/34 IPC without there being cogent and reliable evidence of
common intention or premeditated attack. It is thus submitted
that the conviction of the appellants is liable to be set aside;
alternatively, considering the facts and circumstances of the
case, the offence may be suitably altered to a lesser offence
under Sections 323/324 IPC.
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
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.282 of 2011 dt.22-04-2026
5/17
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. 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.
11. During the trial, the prosecution has examined
altogether eleven witnesses, namely:
1. PW-1 – Ranjay Kumar Singh @ Sanjay Singh
2. PW-2 – Bengali Yadav
3. PW-3 – Baban Sah
4. PW-4 – Langar Sah
5. PW-5 – Mahendra Singh
6. PW-6 – Paramhans Singh
7. PW-7 – Munna Singh (S/o Mahendra Singh)
8. PW-8 – Balram Singh
9. PW-9-Santosh Kumar Singh (Informant & Injured)
10. PW-10 – Saryu Prasad (Investigating Officer)
11. PW-11 – Dr. Ganesh Prasad (Medical Officer)
12. Upon a meticulous examination of the record, the
evidence of the prosecution witnesses (PWs) can be
summarised as follows:
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.282 of 2011 dt.22-04-2026
6/17(I) PW-1: Ranjay Kumar Singh @ Sanjay Singh
was examined as a prosecution witness but did not support the
prosecution case and was declared hostile.
(II) PW-2: Bengali Yadav also failed to support the
prosecution case during trial and was declared hostile.
(III) PW-3: Baban Sah did not support the
prosecution version and was declared hostile.
(IV) PW-4: Langar Sah similarly did not support
the prosecution case and was declared hostile.
(V) PW-5: Mahendra Singh deposed that the
occurrence took place on 03.11.2000 at about 5:00 PM while he
was returning from Kollwar market along with others. Near the
Hanuman temple, he saw the accused persons–Munna Singh,
Arvind Kumar Singh, and Pran Singh–abusing Santosh Kumar.
On the provocation of Pran Singh, Munna Singh assaulted
Santosh Kumar with a sharp cutting weapon (Pasuli) 2-3 times,
causing injuries on his head, chest, and hand. The informant fled
towards his house, and the accused persons also moved towards
him before fleeing.
In cross-examination, he stated that the place of
occurrence was about 500 yards from the informant’s house, and
blood had fallen both at the spot and along the path. He also
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.282 of 2011 dt.22-04-2026
7/17
clarified that the assault began shortly after his arrival.
(VI) PW-6: Paramhans Singh stated that on the
same date and time, while proceeding towards Dhandiha, he
saw the accused persons abusing Santosh Singh near the
Bajrangbali temple. On the order of Pran Singh, Munna Singh
assaulted Santosh Singh with a Pasuli, causing injuries on his
head, chest, and hand. When Santosh attempted to flee, Pran
Singh fired at him with a firearm.
In cross-examination, he stated that the occurrence
lasted about 1-2 minutes and that he witnessed the assault upon
reaching the place of occurrence.
(VII) PW-7: Munna Singh (S/o Mahendra Singh)
deposed that about 4-5 years prior, at around 5:00 PM, he was
present at a tea stall near Pan Gumti. He saw the accused
persons armed with weapons (Pasuli and Katta). On the
provocation of Pran Singh, Munna Singh and Arvind Kumar
Singh assaulted Santosh Singh with Pasuli, causing injuries on
his head, chest, and hand. Thereafter, Pran Singh fired at
Santosh Singh while he was fleeing.
In cross-examination, he stated that he gave his
statement to police the next day and that blood was oozing from
the injuries and had fallen on the ground.
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.282 of 2011 dt.22-04-2026
8/17
(VIII) PW-8: Balram Singh did not support the
prosecution case and was declared hostile.
(IX) PW-9: Santosh Kumar Singh (Informant &
Injured Witness) stated that on 03.11.2000 at about 5:00 PM,
while he was standing near Pan Gumti in his village, the
accused persons came and abused him. When he objected, on
the order of Pran Singh, Munna Singh assaulted him with a
Pasuli on his head. Arvind Kumar Singh also attempted to
assault him, causing injuries on his hand and head while he tried
to defend himself. Thereafter, Pran Singh fired at him, and he
fled towards his house to save his life while being chased by the
accused. He proved his fardbeyan and signatures thereon. He
also stated that there was prior dispute regarding irrigation.
