Patna High Court
Lal Babu 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 (SJ) No. 4035 of 2021
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-62 Year-2000 Thana- BIBHUTIPUR District- Samastipur
======================================================
1. Lal Babu Singh, male, aged about 49 years,
2. Ram Balak Singh, male, aged about 55 years
Both sons of late Ramjeevan Singh, resident of Village-Shivnathpur,
P.O.-Singhia Ghat, P.S.-Bibhutipur, District-Samastipur.
... ... Appellants
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Respondent
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Appellants : Mr. Ajay Kumar Thakur, Advocate
Mrs. Vaishnavi Singh, Advocate
Mr. Pravin Kumar, Advocate
Mr. Ritwik Thakur, Advocate
For the Informant : Mr. Rajesh Ranjan, 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 instant criminal appeal has been heard together
with the Criminal Appeal (DB) No.743 of 2021, arising out of
the common impugned judgment dated 10.09.2021, which is
against the acquittal of the instant appellants under Section 307
of the Indian Penal Code and after having heard both the
appeals, judgments are being passed separately.
2. The present appeal has been preferred under
Section 374(2) read with Section 389(1) of the Code of
Criminal Procedure, against the impugned judgment dated
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No. 4035 of 2021 dt.25-08-2025
2/13
10.09.2021
and the order of sentence dated 13.09.2021,
rendered by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-III/Special
Court, M.P./M.L.A., Samastipur, in Sessions Trial No.
943A/2004, arising out of Vibhutipur P.S. Case No. 62 of 2000,
whereby the appellants were acquitted under Section 307 of the
IPC, but convicted for the offences punishable under Sections
323, 324 & 341 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 27 of the
Arms Act and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for
a period of three years and fine of Rs. 5,000/- for the offence
punishable under Section 324 of the Indian Penal Code and in
default of payment of fine, the appellants shall have further to
undergo simple imprisonment for a period of two months.
Further, the appellants shall have to undergo simple
imprisonment for a period of one year for the offence
punishable under Section 323 of the Indian Penal Code. For
offence under Section 341 of the Indian penal Code, the
appellants shall have to undergo simple imprisonment for a
period of one month. For the offence under Section 27 of the
Arms Act, the appellants shall have to undergo Rigorous
Imprisonment for a period of five years and fine of Rs.10,000/-
and in default of payment of fine, the appellants shall have
further to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of two
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No. 4035 of 2021 dt.25-08-2025
months. All the sentences are directed to run concurrently.
3. Vide order dated 06.01.2022, Trial Court Records
were called for, which were received on 20.01.2022.
4. 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. Lal Babu Singh and Ram
Balak Singh, who were also present there, ordered to catch hold
the informant, on which the informant tried to run away towards
the west side and when he reached at 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 another motorcycle and they opened fire
with intention to kill the informant. Two rounds firing were
made by Lal Babu Singh hitting the finger of the informant,
owing to which the informant fell down on the road.
5. 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 Appellant Nos.2 & 3 and, accordingly, cognizance was
taken. Thereafter, the case was committed to the Court of
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No. 4035 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.
6. 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 (SJ) No. 4035 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 has
acquitted the appellants under Section 307 of the IPC but
convicted them under Sections 323, 324 and 341 of the IPC and
Section 27 of the Arms Act.
7. The learned counsel for the appellants has
submitted that the learned Trial Court has failed to take into
consideration the vital contradictions and omissions of the
witnesses examined on behalf of the prosecution. He further
submits that the learned Trial Court has also failed to appreciate
the evidence of the Doctor, who has stated that the injury may or
may not be caused by fire-arm and only on the basis of X-ray
plate, he gave the opinion of the fire-arm injury. The learned
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No. 4035 of 2021 dt.25-08-2025
Trial Court has also failed to appreciate that the prosecution has
failed to establish the place of occurrence, time of occurrence
and the manner of occurrence.
8. We have heard learned counsel for the appellants
and have also gone through the records of the case.
9. The sole question that requires consideration by this
Court is whether the impugned judgment of conviction requires
any interference by this Court.
10. Upon perusal of 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.
11. The F.I.R. named witness Upendra Singh (PW-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 (PW-7), also an F.I.R. named
witness, categorically denied the presence of the accused at the
place of occurrence and further stated that nobody received any
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No. 4035 of 2021 dt.25-08-2025
injury during the alleged incident. Thus, two prime witnesses,
who should have been the most natural witnesses, have failed to
support the prosecution case.
12. 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.
13. 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.
14. Further, the Investigating Officer (PW-11)
admitted in his deposition that there are two different places of
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No. 4035 of 2021 dt.25-08-2025
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.
15. PW-5, PW-7 and PW-10 are material witnesses, as
the alleged occurrence as per the evidence of the Investigating
Officer, has taken place outside of their house. But, all these 3
material witnesses have neither supported the prosecution case
in respect of the manner of occurrence nor have mentioned the
presence of accused at the place of occurence during the
commission of offence.
