Ajay Yadav vs The State Of Bihar
2026 Latest Caselaw 65 Patna

Patna High Court

Ajay Yadav vs The State Of Bihar on 16 January, 2026

Author: Alok Kumar Pandey

Bench: Alok Kumar Pandey

     IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
                   CRIMINAL APPEAL (SJ) No.25 of 2010
       Arising Out of PS. Case No.-110 Year-2006 Thana- GOGRI District- Khagaria
======================================================
Ajay Yadav S/O Late Sitaram Yadav R/O Village- Itahari, P.S- Gogari, Distt.-
Khagaria.




                                                                   ... ... Appellant/s
                                       Versus


The State of Bihar




                                          ... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :

For the Appellant/s      :        Mr. Praveen Kumar Agrawal, Advocate

                                  Mr. Mukesh Kumar, Advocate

                                  Mr. Santosh Kumar Singh, Advocate

For the State            :        Mr. Mukeshwar Dayal, A.P.P.

======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK KUMAR PANDEY
                    ORAL JUDGMENT

 Date : 16-01-2026

                      Heard learned counsel for the appellant and

 learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.

                      2. The present appeal is directed against the

 judgment of conviction dated 19.11.2009 and order of

 sentence dated 20.11.2009 passed by learned Additional

 Sessions Judge - 1st, Khagaria in Sessions Case No. 464 of
 Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.25 of 2010 dt.16-01-2026
                                            2/25




         2006, arising out of Gogri P.S. Case No. 110 of 2006

         whereby and whereunder the appellant has been convicted for

         the offences punishable under Sections 307 and 387 of IPC

         and under Section 27 of the Arms Act and has been sentenced

         to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 10 years along with fine

         of Rs. 5,000/- under Section 307 of IPC and further sentenced

         to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 7 years along with fine

         of Rs. 1,000/- under Section 387 of the I.P.C. and further

         sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment of 3 years and

         also fine of Rs. 500/- for the offence under Section 27 of the

         Arms Act. All the sentences have been directed to run

         concurrently.

                             3. The prosecution case, in brief, is that on

         21.04.2006

at 04:45 A.M., the informant (PW-4) was

returning after attending the call of nature, and upon reaching

north of Kali Asthan, about 100 yards ahead of the basa of

Ram Sao in village Fudkichak, the appellant Ajay Yadav

allegedly surrounded the informant while holding a pistol.

The appellant questioned the informant as to why he and

members of his caste had failed to fulfill the demand of

rangdari amounting to Rs. 1,50,000/-. When the informant

expressed his inability to pay the said amount due to his poor Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.25 of 2010 dt.16-01-2026

economic condition, the appellant allegedly fired at him with

the pistol, causing injury to the left thigh near the scrotum, as

a result of which the informant fell down in a seriously

injured condition. It is further alleged that Shiv Shankar

Sharma (PW-2), Suresh Sharma (PW-3) and several other

persons were present at the place of occurrence and they

witnessed the incident. While narrating the prosecution story,

it was further reiterated that on 20.04.2006 at about 6:00

A.M., Sudhir Yadav, the elder brother of the appellant, came

to the informant while the informant was going to attend the

call of nature and stated that appellant Ajay Yadav was

demanding money. He allegedly ordered the informant and

other members of his community to pay the demanded

amount, failing which they would face dire consequences and

would be driven out of the village. It is further alleged that

while some persons were taking the injured informant to the

hospital, the appellant again intercepted them on the way and

threatened the informant not to lodge an F.I.R., failing which

the appellant would kill the entire family of the informant.

4. On the basis of fardbayan recorded by the

informant/PW-4, Gogri P.S. Case No. 110 of 2006 dated

21.04.2006 for the offence under Sections 341, 386, 387, 307 Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.25 of 2010 dt.16-01-2026

