Patna High Court
Savita Devi vs The State Of Bihar on 17 July, 2026
Author: Rajeev Ranjan Prasad
Bench: Rajeev Ranjan Prasad
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL APPEAL (DB) No.1307 of 2024
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-407 Year-2020 Thana- MADHEPURA District- Madhepura
======================================================
Savita Devi W/o Manoj Das Village- Dhuragaon P.S.- Madhepura (Bharrahi
O.P.) District- Madhepura
... ... Appellant
Versus
1. The State of Bihar
2. Shrawan Kumar @ Sarwan Kumar Son of Badri Das R/O Vill.- Dhuragaon,
P.S.- Madhepura (Bharrahi O.P.), Dist.- Madhepura.
3. Bucho Das @ Buchai Son of Late Sukhdev Das R/O Vill.- Dhuragaon, P.S.-
Madhepura (Bharrahi O.P.), Dist.- Madhepura.
4. Badri Das Son of Late Sukhdev Das R/O Vill.- Dhuragaon, P.S.- Madhepura
(Bharrahi O.P.), Dist.- Madhepura.
... ... Respondents
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Appellant : Mr. Suraj Kumar, Advocate
Mr. Pawan Kumar, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Ajay Mishra, APP
For the Respondent 2-4 : Mr. Nafisuzzhoha, Advocate
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJEEV RANJAN PRASAD
and
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE KUMAR MANISH
CAV JUDGMENT
(Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJEEV RANJAN PRASAD)
Date : 17-07-2026
Heard learned counsel for the appellant, learned counsel
for the respondent nos. 2 to 4 and learned Additional Public
Prosecutor for the State.
2. The present appeal arises out of the judgment of
acquittal dated 29.08.2024 (hereinafter referred to as the
'impugned judgment') passed by learned Additional District and
Sessions Judge-IV, (hereinafter referred to as the 'learned trial
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.1307 of 2024 dt.17-07-2026
2/45
court') in Sessions Trial No. 200 of 2022 (CIS No. 200 of 2022)
arising out of Madhepura (Bharrahi) P.S. Case No. 407 of 2020
whereby and whereunder respondent nos. 2 to 4 have been
acquitted of the charges under Sections 302/34, 341/34, 323/34
and 504/34 of the Indian Penal Code (in short 'IPC').
Prosecution Case
3. The prosecution case is based on the written
application of the informant Savita Devi (appellant herein)
recorded on 01.06.2020 wherein she has alleged that on
30.05.2020
at 4:00 PM she had gone to her kamat where she found
that jalawan was kept on her dih. It is alleged that when she
inquired as to who had kept jalawan on the dih, her devar (1)
Badri Das, (2) Bucho Das, (3) Shravan Kumar and (4) Mintu
Kumar came and questioned her as to whom she was abusing. The
informant stated that she was abusing those who have put jalawan
on the dih. It is further alleged that Badri Das assaulted the
informant on which all the above-named accused persons started
beating her by holding hair and by lappad thappad. On hearing
hulla, when informant’s devar Anmol Kumar came to save her,
Shravan Das, with an intention to kill him, assaulted him by an
iron rod due to which he sustained injuries and fell down. In the
meantime, Nago Das, Domi Das and Lalo Das came and asked to
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.1307 of 2024 dt.17-07-2026
3/45
kill him. When her cousin father-in-law Rajesh Das came to save
her, Bucho Das assaulted on his head with a sharp-edged weapon
causing head injury and bleeding. All the above accused then
assaulted them indiscriminately due to which they got injured. It is
also alleged that a silver chain worth Rs. 4,000/- was snatched by
Domi Das. Upon hearing hulla, nearby people came and asked
them to get injured treated first and they were taken to the hospital.
4. On the basis of the written application of the
informant (PW-7), Madhepura (Bharrahi) P.S. Case No. 407 of
2020 was registered under Sections 341, 323, 324, 307, 354, 504,
506, 379/34 IPC against seven accused persons.
5. After investigation, police submitted chargesheet
bearing Chargesheet No. 108 of 2020 dated 31.08.2020 showing
these accused persons namely (1) Nago Das, (2) Domi Das and (3)
Lalo Das as not sent up for trial and the accused persons namely
(1) Badri Das, (2) Bucho Das, (3) Shravan Kumar and (4) Mintu
Kumar were sent up for trial for the offence under Sections 341,
323, 324, 307, 302, 504/34 of the IPC.
6. Learned Magistrate took cognizance of the offences
and issued summons to all the accused persons namely (1) Badri
Das, (2) Bucho Das, (3) Shravan Kumar, (4) Mintu Kumar, (5)
Nago Das, (6) Domi Das and (7) Lalo Das. Vide order dated
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.1307 of 2024 dt.17-07-2026
4/45
29.07.2022, learned Magistrate separated the case of Mintu Kumar
finding him a child in conflict with law and sent his records to
Juvenile Justice Board, Madhepura and committed the case
records to the court of Sessions in relation to the accused persons
in attendance namely (1) Shravan Kumar, (2) Badri Das and (3)
Bucho Das giving a direction to open separate file against the
absent accused persons.
7. Upon commitment, Sessions Trial No. 200 of 2022
was registered in the court of Sessions Judge, Madhepura where
charges were read over and explained to the accused persons on
22.08.2022 to which they denied. Accordingly, the learned trial
court framed charges under Sections 302/34, 341/34, 323/34,
504/34 IPC against the accused persons (respondent nos. 2, 3 and
4 herein).
8. In course of trial, the prosecution examined as many
as eleven witnesses and got exhibited various documentary
evidence. The description of the prosecution witnesses and the list
of documents exhibited on behalf of prosecution are provided
hereunder for ready reference in a tabular form:-
List of Prosecution Witnesses
Prosecution Name of Witness Description
witness No.
PW-1 Santosh Kumar Das Hostile witness
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.1307 of 2024 dt.17-07-2026
5/45PW-2 Ramchandra Das Hostile witness
PW-3 Ramnaresh Das Hostile witness
PW-4 Kali Das Hostile witness
PW-5 Bhola Prasad Yadav Hostile witness
PW-6 Rajesh Kumar Hostile witness
PW-7 Savita Devi Informant
PW-8 Mahendra Das Hostile witness
PW-9 Yash Sharma Medical Officer
PW-10 Dilip Kumar Singh I.O.
