Patna High Court

Sanjay Yadav and AnrversusThe State Of Bihar

Decided: 18 February 2026
Disposal: ALLOWED
Bench: SHAILENDRA SINGH

Holding

The conviction under Section 323 IPC is set aside and the appeal is allowed.

Summary

The appellants Sanjay Yadav and Parmeshwar Yadav were convicted by the Sessions Court for assault causing simple hurt under Section 323 of the IPC and sentenced to six months' imprisonment. The prosecution case relied on the informant's fardbeyan and the testimony of several eyewitnesses, but the trial court noted contradictions, hearsay, and the absence of medical and investigating officer testimony. On appeal, the High Court examined the inconsistencies regarding the weapon used and the nature of injuries, finding that the injury reports did not corroborate the alleged assault. The Court held that the prosecution failed to prove the offence beyond reasonable doubt and that the non‑examination of the doctor and investigating officer did not prejudice the appellants. Consequently, the conviction and sentence were set aside, the appeal was allowed, and the bail bonds were cancelled, releasing the appellants from liability.

Issues considered

Whether the prosecution evidence established the offence of simple hurt under Section 323 IPC beyond reasonable doubt.
Whether contradictions in witness testimony and the lack of medical examination undermine the conviction.
Whether the non‑examination of the investigating officer and the doctor amounts to a fatal procedural defect.
Whether the bail bonds should be cancelled following the setting aside of the conviction.

Legislation cited

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 313
Indian Penal Code — s. 147, 148, 307, 323, 324, 326

Subjects

assault
simple hurt
IPC Section 323
evidence contradictions
land dispute
criminal appeal
bail cancellation

Judgment

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL APPEAL (SJ) No.137 of 2014
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-21 Year-2002 Thana- JHAJHA District- Jamui
======================================================
1. Sanjay Yadav, Son of Parmeshwar Yadav
2. Parmeshwar Yadav Son of Late Thakuri Yadav Both 1 and 2 Are R/o Vill-
Bhalgori, P.S- Jhajha, District- Jamui.

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

... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Appellant/s : Mr. Amar Prakash, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Z.Hoda, Addl. P.P.
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHAILENDRA SINGH
ORAL JUDGMENT
Date : 18-02-2026

Heard Mr. Amar Prakash, learned counsel for the

appellants and Mr. Z. Hoda, learned Additional Public Prosecutor

for the State.

2. The instant criminal appeal has been preferred by the

appellants against the judgment of conviction and order of

sentence dated 07.02.2014, passed in Sessions Trial No. 54/2008

arising out of Jhajha P.S. Case No. 21 of 2002 by the Court of the

District and Sessions Judge, Jamui, whereby and whereunder the

appellants have been convicted for the offence under Section 323

of the Indian Penal Code (in short, ‘IPC’) and sentenced to
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.137 of 2014 dt.18-02-2026
2/10

undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six months each for

the said offence.

Prosecution Story:-

3. The substance of the prosecution case is as follows:-

The prosecution case is based on the fardbeyan of the

informant, Thakuri Yadav (since deceased), recorded by the

Officer-in-Charge of Jhajha Police Station on 24.02.2002. It is

alleged that on the same day at about 2:00 P.M., a dispute arose

regarding a passage used by the family of the informant.

Parmeshwar Yadav (Appellant No. 2) had placed bricks on the said

passage, thereby obstructing the way of the informant’s younger

son, Lattu Yadav (P.W.-7). When Lattu Yadav started removing the

bricks to clear the passage, the accused persons arrived there and

objected, which led to a heated altercation between the parties.

Parmeshwar Yadav (Appellant No. 2) was armed with an iron rod,

his son Sanjay Yadav (Appellant No. 1) was armed with a Katta,

and the other accused persons were armed with lathis. During the

course of the altercation, Parmeshwar Yadav (Appellant No. 2)

assaulted Lattu Yadav with the iron rod, striking him on the head

and causing serious injuries. On hearing the commotion, the

informant Thakuri Yadav and his wife Puniya Devi (P.W.-6) rushed

to the spot to rescue their son, but they were also assaulted by
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.137 of 2014 dt.18-02-2026
3/10

Parmeshwar Yadav, Pramod Yadav, and Bishundeo Yadav with

iron rods and lathis. During the occurrence, accused Sanjay Yadav

(Appellant No. 2) assaulted at Lattu Yadav with the katta, causing

additional injuries. The entire incident occurred due to the ongoing

dispute over the passage between Parmeshwar Yadav and Lattu

Yadav (P.W.-7), which constituted the genesis of the occurrence.

