Patna High Court
Shri Niwas SinghversusThe State Of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- ALLOWED
- Bench
- PRABHAT KUMAR SINGH
Holding
The appeal is allowed and the conviction under Sections 307, 353 and 149 IPC is set aside due to insufficient and contradictory evidence.
Summary
The appellant, Shri Niwas Singh, was convicted under IPC Sections 307, 353 and 149 for his alleged participation in a firing incident during a police raid on a baraat on 25 September 1997. The prosecution relied mainly on the testimony of police witnesses, some of whom gave contradictory statements, and no forensic or medical evidence was produced. It was admitted that the appellant did not fire any shots and was arrested while fleeing, and the investigating officer and the doctor were not examined. After the appellant’s death, his wife filed interlocutory applications to continue the appeal, which were allowed by the High Court. The Court found the eyewitness evidence unreliable and lacking corroboration, rendering the conviction unsafe. Consequently, the appeal was allowed and the conviction and sentence were set aside.
Issues considered
- Whether the evidence on record is sufficient to sustain convictions under Sections 307, 353 and 149 of the Indian Penal Code.
- Whether the appeal can be continued after the death of the appellant.
Legislation cited
- Indian Penal Code — s. 149, 307, 353
Subjects
- attempt to murder
- voluntarily causing hurt to deter public servant
- unlawful assembly
- evidentiary insufficiency
- appeal after death
- conviction set aside
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL APPEAL (SJ) No.182 of 2016
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-26 Year-1997 Thana- DAWATH District- Rohtas
======================================================
Shri Niwas Singh S/o Late Indrasan Singh, resident of Village- Tilkapur
Mohania, P.S.- Kargahar, District- Rohtas.
... ... Appellant/s
Versus
The State Of Bihar
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Appellant : Mr. Navin Kumar Sinha, Advocate
Mr. Vikalp, Advocate
For the State : Ms. Anita Kumari Singh, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRABHAT KUMAR SINGH
ORAL ORDER
8 17-03-2026 Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned A.P.P.
for the State.
2. The present appeal has been directed against the
judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 29.02.2016
passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-II, Rohtas in
Sessions Trial No. 36 of 1998 arising out of Dawath P.S. Case
No. 26 of 1997, whereby the appellant was convicted for the
offence punishable under Sections 307, 353 and 149 of the
Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo rigorous
imprisonment for 5 years and a fine of Rs. 5,000/- for
committing offence under Sections 307 and 149 of the Indian
Penal Code and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo
rigorous imprisonment for five months and further to go under
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.182 of 2016(8) dt.17-03-2026
2/5
rigorous imprisonment for one year for committing offence
under Section 353 of the Indian Penal Code.
3. At the outset, learned counsel appearing for the
appellant submits that during pendency of this appeal, on
13.05.2025, the sole appellant, namely Shri Niwas Singh, died,
leaving behind his wife, namely Sumitra Devi. After death of
the appellant, his wife filed I.A. No. 01 of 2025, which was
disposed of by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Hon’ble Court vide
order dated 02.12.2025 as not being proper while giving liberty
to the wife of the deceased appellant to file a fresh interlocutory
application and thereafter, wife of the deceased appellant filed
I.A. No. 02 of 2025 with a prayer to grant her leave to continue
the present appeal and I.A. No. 03 of 2025 for condonation of
delay in preferring I.A. No. 02 of 2025 and a Co-ordinate Bench
of this Hon’ble Court, vide order dated 29.01.2026, condoned
the limitation and both the aforesaid interlocutory applications
were allowed.
4. The prosecution case, in brief, is that on 25.09.1997, on
a secret information that hardened criminal Chalisa Nonia, Raja
Ram Nonia and Mathura Nonia, with their gang members, will
go in a Barat party, the police constituted a raid party and
reached near Babhnaul More and while they were waiting, a
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.182 of 2016(8) dt.17-03-2026
3/5
Barat party on three tractors was seen coming towards
Maliyabagh and when the police indicated to stop the tractors,
in the meantime, 5 to 6 culprits started firing from the tractor
and started fleeing away, however, three persons were caught
who disclosed their names as Mathura Chaudhary, Premchand
Rama and Shri Niwas Singh (appellant). On search, one loaded
country made pistol and live cartridges were seized from the
possession of co-accused Mathura Chaudhary and empty
cartridges were also seized from the place of occurrence.
5. During trial, the prosecution has examined as many as
six witnesses and P.W. 1 to P.W. 5 are members of the police
party. P.W. 1 is member of the raiding party and has supported
the prosecution case. P.W. 2 is also an A.S.I. and has supported
the prosecution case. P.W. 3, namely Firoz Hussain Ansari, who
is also a police personnel was present at the place of occurrence,
however, did not support the prosecution case entirely and the
trial court has disbelieved his statement. P.W. 4, namely Ram
Bali Yadav, who is a police personnel and claims to be eye-
witness of the occurrence but could not identify the accused
persons because his eye sight was very weak and thus, his
statement has also been disbelieved by the trial court. P.W. 5 is
also a police personnel and claims to be eye-witness of the
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.182 of 2016(8) dt.17-03-2026
4/5
alleged occurrence. P.W. 6 is a village witness and has not
supported the prosecution case and has been declared hostile.
6. It is admitted position, even as per prosecution case,
that this appellant, late Shri Niwas Singh, had not fired any
shots rather, he was arrested while fleeing away from the place
of occurrence. Moreover, in this case, the Investigating Officer
has not been examined by the prosecution and therefore, this
Court is bereft of all objective evidence, which would have been
required to prove the place of occurrence as well as the manner
of occurrence. The Doctor has also not been examined as a
result of which, the nature of injury and cause of injury could
not be ascertained.
7. On going through the evidence of P.W. 1, P.W.2 and
P.W.5, this Court finds material contradictions in their evidence
with regard to the manner of occurrence and since there is no
corroborative evidence in regard to the same, this Court finds it
unsafe to rely on the evidence of the sole eye witnesses.
8. In the result, this appeal is allowed and the order of
conviction dated 29.02.2016 and the sentence passed against the
appellant, namely late Shri Niwas Singh, by the learned
Additional Sessions Judge-II, Rohtas in Sessions Trial No. 36 of
1998 arising out of Dawath P.S. Case No. 26 of 1997 is hereby
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.182 of 2016(8) dt.17-03-2026
5/5
set aside.
(Prabhat Kumar Singh, J)
shashank/-
U T
Checking your session…