Patna High Court
SHEIKH JAHANGIR @ SK. JEHANGIR and ORSversusThe State Of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- ALLOWED
- Bench
- PRABHAT KUMAR SINGH
Holding
The prosecution failed to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt, so the conviction was set aside and the appellants were acquitted.
Summary
The appellants were convicted under Sections 364 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code for allegedly assaulting an informant and firing at police, and sentenced to ten years’ rigorous imprisonment. They challenged the conviction on grounds that the prosecution’s evidence was inconsistent, the witnesses were interested and unreliable, and that they had already been acquitted in a separate trial for the same incident, raising a double‑jeopardy issue. The defence also argued that the identification of the accused was made without a prior identification procedure (T.I.P.) and cited the Supreme Court’s decision in Nazim v. Uttarakhand. The High Court examined the contradictions in the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses and noted the lack of independent corroboration. Applying the strict standard of proof required in criminal cases, the Court held that the prosecution had failed to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt. Consequently, the conviction and sentence were set aside and the appellants were acquitted of all charges.
Issues considered
- Did the prosecution prove the guilt of the appellants beyond reasonable doubt?
- Do inconsistencies and contradictions in eyewitness testimony render the evidence unreliable?
- Does a prior acquittal in a separate trial for the same occurrence preclude a later conviction (double jeopardy)?
- Is identification of the accused without a prior identification procedure (T.I.P.) permissible?
- Can testimony of interested witnesses be relied upon in the absence of independent corroboration?
Legislation cited
- Arms Act — s. 25(1-b)a, 26, 27
- Explosive Substances Act — s. 3, 4, 5
- Indian Penal Code — s. 147, 148, 149, 307, 34, 356, 364
Subjects
- criminal law
- conviction
- acquittal
- reasonable doubt
- identification procedure
- eyewitness testimony
- double jeopardy
- Arms Act
- Explosive Substances Act
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL APPEAL (SJ) No.165 of 2016
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-86 Year-2000 Thana- CHANPATIA District- West Champaran
======================================================
Pankaj Kumar Son of Sri Jaikishun Kunwar Resident of Village- Shikarpur,
Police Station- Sakta, District West Champaran.
... ... Appellant/s
Versus
The State Of Bihar
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
with
CRIMINAL APPEAL (SJ) No. 240 of 2016
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-156 Year-2000 Thana- CHANPATIA District- West Champaran
======================================================
1. SHEIKH JAHANGIR @ SK. JEHANGIR, Son of Late Sheikh Meer Hasan
2. Nauroj Alam, son of Sheikh Mustaqueem
3. Md. Bhola son of Md. Kuraish
4. Sheikh Karmullah @ Karmullah son of Late Sheikh Navi Alam All are
Residents of village- Lal Parsa, P.S.- Sikta, Dist.- West Champaran
... ... Appellant/s
Versus
The State Of Bihar
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
with
CRIMINAL APPEAL (SJ) No. 243 of 2016
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-156 Year-2000 Thana- CHANPATIA District- West Champaran
======================================================
RAFI AHMED @ NANHAK
... ... Appellant/s
Versus
The State Of Bihar
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
(In CRIMINAL APPEAL (SJ) No. 165 of 2016)
For the Appellant : Mr. Ajay Kumar Thakur, Advocate
Mr. Mudit Mat, Advocate
Mr. Shivam, Advocate
Mr. Purushottam Kumar, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Abha Singh, APP
(In CRIMINAL APPEAL (SJ) No. 240 of 2016)
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.165 of 2016 dt.05-05-2026
2/10
For the Appellants : Mr. Ajay Kumar Thakur, Advocate
For the State : Mr. S.A. Ahmad, APP
(In CRIMINAL APPEAL (SJ) No. 243 of 2016)
For the Appellant : Mr. Birendra Kumar Singh, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Binod Bihari Singh, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRABHAT KUMAR SINGH
ORAL JUDGMENT
Date : 05-05-2026
Heard learned counsel appearing for the appellants
and learned Additional Public Prosecutors appearing for the
State.
2. Since all these three appeals arise out of the same
judgement of conviction and order of sentence, they are being
taken up together and disposed of by this common order.
3. These appeals have been filed challenging the
judgment of conviction dated 14.01.2016 and order of sentence
dated 18.01.2016 passed by the learned 2nd Additional Sessions
Judge, West Champaran, Bettiah in connection with Sessions
Trial No. 86 of 2001 arising out of Chanpatia P.S. Case No. 156
of 2000 whereby and whereunder these six appellants have been
convicted for committing offence under Sections 364 and 34 of
the Indian Penal Code and have been sentenced to undergo
rigorous imprisonment for ten years with a fine of Rs. 5,000/-
each and in case of default in payment of fine, to further
undergo rigorous imprisonment for three month.
