Ram Bilas Singh vs The State Of Bihar
2026 Latest Caselaw 270 Patna

Patna High Court

Ram Bilas Singh vs The State Of Bihar on 3 February, 2026

Author: Arun Kumar Jha

Bench: Arun Kumar Jha

          IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
                            CRIMINAL REVISION No.207 of 2025
       Arising Out of PS. Case No.-65 Year-2002 Thana- WARISNAGAR District- Samastipur
     ======================================================
1.    Ram Bilas Singh Son of Late Bhavichan Singh Resident of Village -
      Satmalpur, P.S. - Waris Nagar, District - Samastipur
2.   Bablu Singh @ Divya Jyoti Kumar Son of Sri Ram Bilash Singh Resident of
     Village - Satmalpur, P.S. - Waris Nagar, District - Samastipur
                                                                  ... ... Petitioner/s
                                        Versus
1.   The State of Bihar
2.    Ram Avtar Singh S/o- Late Bhanichhan Mahto @ Bhanichhan Singh
      Resident of Village - Satmalpur, P.S. - Waris Nagar, District - Samastipur
                                                             ... ... Opposite Parties
     ======================================================
     Appearance :
     For the Petitioner/s      :     Ms. Megha, Advocate
                                     Mr. Priyajeet Pandey, Advocate
                                     Mr. Kaustubh Kumar, Advocate
                                     Mr. Lakshmindra Kumar Yadav, Advocate
     For the State             :     Mr. Nityanand, APP
     For the O.P. No. 2        :     Mr. Satish Kumar Sinha, Advocate
     ======================================================
        CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN KUMAR JHA
                         ORAL JUDGMENT

Date : 03-02-2026

Heard the learned counsels for the respective parties

and perused the record.

2. The present criminal revision petition has been

preferred against the judgment and order dated 24.01.2025

passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-IX, Samastipur

in Criminal Appeal No. 39 of 2016 (CIS No. 39 of 2016),

whereby and whereunder the judgment/order dated 24.05.2016

passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate-VI,

Samastipur has been affirmed and also against the judgment of

conviction and order of sentence dated 24.05.2016 passed in Patna High Court CR. REV. No.207 of 2025 dt.03-02-2026

G.R. no. 765 of 2012 (Tr. No. 1945/16) by the learned ACJM-

VI, Samastipur, in which the petitioners Ram Bilash Singh and

Bablu Singh were ordered to undergo simple imprisonment of

one year for the offence punishable under Section 323 of the

Indian Penal Code, simple imprisonment of one month for the

offence under Section 341 of IPC and simple imprisonment of

three months for the offence under Section 447 of IPC. Further,

the petitioner, Bablu Singh, has also been convicted for the

offence under Section 324 of IPC and sentenced to undergo

simple imprisonment of two years.

3. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the

opposite party no. 2 is the informant of Warisnagar P.S. Case No.

65 of 2002 which was registered on the basis of fardbeyan of

opposite party no. 2/informant, Ram Avtar Singh. The informant

alleged that petitioner no. 1, who is the brother of informant,

came to his doors and there was verbal exchange between them

with regard to partition. The petitioner no. 1 got infuriated

during this talk and ordered to kill the informant. Thereafter,

petitioner no. 2 inflicted a farsa blow upon the head of the

informant due to which he got injured and fell down. Thereafter,

the petitioners and co-accused persons assaulted him. On the

basis of fardbeyan of the informant/opposite party no. 2,

aforesaid case was registered under Sections 341, 323, 324, 447, Patna High Court CR. REV. No.207 of 2025 dt.03-02-2026

307/34 of IPC against the petitioners and other co-accused

persons. After investigation, charge-sheet was submitted for the

offences under Sections 323, 341, 324, 447/34 of IPC against the

petitioners and other co-accused persons. Thereafter, cognizance

was taken for the offences under Sections 323, 341, 324, 447/34

of IPC by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Samastipur

against the accused persons. Charges were framed under

Sections 323, 341 and 447 of IPC against the petitioners and co-

accused and after trial, the petitioners and co-accused were held

guilty for the charges under Sections 323, 341 and 447 of IPC

and the petitioner, Bablu Singh, was further held guilty for the

charge under Section 324 of IPC. Thereafter, the convicts

petitioners and co-accused Pappu Singh were ordered to undergo

simple imprisonment of one year for the offence punishable

under Section 323 of the IPC, simple imprisonment of one moth

for the offence punishable under Section 341 of the IPC and

simple imprisonment of three months for the offence under

Sections 447 of the IPC. Apart from that, petitioner, Bablu

Singh, was also ordered to undergo simple imprisonment of two

years for the offence punishable under Sections 324 of the IPC.

All the sentences were directed to run concurrently. The

petitioners preferred appeal against the said order but the learned

appellate court, after giving opportunity of hearing to the parties, Patna High Court CR. REV. No.207 of 2025 dt.03-02-2026

vide judgment/order dated 24.01.2025, affirmed the judgment of

conviction and order of sentence dated 24.05.2016 passed by the

learned ACJM-VI, Samastipur and dismissed the appeal.

