Satrughan Singh vs The State Of Bihar
2025 Latest Caselaw 4532 Patna

Patna High Court

Satrughan Singh vs The State Of Bihar on 25 November, 2025

Author: Alok Kumar Pandey

Bench: Alok Kumar Pandey

          IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
                      CRIMINAL APPEAL (SJ) No.3337 of 2025
         Arising Out of PS. Case No.-103 Year-2014 Thana- DERNI BAZAR District- Saran
     ======================================================
     Satrughan Singh S/o- Late Sheonath Singh Village- Ramjeetpur PS- Derni
     Dist- Saran at Chapra

                                                                      ... ... Appellant/s
                                           Versus
1.   The State of Bihar Bihar
2.   Raju Kumar S/o- Ganesh Singh Village- Gohpur PS- Garkha Dist- Saran at
     Chapra

                                               ... ... Respondent/s
     ======================================================
     Appearance :
     For the Appellant/s      :       Mr. Nawal Kishore Singh, Advocate
                                      Mr. Kamlesh Kumar, Advocate
     For the Respondent/s     :       Mr. Mukeshwar Dayal, A.P.P.
     ======================================================
     CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK KUMAR PANDEY
     ORAL JUDGMENT
      Date : 25-11-2025

                           Heard learned counsel for the appellant and

      learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.

                           2. The present appeal has been directed against

      the judgment of conviction dated 16.07.2025 and order of

      sentence dated 21.07.2025 passed by learned Additional

      Sessions Judge - XIIIth, Saran at Chapra in Sessions Trial No.

      349 of 2015, arising out of Derni P.S. Case No. 103 of 2014

      whereby and whereunder the appellant has been convicted for

      the offences punishable under Section 307 of IPC and has been

      sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years

      along with fine of Rs. 20,000/- under Section 307 of IPC and in
 Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.3337 of 2025 dt.25-11-2025
                                            2/22




         case of default of payment of fine, appellant has to undergo

         further simple imprisonment for three months.

                             3. The prosecution story, in brief, is that the Riju

         Kumar is the informant/complainant of the case and accused

         persons are brother, father, mother and family members of his

         brother-in-law. It is alleged that sister of informant and her

         husband had returned two months ago after earning. It is

         further that sister of informant and her husband had planted the

         crop of wheat and potato on the land in their share. The

         informant /complainant went to the house of his sister and

         brother-in-law to help for irrigation of plants. It is alleged that

         brother-in-law and sister of informant were residing in thatched

         room with asbestos (karkat) which was built in the land of their

         own share. It is alleged that appellant and others were

         threatening the informant by mobile no. 9576256424 to mobile

         no. 9934554406. The complainant and his brother-in-law were

         irrigating the wheat crop on the land of informant's brother-in-

         law share but after sometime while irrigation was going on,

         they visited the house for ten minutes. It is alleged that

         complainant went to the house of his brother-in-law two days

         earlier to help for irrigation of plants. It is alleged that the

         appellant and others were damaging the roof of asbestos
 Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.3337 of 2025 dt.25-11-2025
                                            3/22




         (karkat) which was built by his brother-in-law in his own share

         of land and when the informant asked appellant and others as to

         why they were assaulting his sister and his brother-in-law, co-

         accused Shiv Nath singh abetted the accused to kill the

         informant and disappear his dead body upon which appellant is

         said to have assaulted the informant by means of Farsa on his

         neck which hit the informant on upper portion of of his head

         and blood started oozing out. It is alleged that appellant also

         gave second blow of farsa upon the informant which hit him on

         the shoulder. It is further alleged that co-accused Chandeshwar

         Singh gave rod blow on the neck of informant/complainant and

         also hit the shoulder, back. It is further alleged that wife of co-

         accused Shivnath Singh assaulted the informant by means of

         labda on his leg. It is further alleged that co-accused Indu Singh

         wife of appellant gave danda blow to the complainant as a

         result of which informant/complainant fell down on earth. It is

         alleged      that     villagers      came      and      save   the   life   of

         informant/complainant. It is further the informant and others

         wanted to get the injured treated at concerned Hospital but the

         accused persons reached there also and did not allow the

         informant to get treated. Lastly, they brought the injured

         informant to Chapra Sadar Hospital                   where the informant got
 Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.3337 of 2025 dt.25-11-2025
                                            4/22




         treated. Then, complaint was filed and sent to the concerned

         police station for instituting the case and further investigation.

