Parma Chauhan @ Parma Nonia vs State Of Bihar
2025 Latest Caselaw 4688 Patna

Patna High Court

Parma Chauhan @ Parma Nonia vs State Of Bihar on 6 December, 2025

Author: Chandra Shekhar Jha

Bench: Chandra Shekhar Jha

    IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
              CRIMINAL APPEAL (SJ) No.215 of 2004
======================================================
Parma Chauhan @ Parma Nonia, son of Sheo Bihari Chauhan @ Sheo Bihari
Nonia, resident of village - Sadalpur, P.S.- Asaw, District - Siwan.
                                                               ... ... Appellant
                                    Versus
The State of Bihar
                                           ... ... Respondent
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Appellant/s    :       Ms. Priya, Amicus Curiae
For the Respondent/s   :       Mr.Satyendra Narayan Singh, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE CHANDRA SHEKHAR JHA
                    ORAL JUDGMENT
 Date : 06-12-2025

             From perusal of the order dated 20.02.2025, it

 appears that Mr. Saroj Kumar Tiwary, was appointed as

 Amicus Curiae, but could not appeared in Court today.

             2. Therefore, out of present advocates in open

 Court, Ms. Priya, learned counsel shows her willingness to

 assist this Court as Amicus Curiae.

             3. In view of the aforesaid, Ms. Priya, learned

 counsel is appointed as Amicus Curiae for the present appeal.

             4. From perusal of record, it appears that appellant

 was granted bail by one of the learned coordinate Bench of

 this Court vide its order dated 11.01.2005.

             5. This memo of appeal has been filed on behalf of

 the sole appellant under section 374(2) of the Code of
 Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.215 of 2004 dt.06-12-2025
                                            2/15




         Criminal Procedure (in short the, 'Cr.P.C.') against the

         judgment of conviction and sentence dated 25.03.2004

         passed in Sessions Trial No. 642/96/122/03 arising out of

         Asaw P.S. Case No. 14 of 1991 by learned Adhoc District and

         Sessions Judge-cum-Presiding Officer of First Additional Fast

         Track Court, Siwan, whereby and whereunder the appellant

         has been convicted under section 25(a), 26, 27(2) of the

         Arms Act and section 323 of the Indian Penal Code, and

         awarded sentence of seven years rigorous imprisonment and

         fine of Rs. One thousand. In case of default in payment of

         fine, the trial court sentenced the appellant for further period

         of six months R.I.

                      6. The brief facts of prosecution is that the

         informant        namely,       Lallan      Chauhan   alleged   that   on

         09.03.1991

at about 9:00 A.M., while the appellant namely,

Parma Chauhan alongwith all the accused persons were

uprooting 'Masuri' crops from his field, they were objected to

do so, then, the appellant namely, Parma Chauhan fired at

him from his desi katta which did not take fire, thereafter, he

terrorized him by showing desi katta (country made pistol). Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.215 of 2004 dt.06-12-2025

The informant alleged that on hearing hulla, villagers

gathered there and tried to stop the accused persons from

doing so, on which the appellant terrorized them also by

pointing desi katta, on which scuffling took place between the

parties and thereafter Parma Chauhan (the appellant) was

caught and brought by villagers to police station alongwith

country made pistol. On the basis of the fard-e-beyan of the

informant (PW-4), Asaw P.S. Case No. 14 of 1991 was

instituted for the offences punishable under sections 447,

323, 307/34 of the Indian Penal Code and 25(a) and 26 of

the Arms Act.

7. After conclusion of investigation, police submitted

charge-sheet, thereafter cognizance was taken and the case

was committed to the court of session where the charges

were framed under sections 447, 323, 307/34 of the Indian

Penal Code and 25(a) and 26 of the Arms Act against the

appellant.

8. Learned trial court explained the aforesaid

charges to appellant/accused, which he pleaded "not guilty"

and claimed to be tried.

Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.215 of 2004 dt.06-12-2025

9. To establish its case before the learned trial

court, the prosecution altogether examined total of eight (8)

prosecution witnesses, which are PW-1 namely, Ram Naumi

Rajbhar; PW-2 Chandrika Sah; PW-3 Banwari Bhar

Chaukidar; PW-4 Lallan Chauhan (informant); PW-5 Vidya

Sagar Chauhan; PW-6 Rama Shankar Rajbhar; PW-7

Panchdeo Chauhan and PW-8 Serajul Haque.

