Patna High Court
Surendra Yadav vs The State Of Bihar on 13 July, 2026
Author: Shailendra Singh
Bench: Shailendra Singh
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL APPEAL (SJ) No.1852 of 2022
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-365 Year-2020 Thana- AKBARPUR District- Nawada
======================================================
Surendra Yadav, Son of Sahdeo Yadav, Resident of Village - Dariyapur Tola
Harbanshbigha, Police Station- Akbarpur, District - Nawadah.
... ... Appellant/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Appellant : Mr. Nilendu Kr. Choudhary, Advocate
For the State : Ms. Anita Kumari Singh, APP
For the Informant : Mr. Krishna Kant Singh, Advocate
Mr. Kundan Kumar, Advocate
Mr. Kumar Shaswat Anand, Advocate
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHAILENDRA SINGH
ORAL JUDGMENT
Date : 13-07-2026
Heard Mr. Nilendu Kr. Choudhary, learned counsel
for the appellant, Mr. Krishna Kant Singh, learned counsel for
the informant and Mrs. Anita Kumari Singh, learned Additional
Public Prosecutor (APP) for the State.
2. The present criminal appeal has been preferred
by the appellant assailing the judgment of conviction dated
22.04.2022
and the order of sentence dated 28.04.2022 passed
by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-XII, Nawada, in
Sessions Trial No. 176 of 2021, arising out of Akbarpur P.S.
Case No. 365 of 2020, whereby and whereunder the appellant
has been convicted for the offences punishable under Sections
341 and 307 of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.1852 of 2022 dt.13-07-2026
2/18
the “IPC“) and Section 27 of the Arms Act. Upon conviction, the
appellant has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment
for a period of ten years and to pay a fine of Rs. 5,000/- for the
offence punishable under Section 307 of the IPC, and in default
of payment of fine, to further undergo rigorous imprisonment
for six months. For the offence punishable under Section 341 of
the IPC, the appellant has been sentenced to undergo simple
imprisonment for thirty days and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/-, and
in default of payment of fine, to further undergo simple
imprisonment for seven days. For the offence punishable under
Section 27 of the Arms Act, the appellant has been sentenced to
undergo rigorous imprisonment for five years and to pay a fine
of Rs. 2,000/-, and in default of payment of fine, to further
undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months. It has further
been directed that all the sentences awarded to the appellant
shall run concurrently.
3. Prosecution Story:-
The prosecution case is founded on the fardbeyan
of Mithlesh Yadav, aged about 32 years, recorded by Sub-
Inspector Bijay Kumar at about 2:20 p.m. on 10.07.2020 in the
Surgical Ward of Sadar Hospital, Nawada. In his fardbeyan, the
informant, Mithlesh Yadav, stated that on 10.07.2020, while
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.1852 of 2022 dt.13-07-2026
3/18Surendra Yadav (the present appellant) was riding a motorcycle
at a high speed near the house of his aunt, Basanti Devi, the
motorcycle hit a baby goat belonging to her. When Basanti Devi
objected to the appellant’s rash and negligent driving within the
village, the appellant allegedly retorted that if he could run over
a human being with his motorcycle, a baby goat was of little
consequence. This gave rise to a verbal altercation between
them. It has further been alleged that, soon thereafter, Surendra
Yadav, along with Vinod Yadav, Shankar Yadav, Lalo Yadav,
Saklesh Yadav, Laxman Yadav, Kaushal Yadav and Chameli
Devi, reached the place of occurrence armed with lathis, sticks
and a rifle. According to the informant, the appellant snatched
the rifle from the hands of his mother, Chameli Devi, and fired
at the chest of Basanti Devi, causing her a grievous firearm
injury.
4. On the basis of the aforesaid fardbeyan,
Akbarpur P.S. Case No. 365 of 2020 was registered against
eight named accused persons, including the present appellant,
for the offences punishable under Sections 147, 148, 149, 341
and 307 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 27 of the Arms
Act. Consequently, the criminal law was set into motion.
5. Upon completion of the investigation, the
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.1852 of 2022 dt.13-07-2026
4/18
Investigating Officer submitted charge-sheet against the present
appellant for the offences punishable under Sections 147, 148,
149, 341 and 307 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 27 of the
Arms Act, while keeping the investigation pending against the
remaining FIR-named accused persons.
