Patna High Court
Ajay YadavversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISMISSED
- Bench
- ALOK KUMAR PANDEY
Holding
The appellate court affirmed the conviction under Sections 307, 387 IPC and 27 Arms Act, finding the evidence sufficient and modifying the sentence to time already served.
Summary
Ajay Yadav was convicted for firing at an informant who refused to pay a demanded rangdari amount, causing a firearm injury to the victim's left thigh near the scrotum. The trial court sentenced him to ten years for attempt to murder (IPC s.307), seven years for attempt to cause grievous hurt (IPC s.387) and three years for unlawful possession of a firearm (Arms Act s.27), to run concurrently. On appeal, the defence argued that the investigation was defective, key witnesses were hostile or hearsay, and there was no conclusive medical opinion on the seriousness of the injury. The High Court held that the victim‑injured witness’s testimony was reliable, corroborated by the doctor’s report and the investigating officer’s findings, and that the prosecution had proved the elements of the offences beyond reasonable doubt. While affirming the conviction, the Court reduced the sentence to the period already served, finding it sufficient in the interests of justice. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed.
Issues considered
- Whether the prosecution proved the offences under Sections 307 and 387 of the IPC and Section 27 of the Arms Act beyond reasonable doubt
- Whether the testimony of the injured victim (PW‑4) is reliable despite claims of hostility and lack of corroboration
- Whether defects in the investigation justify overturning the conviction
Legislation cited
- Arms Act — s. 27
- Indian Penal Code — s. 307, 34, 341, 386, 387
Subjects
- attempt to murder
- grievous hurt
- Arms Act
- injured witness
- evidence reliability
- defective investigation
- sentence reduction
- rangdari extortion
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL APPEAL (SJ) No.25 of 2010
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-110 Year-2006 Thana- GOGRI District- Khagaria
======================================================
Ajay Yadav S/O Late Sitaram Yadav R/O Village- Itahari, P.S- Gogari, Distt.-
Khagaria.
... ... Appellant/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Appellant/s : Mr. Praveen Kumar Agrawal, Advocate
Mr. Mukesh Kumar, Advocate
Mr. Santosh Kumar Singh, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Mukeshwar Dayal, A.P.P.
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK KUMAR PANDEY
ORAL JUDGMENT
Date : 16-01-2026
Heard learned counsel for the appellant and
learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.
2. The present appeal is directed against the
judgment of conviction dated 19.11.2009 and order of
sentence dated 20.11.2009 passed by learned Additional
Sessions Judge – 1st, Khagaria in Sessions Case No. 464 of
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.25 of 2010 dt.16-01-2026
2/25
2006, arising out of Gogri P.S. Case No. 110 of 2006
whereby and whereunder the appellant has been convicted for
the offences punishable under Sections 307 and 387 of IPC
and under Section 27 of the Arms Act and has been sentenced
to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 10 years along with fine
of Rs. 5,000/- under Section 307 of IPC and further sentenced
to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 7 years along with fine
of Rs. 1,000/- under Section 387 of the I.P.C. and further
sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment of 3 years and
also fine of Rs. 500/- for the offence under Section 27 of the
Arms Act. All the sentences have been directed to run
concurrently.
3. The prosecution case, in brief, is that on
21.04.2006 at 04:45 A.M., the informant (PW-4) was
returning after attending the call of nature, and upon reaching
north of Kali Asthan, about 100 yards ahead of the basa of
Ram Sao in village Fudkichak, the appellant Ajay Yadav
allegedly surrounded the informant while holding a pistol.
The appellant questioned the informant as to why he and
members of his caste had failed to fulfill the demand of
rangdari amounting to Rs. 1,50,000/-. When the informant
expressed his inability to pay the said amount due to his poor
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.25 of 2010 dt.16-01-2026
3/25
economic condition, the appellant allegedly fired at him with
the pistol, causing injury to the left thigh near the scrotum, as
a result of which the informant fell down in a seriously
injured condition. It is further alleged that Shiv Shankar
Sharma (PW-2), Suresh Sharma (PW-3) and several other
persons were present at the place of occurrence and they
witnessed the incident. While narrating the prosecution story,
it was further reiterated that on 20.04.2006 at about 6:00
A.M., Sudhir Yadav, the elder brother of the appellant, came
to the informant while the informant was going to attend the
call of nature and stated that appellant Ajay Yadav was
demanding money. He allegedly ordered the informant and
other members of his community to pay the demanded
amount, failing which they would face dire consequences and
would be driven out of the village. It is further alleged that
while some persons were taking the injured informant to the
hospital, the appellant again intercepted them on the way and
threatened the informant not to lodge an F.I.R., failing which
the appellant would kill the entire family of the informant.
4. On the basis of fardbayan recorded by the
informant/PW-4, Gogri P.S. Case No. 110 of 2006 dated
21.04.2006 for the offence under Sections 341, 386, 387, 307
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.25 of 2010 dt.16-01-2026
4/25
and 34 of the I.P.C. and Section 27 of the Arms Act was
lodged. Routine investigation followed. Statement of
witnesses came to be recorded and on the completion of
investigation, charge sheet has been submitted against the
appellant under Sections 341, 386, 387, 307 and 34 of the
IPC. Thereafter, the learned trial court took cognizance under
aforementioned Sections of the IPC. The case was committed
to the court of sessions after following due procedure. The
learned trial court framed charges against the appellant under
Sections 307 and 387 of the IPC and Section 27 of the Arms
Act. Charges were read over and explained to the appellant to
which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
5. In order to bring home the guilt of the
accused persons, the prosecution has examined altogether six
witnesses, including four prosecution witnesses and two court
witnesses viz. PW-1 Sujay @ Suraj Sharma (son of the
informant), PW-2 Shivshankar Sharma, PW-3 Suresh Sharma,
PW-4 Sadhusharan Sharma (victim as well as informant of
this case), CW-1 Sanjiv Kumar (Investigating Officer) and
CW-2 Dr. Arvind Kumar Gupta (doctor who has firstly
examined the victim). I.O. has been been examined under
Section 311 of the Cr.P.C and thereafter Dr. Arvind Kr. Gupta
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.25 of 2010 dt.16-01-2026
5/25
was also examined under Section 311 of the Cr.P.C.
