Patna High Court
Hare Ram Yadav And Ors vs State Of Bihar on 30 October, 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL APPEAL (SJ) No.69 of 2005
======================================================
1. Hare Ram Yadav, son of Late Bijo Yadav.
2. Ram Narain Yadav, son of Late Bijo Yadav.
3. Manoj Yadav, son of Shree Makhan Yadav.
4. Ram Nath Yadav, son of Shree Rohin Yadav.
5. Rishi Deo Yadav, son of Late Ram Chalitra Yadav.
All residents of village Sadanandpur, Police Station Ballia, District
Begusarai. ... ... Appellants.
Versus
The State of Bihar. ... ... Respondent.
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Appellants : Mr. Deepak Kumar, Advocate
For the State : Mrs. Anita Kumari, A.P.P.
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE JUSTICE SMT. SONI SHRIVASTAVA
CAVJUDGMENT
Date: 07-11-2025
Heard learned counsel for the appellants and
learned APP for the State.
2. This criminal appeal has been preferred against
the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated
29.11.2004
and 30.11.2004 respectively, passed by the
learned Additional Sessions Judge-IV, Begusarai in Sessions
Trial No.21 of 2002 (arising out of Ballia P.S. Case No.126
of 2001), whereby and whereunder the appellants have been
convicted under Section 307 and 386 read with Section 34
of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as the
'I.P.C.') and have been sentenced to undergo rigorous
imprisonment for seven years under Section 307/34 I.P.C.
and they have been further directed to undergo rigorous
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.69 of 2005 dt.07-11-2025
imprisonment for three years under Section 386/34 I.P.C.
Both the sentences were directed to run concurrently.
3. Factual matrix of the case is that Ballia P.S.
Case No.126 of 2001 dated 07.08.2001 was instituted under
Sections 341, 307, 504 and 386/34 of the I.P.C. on the basis
of the statement of the informant, Girdhar Sah (P.W. 6)
recorded before the Assistant Sub-Inspector of Police, Mr.
S.P. Singh of Ballia Police Station in the clinic of Dr. Nalini
Ranjan Singh where his son, Ram Pravesh Sah was brought
for treatment with the allegation in succinct that Hare Ram
Yadav, Ram Narain Yadav and Manoj Yadav, who are the
appellant nos.1, 2 and 3 respectively herein, came to his
residence and demanded extortion money of Rs.1000/- and
upon the informant's refusal to fulfill their demand, Hare
Ram Yadav abused the informant and told that he has
earned a lot and insisted on the payment of extortion
money. Meanwhile, the son of the informant, Ram Pravesh
Sah intervened in the matter and said that he would lodge
complain to the police whereupon, they abused him and
meanwhile, Ramnath Yadav (appellant no.4) and Rishideo
Yadav (appellant no.5) came there and Hare Ram Yadav
(appellant no.1) exhorted to kill. On the exhortation made
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.69 of 2005 dt.07-11-2025
by Hare Ram Yadav, Ramnath Yadav (appellant no.4) threw
the son of the informant on the ground and Manoj Yadav
(appellant no.3) and Rishideo Yadav (appellant no.5) put
lathi on both sides of his neck and tried to kill him by
pressing the lathi. Thereafter, the informant brought
Rs.1000/- and gave it to the accused persons but in spite of
that they brutally assaulted his son on his abdomen, chest
and leg by lathi. Hare Ram Yadav hurled pistol for
terrorizing them. Seeing the serious condition of the son of
the informant, he was taken to the clinic of Dr. Nalini
Ranjan Singh where he was treated.
4. Aforesaid case was investigated by the police
and on conclusion of the investigation, the Investigating
Officer submitted charge-sheet against the accused persons
under Sections 341, 307, 504 and 386/34 of the IPC
whereafter the learned Magistrate took cognizance of the
offence and committed the case to the court of sessions,
numbered as Sessions Trial No. 21 of 2002. Charges against
the accused persons were framed under Section 307 read
with Section 34 of the IPC and Section 386 of the I.P.C. to
which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
5. In order to substantiate its case, the prosecution
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.69 of 2005 dt.07-11-2025
has examined altogether nine witnesses, namely, Ghuran
Sah (P.W.1), Shukhdeo Sah (P.W.2), Shiv Shankar Sah alias
Shankar Sah (P.W.3), Babua Sah (P.W.4), Nago Sah (P.W.5),
informant, Girdhar Sah (P.W.6), injured victim, Ram
Pravesh Sah (P.W.7), Dr. Nalini Ranjan Singh (P.W.8) who
treated the injured in his clinic and Sabhapati Singh (P.W.9),
the Investigating Officer of the case. One witness was also
examined on behalf of the defence as D.W.1-Abhay Prasad
Bhardwaj, who has proved the notice Ext.A in this case
issued by the Labour Officer and also proved the signature
of the Labour Enforcement Officer Ext.B on another notice.
