Patna High Court – Orders
Chittranjan Yadav vs The State Of Bihar on 19 March, 2026
Author: Mohit Kumar Shah
Bench: Mohit Kumar Shah, Arun Kumar Jha
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL APPEAL (DB) No.866 of 2023
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-31 Year-2007 Thana- NATHNAGAR District- Bhagalpur
======================================================
Chittranjan Yadav S/o- Sarbi Yadav, R/o- Village- Nilkothi, Sahebganj, P.S.-
Lalmatiya, Dist.- Bhagalpur.
... ... Appellant
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Respondent
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Appellant : Mr. Deepak Kumar Sinha, Advocate
For the Respondent : Mr. Sujit Kumar Singh, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MOHIT KUMAR SHAH
and
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN KUMAR JHA
ORAL ORDER
(Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MOHIT KUMAR SHAH)
15 19-03-2026
Heard the learned counsel for the appellant, Shri Deepak
Kumar Sinha and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for
the State, Shri Sujit Kumar Singh.
Re: I.A. No. 01 of 2025:
2. The instant interlocutory application has been filed by
the appellant for suspension of his sentence and grant of bail to
him during the pendency of the present appeal.
3. The present appeal has been preferred under Section
374 (2) of the code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred
to as the “Cr.P.C.”) against the judgment of conviction and order
of sentence dated 24.07.2023 and 31.07.2023 respectively,
passed by the learned Court of Additional District and Sessions
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.866 of 2023(15) dt.19-03-2026
2/11Judge-VIII, Bhagalpur in ST Case No. 853 of 2007 + 32 of 2008
+ 378 of 2008 (Case No. /TR No. 501 of 2022), arising out of
Nath Nagar (Lalmatiya) P.S. Case No. 31 of 2007, whereby and
whereunder the appellant herein along with others has been
convicted under Sections 147, 148, 302/149 of the Indian Penal
Code (hereafter referred to as “IPC“) and under Section 27 of
the Arms Act. By the aforesaid order of sentence dated
31.07.2023, the appellant along with other co-convicts have
been ordered to undergo sentence under various provisions of
the IPC and the Arms Act, under which they have been
convicted, which are being enumerated herein under:
(i) The appellant along with co-convicts has been
sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life under
Section 302/149 of the IPC with a fine of Rs. 30,000/- and
in default of payment of the same, he has been further
directed to undergo simple imprisonment for three
months.
(ii) The appellant along with other co-convicts has been
directed to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year
under Section 147 of the IPC with a fine of Rs. 1,000/-
and in default of payment of the same, he has been further
directed to undergo simple imprisonment for one month.
(iii) The appellant along with other co-convicts has been
directed to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year
under Section 148 of the IPC with a fine of Rs. 1,000/-
and in default of payment of the same, he has been further
directed to undergo simple imprisonment for one month.
(iv) The appellant along with other co-convicts has been
directed to undergo rigorous imprisonment of three years
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.866 of 2023(15) dt.19-03-2026
3/11
under Section 27 of the Arms Act with a fine of Rs.
5,000/- and in default of payment of the same, he has been
further directed to undergo simple imprisonment for one
month.
All the sentences have been directed to run concurrently.
4. The short facts of the case as per the fardbeyan of the
informant, namely Fudan Mahto (PW-7), recorded by the Sub-
Inspector of Police on 06.02.2007 at about 17:45 hours is that
his son Kranti Mahto had gone to see the newly constructed
house at Neel Kanth Nagar and in the meantime, at about 04:00
PM in the evening, Shankar Yadav, Gauri Yadav, Chittranjan
Yadav (appellant), Muneshwar Yadav, Anil Yadav and Dinesh
Yadav as also four to five unknown persons had surrounded him
in front of the house of Ramdev Mahto, whereafter they had
started assaulting him, however in order to save the son of the
informant Kranti Mahto, one Sanjay Yadav had arrived there. In
the meantime, Shankar Yadav, Gauri Yadav and Anil Yadav had
started firing from the pistols in their hand. Upon hearing the
sound of gunshot firing, the informant, one Pradeep Yadav and
several other persons had arrived at the place of occurrence,
whereupon they saw that Dinesh Yadav @ Pappu Yadav,
Muneshwar Yadav and Chittranjan Yadav (appellant), who were
holding pistols in their hands had started firing gunshot
indiscriminately on the son of the informant, namely Kranti
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.866 of 2023(15) dt.19-03-2026
4/11
Mahto resulting in him sustaining fire-arm injuries on his
temporal region. The said indiscriminate firing had also resulted
in gunshot injury on the head and face of Sanjay Yadav. The
informant has further alleged that thereafter, Shankar Yadav had
put the pistol he was carrying in the mouth of Sanjay Yadav and
had fired gunshot resulting in his death, whereafter Gauri Yadav
had fired from his pistol on the son of the informant Kranti
Mahto in his left eye resulting in his death. Both Kranti Mahto
and Sanjay Yadav had died on the spot. The informant has
further stated in his fardbeyan that on account of earlier enmity,
accused persons had killed his son Kranti Mahto and one Sanjay
Yadav. The informant has also stated in his fardbeyan that the
said occurrence was witnessed by his co-villager, namely Julmi
Mahto (PW-3) and Pappu Mahto. On the basis of fardbeyan of
the informant dated 06.02.2007, an FIR bearing Nathnagar
(Lalmatiya) P.S. Case No. 31 of 2007 was registered under
Sections 147/148/149/302 of the IPC as also under Section 27 of
the Arms Act against the appellant and five other named accused
persons as also four to five unknown persons.