PW-11 Dr. Sarshij Nayanam Medical Officer
List of Defence Witness
DW-1 Bimal Yadav
List of Exhibits on behalf of Prosecution
Exhibit No. Description of the Exhibit Proved
by/Attested by
Exhibit P-1/PW-7 Written application of informant PW-7
Exhibit P-2/PW-9 Injury report of Mahendra Das PW-9
Exhibit P-3/PW-9 Injury report of Rajesh Das PW-9
Exhibit P-4/PW-10 Forwarding report on Fardbeyan PW-10
Exhibit P-5/PW-10 Registration of the FIR written on PW-10
the margin of the written application
Exhibit P-6/PW-10 Complete Formal FIR PW-10
Exhibit P-7/PW-10 Signature of Witnesses Kapildeo PW-10
Das and Muso Das on carbon copy
of postmortem report
Exhibit P-8/PW-10 complete chargesheet PW-10
Exhibit P-9/PW-11 Postmortem report along with PW-11
signature of PW-11
List of Exhibits on behalf of Prosecution
Exhibit D-1/DW-1 Complete Kebala DW-1
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.1307 of 2024 dt.17-07-2026
6/45Findings of the learned Trial Court
9. Learned trial court after examining the oral as well as
documentary evidences available on the record found that
prosecution has examined altogether eight witnesses (PWs 1 to 8)
on the point of facts. Out of them, PW-7 is the informant and
except her, all other prosecution witnesses (PW-1, PW-2, PW-3,
PW-4, PW-5, PW-6 and PW-8) have been declared hostile. They
have stated that they do not have any knowledge about the
occurrence. PW-6 Rajesh Kumar (injured witness) has stated that
he received two injuries on his head which he had received after
falling down on the bundle of bamboos.
10. Learned trial court examined the evidence of PW-7
Savita Devi (informant). This witness is the bhabhi of the deceased
in relation. She has deposed that Shravan Kumar injured her devar
by assaulting him by an iron rod which hit on the right side of his
head and her devar fell down on the earth in injured condition. She
further deposed that when her cousin father-in-law came to save
her devar, then accused Bucho Das caused injury to him after
assaulting on his head by dabiya. Her father-in-law Mahendra Das
(PW-8) was also assaulted. She further deposed that her devar
Anmol Kumar, her cousin father-in-law and her father-in-law were
brought to Madhepura Hospital from where her devar was referred
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.1307 of 2024 dt.17-07-2026
7/45
who died on the way to Patna. Learned trial court found from the
evidence of PW-6 Rajesh Kumar (cousin father-in-law of the
informant) that evidence of informant has not been supported by
this witness (PW-6). Learned trial court further found that PW-8
who is the father of the deceased and father-in-law of the
informant (PW-7) has not supported the occurrence.
11. Learned trial court opined that order of conviction
can be passed only on the basis of sole eyewitness provided there
is no scope of any suspicion on that evidence. In this case, learned
trial court found that only the informant has deposed as eyewitness
and other witnesses including the injured has not supported the
prosecution story.
12. Learned trial court found that the informant (PW-7)
in paragraph ’24’ of her cross-examination has stated that she went
to the place of occurrence alone where she did not see any injured.
In paragraph ’25’ of her cross-examination, she has stated that after
10-15 minutes, she had gone to Sadar Hospital from the place of
occurrence with her father-in-law, Rajesh Das and Anmol Kumar.
In paragraph ’26’ of her cross-examination, she has stated that she
was going to Patna in ambulance with Anmol Kumar and on the
way about 8-9 o’clock, Anmol Kumar died. Learned trial court
found from the records that the date of occurrence is 30.05.2020
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.1307 of 2024 dt.17-07-2026
8/45
and the First Information Report was lodged on 01.06.2020 and
by that time, Anmol Kumar had not died whereas informant (PW-
7) has stated in paragraph ’28’ of her cross-examination that after
cremation she had given her beyan to police which was recorded
by police on which she had put her signature.
13. Learned trial court found from the materials
available on the record that except the informant, no other witness
has supported the occurrence and the informant’s evidence is also
of no such quality on which reliance can be placed. Accordingly,
the learned trial court found that the prosecution has failed to
establish its charges against the accused persons (respondents
herein) beyond the shadow of all reasonable doubts and acquitted
them from the charges levelled against them.
Submissions on behalf of the Appellant
14. Learned counsel for the appellant has assailed the
impugned judgment of acquittal on various grounds. It is
submitted that the learned trial court could not duly appreciate the
evidences available on the record. PW-7 (the informant) is an
eyewitness of the occurrence, she has fully supported the
prosecution case, there is no ambiguity, much less any discrepancy
of material kind in her deposition.
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.1307 of 2024 dt.17-07-2026
9/45
15. It is submitted that even as the two injured
witnesses, namely, Rajesh (PW-6) and Mahendra Das (PW-8) have
turned hostile, but from their deposition it is evident that they have
gone in collusion with the accused persons. In such circumstance,
the finding of the learned trial court that the informant (PW-7) was
not duly supported by other witnesses seems to be wholly
irrelevant. The informant is the star witness in this case whose
testimony provides a complete picture of the date, time and
manner of occurrence. The medical evidence available on the
record would further show that Rajesh and Mahendra both were
assaulted in the said occurrence and they had received injuries
caused by hard and blunt substance.
16. It is submitted that the charges against the accused-
respondent nos. 2 to 4 are duly proved, but by taking a perverse
view of the matter, the learned trial court has acquitted all of them.
Referring to Section 134 of the Indian Evidence Act (now Section
139 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam), learned counsel
submits that the evidence given by the informant (PW-7) alone
would be more than sufficient to record conviction of the accused
persons. In the case of Sunil Kumar vs. State (Govt. of NCT of
Delhi), reported in (2003) 11 SCC 367, the Hon’ble Supreme
Court held that the test for the court in any case should be whether
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.1307 of 2024 dt.17-07-2026
10/45
the witness and his evidence are truthful, convincing and reliable.
In fact, the learned trial court has taken note of the settled legal
proposition in this regard in the judgment, but by doubting trivial
kind of discrepancies in the statement of the informant, refused to
record conviction of the accused persons.
17. Learned counsel has further submitted that in this
case, the Investigating Officer had not collected the injury report
of the victim (the deceased) from the Sadar Hospital, Madhepura.
On certain other aspects, the Investigating Officer has failed to do
the investigation, but for the lapses on the part of the prosecution
or absence of effort on the part of the Investigating Officer to
prove the formal aspects of the investigation, the prosecution case
would not suffer. In the case of Harendra Rai vs. State of Bihar
and Ors. reported in (2023) 13 SCC 563, the Hon’ble Supreme
Court has held that the failure of the State machinery and the
failure of the trial court to ensure a fair trial from the perspective
of the victim’s side, the trial proceeding do not vitiate the
genuineness of the FIR and bayan tahriri and no discount may be
given to the accused persons for non-exhibition thereof. In the case
of Ram Bihari Yadav vs. State of Bihar and Ors. reported in
(1998) 4 SCC 517, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that
where the record shows that Investigating Officers created a mess,
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.1307 of 2024 dt.17-07-2026
11/45
deliberately omitted to do what they ought to have done to bail out
the appellant, who was a member of the police force, or for any
extraneous reason, the interest of justice should not be taken in
favour of the accused, for that would amount to giving premium
for the wrongs of the prosecution designedly committed to favour
the appellant. In such cases, the story of the prosecution will have
to be examined de hors such omissions and contaminated conduct
of the officials otherwise the mischief which was deliberately done
would be perpetuated and justice would be denied to the
complainant party and this would obviously shake the confidence
of the people not merely in the law enforcing agency but also in
the administration of justice.
18. It is submitted that if the entire evidences are
considered keeping in view the aforesaid observations of the
Hon’ble Supreme Court, it may be found that the learned trial
court has recorded a perverse finding by failing to appreciate the
evidence of the informant (PW-7). There is no serious discrepancy
or variation in her testimony with regard to the date, time and
manner of occurrence. The learned trial court could not have
rejected her testimony.