                             4. On the basis of complaint filed by the

         complainant, Complaint Case No. 176 of 2013 was filed which

         was converted into Derni P.S. Case No. 103 of 2014 dated

         01.09.2014

registered under Sections 341, 323, 324, 307, 427,

504, 506, 34 of the IPC. Routine investigation followed.

Statement of witnesses came to be recorded and on the

completion of investigation, charge sheet has been submitted

against the appellant and others under Sections Sections 341,

323, 324, 307, 427, 504, 506, 34 of the IPC. Thereafter, the

learned trial court took cognizance. The case was committed to

the court of sessions after following due procedure. The learned

trial court framed charges against the appellant and others

under Sections 307/34, 504, 341, 427 of the IPC. Charges were

read over and explained to the appellant to which he pleaded

not guilty and claimed to be tried.

5. In order to bring home guilt of accused

persons, prosecution has examined altogether five witnesses.

PW-1 Gorakh Singh, PW-2 Riju Kumar(informant), PW-3

Ganesh Singh, PW-4 Baliram Singh, PW-5 Laxmi Devi and

PW-6 Shivbachhan Rai.

Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.3337 of 2025 dt.25-11-2025

6. Prosecution has relied upon following

documentary evidence on record:-

Ext. 1- Signature of informant/complainant on complaint petition

7. Defence has produced one witness namely

Bhagwan Rai (DW 1) and also produced amended exhibit P1

i.e. deed executed between Ganesh Singh and Satrughan Singh.

However, defence of the appellant as gathered from the line of

cross examination of prosecution witnesses as well as from the

statement under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. is that of total

denial.

8. After hearing the parties, the learned trial

court convicted the appellant and sentenced him as indicated in

the opening paragraph of the judgment.

9. Following submissions have been made on

behalf of learned counsel for the appellant:-

10. Learned counsel for the appellant submits

that appellant and two other co-accused Indu Devi and Somari

Devi were put on trial and the appellant convicted and

sentenced as indicated in forgoing paragraph. He further

submits that co-accused Indu Devi and Somari Devi have been

acquitted on the same set of facts and evidence. Though, Indu Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.3337 of 2025 dt.25-11-2025

Devi and Somari Devi have been charged under the same

sections. He further submits that P.W.1 and P.W. 3 who have

been examined but not supported the case of prosecution and

have been declared hostile. P.W. 2 has been examined and he

was claiming himself as injured witness but no chit of paper

with regard to the nature of injury has been produced by the

prosecution and nothing was recorded which indicates that the

place of occurrence has been pointed out by the P.W. 2 who is

the informant of the case. In non examination of Investigating

Officer, even place of occurrence is not specifically proved by

any of the prosecution witnesses even PW 4 has indicated that

he is not aware of the khata and khesra number of the land in

question.

11. It is cardinal principle of criminal law that

the place of occurrence is necessary to be proved by the

prosecution. In the present case, Investigating Officer has not

been examined and hence, place of occurrence has not been

proved which has caused serious prejudice to the defence. Even

doctor has not been examined to ascertain the injury sustained

by the informant/victim. The very assertion of the allegation

made by the informant is merely a bald statement without

supporting document. Though, it has been alleged that Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.3337 of 2025 dt.25-11-2025

appellant is said to have assaulted by means of farsa upon the

head as well as shoulder but even nature of injury cannot be

ascertained. Even any chit of paper is not produced by the

prosecution regarding the injury report. The very intention of a

particular accused can be proved by the sheet of injury, number

of injury and nature of injury. In absence of any chit of paper

regarding the injury report, nothing is proved and the statement

as asserted by informant is merely a bald statement. PW 1 and

PW 3 have not supported the case of prosecution and hence, he

has been declared hostile. Learned counsel for the appellant

submits that the dispute arose on account of assaulting the

brother-in-law and sister of informant but during the course of

cross-examination, P.W. 4 (Balram Singh) has stated that he has

not been assaulted rather his brother in law was assaulted who

is PW 2. PW 4 in para 15 submits that eight injuries were

sustained by informant/victim and P.W. 5 in para 5 has asserted

that only six injuries were sustained by the informant/victim.

