Patna High Court
Bindi Singh @ Bindi Sharma vs The State Of Bihar on 27 March, 2025
Author: Jitendra Kumar
Bench: Jitendra Kumar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL REVISION No.524 of 2019
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-146 Year-2002 Thana- GHOSI District- Jehanabad
======================================================
Bindi Singh @ Bindi Sharma, son of late Ragho Singh, Resident of Village-
Pitambarpur, P.S-Ghoshi, District-Jehanabad.
... ... Petitioner/
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Respondent
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner : Mr. Mritunjay Kumar, Advocate
Mr. Ram Ganesh, Advocate.
Mrs. Shilpi Singh, Advocate.
Mr. Vibhuti Kumar, Advocate.
For the State : Mr. Chandra Sen Prasad Singh, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE JITENDRA KUMAR
ORAL JUDGMENT
Date : 27-03-2025
The present Criminal Revision petition has been
preferred by the sole petitioner against the impugned judgment
dated 04.02.2019 whereby learned Fast Track Court - II,
Jehanabad has upheld the conviction of the petitioner whereas
acquitted the rest five co-appellants of all the charges.
2. The factual background is that on Fardbeyan of
injured Rakesh Ranjan, Ghoshi (Okari) P.S. Case No. 146 of
2002 has been lodged against six accused persons including the
petitioner for the offences punishable under Sections 147, 148,
149, 324, 307, 341, 329, 323 of the Indian Penal Code and
Section 27 of the Arms Act. After investigation, charge sheet
was submitted against all the FIR named accused persons
Patna High Court CR. REV. No.524 of 2019 dt.27-03-2025
including the petitioner and, thereafter, after cognizance, the
case was committed to the Court of Sessions and after framing
of charge, trial commenced.
3. The prosecution case as emerging from the
Fardbeyan of the informant (P.W.-6) is that when the informant
was going towards the field outside the village in the evening
for answering the call of nature, he was surrounded by all six
accused persons including the petitioner being armed with
firearms (Rifle and pistols) and on exhortation of
Accused/Rajendra Sharma, co-accused Rajiv Sharma, Bindi
Sharma and Sikandar Sharma fired at the informant, though he
escaped from the firing of Rajiv Sharma and Sikandar Sharma,
his palm was hit by firing of Bindi Singh @ Bindi Sharma who
is petitioner herein.
4. During trial, altogether ten witnesses were
examined on behalf of the prosecution which are as follows:-
(i) P.W.-1 - Sudhir Kumar
(ii) P.W.-2 - Ram Priya Kumar
(iii) P.W.-3 - Rajendra Singh @ Nawal Singh
(iv) P.W.-4 - Shambhu Sharma
(v) P.W.- 5 - Sharda Devi
(vi) P.W. - 6 - Rakesh Ranjan
(vii) P.W.-7 - Dr. Lakshman Prasad who has
conducted medical examination of
the injured/informant.
(viii) P.W. - 8 - Mathura Prasad Singh
(ix) P.W. -9 - Raju Prasad
(x) P.W. - 10 - Rajkishore Prasad
Patna High Court CR. REV. No.524 of 2019 dt.27-03-2025
5. The following documents were exhibited by the
prosecution during trial.
(i) Ext. - 1 - Signature of Rajendra Singh @
Nawal Singh, father of the informant
(P.W.-6)
(ii) Ext. - 2 - Fardbeyan
(iii) Ext. - 3 - Injury report of Rakesh Ranjan
(PW.- 6)
(iv) Ext.- 4 - letter from Dr. Laxman Prasad (P.W.-
7) addressed to I.O. of the case.
6. After hearing the parties and perusal of evidence
on record, the learned Trial Court found all the accused persons
including the petitioner guilty for the offences punishable under
Sections 147, 148, 341 read with Section 149, 504/149 and
337/149 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 27 of the Arms
Act and sentenced them accordingly and maximum punishment
of 3 years is awarded under Section 27 of the Arms Act.
7. Being aggrieved by the judgment of conviction
and order of sentence, all the convicts including petitioner had
preferred Criminal Appeal No. 90 of 2017/08 of 2018 in the
court of Sessions and appeal has been disposed of by FTC-II,
Jehanabad, whereby, the judgment of conviction and order of
sentence against the petitioner was upheld. However, all the co-
appellants were acquitted of all the charges.
