Patna High Court
Dharmendra KumarversusThe State of Bihar through the Principal Secretary, Bihar, Patna
- Decided
- Disposal
- PARTLY ALLOWED (DISPOSAL)
Holding
The respondent is sentenced to three years’ imprisonment and a fine of Rs.25,000 under both Section 324 IPC and Section 27 of the Arms Act.
Summary
The Patna High Court considered the sentencing of Ganpat Chaurasiya, convicted of voluntarily causing grievous hurt with a firearm under Section 324 IPC and of illegal use of a firearm under Section 27 of the Arms Act, arising from a land and drainage dispute. The defence highlighted the accused's age, family responsibilities, and that only a single, non‑vital‑part shot was fired, urging leniency. The prosecution argued that the use of a dangerous weapon and the resulting grievous injury warranted the maximum permissible punishment. The Court noted that Section 324 IPC allows up to three years imprisonment, while Section 27 of the Arms Act mandates a minimum of three years, up to seven years. It sentenced the accused to three years’ imprisonment and a fine of Rs.25,000, with provision for provisional bail pending appeal to the Supreme Court, and ordered surrender within a week.
Issues considered
- Appropriate sentence for the combined offences under Section 324 IPC and Section 27 of the Arms Act
- Whether mitigating circumstances justify a sentence below the statutory maximum
Legislation cited
- Arms Act — s. 27
- Indian Penal Code — s. 324
Subjects
- sentencing
- Section 324 IPC
- Section 27 Arms Act
- firearm offence
- grievous injury
- land dispute
- provisional bail
- appeal
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL APPEAL (DB) No.1119 of 2024
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-70 Year-2015 Thana- ARIYARI District- Sheikhpura
======================================================
Dharmendra Kumar Son of Suresh Chaurasiya Ravidas Resident of Village-
Aruara, P.S.- Ariyari, District- Sheikhpura
... ... Appellant/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar through the Principal Secretary, Bihar, Patna Bihar
2. Adhin Chaurasia Son of Chhotan Chaurasiya Resident of Village- Aruara,
P.S.- Ariyari, Distt.- Sheikhpura
3. Rajendra Chaurasiya Son of Chhotan Chaurasiya Resident of Village-
Aruara, P.S.- Ariyari, Distt.- Sheikhpura
4. Sulo Chaurasiya @ Surendra Chaurasiya Son of Chhotan Chaurasiya
Resident of Village- Aruara, P.S.- Ariyari, Distt.- Sheikhpura
5. Chhotan Chaurasiya Son of Late Tilak Chaurasiya Resident of Village-
Aruara, P.S.- Ariyari, Distt.- Sheikhpura
6. Ganpat Chaurasiya Son of Chhotan Charasiya Resident of Village- Aruara,
P.S.- Ariyari, Distt.- Sheikhpura
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Appellant/s : Mr. Amarnath Kumar, Advocate
For the State : Ms. Shashi Bala Verma, Addl.P.P.
For R-6 : Mr. Sheo Nandan Prasad, Advocate
Mr. Rajnish Kumar, Advocate
Ms. Sweta Barnwal, Advocate
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJEEV RANJAN PRASAD
and
HONOURABLE JUSTICE SMT. SONI SHRIVASTAVA
ORAL ORDER
(Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJEEV RANJAN PRASAD)
6 07-04-2026 Order on sentence
The records have been placed before this Court in
terms of the judgment dated 01.04.2026 to consider the case of
the respondent no.6 for award of sentence.
2. The respondent no.6 has been held guilty of the
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.1119 of 2024(6) dt.07-04-2026
2/4
offences punishable under Section 324 IPC and Section 27 of
the Arms Act. The respondent no.6, namely, Ganpat Chaurasiya,
who has been convicted by this Court, has appeared in person
with his learned Advocate.
3. Learned counsel for the respondent no.6 has
submitted that this respondent is a young person aged about 41
years, he has got four children and all of them are dependent
upon him. It is further submitted that the occurrence has taken
place on account of a land dispute and a dispute over the
drainage. Learned counsel submits that the respondent no.6 is
said to have made only one firing from the pistol, there was no
repetition of firing and it was not on the vital part of the body,
therefore, from all these circumstances, it may be found that the
occurrence happened in the spur of the moment. Prayer has been
made to consider the case of the respondent no.6 for imposition
of sentence by taking a lenient view.
4. Learned counsel for the appellant has, however,
submitted that the respondent no.6 used a dangerous weapon i.e.
a fire-arm and the firing made by respondent no.6 has caused
grievous injury to the appellant. It is submitted that considering
the gravity of the offence, the respondent no.6 would deserve
the maximum sentence which may be permissible in law.
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.1119 of 2024(6) dt.07-04-2026
3/4
5. We have heard learned counsel for the appellant
and learned counsel for the respondent no.6. Section 324 IPC
provides for a punishment with imprisonment of either
description for a term which may extend to three years, or with
fine, or with both, whereas Section 27 of the Arms Act lays
down a minimum imprisonment of three years which may
extend to seven years and shall also be liable to fine.
6. Upon giving our consideration to the entire
submissions, we are of the view that the respondent no.6 must
suffer an imprisonment of three years and also pay a fine of
Rs.25,000/- both under Section 324 IPC and Section 27 of the
Arms Act. The fine amount would be paid to the appellant. In
case of non-payment of fine, the respondent no.6 shall undergo
an additional imprisonment of three months.
7. The respondent no.6 shall surrender in the learned
trial court within one week from the date of
communication/uploading of this order.
8. Considering that we have awarded a sentence of
three years imprisonment to the respondent no.6 with fine. He is
desirous of seeking his remedy before the Hon’ble Supreme
Court, therefore, we direct that on his surrender in the learned
trial court, the respondent no.6 shall be enlarged on provisional
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.1119 of 2024(6) dt.07-04-2026
4/4
bail for a period of 90 days on submission of bail bonds and
sureties to the satisfaction of the learned trial court.
9. The respondent no.6 may utilize the period of 90
days for filing appeal before the Hon’ble Supreme Court with a
prayer for confirmation of the provisional bail or as may be
advised to him.
10. In case, the respondent no.6 does not surrender in
the given period of one week, the learned trial court shall
proceed to take coercive action to secure his arrest/production
and in such circumstance, the respondent no.6 shall not be
entitled to the benefit of provisional bail as has been granted by
this Court.
11. This appeal stands disposed of accordingly.
(Rajeev Ranjan Prasad, J)
(Soni Shrivastava, J)
arvind/-
U T
Checking your session…
Lawyer court records for this case
Associated through the court’s case reference.