19. It is submitted that the learned trial court has failed
to notice that the injured witnesses, namely, Rajesh and Mahendra
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.1307 of 2024 dt.17-07-2026
12/45
Das, who turned hostile, came out with a statement that they had
suffered injuries in some accident, but they were unable to say that
in what kind of accident, they suffered the injury. The place of
occurrence is a parti land as per the I.O. and the parties were
having enmity with respect to the piece of land. It is submitted that
the judgment of the learned trial court be upturned and the accused
persons-respondent nos. 2 to 4 be convicted for the charges under
Sections 302/34, 341/34, 323/34, 504/34 IPC.
Submissions on behalf of the Respondents
20. Learned counsel for the respondent nos. 2 to 4 has
contested the appeal. It is submitted that the learned trial court has
duly examined the entire evidences available on the record. In this
case, the prosecution examined altogether eleven witnesses, but
PW-1, PW-2, PW-3, PW-4, PW-5, PW-6 and PW-8 did not support
the prosecution case, hence they were declared hostile. Rajesh
Kumar (PW-6), who is one of the injured witnesses, has stated in
his examination-in-chief that he had suffered two injuries on his
head which were caused because of falling of bamboo clump on
his head. Mahendra Das (PW-8), who is another injured and father
of the deceased, Anmol Das, has stated in his examination-in-chief
that at the time of occurrence he was not in the village. PW-8 has
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.1307 of 2024 dt.17-07-2026
13/45
further stated that Anmol Das was his son, but the accused persons
had not committed any occurrence with him.
21. Learned counsel submits that the learned trial court
has examined the evidence of the informant (PW-7) and has found
that she has supported the prosecution case in her examination-in-
chief, but in paragraph ’24’ of her cross-examination, she has
stated that she had gone alone to the place of occurrence and after
reaching the place of occurrence, she had not seen anyone in
injured condition. She has further stated in paragraph ’25’ that
from the place of occurrence, she had gone to the Sadar Hospital
taking her father-in-law Mahendra Das, Rajesh Das and Anmol
Kumar to hospital where she had stayed for 1-2 hours, thereafter
she had left for Patna in an ambulance taking Anmol Kumar but on
way to Patna at about 8:00-9:00 AM, Anmol Kumar died.
22. It is submitted that the date of occurrence is
30.05.2020, but the FIR has been lodged on 01.06.2020 and at the
time of lodging of the FIR, Anmol Kumar had not died, but the
informant has stated in her cross-examination that she had made
her statement before police after the cremation had taken place and
that was written in writing on which she had put her signature. The
learned trial court, therefore, found that there were material
discrepancy in the statement of the informant (PW-7), hence the
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.1307 of 2024 dt.17-07-2026
14/45
prosecution had failed to establish it’s case beyond all reasonable
doubt.
23. Learned counsel further submits that in an appeal
against acquittal, the judgment of acquittal need not be
overturned/reversed unless the judgment of the learned trial court
is perverse and the appellate court can safely record a conviction
on the basis of the evidences on the record. In this case, no
interference with the judgment of acquittal is warranted.
24. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State
has adopted the arguments of learned counsel for the respondent
nos. 2 to 4.
Consideration
25. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and
perused the trial court records. The prosecution case, as disclosed
in the written information under signature of the informant (PW-7)
(Exhibit ‘1’), was received and forwarded to SHO, Madhepura
Police Station for instituting a case on 01.06.2020. The case was
registered under Sections 341, 323, 324, 307, 354, 504, 506, 379,
34 IPC. According to Exhibit ‘1’, the date of occurrence is
30.05.2020 at about 4:00 PM. The place of occurrence is the
kamat/ dih (a piece of land normally at some distance from the
residential place of the villagers which may be used as residential
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.1307 of 2024 dt.17-07-2026
15/45
plot either to construct house or to assemble the agricultural
goods/animals). The informant had gone there walking and found
that at her place someone had kept jalawan (the firewoods). She
was inquiring as to who had kept the jalawan, in the meantime, her
co-sharers, (1) Badri Das, (2) Bucho Das, both son of late Sukhdeo
Das (3) Shravan Kumar, son of Badri Das, and (4) Mintu Kumar,
son of Bucho Das, all of them came there and they started abusing
the informant. They asked her as to whom she was abusing then
she told that she was abusing the person who had kept the jalawan
there. This is said to be the reason behind the occurrence.
26. The informant (PW-7) has stated in Exhibit ‘1’ that
Badri Das abused her and asked to catch hold of her and to assault
her, whereafter all the accused persons caught her by hair and
assaulted her by hand and fist. On hearing hulla, her devar, Anmol
Kumar (the deceased) came and tried to save her. At this stage, it is
stated that Shravan Das assaulted her devar by an iron rod with an
intention to kill him. As a result of the assault, Anmol Kumar fell
down after receiving injury. In the meantime, other accused
persons, namely, Nago Das, Dobhi Das, both sons of late Shiv
Prasad Das and Lalo Das, son of Dobhi Das reached there and
ordered to kill. By that time, her cousin father-in-law, Rajesh Das,
(PW-6) tried to save her but he was assaulted by Bucho Das by a
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.1307 of 2024 dt.17-07-2026
16/45
sharped dabia and Rajesh Das suffered injury on his head, his head
was fractured and bleeding. The informant alleged that all the
accused persons were indiscriminately assaulting the family
members of the informant and in the occurrence, her family
members had received many assaults. Dobhi Das is said to have
snatched away the silver chain of the informant. On hulla,
villagers assembled, they asked that first she should get them
treated, then, with the help of the people, she took the injured to
Sadar Hospital, Madhepura.
27. It is evident from the materials on the record that in
this case, police submitted a charge-sheet bearing No. 108 of 2020
only against accused Badri Das, Bucho Das @ Buchai Das,
Shravan Kumar and Mintu Kumar. After lodging of the FIR,
Anmol Kumar had died, therefore, Section 302 IPC was added.
Charge-sheet was submitted under Sections 341, 323, 324, 307,
302 and 504/34 IPC. Thereafter, the learned Chief Judicial
Magistrate took cognizance of the offences but decided to issue
summons to all the accused persons. Later on, the records of
Shravan Kumar, Badri Das and Bucho Das were split on
29.10.2022. In the present case, Shravan Kumar, Badri Das and
Bucho Das had faced trial.
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.1307 of 2024 dt.17-07-2026
17/45
Charges were framed under Sections 302/34, 307, 323/34,
28. A perusal of the evidence of the prosecution
witnesses would show that so far as PW-1, PW-2, PW-3, PW-4,
PW-5, PW-6 and PW-8 are concerned, they have turned hostile.
After declaring them hostile, the prosecution has cross-examined
them and their attention has been drawn towards the previous
statements made by them before police. The I.O. of the case,
namely, Dilip Kumar Singh (PW-10) has deposed to support the
prosecution case. Santosh Kumar Das (PW-1) has stated in his
examination-in-chief that he did not know anything about the
occurrence and his statement was not recorded before the police
but the I.O. (PW-10) stated in paragraph ‘3’ of his deposition that
he had recorded the statement of Santosh Kumar (PW-1). The
prosecution cross-examined this witness and suggested that he was
making false statement in collusion with the accuse persons.