6. Upon receipt of the charge-sheet, the learned
jurisdictional Magistrate took cognizance of the offences
punishable under Sections 147, 148, 341 and 307 read with
Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 27 of the
Arms Act against the appellant. Since the offences were
exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions, the case was
committed to the Court of Sessions for trial in accordance with
law.
7. Upon committal of the case, charges were
framed against the appellant for the offences punishable under
Sections 147, 148, 341 and 307 read with Section 149 of the
Indian Penal Code and Section 27 of the Arms Act, to which the
appellant pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
8. During the trial, the prosecution examined the
following witnesses:
Sl. No. Name of Witness Description
PW-1 Mithilesh Yadav Informant/Relative witness
PW-2 Raj Kumar Yadav Relative Witness
PW-3 Basanti Devi Injured
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.1852 of 2022 dt.13-07-2026
5/18
PW-4 Priti Devi Relative Witness
PW-5 Dr. Sri Kant Prasad Doctor
PW-6 Raju Kumar Investigating Officer
PW-7 Meena Devi Relative Witness
PW-8 Ravi Shankar Prasad Formal
Witness(Chowkidar)
9. The prosecution also proved the following
documents and got them marked as exhibits:
Sl. No. Exhibit Description of Exhibit Proved
No. By
1. Exhibit-1 Signature of the informant on PW-1
fardbeyan
2. Exhibit-1/1 The written content and The then
signature on the endorsement SHO
of the then SHO Munna
Kumar
3. Exhibit-2 Signature of one Satyendra The then
and Mithilesh (PW-1) SHO,
Munna
Kumar
4. Exhibit-3 Injury report of Basanti Devi PW-5
issued by Sadar Hospital,
Nawada
5. Exhibit-3/1 Injury report of Basanti Devi Dr. Varun
issued by SRM Hospital, Kumar
Patna Sharma
6. Exhibit-4 Written content and signature The then
on formal FIR SHO,
Munna
Kumar
7. Exhibit-5 Written content and signature Police
on Production cum Seizure Officer,
List Ajay
Kumar
8. Exhibit-5/1 Written content and signature Police
on Search cum Seizure List Officer,
Ajay
Kumar
9. Exhibit-6 Written content and signature PW-6
on final form
10. Exhibit-7 Charge sheet of Akbarpur Certified
P.S. Case No. 07/17 copy
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.1852 of 2022 dt.13-07-2026
6/18
10. Upon completion of the prosecution evidence,
the statement of the appellant was recorded under Section 313
of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to
as the “Cr.P.C.”). The appellant denied all the incriminating
circumstances appearing against him in the prosecution
evidence and claimed innocence, asserting that he had been
falsely implicated in the present case.
11. The appellant examined three defence witnesses
in support of his defence who are as follows:-
Sl. No. Name of Witness Description
DW-1 Gore Lal Chauhan Co-villager of the
appellant
DW-2 Bhikhari Yadav Co-villager & uncle of
Upendra Yadav
DW-3 Arjun Yadav Co-villager
12. The appellant produced following documentary
evidence in his defence:-
Sl. Exhibit Description of Exhibit Proved
No. No. By/Attes
ted By
1. Exhibit-A Fardbeyan of injured PW-3
Basanti Devi
2. Exhibit-B An order of ADM, Nawada, Certified
dated 01.03.2019 in Copy
Revision Mutation Case No.
150/17-18
3. Exhibit-B/1 An order dated 06.01.2020 Certified
of SDO Court Rajauli in Copy
Case No. 122/M/2019 Arjun
Yadav Vs. Bundi Yadav &
Others.
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.1852 of 2022 dt.13-07-2026
7/18
4. Exhibit-C FIR of Akbarpur P.S. Case Certified
No. 434/20 dated Copy
07.08.2020
5. Exhibit-D Petition for initiation of Certified
proceeding of Section 144 Copy
of Cr.P.C.
13. During trial, following material objects were
produced before the trial court:-
Sl. No. Material Object Description
No.