Prosecution has also filed and proved some documents by
way of documentary evidence in the case.
6. Statement of the accused persons was recorded
under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal procedure and
the case of the defence is complete denial of the occurrence
claiming themselves to be innocent.
7. I have heard the arguments of the learned
counsel for the appellants and the learned APP for the State.
8. Mr. Deepak Kumar, learned counsel for the
appellants has contended, at the outset, that the first
information report itself is not a reliable document as the
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.69 of 2005 dt.07-11-2025
same has been lodged after inordinate delay and was then
ante- dated to give it a colour of a promptly lodged FIR.
This argument is substantiated by the fact that while the
occurrence is said to have taken place on 06.08.2001 at 2:00
pm, the fardbeyan of the informant came to be recorded on
07.08.2001 at 4:00 pm whereupon the FIR was drawn on the
same day at 9:30 pm, but the said FIR was received in court,
as late as, on 10.08.2001 and no explanation whatsoever, has
been tendered by the prosecution in this regard, which raises
a serious doubt on the very authenticity of such an FIR. It
has been argued that although Balia Police station was near
the place of occurrence, yet, no immediate FIR was lodged
but the fardbeyan was rather recorded later by the same
Balia police in the clinic of Dr. Nalini Ranjan (P.W.8) who is
a private doctor and there is nothing on record to indicate as
to who informed the police. In this regard, paragraphs 60 to
65 of the evidence of P.W.1, Ghuran Sah has been referred
to, who has admitted that there was a police station in the
vicinity but they did not go to the police station even after
the first treating doctor at Balia had given the necessary
medicines and injections to the injured, nor did any one of
them gave any information to the police station, rather they
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.69 of 2005 dt.07-11-2025
went to Begusarai from Balia. The learned counsel has next
submitted upon the authenticity of the medical evidence in
the form of injury report (Ext.3) issued by Dr. Nalini Ranjan
(P.W.8) by submitting that the injured Ram Pravesh Sah
(P.W. 7) was deliberately taken to her in order to procure a
favourable injury report since she was known to them. It
has been submitted that the presumption of facts as
enumerated under Section 114, illustration(g) would come
into play as despite the fact that the doctor and nursing
home were available, the informant chose to take the
injured to the clinic of P.W.8 without informing the police,
which was 20 km away and the first treating doctor, Dr.
Amar Kumar Verma who had examined the injured and had
given medicines and injections was withheld by the
prosecution for an oblique purpose. On such facts, it has
been contended that the court would presume that evidence
which could be and is not produced, if produced, would be
unfavourable to the person who withholds it. Hence, the
prosecution in the present case, by not examining the first
treating doctor, has invited an adverse inference to be drawn
against it.
9. Learned counsel for the appellants has further
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.69 of 2005 dt.07-11-2025
argued that all the non-official witnesses examined by the
prosecution i.e., P.W. 1 to P.W. 7, who claim themselves to
be eye witnesses of the occurrence, are related and belong to
the same family, hence, their evidence needs to be
scrutinized with care and caution in the background of the
fact that not a single independent witness has been
examined in support of the occurrence. Further, the defence
has taken a plea that a case was pending in the labour court
against the informant, filed on behalf of the appellants,
demanding their arrears of wages from the informant as
they had worked as driver and khalasi of the tractor of the
informant, in support whereof the defence has examined one
witness Abhay Prasad Bhardwaj as D.W. 1, who has proved
the notice issued by the labour office as Ext.'A' and has also
proved the signature of Labour Enforcement Officer on
another notice, marked as Ext.'B'. This has led the defence
to its argument that since the appellants were demanding
their remuneration from the informant, there is no question
of any demand of Rangdari/extortion. It has been stated that
distinct suggestions with regard to the pendencey of the
labour court case has been given to the prosecution
witnesses vide paragraphs 39, 40 of P.W. 1, paragraphs 56
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.69 of 2005 dt.07-11-2025
and 58 of P.W. 2, paragraphs -23 of P.W. 3, paragraphs -34
of P.W. 4, paragraphs -32 and 34 of P.W. 6 and paragraphs
61 and 67 of P.W. 7. Such pointed and consistent
suggestions given to the prosecution witnesses indicates the
trend of cross examination that the attention of all these
witnesses has been drawn to the pendency of the labour
court case and the receipt of notice therefrom, being reason
for false implication of the appellants.In such state of affairs,
it has been emphatically argued that no offence under
Section 386 of the IPC would be made out, hence the
conviction thereunder, is totally against the weight of
evidence.
