[Cites 11, Cited by 0]
Patna High Court
Jitendra Singh @ Jitendra Kumar Singh vs The State Of Bihar on 27 January, 2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL APPEAL (SJ) No.3592 of 2021
Arising out of PS. Case No.-86 Year-2017 Thana- ARA MUFFSIL District- Bhojpur
======================================================
Jitendra Singh @ Jitendra Kumar Singh Son of Late Shree Ram Singh
Resident of Village - Gangher, P.S. Arrah Muffasil, District - Bhojpur.
... ... Appellant/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
.. ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Appellant/s : Mr. Md. Ataul Haque, Advocate
For the Respondent/s : Mr. Sujit Kumar Singh, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANSUL @ ANSHUL RAJ
ORAL JUDGMENT
Date : 27-01-2026
This appeal has been preferred by the appellant for
setting aside the impugned judgment of conviction and order of
sentence dated 09.07.2021 and 31.07.2021 respectively passed
by learned 2nd Additional District & Sessions Judge, Bhojpur at
Arrah in S.Tr. No. 242 of 2019 arising out of Arrah Muffasil P.S.
Case No. 86 of 2017, whereby the concerned Trial Court has
convicted the appellant for the offence punishable under Section
307 of the Indian Penal Code (for short 'I.P.C.') and sentenced
to undergo rigorous imprisonment for ten years and fine of Rs.
50,000/- only and for the offences under Section 504/34 IPC one
year and six months R.I. and fine of Rs. 10,000/- only.
2. The brief case of the prosecution, as per fardbeyan
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.3592 of 2021 dt.27-01-2026
of informant, namely, Harendra Singh (P.W.-2) is that the
appellant who is the cousin of the informant Harendra Singh
came to his native village on 24.04.2017. On the same day, due
to a domestic dispute, the appellant, appellant's brother namely
Krishna Singh and his mother Parvati Devi were abusing the
informant at around 02:00 P.M. and when the informant and his
mother stopped them from abusing, the accused suddenly came
out of the room with a pistol in his hand and fired a shot at the
informant, which hit him on his back and he fell down. After
falling down, the accused fired another shot. Upon the
informant's shouting the accused left the house with the pistol in
his hand and said that whoever comes in his way will be shot.
The informant's father and a villager Yogendra Singh took the
injured to the police station and then to Sadar Hospital Arrah for
treatment where after primary treatment by the doctor, he was
referred to P.M.C.H., Patna where he was treated from
24.04.2017 to 29.04.2017. During which period no statement
was recorded by any police officer. Due to this, the informant
gave a written application to Arrah Mufassil on 01.05.2017.
Based on the written application of the informant, Arrah
Mufassil P.S. Case No. 86 of 2017 under Sections 341, 323,
504, 307 read with 34 of the IPC and under Section 27 of the
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.3592 of 2021 dt.27-01-2026
Arms Act was registered against the appellant and other co-
accused persons namely Krishna Singh and Parvati Devi.
3. After completion of investigation and on the basis
of materials collected during investigation, the Investigating
Officer of this case submitted charge-sheet No. 51 of 2018 dated
30.04.2018 under Sections 341, 323, 504, 307/34 of the IPC and
Section 27 of the Arms Act against the appellant before the
learned Trial Court.
4. The learned trial court after perusal of materials
collected during investigation and hearing the accused/appellant
took cognizance on 16.05.2018 under Sections 341, 323, 504,
307/34 IPC and Section 27 of the Arms Act, thereafter, the
charges were framed on 09.08.2019 under Sections 341, 323,
504, 307 & 34 of the IPC against the appellant, which was
explained to the appellant, to which, he pleaded not guilty and
claimed to be tried.
5. To substantiate its case, the prosecution has
examined altogether five witnesses. They are:-(i) PW-1
Sunaina Devi (ii) PW-2 Harendra Singh (Informant); (iii)
PW-3 Rekha Devi; (iv) P.W. 4 Dr. Ashok Kumar Pandey; (v)
P.W. 5 Shambhunath Pandey (IO).
6. Apart from the oral evidence, the prosecution has
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.3592 of 2021 dt.27-01-2026
also relied upon following exhibits/documentary evidences,
which are:-
Sl. No. No. of exhibits Name of documents
exhibited
1. Exhibit-1 Signature of the
informant on the
fardbeyan.
2. Exhibit-1/1 Signature of the father
of the informant
namely Bali Ram
Singh on the
fardbeyan.
3. Exhibit-1/2 Signature of the
S.H.O. on the F.I.R.
namely Shrikant Ram.
4. Exhibit-2 Injury Report
5. Exhibit-3 Final
Form/Chargesheet.
7. On the basis of evidences/circumstances as
surfaced during the trial, the learned trial court has examined the
appellant/accused under Section 313 of the CrPC, where he
completely denied the evidences surfaced during the trial and
claimed his complete innocence.
8. Taking note of the evidence as surfaced during the
trial and after considering the arguments as advanced by both
the parties, the learned Trial Court has convicted the appellant
for the offences under Section 307 of the IPC and sentenced him
in the manner as indicated above.
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.3592 of 2021 dt.27-01-2026
9. Being aggrieved with the aforesaid judgment of
conviction and order of sentence, the appellant has preferred the
present appeal. Hence, the present appeal.
10. I have considered the rival submissions canvassed
by the learned counsel appearing for the parties and also perused
the deposition of the witnesses examined during trial before
learned trial court.
11. It appears from perusal of record that altogether
five witnesses have been examined during trial. P.W.-1,
Sunaina Devi, who is mother of the informant has deposed that
the appellant has shot two bullets which hit on the back of the
informant. Thereafter, he was taken to the hospital. She has
further deposed that due to partition of land in the family the
present occurrence has taken place. P.W.-2, Harendra Singh,
the informant of this case has supported the prosecution case as
narrated above. P.W.-3, Rekha Devi has been declared hostile
during trial. P.W-4, Dr. Ashok Kumar Pandey, who is the
doctor and had examined the informant, has deposed that oval
shaped wound injury below the neck, i.e., 0.6 cm X 0.4 cm was
found on the informant. P.W-5, Sambhunath Panday, the
Investigating Officer of this case has supported the case of the
prosecution.
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.3592 of 2021 dt.27-01-2026
12. It also appears that there is delay of six days in
lodging the FIR. The delay is sought to be explained by
treatment at PMCH. It seems that neither the treatment record at
PMCH nor the version provided at PMCH has been brought on
record thus making the initial version unavailable. This casts
shadow of doubt on the prosecution version in view of Hon'ble
Supreme Court decision rendered in the case of Thulia Kali vs.
The State of Tamil Nadu reported in (1972) 3 SCC 393.
13. Having carefully considered the witnesses',
testimony and the medical evidence, I find no grounds to
interfere with the appellant's conviction.
14. However, the matter arises out of a land dispute
and no previous conviction has been proved against the
appellant. He has remained in custody for six years six months
and is facing prosecution for last nine years and is in his 30's.
Taking a holistic view, ends of justice would be saved if he is
sentenced to period already undergone. Accordingly, the
sentence awarded to the appellant is reduced to the period
already undergone by him.
15. In the result, the appeal is dismissed with the
aforesaid modification in the sentence.
16. Office is directed to send back the trial court
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.3592 of 2021 dt.27-01-2026
records along with a copy of this judgment to the learned trial
court, forthwith.
(Ansul @ Anshul Raj, J)
Vikash/-
AFR/NAFR NAFR
CAV DATE N/A
Uploading Date 31.01.2026
Transmission Date 31.01.2026
