Patna High Court
Ashok kumar @ Suresh MandalversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISPOSED
Holding
The High Court set aside the trial court’s acquittal judgment and remitted the case for a fresh trial.
Summary
The appellant, Ashok Kumar, appealed the acquittal of eleven accused persons in a 1998 shooting case arising from a land dispute. The trial court had acquitted the accused on charges under Sections 307/34 IPC and Section 27 Arms Act, but the appellant alleged that the judgment erroneously discussed evidence from another case and contained clerical errors that were later corrected after the judgment was signed. The High Court examined the trial court’s record, found that the presiding officer had improperly incorporated material from a different case and had altered the judgment post‑signature, thereby compromising the integrity of the decision. Consequently, the High Court set aside the acquittal without addressing the merits and remitted the matter to a different trial court for a fresh judgment, directing that the accused remain on bail. The Court also noted repeated administrative lapses by the Additional Sessions Judge and directed that the matter be placed before the Chief Justice for further administrative action.
Issues considered
- Whether the trial court's acquittal judgment is vitiated by the inclusion of evidence and paragraphs pertaining to a different case.
- Whether clerical and post‑signing corrections to the judgment constitute a ground for setting aside the acquittal.
- Whether the High Court can remit the case for fresh trial without examining the substantive merits.
Legislation cited
- Arms Act — s. 27
- Code of Criminal Procedure — s. 313
- Indian Penal Code — s. 147, 148, 149, 307, 324, 34
Subjects
- acquittal
- judicial error
- clerical error
- remand
- bail
- criminal procedure
- IPC sections
- Arms Act
- administrative misconduct
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL APPEAL (DB) No.1062 of 2024
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-135 Year-1998 Thana- NATHNAGAR District- Bhagalpur
======================================================
Ashok Kumar @ Suresh Mandal S/O Late Chandradeo Prasad Sharma @
Chulhai Mandal R/O Village- Raghopur, ward no 01, P.S- Nath Nagar,
District- Bhagalpur
... ... Appellant
Versus
1. The State of Bihar
2. Pappu Mandal S/O Late Surya Narayan Mandal R/O Village- Raghopur, P.S-
Nath Nagar, Distt.- Bhagalpur.
3. Ajay Mandal S/O Late Surya Narayan Mandal R/O Village- Raghopur, P.S-
Nath Nagar, Distt.- Bhagalpur.
4. Shankar Mandal S/O Late Surya Narayan Mandal R/O Village- Raghopur,
P.S- Nath Nagar, Distt.- Bhagalpur.
5. Shashi Mandal S/O Late Jago Mandal R/O Village- Raghopur, P.S- Nath
Nagar, Distt.- Bhagalpur.
6. Govind Mandal S/O Ram Mandal R/O Village- Raghopur, P.S- Nath Nagar,
Distt.- Bhagalpur.
7. Shovin Mandal @ Shobhan Mandal S/O Ram Mandal R/O Village-
Raghopur, P.S- Nath Nagar, Distt.- Bhagalpur.
8. Raj Kumar Mandal S/O Late Bhola Mandal R/O Village- Raghopur, P.S-
Nath Nagar, Distt.- Bhagalpur.
9. Janta Mandal S/O Late Dasu Mandal R/O Village- Raghopur, P.S- Nath
Nagar, Distt.- Bhagalpur.
10. Bhim Mandal @ Bhima Mandal S/O Late Dasu Mandal R/O Village-
Raghopur, P.S- Nath Nagar, Distt.- Bhagalpur.
11. Ghanshyam Mandal S/O Late Uzaran Mandal R/O Village- Raghopur, P.S-
Nath Nagar, Distt.- Bhagalpur.
12. Ram Mandal S/O Late Hansu Mandal R/O Village- Raghopur, P.S- Nath
Nagar, Distt.- Bhagalpur.
... ... Respondent
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Appellant/s : Mr. Ranjan Kumar Jha, Advocate
For the Resp. Nos. 2 to 12: Mr. Vijay Shankar Upadhyay, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Abhimanyu Sharma, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJEEV RANJAN PRASAD
and
HONOURABLE JUSTICE SMT. SONI SHRIVASTAVA
ORAL JUDGMENT
(Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJEEV RANJAN PRASAD)
Date : 31-03-2026
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.1062 of 2024 dt.31-03-2026
2/11
Heard learned counsel for the appellant, learned counsel
for the respondents no. 2 to 12 and learned Additional Public
Prosecutor for the State.
