Patna High Court

ANIRUDH PRASADversusTHE STATE OF BIHAR

Decided: 16 March 2026
Disposal: DISPOSED
Bench: PURNENDU SINGH

Holding

The conviction under Section 307 IPC is set aside and the appellant is convicted under Sections 323 and 324 IPC.

Summary

The appellant, Anirudh Raut, was convicted by the Additional Sessions Judge for attempt to murder (Section 307 IPC) arising from an altercation during a Holi celebration where he allegedly struck the father of an informant with a weapon, causing injury. On appeal, the appellant argued that the prosecution evidence was contradictory, a key witness turned hostile, and there was no intention to cause death, contending that the incident was a sudden quarrel. The State maintained that the conviction was proper. The Patna High Court examined the requirement of intention under Section 307, citing several Supreme Court decisions, and found that the evidence did not establish the requisite intent, noting the lack of pre‑meditation and the hostile witness. Consequently, the court set aside the conviction under Section 307 and substituted it with convictions under Sections 323 and 324 IPC, reduced the sentence to time already served, and upheld the fine. The appeal was allowed.

Issues considered

Whether the prosecution evidence establishes the intention or knowledge required for conviction under Section 307 IPC.
Whether the conviction under Section 307 IPC is sustainable in view of contradictory testimonies and a hostile witness.
Whether the appellant should instead be convicted under lesser offences under Sections 323 and 324 IPC.
Whether the sentence imposed for Section 307 IPC should be modified.

Legislation cited

Code of Criminal Procedure — s. 313, 374(2), 389(1)
Indian Penal Code — s. 307, 323, 324

Subjects

attempt to murder
intention
evidence contradictions
hostile witness
IPC 307
IPC 323
IPC 324
criminal appeal
sentencing
sudden quarrel

Judgment

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL APPEAL (SJ) No. 1075 of 2011
======================================================
ANIRUDH PRASAD S/O Manharan Raut R/O Village Basant, P.S. Janta
Bazar, Distt. Chapra, Saran

... ... Appellant/s
Versus
The State Of Bihar

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

For the Appellant/s : Mr. Rudra Pratap Singh, Amicus Curiae

For the Respondent/s : Mr. S.Nr.Prasad, APP

======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PURNENDU SINGH
ORAL JUDGMENT

Date : 16-03-2026
Heard Mr. Rudra Pratap Singh, learned Amicus

Curiae appearing on behalf of the Appellant and Mr. S. Nr.

Prasad, learned APP for the State.

2. The present appeal has been filed under Sections

374 (2) read with 389(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure

challenging the judgment of conviction dated 24.08.2011

passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-4, Saran at

Chapra arising out of Janta Bazar P.S. Case No.17/1993

whereby and whereunder the appellant has been convicted for

the offence punishable under Section 307 of the Indian Penal

Code and has been sentenced to undergo Rigorous

Imprisonment for five years under Sections 307 of Indian Penal

Code along with fine of Rs.1000/-.
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No. 1075 of 2011 dt.16-03-2026
2/11

3. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the

aforesaid judgment of conviction and order of sentence, the

appellant has preferred the present appeal before this Court. The

appellant has assailed the impugned judgment primarily on the

ground that the learned trial court failed to appreciate the

evidence available on record in its proper perspective and has

wrongly recorded the conviction of the appellant despite the

existence of serious contradictions and deficiencies in the

prosecution case.

4. The prosecution story, in brief, is that on

09.03.2003 at about 7:30 P.M., the villagers were celebrating the

festival of Holi. Upon hearing sounds of abuse, the father of the

informant, along with the informant, reached at the place of

alleged occurrence. The informant saw one Bhuvar Rai @ Lapa

Raut and Anirudh Raut armed with farsa and lathi, who were

abusing Javala Prasad and Brij Kishor Pandey. The father of the

informant, with folded hands, requested them, stating that the

people were celebrating the Holi festival and asked them to

return to their house. Thereafter, one accused namely Anirudh

Raut assaulted the father of the informant with a farsa blow on

his head, causing a cut injury, as a result of which he fell down

on the ground. Thereafter, the persons present at the spot, who
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No. 1075 of 2011 dt.16-03-2026
3/11

were celebrating the Holi, intervened and took the injured to

Janta Bazar Hospital, where he was treated. The father of the

informant was not in a condition to give his statement, hence,

the statement of the informant was recorded by A.S.I. Sitaram

Singh at Janta Bazar Hospital at about 10:45 P.M.