1. i, ii, ii/1 Recovered and seized
bullet shells and pellets
from the first place of
occurrence
2. i/1, i/2, ii/2 Recovered and seized
bullet shells and pellets
from the second place of
occurrence.
Submissions on behalf of the appellant:-
14. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant,
while referring to the fardbeyan of the informant, which forms
the foundation of the prosecution case, the testimonies of PWs.-
1 to 4, and placing reliance upon paragraph no. 55 of the
judgment of the Hon’ble Patna High Court in Sanjay Yadav v.
The State of Bihar, reported in 2022 (1) PLJR 238, submitted
that the prosecution has failed to establish the place of
occurrence beyond reasonable doubt. It has been contended that
the evidence adduced by the prosecution discloses two distinct
places of occurrence, which creates a material inconsistency in
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.1852 of 2022 dt.13-07-2026
8/18
the prosecution case and is sufficient to cast a serious doubt on
its veracity, thereby entitling the appellant to the benefit of
doubt. It has further been contended that the informant has been
wrongly projected as an eye-witness to the occurrence and that
the earliest and true version of the incident, disclosing the actual
manner of occurrence, has been deliberately suppressed by the
prosecution. Learned counsel further submitted that the
Investigating Officer did not inspect the place of occurrence as
described in the First Information Report, a fact which,
according to the defence, stands admitted by him during his
deposition before the trial court. It has also been argued that
although the injured was initially referred to a Government
Hospital, she was subsequently shifted to a private hospital
without any explanation from the prosecution. According to
learned counsel, the medical evidence adduced by the
prosecution suffers from material inconsistencies, inasmuch as
the nature and measurements of the injuries recorded in the
injury report prepared at Sadar Hospital, Nawada, where the
injured was first examined, materially differ from those
recorded in the subsequent injury report issued by SRM Royal
Multi Speciality Hospital Pvt. Ltd., Patna, where she was
thereafter treated. It is, therefore, submitted that these
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.1852 of 2022 dt.13-07-2026
9/18
contradictions strike at the root of the prosecution case and
render the medical evidence wholly unreliable.
Submissions on behalf of the respondent:-
15. Per contra, learned Additional Public Prosecutor
appearing for the State, duly supported by the learned counsel
appearing for the informant, submitted that the prosecution has
succeeded in establishing the place of occurrence as disclosed in
the fardbeyan of the informant, which also finds corroboration
from the testimony of the injured victim. It has further been
submitted that the existence of prior enmity between the parties
is an admitted fact and, therefore, the prosecution case cannot be
discarded on that ground alone. Learned counsel has further
contended that the allegation of firearm injury inflicted upon the
victim stands duly corroborated by the medical evidence on
record. It has been argued that the learned trial court has
correctly appreciated the oral as well as documentary evidence
and has rightly recorded the conviction of the appellant for the
offences charged.
Consideration and Analysis:-
16. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties,
carefully examined the evidence adduced during trial and
perused the statement of the appellant recorded under Section
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.1852 of 2022 dt.13-07-2026
10/18313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The prosecution case is
founded on the fardbeyan of PW-1 (Mithlesh Yadav), who
claimed himself to be an eye-witness to the occurrence.
However, the testimony of PW-7, the daughter-in-law of the
injured, assumes considerable significance in this regard. In
paragraph 11 of her cross-examination, she categorically stated
that, at the time of the occurrence, except herself, all the male
and female members of the family had gone to the agricultural
field for paddy transplantation and returned to the place of
occurrence only about half an hour later. She further deposed
that PW-1 (Mithlesh Yadav), PW-2 (Raj Kumar Yadav) and PW-
4 (Priti Devi) were also present in the field and were engaged in
agricultural work at the relevant time. Since PW-7 claimed to be
the only family member present near the house when the
occurrence allegedly took place, her testimony assumes
considerable importance for determining the presence of the
informant at the place of occurrence. Her evidence, however, is
wholly inconsistent with the claim of PW-1 that he had
witnessed the occurrence, thereby creating a serious doubt
regarding his status as an eye-witness.
