Patna High Court
Lalan Singh vs The State Of Bihar on 25 August, 2025
Author: Sudhir Singh
Bench: Sudhir Singh, Rajesh Kumar Verma
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL APPEAL (DB) No.743 of 2021
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-62 Year-2000 Thana- BIBHUTIPUR District- Samastipur
======================================================
Lalan Singh, male, aged about 36 years, Son of Shankar Singh, Resident of
Village- Shivnathpur, P.S.- Bibhutipur, District- Samastipur.
... ... Appellant
Versus
1. The State of Bihar
2. Lal Babu Singh
3. Ram Balak Singh
Both are sons of Ramjeevan Singh and both are residents of village
Shivnathpur, P.S.-Bibhutipur, District-Samastipur.
... ... Respondents
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Appellant : Mr. Rajesh Ranjan, Advocate
For the Respondent : Mr. Ajay Kumar Thakur, Advocate
Mr. Pravin Kumar, Advocate
Mrs. Vaishnavi Singh, Advocate
Mr. Ritwik Thakur, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Sujit Kumar Singh, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUDHIR SINGH
and
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR VERMA
ORAL JUDGMENT
(Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUDHIR SINGH)
Date : 25-08-2025
The present criminal appeal has been preferred under
Section 372 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 against
judgment of acquittal dated 10.09.2021, passed by the learned
Additional Sessions Judge-III/Spl. Court M.P./M.L.A.,
Samastipur, in Sessions Trial No. 943A of 2004, arising out of
Vibhutipur P.S. Case No.62 of 2000, whereby Respondent Nos.2
& 3 have been acquitted by the learned Trial Court from the
charge of Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code, but were
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.743 of 2021 dt.25-08-2025
convicted under the charges of Sections 323, 324 and 341 of the
IPC, and Section 27 of the Arms Act.
2. The prosecution case, in brief, is that on 04.06.2000
at 12:30 in night, the informant (Lalan Singh) went to attend
the marriage of daughter of Ganga Singh and accused persons,
Lal Babu Singh and Ram Balak Singh, were present there, and
after seeing the informant they ordered to catch the informant
upon which informant tried to run away towards the west side
and when he reached Teenbatti near the house of Upender
Singh, Lal Babu along with one person reached on motorcycle
with pistol and Ram Balak Singh along with one person also
reached on the other motorcycle and they opened fire to kill the
informant. Two rounds of firing took place by Lal Babu Singh
which hit the finger of the informant and it was blown and
owing to this injury informant fell down.
3. On the basis of written report of the informant,
Vibhutipur P.S. Case No. 62 of 2000 was instituted under
Sections 341, 323 & 307 of the Indian Penal Code and Section
27 of the Arms Act and investigation was carried out by the
police. The police, after investigation, submitted charge-sheet
against Respondent Nos.2 & 3 and, accordingly, cognizance was
taken. Thereafter, the case was committed to the Court of
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.743 of 2021 dt.25-08-2025
Sessions. Charges were framed against the accused persons to
which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
4. During the trial, the prosecution examined
altogether twelve witnesses i.e. PW-1 Nageshwar Singh, PW-2
Chanchaliya Devi, PW-3 Rameshwar Singh, PW-4 Nanki Singh,
PW-5 Upender Singh, PW-6 Lalan Singh (informant), PW-7
Usha Singh (wife of Upender Singh) PW-8 Ram Sharan Mahto,
PW-9 Panvati Devi (wife of Ram Avatar Singh), PW-10 Ram
Avtar Singh, PW-11 Dashrath Singh (I.O.), and PW-12 Dr.
Gopal Mishra. The prosecution has also produced certain
documents which were marked as 'Exhibits', i.e., Ext. 1-
Signature of PW-11 (I.O.) on FIR, Ext. 2- Formal FIR, Ext. 3-
Injury Report. The defence has examined four witnesses, i.e.,
DW-1 Chandrashekhar Jha, DW-2 Ashok Singh, DW-3 Ram
Bishun Singh and DW-4 Arun Kumar Singh and the defence has
also produced certain documents which were marked as
'Exhibits' i.e., Ext. A- Copy of jail records, Ext. B- Certificate
issued by Election Officer dated 27.02.2015, Ext. C-
Compromise application filed in Vibhutipur P.S. Case No.62 of
2000, Ext. D- Application filed in Vibhutipur P.S. Case No.62 of
2000, Ext. E- Deposition of Rameshwar Singh in S.T. No.941 of
2004, Ext. E1- Deposition of Nageshwar Singh in 941 of 2004,
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.743 of 2021 dt.25-08-2025
Ext. E2- Deposition of Chanchaliya Devi in 941 of 2004, Ext.