2. This appeal has been preferred for setting aside the
judgment dated 08.07.2024 passed by learned Additional Sessions
Judge-IV, Bhagalpur (hereinafter referred to as ‘learned Trial
Court’) in Sessions Trial No.1566 2004, arising out of Nath Nagar
P.S. Case No.135 of 1998, wherein and whereby the learned Trial
Court has acquitted the respondents no.2 to 12 of all the charges,
i.e. under Sections 307/34 of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter
referred to as ‘IPC’) and Section 27 of the Arms Act.
3. At the outset, learned counsel for the respondents no.2
to 12 as well as learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State
admit that respondent no. 12 has died. There is also a report of
Sarpanch, Village Court-Raghopur, Block-Nathnagar, District-
Bhagalpur, regarding death of respondent no.12, vide letter
no.05.2025 dated 17.03.2025.
4. In that view of the matter, let the name of the respondent
no.12 be expunged/deleted from the array of the parties.
5. The prosecution case, based on fardbeyan of the
informant, Suresh Mandal (PW-4), is that on 23.07.1998 at about
04:00 p.m., the informant was sitting in front of his door, in the
meantime, Shankar Mandal fired upon the informant by gun,
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.1062 of 2024 dt.31-03-2026
3/11
which hit upon palm of left hand. Thereafter, all accused persons-
respondents no.2 to 12 came armed with musket and surrounded
the house of the informant. Surya Narayan Mandal was saying to
kill the informant. After firing, all the accused persons fled away.
The informant stated that land dispute is going on regarding which
a Title Case is going on in Bhagalpur Court.
6. It appears that after investigation of the case, police
submitted charge-sheet bearing Charge-sheet No.139/1998
showing sufficient materials to proceed against the accused
persons for the offences punishable under Sections 147, 148, 149,
324 and 307 of the IPC as also under Section 27 of the Arms Act.
Accordingly, the learned C.J.M., Bhagalpur took cognizance of the
offences and finding that one of the allegations against the
respondents is that of attempt to murder and the said offence is
triable by a Court of Sessions, the learned Magistrate committed
the records to the Court of Sessions on 29.11.2004, where the
Sessions Trial No.1566/2004 was registered and charges were
explained to accused persons, which they denied and claimed to be
tried. Accordingly, learned Trial Court framed charges vide order
dated 06.05.2005 under Section 307/34 of IPC and Section 27 of
Arms Act.
7. In the Trial Court the prosecution has examined, as
many as, nine witnesses. Thereafter, the statement of the accused
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.1062 of 2024 dt.31-03-2026
4/11
was recorded under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure (Now Section 351 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha
Sanhita).
8. The defence has examined two witnesses and also
exhibited certain documentary evidences.
9. In the nature of judgment we are going to pass, the
description of the name of the witnesses and the documents
adduced by the parties as evidence in course of trial are not
required to be recorded.
10. It appears that by the impugned judgment, the
learned Trial Court acquitted all the accused persons of the charges
framed against them. The present appeal has been preferred
against the said judgment.
11. On 30.09.2024, when the appeal was taken up for
consideration, this Court passed the following order:
“Learned counsel for the appellant submits that it
would appear from the discussions made in the
impugned judgment that the accused persons in this
case were facing charges under Section 307/34 of
IPC and Section 27 of the Arms Act but the learned
trial court has instead of discussing the evidences of
the witnesses adduced in this case, has discussed the
evidences of some other case in which the accused
was facing a charge under Section 302 of IPC. It is
submitted that grave injustice has been caused to the
appellant of this case by not considering the materials
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.1062 of 2024 dt.31-03-2026
5/11
available on the record of this case before the learned
trial court.
2. Issue notices to respondent Nos. 2 to 12 through
both by ordinary process as well as under registered
cover with A/D for which requisites etc. must be filed
within two weeks from today.