10. The prosecution has also produced certain

documents viz. Injury report - 1 & '1/2' ; FIR - Exhibit '2';

Sanction order from the D.M. - Exhibit '3'; Production list of

desi katta - Exhibit '4'; Injury report relating to Parma

Chauhan - Exhibit 'F' and Inspection report of Sergeant Major

- Exhibit '5' respectively.

11. After examination of prosecution witnesses and

by taking note of evidence as surfaced during trial, statement

of accused/appellant was recorded under Section 313 of the

Cr.P.C., which was denied by the appellant in totality by

claiming his complete innocence and false implication.

12. On the basis of evidences as surfaced during the

trial, the learned trial court convicted and sentenced the Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.215 of 2004 dt.06-12-2025

appellant/convict, in aforesaid terms. Being aggrieved of

which present appeal was preferred.

13. Hence, the present appeal.

14. Learned amicus curiae submitted that earlier

the appellant had filed one case which numbered as 199C/99,

against the informant of this case and only to avoid the

consequences of that case, the present case has been filed. In

this context, learned Amicus Curiae drawn attention of this

Court to the judgment rendered by Additional Judge-IV,

Siwan on 29.05.99, in T.S. No. 95/92 (marked as Exhibit

'B'), of which decree is marked as Exhibit 'A' in favour of Shiv

Bihari Noniya. The appellant/accused alleged that he was

entitled to harvest the crops, which was planted on it.

15. Ms. Priya, learned Amicus Curiae submitted

that neither the Investigating Officer nor the medical officer,

who had examined the injury report, were examined in this

case and without their examination judgment of conviction as

recorded by trial court appears questionable. In this context,

learned counsel relied upon the legal report of Hon'ble

Supreme Court as available through Munna Lal v. State of Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.215 of 2004 dt.06-12-2025

Uttar Pradesh (2023) SCC Online SC 80.

16. Ms. Priya, learned amicus curiae further

submitted that fire-arm, which was seized by the police was

not produced in the learned trial court. Admittedly, the

informant has not received any injury which may suggest that

same was caused by the fire-arm.

17. It transpires from the statement of PW-1

namely, Ramnavmi Rajbhar that appellant/accused also

received injury during the occurrence. He was apprehended

by several persons with firem-arm. He alleged that the

appellant fired gunshot from his country made pistol, but was

not hit to anybody. He also supported the enmities arising out

of land dispute between the parties. In cross-examination, it

was said that fight occurred with lathi and stick and no firing

was made from pistol and this appellant was apprehended by

six persons altogether and was brought by them to police

station alongwith pistol.

18. PW-2 namely, Chandrika Sah also supported

the occurrence and the factum of land dispute. It was stated

by him that Parma Chauhan fired on him with pistol but same Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.215 of 2004 dt.06-12-2025

was misfired. In cross-examination, he stated that appellant

filed a criminal case against him. It was deposed that

appellant was not caught by him rather the chowkidar had

caught him.

19. PW-3 namely, Banwari Bhar is also an eye

witness of the occurrence, but failed to depose that any firing

was made by the appellant, whereas he deposed that

appellant was holding the country made pistol. This witness

deposed to brought appellant to the police station and the

fire-arm which was handed over/produced to the sub-

inspector in police station. He also supported the factum of

land dispute.

20. PW-4 namely, Lallan Chauhan also

supported the occurrence. He deposed that firing was made

by this appellant, but it did not hit anyone. It was deposed

that appellant/accused had also received head injury during

the occurrence and his body got bruise mark. It was deposed

by him that it was the Chowkidar who took the

appellant/accused to the police station. It was also deposed

that he defeated civil suit and preferred appeal against the Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.215 of 2004 dt.06-12-2025

disputed piece of land.

21. PW-5 namely, vidyasagar Chauhan also

deposed that appellant/accused fired from a country made

pistol which missed the target but failed to depose that who

was the target. The appellant/accused was apprehended by

villagers.

22. PW-6 namely, Ramashankar Rajbhar also

supported the occurrence. It was deposed that

appellant/accused fired the shot on him, but it was missed. It

was also deposed that appellant/accused was apprehended by

co-villagers with pistol in his hand. In cross-examination, he

deposed that the appellant/accused lodged a criminal case

against him where he got bail.