17. Coming now to the place and manner of
occurrence, the prosecution version as disclosed in the First
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.1852 of 2022 dt.13-07-2026
11/18
Information Report is that, on 10.07.2020, the appellant, while
riding a motorcycle at a high speed, dashed against a kid of a
goat near the house of the injured, Basanti Devi. When the
injured objected to his rash driving, an altercation ensued.
Thereafter, the remaining accused persons allegedly arrived near
the house of the injured armed with lathis, dandas and a rifle,
whereupon the appellant snatched the rifle from the hands of his
mother, Chameli Devi, and fired at the chest of the injured,
causing the firearm injury. However, while deposing before the
trial court, PW-1 materially departed from the version contained
in his fardbeyan. He stated that, after the initial altercation, the
co-accused persons, all armed with firearms, arrived at the place
of occurrence and exhorted the appellant to kill the injured.
According to him, the injured then ran into the house of one
Rooplal Yadav and was followed by Vinod Yadav, Kaushal
Yadav and Laxman Yadav. Out of fear, she proceeded to the roof
of the said house. PW-1 further deposed that the appellant,
Chameli Devi and Lalo Yadav were already standing on the
southern side and, on the exhortation of Lalo Yadav, Chameli
Devi handed over the rifle to the appellant, who fired at the
injured while she was standing on the roof. If this version is
accepted, it necessarily follows that the injured sustained the
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.1852 of 2022 dt.13-07-2026
12/18
firearm injury while standing on the roof of the house of
Rooplal Yadav, whereas the appellant and the co-accused were
allegedly positioned elsewhere. PW-1 further stated that
indiscriminate firing continued for nearly half an hour and that
one empty cartridge and two pellets were recovered from the
roof of Rooplal Yadav’s house, while another empty cartridge
and two pellets were recovered from the house of Upendra
Yadav. These material departures relating to the place of
occurrence, the manner of assault, the weapons allegedly carried
by the accused, the relative positions of the parties and the
recovery of cartridges and pellets from two different locations
fundamentally alter the prosecution story as narrated in the FIR.
The evidence, therefore, suggests that the prosecution has not
presented a consistent account of the occurrence, thereby
rendering its version doubtful.
18. It is further noteworthy that, although PW-1
purported to support the prosecution case, he admitted during
cross-examination that the injured, in her own fardbeyan
recorded at Patna, had not stated that the appellant had arrived
on a motorcycle, driven it rashly, quarrelled over a kid of a goat
or that Chameli Devi had handed over a firearm to the appellant,
who thereafter fired upon her. PW-1 thus contradicted the
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.1852 of 2022 dt.13-07-2026
13/18
version attributed to the injured herself. PW-1 also made
inconsistent statements regarding the recording of his fardbeyan.
In paragraph 8 of his cross-examination, he first stated that it
had been recorded at Sadar Hospital, Nawada, by the Station
House Officer of Akbarpur Police Station. He thereafter stated
that it had been recorded by the Station House Officer of
Nawada Police Station and further asserted that the statement
recorded by the latter constituted his first fardbeyan. These
contradictory statements create uncertainty regarding the
genesis of the prosecution case. Similarly, PW-1 claimed in his
examination-in-chief that the seizure of cartridges and pellets
was effected in his presence and that he witnessed the
preparation of the seizure list. However, in paragraph 17 of his
cross-examination, he admitted that at the relevant time, he was
present in the hospital, thereby materially contradicting his
earlier assertion.
19. The submission regarding suppression of the
earliest version of the occurrence also merits consideration. PW-
2 (Raj Kumar Yadav), in paragraph 3 of his cross-examination,
deposed that one Upendra Yadav had submitted an application
before Akbarpur Police Station at about 1:00 p.m. regarding the
occurrence. Although PW-2 was not an eye-witness, his
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.1852 of 2022 dt.13-07-2026
14/18
testimony indicates that an earlier information had reached the
police prior to the registration of the FIR. The prosecution
neither produced the said application nor offered any
explanation for its non-production. This lends support to the
defence contention that the earliest version of the occurrence
was withheld from the Court. PW-2 further deposed that no
cartridge or firearm was recovered from the house of the
appellant and that an empty cartridge was recovered from his
own house. Significantly, it is not the prosecution case that any
firearm was recovered from the appellant or from any of the co-
accused during investigation. It has also come in evidence that
all the material prosecution witnesses, except the official
witnesses, belong to the same family. Although several
independent villagers were admittedly present at the place of
occurrence, none of them was examined. PW-4, in her cross-
examination, stated that nearly one hundred persons had
assembled at the place of occurrence during the incident. No
explanation has been offered by the prosecution for withholding
these independent witnesses.