3. Call for the trial court’s records in connection with
S. Tr. No. 1566 of 2004 arising out of Nath Nagar
P.S. Case No. 135 of 1998 from the court of learned
Additional Sessions Judge-IV, Bhagalpur.
4. We also think it just and proper to call for a report
from the trial court’s in the light of the submissions
of the appellant noted hereinabove.
5. List this case after service of notice on respondent
Nos. 2 to 12 with the records or on 28.11.2024
whichever is earlier, under appropriate heading.”
12. It appears that after receipt of the order dated
30.09.2024, the then Additional Sessions Judge-IV, Bhagalpur,
informed this Court vide letter no.82/2024 dated 16.10.2024 as
under:
“Letter No. 82/2024
From : Rakesh Ranjan Singh
Additional Sessions Judge-IV
Bhagalpur
To,
The Assistant Registrar
Patna High Court
Sub: Regarding send the LCR of S.T. No.
1566 of 2004 A/o Nath Nagar P.S. Case No.
135 of 1998 and report in compliance of
order dt. 30.09.2024 of Our Hon’ble Patna
High Court in Cri. Appeal (DB) No. 1062 of
2024.
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.1062 of 2024 dt.31-03-2026
6/11
Bhagalpur, Date: 16.10.2024
Sir,
This is with reference to the captioned
subject matter. The LCR of the
abovementioned case is called for vide order
Dt. 30.09.2024 of our Hon’ble Patna High
Court in Cr. Appeal (D.B.) No. 1062 of 2024
(3) along with a report in the light of
submissions of the Ld Counsel of the appellant.
In compliance of the abovementioned order of
our Hon’ble High Court I am sending the LCR
of abovementioned case as well as the required
report. The Ld. Counsel has submitted before
the Hon’ble Court that the Court of ADJ-IV,
Bhagalpur has decided the present case on the
basis of discussion on the evidence of another
case. In this regard I have to submit that the
judgement in this case by the ADJ-IV,
Bhagalpur is based on the evidences on record
in the present case only but during the printing
of the final judgement of this case some paras
of one previously decided case by the ADJ-IV,
Bhagalpur was inadvertently pasted in the copy
of the judgement of the present case due to
machine error as well as clerical error, which
was corrected after having information of the
said mistake vide order dt. 22.08.2024 in S.T.
No. 1566/2024, since the said error was purely
human error and clerical in nature.
Hence the above is submitted along
with the LCR of S.T. No. 1566/2004 with
request to place before the Hon’ble Court for
perusal and needful.
Yours Faithfully
Sd/-
(RAKESH RANJAN SINGH)
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.1062 of 2024 dt.31-03-2026
7/11
Additional Sessions Judge-IV
Bhagalpur”
13. It is evident that instead of accepting his gross
negligence in not going through the draft judgment before signing
the same, the learned Presiding Officer went on explaining the
mistake by saying that during the printing of the final judgment of
the case some paras of one previously decided case by the ADJ-IV,
Bhagalpur was inadvertently pasted in the copy of the judgment of
the present case due to machine error as well as clerical error. We
refuse to accept this statement of the then learned Additional
Sessions Judge-IV, Bhagalpur.
14. Further, we find that in his letter, he has stated that
the errors have been corrected after having information of the said
mistake vide order dated 22.08.2024 in Sessions Trial
No.1566/2004. We have noticed that the learned Trial Court has
again committed mistake at this stage by amending its judgment
under appeal after signing of the judgment as no Court had
become functus officio and could not have amended the judgment
by replacing the previous paragraphs by new paragraphs. It seems
that the learned Court acted on the basis of a petition filed on
behalf of the learned Additional Public Prosecutor Sri. PL Yadav
that he found some typographical error in the judgment copy of the
present case and the portion of judgment of anyother case is
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.1062 of 2024 dt.31-03-2026
8/11
typed/copied in the copy of the judgment of the present case,
which is required to be corrected. Even at this stage, the Trial
Court did not think it just and proper to give notice to the accused
persons or the informant. Only later on, the Trial Court directed
the office to inform both the sides of the case about this order so
that they may apply a fresh copy of the certified copy. Fact
remains that the informant/appellant had already obtained the
certified copy of the judgment on 08.08.2024 itself and preferred
the appeal before this Court on 30.08.2024.