and 34 of the I.P.C. and Section 27 of the Arms Act was

lodged. Routine investigation followed. Statement of

witnesses came to be recorded and on the completion of

investigation, charge sheet has been submitted against the

appellant under Sections 341, 386, 387, 307 and 34 of the

IPC. Thereafter, the learned trial court took cognizance under

aforementioned Sections of the IPC. The case was committed

to the court of sessions after following due procedure. The

learned trial court framed charges against the appellant under

Sections 307 and 387 of the IPC and Section 27 of the Arms

Act. Charges were read over and explained to the appellant to

which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

5. In order to bring home the guilt of the

accused persons, the prosecution has examined altogether six

witnesses, including four prosecution witnesses and two court

witnesses viz. PW-1 Sujay @ Suraj Sharma (son of the

informant), PW-2 Shivshankar Sharma, PW-3 Suresh Sharma,

PW-4 Sadhusharan Sharma (victim as well as informant of

this case), CW-1 Sanjiv Kumar (Investigating Officer) and

CW-2 Dr. Arvind Kumar Gupta (doctor who has firstly

examined the victim). I.O. has been been examined under

Section 311 of the Cr.P.C and thereafter Dr. Arvind Kr. Gupta Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.25 of 2010 dt.16-01-2026

was also examined under Section 311 of the Cr.P.C.

6. Prosecution has relied upon following

documentary evidence on record:-

Ext. 1- Fardbeyan Ext. 1/1- Endorsement on the margin of Fardbeyan for registration of the case and entrustment of investigation.

Ext. 2 - Formal F.I.R.

Ext. 3 - Injury Report.

7. Defence has not produced any oral or

documentary evidence in his support. However, defence of the

appellant as gathered from the line of cross-examination of

prosecution witnesses as well as from the statement of the

accused under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. is that of total

denial.

8. After hearing the parties, the learned trial

court convicted the appellant and sentenced him as indicated

in the 2nd paragraph of the judgment.

9. Following submissions have been made on

behalf of learned counsel for the appellant:-

Learned counsel for the appellant has Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.25 of 2010 dt.16-01-2026

submitted that from the perusal of the F.I.R., it is evident that

PW-2 (Shivshankar Sharma) and PW-3 (Suresh Sharma) were

present at the place of occurrence; however, they have been

declared hostile and have not supported the prosecution case.

It is further submitted that opinion regarding the nature of all

the injuries sustained by the injured was kept reserved. In the

absence of a final medical opinion, no inference can be drawn

as to whether the injuries were simple, grievous or dangerous

to life. Consequently, the seriousness of the injuries cannot be

assessed without a final medical opinion. PW-1/ Sujay @

Suraj Sharma is also not an eyewitness to the alleged

occurrence. He is merely a hearsay witness. Learned counsel

for the appellant has further submitted that the place of

occurrence has not been proved. The Investigating Officer

(I.O.) has conducted a very faulty and casual investigation and

has failed to seize the blood-stained soil from the alleged

place of occurrence and the same is admitted by the I.O.

during his cross-examination. It is further contended that the

investigation was not conducted in a fair and impartial

manner. The I.O. failed to investigate the admitted fact that

the appellant and the informant are neighbours and that their

lands are adjacent to each other. The possibility that prior Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.25 of 2010 dt.16-01-2026

animosity between the parties may have led to the lodging of

a false case against the appellant, has not been examined at

all. Moreover, not a single independent witness has been

examined by the prosecution. Although it has come on record

that the victim was allegedly carried on a thela by Jabbar

Miyan, the said Jabbar Miyan has also not been examined by

the prosecution. Except for the sole statement of the injured,

there is no corroborative evidence to support the prosecution

case. Learned counsel for the appellant further submits that

from perusal of the impugned judgment itself the appellant is

having no criminal antecedent. In light of the aforesaid facts

and circumstances, it is submitted that the prosecution has

failed to prove its case against the appellant beyond

reasonable doubt.

10. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of

the State has submitted that PW-4, who is the informant as

well as the victim, is the star witness of the prosecution case.