E4- Ram Sharan Mahto in 941 of 2004, Ext. E5- Deposition of
Nanhki Singh in 943 of 2004, Ext. E6- Deposition of Lalan
Singh 941 of 2004, Ext. F- Order dated 24.07.2002 in S.T.
No.940/2004, Ext. G- C.C. of FIR No.61 of 2000, P.S.
Vibhutipur, Ext. H- C.C. of charge-sheet in FIR No.61 of 2000
P.S.-Vibhutipur, Ext. I- Deposition of Dharam Pal in 941 of
2004, Ext. J- C.C. of FIR of Vibhutipur P.S. Case No.141 of
1998. After closure of prosecution evidence, the statements of
the accused persons were recorded under Section 313 of the
Cr.P.C. and after conclusion of trial, learned Trial Court
acquitted the accused persons under the charge of Section 307
of the Indian Penal Code, but convicted them under the charges
of Section 323, 324 and 341 of the IPC, and Section 27 of the
Arms Act.
5. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the
learned Trial Court has failed to appreciate that there is much
material on record to show complicity of Respondent Nos.2 & 3
for the offence under Sections 307 & 326 of the Indian Penal
Code in the alleged occurrence but they have been convicted for
lesser offence under Sections 324, 323 & 341 of the Indian
Penal Code and Section 27 of the Arms Act which is completely
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.743 of 2021 dt.25-08-2025
ignoring the materials on record. Learned Trial Court has
committed a grave error by holding that since the accused
persons did not repeat the firing and they chose to fire upon
non-vital part of the appellant, therefore, no case under Section
307 of the Indian Penal Code is made out.
6. We have heard learned counsel for the appellant
and have also gone through the records of the case.
7. The sole question that requires consideration by this
Court is whether the impugned judgment requires any
interference by this Court.
8. Upon perusal of the evidence on record, it is
evident that the F.I.R. names five persons as witnesses to the
occurrence, namely, Upendra Singh, Ram Badan Singh, Jairam
Singh, Raghunandan Singh, and the wife of Upendra Singh, i.e.,
Usha Singh. Out of these, three main witnesses, namely,
Raghunandan Singh, Ram Badan Singh, and Jairam Singh, were
not examined by the prosecution, without any explanation. This
omission itself weakens the prosecution case.
9. The F.I.R. named witness Upendra Singh (P.W.5),
who was examined during trial, did not support the manner of
occurrence as narrated in the F.I.R., nor did he name the accused
persons as assailants. His wife (P.W.7), also an F.I.R. named
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.743 of 2021 dt.25-08-2025
witness, categorically denied the presence of the accused at the
place of occurrence and further stated that nobody received any
injury during the alleged incident. Thus, two prime witnesses,
who should have been the most natural witnesses, have failed to
support the prosecution case.
10. Further, PW-3, an independent witness, clearly
stated that on hearing hulla, he went to the place of occurrence
but did not find the respondents present there. PW-10, in front
of whose house the occurrence is alleged to have taken place,
also did not support the prosecution case. PW-1, though
examined as a witness, is the uncle of the informant and was not
named in the F.I.R. PW- 2, the mother of Jairam Singh, was also
not a named witness in the F.I.R., and her testimony was
coloured by interested witness, since the informant himself
deposed that Jairam Singh was a co- accused in other criminal
cases with him. Such testimony, being that of interested
witnesses, cannot form the sole basis of conviction.
11. PW-4, though she supported the case, is the wife
of PW-10 and was not named in the F.I.R. Hence, her testimony,
in absence of corroboration from natural and independent
witnesses, cannot be relied upon to fasten criminal liability.
12. Further, the Investigating Officer (PW-11)
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.743 of 2021 dt.25-08-2025
admitted in his deposition that there are two different places of
occurrence in the present case, one in front of the house of
Upendra Singh (PW-5) and another in front of the house of Ram
Avatar Singh (PW- 10). Such inconsistency as to the very place
of occurrence creates serious doubt about the truthfulness of the
prosecution version.
13. PW-5, PW-7 and PW-10 are the material
witnesses, as the alleged occurrence as per the evidence of
Investigating Officer, has taken place outside of their house. But
all these three material witnesses have neither supported the
prosecution case in respect of manner of occurrence nor have
mentioned the presence of accused at the place of occurrence
during the commission of offence.
14. The informant (PW-6) deposed that after
sustaining injury, he was taken to Vibhutipur Primary Health
Centre for treatment. However, the prosecution failed to produce
any injury report from the said Health Centre. On the contrary,
the Doctor (PW-12), who was examined, did not prove any
injury consistent with the allegation of attempt to murder. In a
case under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code, medical
evidence is of vital importance to establish the nature and
seriousness of injuries, but in the present case, such evidence is
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.743 of 2021 dt.25-08-2025
completely absent.
