Kanhaiya Yadav vs The State Of Bihar
2026 Latest Caselaw 290 Patna

Patna High Court

Kanhaiya Yadav vs The State Of Bihar on 4 February, 2026

Author: Shailendra Singh

Bench: Shailendra Singh

     IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
                    CRIMINAL APPEAL (SJ) No.366 of 2014
  Arising Out of PS. Case No.-228 Year-2005 Thana- SURYAGARHA District- Lakhisarai
======================================================
Kanhaiya Yadav, Son of Damodar Yadav, Resident of village- Khemtarni,
Asthan, P.S.- Surajgarha, District- Lakhisarai

                                                                 ... ... Appellant/s
                                      Versus
The State of Bihar

                                          ... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Appellant       :        Mr. Sanjeev Kumar, Adv.
                                 Mr. Ritesh Kumar Narain Singh, Adv.
For the State           :        Mr. Bipin Kumar, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHAILENDRA SINGH
                             ORAL JUDGMENT

Date : 04-02-2026

The instant appeal has been preferred by the

appellant, Kanhaiya Yadav, against the judgment of conviction

dated 05.07.2014 and the order of sentence dated 09.07.2014

passed by the court of the learned Ad hoc Additional District &

Sessions Judge-V, Lakhisarai, in Sessions Trial No. 27A of

2006, whereby and whereunder the appellant has been convicted

for the offences punishable under Section 323 of the Indian

Penal Code (in short, "IPC") and Section 27 of the Arms Act.

The appellant has been sentenced to undergo simple

imprisonment for one year for the offence punishable under

Section 323 of the IPC and to undergo imprisonment for three

years with a fine of Rs. 500/- for the offence punishable under Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.366 of 2014 dt.04-02-2026

Section 27 of the Arms Act. In default of payment of fine, he

has been directed to undergo one month's imprisonment

additionally. Both the sentences of imprisonment have been

directed to run concurrently by the trial court.

Prosecution Story:

2. The substance of the prosecution story, as

appearing from the FIR, is as follows:

As per the informant, on 14.08.2005, in the evening

at about 4:00 PM, he and his brother, Bale Yadav, were sitting

and interacting with each other at the door of their house. At that

time, their villagers, namely Kanhaiya Yadav (the appellant) and

co-accused Sahendra Yadav, came there and started abusing him

and his brother, Bale Yadav. In the course of abusing, they took

out a pistol and started firing. In the said firing, his brother Bale

Yadav sustained injuries on account of splinters scratching his

body, touching his right hand and going towards his shoulder,

resulting in his falling down on the ground.

As per the informant, after the firing, he started screaming

and tried to run away, but the appellant, Kanhaiya Yadav, chased

him and fired at him as well. Thereafter, upon hearing the

commotion and hulla, several villagers gathered, chased both

the accused, and managed to catch hold of them after Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.366 of 2014 dt.04-02-2026

surrounding them. From the hand of the appellant, one country-

made pistol was recovered, and from the pocket of his pant, one

unused bullet and one shell of a used bullet were recovered after

he was apprehended. From the apprehended co-accused,

Sahendra Yadav, two bullets were recovered from the pocket of

his shirt.

As per the informant, after apprehending both the

accused, when the villagers were about to proceed to the police

station, the police arrived at the place of occurrence in a jeep.

Thereafter, both the accused were handed over to the police

along with the recovered firearms and a charger, which was also

recovered from the accused. As per the informant, his brother,

Bale Yadav, was taken to the hospital by the villagers for

medical treatment. During the course of apprehending the

accused persons, the villagers assaulted them, owing to which

they sustained injuries.

3. In the FIR, the informant alleged that the

appellant and his companion, Sahendra Yadav, fired at him and

his brother with the intention to kill them, but somehow they

succeeded in saving their lives by sheer luck. The reason behind

the occurrence was a monetary transaction between the

appellant and one Pankaj Yadav, son of Bale Yadav, which had Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.366 of 2014 dt.04-02-2026

taken place prior to the alleged occurrence. Owing to a dispute

arising out of the said money transaction, the accused had

earlier attacked Pankaj Yadav.