20. The testimony of PW-6, the Investigating
Officer, also assumes significance. During his cross-
examination, he categorically stated that the alleged place of
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.1852 of 2022 dt.13-07-2026
15/18
occurrence was not situated near the house of the injured,
contrary to the version disclosed in the fardbeyan. Thus, the
Investigating Officer himself did not support the prosecution
version regarding the location of the place of occurrence.
According to PW-6, empty cartridges and pellets were
recovered from two different places, which correspond to the
version subsequently given by PW-1 before the trial court rather
than to the place of occurrence mentioned in the FIR. He also
admitted that the fardbeyan did not disclose the time of
occurrence. More importantly, his evidence does not indicate
that he inspected the place of occurrence as described either in
the FIR or by the injured. Consequently, the investigation fails
to corroborate the prosecution version regarding the place of
occurrence and on the contrary, introduces further inconsistency
into the prosecution case.
21. The evidence on record further establishes that
there existed previous enmity between the prosecution party and
the accused persons, including Rooplal Yadav. The prosecution
evidence also indicates that the firing occurred in circumstances
different from those narrated in the FIR, particularly in view of
the recovery of empty cartridges and pellets from two distinct
locations, neither of which corresponds with the place of
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.1852 of 2022 dt.13-07-2026
16/18
occurrence alleged in the First Information Report. The
prosecution has failed to furnish any satisfactory explanation
regarding these recoveries. The medical evidence was adduced
through PW-5, who initially examined the injured at Sadar
Hospital, Nawada, and also proved the subsequent injury report
issued by SRM Royal Multi Speciality Hospital Pvt. Ltd., Patna.
Although both reports record that the injured had sustained a
firearm injury, the dimensions of the entry and exit wounds
mentioned in the said two injury reports materially differ from
each other. No explanation has been offered by the prosecution
for this discrepancy. The unexplained inconsistency in the
medical evidence raises a serious doubt regarding the reliability
of the subsequent injury report and further weakens the
prosecution case.
Conclusion:-
22. In view of the foregoing discussion and
analysis, this Court is of the considered opinion that the
prosecution has failed to establish its case against the appellant
beyond reasonable doubt. The prosecution has not been able to
prove the place of occurrence as alleged in the First Information
Report. On the contrary, the evidence of the prosecution
witnesses, including that of the informant, discloses material
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.1852 of 2022 dt.13-07-2026
17/18
inconsistencies with regard to the actual place and manner of
occurrence. The prosecution version, as narrated in the FIR,
stands materially contradicted by the evidence adduced during
trial. The record further indicates that the informant was
wrongly projected as an eye-witness and that the earliest version
of the occurrence was withheld by the prosecution. These
material infirmities, coupled with the inconsistencies in the
prosecution evidence, were not adequately appreciated by the
learned trial court while recording the conviction of the
appellant. Accordingly, this Court is unable to concur with the
findings recorded by the learned trial court holding the appellant
guilty of the offences charged. The appellant is, therefore,
entitled to the benefit of doubt. Consequently, the judgment of
conviction dated 22.04.2022 and the order of sentence dated
28.04.2022 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-
XII, Nawada, in Sessions Trial No. 176 of 2021 arising out of
Akbarpur P.S. Case No. 365 of 2020 are hereby set aside and the
appellant is acquitted of all the charges levelled against him.
23. In result, the present criminal appeal stands
allowed.
24. Since the appellant is in custody, he shall be
released forthwith, if his detention is not required in connection
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.1852 of 2022 dt.13-07-2026
18/18
with any other case.
25. Let the Lower Court Records be transmitted
forthwith to the court concerned along with a copy of this
judgment for information, necessary action and due compliance.
(Shailendra Singh, J)
maynaz/-
AFR/NAFR AFR CAV DATE N/A Uploading Date 20.07.2026. Transmission Date 20.07.2026.