10. The conviction under section 307 of the IPC
has also been assailed on behalf of the appellants on the
ground that while the consistent case of the prosecution is
that appellant Hare Ram Yadav was armed with pistol, the
said pistol is nowhere stated to be used by the appellants,
rather the use of lathi for assault was alleged, which is
clearly indicative of the fact that there was no intention to
kill any one. Thus, while advancing the argument that
conviction of the appellants u/s 307 IPC is not sustainable, it
has been alternatively argued that the present case, at best
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.69 of 2005 dt.07-11-2025
would be covered under Section 324 of the IPC.
11. Per contra, the learned APP for the State, Ms.
Anita Kumari Singh has submitted that as many as seven
prosecution witnesses being P.W. 1 to P.W. 7, have
supported the case of the prosecution as eye witnesses,
including the injured eye witness Ram Pravesh Sah (PW-7).
Regardless of the fact that the witnesses are related to each
other, they have supported the prosecution case in its
entirety and merely being related, would not affect or
corrode their credibility. It has further been submitted that
the medical evidence also corroborates the ocular evidence,
inasmuch as Dr. Nalini Ranjan (P.W. 8) has noted as many
as four injuries on the person of the injured Ram Pravesh
Sah (P.W. 7), out of which injury no. 2, which is near the
head i.e. a vital part of the body, was opined to be grievous
in nature. It has thus been forcefully contended that the
prosecution has been able to prove its case beyond all
reasonable doubts.
12. I have minutely perused both the oral and
documentary evidence, besides hearing the learned counsel
for the parties. Before proceeding further, it would be
necessary to cursorily discuss the evidence on record.
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.69 of 2005 dt.07-11-2025
13. The prosecution, in order to substantiate its
case, has examined altogether nine witnesses, out of whom
P.W. 1 to P.W. 7 claim to be eye witnesses. While Girdhar
Sah (P.W. 6) is the informant, Ram Pravesh Sah (P.W. 7)
happens to be his son who is an injured eye witness.
Besides, P.W. 3 Shiv Shankar Sah and P.W. 5 Nago Sah are
the brothers of the informant, P.W. 1 Ghuran Sah and P.W. 2
Sukhdeo Sah are cousins of the informant and P.W. 4 Babua
Sah is the father of the informant. P.W. 8 Dr. Nalini Ranjan
is the doctor who treated the injured (P.W.7) and the P.W. 9
is the Investigating Officer of the case.
14. The evidence of P.W. 1 would reveal that he
came to the place of occurrence, the Darwaza of Girdhar
Sah (informant), upon the sound of alarm being raised and
saw appellant Hare Ram Yadav armed with pistol and also
saw Ram Narayan and Ram Nath Yadav. He claims to have
seen Hare Ram Yadav demanding Rs. 1000/- as Rangdari
from the informant whereafter the informant's son Ram
Pravesh Sah (P.W.7) intervened by stating that they would
report to the police, whereafter Ram Narayan Yadav and
Ram Nath Yadav pushed Ram Pravesh on the ground,
while Rishi Deo and Manoj Yadav pressed his neck by
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.69 of 2005 dt.07-11-2025
means of lathi. In the meantime, the informant brought Rs.
1000/- from the house and gave it over to them as
Rangdari Tax, after which Ram Pravesh was let loose but
was assaulted on his chest, head and stomach whereupon
he fell unconscious and was taken to Dr. Amar Kumar
Verma who referred him to Dr. Nalini Ranjan at
Begusarai. The injured remained unconscious in the
clinic/hospital of Dr. Nalini Ranjan (P.W. 8) and it is here
that Balia police came and recorded the fardbeyan of the
informant and also took his statement. In the cross
examination, he has admitted that he is a Gotiya of the
informant having separate residence. He has denied
knowledge about the existence of labour court case with
regard to pending wages of the accused persons against the
informant. He has however, admitted the fact that the
injured was first examined by a doctor who gave medicines
and injections whereafter he was taken to Begusarai under
treatment of Dr. Nalini Ranjan (P.W. 8). The other
witnesses of the prosecution i.e. P.W. 2 to P.W. 5 have
also, more or less, stated the same facts, with slight
variations, hence they are not being discussed individually.
15. The informant Girdhar Sah (P.W.6) has also
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.69 of 2005 dt.07-11-2025
given the aforementioned narrative in his examination-in-
chief and identified his signature on the fardbeyan and has
further admitted that he had already sold off his tractor.
He has admitted further that the accused persons have filed
a case against him in the labour court Bettiah, however the
same was filed after the occurrence. He has added that lathi
was put on the front of the neck of his son, however there
was no bleeding. It has also been stated that the place of
occurrence was his sahan which was not fenced and the
occurrence was witnessed by the other prosecution
witnesses who are his Gotiya residing in adjacent houses.