4. The informant, Uma Shanker Yadav (PW-4),

recorded his fardbeyan before the Sub-Inspector of Surajgarha

Police Station on the same day of the alleged occurrence at

about 17:30 hours near the house of one Dewan Yadav in his

village, describing the above-mentioned prosecution story. On

the basis thereof, the formal FIR bearing Surajgarha P.S. Case

No. 228 of 2005 was registered for the offences under Sections

341, 504, and 307 read with Section 34 of the IPC, as well as

under Sections 25(1B)(a), 26, and 27 of the Arms Act, which set

the criminal law in motion, and the investigation was taken up

by the Investigating Officer.

5. It is important to mention here that at the time of

recording the fardbeyan (Ext-1) of the informant, a production-

cum-seizure memo was also prepared, which forms part of the

fardbeyan. After completion of the investigation, the appellant

and co-accused Sahendra Yadav were charge-sheeted for the

same offences as mentioned in the FIR. After taking cognizance

of the alleged offences, the learned Magistrate, finding the case

to be triable by the Court of Sessions, committed the same to the Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.366 of 2014 dt.04-02-2026

Sessions Court for trial.

6. The appellant and co-accused Sahendra Yadav

were charged for the offences under Sections 341, 504, and 307

read with Section 34 of the IPC, and also for the offences under

Sections 25(1B)(a), 26, and 27 of the Arms Act. The charges

were read over and explained in Hindi to the appellant and co-

accused Sahendra Yadav, to which they pleaded not guilty and

claimed to be tried. It is important to mention that after the

framing of charges, the trial of the co-accused Sahendra Yadav

was separated and the appellant, Kanhaiya Yadav, faced trial

alone.

7. During the trial, the prosecution examined

altogether seven witnesses, who are as under :

         PW-1      Bale Yadav                  An injured
         PW-2      Chandan Kumar               Brother of the informant and claimed
                                               himself to be an eyewitness of the
                                               occurrence
         PW-3      Bahadur Yadav               Brother of the informant and claimed
                                               himself to be an eyewitness of the
                                               occurrence
         PW-4      Uma Shanker Yadav           The informant
         PW-5      Pankaj Kumar                Son of the injured Bale Yadav
         PW-6      Arvind Kumar Singh          The investigating Officer
         PW-7      Dr. Janardan Prasad         The medical expert who examined the
                                               injured Bale Yadav and the accused.

8. In documentary evidence, the prosecution proved

and exhibited the following documents, which are as under :-

Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.366 of 2014 dt.04-02-2026

Ext-1 Fardbeyan of the informant Ext-1/1 Production-cum-Seizure list Ext-2 The signature of Pankaj Kumar (PW-5) on the seizure list Ext-3 The injury report of Bale Yadav Ext-3/A The injury report of the appellant Kanhaiya Yadav Ext-3/B The injury report of co-accused Sahendra Yadav

9. After completion of the prosecution evidence, the

statement of the appellant was recorded, giving him an

opportunity to explain all the material circumstances appearing

against him from the prosecution evidence, which were denied

by him. While recording his statement, the appellant claimed

himself to be innocent; however, he did not take any specific

defence in his statement.

10. In defence, the appellant produced and exhibited

the certified copy of the judgment pertaining to the trial of co-

accused Sahendra Yadav, in Sessions Case No. 27 of 2006,

which resulted in his acquittal.

Submissions made by the appellant's counsel:

11. Mr. Sanjeev Kumar, learned counsel appearing

for the appellant, has argued that on the same set of evidence,

the co-accused, Sahendra Yadav, whose case was separated from

that of the appellant after framing of charge and who faced trial

separately, was acquitted by the trial court presided over by a

different Judicial Officer; however, on the same set of evidence, Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.366 of 2014 dt.04-02-2026

the appellant was convicted. The allegation regarding causing

firearm injury to Bale Yadav, brother of the informant, does not

get corroboration from his injury report, as the injury, which

was found to be simple in nature, was opined by the medical

expert (PW-7) as having been caused by a hard and blunt

substance. On his body, multiple rashes were found by the

medical expert, but it was not opined by the doctor that the same

were the result of scratching or splintering of a bullet.

11.1. From the prosecution evidence, it is evident

that there was enmity between the prosecution party and the

appellant, who are agnates, and the same was the main reason

for falsely implicating the appellant in the alleged occurrence.