16. 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 IPC, medical evidence is of vital
importance to establish the nature and seriousness of injuries,
but in the present case, such evidence is completely absent.
17. The FIR mentions that only one knife blow was
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No. 4035 of 2021 dt.25-08-2025
inflicted on the informant. However, the medical report shows
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.
18. 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.
19. This Court, after a detailed appreciation of
evidence, found that the prosecution case suffers from material
contradictions, absence of corroboration from independent
witnesses, failure to prove the place of occurrence, and lack of
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No. 4035 of 2021 dt.25-08-2025
medical evidence. and cannot be said to be perverse or
unreasonable.
20. In a criminal appeal against conviction, what the
Appellate Court has to examine is whether the finding of the
learned Trial Court is sustainable in law and on facts, or
whether the same suffers from any illegality, impropriety, or
mis-appreciation of evidence. Being the final court of fact, the
appellate court is duty bound to re-appreciate, reconsider, and
review the entire evidence on record, both on facts and law, to
ascertain whether the conviction is justified. It is equally bound
to ensure that the conviction rests on proof beyond reasonable
doubt and is not based on surmises, conjectures, or
inadmissible material.
21. At this juncture, it is apposite to refer to the
decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Bani Singh v. State
of Uttar Pradesh reported in (1996) 4 SCC 720, wherein it has
been held that the appellate court has full power to review the
entire evidence and arrive at its own conclusion in an appeal
against conviction. Similarly, in State of Rajasthan v. Kashi
Ram reported in (2006) 12 SCC 254, the Hon'ble Supreme
Court observed that while the presumption of innocence is
weakened once a person is convicted, the burden still lies on
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No. 4035 of 2021 dt.25-08-2025
the prosecution to prove the guilt beyond reasonable doubt, and
the appellate court must carefully test whether such standard
has been met.
22. In Chandrappa v. State of Karnataka reported in
(2007) 4 SCC 415, the Hon'ble Supreme Court reiterated that
the appellate court, while hearing an appeal against conviction,
is entitled to re-appreciate the evidence and come to its own
conclusion, but such re-appreciation must be undertaken
keeping in mind the settled principles of criminal
jurisprudence. The court held that:
"In our view, if in the light of above
circumstances, the trial Court felt that the
accused could get benefit of doubt, the said
view cannot be held to be illegal, improper or
contrary to law. Hence, even though we are of
the opinion that in an appeal against acquittal,
powers of appellate Court are as wide as that of
the trial Court and it can review, reappreciate
and reconsider the entire evidence brought on
record by the parties and can come to its own
conclusion on fact as well as on law, in the
present case, the view taken by the trial court
for acquitting the accused was possible and
plausible. On the basis of evidence, therefore, at
the most, it can be said that the other view was
equally possible.."
23. The appellate court is thus justified in looking into
the entirety of the evidence to test its reliability, weigh the
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No. 4035 of 2021 dt.25-08-2025
defence put forth by the accused, and ensure that the trial court's
reasoning conforms to legal principles. This scrutiny extends to
both the factual matrix and the application of law. If the trial
court has overlooked material contradictions, ignored vital
defence evidence, or misapplied the law, the appellate court is
duty bound to interfere. Conversely, where the conviction is
based on proper appreciation of reliable evidence and is in
conformity with law, the appellate court will be slow to disturb
such finding.
24. Therefore, in a criminal appeal against conviction,
the scope of scrutiny is wide, but the exercise is guided by the
principle that guilt must be proved beyond reasonable doubt, the
reasoning must be cogent, and the conclusion must rest on
legally admissible evidence. The appellate court's role is to
ensure that the conviction is the result of a fair trial, proper
application of law, and sound appreciation of evidence, thereby
upholding the constitutional guarantee of a fair criminal process.
25. Accordingly, this Court finds that the learned trial
court has erred in convicting the appellants under Sections 323,
324 and 341 of the IPC and Section 27 of the Arms Act. The
appellants are, thus, acquitted from the charges levelled against
them under Sections 323, 324 and 341 of the IPC and Section
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No. 4035 of 2021 dt.25-08-2025
27 of the Arms Act.
26. The impugned judgment dated 10.09.2021 and the
order of sentence dated 13.09.2021, passed by the learned
Additional Sessions Judge-III/Special Court, M.P./M.L.A.,
Samastipur, in Sessions Trial No. 943A/2004, arising out of
Vibhutipur P.S. Case No. 62 of 2000, is set aside.
27. The appeal is accordingly allowed.
28. Since the appellants are on bail, let them be
discharged from the liabilities of bail bonds and sureties, if any.
(Sudhir Singh, J.)
(Rajesh Kumar Verma, J.)
Gaurav Kumar,
Ibrar Ul Haq/-
AFR/NAFR N.A.F.R.
CAV DATE N.A.
Uploading Date 30.08.2025
Transmission Date 30.08.2025