He has further stated that he cannot say as to how many
lathi blows were inflicted on his son and he had only seen
swelling on the head and chest but had not seen any distinct
marks. He has denied the fact that he owes money to the
accused persons and it is due to such reason that the
accused persons were compelled to file a case in the court.
16. Ram Pravesh Sah, P.W. 7 is the victim itself
who has also narrated the same facts with the addition that
he fell unconscious after his neck was being pressed by
means of lathi and he came back to consciousness, only in
the clinic of Dr. Nalini Ranjan on 13.08.2001. In the cross
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.69 of 2005 dt.07-11-2025
examination, he has expressed his ignorance to any case
having been filed against the prosecution party by the
accused persons. He has however accepted that they had a
tractor earlier but the same was sold off in the year 1995 and
has further denied that accused Manoj was the driver of the
said tractor and the other accused persons also worked as
labour.
17. Dr. Nalini Ranjan Singh, examined as P.W. 8,
is the doctor who examined the injuries of Ram Pravesh Sah
(P.W. 7) on 06.08.2001 at about 7:00 pm and found four
injuries on his person which are the following:
(i) Injury No. 1- Pattern bruise over
the front of neck just below the vocal
cord transversely placed about 3"/4"
X 2 1/2" in size with deffused
surrounding swelling. X-Ray neck
does not show any abnormal finding.
(ii) Injury No. 2- Bruise over the
vertex region of scalp about ½" X ½"
size. X-Ray was done and crack
fracture was scull bone was seen.
(iii) Injury No. 3- Diffused swelling
over the front of chest.
(iv) Injury no. 4- Multiple abrasion
and scratches over back, abdomen
and shoulder.
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.69 of 2005 dt.07-11-2025
18. In the opinion of the doctor, injury no. 1 was
simple, but dangerous to life, injury no. 3 and 4 were also
simple and injury no. 2 was grievous in nature and the
witness has proved the injury report as Ext. 3. In the cross
examination, the doctor has opined that if two bamboo
sticks are pressed on neck from two sides, there would
certainly be some mark over the neck on both sides,
however, she did not find any injury on the back side of
neck. She has further stated that the patient came directly to
her and was not treated earlier by any other doctor, as no
such document was available. She has added that she did not
find any crack or bony injury over neck and lastly has
denied the defence suggestion that she had issued a wrong
and collusive injury report to favour the informant.
19. The investigating officer, Sabhapati Singh
(P.W. 9) has stated that he had recorded the fardbeyan of the
informant in the clinic of Dr. Nalini Ranjan on 07.08.2001 at
about 4:00 pm and has identified his signature over the same
as Ext. 4. He also recorded the further statement of the
informant (P.W. 6) but could not record the statement of the
injured (P.W. 7) as he was unconscious. He also prepared the
injury requisition (Ext.5) and inspected the place of
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.69 of 2005 dt.07-11-2025
occurrence. He tried to record statement of villagers but no
one was ready due to influence of the accused persons. On
13.08.2001 he took the statement of the injured Ram
Pravesh Sah (P.W.7), after being informed that he had
regained consciousness. In his cross examination, he has
accepted that there is government hospital (PHC) at Bettiah
but there is no surgeon there. He has further stated that he
did not find any drop of blood at the place of occurrence,
nor did he find any mark of violence or lathi or any other
incriminating article. During course of investigation, he
neither examined Dr. Amar Kr. Verma nor did he receive
any treatment related document or injury report from Dr.
Verma. In paragraph 48 of his deposition, he has stated that
during investigation, this fact came to light that the accused
persons were engaged in driving tractor and other works of
the informant. It also came to light that the informant had
sold off the tractor two months back as has been recorded in
paragraph 42 of the case diary and it was found that the
informant owed money to the accused persons and they had
gone for demanding the same.
20. After closing the prosecution evidence, the
trial court recorded the statements of the appellants under
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.69 of 2005 dt.07-11-2025
Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. on 28.03.2003, enabling them to
personally explain the circumstances appearing in the
evidence against them, however, they denied the said
charges and circumstances.
The defence witness (D.W.1) is a formal witness who has
proved the signature of the labour officer Madan Prasad
along with the stamp as Ext.A and another document
bearing signature of labour enforcement officer as Ext. B.
However, he has stated that these documents were not
written before him.
21. The learned trial judge, upon appreciation,
analysis and scrutiny of the evidence adduced during trial,
has found the appellants guilty of the offences and has
sentenced them to imprisonment, by its impugned judgment
and order.
Analysis and consideration
22. I have perused the impugned judgment of the
learned trial court, the entire materials on record and have
given thoughtful consideration to the rival submissions
made by the learned counsel for the appellants as well as
the learned APP for the state.
