[Cites 8, Cited by 0]
Patna High Court
Guddu Miyan @ Haider Ali @ Guddu Khan vs The State Of Bihar on 5 February, 2026
Author: Rajeev Ranjan Prasad
Bench: Rajeev Ranjan Prasad
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL APPEAL (DB) No.18 of 2023
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-362 Year-2011 Thana- SHEKHPURA District- Sheikhpura
======================================================
Guddu Miyan @ Haider Ali @ Guddu Khan Son Of Md. Jafar Khan R/O
Muradabad, Delhi, P.S.- Muradabad, District- Muradabad, Delhi, Permanent
R/O Mohalla- Jamalpur Bigha, P.S. And District- Sheikhpura, Bihar
... ... Appellant
Versus
The State of Bihar ... ... Respondent
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Appellant : Mr. Dinkar Kumar, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Abhimanyu Sharma, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJEEV RANJAN PRASAD
and
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRAVEEN KUMAR
ORAL JUDGMENT
(Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJEEV RANJAN PRASAD)
Date : 05-02-2026
Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned
Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.
2. This appeal has been preferred for setting aside the
judgment of conviction dated 24.11.2022 (hereinafter referred to as
the 'impugned judgment') and order of sentence dated 06.12.2022
(hereinafter referred to as the 'impugned order') passed by learned
Additional District and Sessions Judge-III, Sheikhpura (hereinafter
referred to as the 'learned trial court') in Session Case No. 20 of
2015/ Trial No. 64 of 2022 arising out of Sheikhpura P.S. Case No.
362 of 2011. By the impugned judgment, the appellant has been
convicted for the offences punishable under Sections 302/34, 307/34
of the Indian Penal Code (in short 'IPC') and Section 27 of the Arms
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.18 of 2023 dt.05-02-2026
2/13
Act and by the impugned order, he has been ordered to undergo
rigorous life imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 10,000/- for the offence
under Section 302/34 IPC and in default of payment of fine, he shall
further undergo simple imprisonment for six months. He has also
been ordered to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 10 years with a
fine of Rs.5,000/- under Section 307/34 IPC and in default of
payment of fine, he shall further undergo six months imprisonment.
Further, under Section 27 of the Arms Act, he has been ordered to
undergo three years rigorous imprisonment with a fine of Rs.5,000/-
and in default of payment of fine, he shall further undergo three
months imprisonment. All the sentences are to run concurrently.
Prosecution Case
3. The prosecution case is based on the fardbeyan of
Santosh Kumar (PW-8) recorded by S.I. Ashok Kumar Yadav, SHO,
Sheikhpura on 22.11.2011 at 17:00 Hours at Jamalpur Bigha. The
informant (PW-8) in his fardbeyan has stated that he is the owner and
partner of a shop known as 'Patna Tent House' situated at Jamalpur-
Bigha. On 22.11.2011 at about 4:00 P.M., as usual while he was
sitting in his shop and was taking out articles of tent-house, he saw
Guddu Miyan @ Haidar Ali (the appellant) and Nandan Yadav @
Nandan Sindhaniya who were quarrelling with Amit Kumar near his
shop. In the meantime, his brother Dharmendra Kumar was returning
from the market and, on seeing the quarrel, tried to pacify them.
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.18 of 2023 dt.05-02-2026
3/13
Thereupon, accused Guddu Miyan took out a country-made pistol
and fired upon Dharmendra Kumar and also fired upon Amit Kumar
as a result of which they fell there. On seeing the occurrence, the
informant and others rushed to the place of occurrence, whereafter
Guddu Miyan and his two friends fled away towards the western
direction. When the informant reached the place of occurrence and
tried to lift his brother Dharmendra Kumar, he found him dead and
Amit Kumar was lying injured. With the help of other individuals,
Amit Kumar was taken to the hospital for treatment. The informant
further stated that his uncle Bhagwan Prasad witnessed the entire
incident along with other persons.