23. PW-7 namely, Panchdeo Chauhan also

supported the occurrence and deposed that Parma Chauhan

fired at Lallan Chauhan with pistol who examined as PW-4. He

also received injury during the occurrence and received his

treatment after returning from police station. In cross-

examination, he deposed that it was the chowkidar who

handed over the snatched weapon to the Sub-Inspector in the Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.215 of 2004 dt.06-12-2025

police station. He also stated in cross-examination that

appellant/accused filed a case where he was accused but

released on bail.

24. PW-8 namely, Serajul Haque. He is

Assistant Resident Doctor and identified the signature and

handwriting of Dr. H.I. Haideri, posted at Govt. Hospital,

Asawn, at the time of occurrence, who examined injured

namely, Panchdeo Noniya (PW-7) and Shivpujan Noniya.

Upon cross-examination, he stated that he was not present at

the time of issuing the injury report.

25. From perusal of testimony of witnesses, it

transpires that PW-2 and PW-6 categorically deposed that

appellant/accused fired upon them, but it was misfired,

whereas PW-7 categorically deposed that firing was made by

appellant/accused on PW-4 Lallan Chauhan. PW-7 received

injury during the occurrence and, therefore, his testimony

appears more convincing, but in view of the different

depositions particularly when all witnesses are consistent on

the issue that a single firing was made by appellant/accused

which missed the target, the testimony qua targeting the Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.215 of 2004 dt.06-12-2025

three different persons i.e. PW-2, PW-4 and PW-6 are

appearing non-convincing and, therefore, creates a serious

doubt qua allegation of firing.

26. It is an admitted position that appellant/accused

was apprehended by accused persons including the chowkidar

and was brought to the nearby police station whereby the fire-

arm was produced by the chowkidar (PW-3). The

Investigating Officer was not examined during the trial,

therefore, seizure list was also not proved during the trial. The

occurrence appears to be a free-fight. The witnesses are

appears to related to each other and they are interested to

outcome of trial in form of conviction for the reasons that they

appears to be implicated by appellant/accused in another

criminal case and, therefore, being interested witnesses their

testimony cannot be said wholly reliable.

27. Appellant himself received injury during the

occurrence, which was not explained by prosecution. The land

dispute is admitted position, where the prosecution witnesses

deposed that title was declared in favour of appellant/accused

against which the appeal was preferred and, if so, then, Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.215 of 2004 dt.06-12-2025

certainly the informant and other prosecution witnesses were

aggressor to the property of the appellant/accused.

28. In view of aforesaid, it also appears to this

Court that non-examination of I.O. proves fatal to the case of

prosecution as the appellant/accused was deprived from his

valuable legal right of defence as he could not contradict the

statement of the prosecution witnesses who appears

supported the occurrence and allegation during the trial.

29. The statement of accused/appellant also

appears recorded in very cryptic and mechanical manner

which not appears convincing in view of Sukhjit Singh v.

State of Punjab reported in (2014) 10 SCC 270.

30. It would be apposite to reproduce para 10 to

13 from Sukhjit Singh case (supra), which are as under:

"10. On a studied scrutiny of the questions put under Section 313 CrPC in entirety, we find that no incriminating material has been brought to the notice of the accused while putting questions. Mr Talwar has submitted that the requirement as engrafted under Section 313 CrPC is not an empty formality. To buttress the aforesaid submission, he has drawn inspiration from the authority in Ranvir Yadav v. State of Bihar [(2009) 6 SCC 595 : (2009) 3 SCC (Cri) 92] . Relying upon the same, he would contend that when the incriminating materials have not been put to the accused under Section 313 CrPC it tantamounts to serious lapse on the part of the trial court making the conviction vitiated in Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.215 of 2004 dt.06-12-2025

law.

11. In this context, we may profitably refer to a four- Judge Bench decision in Tara Singh v. State [1951 SCC 903 : AIR 1951 SC 441 : (1951) 52 Cri LJ 1491] wherein, Bose, J. explaining the significance of the faithful and fair compliance with Section 342 of the Code as it stood then, opined thus: (AIR pp. 445-46, para 30)