In cross-examination, he stated that the occurrence
lasted about 3-4 minutes and resulted in bleeding injuries.
(X) PW-10: Saryu Prasad (Investigating Officer)
stated that he identified the signature on the fardbeyan and took
over the investigation. He recorded statements of witnesses,
inspected the place of occurrence (near Pan Gumti and
Bajrangbali temple in Village Dhandiha), and found evidence
supporting the occurrence. After investigation and supervision
by the Dy. S.P., he submitted charge-sheet under Section 307/34
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.282 of 2011 dt.22-04-2026
9/17
IPC.
In cross-examination, he admitted prior dispute
between parties regarding irrigation.
(XI) PW-11: Dr. Ganesh Prasad (Medical Officer)
deposed that on 03.11.2000 at 5:30 PM, he examined the injured
Santosh Kumar Singh and found the following injuries:
1. Sharp cutting injury on left parietal region (bone deep)
2. Sharp cut injury on left chest (skin deep)
3. Sharp cut injury on right ring finger
4. Sharp cut injury on left ring finger
He opined that all injuries were caused by a sharp
cutting weapon and were simple in nature.In cross-examination,
he confirmed that all injuries were simple.
13. On the basis of materials surfaced during the trial,
the appellants/accused were examined under Section 313 of the
CrPC by putting incriminating circumstances/evidences
surfaced against him, which he denied and shows his complete
innocence.
14. It would be appropriate to reproduce the
provision of Sections 299 and 307 of the IPC for the sake of
convenience and better understanding of the facts, which is as
under:-
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.282 of 2011 dt.22-04-2026
10/17“299- Culpable homicide.–
Whoever causes death by doing an act with
the intention of causing death, or with the
intention of causing such bodily injury as is
likely to cause death, or with the knowledge
that he is likely by such act to cause death,
commits the offence of culpable homicide.
Illustrations(a)A lays sticks and
turf over a pit, with the intention of thereby
causing death, or with the knowledge that
death is likely to be thereby caused. Z
believing the ground to be firm, treads on it,
falls in and is killed. A has committed the
offence of culpable homicide
(b)A knows Z to be behind a bush.
B does not know it A, intending to cause, or
knowing it to be likely to cause Z’s death,
induces B to fire at the bush. B fires and kills
Z. Here B may be guilty of no offence; but A
has committed the offence of culpable
homicide.
(c)A, by shooting at a fowl with
intent to kill and steal it, kills B who is
behind a bush; A not knowing that he was
there. Here, although A was doing an
unlawful act, he was not guilty of culpable
homicide, as he did not intend to kill B, or to
cause death by doing an act that he knew
was likely to cause death.
307. Attempt to murder.–
Whoever does any act with such intention or
knowledge, and under such circumstances
that, if he by that act caused death, he would
be guilty of murder, shall be punished with
imprisonment of either description for a term
which may extend to ten years, and shall
also be liable to fine; and if hurt is caused to
any person by such act, the offender shall be
liable either to [imprisonment for life], or to
such punishment as is hereinbefore
mentioned. Attempts by life-convicts.–
[When any person offending under this
section is under sentence of [imprisonment
for life], he may, if hurt is caused, be
punished with death].”
15. The record reveals that P.W.-1 P.W.-2, P.W.-3,
P.W.- 4 and P.W.-8 were declared hostile during the trial as
nothing transpired from their testimony during the trial which
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.282 of 2011 dt.22-04-2026
11/17
may be said relevant for the purpose of corroborating or
contradicting the version of other prosecution witnesses, who
supported the crime in question during the trial. Therefore, the
testimony of these witnesses are not relevant qua establishing
guilt of the accused/appellants.