It is further submitted that PW-4 has fully explained the

genesis of the prosecution case and has elaborately and

consistently narrated each aspect of the occurrence, thereby

substantiating the prosecution version. He has further

submitted that the informant/victim was threatened at the Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.25 of 2010 dt.16-01-2026

place of occurrence while he was defenceless. It is alleged

that the appellant was demanding rangdari and upon refusal

to meet the said demand, the informant sustained a firearm

injury on the left thigh near the scrotum , which is a highly

sensitive part of the body. It is further submitted that a firearm

injury inflicted on the left thigh near the scrotum is sufficient

to cause death. He further submits that so far as the number of

witnesses is concerned, it is argued that the quality and

credibility of the evidence, and not the number of witnesses,

is determinative. Even the statement of a single witness, if

found to be reliable and inspiring confidence, is sufficient to

sustain the prosecution case in light of the facts and

circumstances of the case. The manner in which occurrence

has taken place, informant is found at a particular place after

returning from call of nature and the very aggressive posture

as posed by the appellant, the victim has to bear the

consequences at the act of appellant. The appellant was

having arms and he fired upon the victim, who sustained

injury upon the left thigh near the scrotum. The manner in

which the occurrence took place clearly establishes that the

informant was returning after attending the call of nature

when he was confronted by the appellant, who was in an Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.25 of 2010 dt.16-01-2026

aggressive posture and armed with a firearm. The victim was

compelled to bear the consequences of the appellant's act, as

the appellant fired upon him, causing injury to his left thigh

near the scrotum. Learned APP for the State has further

submitted that while recording the conviction under Sections

307 and 387 of the I.P.C. and Section 27 of the Arms Act, the

learned trial court has elaborately discussed the evidence on

record and duly appreciated and evaluated the facts and

circumstances of the case. It is contended that there is no

reason to interfere with the judgment of conviction and the

order of sentence passed by the learned trial court.

11. The question which arises for

consideration is:-

"Whether the prosecution has been able to prove its case under Section 307 & 387 of the IPC and Section 27 of the Arms beyond reasonable doubts or not?

12. I have perused the impugned judgment,

order of trial court and trial court records. I have given my

thoughtful consideration to the rival contention made on

behalf of the parties as noted above.

Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.25 of 2010 dt.16-01-2026

13. It is necessary to evaluate, analyze and

screen out the evidences of witnesses adduced before the trial

court.

14. PW-4/ Sadhusharan Sharma is the

informant of the case. He has clearly narrated the manner of

occurrence, explaining how he sustained a firearm injury on

the left thigh near the scrotum due to his refusal to pay the

rangdari amount demanded by the appellant. He has also

described the medical treatment he received at the hospital.

14.1. During cross-examination, the evidence

of PW-4 is quite intact and there is nothing on record to

disbelieve the prosecution version or to cast doubt on the

statement of the injured victim. No material contradiction or

infirmity has been elicited to disbelieve his evidence.

15. CW-1/ Sanjiv Kumar is the Investigating

Officer of the case. He has deposed that on 21.04.2006 he

reached Gogri Referral Hospital, where he recorded the

fardbayan of PW-4 (informant). He proved the fardbayan,

which was written by him and which bears the thumb

impression of the informant, as well as the signature of Sujay

Kumar Sharma (PW-1). The fardbayan was marked as

Exhibit-1. He further stated that he inspected the place of Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.25 of 2010 dt.16-01-2026

occurrence and found drops of blood there. He also recorded

the statements of other witnesses. Though he has admitted

that he has not examined the witnesses of boundary of place

of occurrence but from the perusal of the evidence adduced by

the I.O., it is crystal clear that he has proved the place of

occurrence. Though his evidence indicated that investigation

has not been conducted in a fair manner but he has proved the

fact that fardbayan was read over to the informant and finding

the same true the informant put his thumb impression on the

fardbeyan and informant's son also put his signature upon the

fardbayan and the same has been marked as Exhibit-1. Hence,

there is no reason to disbelieve the core aspects of prosecution

story. However, some infirmities have been found with regard

to the investigation, but the whole prosecution story cannot be

thrown away just because of a faulty investigation.

16. It is necessary to cite a decision passed by

Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Dhanaj Singh alias

Shera and Ors. v. State of Punjab, reported in (2004) 3 SCC

654, in which the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held in

paragraphs 5 and 7 that:

"5. In the case of a defective investigation the court has to Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.25 of 2010 dt.16-01-2026

be circumspect in evaluating the evidence. But it would not be right in acquitting an accused person solely on account of the defect; to do so would tantamount to playing into the hands of the investigating officer if the investigation is designedly defective.