23. The contents of the FIR has already been
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.69 of 2005 dt.07-11-2025
discussed in detail earlier which discloses an allegation that
the appellants had demanded extortion money of Rs. 1000/-
from the informant Girdhari Sah (P.W.6) and assaulted the
son of the informant, Ram Pravesh Sah (P.W. 7) while he
intervened in the matter, on account of which he suffered
injuries.
24. The focal point for consideration now is as to
whether the prosecution has been able to bring home the
charges levelled against the appellants beyond all
reasonable doubts so as to sustain conviction or not and the
evidence on record now needs to be analyzed and examined
for the said purpose.
25. On going through the narration of the
prosecution witnesses, it would be apparent that out of nine
witnesses examined by the prosecution, P.W. 1 to P.W. 7 are
the witnesses who have supported the case of the
prosecution as eye witnesses of the occurrence. These
witnesses include P.W.6, Girdhar Sah who is the informant
of this case and P.W. 7 Ram Pravesh Sah, who is the injured,
as also the son of the informant. The informant P.W. 6, in his
deposition, has supported the initial version as recorded in
the first information report and there does not appear to be
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.69 of 2005 dt.07-11-2025
any departure from the story as narrated by him in his
fardbeyan. A serious objection, however has been taken with
regard to the authenticity of such fardbeyan with the claim
that the FIR is a belated and ante-dated document as despite
the occurrence having taken place on 06.08.2001 and the
fardbeyan having been recorded on 07.08.2001, the same
was received in court only on 10.08.2001, i.e after a lapse of
3 days from the date of the FIR. Upon perusal of the FIR,
the aforementioned fact of delay in FIR as well as delay in
receipt of the same in the court becomes apparent as while
the occurrence had taken place on 06.08.2001 at around
2:00 pm, no reasonable explanation has been tendered by
the prosecution as to why the police was informed only on
the next day i.e. 07.08.2001 at about 4:00 pm. The
prosecution has tried to give a feeble explanation by stating
that they had rushed to the doctor for treatment of the
injured, but still does not convincingly explain as to why,
none of the six eye witnesses informed the police about the
said incident. Further, the delayed receipt of FIR in court
also gives rise to some doubt with regard to the truthfulness
of the prosecution story, as the law laid down in this regard
is clear that the FIR once registered, has to be sent to the
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.69 of 2005 dt.07-11-2025
court forthwith and any delay caused in the same without
any explanation would have a detrimental effect on the
prosecution and would also give rise to adverse inference.
However, the records of the case would show that the
defence has failed to confront the investigating officer on
the said issue, hence no explanation with regard to the same
has come on record. Nonetheless, it is apparent on records
that the fardbeyan was not promptly recorded, leading to an
adverse inference that the same was done after due thought
and deliberation and may contain concocted facts and other
embellishments. However, the delay in lodging of the FIR
and its delayed receipt in the court, though being vital
circumstances against the prosecution, cannot be taken as a
solitary ground for out-rightly dismissing the case of the
prosecution but the other evidence available on record, also
needs to be examined.
26. The prosecution witnesses no. 1 to 7 as
detailed earlier, appear to have supported the prosecution
case as eye witnesses and no major inconsistencies has been
pointed out, in order to doubt their testimony. The defence
has also not drawn any contradictions with regard to their
previous statements recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. by
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.69 of 2005 dt.07-11-2025
confronting the investigating officer (P.W. 9) in this regard.
Merely taking a plea that the prosecution witnesses are all
related to each other would not make their evidence
doubtful. These witnesses are rather the natural witnesses as
they are inmates of the house or the adjacent houses, who
could have got a chance to witness the occurrence as it
happened at the sahan of the house of the informant. Thus,
by virtue of they being related to the informant, they cannot
be categorized as interested witnesses, so as to doubt their
testimony. In this regard, a recent case of Maukam Singh &
Ors. Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, reported in 2025 SCC
Online SC 702 may be gainfully referred and paragraph no.
5 is being quoted hereunder:
"5. We have gone through the entire
records and depositions of the witnesses.
At the outset, we have to notice that the
ocular witnesses were all grandchildren of
the deceased; which by itself would not
result in eschewing their testimony. It is
trite that, merely because witnesses are
related, they cannot be termed to be
interested, especially in a case where there
is ocular testimony........"
27. While dealing with the testimony of the ocular
witnesses, one cannot lose sight of the fact that besides the
other witnesses, P.W. 7 Ram Pravesh Sah is an injured
witness whose testimony cannot be lightly brushed aside
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.69 of 2005 dt.07-11-2025
unless strong and compelling grounds exist to doubt the
veracity thereof. In the case of Abdul Sayeed Vs. State of
M.P. reported in (2010) 10 SCC 259, the Hon'ble Apex
Court has clearly held that the testimony of the injured
witness is accorded special status and has a greater
evidentiary value. Paragraph No. 29 and 30 of the said
judgment is being quoted hereunder:
"29. While deciding this issue, a similar view
was taken in Jarnail Singh v. State of Punjab
[(2009) 9 SCC 719: (2010) 1 SCC (Cri) 107],
where this Court reiterated the special
evidentiary status accorded to the testimony of
an injured accused and relying on its earlier
judgments held as under :(SCC pp. 726-27,
paras 28-29)
"28. Darshan Singh (PW 4) was an injured
witness. He had been examined by the doctor.
