Patna High Court
Ramwakil SinghversusThe State Of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISMISSED
Holding
The High Court held that the evidence did not establish a common object to murder or the requisite intent for Section 307, and therefore upheld the acquittal of the accused.
Summary
The appellant, Ramwakil Singh, appealed against the acquittal of six accused in a case involving alleged attempts to murder him and his brother. The trial court had convicted only one accused under Section 325 IPC and acquitted all others of the more serious charge under Section 307 IPC, finding insufficient proof of intent to kill. The appellant argued that the injuries inflicted, the use of a sharp weapon, and the presence of a group indicated a common object to murder, invoking Sections 307 and 149 of the IPC, and cited State of Madhya Pradesh v. Kashiram. The High Court examined whether the prosecution had established the requisite intention, knowledge, and common object for an unlawful assembly. It held that the FIR and evidence showed the accused's objective was to resist the appellant's cultivation of disputed land, not to murder, and that the injuries were simple hurt, insufficient for a Section 307 conviction. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed, upholding the trial court's acquittal.
Issues considered
- Did the prosecution prove all ingredients of an offence under Section 307 IPC against the accused?
- Did the accused constitute an unlawful assembly with the common object of committing murder, thereby attracting liability under Section 149 IPC?
- Does the nature of the injuries (simple hurt) preclude conviction under Section 307 IPC?
- Can intention or knowledge required for Section 307 be inferred from the FIR and surrounding circumstances?
Legislation cited
- Indian Penal Code — s. 149, 302, 307, 325
Subjects
- attempt to murder
- unlawful assembly
- common object
- constructive liability
- IPC Section 307
- IPC Section 149
- evidence of intention
- appeal
- acquittal
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL APPEAL (DB) No.1324 of 2025
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-32 Year-2010 Thana- GARKHA District- Saran
======================================================
Ramwakil Singh S/O Late Ramvriksh Singh Resident Of Village- Majlishpur,
P.s.- Garkha, Dist.- Saran At Chapra
... ... Appellant/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar
2. Mithilesh Singh @ Mithilesh Kumar Singh Son of Late Ramprit Singh @
Late Ramprut Singh Resident of Village- Majlishpur, Police Station-
Garkha, District- Saran at Chapra
3. Pawan Kumar Singh Son of Ram Swaroop Singh. Resident of Village-
Majlishpur, Police Station- Garkha, District- Saran at Chapra
4. Sanjay Singh @ Sanjay Kumar Singh Son of Late Rajendra Singh. Resident
of Village- Majlishpur, Police Station- Garkha, District- Saran at Chapra
5. Shailendra Singh @ Shailendra Kumar Singh Son of Late Bhagwan Singh
@ late bhagwat singh Resident of Village- Majlishpur, Police Station-
Garkha, District- Saran at Chapra
6. Manoj Singh @ Manoj Kumar Singh Son of Ram Swaroop Singh Resident
of Village- Majlishpur, Police Station- Garkha, District- Saran at Chapra
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Appellant/s : Mr. Bindhyachal Singh, Sr. Advocate
Mr. Ram Binod Singh, Advocate
For the Respondent/s : Mr. Satya Narayan Prasad, Advocate
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BIBEK CHAUDHURI
and
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL DUTTA MISHRA
ORAL ORDER
(Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BIBEK CHAUDHURI)
4 06-02-2026 This is an appeal against acquittal filed by the
informant assailing the judgment passed in Sessions Trial No.
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.1324 of 2025(4) dt.06-02-2026
2/8
109 of 2012 on 14th May, 2025.
2. The learned Senior Advocate on behalf of the
appellant submits that there were in all five accused persons
among them accused no. 6 (Manoj Singh) was convicted under
Section 325 of the Indian Penal Code (herein to referred as
“IPC”). The learned Trial Court held that the prosecution failed
to prove the charge under section 307 of the IPC against the
accused persons. Therefore, the impugned judgment is perverse
in order to substantiate his argument.
3. The learned Senior Advocate first takes us to
paragraph 12 of the impugned judgment, where the learned Trial
Judge recorded the injuries found by the Medical Officer at the
time of medical treatment on the persons of the
informant/appellant and his brother. Referring to the injury
report, it is submitted by the learned Senior Advocate that
injured Ramvriksh Singh was assaulted in such a way that the
upper part of fibula in the left leg was fractured. The informant
received sharp cut injury on left parietal bone of the scalp
which is a vital organ of the body. It is also submitted by him
that Section 307 of the IPC postulates that if any person
attempts to commit any act with such intention or knowledge
and under such circumstances that if he by that act caused death,
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.1324 of 2025(4) dt.06-02-2026
3/8
he would be guilty of murder, in such a case, it is open for the
Court to hold the accused guilty of committing offence under
Section 307 of the IPC. Even in order to prove a charge under
Section 307 of the IPC, the accused need not commit any
physical assault upon the victim. If he commits some act which
prove his intention or knowledge that if such act would have
been committed, the victim would have been murdered. It is
open for the Court to hold the accused guilty under Section 307
of the IPC.