Learned counsel further submits that, as per the prosecution

case, the appellant and co-accused Sahendra Yadav were

apprehended by villagers of the prosecution party, and from

their possession, one country-made pistol along with used and

unused bullets were recovered; however, to prove this fact, none

of the said villagers were produced and examined by the

prosecution, and for their non-production, there is no convincing

explanation.

11.2. There are serious contradictions among the

testimonies of the prosecution witnesses, particularly with Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.366 of 2014 dt.04-02-2026

regard to the consequences of the alleged firearm injury said to

have been caused to Bale Yadav, as one witness stated that there

was no bleeding from the body of Bale Yadav, whereas another

stated that there was bleeding from the wounds.

11.3. The alleged firearms, namely the country-made

pistol and the used and unused bullets, were not recovered by

the police; rather, as per the prosecution case, the same were

produced by private persons having an interest in the

prosecution party. However, according to the informant, several

villagers were present at the time of recovery of the said

weapons, but none of them was produced and examined to

substantiate the alleged recovery.

11.4. Lastly, it is submitted that for attracting the

offence under Section 27 of the Arms Act, the prosecution failed

to prove that the recovered country-made pistol was in working

condition, as there was no opinion of a ballistic expert in this

regard, and further, the seized firearms were not produced

before the trial court.

Submissions made on behalf of the State:

12. On the other hand, Mr. Bipin Kumar, learned

Additional Public Prosecutor (APP) appearing for the State,

submits that it is an admitted position that there was enmity Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.366 of 2014 dt.04-02-2026

between the prosecution party and the appellant, and the same

was the motive for the appellant and co-accused Sahendra

Yadav to make a murderous attempt on the informant and his

brother. Though the seized firearms were not produced before

the trial court, the seizure thereof was duly proved by the

prosecution witnesses. Learned APP further submits that the

multiple rashes found on the body of Bale Yadav might be the

result of firing by use of a country-made pistol, as per the

prosecution story, wherein only splinters passed by scratching

the body of the informant's brother.

12.1. The FIR, in the form of the fardbeyan of the

informant, was registered immediately, and the appellant, who

had been caught hold of by the villagers and the prosecution

party, was also handed over to the police immediately. The

appellant's injury report, which was proved by PW-7, also

supports the prosecution story, as according to the informant, the

appellant and co-accused Sahendra Yadav sustained injuries on

account of assault committed by the villagers during the course

of apprehending them.

Consideration and Analysis:

13. I have heard both sides, perused the impugned

judgment and the evidence adduced by both sides available on Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.366 of 2014 dt.04-02-2026

the record of the trial court, and also taken into account the

statement of the appellant. In the instant matter, in view of the

prosecution evidence, particularly the evidence of PW-5, the son

of the injured, it is an admitted position that there existed

inimical relations between the appellant and the prosecution

party. It is settled law that enmity is a double-edged weapon,

which can be used both to falsely implicate a person and to take

revenge. Where enmity is an admitted fact between the

prosecution party and the accused, the prosecution evidence is

required to be scrutinized with great care.

13.1. As per the prosecution case, at the time of the

alleged occurrence, the informant and his brother, Bale Yadav,

were sitting and talking to each other at the gate of their house.

In the meantime, the appellant and co-accused Sahendra Yadav

came there, started abusing them, and thereafter opened fire,

causing firearm injury to the informant's brother, Bale Yadav,

resulting in his falling on the ground. Thereafter, the appellant

opened fire at the informant when he tried to run away in order

to save himself. It was further revealed by the informant that

upon hearing the cries and commotion, the villagers gathered,

chased the appellant and co-accused Sahendra Yadav, managed

to catch hold of them, and recovered firearms from their Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.366 of 2014 dt.04-02-2026

persons.

13.2. Regarding these incidents, the evidence of

Bale Yadav (PW-1) and Uma Shanker Yadav (informant/PW-4)

is most important. Bale Yadav (PW-1), in his examination-in-

chief, deposed that the appellant fired at him and that the bullet

splinters hit his hand. Thereafter, the appellant fired at his

brother, but the bullet of second round of firing got trapped in

the barrel of the pistol, resulting in no firing towards the

informant.

