[Cites 4, Cited by 0]
Patna High Court
Ram Dayal Paswan 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.164 of 2004
======================================================
Ram Dayal Paswan, Son of Sri Kari Paswan, Resident of village-Malwan,
P.S. Obra, (Khudwan), District- Aurangabad. ... ... Appellant/s
Versus
The State of Bihar. ... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Appellant/s : Mr. Saket Kumar Singh, Advocate
For the Respondent/s : Mr. Satyendra Narayan Singh, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE CHANDRA SHEKHAR JHA
ORAL JUDGMENT
Date : 06-12-2025
The present appeal preferred by appellant/convict
against judgment of conviction dated 14.02.2004 and order of
sentence dated 17.02.2004 passed by the learned 1 st Additional
Sessions Judge, Aurangabad, in S.Tr. No. 36/96 and 227/97
whereby and whereunder appellant/convict has been convicted for
the offences punishable under Section 307 of the Indian Penal
Code and for the offences punishable under Section 4 of the
Explosive Substance Act and sentenced him to undergo rigorous
imprisonment for seven years for the offence punishable under
Section 307 of the IPC and further sentenced him to undergo
rigorous imprisonment for seven years for the offence punishable
under Section 4 of the Explosive Substance Act and fine of Rs.
3,000/-, in default of payment of fine, he shall further undergo
S.I. for 3 months. Both sentences shall run concurrently.
2. The crux of prosecution, as it appears from the
written information of the informant/PW-3 namely, Chandradeo
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.164 of 2004 dt.06-12-2025
2/14
Yadav that on 08.07.1995 at village-Malwan informant's wife
Laxminia Devi was going from home taking her
she-goat and in the meantime, Ram Dayal Paswan S/o Karu
Paswan caught hold of her and assaulted. When the informant
went to the house of the accused he fled away. It is further alleged
that on the next day i.e. on 09.07.1995 at about 4:00 P.M.
accused Ramdayal Paswan attacked on the informant with
intention to kill him but the informant escaped without any injury
and informant's uncle Sarjun Yadav (PW-5) and Dilip Sah (PW-1)
sustained injuries due to explosion of bomb hurled by the accused.
Besides them one ox of Ramadhar Sao was also injured. The
accused Ramdayal Paswan and Nathun Paswan who is son of
Parikha Paswan having pistol in hand gave threats and uttered that
"markar khopdi ura do". On hulla, the accused after hurling bomb
fled away and the injured persons were taken to Obra hospital for
treatment. Many persons were gathered at the time of occurrence.
3. On the basis of aforesaid written information and
after completion of investigation police submitted charge-sheet
against accused/appellant under Section 307 of the Indian Penal
Code and Section 4 of the Explosive Substance Act.
4. After commitment, learned trial court explained
charges to appellant/accused, on the basis of materials collected
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.164 of 2004 dt.06-12-2025
3/14
during investigation, which he pleaded "not guilty" and claimed
trial.
5. To established its case before the learned trial court,
the prosecution altogether examined total of nine witnesses,
namely, PW-1 Dilip Sao, PW-2 Imamuddin Ansari, PW-3
Chandradeo Yadav (informant), PW-4 Moti Yadav, PW-5 Sarjun
Yadav, PW-6 Shankar Sao, PW-7 Laxminia Devi, PW-8 Indrajit
Kumar Singh (formal witness) and PW-9 Akshya Lal Singh,
(Investigating Officer).
6. The prosecution also exhibited following documents
during the trial to substantiate its case which are as:-
Exhibits 1 & 1/1 - Signatures of seizure list:
Imamuddin Ansari and Ramadhar Sao.
Exhibit-2 Sanction order by DM, Aurangabad
Exhibit-3 Endorsement on the written FIR
report.
Exhibit-4: Formal FIR
Exhibit-5 Seizure list, including, (a) small tin
pieces. (b) a big piece of tin and (c) a small
glass piece.
Exhibit-6 Forwarding Challan, sending seized
items to the court during trial.
Exhibit-7 & 7/1 Injury reports of 2 injured
persons prepared by the police
Exhibit-8 & 8/1 2 injury reports given by
the doctor and these reports have also been
proved by the I.O. himself.
Exhibit-9 Requisition letter seeking sanction
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.164 of 2004 dt.06-12-2025
4/14
for prosecution sent by police to DM.
7. After examination of the prosecution witnesses
and by taking note of evidences and incriminating circumstances
as surfaced during the trial, the statement of appellant/accused
was recorded under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C., which was denied
in totality by showing complete innocence.