His testimony could not be brushed aside
lightly. He had given full details of the incident
as he was present at the time when the
assailants reached the tubewell. In
Shivalingappa Kallayanappa v. State of
Karnataka [1994 Supp (3) SCC 235 : 1994
SCC (Cri) 1694] this Court has held that the
deposition of the injured witness should be
relied upon unless there are strong grounds for
rejection of his evidence on the basis of major
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.69 of 2005 dt.07-11-2025
contradictions and discrepancies, for the reason
that his presence on the scene stands
established in case it is proved that he suffered
the injury during the said incident.
29. In State of U.P. v. Kishan Chand [(2004) 7
SCC 629: 2004 SCC (Cri) 2013] a similar view
has been reiterated observing that the testimony
of a stamped witness has its own relevance and
efficacy. The fact that the witness sustained
injuries at the time and place of occurrence,
lends support to his testimony that he was
present during the occurrence. In case the
injured witness is subjected to lengthy cross-
examination and nothing can be elicited to
discard his testimony, it should be relied upon
(vide Krishan v. State of Haryana [(2006) 12
SCC 459 : (2007) 2 SCC (Cri) 214]). Thus, we
are of the considered opinion that evidence of
Darshan Singh (PW 4) has rightly been relied
upon by the courts below."
30. The law on the point can be summarised
to the effect that the testimony of the injured
witness is accorded a special status in law. This
is as a consequence of the fact that the injury to
the witness is an inbuilt guarantee of his
presence at the scene of the crime and because
the witness will not want to let his actual
assailant go unpunished merely to falsely
implicate a third party for the commission of
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.69 of 2005 dt.07-11-2025
the offence. Thus, the deposition of the injured
witness should be relied upon unless there are
strong grounds for rejection of his evidence on
the basis of major contradictions and
discrepancies therein."
28. It has thus been concluded that the evidence of
the injured witness is kept on a high pedestal as he would
not let his actual assailants go unpunished and minor
discrepancies, if any, do not corrode the credibility of an
otherwise acceptable evidence.
29. So far as the medical evidence is concerned,
the injury report (Ext. 3) coupled with the opinion and
testimony of the doctor P.W. 8, corroborates the ocular
evidence and the defence plea of taking the injured from
Balia to Begusarai for procuring a favourable injury report,
does not seem to be of much consequence as the witnesses
have stated that the first treating doctor Dr Aman Kr. Verma
after administering some medicines and injections, had
referred the patient to Begusarai. No doubt the prosecution
ought to have examined Dr. Aman Kr. Verma as a witness in
the present case, however, his non-examination would not
give a fatal blow to the case of the prosecution as there is no
substantial reason on record to doubt the injury report or the
evidence of the doctor P.W.8, in whose clinic the
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.69 of 2005 dt.07-11-2025
investigating officer P.W. 9 recorded the fardbeyan of the
informant.
30. Thus, in the background of the consistent
nature of evidence, imputing allegations of assault upon the
appellants coupled with the existence of injuries on the
person of the injured (PW-7), establishes the manner of
occurrence and leads to the irresistible conclusion that the
injured has suffered injuries at the hands of the appellants.
The defence has tried to create some doubt with regard to
the place of occurrence by confronting the I.O. and eliciting
the information from him that he did not find any blood or
mark of violence at the place of occurrence, but the fact
remains that it is not the case of the prosecution, either in
the FIR or in the evidence that the injured had suffered
bleeding injuries, rather the witnesses have referred to
injuries in the nature of swelling, etc and the informant
(PW-6) has specifically stated that in paragraph 76 that his
son was never bleeding. In such view of the matter, the
place of occurrence also cannot be doubted considering the
consistent evidence on record in the form of ocular
testimony of the prosecution witnesses. There is no
substantial reason even to doubt the date and time of
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.69 of 2005 dt.07-11-2025
occurrence, in view of the evidence put forth by the
prosecution.
31. Thus, after a careful scrutiny of the entire
evidence on record, I find that the evidence of the
prosecution witnesses are cogent, convincing and reliable
and in such view of the matter, the prosecution has been able
to prove its case, beyond reasonable doubt, to the extent that
the injured Ram pravesh Shah (P.W. 7) had suffered injuries
on account of the assault inflicted by the appellants by
means of lathi (stick) upon exhortation made by appellant
Hare Ram Yadav.