15. We have found that even as the Trial Court took
upon itself to make corrections in the judgment, again the Trial
Court erred in recording paragraph-20 of the judgment which
reads as under:
“20. Ld. A. P. P. on behalf of the State has submitted
that altogether nine prosecution witnesses have been
examined in this case including the informant,
medical officer and I. O. out which almost all the
prosecution witnesses have supported the prosecution
case during their evidence. The prosecution has also
produced and marked five documentary evidences
including postmortem report, death inquest report,
formal F. I. R. and charge-sheet. The prosecution has
successfully able to prove the chain of circumstances
against the accused persons to prove their guilt.
Hence, prosecution has been able to prove it's
charges as leveled against the accused persons.”
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.1062 of 2024 dt.31-03-2026
9/11
16. On perusal of the records, we find that in paragraph-
20 again incorrect/wrong facts, may be of an another case, are
stated.
17. Learned counsel for the accused-respondents no.2 to
11 as well as learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State
submit that this is a gross mistake and shake the confidence of the
Stake-holders. The learned Trial Court has not only proceeded to
carry on the corrections on his own by deleting and adducing
several paragraphs in the judgment rather once again the errors of
identical nature have crept into in the impugned judgment.
18. Having regard to the afore-mentioned admitted
position that the learned Presiding Officer at first instance passed
the impugned judgment by recording the evidences of an another
disposed off case and subsequently did not hesitate in deleting
certain paragraphs from the said judgment and in adding fresh
paragraphs in the judgment, we set aside the impugned judgment
dated 08.07.2024 of the learned Trial Court without entering into
the merit of the case.
19. The records are remitted to the learned Trial Court
to pass a fresh judgment after giving an opportunity of
hearing/submissions to all the parties.
20. The learned Principal District and Sessions Judge,
Bhagalpur shall assign the appeal to a learned Trial Court presided
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.1062 of 2024 dt.31-03-2026
10/11
over by any other District and Additional Sessions Judge or he
may himself hear the matter. The entire exercise be concluded
within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy
of this order.
21. Since we have set aside the judgment of acquittal
and are remitting the matter for passing fresh judgment, the
accused (respondents no.2 to 11), who were earlier on bail shall
continue to remain on bail on the same bail bond.
Gross acts of omission- action in administrative side
to be considered
22. Having come across the kind of gross act of
omission by the then Additional Sessions Judge-IV, Bhagalpur, we
are of the considered opinion that the matter is required to be
placed before the Hon’ble Chief Justice for taking an appropriate
view of the matter. This has become all the more necessary as Mr.
Ranjan Kumar Jha, learned counsel for the appellant has placed
before us one order passed by the same Presiding Officer in
(Anticipatory Bail Application No.2559/2024), arising out of
Pirpainti P.S. Case No.164/2016 registered under Section 394 of
IPC. It is stated that while considering the anticipatory bail
application in the case of Md. Rahul @ Khidir @ Md. Rahu Sekh
vs. State of Bihar, on 13.11.2024 an identical error has occurred in
the order as the learned Presiding Officer has discussed some other
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.1062 of 2024 dt.31-03-2026
11/11
case by mentioning the description of case as Antichak P.S. Case
No.68/2024 for the offence punishable u/s 341, 323, 498(A), 504,
506 of IPC. This shows the regular phenomena of the Court
presided over by this officer, it prima facies gives an impression
that the Presiding Officer is not discharging his duties as a judicial
officer with due diligence and care. He is not perusing the draft
judgment/order before putting his signature thereon. It seems
necessary to consider the matter in administrative side.
23. We make it clear that out observations as regards the
conduct of this officer is prima facie. In case the matter proceeds
in administrative side the same will remain uninfluenced by the
observations of this Court in this part of the judgment.
24. The records be placed, accordingly, before the
Hon’ble Chief Justice.
(Rajeev Ranjan Prasad, J)
(Soni Shrivastava, J)
anand/-
AFR/NAFR NAFR
CAV DATE NA
Uploading Date 02.04.2026
Transmission Date 02.04.2026
Checking your session…
Lawyer court records for this case
Associated through the court’s case reference.