The statement of PW 4 and PW 5 with regard to number of

injuries sustained by informant are totally inconsistent. The

very case is based on complaint which is not the reaction of

instantaneous and contemporaneous reaction of existing fact.

There is sufficient time to prepare the complaint for framing Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.3337 of 2025 dt.25-11-2025

the charges against the proposed accused. The present case

clearly depicts regarding allegation of bald statement which is

not supported by any chit of paper and even doctor has not

been examined to prove the allegation of injury. The place of

occurrence has not been identified by any of the witnesses of

the prosecution. He further submits that how much force the

accused has applied to cause the injury, which part of the body

of victim is injured, what is the nature of injury, what weapon

has been used to cause injury such facts have not been proved

in the absence of injury report and non examination of doctor.

He further submits that two prosecution witnesses (PW-4 and

PW-5) have divergent views regarding the number of injuries

sustained by informant. He further submits that there are

several inconsistencies and discrepancies in the evidence of

prosecution witnesses which shatter the prosecution story with

respect to injury report. Neither injury report was produced nor

doctor was examined. The very intention of accused cannot be

proved and the allegation is merely a bald statement.

Investigating Officer has not been examined and in absence of

investigating officer, place of occurrence cannot be proved.

Even, prosecution witnesses have not proved the place of

occurrence and in absence of place of occurrence, story of Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.3337 of 2025 dt.25-11-2025

prosecution cannot be proved. In the light of the facts and

circumstances of the case, the present case has not been proved

and the concerned court without appreciating the materials

available on record, reached to the wrong conclusion. In the

light of the facts and circumstances of the case, the benefit of

doubt goes in the favour of the accused/appellant.

12. Learned counsel for the State has submitted

that judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the

concerned court after due appreciation of material available on

record. PW 2 who is informant/victim has supported and

corroborated the story of prosecution and other witnesses who

are also along with informant, they have also corroborated and

supported the story of prosecution. There is no reason to differ

from the finding of the concerned court and no interference is

required and judgment of conviction and order of sentence

passed by the concerned court is quite justified and legal.

13. The question which arises for consideration

is:-

"Whether offence under Sections 307 of IPC is made out in the light of given facts and circumstances of the case or not ?"

14. I have perused the impugned judgment, Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.3337 of 2025 dt.25-11-2025

order of trial court and trial court records. I have given my

thoughtful consideration to the rival contention made on behalf

of the parties as noted above.

15. It is necessary to evaluate, analyze and

screen out the evidences of witnesses adduced before the trial

court.

16. PW-1 and PW-3 have not supported the

case of prosecution and they have been declared hostile.

17. PW-2 (Riju Kumar) is the informant of the

case and during the course of examination-in-chief, in para 12,

he has stated that appellant and Shivnath Singh (since

deceased), Chandeshwar Singh (since deceased), Indu Devi and

Somari Devi were breaking the thatched house which was build

in the share of his brother-in-law. He has stated that appellant is

said to have assaulted him by means of farsa which hit him

upon the head and appellant has also inflicted farsa blow

second time which hit him on his right shoulder. In para 5, he

has stated that he went for irrigating the field but he cannot

point out the boundary of the of the said field. In para 8, he has

stated that he was irrigating the field from 7:30 - 7:45 AM. In

para 18, he has admitted that he was treated at hospital.