4. The prosecution story, in brief, is that informant,
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.165 of 2016 dt.05-05-2026
3/10
namely Birendra Prasad Gupta, alleged that he is a member of
the Indian Communist Party (Male) and on 06.09.2000, after
finishing his work, he was returning to his party office with Anil
Kumar on a motorcycle and on the way at Tikuliya Chowk, a
Gypsy bearing Registration No. DL2CA-0283, on which six to
seven occupants were seated armed with rifle and guns, came
and forcibly got the informant seated in the vehicle. It is further
alleged, the accused persons tied the informant and started
assaulting him and reached near Gopalpur Police Station where
the police tried to stop the vehicle but the accused persons
resorted to firing and exploding bomb on the police, however,
they were chased and apprehended with arms, ammunition and
bombs.
5. In this case, in order to bring home guilt of these
accused-appellants, the prosecution has examined altogether
eight witnesses. P.W. 1, namely Satya Narayan Prasad. P.W. 2,
namely Chhedi Paswan. P.W. 3, namely Dinesh Prasad Gupta.
P.W. 4, namely Yogendra Prasad Yadav. P.W. 5, namely Anil
Kumar. P.W. 6, namely Birendra Prasad Gupta, who is informant
of the present case. P.W. 7, namely Sanjay Kumar Yadav. P.W. 8,
namely Ram Naresh Prasad Singh, who is the Investigating
Officer of the case. The prosecution has also adduced
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.165 of 2016 dt.05-05-2026
4/10
documentary evidences, which are marked as:-
Exhibit 1 Signature of Birendra Prasad Gupta on Fardbeyan
Exhibit 2 Fardbeyan
Exhibit 3 F.I.R.
Exhibit 4 Signature of Ram Naresh Prasad Singh on seizure-list
Exhibit 5 Certified Copy of judgment dated 12.01.1996 passed in
Sessions Trial No. 25 of 1988
Exhibit 5/1 Certified copy of F.I.R. of Gopalpur P.S. Case No. 37 of
2000
Exhibit 6 Certified copy of F.I.R. of Sikta P.S. Case No. 45 of 1987
Exhibit 6/1 Certified copy of charge-sheet of Gopalpur P.S. Case No.
37 of 2000
Exhibit 7 Certified copy of order sheet dated 08.07.2002 passed in
Sessions Trial No. 92 of 2001
Exhibit 8 Certified copy of F.I.R. of Sikta P.S. CASe No. 80 of 1996
Exhibit 9 Certified copy of F.I.R. of Sikta P.S. CASe No. 89 of 1996
6. On the other hand, the defence has two witnesses.
D.W. 1, namely Md. Raza and D.W. 2, namely Doa Hakim. The
defence has also adduced documentary evidences, which are
marked as:-
Exhibit A Order sheet dated 07.09.2000 to 22.11.2000 of Sessions
Trial No. 107 of 1998
Exhibit B Certified copy of charge-sheet of Sikta P.S. Case No. 63
of 1997
Exhibit C Certified copy of charge in Sessions Trial No. 107 of 1998
Exhibit D Certified copy of F.I.R. of Sikta P.S. Case No. 63 of 1997
Exhibit E Letter of District Arms Magistrate, Bettiah bearing Letter
No. 147 dated 06.12.2000
Exhibit F Certified copy of judgment dated 30.11.11 passed in
Sessions Trial No. 92 of 2001
7. After hearing the parties, the learned trial court
convicted these appellants and sentenced them, as indicated in
the opening paragraph of this order.
8. Learned counsel appearing for the appellants assails
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.165 of 2016 dt.05-05-2026
5/10
the order of conviction and sentence on multiple grounds. He
contends that the prosecution has not proved its case beyond
reasonable doubt and the trial court ought to have acquitted the
appellants. He contends that for the same occurrence, two
F.I.Rs. were lodged. One by the informant i.e. Chanpatia P.S.
Case No. 156 of 2000 and another by the police i.e. Gopalpur
P.S. Case No. 37 of 2000, which was instituted under Sections
147, 148, 149, 356 and 307 of the Indian Penal Code. Sections
25(1-b)a, 26 and 27 of the Arms Act and Sections 3, 4 and 5 of
the Explosive Substance Act and in the said case, the appellants
were put on trial vide Sessions Trial No. 92 of 2021 and were
acquitted vide judgment exhibited as Exhibit- F. He further
contends that Exhibits A, B and C relates to a murder case in
which informant of the present case is one of the accused and in
the said case, brother of co-accused Alamgir was murdered by
the informant. The informant, in collusion with the police, got
the present false and concocted case lodged. Informant is an
office bearer of the C.P.I. (Male). He contends that as per
allegation in the fardbeyan, on the Gypsy, the informant was
badly assaulted by all the accused persons, however, the said
allegation is falsified because the informant has not received
any injury whatsoever. In the present case, although the
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.165 of 2016 dt.05-05-2026
6/10
appellants were charged under the Arms Act but have not been
convicted under the same because for the same set of charges,
they have already been acquitted in Sessions Trial No. 92 of
2001. Learned counsel for the appellants further contends that
there are several inconsistencies and material contradictions in
oral evidence which were brushed aside by the learned trial
court. He contends that there is contradiction in deposition of
P.W. 5 and P.W. 6 about the number of occupants on the Gypsy,
the number of persons who got down from the Gypsy and
caught the informant. P.W. 6 has named 6 persons whereas P.W.