4. The learned Senior Advocate on behalf of the
appellant submits that the intention or knowledge can be
gathered from the sum-total of evidence. There cannot be any
direct evidence of intention of the accused or their knowledge.
Intention can be assessed from the act of the accused, the
manner in which the victim was attempted to be assaulted and
all other surroundings circumstances.
5. The learned Trial Court was absolutely wrong that
the prosecution failed to prove the charge under Section 307 of
IPC. Firstly, on the ground that the informant in his evidence as
PW-1 failed to depose the names of the persons along with the
types of arms being carried by them. Secondly, the informant
and PW-4 stated that accused no. 1, Mithilesh Singh assaulted
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.1324 of 2025(4) dt.06-02-2026
4/8
his brother on his head by a sharp cutting weapon. However, the
said injury was simple in nature. Therefore, the learned Trial
Judge held that the ingredients of offence was not proved by the
prosecution.
6. It is submitted by the learned Senior Advocate on
behalf of the appellant that here lies the perversity in the finding
of the learned Trial Judge. The nature of injury does not matter,
the infliction of injury over the head of the brother of the
informant by Mithilesh Singh, who was armed with a sharp
cutting weapon along with four other accused persons,
establishes the ingredients of offence under Section 307 of the
IPC read with Section 149 of the IPC because of the fact that
there is ample evidence that the accused persons came in a
group and they had common object to commit murder of the
informant and his brother.
7. In support of his contention, he referred to a
judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case on State of
Madhya Pradesh Vs. Kashiram and Ors. reported in 2009 4
SCC 26. In paragraph 13 of the aforesaid reported decision, it is
observed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court that:-
“ It is sufficient to justify a conviction
under Section 307, if there is present an
intent coupled with some overt act in
execution thereof. It is not essential that
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.1324 of 2025(4) dt.06-02-2026
5/8
bodily injury capable of causing death
should have been inflicted. 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 circumstances
mentioned in the Section. Therefore, an
accused charged under Section 307 of
I.P.C. cannot be acquitted merely because
the injuries inflicted on the victim were in
the nature of simple hurt.”
8. Having heard the learned Senior Advocate on
behalf of the appellant and the learned Advocate on behalf of
the State. This Court likes to record, at the outset, that in order
to prove a charge under Section 307 of the I.P.C. It is the duty of
the prosecution to establish all ingredients of murder, sort of
death. It is true that an accused can be held guilty for the offence
under Section 307 of the I.P.C., if any act is accomplished by
him with intention or knowledge and under such circumstances
that if such act was successful, the victim would have been
murdered and he would have been charged under Section 302 of
the I.P.C. In other words but for the death, the accused was
charged under Section 307 of the I.P.C.
9. Now, the vital question that arises is as to how the
intention or knowledge of the accused persons can be gathered
by the Court because the intention and knowledge are mental act
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.1324 of 2025(4) dt.06-02-2026
6/8
and there cannot be any direct evidence of intention and
knowledge. However, the informant who is best person to
understand or apprise the intention or knowledge of the accused
persons. In this Regard, First Information Report is a vital piece
of evidence to gather the intention or knowledge of the accused
persons. The informant did not state that the accused persons
had the intention to commit murder of the informant and his
brother who were working in the field or that they had the
knowledge that by assaulting them the informant and his brother
would be murdered. Only one sentence has been stated against
one accused, Shailendra Singh, who allegedly open fire by a
pistol in his hand with the intention to kill them. However, no
firearm was recovered from Shailendra Singh, no blank
cartridge was found from the place of occurrence by the
Investigating Officer and nothing was seized in support of such
allegation.
10. Learned Senior Advocate on behalf of the
appellant also submits that all the accused persons formed an
unlawful assembly common object of whom was to commit
murder of the informant and his brother and in furtherance of
such common object they assaulted the informant and his
brother. Therefore, the respondents ought to be held guilty with
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.1324 of 2025(4) dt.06-02-2026
7/8
the aid of Section 149 of the I.P.C. on the principle of
constructive liability.
11. We are in agreement with the learned Senior
Advocate on behalf of the appellant that Section 149 has its
foundations on constructive liability which is sine qua non for
its operation. The emphasis is on the common object and not on
common intention. By filing the instant appeal, the appellant
assailed the judgment that the Trial Court failed to consider the
case of the common object of the accused persons. However, on
perusal of the F.I.R. itself, it is found that the accused persons
attacked the informant and his brother over land dispute and
cultivation on a Benami land by the appellant and his brother, so
even if the accused persons constituted an unlawful assembly to
commit some offence in furtherance of the common object of
the assembly, the said common object as pleaded by the
appellant was to resist them from cutting crops from the land
cultivated by them. Therefore, the evidence on record does not
justify the case of common object for committing murder of the
informant/appellant and his brother.
12. Accordingly, we do not find any merit in the
instant appeal and we also do not find any scope to revisit the
judgment passed by the Trial Court in SC No. 109 of 2012.
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.1324 of 2025(4) dt.06-02-2026
8/8
13. Therefore, the instant appeal is summarily
dismissed.
(Bibek Chaudhuri, J)
( Sunil Dutta Mishra, J)
Jyoti Kumari/-
U
Checking your session…