4. On the basis of the fardbeyan, Sheikhpura P.S. Case No.
362 of 2011 dated 22.11.2011 was registered under Sections
302/307/34
IPC and Section 27 of the Arms Act against this appellant
and two unknown acused. After investigation, police submitted
chargesheet bearing Chargesheet No. 88 of 2012 dated 20.04.2012
under Sections 302, 307, 34 IPC and Section 27 of the Arms Act
against this appellant keeping the investigation pending against
others. Later on another charge-sheet bearing No. 478 of 2012 dated
30.11.2017 was filed against Nandan Yadav. Nandan Yadav was
declared juvenile, hence his records were sent to the Juvenile Justice
Board.
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.18 of 2023 dt.05-02-2026
5. Learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sheikhpura vide
order dated 07.05.2012 took cognizance of the offences punishable
under above mentioned Sections.
6. Charges were read over and explained to the appellant
in Hindi to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried,
accordingly, vide order dated 26.04.2016, charges were framed under
Sections 302/307/34 of the IPC and Section 27 of the Arms Act.
7. In course of trial, the prosecution has examined
altogether eleven witnesses and exhibited several documentary
evidences. The description of prosecution witnesses and the exhibits
are given hereunder in tabular form:-
List of Prosecution Witnesses
PW-1 Qamruddub Miya
PW-2 Amit Kumar
PW-3 Bhagwan Prasad
PW-4 Anil Ram
PW-5 Birendra Mahto
PW-6 Kishor Mahto
PW-7 Sunaina Devi
PW-8 Sanotsh Kumar
PW-9 Dr. Raman Kumar
PW-10 Dr. Ashok Kumar
PW-11 Rajendra Choudhary
List of Exhibits on behalf of the Prosecution
Exhibit '1' Signature of Bhagwan Prasad on Fardbeyan
Exhibit '2' Signature of Santosh Kumar on Fardbeyan
Exhibit '3' Post-Mortem Report
Exhibit '4' Writing and Signature of Dr. Ashok Kumar on
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.18 of 2023 dt.05-02-2026
the Injury Report
8. Thereafter, the statement of the appellant was
recorded under Section 313 of the CrPC. He took a plea that he
has been falsely implicated in this case and at the time of
occurrence, he was at his Girihinda.
9. The defence has not adduced any oral or documentary
evidence.
Findings of the Learned Trial Court
10. Learned trial court after examining and analysing the
evidences of the injured eye witness (PW-2), eye witnesses PW-3,
PW-5 and PW-8 as also Dr. Raman Kumar (PW-9) who conducted
the Post-mortem and Dr. Ashok Kumar (PW-10) who examined
the injured, found that it is the case of firing caused by Guddu
Miya @ Haider Ali (appellant) on Dharmendra Kumar who died
on the spot and Amit Kumar (PW-2) received serious bullet injury.
Learned trial court found that the sequence of events and chain of
circumstances are fully corroborated and completed by way of the
depositions of prosecution witnesses.
11. Learned trial court further observed that the defence
has pointed out that there are vital contradictions in the deposition
of the prosecution witnesses, however, after scrutinizing the
evidences, learned trial court did not find any vital contradictions.
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.18 of 2023 dt.05-02-2026
12. Learned trial court after considering all the facts and
circumstances of the case held that the prosecution has been able
to prove it's case beyond all shadow of reasonable doubts.
Accordingly, the appellant has been convicted for the offences
punishable under Sections 302/34, 307/34 IPC and Section 27 of
the Arms Act.
Submissions on behalf of the Appellant
13. Learned counsel for the appellant while assailing the
impugned judgment and order has submitted that the learned trial
court has not properly appreciated the evidences available on the
record.
14. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that PW-4
has been declared hostile by the prosecution and PW-1, PW-6 and
PW-7 are all hearsay witnesses. Learned counsel submits that
injured witness Amit Kumar (PW-2) has clearly stated in
paragraph '11' of his deposition that co-accused Nandan had
opened fire on the deceased (Dharmendra Kumar) which hit in his
abdomen. PW-2 has also stated in paragraph '14' that on hearing
the sound of firing, others reached at the place of occurrence,
therefore, on the strength of evidence of PW-2, it is submitted that
except PW-2 all other prosecution witnesses including the
informant are hearsay witnesses.
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.18 of 2023 dt.05-02-2026
15. Learned counsel submits that the appellant had no
motive at all to commit the alleged offence against the deceased.
16. Learned counsel further submits that the Doctor (PW-
10) who examined the injured (PW-2) has deposed in paragraph
'10' that the injury report of PW-2 is tampered by way of
overwriting with respect to the date of the injury report.
17. Learned counsel submits that most of the prosecution
witnesses are closely related with the deceased Dharmendra
Kumar, so they are interested witnesses and their deposition is not
trustworthy.
18. Learned counsel submits that when the alleged
occurrence was going on, the brother of the deceased, Santosh
Kumar who is also the informant of this case remained mute
spectator and did not intervene to save his brother from firing and
assault, hence, his testimony is not trustworthy.
It is thus submitted that the learned trial court has failed to
appreciate the evidences available on the record. In his
submissions, the impugned judgment and order are liable to be set
aside.
Submission on behalf of the State
19. On the other hand, learned Additional Public
Prosecution for the State has submitted that the learned trial court
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.18 of 2023 dt.05-02-2026
has analyzed the entire evidence and it would appear from a
reading of the impugned judgment and order that the learned trial
court has rightly taken a view that the case of the prosecution has
been proved beyond all reasonable doubts and held the appellant
guilty of the offences punishable under Sections 302/34, 307/34
IPC and Section 27 of the Arms Act.
20. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor submits that
the ocular evidence of the prosecution witnesses, particularly, that
of PW-2 is getting corroborated from the medical evidence brought
on the record.
Consideration
21. Having heard learned counsel for the appellant and
learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State as also on
perusal of the records, this Court finds that in this case the
prosecution case is based on the fardbeyan of Santosh Kumar
(PW-8) who has stated as that he happened to be the owner and
partner of the shop known as 'Patna Tent House' situated at
Jamalpur-Bigha. On 22.11.2011 at about 4:00 P.M., as usual while
he was sitting in his shop and was taking out articles of tent-house,
he saw Guddu Miyan @ Haidar Ali (the appellant), and Nandan
Yadav @ Nandan Sindhaniya quarrelling with Amit Kumar near
his shop. In the meantime, his brother Dharmendra Kumar was
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.18 of 2023 dt.05-02-2026
returning from the market and, on seeing the quarrel, tried to
pacify them. Thereupon, accused Guddu Miyan took out a
country-made pistol and fired upon Dharmendra Kumar and also
fired upon Amit Kumar as a result of which they fell there. On
seeing the occurrence, the informant and others rushed to the spot,
upon which Guddu Miyan and his two friends fled away towards
the western direction after firing. When the informant reached the
place of occurrence and tried to lift his brother Dharmendra
Kumar, he found him dead and Amit Kumar was lying injured.
With the help of other individuals, Amit Kumar was taken to the
hospital for treatment. The informant further stated that his uncle
Bhagwan Prasad witnessed the entire incident along with other
persons.
22. In course of trial, the informant (PW-8) has
reiterated the prosecution case and supported the same. He
claims to be an eye witness of the occurrence. This Court finds
that in this case, the star prosecution witness is Amit Kumar
(PW-2) who is the injured witness. In his examination-in-chief,
Amit Kumar (PW-2) has stated that Guddu Miyan (the
appellant) called him hurling abuses on him and when he
reached there, the appellant started assaulting him with hand and
fist blow. Amit Kumar (PW-2) has stated that when Dharmendra
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.18 of 2023 dt.05-02-2026
(deceased) came to intervene and to set him afree, the appellant
Guddu Miyan fired upon him. Whereafter, Nandan also fired
upon Dharmendra and when Amit Kumar (PW-2) wanted to
save Dharmendra then Guddu Miyan (the appellant) fired upon
him also. In the meantime, Santosh, Hanuman Prasad and Anil
Ram reached there running, whereafter the accused fled away.
