Patna High Court
CHINTAMAN PRASAD YADAVversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISMISSED
Holding
The appeal is dismissed; the acquittals of Chhotu, Rajesh and Vijay Yadav are upheld and Lalu Yadav's conviction under Sections 324 and 341 IPC stands.
Summary
The appeal challenges the acquittal of three accused (Chhotu, Rajesh and Vijay Yadav) in a land‑dispute case where the informant, Chintaman Yadav, was assaulted and injured. The trial court had convicted Lalu Yadav under Sections 324 and 341 IPC for assault with a khanti, but acquitted the other three accused, holding that no common intention (Sec. 34 IPC) or participation could be proved. The appellant argued that the evidence was mis‑appreciated and that Lalu Yadav should have been convicted under Section 307 IPC (attempt to murder). The High Court examined the witness testimony, injury report and found that only Lalu Yadav’s act was established and there was no evidence of a pre‑concerted plan among the other accused. Consequently, the Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the acquittals and leaving Lalu Yadav’s conviction untouched.
Issues considered
- Whether the prosecution proved the participation of Chhotu, Rajesh and Vijay Yadav in the assault under Section 34 IPC (common intention).
- Whether Lalu Yadav should be convicted under Section 307 IPC (attempt to murder) instead of Section 324 IPC (voluntarily causing grievous hurt).
- Whether the trial court erred in acquitting the three accused.
Legislation cited
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 313
- Indian Penal Code — s. 307, 323, 324, 34, 341, 379
Subjects
- land dispute
- assault
- common intention
- Section 34 IPC
- attempt to murder
- Section 307 IPC
- voluntarily causing grievous hurt
- Section 324 IPC
- acquittal
- conviction
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL APPEAL (DB) No.363 of 2024
In
CRIMINAL APPEAL (SJ) No.5312 of 2023
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-303 Year-2014 Thana- FATEHPUR District- Gaya
======================================================
CHINTAMAN PRASAD YADAV S/o Late Mahabir Yadav R/o vill- Dhanita,
P.s. - Fatehpur, Distt. - Gaya ... ... Appellant
Versus
1. The State of Bihar
2. Chhotu Yadav S/o Rameshwar Yadav R/o Mauza- Dhaneta, P.S.- Fatehpur,
Gaya
3. Rajesh Yadav S/o Rameshwar Yadav R/o Mauza- Dhaneta, P.S.- Fatehpur,
Gaya
4. Vijay Yadav S/o Rameshwar Yadav R/o Mauza- Dhaneta, P.S.- Fatehpur,
Gaya
5. Lalu Yadav S/o Rameshwar Yadav R/o vill - Dhanita, P.S. - Fatehpur, Distt. -
Gaya
... ... Respondents
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Appellant/s : Mr. Rajendra Narayan, Sr. Advocate
Mr. Sunil Kumar Yadav, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Bipin Kumar, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJEEV RANJAN PRASAD
and
HONOURABLE JUSTICE SMT. SONI SHRIVASTAVA
ORAL JUDGMENT
(Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJEEV RANJAN PRASAD)
Date : 24-03-2026
Heard Mr. Rajendra Narayan, learned Senior
counsel for the appellant and Mr. Bipin Kumar, learned
Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.
2. The present appeal arises out of the judgment of
acquittal dated 31.08.2023, passed by the learned Additional
Sessions Judge-IInd, Gaya (hereinafter referred to as ‘the learned
trial Court’) in S.Tr. No. 469 of 2016 (S.J.), arising out of
Fatehpur P.S. Case No. 303 of 2014, dated 03.09.2014 registered
under Sections 341, 323, 307, 379, 504/34 of Indian Penal Code
(in short ‘IPC’).
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.363 of 2024 dt.24-03-2026
2/9
3. By the impugned judgment, the learned trial
Court has convicted Lalu Yadav (A-2) for the offences under
Sections 324 and 341 of IPC, he has been ordered to undergo a
sentence of 2 years and one month respectively. So far as the
other accused, namely, Chhotu Yadav (A-1), Rajesh Yadav (A-3)
and Vijay Yadav (A-4) are concerned, all of them have been
acquitted of the charges under Sections 307, 323, 341, 504/34 of
IPC.