16. The case of the prosecution rests primarily upon
the testimonies of PW-5, PW-6, PW-7 and PW-9. Although
these witnesses have broadly supported the prosecution version,
their evidence requires cautious scrutiny in light of the hostility
of other witnesses and the admitted prior dispute between the
parties concerning irrigation, which suggests the possibility of
enmity. PW-9, the informant and an injured witness, has
attributed the assault to the accused persons; however, his own
evidence indicates that the occurrence took place suddenly and
within a short span of time. His cross-examination further brings
on record prior enmity, which necessitates a careful and guarded
appreciation of his testimony. As regards PW-5, PW-6 and PW-
7, while they support the prosecution case in material
particulars, their evidence is marked by minor inconsistencies
with respect to the manner and sequence of occurrence, and
their presence at the exact time and place does not appear to be
wholly free from doubt.
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.282 of 2011 dt.22-04-2026
12/17
17. The medical evidence of PW-11, the doctor,
assumes considerable significance in this context. It reveals that
all injuries sustained by the informant are simple in nature and
caused by a sharp cutting weapon, no grievous injury or injury
dangerous to life has been found. Moreover, despite allegations
of firing, no firearm injury has been detected on the person of
the informant, which materially weakens the prosecution case
insofar as it seeks to establish the intention to commit murder. In
the cumulative assessment of the evidence, the discrepancies in
the ocular testimony, read with the medical evidence, give rise
to reasonable doubt regarding the prosecution’s version,
entitling the accused to the benefit thereof.
18. The Apex Court laid down the litmus test for
determination of nature of offence in Pulicherla Nagaraju v.
State of A.P. reported in (2007) 1 SCC (Cri) 500. In the facts
and circumstances of a particular case, the Court needs to decide
the pivotal question of existence of intention with care and
caution. The following factors needs to be examined:
(i) nature of the weapon used;
(ii)whether the weapon was carried by the accused
or was picked up from the spot;
(iii) whether the blow is aimed at a vital part of the
body;
(iv) the amount of force employed in causing
injury;
(v) whether the act was in the course of sudden
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.282 of 2011 dt.22-04-2026
13/17quarrel or sudden fight or free for all fight;
(vi) whether the incident occurs by chance or
whether there was any premeditation;
(vii) whether there was any prior enmity or whether
the deceased was a stranger;
(viii) whether there was any grave and sudden
provocation, and if so, the cause for such provocation;
(ix) whether it was in the heat of passion;
(x) whether the person inflicting the injury has
taken undue advantage or has acted in a cruel and unusual
manner;
(xi) whether the accused dealt a single blow or
several blows.
19. It is well settled that an attempt to commit murder
must be clearly distinguished from a mere intention to commit
the offence or from acts that amount only to preparation for its
commission. The law recognizes that the existence of a guilty
intention alone is not sufficient to constitute an attempt. There
must be something more than planning or arranging the means
to commit the crime. Therefore, in order to secure a conviction
under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code, the prosecution
must prove the presence of a definite intention or knowledge to
cause death, accompanied by some overt act that directly moves
towards the execution of that intention. In other words, the
accused must not only possess the intention to commit murder
but must also perform an act that clearly demonstrates the
commencement of the offence. A reference in this regard has
been made by the Apex Court in the case of Sivamani v. State,
reported in, 2023 SCC OnLine SC 1581, wherein in paragraph
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.282 of 2011 dt.22-04-2026
14/17
no. 9 has been held as under:
“9. In State of Madhya Pradesh v.
Saleem, (2005) 5 SCC 554, the Court held that to
sustain a conviction under Section 307, IPC, it was
not necessary that a bodily injury capable of
resulting in death should have been inflicted. As
such, non-conviction under Section 307, IPC on the
premise only that simple injury was inflicted does not
follow as a matter of course. In the same judgment, it
was pointed out that ‘…The court has to see whether
the act, irrespective of its result, was done with the
intention or knowledge and under circumstances
mentioned in the section.’ The position that because
a fatal injury was not sustained alone does not
dislodge Section 307, IPC conviction has been
reiterated in Jage Ram v. State of Haryana, (2015)
11 SCC 366 and State of Madhya Pradesh v. Kanha,
(2019) 3 SCC 605. Yet, in Jage Ram (supra) and
Kanha (supra), it was observed that while grievous
or life-threatening injury was not necessary to
maintain a conviction under Section 307, IPC, ‘The
intention of the accused can be ascertained from the
actual injury, if any, as well as from surrounding
circumstances. Among other things, the nature of the
weapon used and the severity of the blows inflicted
can be considered to infer intent.”