"30. I cannot stress too strongly the importance of observing faithfully and fairly the provisions of Section 342 of the Criminal Procedure Code. It is not a proper compliance to read out a long string of questions and answers made in the committal court and ask whether the statement is correct. A question of that kind is misleading. It may mean either that the questioner wants to know whether the recording is correct, or whether the answers given are true, or whether there is some mistake or misunderstanding despite the accurate recording. In the next place, it is not sufficient compliance to string together a long series of facts and ask the accused what he has to say about them. He must be questioned separately about each material circumstance which is intended to be used against him. The whole object of the section is to afford the accused a fair and proper opportunity of explaining circumstances which appear against him. The questioning must therefore be fair and must be couched in a form which an ignorant or illiterate person will be able to appreciate and understand. Even when an accused person is not illiterate, his mind is apt to be perturbed when he is facing a charge of murder. He is therefore in no fit position to understand the significance of a complex question. Fairness therefore requires that each material circumstance should be put simply and separately in a way that an illiterate mind, or one which is perturbed or confused, can readily appreciate and understand. I do not suggest that every error or omission in this behalf would necessarily vitiate a trial because I am of opinion that errors of this type fall within the category of curable irregularities. Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.215 of 2004 dt.06-12-2025

Therefore, the question in each case depends upon the degree of the error and upon whether prejudice has been occasioned or is likely to have been occasioned. In my opinion, the disregard of the provisions of Section 342 of the Criminal Procedure Code, is so gross in this case that I feel there is grave likelihood of prejudice."

12. In Hate Singh Bhagat Singh v. State of Madhya Bharat [1951 SCC 1060 : AIR 1953 SC 468 : 1953 Cri LJ 1933] , Bose, J. speaking for a three-Judge Bench highlighting the importance of recording of the statement of the accused under the Code expressed thus: (AIR pp. 469-70, para 8)

"8. Now the statements of an accused person recorded under Sections 208, 209 and 342, Criminal Procedure Code are among the most important matters to be considered at the trial. It has to be remembered that in this country an accused person is not allowed to enter the box and speak on oath in his own defence. This may operate for the protection of the accused in some cases but experience elsewhere has shown that it can also be a powerful and impressive weapon of defence in the hands of an innocent man. The statements of the accused recorded by the Committing Magistrate and the Sessions Judge are intended in India to take the place of what in England and in America he would be free to state in his own way in the witness box."

13. The aforesaid principle has been reiterated in Ajay Singh v. State of Maharashtra [(2007) 12 SCC 341 :

(2008) 1 SCC (Cri) 371] in following terms: (SCC pp.

347-48, para 14)

"14. The word 'generally' in sub-section (1)(b) does not limit the nature of the questioning to one or more questions of a general nature relating to the case, but it means that the question should relate to the whole case generally and should also be limited to any particular part or parts of it. The question must be framed in such a way as to enable the accused to know what he is to explain, what are the circumstances which are against him and for which an explanation is needed. The whole object of the section is to afford the accused a fair and Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.215 of 2004 dt.06-12-2025

proper opportunity of explaining circumstances which appear against him and that the questions must be fair and must be couched in a form which an ignorant or illiterate person will be able to appreciate and understand. A conviction based on the accused's failure to explain what he was never asked to explain is bad in law. The whole object of enacting Section 313 of the Code was that the attention of the accused should be drawn to the specific points in the charge and in the evidence on which the prosecution claims that the case is made out against the accused so that he may be able to give such explanation as he desires to give."

31. In view of aforesaid, it appears that certain

important doubts could not answered by the prosecution

during the trial, the benefit of which must be extended to the

appellant/accused.

32. Hence, the judgment of conviction dated

25.03.2004 passed in Sessions Trial No. 642/96/122/03

arising out of Asaw P.S. Case No. 14 of 1991 by learned

Adhoc District and Sessions Judge-cum-Presiding Officer of

First Additional Fast Track Court, Siwan, is hereby set-aside.

33. Accordingly, this appeal stands allowed.

34. In view of the aforesaid, above-named

appellant/accused is acquitted from the charges leveled

against him. Since, the appellant/accused is on bail, he is

discharged from his liabilities of respective bail bonds.

Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.215 of 2004 dt.06-12-2025

Sureties stands discharged. Fine, if any, paid, be returned to

the appellant henceforth.

35. Office is directed to send the LCR of this appeal

to the court concerned/learned trial court alongwith a copy of

this judgment forthwith.

37. The Patna High Court Legal Services Committee

is, hereby, directed to pay Rs. 5,000/- (Rupees Five

Thousand Only) to Ms. Priya, learned Amicus Curiae in

Criminal Appeal (SJ) No. 215 of 2004, as consolidated fee for

rendering his valuable professional service for the disposal of

present appeal.

(Chandra Shekhar Jha, J) Rajeev/-

AFR/NAFR                         AFR
CAV DATE                          NA
Uploading Date                11.12.2025
Transmission Date             11.12.2025