Similar is the situation with Ramchandra Das (PW-2), Ramnaresh
Das (PW-3), Kali Das (PW-4) and Bhola Prasad Yadav (PW-5).
About all these witnesses, the I.O. has stated that he had recorded
their statement in course of investigation. We have noticed that
these witnesses have apparently gone in collusion with the accused
persons.
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.1307 of 2024 dt.17-07-2026
18/45
29. It is important to take note of the deposition of two
injured witnesses, namely, Rajesh Das (PW-6) and Mahendra Das
(PW-8). Rajesh Kumar is the cousin father-in-law of the informant
(PW-7) and Mahendra Das (PW-8) is the father-in-law of the
informant (PW-7). He is also father of the deceased. Their injury
reports have been brought on record and proved by the prosecution
in course of trial through Dr. Yash Sharma (PW-9). Both of them
had suffered injuries caused by hard and blunt substance, though
simple in nature and the doctor (PW-9) had examined them at
Sadar Hospital, Madhepura on 30.05.2020 at about 6:30 PM. The
age of injury were within six hours. It is evident that they had
suffered injuries as narrated by the informant (PW-7) in her written
information (Exhibit ‘1’), they were also examined by the I.O.
(PW-10) but when these two witnesses came in the dock in course
of trial, they turned hostile.
30. PW-6 has stated in his examination-in-chief that the
occurrence is of the year 2020 at about 4:00 o’clock, he had got
injured and got two injuries on his head, but he states that he had
got injuries due to fall of bamboo clump on his head, he had
himself fallen down. He has further stated that his statement was
not recorded by police. This witness was cross-examined by the
prosecution and his attention was drawn towards his previous
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.1307 of 2024 dt.17-07-2026
19/45
statements made before police, in which he had stated that Sabita
Devi (the informant) had gone to remove the jalawan and was
abusing, in the meantime, Badri Das, Bucho Das, Shravan Kumar,
Mintu Kumar, Nago Das and Domi Das started quarreling and
caused assault in which Anmol Das, Mahendra Das and he had got
injured and they had gone for treatment, Anmol Das died while
going. This witness denied this suggestion but the I.O. (PW-10)
has clearly stated in paragraph ‘3’ of his deposition that he had
examined Rajesh Das (PW-6). The I.O. has also stated that he had
collected the injury report of Rajesh Das from the hospital. The
prosecution suggested this witness that he was in collusion with
the accused and was making false statements.
31. It is evident from the deposition of PW-6 that he
admits the time of occurrence as stated by the informant (PW-7)
and it is further evident that he had gone to the hospital for
treatment on 30.05.2020, where he was examined at 6:30 PM by
PW-9. Thus, the date and time of occurrence as stated by PW-7 is
getting corroborated from the statement of PW-6. His statement
that he had fallen down of a bamboo clump is apparently a false
statement in collusion with the accused. The I.O., who visited the
place of occurrence on 01.06.2020, found that the place of
occurrence is a parti land and he also found that in the north, there
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.1307 of 2024 dt.17-07-2026
20/45
is parti land of Domi Das, in south, there is a tin shed house of
Braj Kishor Das, in the east, there is a tin shed house of Chichai
Das and in the west, there is a tin shed house of Badri Das. It is
evident that the accused persons, who are co-sharers of the
informant, were residing in the boundary of the parti land which is
the place of occurrence and when the informant reached there, she
found that somebody had kept jalawan on her land, whereafter she
started abusing, the accused persons were living in the boundary
itself, therefore, their presence at the place of occurrence may be
easily believed. The I.O. had not found any bamboo clump at the
place of occurrence.
32. Mahendra Das (PW-8) has stated in his examination-
in-chief that at the time of occurrence, he was not in the village
and his statement was not recorded by the police. His attention was
drawn towards his previous statements made before the police, in
which he had supported the prosecution case and had stated that
the accused persons had assaulted him, Anmol Das and Rajesh
Kumar by lathi-rod and they were injured in the said occurrence.
His attention was also drawn towards his previous statements in
which he had stated that his son, Anmol Das, died on the way
while being taken away for better treatment. The prosecution
cross-examined him after declaring him hostile and the I.O.
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.1307 of 2024 dt.17-07-2026
21/45
(PW-10) has stated that he had recorded the statement of this
witness and had also collected his injury report from the Sadar
Hospital, Madhepura. The injury report is available on the record
as Exhibit ‘P-2/PW-9’. It has been proved by Doctor Yash (PW-9).
In the injury report, the injuries are said to have been caused by a
hard and blunt object and are simple in nature. The injury report of
Rajesh Kumar has been marked Exhibit ‘P-3/PW-9’ and it shows
two injuries on the head of the witness caused by a hard and blunt
object. Besides those two injuries, there is another injury noted as
body ache and headache caused by a hard blunt object.
33. About PW-8, it is worth noting that the defence also
cross-examined him and in his cross-examination by the defence,
this witness has stated that this case has been lodged by his
daughter-in-law, Sabita Devi and whatever statement he had made
was on his own will. He has further stated that Anmol Das was his
son, but the accused persons had not committed any occurrence
with him. This witness did not know as to where he had got the
injuries.
34. This Court has no iota of doubt that Mahendra Das
(PW-8) was won over by the accused persons. He is making a false
statement. He was himself injured and had gone to the hospital and
received treatment by PW-9. He was examined by the I.O. but in
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.1307 of 2024 dt.17-07-2026
22/45
the dock, he has been denying everything. His categorical
statement that the accused persons had not done any occurrence is
a clear indication of the fact that he had come prepared to depose
in favour of the accused persons.
35. As regards the admissibility of the evidence of
hostile witnesses, the law is well settled. In the case of Talari
Naresh vs. State of Telangana reported in 2026 SCC OnLine SC
852, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has reviewed the case laws on the
subject and held in paragraph ‘8.3’ and ‘8.4’ as under:-
“8.3 The law as to how to appreciate and apply the
evidence of a hostile witness is also not far away to
search. In Khujji @ Surendra Tiwari v. State of
Madhya Pradesh6, this court observed,
‘… the evidence of a prosecution witness cannot be
rejected in toto merely because the prosecution chose
to treat him as hostile and cross-examined him. The
evidence of such witnesses cannot be treated as
effaced or washed off the record altogether but the
same can be accepted to the extent their version is
found to be dependable on a careful scrutiny thereof.’
(Para 6)
8.4. In Koli Lakhmanbhai Chanabhai v. State of
Gujarat7, this Court reiterated that the testimony of a
hostile witness is useful to the extent which it
supports the prosecution case. In Bhagwan Singh v.
State of Haryana8 also this Court held that when a
witness is declared hostile and is cross examined
with the permission of the court, his evidence
6. (1991) 3 SCC 627 : 1991 SCC (Cri) 916
7. (1999) 8 SCC 624 : 2000 SCC (Cri) 13
8. (1976) 1 SCC 389 : 1976 SCC (Cri) 7
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.1307 of 2024 dt.17-07-2026
23/45remains admissible and there is no legal bar to arrive
at a finding of conviction on the basis of the
testimony of such hostile witness, if corroborated by
other reliable evidence.”