20. The similar question came up before the Supreme
Court in the case of Joseph v. State of Kerala, reported in 1995
SCC (Cri) 165 has observed in para 3 which is reproduced
hereinafter:
“3. In this appeal the learned
counsel for the appellant submits that the
intention to cause the injury which was found
sufficient to cause the death in the ordinary
course of the nature was not established. In
support of this submission he relied on the
circumstances namely that the whole incident
took place because of a trivial incident which
resulted in a quarrel and that the weapon
used was only a lathi and in the
circumstances it cannot be said that the
accused intended to cause the death by
inflicting that particular injury which
objectively was proved by the medical
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.282 of 2011 dt.22-04-2026
15/17evidence to be sufficient in the ordinary
course of nature to cause death. In other
words he submits that clause 3rdly of Section
300 IPC is not attracted in this case. We find
considerable force in the submission. The
weapon used is not a deadly weapon as
rightly contended by the learned counsel. The
whole occurrence was a result of a trivial
incident and in those circumstances the
accused dealt two blows on the head with a
lathi, therefore, it cannot be stated that he
intended to cause the injury which is
sufficient (sic). At the most it can be said that
by inflicting such injuries he had knowledge
that he was likely to cause the death. In
which case the offence committed by him
would be culpable homicide not amounting
to murder. We accordingly set aside the
conviction of the appellant under Section 302
IPC and the sentence of imprisonment for life
awarded thereunder. Instead we convict the
appellant under Section 304 Part II IPC and
sentence him to five years’ RI.”
21.The judgment of Joseph (supra) has been
referred by the Apex Court in the case of Jugatram Vs. State of
Chhattisgarh, reported in (2020) 9 SCC 520.
22. Admittedly, from the prosecution case itself as
based on the fardbeyan of the informant, it is clear that the
alleged occurrence was not premeditated but took place on the
spur of the moment, arising out of a sudden verbal altercation
near the gumti which quickly escalated into a physical
confrontation there is nothing on record to suggest any prior
meeting of minds or pre-planned intention on the part of the
accused, “rather the circumstances indicate that the act was
committed in the heat of passion upon a sudden quarrel, where
emotions were inflamed and self-control was momentarily lost,
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.282 of 2011 dt.22-04-2026
16/17
and even the nature of the injuries, including those sustained
when the informant attempted to defend himself, reinforces the
spontaneity of the incident, thereby clearly demonstrating
absence of intention to cause death and constituting a strong
mitigating circumstance warranting a lenient view”.
23. In view of aforesaid discussions of factual and
legal aspects, and upon a comprehensive re-appreciation of the
entire evidence available on record, this Court is of the
considered opinion that the prosecution has failed to prove the
charge under Section 307/34 of the Indian Penal Code beyond
reasonable doubt. The inconsistencies in the ocular evidence,
absence of reliable corroboration, admitted enmity between the
parties, and the medical evidence indicating only simple injuries
cumulatively create a reasonable doubt which goes to the root of
the prosecution case. The essential ingredients required to attract
Section 307 IPC, particularly the intention or knowledge to
cause death, are not established in the facts and circumstances
of the present case. It appears that the prosecution has miserably
failed to establish the charges levelled against the
appellants/accused during the trial.
24. Accordingly, the present Appeal is allowed.
25. Accordingly, this Court finds that the impugned
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.282 of 2011 dt.22-04-2026
17/17
judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 10.02.2011
and the order dated 14.02.2011 passed by the learned Additional
Sessions Judge-IV, Gaya in Sessions Trial No.
317/2009/518/2006 arising out of Buniyadganj P.S. Case No. 13
of 2006 are hereby set aside. The above-named
appellant/accused are acquitted from all the charges levelled
against them. Since the appellants are on bail, as such, they are
discharged from the liability of their bail bond. The fine
deposited by the appellants, if any, shall be refunded to them.
(Purnendu Singh, J)
chn/-
AFR/NAFR AFR CAV DATE 06.04.2026 Uploading Date 22.04.2026 Transmission Date 22.04.2026