7. As was observed in Ram Bihari Yadav v. State of Bihar if primacy is given to such designed or negligent investigation, to the omission or lapses by perfunctory investigation or omissions, the faith and confidence of the people would be shaken not only in the law-enforcing agency but also in the administration of justice. The view as again reiterated in Amar Singh v. Balwinder Singh. As noted in Amar Singh case it would have been certainly better if the firearms were sent to the Forensic Test Laboratory for comparison. But the report of the ballistic expert would be in the nature of an expert opinion without any conclusiveness attached to it. When the direct testimony of the eyewitnesses corroborated by the medical evidence fully establishes the prosecution version, failure or omission or negligence on the part of the IO cannot Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.25 of 2010 dt.16-01-2026

affect the credibility of the prosecution version."

17. CW-2 / Dr. Arvind Kr. Gupta has

examined Sadhusharan Sharma (informant) on 21.04.2006 in

injured condition at 6:45 A.M. and has found the following

injuries:

1. One lacerated injury 1/6" x 1/6" inner side of upper part of left thigh just beside scrotum (wound of exit).

2. One lacerated injury 1/6" x 1/6" on lateral side of left thigh in upper third with bleeding burning effect below the wound (wound of entry). X-ray of thigh advised. The patient was referred to Sadar Hospital, Khagaria for further treatment.

3. One lacerated injury of upper part of right side of scrotum 1/2" x 1/6" skin deep. The nature of injury opinion was reserved for report of X-ray and opinion of Sadar Hospital, Khagaria. Injury caused by firearm, the 3rd injury was caused by firearm.

17.1. From perusal of evidence of doctor, it

clearly indicates that there is an injury caused by firearm and

doctor has given the opinion that due to excessive blood flow,

the patient may die and from the perusal of the evidence of

CW-2, it is crystal clear that the allegation, as alleged in the Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.25 of 2010 dt.16-01-2026

FIR, is totally corroborated the injury to the left thigh near the

scrotum by the firearm and there is no reason to disbelieve the

version of CW-2.

18. PW-1 is merely a hearsay witness and not

an eye-witness to the alleged occurrence. The remaining

witnesses (PW-2 and PW-3) have been declared hostile;

therefore, their evidence carries no evidentiary value.

19. To constitute an offence under Section 307

of the IPC, the following ingredients of the offence must be

present;

a. An intention or knowledge relating to

commission of murder and

b. Doing of an act towards it.

For the purpose of Section 307 IPC, what is

material is the intention or knowledge, and not the

consequence of the actual act done for the purpose of carrying

out the intention. The Section clearly contemplates an act

which is done with the intention of causing death but which

fails to bring intended consequence on account of intervening

circumstances. The intention or knowledge of the cause must

be such as necessary to constitute a murder. In absence of

intention or knowledge which is a necessary ingredient of Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.25 of 2010 dt.16-01-2026

Section 307 IPC, there can be no offence of attempt to

murder.

20. Considering the aforementioned facts and

circumstances, the following judicial decisions are pertinent

to cite:-

In Takdir Samsuddin Sheikh v. State of

Gujarat and another reported in AIR 2012 SC 37, the

Hon'ble Supreme Court observed at para 10(ii) as follows:-

"10 (ii). This Court has consistently held that as a general rule the Court can and may act on the testimony of a single witness provided he is wholly reliable. There is no legal impediment in convicting a person on the sole testimony of a single witness. That is the logic of Section 134 of the Evidence Act, 1872. But if there are doubts about the testimony, the court will insist on corroboration. In fact, it is not the number, the quantity, but the quality that is material. The time- honoured principle is that evidence has to be weighed and not counted. The test is whether the evidence has a ring of truth, is cogent, credible and trustworthy or otherwise. The legal system has laid emphasis on value, Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.25 of 2010 dt.16-01-2026

weight and quality of evidence rather than on quantity, multiplicity or plurality of witnesses. It is, therefore, open to a competent court to fully and completely rely on a solitary witness and record conviction. Conversely, it may acquit the accused in spite of testimony of several witnesses if it is not satisfied about the quality of evidence."

In Brahm Swaroop and another v. State of

U.P., reported in AIR 2011 SC 280, the Hon'ble Supreme

Court at para 22 of the judgment held as follows:

"22. Where a witness to the occurrence has himself been injured in the incident, the testimony of such a witness is generally considered to be very reliable, as he is a witness that comes with a built-in guarantee of his presence at the scene of the crime and is unlikely to spare his actual assailant(s) in order to falsely implicate someone. "Convincing evidence is required to discredit an injured witness."