36. Similar views have been taken in the case of Neeraj
Dutta vs. State (NCT of Delhi) reported in (2023) 4 SCC 731,
State of Kerala vs. K. A. Abdul Rasheed reported in 2026 SCC
OnLine SC 592 and Rajesh Yadav vs. State of U.P. reported in
(2022) 12 SCC 200.
37. This Court is, therefore, of the considered opinion
that the fact that these prosecution witnesses have turned hostile
and not supported the prosecution case would not prove fatal to the
prosecution. The evidence of the informant (PW-7), the doctor
(PW-9), the I.O. (PW-10) and Dr. Sarsij Nayanam (PW-11), who
conducted the autopsy on the dead body of the deceased, would be
important to take note of to see whether the prosecution case
stands on its own leg through these witnesses or not.
38. The informant (PW-7) has, in her examination-in-
chief, supported the prosecution case. She has given the time of
occurrence being 4:00 PM, place of occurrence is the dih and the
reason of occurrence is the quarrel which took place on finding
that the jalawan was spread over the dih of the informant and as
no one turned up on her asking to take away the same, she started
abusing. She has stated that she had taken her devar Anmol Kumar
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.1307 of 2024 dt.17-07-2026
24/45
@ Kailash, cousin father-in-law and her own father-in-law to
Madhepura Hospital, where all were treated. Kailash was referred,
he was being taken to Patna but on the way he died. PW-7 has
stated that he died on 2nd.
39. In her examination-in-chief, PW-7 has stated that
before death of Kailash, she had gone to the Bharrahi Police
Station where Dilip Babu (Daroga) had written the application as
per her statement. The application was written in her presence,
which was read over to her and after finding the same correct, she
had put her signature thereon. On her identification, the written
application has been marked Exhibit ‘P-1/PW-7’. She identified
the accused persons present in the dock.
40. In her cross-examination, PW-7 has stated about the
genealogy of the family. She has stated that the old residential plot
is about three katthas, in which Mandal Das, Jangal Das, Sukhdev
Das and Jagdev Das all have equal share. She expressed her
unawareness that three sons of Jangal Das had executed a sale
deed with respect to his share of land in favour of Badri Das and
Buchai Das, both sons of late Sukhdev Das. PW-7 has stated that
in the said land, the three brothers have their shares. She was
residing at a place where she had constructed her new house and
she was living there for the last four years. She has further stated
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.1307 of 2024 dt.17-07-2026
25/45
that the house where she was living is about ten katthas of land,
which is in the name of her father-in-law.
41. PW-7 has stated in paragraph ’15’ that her new
house is situated at a distance of one and half kilometer from the
place of occurrence and it takes ten minutes in reaching to the
house of Domi Das from the place of occurrence. She could not
tell the khata and khasra number of the disputed land. In
paragraph ’20’, she has stated that the dispute is with respect to the
land which had been sold to Badri Das and Buchai Das. Thus, this
witness admits land dispute. She has stated that after the
occurrence, she had taken her father-in-law Mahendra Das, Rajesh
Das and Anmol Kumar to the hospital. All were being treated and
she had stayed for 1- 2 hours. Thereafter, she had taken Anmol to
Patna by an ambulance, but Anmol died on the way during day
hours, between 8:00-9:00 AM. She had left Madhepura during the
night hours, but she could not tell the time.
42. In paragraph ’27’ of her cross-examination, PW-7
has stated that she had returned and the postmortem was done on
the day on which the victim died. Thereafter, she had returned
home and the cremation of Anmol Kumar was done. She has stated
that in this regard, the information was given to the police and
after the cremation, she had given her statement to the police. In
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.1307 of 2024 dt.17-07-2026
26/45
paragraph ’28’, she has further stated in course of her cross-
examination that she had given her oral statement and the police
had written the application on her statement, on which she had put
her signature. It appears that the learned trial court has found a
contradiction in this statement of PW-7. The trial court could not
appreciate that the statement in paragraph ’28’ is in two parts.
Firstly, she has stated that after the cremation, she had given her
statement to police. In the second part, she is reiterating her earlier
statement made in paragraph ‘3’ of her examination-in-chief. She
has stated that on the basis of her statement, police had written the
application and had taken her signature. Thus, in the second part of
her statement in paragraph ’28’, during cross-examination, she has
remained consistent with her statement in paragraph ‘3’ of the
examination-in-chief.
43. The learned trial court has referred paragraphs ’24’
and ’26’ of the cross-examination of PW-7. In paragraph ’24’, PW-
7 has stated that on the date of occurrence, her father-in-law
Mahendra Das and her mother-in-law were in the house, she had
alone gone to the place of occurrence where she had not seen
anyone in injured condition. No discrepancy may be found in this
statement of PW-7. If she was put a question by the defence as to
whether she had seen anyone injured after reaching the place of
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.1307 of 2024 dt.17-07-2026
27/45
occurrence, the answer has come that she had not seen anybody
injured after reaching the place of occurrence. This Court does not
find any discrepancy in the statement of the informant because it is
not the prosecution case that the occurrence had taken place or
anyone was injured prior to the reaching of PW-7 at the place of
occurrence. The occurrence took place only after PW-7 had
reached at the place of occurrence and when she started abusing
those who had kept jalawan at her dih (parti land).
44. Similarly, in paragraph ’27’, PW-7 has stated that
she had returned from the way and had taken the dead body for
postmortem. The postmortem was conducted on the same day on
which Anmol Kumar had died. This statement of PW-7 is getting
corroborated from the evidence of the I.O. (PW-10), who has
stated that he had prepared the inquest report of the deceased
Kailash Kumar @ Anmol Kumar (Exhibit ‘P-7/PW-10’). This
exhibit has been prepared on 02.06.2020. PW-7 has given the
specific date of death of Kailash Kumar @ Anmol Kumar i.e. on
02.06.2020. Therefore, it is evident that the inquest report was
prepared on the same day. PW-10 has stated that in the inquest
report he had written about the injuries caused by rod and brick,
which he had recorded on the basis of the statements of the
witnesses. The I.O. (PW-10) has further stated that he had sent the
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.1307 of 2024 dt.17-07-2026
28/45
dead body for postmortem from the same place where he had
prepared the inquest report. Dr. Sarsij Nayanam (PW-11) who was
posted as Medical Officer at Sadar Hospital, Madhepura on
02.06.2020, has conducted the postmortem of the dead body of
Anmol Kumar @ Kailash Kumar, aged 18 years. He had found the
following injuries:-
“On 02/06/2020 I was posted as Medical Officer at
Sadar Hospital Madhepura. On that I have
conducted the Postmortem of the dead body of
Anmol Kumar @ Kelash Kumar, Age 18 years,
Male, C/o- Mahanand Das, Village- Dhurgaon,
Ward No. 11, Lakshmi Tola, P.S.- Bharrahi O.P.,
Distt- Madhepura.
External Examination
Rigor mortis present in all four limbs. They have no
swelling and scar mark on head, chest, abdomen. A
lacerated wound present 2 CM x 1 CM on occipital
region on head. He is treated first at Sadar Hospital,
Madhepura and referred to PMCH but he take
treatment in Koshi Hospital. CT Scan EDH left
frontal region.