ARGUMENT ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANT

5. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the

appellant submitted that the impugned judgment of conviction

and order of sentence passed by the learned Trial Court is

unsustainable in the eye of law, as the same is based on

inconsistent and unreliable evidence. Learned counsel

submitted that the judgment of conviction dated 24.08.2011

passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-4, Saran at

Chapra arising out of Janta Bazar P.S. Case No.17/1993 is

wholly illegal, arbitrary and contrary to the evidence available

on record. The prosecution case suffers from material

contradictions and inconsistencies regarding the place and

manner of occurrence, which creates serious doubt about its

veracity. The informant and other witnesses have given

conflicting versions, and one of the material witnesses has

turned hostile, thereby weakening the prosecution case. He

further submitted that the prosecution witnesses are mostly

interested and related, and there is no independent corroboration
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No. 1075 of 2011 dt.16-03-2026
4/11

of their testimony. The medical evidence also does not fully

support the prosecution case, as most of the injuries are simple

in nature and even the doctor has reserved opinion regarding the

alleged grievous injury.

6. Learned counsel submitted that there was no

intention or knowledge on the part of the appellant to commit an

offence under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code, as the

allegation is only of a single blow without repetition, which

does not satisfy the essential ingredients of attempt to murder. It

is also argued that on the same set of evidence, co-accused

persons have already been acquitted, and therefore, the appellant

is entitled to the benefit of parity. Moreover, the existence of a

counter case indicates that the occurrence was a result of a

sudden quarrel during Holi festival, and the prosecution has

suppressed the true genesis of the case. The appellant has no

criminal antecedent and have been falsely implicated due to

previous enmity. As such, the impugned judgment is liable to be

set aside and the appellant deserves to be acquitted.

ARGUMENT ON BEHALF OF THE STATE

7. Per Contra, learned APP appearing for the State

while opposing the appeal submitted that the learned District

court, after considering all the evidences on record and exhibits
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No. 1075 of 2011 dt.16-03-2026
5/11

submitted on behalf of the parties during the course of trial, has

rightly convicted the appellant for said offences as the offences

alleged against the appellant appears to be serious in nature and

also constitutes cognizable offence.

ANALYSIS AND CONCLUSION

8. Heard the parties.

9. I have perused the lower court records and

proceedings and also taken note of the arguments canvassed by

learned counsel appearing on behalf of the parties.

10. The learned Trial Court, on the basis of

materials as collected during the course of investigation, passed

the Judgment of Conviction dated 24.08.2011 for the offences

under Section 307 of the IPC.

11. During the trial, the prosecution has examined

altogether seven witnesses, namely:

P.W.-1- Mahesh Kr. Pandey

P.W.-2-Pashupatinath Pandey

P.W.-3-Suman Pandey(Informant / victim)

P.W.-4-Krishna Pandey (Independent witness)

P.W.-5-Hemanshu Raj (Formal witness)

P.W.-6-Dr. Rajeshwar Prasad

P.W.-7-Raj Kishor Pandey (Formal witness)
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No. 1075 of 2011 dt.16-03-2026
6/11

12. On the basis of materials surfaced during the

trial, the appellant/accused was examined under Section 313 of

the CrPC by putting incriminating circumstances/evidences

surfaced against him, which he denied and shows his complete

innocence.

13. It would be apposite to discuss the

oral/documentary evidences as available on record to re-

appreciate the evidences for just and proper disposal of the

present appeal.

14. It would be appropriate to reproduce the

provision of Section 307 of IPC for the sake of convenience and

better understanding of the facts, which is as under:-

“307. Attempt to murder.—Whoever does
any act with such intention or knowledge, and under
such circumstances that, if he by that act caused
death, he would be guilty of murder, shall be punished
with imprisonment of either description for a term
which may extend to ten years, and shall also be
liable to fine; and if hurt is caused to any person by
such act, the offender shall be liable either to
[imprisonment for life], or to such punishment as is
hereinbefore mentioned.
Attempts by life-convicts.—[When any
person offending under this section is under sentence
of [imprisonment for life], he may, if hurt is caused,
be punished with death].”

15. An attempt to commit murder must be clearly

distinguished from a mere intention to commit the offence or

from acts that amount only to preparation for its commission.

The law recognizes that the existence of a guilty intention alone
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No. 1075 of 2011 dt.16-03-2026
7/11

is not sufficient to constitute an attempt. There must be

something more than planning or arranging the means to

commit the crime. Therefore, in order to secure a conviction

under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code, the prosecution

must prove the presence of a definite intention or knowledge to

cause death, accompanied by some overt act that directly moves

towards the execution of that intention. In other words, the

accused must not only possess the intention to commit murder

but must also perform an act that clearly demonstrates the

commencement of the offence.