In Ranjit Singh and others v. State of Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.25 of 2010 dt.16-01-2026

Madhya Pradesh, reported in AIR 2011 SC 255, the Hon'ble

Supreme court at para 17 of the judgment held as follows:-

"17. Under the Indian Evidence Act, trustworthy evidence given by a single witness would be enough to convict an accused person, whereas evidence given by half a dozen witnesses which is not trustworthy would not be enough to sustain the conviction."

In Mano Dutt and another v. State of Uttar

Pradesh, reported in (2012) 4 SCC 79, the Hon'ble Supreme

Court at para 30 of the judgment observed as follows:-

"30... Normally, an injured witness would enjoy greater credibility because he is the sufferer himself and thus, there will be no occasion for such a person to state an incorrect version of the occurrence, or to involve anybody falsely and in the bargain, protect the real culprit."

In State of U.P. v. Kishan Chand and others

reported in (2004) 7 SCC 629, a similar view has been

reiterated observing that the testimony of a stamped witness Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.25 of 2010 dt.16-01-2026

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 State of Madhya Pradesh v. Imrat and

another reported in (2009) 2 SCC (Cri) 558, the Hon'ble

Supreme Court at para 11 of the judgment observed as

follows:-

"11. What the Court has to see is whether the act, irrespective of its result, was done with the intention or knowledge and under circumstances mentioned in the section. An attempt in order to be criminal need not be the penultimate act. It is sufficient in law, if there is present an intent coupled with some overt act in execution thereof."

In Lachman Singh v. State of Haryana

reported in (2006) 10 SCC 524, the Hon'ble Supreme Court at

para 13 of the judgment observed as follows:-

"13. It is sufficient to justify a conviction under Section 307 if there is present an intent coupled Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.25 of 2010 dt.16-01-2026

with some overt act in execution thereof. It is not essential that bodily injury capable of causing death should have been inflicted. Although the nature of injury actually caused may often give considerable assistance in coming to a finding as to the intention of the accused, such intention may also be deduced from other circumstances, and may even, in some cases, be ascertained without any reference at all to actual wounds. The section makes a distinction between the act of the accused and its result, if any. The Court has to see whether the act, irrespective of its result, was done with the intention or knowledge and under the circumstances mentioned in the section. An attempt in order to be criminal need not be the penultimate act. It is sufficient in law, if there is present an intent coupled with some overt act in execution thereof."

In Sadakat Kotwar and another v. The State

of Jharkhand passed in Criminal Appeal No. 1316 of 2021,

the Hon'ble Supreme Court held at para 4.1 as follows:-

"4.1. As observed and Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.25 of 2010 dt.16-01-2026

held by this Court in catena of decisions nobody can enter into the mind of the accused and his intention has to be ascertained from the weapon used, part of the body chosen for assault and the nature of the injury caused. Considering the case on hand on the aforesaid principles, when the deadly weapon-dagger has been used, there was a stab injury on the stomach and near the chest which can be said to be on the vital part of the body and the nature of injuries caused, it is rightly held that the appellants have committed the offence under Section 307 IPC.

21. In the light of the aforesaid facts and

circumstances of the case where witness to the occurrence has

himself been injured in the incident, the testimony of such a

witness is generally considered to be very reliable, as he is a

witness that comes with a built-in guarantee of his presence at

the scene of the crime and is unlikely to spare his actual

assailant(s) in order to falsely implicate someone. Convincing

evidence is required to discredit an injured witness. In the

present case there was nothing on record to disbelieve the Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.25 of 2010 dt.16-01-2026

statement of victim. In the present case, the statement of

victim that victim was being threatened for giving the

rangdari amount and when the same was not given by the

victim on account of such defiance he was being fired upon

by the appellant and he sustained injury to the left thigh near

the scrotum.

22. In the present case, the prosecution story,

as narrated by PW-4, is in complete consonance with the

evidence adduced during the course of trial. No material

contradiction has been elicited during cross-examination so as

to discredit the prosecution case. PW-1 has supported and

corroborated the initial version of the prosecution story. There

is nothing on record to disbelieve the testimony of PW-4.