Internal Examination
(1) Cranial Cavity – There is no blood found in
cranial cavity. Fracture present temporal region.
Brain is irregular and pale, congested.
(ii) Neck – All are intact no hyroid bone fracture.
(iii) Throasis cavity
Heart- Left chamber have few clotted bloods and
right chamber empty.
Lungs – Congested and intact.
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.1307 of 2024 dt.17-07-2026
29/45
(iv) Abdominal cavity – All organ are intact and
congested stomach is empty.
Cause of Death – Shock and multiple extra dural
haemorrhage due to head injury.
Time of death – Within 12 hours.
After PM completed dead body handed over to the
Chowkidar 2/8 Sadanand Paswan at 10:30 AM.
02. This PM report is in my handwriting and
signature. After identification of own handwriting
and signature by the witness, this postmortem report
is marked as Exhibit-P-9/PW-11.”
45. PW-11 has proved the postmortem report as Exhibit
‘P-9/PW-11’. In his cross-examination, he has stated that rigor
mortis starts after 6 hours of death and it disappears in 36 hours.
He had found stitched wound on the occipital region of the
deceased. He had written in his postmortem report that the patient
was referred to PMCH from Sadar Hospital, Madhepura.
46. The defence relies upon the statement of the doctor
(PW-11) in course of his cross-examination that such injury may
be caused by fall on hard surface or hard object. Such injuries may
be caused by accident also. In the opinion of this Court, paragraph
’10’ of the cross-examination of PW-11 is only based on a
presumption that whether such injury may be caused by fall on
hard surface or hard object. Such suggestive questions would not
take away the consistent case of the prosecution that the deceased
was assaulted by an iron rod. PW-11 had found on internal
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.1307 of 2024 dt.17-07-2026
30/45
examination that there was fracture present on the temporal region.
From the evidence of PW-11, the statement of the informant (PW-
7) is getting fully corroborated.
47. The fact that the I.O. (PW-10) had not collected the
injury report of the Anmol Kumar @ Kailash Kumar from Sadar
Hospital, Madhepura is a fault on the part of the Investigating
Officer but that would not be fatal to the prosecution case. The
informant (PW-7) is no doubt an inimical witness in this case but
on a careful scrutiny of her evidence, it is found that she is an
eyewitness and her deposition is credible and trustworthy. Her
evidence is getting support from the evidence of the I.O. (PW-10)
and the doctor (PW-11). In fact the doctor (PW-9) has proved the
two injury reports of PW-6 and PW-8, who have turned hostile.
The injury reports marked Exhibit ‘P-2/PW-9’ and ‘P-3/PW-9’
respectively are as under:-
“01- On 30-05-2020, I was posted at Sadar
Hospital, Madhepura as a M.O. On that day at about
06:30 P.M., I examined Mahendra Das, aged about
60 years, s/o Chichai Das of village Dhurgaon, P.S.-
Madhepura (Bharahi O.P.), District- Madhepura and
found followings:
(i) Body ache.
(ii) Headache.
Both injuries caused by hard and blunt substance
and simple in nature.
2. Age of injury – Within 06 hours.
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.1307 of 2024 dt.17-07-2026
31/45
3. M/I – Till on planter aspect of right hand.
4. This injury report is in my pen signature, which I
identify. Let it be marked as Exhibit-P-2/P.W.-9.
5. On the same day at about 06:25 P.M., I examined
Rajesh Kumar, aged about 20 years, s/o Chichai Das
of Dhurgaon, P.S.-Madhepura (Bharahi O.P.),
District- Madhepura and found followings:
(i) Body ache and headache.
(ii) Lacerated wound 1″x.3″ on temporal frontal
region.
(iii) Lacerated wound 1″x.5″ on frontal perietal
region.
All injuries caused by hard and blunt substance and
simple in nature.
6. Age of injuries :- Within 06 hours.
7. M/I – Till on chest right side.
8. This injury report is also in my pen and signature,
which I identify. Let it be marked as Exhibit-P-
3/P.W.9.”
48. In the case of Mallanna and Ors. vs. State of
Karnataka reported in (2007) 8 SCC 523, the Hon’ble Supreme
Court has held inter alia that merely because witnesses are related
or interested or not injured, their evidence cannot be discarded if
they are natural witnesses and their testimonies are otherwise
found to be credible, especially when they have supported the
prosecution case in material particulars.
49. In the case of Vadivelu Thevar vs. State of Madras
reported in AIR 1957 SC 614, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has
reiterated that:-
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.1307 of 2024 dt.17-07-2026
32/45“As a general rule, a court can and may act on the
testimony of a single witness though uncorroborated.
One credible witness outweighs the testimony of a
number of other witnesses of indifferent character.”
50. In the case of Vadivelu Thevar (supra), it has been
held inter alia that:-
“… Whether corroboration of the testimony of a
single witness is or is not necessary, must depend
upon facts and circumstances of each case and no
general rule can be laid down in a matter like this
and much depends upon the judicial discretion of the
Judge before whom the case comes.”
51. In the case of Piara Singh vs. State of Punjab
reported in (1977) 4 SCC 452, the three eyewitnesses were
relations of the deceased and bore animus against the accused but
as the occurrence had taken place near the door of the house of the
deceased, these persons were found to be natural witnesses. Thus,
the Hon’ble Supreme Court rejected the contention of the deceased
that there was no independent witness from the village. The
Hon’ble Supreme Court observed as under:-
“… It may be difficult to get witnesses from the
village when an assault of the type suddenly takes
place in the house of the deceased. It is well
settled that the evidence of interested or inimical
witnesses is to be scrutinised with care but cannot
be rejected merely on the ground of being a
partisan evidence. If on a perusal of the evidence
the court is satisfied that the evidence is credit-
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.1307 of 2024 dt.17-07-2026
33/45worthy there is no bar in the Court relying on the
said evidence…”
52. Keeping in view the entire evidences available on
the record, this Court is wholly satisfied with the evidences of PW-
7, PW-9, PW-10 and PW-11 fully supporting the prosecution case.
The place of occurrence has been proved by the I.O. (PW-10) who
had inspected the place of occurrence on 01.06.2020 at 8:00 AM.
He had not found any house at the place of occurrence but houses
were there in the boundary. He has stated that the house of the
informant is at a distance of half kilometer from the place of
occurrence. I.O. has stated that the house of the accused, Domi
Das, is at a distance of 300 meters from the place of occurrence
and the house of another accused, Badri Das, is in the boundary. It
is evident from the deposition of the I.O. that the accused persons
were in the boundary or at a short distance of 300 meters only.
Therefore, their arrival at the place of occurrence as stated by the
informant (PW-7) is worth believable.