23. In his cross examination, this witness has remained
consistent and the defence has not been able to create any dent
in his testimony. In paragraph '11', he has stated that in his
statement before police, he had stated that when the exchange of
words were taking place Guddu and Nandan reached there and
Nandan had fired upon Dharmendra which hit into the stomach
of Dharmendra and Dharmendra caught hold of Guddu. In
Paragraph '13', he denied the suggestion of the defence that in
his statement before police he had not stated that Guddu had
fired. This Court finds that although Qamruddub Miya (PW-1)
and Anil Ram (PW-4) have been declared hostile by the
prosecution but Bhagwan Prasad (PW-3) and Birendra Mahto
(PW-5) have supported the prosecution case. It is true that
Bhagwan Prasad (PW-3) and Birendra Mahto (PW-5) are related
witnesses but learned counsel for the appellant could not
demonstrate before us that their testimonies are required to be
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.18 of 2023 dt.05-02-2026
discarded for any apparent reason. We are, therefore, of the
opinion that the depositions of PW-3 and PW-5 cannot be
rejected only because they are related witness. Father of the
deceased (PW-6) and mother of the deceased (PW-7) are not the
eye witnesses to the occurrence, however, the informant (PW-8)
has deposed as an eye witness. PW-2 has also stated that PW-3
and PW-7 had come running to the place of occurrence.
24. We have further noticed that the ocular evidence of
the prosecution witnesses, particularly, that of PW-2 are getting
corroborated from the medical evidence brought on the record
through Dr. Raman Kumar (PW-9) who was posted as a Medical
Officer in Sadar Hospital Munger on 23.11.2011. He had
conducted the autopsy on the dead body of the deceased and had
found the following ante-moterm injuries during the post-mortem
examination.
"(1) One circular lacerated wound of size
1/2 Inch in diameter deep to bone over
left side of lower and nose with intended
margin. Chharing all over the face was
present-wound of entry.
(2) One circular lacerated wound of size
1/2 Inch in diameter deep to left side of
upper abdominal cavity with inverted
margin- wound of entry."
The postmortem report is Exhibit '3'.
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.18 of 2023 dt.05-02-2026
25. Similarly Dr. Ashok Kumar (PW-10) who was the
Deputy Superintendent in Sadar Hospital, Sheikhpura had
examined injured witness Amit Kumar (PW-2) on 28.11.2012. He
had found the following injuries on the body of the injured witness
(PW-2):-
"(i) Lacerated wound on left side. Upper abdomen in
round in shape ½ Inch in diameter margin char and
wound of entry.
(ii) Lacerated wound on lower right abdomen with
invented margin 1 C.M. in diameter round in shape
wound of exit bullet injury. Nature of both wound were
kept reserved till x-ray report. As per X-ray report, it
was bullet injury. Patient was further referred to
P.M.C.H, Patna for better treatment. Age of injury
within 6 hours."
26. We have further noticed that in his statement under
Section 313 CrPC, the appellant took a plea that he had been
falsely implicated in this case and at the time of occurrence he was
at 'Girihinda' but in this regard, no evidence at all has been
adduced on behalf of the defence.
27. In our considered opinion, learned trial court has not
committed any error in appreciation of the evidences available on
the record.
28. The impugned judgment and order need no
interference. This appeal is dismissed.
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.18 of 2023 dt.05-02-2026
29. Let a copy of this judgment together with the trial
court records be sent down to the learned trial court.
(Rajeev Ranjan Prasad, J)
( Praveen Kumar, J)
Jyoti/-
AFR/NAFR
CAV DATE
Uploading Date 06.02.2026
Transmission Date 06.02.2026