32. Now the only question which remains to be
determined is as to whether the allegation of demand of
extortion money can be held to be correct so as to attract the
provision of section 386 IPC and to sustain a conviction
thereunder and the further question as to whether, in the
facts and circumstances of the case an intention to kill can
be gathered in order to justify the conviction under section
307 IPC is just and proper.
33. So far as the first question of applicability of
section 386 of the IPC, the materials on record do not
clearly indicate demand of rangdari tax/extortion money, in
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.69 of 2005 dt.07-11-2025
as much as the trend of cross-examination of the prosecution
witnesses clearly discloses the consistent defence suggestion
that the informant owed money to the appellants in the form
of payment of their pending wages as driver, conductor of
the tractor of the informant, as also regarding other labour
work for which a case was filed in the labour court against
the informant on behalf of the appellants, which stands
supported and substantiated by the defence Exts. A and B
which are notice/documents bearing the signature of the
labour officer and endorsement of the labour enforcement
officer, which have been formally proved by defence
witness, Abhay Prasad Bharadwaj (DW-1). The issue of
demand of extortion money was also investigated by the
I.O. who has clearly stated in paragraph 48 of his evidence
that the appellants were engaged by the informant for
driving the tractor and other work and their remuneration
was due, and it is for demanding this payment that they had
gone to the house of the informant. In such background of
the facts and circumstances, I find substance and force in the
contention raised on behalf of the appellants that the
demand of extortion money does not stand proved beyond
all reasonable doubts and it rather appears that a valid
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.69 of 2005 dt.07-11-2025
demand for pending wages has been given the colour of
demand of extortion in order to add to the seriousness of the
offence. Considering the above-mentioned reasons, I find
that the conviction of the appellants u/s 386 of the IPC is not
justified since the prosecution has not been able to prove the
same beyond all reasonable doubts and despite the presence
of ocular evidence in this regard, the appellants deserve the
benefit of doubt and are thus, acquitted of the charges u/s
386/34 of the IPC.
34. The next question now to be adverted to is as
to whether the present case would fall within the ambit of
section 307 IPC or would be one covered under a lesser
offence of section 324 or 325 of the IPC. The evidence of
the prosecution is no doubt consistent with regard to the
appellants indulging in acts of assault upon the injured, Ram
Pravesh Shah by way of pressing his neck by lathi after
pushing him down to the ground and other general
allegations of assault by lathi on chest, head and stomach of
the injured. The medical evidence clearly demonstrates that
out of four injuries suffered by the injured, there is a single
injury which has been opined to be grievous causing
fracture of skull bone, while the other injuries have been
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.69 of 2005 dt.07-11-2025
held to be simple in nature being in the form of swelling,
abrasions, scratches and bruises. It is also to be noted that
the injury no. 2 is also a bruise over the vertex region of
scalp of about 1/2" x ½" size with no cut or bleeding found
thereon. It is only after X-ray was done, a fracture of skull
bone was seen, hence the same was opined to be grievous in
nature. The ocular evidence discloses a specific allegation of
pushing the injured down and pressing his neck by lathi, but
with regard to the other assault by lathi, the allegations are
very general and vague in nature and the author of injury no.
2 has also not been specified. It is also the case of
prosecution that an amount of Rs. 1000 was already paid to
the appellants while the neck of the injured was being
pressed, after which he was let loose followed by general
allegations of assault. The point which is being driven home
is that there remained no further occasion to cause any
forceful assault upon the injured when even before the
payment of the said amount, no adequate force was
employed in pressing his neck as the injury report clearly
reveals that only a bruise was found over the neck with
some swelling, while the X-ray of the neck did not show any
abnormal finding. Moreover, the doctor (PW-8) has made a
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.69 of 2005 dt.07-11-2025
categoric statement in her evidence that she did not find any
injury on the backside of the neck and also did not find any
crack or bony injury over the neck.
35. It is also a fact that the appellants had not
come with any premeditated plan or mindset to cause death
of the deceased and as a matter of fact, it is only after the
conversation became heated upon intervention of the injured
(P.W. 7) that the matter escalated and appellant Hare Ram
Yadav exhorted at the spur of the moment to assault him,
whereupon the other appellants, without giving any thought,
pushed him down and pressed his neck with lathi.
36. For constituting an offence under section 307
of the IPC, there has to be clear evidence that the intent
behind an act is to cause death of the person. In the case of
Shoyeb Raja vs State of Madhya Pradesh and Ors.
reported in 2024 SCC Online SC 2624, the said principle
was reinforced and while reiterating the well-settled legal
principles governing section 307 IPC, the Hon'ble apex
court referred to the three essential ingredients which must
be present for the application of the aforesaid section as
enumerated in the case of State of Maharashtra vs
Kashirao & Ors. reported in (2003) 10 SCC 434. The
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.69 of 2005 dt.07-11-2025
above-mentioned ingredients are as follows:
1. An attempt to cause death.
2. The act must be capable of causing death or should be
done with the intent to cause death.