18. Though, he has asserted during the course Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.3337 of 2025 dt.25-11-2025

of adducing evidence before the Court that he was treated and

in initial version he has stated that he was treated at Sadar

Hospital, Chapra but no chit of paper was produced which

reflects that he was treated at a particular hospital and no injury

report was produced and the doctor who treated the the

informant (PW-2) has not been examined. In this way, in

absence of injury report, the accusation made by the informant

(PW-2) is merely a bald statement and his statement does not

carry any reliability. In this way, his statement cannot be taken

into account for the accusation as alleged in the initial version

of prosecution story.

19. PW - 4 ( Baliram Singh) is the brother-in-

law of informant (PW- 2). During the course of examination-in-

chief, he has stated that appellant is said to have assaulted his

brother-in-law (PW-2) by means of farsa which hit him on his

head and the appellant also inflicted second farsa blow upon

him which hit him on the upper portion of ear. In para 9, he has

stated that he does not know the khata khesra of the land in

question. In para 15, he has stated that informant (PW-2) has

sustained eight injures. He has also stated that when he reached

at the place of occurrence, he was not assaulted by anyone. He

has also stated that he has prescription of doctor of Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.3337 of 2025 dt.25-11-2025

informant/victim (PW-2) as his brother-in-law was hospitalized

in Chapra Hospital for five days. In para 16, he has stated that

there was shed of blood upon the cloth of informant (PW-2) as

well as on the ground after sustaining injuries from farsa and he

has shown the blood to the daroga.

20. The statement of PW-4 is totally

inconsistent with the initial version of prosecution story.

Informant (PW-2) has stated in initial version of prosecution

story that appellant inflicted second farsa blow upon him

which hit on his right shoulder but PW-4 has stated that

appellant inflicted second farsa blow upon informant (PW-2)

which hit him on the upper portion of ear. The statement of

PW-4 that he is not assaulted by anyone is totally inconsistent

with the initial version of prosecution story as when informant

narrated the initial version of prosecution story he stated that

when he reached at the place of occurrence, informant's sister

and his brother-in-law (PW-4) were being assaulted. The

statement of PW-4 is quite divergent upon the manner of

occurrence as he has stated that the appellant inflicted second

farsa blow upon informant which hit him on the upper portion

of ear and on the point of number of injuries, PW-4 has

divergent view with PW-5, who has stated that total six injuries Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.3337 of 2025 dt.25-11-2025

were sustained by informant (PW-2).

21. PW- 5 (Laxmi Devi) is sister of informant

(PW-2). She has stated that appellant assaulted the informant

by means of farsa which hit on his right shoulder and again,

appellant assaulted the informant by means of farsa which hit

on upper portion of ear.

22. The statement of PW-5 is totally

inconsistent with the initial version of prosecution story as she

has stated that first injury inflicted by the appellant upon the

right shoulder of informant (PW-2) and second injury inflicted

by the appellant on the upper portion of ear of informant which

is totally inconsistent with the initial version of prosecution

story as well as other prosecution witness. On the point of

number of injuries, she has stated that informant sustained six

injuries which is quite inconsistent with the version of PW-4.

23. PW-6 (Shiv Bachhan Rai) has stated,

during the course of examination in chief, that appellant

assaulted the informant by means of farsa upon his head as a

result of which he sustained head injury. Co-accused

Chandeshwar Singh (since deceased) assaulted the informant

(PW-2) by means of rod upon his back due to which informant

fell down on the ground. He further stated that co-accused Indu Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.3337 of 2025 dt.25-11-2025

Devi, Somari Devi, Shatrughan Singh (appellant),

Chandeshwar Singh (since deceased), Shivnath Singh (since

deceased) and others started pelting stones upon the informant

(PW-2) which has neither been narrated in the initial version of

prosecution story not stated in any of the prosecution

witnesses.

24. The statement of PW-6 is totally

inconsistent with the initial version of prosecution story as he

has stated that appellant has inflicted one injury upon the head

of informant and he has not pointed out other injuries caused

by the appellant. PW-6 has stated that accused persons

including the appellant have started pelting stones upon the

informant which does not find place in initial version of

prosecution story as well as in the statement of any of

prosecution witnesses.