8. On the basis of aforesaid evidences as surfaced
during the trial, the learned trial court convicted the
appellant/convict and passed order of sentence in aforesaid
manner, being aggrieved with, appellant/convict preferred the
present appeal.
9. No defence witnesses/documents were examined
on behalf of accused/appellant during the trial.
10. Hence the present appeal.
11. It is submitted by learned counsel appearing for
the appellant that out of two injured witnesses, PW-1 namely,
Dilip Sao and PW-5, namely, Sarjun Yadav, the PW-1 become
hostile, making a serious doubt qua occurrence. In this context, it
is submitted that doctor who is the most important witness of the
entire occurrence as to prove the injury report or to suggest that
the nature of injury which may likely to cause death of the injured
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.164 of 2004 dt.06-12-2025
5/14
was not examined during the course of trial. It is pointed out that
nothing transpired during the trial out of testimony of prosecution
witnesses who supported the occurrence that bomb thrown was
with intention to cause death and, moreover, the Exhibit-3 which
is the injury shows that the injured received simple injury. It is
submitted that interestingly, the petitioner was not found guilty for
the offence punishable under Section 5 of the Explosive Substance
Act by the learned trial court and, therefore, the conviction under
Section 307 of the IPC as recorded by the learned trial court
appears bad in eye of law. In this context, it is also pointed out
that the seized materials like tin plates etc. were not sent for
forensic examination to ascertain whether it was the part of bomb
or not and in want of FSL report, it can be said safely that
prosecution failed to established its case during the trial, beyond
all reasonable doubts as to convict the appellant/convict for the
charges leveled against him. While concluding argument, it is
submitted that nature of injury, manner of assault and post
conduct occurrence of the appellant is not suggesting that the
bomb as alleged thrown with intention to cause death. In support
of his submission, learned counsel relied upon the legal report of
Hon'ble Supreme Court as available through Jage Ram & Others
Vs. State of Haryana reported in (2015) 11 SCC 366.
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.164 of 2004 dt.06-12-2025
6/14
12. Learned APP while opposing the appeal
submitted that the eye-witness supported the occurrence,
whereas he fairly conceded that one of the injured turns hostile. It
is also conceded that seized articles were not sent for forensic
examination, however, the investigating officer of this case was
examined. It is pointed out that non-examination of doctor and
non-sending the seized materials for forensic examination not
appears fatal for the prosecution, therefore, the judgment as
recorded by the learned trial court cannot be viewed with doubt.
13. I have perused the trial court records carefully
and gone through the evidences available on record and also
considered the rival submissions as canvassed by the learned
counsel appearing on behalf of the parties.
14. PW-1 is Dilip Sah, who is the injured witness of
the occurrence but turned hostile during the trial saying that he
could not see that who threw the bomb.
14.1 In cross-examination he testified that his
statement before the court was out of his free will.
15. PW-2 is Imamuddin Ansari, who is the eye-
witness of the occurrence and deposed that he saw bomb in the
hand of the appellant. He also deposed that Sarjun (PW-5) and
Dilip (PW-1), both were injured due to throwing of bomb by
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.164 of 2004 dt.06-12-2025
7/14
appellant.
15.1 In cross-examination, it was stated by him that
bomb was thrown in the street and it exploded there. He denied
that explosion was of firecrackers exploded by the children.
16. PW-3 is the Chandradev Yadav, who is the
informant of this case. It appears from his deposition that
appellant threw a bomb on his house which hit his uncle Sarjun
Yadav and Dilip Sah. The Oxen of Ramadhar Sah were also
injured. The injured were taken to the hospital. The informant also
visited hospital and recorded his statement thereof.
16.1 It appears from his cross-examination that he
only found Sarjun Yadav fallen to the ground, who are unconscious
and taken to the hospital. Contrary to the fact that Dilip Sah (PW-
1) also received injury as he deposed through his examination-in-
chief.
17. PW-4 is Moti Yadav. He also saw the occurrence
and found appellant carrying a bomb in his bag. It appears from
his deposition that appellant threw bomb on Sarjun Yadav.
Contrary to the statement of the informant that same was thrown
on his house. It appears from his deposition that due to quarrel
between the wife of Chandradeo and appellant, the present
occurrence took place. It appears from his deposition that bomb
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.164 of 2004 dt.06-12-2025
8/14
was exploded at gate of the house of PW-3, namely, Chandradeo
Yadav.