5. The Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted
that altogether twelve persons have been examined by the
prosecution. However, out of them, PW-1 (Bhoni Rai), PW-2
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.866 of 2023(15) dt.19-03-2026
5/11
(Deepak Yadav) and PW-6 (Baleshwar Mandal) have turned
hostile. As far as PW-5, Sakuna Devi (wife of the informant)
and PW-11 (Kari Devi) are concerned, they have neither named
the appellant as one of the assailant nor named anyone to have
fired upon the deceased persons. As far as PW-10 (Uma Shankar
Singh) is concerned, he is the investigating officer of the present
case, however nothing of relevance has been stated by him in
his testimony. PW-12 is doctor Sandip Lal, who had conducted
the post-mortem examination of the dead body of the deceased
Kranti Mahto and Sanjay Yadav. As far as Kranti Mahto is
concerned, PW-12 (Dr. Sandip Lal) has found two fire-arm
injuries, one below the right ear and the other on the right side
of the abdomen and has stated that the same has resulted in the
death of the deceased, i.e. Kranti Mahto.
6. The learned counsel for the appellant has next referred
to the evidence of PW-4, Sunil Kumar and has submitted that a
bare perusal of his evidence would show that a contrary version
has been narrated by him which is not only divergent to the
contents of the FIR but is also contrary to the evidence of the
informant and other witnesses in as much as he has stated in his
testimony that appellant had put the pistol in the mouth of
Sanjay Yadav and fired gunshot which, in fact is not supported
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.866 of 2023(15) dt.19-03-2026
6/11
by the medical evidence on record, inasmuch as PW-12 (Dr.
Sandip Lal), has stated in his evidence that upon conducting the
post-mortem examination of the dead body of the deceased,
Sanjay Yadav he has found only one gunshot injury over the
chest in the front at the level of nipple, however no fire-arm
injury has been found in the mouth.
7. The Learned counsel for the appellant has now
adverted to the statement of PW-9, Karma Devi, to submit that
she has only stated that Shankar Yadav has killed her husband
Kranti Mahto by firing gun shot. Thus, it is submitted that as far
as PW-9 (Karma Devi) is concerned, she has not named the
appellant to be the assailant of either Kranti Mahto or Sanjay
Yadav. Reference has been next made to the evidence of PW-3,
Julmi Mahto, who has been referred in the FIR to be one of the
eyewitness to the alleged occurrence to submit that he has stated
in his deposition that while he was sitting at the tea shop along
with Kranti Bind and Arvind Bind (PW-8), Sanjay Yadav had
also arrived there and then the accused persons, namely
Muneshwar Yadav, Shankar Yadav, Horshil Yadav, Bhato Yadav
and seven to eight persons had arrived there, whereafter
Munshwar Yadav had started manhandling Kranti Mahto,
whereupon Horshil Yadav had caught hold of Kranti Bind and
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.866 of 2023(15) dt.19-03-2026
7/11
Shankar Yadav had fired gun shot on the backside of the head of
Kranti Bind. He has also stated that Muneshwar Yadav had also
fired gun shot on Kranti Bind and when Sanjay Yadav had come
running to save Kranti, Muneshwar Yadav had then fired gun
shot on Sanjay Yadav as also Shankar Yadav had fired gun shot
in the abdomen of Sanjay Yadav. Thus, it is submitted that PW-3
(Julmi Mahto) has not made any allegation qua the appellant
and in fact, his presence at the place of occurrence also does not
stand substantiated by the evidence of PW-3 (Julmi Mahto).