25. Apart from that, the Investigating Officer

of this case has not been examined who is the material witness

on the point of identifying the place of occurrence.

26. In Behari Prasad Vs. State of Bihar

reported in (1996) 2 SCC 317, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held

that though non-examination of the Investigating Officer may

not always be fatal where it causes prejudiced to the accused, it Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.3337 of 2025 dt.25-11-2025

becomes a significant infirmity, as observed in the judgment

which reads as under:-

"We may also indicate here that it will not be correct to contend that if an Investigating Officer is not examined in a case, such case should fail on the ground that the accused were deprived of the opportunity to effectively cross examine the witnesses for the prosecution and to bring out contradictions in their statements before the police. A case of prejudice likely to be suffered by an accused must depend on the facts of the case and no universal straight jacket formula should be laid down that non examination of investigating Officer per se vitiates a criminal trial. These appeals, therefore, fail and are dismissed. The appellants who have been released on bail should be taken into custody to serve out the sentence."

27. Applying this principle to the present

matter, this Court finds that the omission to examine the

Investigating Officer has, in fact, caused serious prejudice to

the defence. The prosecution version suffers from

contradictions and omissions in the statements of the witnesses

and the only person who could have clarified or explained such

contradictions was the Investigating Officer.

28. The failure to examine the Investigating Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.3337 of 2025 dt.25-11-2025

Officer also means that the place of occurrence has not been

duly established. At this point, it would be relevant to take note

of the decision passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the

case of Syed Ibrahim versus State of Andhra Pradesh,

reported in (2008) 10 SCC 601, wherein it has been held that

"when place of occurrence itself has not been established, it

would not be proper to accept the prosecution side."

29. Apart from that, doctor, who is an expert

witness, has not been examined in the present case and injury

sustained by the injured has not been brought on record. In

absence of examination of doctor, it is difficult to prove the

injury of injured who are claiming that they have sustained

injury and charges were framed under section 307 of the I.P.C.

30. "What is necessary to constitute offence

under Section 307 of IPC?"

31. Intention under Section 307 of the IPC is

not directly proven but inferred from surrounding evidence,

such as the weapon used, the part of the body targeted, the

nature of the injuries, the force applied, and the circumstances

of the act. Since intent is a mental state, courts look at the

objective actions of the accused to understand their subjective

state of mind, focusing on factors like the type of weapon, how Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.3337 of 2025 dt.25-11-2025

it was used, and the location and severity of the injury.

Factors used to infer intention:-

(i) Nature of weapon used:- The type of

weapon (e.g., a firearm, a knife, a rod) and its dangerousness

can indicate intent to cause death.

(ii) Sheet of Injury:- The body part where

the injury was inflicted is a key factor. For example, hitting the

head or vital organs is a strong indicator of intent to kill.

(iii) Nature of Injury:- The severity and

extent of the injuries are considered. Even the injury is not

fatal, a severe assault with a dangerous weapon can still

suggest an intent to cause death.

(iv) Circumstances of the Act:- The context

in which the act occurred, the relationship between the accused

and the vicitm, and the force used can all provide clues to the

accused's intent. For example, a pre-planned attack with a clear

motive is more likely to be considered an attempt to murder.

(v) The Intention of Action:- The action

must be directly linked to causing death. For the offence to be

made out, the act must have been done with the intention or

knowledge that it would cause death, irrespective of whether

death was actually caused.

Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.3337 of 2025 dt.25-11-2025

(vi) Result vs. intent :- It is crucial to

understand that Section 307 does not require death to occur.

The court assesses the intention behind the act, not the result.

An act that is an attempt to murder can still be charged even if

the victim survives due to chance.

32. In the present case, informant (PW-2) and

PW-4 have already admitted that informant was treated in

Sadar Hospital, Chapra but the said treatment has not been

supported by any piece of injury report. In this way, the

evidence adduced by PW-2 and PW-4 do not carry any

weightage in absence of any injury report.