18. PW-5 is Sarjun Yadav, who is injured in this
case. He supported the occurrence and said that bomb was thrown
upon him and was taken to Obra Hospital for treatment. It appears
from his deposition that out of explosion, his lungi and ganji (vest)
were burnt and several wholes were created. Blood was also
noticed on his lungi and ganji (vest) but he failed to produce the
same with Investigating Officer of this case. It was deposed by him
that bomb first hit to the ground. He remained conscious, contrary
to the statement of PW-3/informant, namely, Chandradeo Yadav
that after explosion and receiving bomb injury, this witness
become unconscious. He did not take the name of person, who
threw the bomb while going from the village to the hospital. It was
deposed by him that accused/appellant took out the bomb from his
bag and threw it over his nephew, the sparks of which came to him
also.
19. PW-6 is Shankar Sah, who supported the
occurrence and deposed to arrive on the place of occurrence after
the actual occurrence of throwing the bomb. He came to know
from his nephew that Ram Dayal threw the bomb and thereafter
fled away.
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.164 of 2004 dt.06-12-2025
9/14
20. PW-7 is Lakshminia Devi @ Lakshmi Devi. She
supported the occurrence and rivalry between the two community
of the village.
21. PW-8 is Indrajeet Kumar Singh, who is typist of
S.C. Mishra, District Magistrate, who issued sanction report for
prosecution. This witness identified his signature, which upon his
identification marked as Exhibit -2 before the learned trial court.
21.1 Upon cross-examination, it was deposed that
the Exhibit-2 was not typed in his presence and the District
Magistrate did not sign the same in his presence.
22. PW-9 is Akshya Lal Singh, who is the I.O. of this
case. It was stated by him that he seized seven pieces of tin and a
piece of glass at the place of occurrence and prepared the seizure
list and took the statement of two independent witnesses, which
upon his identification, exhibited before the learned trial court as
Exhibit-5. The seven pieces of tin and piece of glass, which he
seized was produced before the learned trial court. He took
statement of injured Dilip Sah and Sarjun Yadav, who confirmed
about the occurrence and issued the injury report of both the
injured which is Exhibit-7 and Exhibit-7/1.
22.1. Upon cross-examination, it was deposed by
him that when he removed the bamboo basket, he found pieces of
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.164 of 2004 dt.06-12-2025
10/14
tin and glass there. The land was found flat. He did not find any
black mark there. He did not find any paper, clothes or jute ropes
there. He did not even mention the size of the seized articles and
also its colour. It was said by him that he found "Ratna Brand
Jafrani Patti" written on a piece of tin. He did not seize the
bamboo basket. He did not send the seized articles to expert for
examination and also not taken permission for the same.
23. From the depositions of aforesaid prosecution
witnesses, it transpires that prosecution failed to explain during
the trial, the most vital question, whether the bomb was thrown
targeting the person or it was thrown on the house. In view of
deposition of PW-3, it appears that same was thrown on his house.
It also appears from the testimony that the place where bomb was
thrown a dig was created but same was not found by investigating
officer of this case and he categorically deposed that the place was
flat. The occurrence was not supported by one of the injured
witness i.e. PW-1. The injury report of the injured witnesses were
not brought before the learned trial court as doctor could not
examine during the trial, It also appears from the deposition of
PW-9/I.O. that only certain tin pieces and one glass piece was
seized from the place of occurrence and same was not sent for
forensic examination to ascertain, whether it was the part of bomb
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.164 of 2004 dt.06-12-2025
11/14
or not and in want of same, it cannot be said that the tin pieces
and glass which was seized and produced before the learned trial
court was the composition of the bomb, which was thrown by the
appellant/accused, as no further incriminating materials like burnt
paper, jute rope etc. found at place of occurrence. Even PW-3
deposed that the injured Sarjun Yadav was unconscious and
regained his consciousness in the hospital only, whereas the
injured Sarjun Yadav being injured witness/PW-5 himself deposed
that he was never loosed his sense due to injury. It also transpires
from his testimony that bomb was thrown targeting his nephew
and only spark of it hit to him. The nephew of this witness i.e.
Chandradeo Yadav/PW-3 did not receive any injury during the
occurrence and it was not deposed by him that the bomb was
thrown targeting him. Moreover, PW-3 deposed that it was thrown
on his house without targeting any individuals.
24. It also transpires that the witnesses are from the
same family having inimical terms with appellant/accused and,
therefore, their depositions cannot be taken as "wholly reliable"
being interested witness.