8. The learned counsel for the appellant has next referred
to the evidence of PW-8, Arbind Mahto, regarding whom PW-3
(Julmi Mahto) has stated that he was also present at the place of
occurrence, however a bare perusal of testimony of PW-8
(Arbind Mahto) would show that he has not stated regarding the
appellant having engaged in firing gun shot on any of the
deceased persons. Lastly, the learned counsel for the appellant
has referred to the testimony of the informant, namely Fudan
Mahto (PW-7), whose evidence would show that he has
reiterated the contents of the FIR and he has stated that when he
heard the sound of gunshot firing, he had gone to the place of
occurrence and had seen that Muneshwar Yadav, Shankar Yadav,
Chittranjan Yadav (appellant), Gauri Yadav, Horshil Yadav, Anil
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.866 of 2023(15) dt.19-03-2026
8/11
Yadav, Bhato Yadav and Pappu Yadav had together surrounded
Kranti Mahto and were firing gun shots on him with country
made pistol resulting in Kranti Mahto being hit on the head by
gunshots, whereafter he had fallen down, however, he has
denied to be having knowledge as to whose gunshot firing had
resulted in his son, Kranti Mahto sustaining fire-arm injury on
his head. PW-7 has also stated that after his son Kranti Mahto
had fallen down, Muneshwar Yadav had fired gun shot on the
left eye of Kranti Mahto resulting in his death on the spot. PW-7
has also stated in his evidence that when Sanjay Yadav had
arrived there to save Kranti Mahto, Shankar Yadav had caught
hold of Sanjay Yadav and had put the pistol in his mouth and
had fired gun shot, resulting in his instant death.
9. Thus, it is submitted by the learned counsel for the
appellant that firstly, the informant, i.e. PW-7 cannot be stated to
be an eyewitness in as much as he has stated in his evidence that
he had arrived at the place of occurrence after hearing the sound
of gunshot firing and secondly, he has denied to be having
knowledge as to whose gunshot firing had resulted in his son,
Kranti Mahto sustaining fire-arm injury on his head. Hence, it is
submitted that the testimony of PW-7 (informant) does not lead
to any inference regarding the complicity of the appellant in the
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.866 of 2023(15) dt.19-03-2026
9/11
alleged occurrence. Finally, to sum up it is submitted that the
entire evidence on record would show that the appellant is not
having any complicity in the matter & there is dearth of
evidence to prove the case of the prosecution qua the appellant
beyond all reasonable doubt. Thus, it is submitted that the
prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond all reasonable
doubts.
10. Per contra, the learned A.P.P. for the State, Shri Sujit
Kumar Singh has vehemently opposed the prayer of the
appellant for suspension of sentence and grant of bail and has
submitted that all the prosecution witnesses have not turned
hostile and those who have not turned hostile, have testified
consistently and there is no contradiction in their evidence,
hence their evidence is enough to sustain the conviction
awarded by the learned trial Court qua the appellant.
11. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and
having cursorily perused the evidence on record, we prima facie
find that none of the prosecution witnesses except PW-4 (Sunil
Kumar) have testified against the appellant in as much as they
have not stated in their evidence that it was the appellant who
had fired on the deceased Kranti Mahto or for that matter upon
Sanjay Yadav and as far as PW-4 (Sunil Kumar) is concerned,
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.866 of 2023(15) dt.19-03-2026
10/11
though he has stated in his evidence that the appellant had put
pistol in the mouth of Sanjay Yadav and fired gun shot, however
neither the same stands corroborated from the FIR nor from the
evidence of the informant, i.e. PW-7 nor the same finds any
support from the medical evidence in as much as no such fire-
arm injury has been found in the mouth of Sanjay Yadav by the
doctor, i.e. PW-12 (Dr. Sandip Lal), who had conducted the
post-mortem examination of the deceased Sanjay Yadav.
12. Thus, taking a holistic view of the facts and
circumstances of the present case as discussed herein above,
considering the submissions advanced by the learned counsel
for the parties and for the foregoing reasons, apart from
considering the evidence available on record as also considering
the fact that the appellant has already undergone custody of
three years and three months, we are of the prima facie view
that the judgment of conviction rendered by the learned Trial
Judge may not be sustainable, hence we find that a case for
suspension of sentence and grant of bail during the pendency of
the appeal has been made out by the appellant.
13. Accordingly, we direct suspension of order of
sentence dated 31.07.2023 qua the appellant as also direct to
release the appellant on bail, during the pendency of the appeal,
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.866 of 2023(15) dt.19-03-2026
11/11
on furnishing bail bonds of Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand
Only) with two sureties of the like amount each to the
satisfaction of learned Additional District and Session Judge-
VIII, Bhagalpur, in ST Case No. 853 of 2007 + 32 of 2008 +
378 of 2008 (Case No. /TR No. 501 of 2022), arising out of
Nath Nagar (Lalmatiya) P.S. Case No. 31 of 2007.
14. It is clarified that the observation made hereinabove
are prima facie and tentative in nature for the purposes of
consideration of the prayer of the appellant for suspension of
sentence and grant of bail and shall not cause any prejudice to
either of the parties at the time of hearing of the main appeal.
Re: Cr. App (DB) No. 866 of 2023:
15. List this appeal for hearing in its own turn.
(Mohit Kumar Shah, J)
(Arun Kumar Jha, J)
Shahnawaz/-
U T