15. The F.I.R. mentions that only one knife blow was
inflicted on the informant. However, the medical report shows
that two incised wounds caused by sharp cutting weapon. This
contradiction goes to the root of the prosecution case. If indeed
there were two knife blows, there is no explanation in the
prosecution evidence as to why the F.I.R. refers to only one.
Conversely, if the version in the F.I.R. is to be accepted, the
medical evidence becomes doubtful. Such inconsistency
between ocular evidence and medical report creates a serious
doubt and the benefit of the same must go to the accused.
16. The occurrence is alleged to have taken place at
about 12:30 in the night. However, no source of light or
identification has been disclosed either by the informant or other
witnesses. In absence of proper identification, the respondents
cannot be conclusively connected with the alleged act.
Moreover, the prosecution has not been able to establish any
injury caused with the intention or knowledge of committing
murder, which is a necessary ingredient of Section 307 of the
Indian Penal Code.
17. This Court, after a detailed appreciation of
evidence, found that the prosecution case suffers from material
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.743 of 2021 dt.25-08-2025
contradictions, absence of corroboration from independent
witnesses, failure to prove the place of occurrence, and lack of
medical evidence and cannot be said to be perverse or
unreasonable.
18. We find that the findings recorded by the learned
Trial Court do not suffer from any illegality and perversity. In a
criminal case, it is incumbent upon the prosecution to prove the
guilt of the accused beyond the shadow of a reasonable doubt.
Wherever, any doubt is cast upon the case of the prosecution,
the accused is entitled to the benefit of doubt.
19. In criminal appeal against acquittal what the
Appellate Court has to examine is whether the finding of the
learned Trial Court is perverse and prima facie illegal. Once, the
Appellate Court comes to the finding that the grounds on which
the judgment is based is not perverse, the scope of appeal
against acquittal is limited considering the fact that the legal
presumption about the innocence of the accused is further
strengthened by the finding of the Court. At this point, it is
imperative to consider the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme
Court in the case of Mrinal Das vs. State of Tripura reported in
(2011) 9 SCC 479, paragraphs 13 & 14 of which read as under:
"13. It is clear that in an appeal against
acquittal in the absence of perversity in the
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.743 of 2021 dt.25-08-2025
judgment and order, interference by this
Court exercising its extraordinary
jurisdiction, is not warranted. However, if
the appeal is heard by an appellate court, it
being the final court of fact, is fully
competent to reappreciate, reconsider and
review the evidence and take its own
decision. In other words, the law does not
prescribe any limitation, restriction or
condition on exercise of such power and the
appellate court is free to arrive at its own
conclusion keeping in mind that acquittal
provides for presumption in favour of the
accused. The presumption of innocence is
available to the person and in criminal
jurisprudence every person is presumed to
be innocent unless he is proved guilty by the
competent court. If two reasonable views are
possible on the basis of the evidence on
record, the appellate court should not
disturb the findings of acquittal.
14. There is no limitation on the part of the
appellate court to review the evidence upon
which the order of acquittal is found and to
come to its own conclusion. The appellate
court can also review the conclusion arrived
at by the trial court with respect to both facts
and law. While dealing with the appeal
against acquittal preferred by the State, it is
the duty of the appellate court to marshal the
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.743 of 2021 dt.25-08-2025
entire evidence on record and only by giving
cogent and adequate reasons set aside the
judgment of acquittal. An order of acquittal
is to be interfered with only when there are
"compelling and substantial reasons" for
doing so. If the order is "clearly
unreasonable", it is a compelling reason for
interference.........."
20. In the case of Ghurey Lal versus State of Uttar
Pradesh reported in (2008) 10 SCC 450 in paragraph 75, the
Hon'ble Supreme Court reiterated the said view and observed as
under:
"75. The trial Court has the advantage of
watching the demeanour of the witnesses who
have given evidence, therefore, the appellate
court should be slow to interfere with the
decisions of the trial court. An acquittal by
the trial court should not be interfered with
unless it is totally perverse or wholly
unsustainable."
21. Thus, an order of acquittal is to be interfered with
only for compelling and substantial reasons. In case if the order
is clearly unreasonable, it is a compelling reason for
interference. But where there is no perversity in the finding of
the impugned judgment of acquittal, the Appellate Court must
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.743 of 2021 dt.25-08-2025
not take a different view only because another view is possible.
It is because the trial Court has the privilege of seeing the
demeanour of witnesses and, therefore, its decision must not be
upset in absence of strong and compelling grounds.
22. In view of the above, we do not find any illegality
and perversity in the findings recorded by the Trial Court.
23. Accordingly, the present appeal stands dismissed.
(Sudhir Singh, J.)
(Rajesh Kumar Verma, J.)
Gaurav Kumar
Ibrar/-
AFR/NAFR N.A.F.R.
CAV DATE N.A.
Uploading Date 30.08.2025
Transmission Date 30.08.2025