53. At this stage, this Court would briefly refer the
statement of the injured hostile witness (PW-6) who has stated in
paragraph ‘1’ of his examination-in-chief that the occurrence is of
the year 2020 and it was daytime at 4:00 o’clock when he had got
injured and had received two injuries on his head. In fact, in
paragraph ‘1’ of his examination-in-chief, PW-6 is supporting the
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.1307 of 2024 dt.17-07-2026
34/45
prosecution case as regards the date and time of occurrence and
the fact that he had got injured in the said occurrence. His
statement that he got injured due to fall of bamboo clump is only
an afterthought and that part of the statement of PW-6 is not
believable. He had gone in collusion with the defence is also
evident from his statement that police had not recorded his
statement, whereas I.O. has stated that he had recorded his
statement and the attention of this witness was drawn towards his
earlier statement made before police.
54. Similarly, the evidence of the another injured
witness, PW-8, who has turned hostile, is liable to be rejected. He
has made false statement that he was not in the village at the time
of occurrence. PW-7 has categorically stated in paragraph ’24’ of
her deposition that on the date of occurrence, her father-in-law,
Mahendra Das and her mother-in-law were present in the house.
The fact that PW-8 had suffered injuries, he was taken to Sadar
Hospital, Madhepura where the Doctor (PW-9) had treated him
and recorded in the injury report (Exhibit ‘P-2/PW-9’) that the
injuries were caused by hard and blunt object are testimony of the
fact that this witness was very much present in his village and had
suffered injury during the occurrence. PW-8 has stated that his
statement was not recorded by police, but the prosecution has
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.1307 of 2024 dt.17-07-2026
35/45
cross-examined him and his attention has been drawn towards his
previous statements made before police. I.O. (PW-10) has also
contradicted him by saying that he has recorded his statement.
55. The defence has brought one witness, namely, Bimal
Yadav, who is a formal witness. He has proved the sale deed
executed by Kari Das, Balo Das, Shambhu Das, sons of late Jangal
Das, in favour of Kabutri Devi and Rina Devi on 07.03.2020. He is
not a witness to the occurrence or the facts and circumstances of
the case.
56. This Court further finds that in their statements
under Section 313 CrPC, even as the attention of the accused
persons was drawn towards the incriminating materials, such as
the deposition of the witnesses and the various documentary
evidences, the accused persons did not come with any explanation,
save and except to deny those incriminating materials by saying
that they have been falsely implicated.
57. In this case although the occurrence is of the
30.05.2020 but the FIR has been lodged on 01.06.2020. The
informant has herself stated in the FIR (Exhibit ‘P/1’) that she was
advised by the local people to take the injured to the hospital first.
The injured persons were taken to the hospital on the same day
within two hours, which would be evident from the injury reports.
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.1307 of 2024 dt.17-07-2026
36/45
It was incumbent upon the Sadar Hospital authorities to inform the
local police, but it seems no such information was given to police.
The informant being a village lady had to go to the police station
herself and then only the FIR was recorded. This simply shows the
failure of the hospital authorities in informing the police and
reluctance on the part of the police officials to register the FIR at
the earliest opportunity. The injured were getting treatment and
one of the injured, Anmol @ Kaushal, was referred to higher
center. In the opinion of this Court, the delay is not such that it
may create any doubt in the prosecution story. In the case of Tara
Singh vs. State of Punjab reported in 1991 Supp (1) SCC 536,
the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held as under:-
“… the delay in giving the FIR by itself cannot
be a ground to doubt the prosecution case.
Knowing the Indian conditions as they are, we
cannot expect these villagers to rush to the police
station immediately after the occurrence. Human
nature as it is, the kith and kin who have
witnessed the occurrence cannot be expected to
act mechanically with all the promptitude in
giving the report to the police. At times being
grief-stricken because of the calamity it may not
immediately occur to them that they should give
a report. After all it is but natural in these
circumstances for them to take some time to go
to the police station for giving the report…”.
58. In ultimate analysis of the entire evidences on the
record, this Court is of the considered opinion that the learned trial
court has erred in appreciation of the evidences available on the
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.1307 of 2024 dt.17-07-2026
37/45
record. In the case of Gopal Singh vs. State of Bihar reported in
(1993) 1 PLJR 236, the Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court has
held that the case is to be decided on broad probabilities.
59. On a close scrutiny of the evidences on the record,
we find that in this case, the quarrel had taken place all of a sudden
and the accused persons had assembled at the place of occurrence
after they heard the abuses being hurled by the informant for
keeping the jalawan on the dih of the informant (PW-7). The
assault was made by iron rod and lathi, which are normally kept in
the house of the villagers. We further find that Shravan Kumar had
assaulted the deceased, Anmol @ Kaushal Kumar, on his head by
iron rod, which fractured the temporal region of the deceased but
there was no repetition of blow on the head. The other two injured,
namely, Rajesh (PW-6) and Mahendra Das (PW-8) had received
simple injuries caused by hard and blunt object. The I.O. had
recorded in the inquest report on the basis of the statement of the
witnesses that the injuries were caused by a rod and a brick.
60. The quarrel seems to have taken place in the spur of
the moment, there was no intention on the part of the accused
persons to kill Kaushal Kumar @ Anmol, therefore, the charge
under Section 302 IPC would not be established beyond all
reasonable doubts. This would make this case a culpable homicide
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.1307 of 2024 dt.17-07-2026
38/45
not amounting to murder. It will fall under Exception 4 of Section
300 IPC (now Section 101 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita).
Section 300 with Exception IV is quoted hereunder:-
“300. Murder. – Except in the cases hereinafter
excepted, culpable homicide is murder, if the act by
which the death is caused is done with the intention
of causing death, or–
2ndly.–If it is done with the intention of causing
such bodily injury as the offender knows to be likely
to cause the death of the person to whom the harm is
caused, or–
3rdly.–If it is done with the intention of causing
bodily injury to any person and the bodily injury
intended to be inflicted is sufficient in the ordinary
course of nature to cause death, or–
4thly.–If the person committing the act knows that it
is so imminently dangerous that it must, in all
probability, cause death, or such bodily injury as is
likely to cause death, and commits such act without
any excuse for incurring the risk of causing death or
such injury as aforesaid.
Exception 1 …..
Exception 2 …..
Exception 3 …..
Exception 4.– Culpable homicide is not murder if it
is committed without premeditation in a sudden fight
in the heat of passion upon a sudden quarrel and
without the offender’s having taken undue advantage
or acted in a cruel or unusual manner.
Explanation.–It is immaterial in such cases which
party offers the provocation or commits the first
assault.
Exception 5 …..”
61. Having said so, this Court finds that the present case
would be covered under Section 304 Part II IPC. We reproduce
Section 304 IPC (now Section 105 of the Bharatiya Nyaya
Sanhita) hereunder for a ready reference:-
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.1307 of 2024 dt.17-07-2026
39/45“304. Punishment for culpable homicide not
amounting to murder- Whoever commits culpable
homicide not amounting to murder, shall be
1
punished with [imprisonment for life], or
imprisonment of either description for a term which
may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to
fine, if the act by which the death is caused is done
with the intention of causing death, or of causing
such bodily injury as is likely to cause death;
or with imprisonment of either description for a term
which may extend to ten years, or with fine, or with
both, if the act is done with the knowledge that it is
likely to cause death, but without any intention to
cause death, or to cause such bodily injury as is
likely to cause death.”