33. In the present case, after going through

the material available on record, no chit of paper regarding the

injury report has been produced which reflects that the injury

sustained by informant is simple or grievous or dangerous to

life. Without producing any injury report, no conclusion can be

drawn with regard to the intent of accused. Only the statement

of informant who has stated that he was assaulted by farsa by

the appellant but his statement of assaulting through farsa can

only be proved if there is injury report. Without taking into

account the injury report, the place of injury and number of

injury cannot be proved and the statement of informant suffers Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.3337 of 2025 dt.25-11-2025

from infirmities in absence of any injury report and it cannot be

taken into account as it is merely a bald statement for framing

allegation against the appellant.

34. In the criminal case, place of occurrence

is the specific place where the occurrence has taken place and

in the light of the present case, even Investigating Officer has

not been examined. The version of Informant (PW-2) clearly

depicts that he was irrigating field prior to reaching the place of

occurrence and he has not specifically pointed out the place of

occurrence either during the course of examination-in-chief or

cross-examination. PW-4 who is related with the land in

question, is unable to specifically point out even khata and

khesra number of his land as said land is origin point of dispute

and he has not pointed out the boundary of place of occurrence.

The statement of informant does not carry reliability in the light

of the facts and circumstances of the case that he has not

produced injury report of injury sustained by him. In this way,

the statement of very star witness of this case suffer from

infirmities which cannot be repaired.

35. In the present case, neither Investigating

Officer nor doctor has been examined and the Court has

convicted the present appellant under Section 307 of IPC, even Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.3337 of 2025 dt.25-11-2025

it is not a case of firing. In case of firing, if firing does not

make any injury to a person to whom the firing is made, in that

situation, firing material is necessary to prove the occurrence

and in the cases of Section 307 of IPC, impossibility is not a

defence. Both the physical act and intention is necessary in the

cases of Section 307 of IPC and the same cannot be proved by

merely a bald statement. In absence of any injury report, it is

difficult to come to conclusion that as to whether the informant

has sustained injury as alleged in the FIR. Neither doctor has

been examined nor injury report has been produced. In the light

of the facts and circumstances of the case, the statement of

informant does not carry any reliability and the statement of

another witnesses who are alongwith informant are quite

divergent regarding the number of injuries. Even on number of

injuries, two witnesses (PW-4 and PW-5) are quite divergent

views and so far as inconsistencies of witnesses regarding the

number of injury is quite necessary to be evaluated with the

injury report which is not available on record. In the present

case, the Investigating Officer has not been examined and place

of occurrence has not been proved and specifically there are

several infirmities and inconsistencies in the evidence of

prosecution witnesses. On the same materials, evidences and Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.3337 of 2025 dt.25-11-2025

charges, two persons namely, Indu Devi and Somari Devi have

been acquitted. The learned trial court has also not made any

differentiation on the point of appreciation of evidence that

how the case of present appellant is different from co-accused

persons who have participated in the alleged occurrence and

acquitted on the same set of facts and evidence.

36. In the light of the facts and circumstances

of the case, the evidence of witnesses are quite shaky in order

to prove the injury and place of occurrence is also not proved,

as discussed in foregoing paragraph. In this way, the

prosecution has failed to prove the case beyond reasonable

doubt.

37. In the result, in my view, prosecution case

suffers from several infirmities, as noticed above, and it was

not a fit case where conviction could have been recorded. The

learned trial court fell in error of law as well as appreciation of

facts of the case in view of settled criminal jurisprudence.

Hence, impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence

are hereby set aside and this appeal stands allowed. The

appellant is on bail, he is discharged from the liabilities of his

bail bonds.

38. The interlocutory application, if any, also Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.3337 of 2025 dt.25-11-2025

stands disposed of.

39. Let a copy of this judgment be

transmitted to the Superintendent of the concerned jail for

compliance and for record.

40. The records of this case be also returned

to the concerned trial court forthwith.

(Alok Kumar Pandey, J) alok/-

AFR/NAFR                AFR
CAV DATE                N/A
Uploading Date          01.12.2025.
Transmission Date       01.12.2025.