25. It would be apposite to reproduce para nos. 12,
13 & 14 of the Jage Ram case (supra), which reads as under
for a ready reference:
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.164 of 2004 dt.06-12-2025
12/14
"12. For the purpose of conviction under Section 307
IPC, the prosecution has to establish (i) the intention to
commit murder; and (ii) the act done by the accused. The
burden is on the prosecution that the accused had
attempted to commit the murder of the prosecution
witness. Whether the accused person intended to commit
murder of another person would depend upon the facts
and circumstances of each case. To justify a conviction
under Section 307 IPC, it is not essential that fatal injury
capable of causing death should have been caused.
Although the nature of injury actually caused may be of
assistance in coming to a finding as to the intention of the
accused, such intention may also be adduced from other
circumstances. The intention of the accused is to be
gathered from the circumstances like the nature of the
weapon used, words used by the accused at the time of
the incident, motive of the accused, parts of the body
where the injury was caused and the nature of injury and
severity of the blows given, etc.
13. In State of M.P. v. Kashiram [State of M.P. v.
Kashiram, (2009) 4 SCC 26 : (2009) 2 SCC (Cri) 40 :
AIR 2009 SC 1642], the scope of intention for attracting
conviction under Section 307 IPC was elaborated and it
was held as under: (SCC pp. 29-30, paras 12-13)
"12. ... '13. It is sufficient to justify a conviction under
Section 307 if there is present an intent coupled with
some overt act in execution thereof. It is not essential
that bodily injury capable of causing death should have
been inflicted. The section makes a distinction between
the act of the accused and its result, if any. The court has
to see whether the act, irrespective of its result, was done
with the intention or knowledge and under circumstances
mentioned in the section. Therefore, an accused charged
under Section 307 IPC cannot be acquitted merely
because the injuries inflicted on the victim were in the
nature of a simple hurt.
14. This position was highlighted in State of Maharashtra
v. Balram Bama Patil [State of Maharashtra v. Balram
Bama Patil, (1983) 2 SCC 28 : 1983 SCC (Cri) 320] ,
Girija Shankar v. State of U.P. [Girija Shankar v. State of
U.P., (2004) 3 SCC 793 : 2004 SCC (Cri) 863] and R.
Prakash v. State of Karnataka [R. Prakash v. State of
Karnataka, (2004) 9 SCC 27 : 2004 SCC (Cri) 1408] .
* * *
16. Whether there was intention to kill or knowledge that
death will be caused is a question of fact and would
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.164 of 2004 dt.06-12-2025
13/14
depend on the facts of a given case. The circumstances
that the injury inflicted by the accused was simple or
minor will not by itself rule out application of Section 307
IPC. The determinative question is the intention or
knowledge, as the case may be, and not the nature of the
injury.'
See State of M.P. v. Saleem [Saleem case, (2005) 5 SCC
554 : 2005 SCC (Cri) 1329] , SCC pp. 559-60, paras 13-
14 and 16.
13. '6. Undue sympathy to impose inadequate sentence
would do more harm to the justice system to undermine
the public confidence in the efficacy of law and society
could not long endure under such serious threats. It is,
therefore, the duty of every court to award proper
sentence having regard to the nature of the offence and
the manner in which it was executed or committed, etc.
This position was illuminatingly stated by this Court in
Sevaka Perumal v. State of T.N. [Sevaka Perumal v.
State of T.N., (1991) 3 SCC 471 : 1991 SCC (Cri) 724] '
(Saleem case [Saleem case, (2005) 5 SCC 554 : 2005
SCC (Cri) 1329] , SCC p. 558, para 6)"
26. In view of aforesaid contradictions, it can be said
safely that the several major doubts discussed as aforesaid (para
no. 23) remains unanswered during the course of trial, which must
to be answered by the prosecution, as to establish its case beyond
all reasonable doubts. The benefit of doubt, therefore must be
extended to the appellant/accused.
27. Accordingly, appellant is acquitted from the charges
levelled against him, by giving benefits of doubt.
28. Hence, appeal stands allowed.
29. The impugned judgment of conviction dated
14.02.2004
and order of sentence dated 17.02.2004 passed by
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.164 of 2004 dt.06-12-2025
the learned 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Aurangabad, in S.Tr. No.
36/96 and 227/97 is hereby set aside. Appellant/accused is
acquitted of the charges levelled against him. Fine, if any, paid
shall be returned to appellant immediately.
30. Appellant is on bail as submitted, Upon acquittal,
his bailor and sureties stand discharged from his respective
liabilities.
31. TCR, if any, be sent back to learned trial court
along with the copy of this judgment immediately.
32. I.A., if any, stands disposed of.
(Chandra Shekhar Jha, J)
veena/-
AFR/NAFR AFR
CAV DATE NA
Uploading Date 12.11.2025
Transmission Date 12.11.2025