4. On the basis of the fardbeyan of the informant, on

24.02.2002 setting out the aforesaid prosecution case, a formal FIR

bearing Jhajha P.S. Case No. 21/2002 was registered for the

offences under Sections 147, 148, 323, 324, 326 and 307 of the

IPC. Consequently, the criminal law was set in motion and

investigation was taken up.

5. After completion of the investigation, the police

submitted a charge-sheet against the appellants along with the

other accused persons for the alleged offences. Thereafter, the

learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class took cognizance of the

offences under Sections 147, 148, 323, 324, 326 and 307 of the

IPC and committed the case to the Court of Sessions for trial.

6. The appellants along with other co-accused persons

were charged with the offences under Sections 147, 148, 323, 324,

326 and 307 of the IPC. The charges were read over and explained
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.137 of 2014 dt.18-02-2026
4/10

to them in Hindi, to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to

be tried.

7. During the trial in ocular evidence the prosecution

examined altogether eight witnesses who are as under:-

Sl. No. Name Relevancy
P.W.-1 Bijay Kumar Yadav Eyewitness
P.W.-2 Gauri Devi Wife of PW-7 and an
eyewitness
P.W.-3 Mukesh Kumar Yadav Eyewitness
P.W.-4 Ranjeet Kumar Son of PW-7 and an eyewitness
P.W.-5 Rampukar Kumar Son of PW-7 and an eyewitness
P.W.-6 Puniya Devi Wife of the informant, Injured
Witness
P.W.-7 Lattu Yadav Injured Witness
P.W.-8 Ramniti Yadav Proved the formal FIR and
injury reports

8. In documentary evidence, the prosecution proved and

exhibited the following documents:-

Sl. No. Relevancy
Ext.-1 An application for injury report of Lattu Yadav
Ext.-1/1 An application for injury report of Thakuri Yadav
Ext.-2 Injury report of Lattu Yadav
Ext.-3 Formal FIR
Ext.-3/1 Signature of Uday Pratap Singh S.I. on Fardbeyan of
the informant
Ext.-4 A Carbon copy of the injury report of Lattu Yadav
Ext.-4/1 Injury report of Thakuri Yadav

9. After completion of the prosecution evidence, the

statements of the appellants were recorded by the trial court under
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.137 of 2014 dt.18-02-2026
5/10

Section 313 of the Cr.P.C., wherein they denied the incriminating

circumstances appearing against them in the prosecution evidence

and claimed themselves to be innocent.

10. The appellants produced the following witnesses in

their defence:-

Sl. No. Name Relevancy
D.W.-1 Janardan Yadav Member of Panchayat Meeting
and Signatory on Panchnama
D.W.-2 Satyanarayan Turi Panch in partition meeting
D.W.-3 Ram Prasad Yadav Member of Panchayat Meeting
and Scriber of Panchnama

11. While convicting the appellants, the trial court

observed that although the prosecution examined eight witnesses,

most were interested or related witnesses and the Investigating

Officer and doctor were not examined, which seriously weakened

the case, particularly regarding the alleged grievous injuries. The

court noted material contradictions, exaggerations, hearsay

evidence, and the admitted land dispute between the parties, and

found that the charges under Sections 147, 148, 324, 326 and 307

of the IPC were not proved. On appraisal of the evidence, it held

that only a case of simple hurt was established against accused

Sanjay Yadav (Appellant No.1) and Parmeshwar Yadav (Appellant

No.2) for assaulting the informant and P.W.-7, and accordingly
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.137 of 2014 dt.18-02-2026
6/10

convicted them under Section 323 of IPC, while acquitting the

remaining accused due to lack of reliable evidence.

Submissions on behalf of the appellant:-

12. Mr. Amar Prakash, learned counsel appearing for the

appellants, submits that on the same set of allegations and

evidences, the accused Pramod Yadav, Bishundeo Yadav, Chuvan

Yadav, Dillo Yadav, and Shambhu Yadav were acquitted of the

charged offences, whereas the present appellants were convicted

for the offence under Section 323 of the IPC, though they were

acquitted of the more serious offences punishable under Sections

147, 148, 324, 326 and 307 of the IPC, for which they had also

been charged. It is further submitted that, as regards the manner of

occurrence and assault as detailed by the informant in the FIR,

contradictory statements were made by the prosecution witnesses.