16. Law in this regard is well settled by the Apex

Court in case of Sivamani v. State, reported in, 2023 SCC

OnLine SC 1581, wherein in paragraph no. 9, the court held as

under:

“ 9. In State of Madhya Pradesh
v. Saleem, (2005) 5 SCC 554, the Court held
that to sustain a conviction under Section
307, IPC, it was not necessary that a bodily
injury capable of resulting in death should
have been inflicted. As such, non-conviction
under Section 307, IPC on the premise only
that simple injury was inflicted does not
follow as a matter of course. In the same
judgment, it was pointed out that ‘…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.’ The position that
because a fatal injury was not sustained
alone does not dislodge Section 307, IPC
conviction has been reiterated in Jage Ram
v. State of Haryana, (2015) 11 SCC 366 and
State of Madhya Pradesh v. Kanha, (2019)
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No. 1075 of 2011 dt.16-03-2026
8/11

3 SCC 605. Yet, in Jage Ram (supra) and
Kanha (supra), it was observed that while
grievous or life-threatening injury was not
necessary to maintain a conviction under
Section 307, IPC, ‘The intention of the
accused can be ascertained from the actual
injury, if any, as well as from surrounding
circumstances. Among other things, the
nature of the weapon used and the severity
of the blows inflicted can be considered to
infer intent.”
(emphasis supplied)

17. The record reveals PW-4 was declared hostile

during the trial as nothing transpired from his testimony during

the trial which may be said relevant for the purpose of

corroborating or contradicting the version of other prosecution

witnesses, who supported the crime in question during the trial.

Therefore, the testimony of the PW-4 is not relevant qua

establishing guilt of the accused/appellant.

18. Considering the facts and circumstances of the

case, as also the submissions advanced by Mr. Rudra Pratap

Singh, learned Amicus Curiae appearing on behalf of the

appellant, this Court finds that the entire gamut of the

prosecution case indicates that the alleged occurrence took place

on the occasion of Holi, a festival during which the villagers had

assembled and were celebrating. From the evidence on record, it

transpires that certain altercations arose, and it is alleged that the

appellant, along with other accused persons, was abusing Jawala

Prasad and Brajendra Pandey. Upon hearing the commotion, the
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No. 1075 of 2011 dt.16-03-2026
9/11

victim, namely Pashupatinath Pandey (PW-2), intervened,

whereupon he sustained an injury on his head, which has been

attributed to the appellant. The other co-accused persons have

been acquitted by the learned Trial Court. Though the injury

sustained by PW-2 has been opined by the Medical officer

(PW-6) to be grievous in nature, the surrounding facts and

circumstances do not suggest any premeditation or prior

meeting of minds. The occurrence appears to have taken place

in the heat of passion, upon sudden provocation, during a festive

gathering. There is a case and counter-case between the parties,

as one Dinanath Raut had also instituted a case against Brij

Bihari Pandey and others which led to the existence of a sudden

quarrel rather than a pre-planned assault. On perusal of the

testimonies of PW-1, PW-2, and PW-3, it is evident that only

three out of seven witnesses have supported the prosecution

case. PW-4 has turned hostile, while PW-5 and PW-6 are formal

witnesses, PW-6 being the medical officer found the injury to be

grievous in nature (Exhibits 2 and 2/A). The non-examination of

material witnesses, namely Jawala Prasad and Brajendra

Pandey, further weakens the prosecution case to the extent of

establishing any intention to commit murder or culpable

homicide as defined under Section 299 of the Indian Penal
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No. 1075 of 2011 dt.16-03-2026
10/11

Code.

19. In view of aforesaid discussions of factual and

legal aspects, this Court is of the opinion that the act attributed

to the appellant was not committed with any intention to cause

death, but rather in the course of a sudden quarrel and in the

heat of passion.

20. Accordingly, the judgment of conviction dated

24.08.2011 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge–IV,

Saran at Chapra, arising out of Janta Bazar P.S. Case No. 17 of

1993, is modified to the extent that the conviction of the

appellant shall stand under Sections 323 and 324 of the Indian

Penal Code.

21. So far as, the sentence is concerned, having

regard to the fact that the appellant has already undergone

approximately two years of custody, the sentence is reduced to

the period already undergone. The fine imposed by the trial

court is maintained. The appellant is discharged from the

liabilities of his bail bonds, if any.

22. Accordingly, the present appeal is allowed.

23. The Patna High Court, Legal Services

Committee is, hereby, directed to pay a sum of Rs. 10,000/-

(Rupees Ten Thousand) to Mr. Rudra Pratap Singh, learned
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No. 1075 of 2011 dt.16-03-2026
11/11

Amicus Curiae, as consolidated fee, for rendering his valuable

professional service for disposal of the present appeal.

(Purnendu Singh, J)
Ashishsingh/-
AFR/NAFR NAFR
CAV DATE NA
Uploading Date 23.03.2026
Transmission Date 23.03.2026

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…