CW-2, the doctor is an expert witness who examined the

injured/victim and analysed the injury sustained by the victim.

The examination by the doctor clearly indicates that the place

of injury, as alleged in the F.I.R., is in consonance with the

injury shown in the injury report. The injury report clearly

indicates that it is a firearm injury. Although the nature of the

injury has not been specifically mentioned, but from the

perusal of the medical evidence, it is crystal clear that the

place of injury is clearly identified and that it is a firearm Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.25 of 2010 dt.16-01-2026

injury and the doctor has clarified that in case of excessive

bleeding, such injury may cause death to the patient who

suffered the said injury. The victim, being a man of common

prudence the prosecution-case, as stated in the initial version

of the prosecution story, is fully supported by the doctor in his

evidence. CW-1, the Investigating Officer of the case, took up

the investigation, visited the place of occurrence, recorded the

statement of the informant, found the occurrence to be true

and thereafter submitted the charge-sheet. In this way, the

evidence of the Investigating Officer does not, in any way,

derogation from the evidence of prosecution witnesses,

particularly PW-4 (informant). The statement of PW-4 as well

as the statements of the doctor and the Investigating Officer,

remain consistent throughout cross-examination and there is

no reason to disbelieve the statement of prosecution witnesses

merely because some other witnesses have not supported the

prosecution case.

23. PW-4 (the informant) as well as the victim

has clearly supported the initial version of the prosecution

story on the core aspects of the offence as alleged in the light

of Sections 307 and 387 of the IPC and Section 27 of the

Arms Act, and there is no reason to disbelieve the version of Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.25 of 2010 dt.16-01-2026

the victim, whose presence at the scene of the crime cannot be

doubted. It is also natural that he will not spare his actual

assailant. The statement of CW-2 (the doctor) has clearly

supported the allegation of injury on the left thigh near the

scrotum, and the injury is a firearm injury. The doctor has also

stated that in case of excessive bleeding, such an injury could

cause the death of the patient who suffered the said injury, and

the informant is corroborated by the injury report given by the

doctor. The statement of CW-1 (Investigating Officer) has

supported and corroborated the specific place of occurrence.

He has also supported and corroborated the story of

prosecution regarding place of occurrence. He has pointed out

the place of occurrence and his statement is quite

corroborative with the statement of story of prosecution and

his statement is also supported the story of prosecution

particularly regarding place of occurrence.

24. It is quite evident that appellant is the sole

person for making firing upon the informant causing injury on

his left thigh near the scrotum in order to extort money of Rs.

1,50,000/- and in that course he put the informant in fear of

serious injury for the offences under Section 307 and 387 of

the IPC. Since the appellant has inflicted the injury by firearm Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.25 of 2010 dt.16-01-2026

having pistol in his hand and he was being responsible for

committing the offence under Section 27 of the Arms Act, I

find no reason to differ with the findings given by the learned

trial court on the point of Sections 307 and 387 of the IPC and

27 of the Arms Act and submission advanced on behalf of

learned A.P.P. is quite tenable in the light of said offences and

hence, in my view, judgment of conviction on the point of

Sections 307 and 387 of the IPC and Section 27 of the Arms

Act requires no interference.

25. However, on the point of sentence under

Sections 307 and 387 of the IPC and Section 27 of the Arms

Act, learned counsel for the appellant submits that the

appellant has already suffered 5 years and 13 days in the

custody,the occurrence took place in the year 2006 and he has

already suffered near about 20 years in litigation and he has

sufficiently been punished and the appellant is having no

criminal antecedent. The Court is of the view that if sentence

of the appellant is reduced to the period already undergone,

that would meet the ends of justice. Accordingly, the sentence

of the appellant is reduced to the period already undergone.

26. With the aforesaid modification in the

sentence, the instant appeal stands dismissed.

Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.25 of 2010 dt.16-01-2026

27. The interlocutory application, if any, also

stands disposed of.

28. Let a copy of this judgment be transmitted

to the Superintendent of the concerned jail for compliance and

for record.

29. The records of this case be also returned to

the concerned trial court forthwith.

(Alok Kumar Pandey, J)

Nilmani/-

AFR/NAFR                AFR
CAV DATE                N.A.
Uploading Date          23.01.2026
Transmission Date       23.01.2026