In the FIR, a weapon, namely Katta, was alleged to have been

used by the appellant no.2 in assaulting P.W.-7, however, during

the course of trial, the material witnesses changed their version

and stated that the weapon used was a Katari (dagger) and a

Khanti. It is also submitted that the injury reports of P.W.-7 and the

informant were not proved by the concerned doctor, who,

according to the prosecution, had examined both the injured

persons. Further, the Investigating Officer was not examined by
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.137 of 2014 dt.18-02-2026
7/10

the prosecution. It is contended that there was admittedly a land

dispute between the parties arising out of a partition issue, and

both sides are close relatives. On account of the said dispute, the

prosecution party has falsely implicated the appellants.

Submissions on behalf of the State:-

13. Mr. Z. Hoda, learned APP appearing for the State,

opposes this appeal and submits that the injury reports of the

informant and his son were proved by a formal witness. He further

submits that there was admittedly enmity between the appellants

and the prosecution party, and it is a settled proposition of law that

enmity cuts both ways. Though there are some minor

contradictions in the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses, the

same are ignorable and do not affect the credibility of the

prosecution’s case. It is also submitted that the non-examination of

the I.O. did not seriously prejudice the appellants, and they are not

entitled to any benefit on account of such non-examination, as the

place and manner of occurrence described in the FIR stand

established from the evidence of the prosecution witnesses.

Consideration and Analysis:-

14. I have heard both sides, perused the evidence on the

record of the trial court, and taken into consideration the
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.137 of 2014 dt.18-02-2026
8/10

statements of the appellants and the findings recorded by the trial

court in the impugned judgment.

14.1. It is an admitted position that there was a land

dispute between the appellants and the prosecution party on the

day of the alleged occurrence. As per the prosecution case, the

informant and his son, who are said to be the injured victims, were

treated at a hospital for the injuries sustained in the alleged

occurrence. However, the prosecution failed to produce the doctor

who had examined the said injured persons. Though the

prosecution exhibited the injury reports of the injured, namely

Lattu Yadav (P.W.-7) and his father Thakuri Yadav, by examining a

formal witness, the nature of injuries mentioned in the injury

reports does not corroborate the allegations made in the FIR.

According to the FIR, a weapon, namely Katta, was used in

assaulting P.W.-7; however, during the course of trial, the material

prosecution witnesses described the weapon as a Khanti, while

some stated it to be a Katari. Furthermore, P.W.-6, Puniya Devi,

who, as per the prosecution story narrated in the FIR, was also

assaulted by the accused when she and the informant tried to

rescue P.W.-7, did not state anything in her evidence regarding the

use of Katta or an iron rod by the accused. On the other hand,

P.W.-1 stated in his evidence that the accused assaulted P.W.-7
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.137 of 2014 dt.18-02-2026
9/10

with an iron rod and also deposed that appellant no.1 Sanjay Yadav

inflicted a Katari blow on the nose of P.W.-7. A Katari is

considered to be a sharp-edged weapon, but no injury

corresponding to such a weapon was found on the body of P.W.-7.

As per the FIR, P.W.-6, the mother of P.W.-7, was an eyewitness to

the occurrence as well as an injured witness; however, her

testimony does not support her being an eyewitness to the extent

of manner of assault and manner of occurrence.

Conclusion:-

15. Accordingly, in view of the aforesaid facts, this

Court is not persuaded to affirm the conviction of the appellants

for the offence under Section 323 of the IPC. Consequently, the

judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 07.02.2014,

passed in Sessions Trial No. 54/2008 arising out of Jhajha P.S.

Case No. 21 of 2002 by the Court of the District and Sessions

Judge, Jamui, convicting and sentencing the appellants for the said

offence, are hereby set aside, and the appeal stands allowed.

16. Both the appellants are on bail. Accordingly, their

bail bonds stand cancelled forthwith, and they, along with their

sureties, are discharged from their respective liabilities.
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.137 of 2014 dt.18-02-2026
10/10

17. Let the records of the trial court, along with a copy

of this judgment, be sent forthwith to the court concerned for

compliance and for doing the needful.

(Shailendra Singh, J)

maynaz/-
AFR/NAFR
CAV DATE NA
Uploading Date 21.02.2026
Transmission Date 21.02.2026

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…