3. The action taken by the accused should be imminently
dangerous, and no excuse should justify the risk of death
or serious injury.
37. Thus, it has been held that the critical element
is the intent, regardless of the extent of physical injuries. It
has been highlighted that even minor injuries can lead to
serious charges if the intent to cause death is evident.
38. In the case at hand, none of the above-
mentioned ingredients can be said to be in existence, as had
there been an intention to cause death, there would be
nothing to deter the appellants from using the pistol with
which it has been alleged that they were armed. The very
fact of not using the firearm is a clear pointer towards the
fact that there was no intention to kill and some assault by
means of lathi mainly causing simple injuries cannot be
categorized as an attempt to cause death. It is on such
grounds that this court comes to the considered conclusion
that the prosecution has not been able to bring home the
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.69 of 2005 dt.07-11-2025
charges u/s 307 of IPC and thus the conviction of the
appellants u/s 307/ 34 IPC cannot be sustained.
39. However, this court needs to consider the
alternative argument made on behalf of the appellants with
regard to converting the conviction u/s 307 into that of
section 324 IPC since the occurrence of assault has been
proved beyond reasonable doubts by both oral and medical
evidence. Taking into account that one of the injuries is
grievous in nature, in the opinion of this court the
consideration would be to convert the conviction u/s 307
IPC to one under 325 IPC which relates to voluntarily
causing grievous hurt, as the evidence indicates the presence
of the grievous injury but does not meet the criteria for
attempt to murder. Thus, the legal basis for converting a
charge from attempt to murder to causing grievous hurt
hinges on both the severity of the injury as also the intent
inferred from the circumstances. The law is thus clear, that
where injuries are of grievous nature but not of such a
severity to be called fatal and do not demonstrate an
intention to kill, the charge u/s 307 of the IPC can be
downgraded and altered accordingly to one u/s 325 of the
IPC. In the absence of the requisite mens rea for an attempt
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.69 of 2005 dt.07-11-2025
to murder, the conviction of the appellants is fit to be
modified by convicting them u/s 325 / 34 of the IPC.
40. So far as the sentence to be awarded for a
conviction under the aforesaid section is concerned, there is
no fixed minimum period of custody for a conviction u/s
325 of the IPC and the sentencing would thus depend on the
facts and the aggravating and the mitigating circumstances
of a case. In the present case, there are mitigating
circumstances relating to the nature and extent of injuries,
considering that there is only one grievous injury and the
same has not resulted in any cut or bleeding to indicate
considerable amount of force having been used. The
attending circumstances in the form of demanding of their
wages by the appellants from the informant, also would be a
consideration, coupled with the fact that it was not a
premeditated action and it was only upon the intervention
made by the injured that a verbal altercation escalated into
acts of physical assault. The other mitigating factors are that
the convicts were nearly of the age group of 25 years at the
time of the occurrence with no prior criminal record. Thus,
considering them to be first offenders, they are entitled to a
lenient view. The appellants have remained in the custody
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.69 of 2005 dt.07-11-2025
for about 4 to 5 months as undertrial and about 7 months
post-conviction and they have faced the rigors of the trial
and the pending appeal for a substantially long period as the
present appeal has been heard finally after about 25 years of
the occurrence.
41. Taking all the aforesaid factors into
consideration and taking an overall perspective of the entire
case, emerging out of the totality of the facts and
circumstances, I find that the prosecution has miserably
failed to prove the charges u/s 307/34 & 386/34 of IPC
against the appellants beyond the shadow of all reasonable
doubts. As stated earlier, they are thus acquitted of the
aforesaid charges and the conviction u/s 307/34 IPC stands
modified/altered to one u/s 325/34 of the IPC and
considering the mitigating factors and circumstances, the
appellants are sentenced to the period already undergone by
them. However, it would meet the ends of justice if a fine of
Rs. 10,000/- each is imposed upon the appellants to be paid
to the informant or the injured victim or be deposited before
the trial court for the said purpose and in case of non-
payment of the said fine amount, they are directed to
undergo simple imprisonment of 1 month each.
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.69 of 2005 dt.07-11-2025
42. The appellants are stated to be on bail and as
such, are directed to be discharged from the liability of their
bail bonds upon fulfillment of the condition of payment of
the fine imposed on them.
43. Accordingly, the appeal is partly allowed to the
extent indicated hereinabove.
(Soni Shrivastava, J.)
Devendra-
AFR/NAFR AFR
CAV DATE 10.10.2025
Uploading Date 07.11.2025
Transmission Date 07.11.2025