62. The materials present on the record are clearly
establishing a case of culpable homicide not amounting to murder,
covered under Section 304 Part II. This Court therefore, convicts
the accused-respondent no. 2 for committing offence punishable
under Section 304 Part II IPC.
63. In the materials present on the record, we are of the
considered opinion that the respondent no. 2 Shrawan Kumar @
Sarwan Kumar, Son of Badri Das, who had assaulted the deceased,
has committed an offence of culpable homicide not amounting to
murder. He has committed an offence covered under Section 304
Part II IPC. Accordingly, this Court convicts respondent no.2
under Section 304 Part II IPC.
1. Subs. By Act 26 of 1955, s. 117 and the Schedule, for “transportation for life” (w.e.f. 1-1-1956).
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.1307 of 2024 dt.17-07-2026
40/45
64. So far as respondent nos. 3 and 4 namely Bucho Das
@ Buchai Das and Badri Das, both sons of Late Sukhdev Das are
concerned, they had caused simple injuries to PW-6 and PW-8,
therefore both of them are liable to be convicted under Section
323/34 IPC. Section 323 IPC reads as under:-
“323. Punishment for voluntarily causing hurt.
–Whoever, except in the case provided for by
section 334, voluntarily causes hurt, shall be
punished with imprisonment of either description
for a term which may extend to one year, or with
fine which may extend to one thousand rupees, or
with both.”
65. It is evident that respondent nos. 3 and 4 have
committed the offence under Section 323/34 IPC and they are
liable to be convicted under the said provision. Accordingly, they
are convicted under Section 323/34 IPC.
66. All the accused persons have been charged for the
offences committed under Section 341 IPC. Section 341 IPC is the
punishing section which reads as under:-
“341. Punishment for wrongful restraint.
Whoever wrongfully restrains any person shall be
punished with simple imprisonment for a term
which may extend to one month, or with fine which
may extend to five hundred rupees, or with both.”
67. Wrongful restraint has been defined under Section
339 IPC. We reproduce Section 339 IPC hereunder:-
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.1307 of 2024 dt.17-07-2026
41/45“339. Wrongful restraint.–Whoever voluntarily
obstructs any person so as to prevent that person from
proceeding in any direction in which that person has a
right to proceed, is said wrongfully to restrain that
person.
Exception.–The obstruction of a private way over
land or water which a person in good faith believes
himself to have a lawful right to obstruct, is not an
offence within the meaning of this section.”
68. In our considered opinion, the prosecution has not
been able to prove the ingredients of Section 341/34 IPC.
Accordingly, all the accused are acquitted of the charge under
Section 341/34 IPC.
69. The accused persons have also been charged under
Section 504/34 IPC, therefore we reproduce Section 504 IPC
hereunder for a ready reference:-
“504. Intentional insult with intent to
provoke breach of the peace.–Whoever
intentionally insults, and thereby gives
provocation to any person, intending or
knowing it to be likely that such provocation
will cause him to break the public peace, or
to commit any other offence, shall be
punished with imprisonment of either
description for a term which may extend to
two years, or with fine, or with both.”
70. From the evidences available on the record, it is
evident that the accused persons had not intentionally insulted the
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.1307 of 2024 dt.17-07-2026
42/45
informant or the injured witnesses. As held by this Court, it was a
sudden quarrel, there was no pre-meditation of mind. Thus, the
accused persons are acquitted of the charge under Section 504/34
IPC.
71. The judgment has been delivered in open court.
The accused persons-respondent nos. 2 to 4 are present in person,
hence they are taken into custody.
(Rajeev Ranjan Prasad, J)
(Kumar Manish, J)
Later on
On the point of sentence
The matter has been heard on the point of sentence. Mr.
Nafisuzzhoha, learned counsel representing the respondent nos. 2
to 4 submits that respondent no. 2 Shrawan Kumar @ Sarwan
Kumar (respondent no.2) is a young man aged about 25 years
only and the occurrence seems to have taken place in spur of the
moment without premeditation of mind. It is submitted that he is
presently earning his livelihood as a security guard, hence a
lenient view be taken in the matter of award of sentence.
2. This Court has been informed that Shrawan Kumar
(respondent no.2) has remained in jail in connection with this case
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.1307 of 2024 dt.17-07-2026
43/45
from 24.07.2020 to 29.08.2024, therefore, he has spent four years
one month (approximately) in custody which period is required to
be set off against the sentence which may be awarded by this
Court.
3. Learned counsel has further informed that so far as
Bucho Das @ Buchai Das (respondent no.3) is concerned, he has
remained in jail from 11.06.2020 to 16.07.2021 during trial and
Badri Das (respondent no.4) has remained in jail from 08.08.2020
to 16.07.2021. They have been found guilty of the offence under
Section 323/34 IPC. It is submitted that the maximum
imprisonment under Section 323 IPC is one year, therefore,
respondent nos. 2 and 3 may be awarded a sentence for the period
undergone.
4. Mr. Ajay Kumar Mishra, learned Additional Public
Prosecutor for the State, submits that so far as Shrawan Kumar @
Sarwan Kumar (respondent no.2) is concerned, since he has been
found guilty for the offence under Section 304 Part II of the IPC,
which prescribes the maximum imprisonment upto ten years, a
period commensurate to the status of his guilt is required to be
awarded with adequate amount of fine. As regards respondent
nos. 3 and 4, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State
submits that since they have spent considerable period in custody
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.1307 of 2024 dt.17-07-2026
44/45
during trial, they may be awarded a sentence equal to the period
already undergone by them.
5. Learned counsel for the appellant has endorsed the
submissions of learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.
6. Having considered the submissions noted
hereinabove, we are of the considered opinion that rigorous
imprisonment of seven years to Shrawan Kumar @ Sarwan
Kumar (respondent no.2) would be a reasonable period of
sentence for the offence committed by him punishable under
Section 304 Part II IPC. This Court, therefore, directs that
Shrawan Kumar @ Sarwan Kumar, Son of Badri Das (respondent
no.2) shall undergo a sentence of seven years rigorous
imprisonment. He would also be liable to pay a fine of Rs.
50,000/- which would be payable to the appellant. In default of
payment of fine, he shall further undergo a sentence of six months
simple imprisonment. The period already spent by the respondent
no.2 during the trial shall be set off in terms of Section 428 of the
Code of Criminal Procedure (now Section 468 of the Bharatiya
Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita). Shrawan Kumar @ Sarwan Kumar,
Son of Badri Das (respondent no.2) is taken into custody. He shall
be forwarded to Divisional Jail, Madhepura to undergo the
remaining sentence.
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.1307 of 2024 dt.17-07-2026
45/45
7. So far as Bucho Das @ Buchai Das (respondent no.
3) and Badri Das (respondent no.4) are concerned, they are
awarded the sentence to the extent of the period already
undergone by them during trial. Hence they are released from
custody.
8. This appeal stands allowed to the extent indicated
hereinabove.
9. Let a copy of this judgment together with the trial
court records be sent down to the learned trial court.
(Rajeev Ranjan Prasad, J)
(Kumar Manish, J)
SUSHMA2/Rishi-
AFR/NAFR CAV DATE 24.06.2026 Uploading Date 17.07.2026 Transmission Date 17.07.2026