13.3. The informant (PW-4), in his examination-in-

chief, deposed that the accused fired at him when he was trying

to run away. According to him, the appellant again fired at him,

but the shot did not hit him.

14. Now, I come to the evidence of the medical

expert (PW-7), who examined Bale Yadav, found the injuries,

and gave the following opinion:

(i) "Multiple rashes on the whole interior part of the

right upper extremity."

Though an injury in the nature of rashes is possible from

a gunshot, but at the same time, when splinters hit a part of the

human body, there must be some cutaneous reactions, including Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.366 of 2014 dt.04-02-2026

rashes, dermatitis, and localized inflammation, particularly

when such type of injury results in bleeding. However, in this

regard, there is no specific medical opinion. Further, the medical

expert did not examine the injured to ascertain whether other

relevant materials, such as the injured clothes containing

gunpowder residue, specifically potassium nitrate or other

components, were present or not. As such, the opinion of the

medical expert is not fully corroborative to the allegation of the

informant, particularly regarding the injuries of PW-1 being the

result of scratches caused by splinters of a firearm.

15. In this matter, the prosecution failed to produce

the alleged country-made pistol, which was allegedly used by

the appellant while firing at the informant and his brother,

despite the same being in the custody of the police. Further, the

Investigating Officer did not make any attempt to get the seized

firearm (country-made pistol) examined by a ballistic expert to

determine whether the same was in working or usable condition.

For attracting the offence under Section 27 of the Arms Act, the

prosecution is bound to prove that the alleged firearm used by

the accused was in a condition capable of firing. In the present

matter, although the appellant has been convicted under Section

27 of the Arms Act, but the prosecution failed to prove that the Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.366 of 2014 dt.04-02-2026

alleged firearm (country-made pistol) was in working condition

by adducing the opinion of a ballistic expert.

16. It is also important to mention the evidence of

the Investigating Officer (PW-6). He deposed in his

examination-in-chief that the bullet shell and bullet were

produced by the informant before him at the place of

occurrence. The seizure memo attached to the fardbeyan also

shows that the alleged firearms were not recovered by the

police; rather, the same were produced by the prosecution party,

and such production is considered weak evidence to prove

recovery of the alleged firearms. In the present matter, as per the

Investigating Officer, only the used shell and the unused bullet

were produced by the informant, and he stated nothing about the

production of a country-made pistol by the informant.

17. In order to prove recovery of the alleged firearm

from the possession of the appellant and co-accused Sahendra

Yadav, the evidence of independent villagers would have been

material; however, none of them was produced and examined by

the prosecution. As far as the contradictions among the

testimonies of the prosecution witnesses, as pointed out by the

appellant's counsel, are concerned, I find certain material

contradictions. PW-1 deposed in his cross-examination that the Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.366 of 2014 dt.04-02-2026

accused did not fire at his brother (the informant), whereas as

per the fardbeyan of the informant and his testimony, the

appellant fired at him. PW-2, the brother of the informant,

deposed in paragraph No. 10 of his cross-examination that there

was bleeding from the chest and stomach of Bale Yadav and that

some drops of blood also fell on the ground. This statement does

not get corroboration from the injury report of Bale Yadav. PW-

3 stated in the paragraph No. 13 of his cross-examination that

although Bale Yadav sustained injury, there was no bleeding.

The Investigating Officer (PW-6), who arrived at the place of

occurrence, did not state in his evidence that he found any blood

spots, stains, or any signs of firing at the alleged place of

occurrence.

Conclusion :-

18. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances

emerging from the prosecution evidence, I reach to this

conclusion that the prosecution remained fail to prove the

alleged offences, for which the appellant was convicted, beyond

reasonable doubt before the trial court. This Court is not

persuaded to affirm the judgment of the trial court convicting

the appellant for the offences under Section 323 of the IPC and

Section 27 of the Arms Act. Accordingly, the impugned Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.366 of 2014 dt.04-02-2026

judgment of conviction and order of sentence are hereby set

aside, and the instant appeal stands allowed.

19. The appellant is on bail. Accordingly, he and his

sureties are discharged from the liabilities arising out of their

respective bail bonds.

20. Let the records of the trial court, along with a

copy of this judgment, be transmitted forthwith to the trial court

for necessary compliance.

(Shailendra Singh, J) annu/-

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