5 has named only two persons who caught the informant. P.W. 5
has not only denied to identify any of the accused persons but
has also excluded the presence of any witness when he and
informant had fallen at Tikauliya Chowk. P.W. 1 has neither
disclosed the number of occupants nor named any of the
accused though he claimed to have identified them by their face.
He further contends that in this case, the appellants were not put
on T.I.P. and were identified at the dock during trial. He submits
that in absence of any T.I.P., the identification in the Court for
the first time is to be discarded. In this regard, he has placed
reliance upon latest judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court passed
in the case of Nazim and Others versus The State of
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.165 of 2016 dt.05-05-2026
7/10
Uttarakhand passed in 2025 INSC 1184. It is further contended
that P.W. 2 has not made any whisper about firing or explosion
of bomb at the alleged place of occurrence. It is lastly contended
that in this case, no independent witness has been examined on
behalf of the prosecution and all the prosecution witnesses are
related to the informant and are highly interested witnesses.
Hence, in absence of testimony of the independent witness, the
testimony of interested witnesses cannot be relied upon.
Moreover, there evidence suffers from serious infirmity and is,
therefore, wholly unreliable and also untrustworthy. Thus, the
prosecution has failed to prove the case beyond all reasonable
doubts and the trial court has wrongfully convicted these
appellants ignoring material contradictions and hence, the
appellants are fit to be acquitted.
9. On the other hand, learned Additional Public
Prosecutor for the State has submitted that in this case, the
prosecution has examined altogether 8 witnesses including the
informant and all of them are eye-witnesses, who have
supported the prosecution case and their evidence has
corroborated each other. Thus, there is no need of any
interference in this appeal and there is no reason to differ with
the findings of the learned trial court and the judgment of
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.165 of 2016 dt.05-05-2026
8/10
conviction and order of sentence are justified and legal.
10. Heard the rival submissions, perused the
evidenced led at the trial and perused the judgment of the
Hon’ble Apex Court passed in the case of Nazim and Others
versus The State of Uttarakhand (supra). This Court finds that
in this case, admittedly for the same occurrence, two different
F.I.Rs. were lodged. One by the informant i.e. Chanpatia P.S.
Case No. 156 of 2000 and another by the police i.e. Gopalpur
P.S. Case No. 37 of 2000. Appellants were put on trial in
connection with Gopalpur P.S. Case No. 37 of 2000 as well and
were acquitted and the said judgment has been exhibited as
Exhibit F. From perusal of the evidences, this Court finds that
there are several inconsistencies and contradictions in oral
evidence of the witnesses with place of occurrence, manner of
occurrence and number of accused involved in the occurrence.
The deposition of P.W. 5 and P.W. 6 are contradictory. P.W. 6
stated that six persons caught him whereas P.W. 5 has stated that
two persons caught the informant. P.W. 2 has stated about
involvement of four persons and has not stated regarding firing
of arms and explosion of bomb whereas P.W. 3 has deposed that
seven persons were engaged in overpowering the informant.
P.W. 3 has also deposed that the motorcycle was of green color
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.165 of 2016 dt.05-05-2026
9/10
whereas other witnesses have stated that the same was of red
color. Though the said occurrence is said to have taken place in
a public place, however, there is no independent corroboration
of the prosecution witnesses and all the witnesses are interested
witnesses. The discussion made in Paragraph No. 22 and the
findings recorded in Paragraph No. 24 of the impugned
judgment makes the oral evidence inconsistent, unreliable and
doubtful.
11. It is settled law that in criminal cases, since life
and liberty of the accused are involved, a strict standard of proof
is required as to prove the guilt of the accused. It is not the
preponderance of the probabilities that establishes the guilt of
the accused. It is necessary that the evidence on record must
prove it beyond reasonable doubt. A conviction cannot be based
on the consideration that the prosecution story may be true. The
accused can only be convicted if the court reaches the
conclusion that the prosecution story must be proved. The
burden of proving the guilt of the accused is upon the
prosecution. In this case, the prosecution has miserably failed to
prove the case beyond reasonable doubt.
12. In that view of the matter, the impugned judgment
of conviction dated 14.01.2016 and order of sentence dated
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.165 of 2016 dt.05-05-2026
10/10
18.01.2016 passed by the learned 2nd Additional Sessions Judge,
Bettiah, West Champaran in connection with Sessions Trial No.
86 of 2001 arising out of Chanpatia P.S. Case No. 156 of 2000
are hereby set aside with respect to these appellants only.
13. Appellants, above named, are acquitted of all the
charges and are discharged from the liability of their bail bonds
in connection with this case.
14. Accordingly, this appeal stands allowed.
15. Interlocutory application/s, if any, also stands
disposed off.
(Prabhat Kumar Singh, J)
shashank/-
AFR/NAFR NAFR
CAV DATE NA
Uploading Date 08.05.2026
Transmission Date 08.05.2026
Checking your session…
Lawyer court records for this case
Associated through the court’s case reference.