Aggrieved by these two judgments/orders, the petitioners have

preferred the instant criminal revision.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that

petitioners have been convicted and sentenced against the facts

on record and, therefore, the impugned orders are bad in law as

well as on facts. The learned trial court as well as learned

appellate court have failed to appreciate the material facts as

there was ample evidence and material available on record to

show the innocence of the petitioners. Both the courts below

failed to take into consideration the admitted land dispute

between the parties and their old enmity on this account. The

learned District Courts did not consider the fact that at the time

of occurrence petitioner no. 2 was only 21 years old and ought to

have given benefit of probation under Section 360 of Cr.P.C..

The learned District Courts further failed to appreciate the

material and evidence on record and ignored the contradictions

and lacunae in the evidence of prosecution which make the

prosecution case very doubtful and benefit of doubt should have

gone to the petitioners. The learned trial court as the learned

appellate court did not even consider the fact that the occurrence Patna High Court CR. REV. No.207 of 2025 dt.03-02-2026

is stated to be of year 2002 and the impugned judgments/orders

have been passed in the years 2016 and 2025, respectively, and

therefore, the quantum of punishment is too hard and excessive.

5. Learned counsel further submits that the conviction

of petitioner no. 2 is based on the injury stated to be caused by

him with farsa on the victim. But, the doctor during cross-

examination admitted that he did not mention the colour of

injury and also stated that injury no. 1 could have been caused

by shaving blade, if a person takes risk, and also observed that

the injury of farsa could not be such small. Still, the learned

District Courts did not take into consideration this material facts

and hence, the judgments/orders impugned are erroneous.

Therefore, the petition needs to be allowed and judgments of

conviction and orders of sentence are liable to be set aside.

6. Learned APP for the State as well as learned

counsel appearing on behalf of opposite party no. 2 vehemently

oppose the submission made on behalf of the petitioners.

Learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2/informant submits

that there is no infirmity in the impugned orders and the same

are right and correct. The learned trial court as well as the

learned appellate court have considered all the evidence in

minutes details and discussed each and every fact and

circumstance. Learned counsel further submits that the witnesses Patna High Court CR. REV. No.207 of 2025 dt.03-02-2026

have supported the prosecution case and this fact was taken note

of by the District Courts. The learned trial court has also

discussed in its judgment about ocular evidence and medical

evidence corroborating each other. Therefore, there is no

illegality, infirmity or impropriety in the impugned

judgment/orders and the present revision petition is liable to be

dismissed.

7. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the

rival submission of the parties and perused the record.

8. There is concurrent findings of two courts which are

under challenge before this Court. To interfere with the two

concurrent findings, the petitioners are required to show some

manifest illegality or perversity which is apparent from the

record or some material irregularity or impropriety in passing the

impugned orders. But, except for assailing the judgments/orders

on facts which have already been examined in details by the two

courts, nothing of interest has been brought to the notice of this

Court. If the petitioners claimed that the occurrence took place in

the background of land dispute or they have been falsely

implicated, it is to be kept in mind that such defence is a double

edged weapon and it cuts both ways. Even if the occurrence

happened over land dispute, the present case cannot be said to be

false only on account of some land dispute.

Patna High Court CR. REV. No.207 of 2025 dt.03-02-2026

9. Further, there is concurrent findings of two courts

on facts and the same could not be lightly interfered with. To

interfere with such findings, the petitioners were supposed to

show some material which ought to have been apparent on face

of record but no such material has been brought to the notice of

this Court. Another aspect is about overlooking of evidence of

doctor. But I find this submission of learned counsel for the

petitioner is not correct as this aspect was also considered by the

learned trial court and affirmed by the learned appellate court. It

has also come on record that even in an earlier case between the

parties, the petitioners and other co-accused were convicted

under Section 323 of the IPC and they were let off after

admonition and this was the second occurrence by the petitioners

and co-accused person.

10. Therefore, on merit, I do not find much substance

in the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners so as

to interfere with the impugned judgments/orders.

11. However, during argument, it has been submitted

on behalf of the petitioners that petitioner no. 1 has already

served maximum part of the sentence awarded to him as he is in

custody since 12.03.2025 and the petitioner no. 2 is also in

custody since 12.03.2025, though he has been sentenced to

undergo simple imprisonment of two years for the offence Patna High Court CR. REV. No.207 of 2025 dt.03-02-2026

punishable under Sections 324 of IPC. Considering the fact that

it is a protracted trial since 2002 and the petitioner no. 1 is stated

to be aged about 72 years and the occurrence is stated to have

taken place when the petitioner no. 2 was only 21 years old,

hence, this Court thinks it fit and proper that the sentence of the

petitioners could be tinkered with so as to release the petitioners

and, accordingly, their sentences are modified to the period

already undergone. Hence, the petitioners above named, are

ordered to be released from the custody forthwith.

11. Accordingly, the present revision petition stands

disposed of.

(Arun Kumar Jha, J) Ashish/-

AFR/NAFR                NAFR
CAV DATE                NA
Uploading Date          05.02.2026
Transmission Date       05.02.2026