Prosecution Case
4. The prosecution case is based on written
application of the informant, namely Chinataman Yadav (PW-3)
that on 03.09.2014 at about 4:30 p.m., the informant after
alighting from the train at Banshi Nala Railway Station
proceeded towards his house. As he reached near his house, he
saw that Lalu Yadav, Rajesh Yadav, Chhotu Yadav and Vijay
Yadav arrived at his disputed land, which he has acquired
through parwana. They indulged in the skirmish with the
informant and used abusive language and assaulted the
informant with lathi and khanti with intention to kill him. Due to
which, the informant sustained injury on his head. After hearing
his alarm, co-villagers assembled at the spot and the informant
was rescued. The informant said that the reason for this incident
is the intention of the accused persons to take possession of the
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.363 of 2024 dt.24-03-2026
3/9
land, which he has acquired through parwana. It is also alleged
by the informant that in between the assault accused, Lalu Yadav
took Rs.2,220/- from the pocket of the informant.
5. It appears that after investigation of the case
lodged by Chintaman Yadav, the police submitted charge-sheet
against all four accused persons, namely, Lalu Yadav, Rajesh
Yadav, Chhotu Yadav and Vijay Yadav. The learned Magistrate
took cognizance of the offence of Charge-sheet No. 86 of 2015,
dated 21.05.2015 for the offences under Sections 341, 323, 307,
504/34 of IPC. After completion of the formalities, finding that
one of the offences alleged is triable by a Court of Sessions, the
learned Magistrate committed the records to the Court of
Sessions where the present trial was registered.
6. It further appears that in the trial Court, the
charges were explained to the accused persons, who denied the
charges and claimed to be tried. Accordingly, charges under
Sections 341, 323, 307 and 504/34 of IPC.
7. In course of trial, the prosecution examined as
many as five witnesses and got exhibited various documentary
evidence such as the formal F.I.R, injury reports and the charge-
sheet etc. The description of the prosecution witnesses and the
list of documents exhibited on behalf of prosecution are
provided hereunder for ready reference in a tabular form.
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.363 of 2024 dt.24-03-2026
4/9
List of Prosecution Witnesses
PW-1 Baiju Yadav
PW-2 Kuldeep Yadav
PW-3 Chintaman Yadav (Informant)
PW-4 Dr. Uma Shankar Lal
PW-5 Radhey Shyam Jha
List of Exhibits on behalf of Prosecution
Exhibit ‘1’ Signature of informant on
written application proved
as PW-3
Exhibit ‘1/1’ Endorsement by then
S.H.O. on the written
application proved by PW-
5, the I.O of this case
Exhibit ‘2’ Injury report of informant
proved by PW-4
Exhibit ‘2/1’ Injury report of informant
proved by PW-4
Exhibit ‘3’ Requisition for medical
examination of informant
proved by PW-5
Exhibit ‘4’ Formal charge-sheet
proved by PW-5
Exhibit ‘5’ Formal FIR proved by PW-
5
Exhibit ‘6’ Order dated 23.05.2021 of
A.D.M., Gaya wherein
status-quo of person of
Chintaman Yadav was
upheld.
8. The statement of the accused persons was
recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. (now Section 351 of BNSS),
they claimed innocence.
9. On behalf of defence, one defence witness Siya
Saran Prasad was examined. The defence exhibited a certified
copy of counter F.I.R of Fatehpur P.S. Case No. 304/2014 dated
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.363 of 2024 dt.24-03-2026
5/9
03.09.2014 (Exhibit-A), certified copy of charge-sheet no. 332
of 2014 dated 31.12.2014, FIR of Fatephur P.S. Case
No.304/2014 (Exhibit-B) and certified copy of Parwana from
office of Circle Officer, Tankuppa Gaya (Exhibit-C).
Findings of the Learned Trial Court
10. Learned trial court having examined and
analyzed the entire evidences available on the record, came to a
conclusion that in this case the prosecution has not established
its case against A-1, A-3 and A-4. It has been held that the
charges framed with the aid of Section 34 of IPC could not be
substantiated and proved by the producing and convincing
evidences on the record. The active participation of the accused
persons (A-1, A-3 and A-4) have not been shown and in absence
of their being a prior meeting of mind to the commit offence of
attempt of murder, of the informant, they cannot be held guilty.
11. The Court further found that the occurrence has
taken place because of the land dispute, therefore, there may be
an attempt on the part of the informant to implicate other
supporters members of the accused persons. In these
circumstances, the charges levelled against Rajesh Yadav,
Chhotu Yadav and Vijay Yadav, held and they have been given
benefit of doubt.