8. I heard learned counsel for the petitioner and
learned APP for the State.
Patna High Court CR. REV. No.524 of 2019 dt.27-03-2025
9. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the
petitioner is innocent and has falsely been implicated. He further
submits that learned Appellate Court erroneously upheld the
judgment of conviction and order of sentence against the
petitioner passed by learned trial court.
10. Learned counsel for the petitioner also submits
that out of ten witnesses, three witnesses, viz. P.W.-1, P.W.-2
and P.W.-4 have not supported the prosecution case at all and,
hence, they have been declared hostile. The I.O. has not been
examined at all, causing prejudice to the petitioner. As per injury
report, the Doctor has not stated about the type of the firearm
which has caused the injury. As per the allegation, the petitioner
has caused injury by rifle, whereas as per injury report, there is
only fracture in the fourth finger of left hand of the informant.
Such type of injury cannot be caused by rifle. In case of the
palm being hit by the rifle, the whole palm could have not
destroyed.
11. He further submits that learned Appellate Court
by his own finding has come to the conclusion that the
prosecution case has not proved its case against the accused
persons beyond reasonable doubts and hence, he has acquitted
the rest accused persons. But on the same set of the evidence,
Patna High Court CR. REV. No.524 of 2019 dt.27-03-2025
learned Appellate Court has upheld the judgment of conviction
and order of sentence passed against the petitioner, which, could
not be sustainable.
12. However, learned APP for the State defends the
impugned judgment passed by learned Appellate Court below
saying that the same has been passed after properly appreciating
the evidence on record.
13. I considered the rival submission advanced by
both the parties and perused the material on record. I find that
out of ten witnesses, three witnesses viz. P.W.-1, P.W.-2 and
P.W.-4 have already been hostile. The I.O. has not been
examined causing prejudice to the petitioner because place of
occurrence has not been established, nor contradictions in the
statements of the witnesses could be confronted to the I.O. I
further find that out of ten witnesses, three had turned hostile
and two witnesses are close relatives, being father (PW-3) and
mother (PW-5). I further find that except the informant, there is
no eye witness examined during the trial. I further find from
perusal of learned Appellate Court judgment that the
prosecution has failed to prove its case against the accused
beyond all reasonable doubts and other than the petitioner were
acquitted of all the charges. If the learned Appellate Court has
Patna High Court CR. REV. No.524 of 2019 dt.27-03-2025
disbelieved the case against the rest, there is no reason to
believe the prosecution case against the present petitioner. As
per the prosecution case, all other co-accused were also armed
and had also committed actus reas like firing at the informant.
If the case is not proved against them, there is no reason to
convict similarly situated one of the accused persons on the
same set of evidence.
14. In the case of Ram Singh Vs. The State of U.P.,
2024 INSC 128, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that
when there is similar or identical evidence of eye witnesses
against two accused by ascribing them the same or similar role,
the court cannot convict one accused and acquit the other. The
relevant paragraphs of judgment is as follows:-
"32. This Court in the case of Javed Shaukat
Ali Qureshi, has held that when there is similar or identical
evidence of eyewitnesses against two accused by ascribing
them the same or similar role, the court cannot convict one
accused and acquit the other. This Court clarified as under:
15. When there is similar or identical evidence
of eyewitnesses against two accused by ascribing them the
same or similar role, the court cannot convict one accused
and acquit the other. In such a case, the cases of both the
accused will be governed by the principle of parity. This
principle means that the criminal court should decide like
cases alike, and in such cases, the court cannot make a
distinction between the two accused, which will amount to
discrimination."
15. Considering the aforesaid facts and
circumstances, I find that the impugned judgment is not
sustainable in the eye of law. The learned Appellate Court has
Patna High Court CR. REV. No.524 of 2019 dt.27-03-2025
committed error of law by upholding the judgment of conviction
and order of sentence against the petitioner by acquitting the rest
appellants.
16. Hence, the impugned judgment is set aside and
the petitioner is acquitted of all the charges.
17. Accordingly, the present petition stands allowed.
(Jitendra Kumar, J)
S.Ali/-
AFR/NAFR NAFR
CAV DATE N.A.
Uploading Date 29.03.2025
Transmission Date 29.03.2025