12. The learned trial Court has, however, convicted
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.363 of 2024 dt.24-03-2026
6/9
Lalu Yadav (A-2) for the offence punishable under Sections 324
instead of Section 307/34 of IPC. The learned trial Court has
held that in this case the place of occurrence and the scuffle
between the informant and the accused Lalu Yadav is proved
beyond all reasonable doubt. The allegation of assault, brought
on record, is only against Lalu Yadav. The previous land dispute
is an admitted fact but the prior meeting of minds of the accused
persons could not be proved. It has been held that act of the
assailant Lalu Yadav is qualified for allegation of charge under
Section 324 IPC. In these circumstances, the said accused Lalu
Yadav (A-2) has been convicted and sentenced as stated at top
of this judgment hereinabove.
Submission on behalf of appellant
13. While assailing the impugned judgment, the
learned Senior Counsel for the appellant submits that the learned
trial Court would not properly appreciated the evidences
available on the record and has committed gross error in
acquitting all other accused persons of the charges levelled
against them. It is also contended that the learned trial Court has
instead of convicting Lalu Yadav (A-2) under Section 307 of
IPC, convicted him only under Section 324 of IPC, which is not
justified.
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.363 of 2024 dt.24-03-2026
7/9
Submission on behalf of State
14. On the other hand, learned Additional Public
Prosecutor for the State submits that in this case, the learned
trial Court has properly appreciated the entire evidences
available on the record and has rightly concluded the findings.
Analysis and Consideration
15. Having heard learned Senior counsel for the
appellant and learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.
We have also gone through the evidences available on the
record. In this case, the star witness is the informant himself
who has been examined as P.W.3 and whose testimony has been
discussed by the learned trial Court in detail. The testimony of
the injured witness (P.W.3) and that of the doctor (P.W.4) are to
be analyzed together.
16. We have noticed on going through the
evidences on the record that the injured Chintaman Yadav
(P.W.3) has himself stated that it was Lalu Yadav (A-2), who had
assaulted him by a khanti on his head. So far as the involvement
of other accused persons are concerned, this witness has
specifically stated that nobody had assaulted him by lathi. We
have also noticed that the injury on the thumb of the informant
has not been brought on the record in course of trial. We have
also noticed from the deposition of the doctor (P.W.4) that he
has found one lacerated wound 5 cm x 1½ cm into scalp deep
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.363 of 2024 dt.24-03-2026
8/9
over interior part of head. This injury is called hard and
blunt substance within six hours. The injury has been found
dangerous to life and grievous in nature.
17. P.W.4 has proved the hand written injury
report as Exhibits ‘2’ and ‘2/1’ respectively. We, therefore,
find that in this case only one injury was found on the head
of the informant (P.W.3). The learned trial Court has
though recorded in the impugned judgment that two
injuries were found on the body of Chintaman Yadav
(P.W.3), but from the injury report, which is available on
the record and the deposition of the witness (P.W.4), we do
not find so. However, it is an admitted position that in the
evidence of the informant and injured (P.W.3) that it was
Lalu Yadav (A-2), who had assaulted him by khanti. The
trial Court has not found any evidence of pre-consert of
mind among the accused persons to commit an offence of
attempt to murder.
18. In an appeal against acquittal, we are of the
considered opinion that the finding of the learned trial Court
cannot be interfered with unless the Appellate Court comes to
an irresistible conclusion that the accused person are guilty of
commission of the offence. We are unable to reach to such a
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.363 of 2024 dt.24-03-2026
9/9
conclusion. In these circumstances, this appeal having no
merit, is dismissed.
19. This Court would make it clear that all
observations and findings of this Court are limited to the
acquittal of the accused. So far as conviction of Lalu Yadav (A-
2) under Sections 324 and 341 of I.P.C. is concerned, we have
not gone into any of the aspects of his conviction, therefore
appeal, if any, preferred by him against his conviction would be
considered without being influenced by the observations of this
Court in the present appeal.
(Rajeev Ranjan Prasad, J)
(Soni Shrivastava, J)
Anand/ Harsh/-
AFR/NAFR NAFR
CAV DATE NA
Uploading Date 30.03.2026
Transmission Date 30.03.2026
Checking your session…