6. Prosecution has relied upon following
documentary evidence on record:-
Ext. 1- Fardbeyan
Ext. 1/1- Endorsement
on the margin of Fardbeyan for
registration of the case and
entrustment of investigation.
Ext. 2 – Formal F.I.R.
Ext. 3 – Injury Report.
7. Defence has not produced any oral or
documentary evidence in his support. However, defence of the
appellant as gathered from the line of cross-examination of
prosecution witnesses as well as from the statement of the
accused under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. is that of total
denial.
8. After hearing the parties, the learned trial
court convicted the appellant and sentenced him as indicated
in the 2nd paragraph of the judgment.
9. Following submissions have been made on
behalf of learned counsel for the appellant:-
Learned counsel for the appellant has
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.25 of 2010 dt.16-01-2026
6/25
submitted that from the perusal of the F.I.R., it is evident that
PW-2 (Shivshankar Sharma) and PW-3 (Suresh Sharma) were
present at the place of occurrence; however, they have been
declared hostile and have not supported the prosecution case.
It is further submitted that opinion regarding the nature of all
the injuries sustained by the injured was kept reserved. In the
absence of a final medical opinion, no inference can be drawn
as to whether the injuries were simple, grievous or dangerous
to life. Consequently, the seriousness of the injuries cannot be
assessed without a final medical opinion. PW-1/ Sujay @
Suraj Sharma is also not an eyewitness to the alleged
occurrence. He is merely a hearsay witness. Learned counsel
for the appellant has further submitted that the place of
occurrence has not been proved. The Investigating Officer
(I.O.) has conducted a very faulty and casual investigation and
has failed to seize the blood-stained soil from the alleged
place of occurrence and the same is admitted by the I.O.
during his cross-examination. It is further contended that the
investigation was not conducted in a fair and impartial
manner. The I.O. failed to investigate the admitted fact that
the appellant and the informant are neighbours and that their
lands are adjacent to each other. The possibility that prior
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.25 of 2010 dt.16-01-2026
7/25
animosity between the parties may have led to the lodging of
a false case against the appellant, has not been examined at
all. Moreover, not a single independent witness has been
examined by the prosecution. Although it has come on record
that the victim was allegedly carried on a thela by Jabbar
Miyan, the said Jabbar Miyan has also not been examined by
the prosecution. Except for the sole statement of the injured,
there is no corroborative evidence to support the prosecution
case. Learned counsel for the appellant further submits that
from perusal of the impugned judgment itself the appellant is
having no criminal antecedent. In light of the aforesaid facts
and circumstances, it is submitted that the prosecution has
failed to prove its case against the appellant beyond
reasonable doubt.
10. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of
the State has submitted that PW-4, who is the informant as
well as the victim, is the star witness of the prosecution case.
It is further submitted that PW-4 has fully explained the
genesis of the prosecution case and has elaborately and
consistently narrated each aspect of the occurrence, thereby
substantiating the prosecution version. He has further
submitted that the informant/victim was threatened at the
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.25 of 2010 dt.16-01-2026
8/25
place of occurrence while he was defenceless. It is alleged
that the appellant was demanding rangdari and upon refusal
to meet the said demand, the informant sustained a firearm
injury on the left thigh near the scrotum , which is a highly
sensitive part of the body. It is further submitted that a firearm
injury inflicted on the left thigh near the scrotum is sufficient
to cause death. He further submits that so far as the number of
witnesses is concerned, it is argued that the quality and
credibility of the evidence, and not the number of witnesses,
is determinative. Even the statement of a single witness, if
found to be reliable and inspiring confidence, is sufficient to
sustain the prosecution case in light of the facts and
circumstances of the case. The manner in which occurrence
has taken place, informant is found at a particular place after
returning from call of nature and the very aggressive posture
as posed by the appellant, the victim has to bear the
consequences at the act of appellant. The appellant was
having arms and he fired upon the victim, who sustained
injury upon the left thigh near the scrotum. The manner in
which the occurrence took place clearly establishes that the
informant was returning after attending the call of nature
when he was confronted by the appellant, who was in an
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.25 of 2010 dt.16-01-2026
9/25
aggressive posture and armed with a firearm. The victim was
compelled to bear the consequences of the appellant’s act, as
the appellant fired upon him, causing injury to his left thigh
near the scrotum. Learned APP for the State has further
submitted that while recording the conviction under Sections
307 and 387 of the I.P.C. and Section 27 of the Arms Act, the
learned trial court has elaborately discussed the evidence on
record and duly appreciated and evaluated the facts and
circumstances of the case. It is contended that there is no
reason to interfere with the judgment of conviction and the
order of sentence passed by the learned trial court.
11. The question which arises for
consideration is:-
“Whether the
prosecution has been able to prove its
case under Section 307 & 387 of the IPC
and Section 27 of the Arms beyond
reasonable doubts or not?
12. I have perused the impugned judgment,
order of trial court and trial court records. I have given my
thoughtful consideration to the rival contention made on
behalf of the parties as noted above.
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.25 of 2010 dt.16-01-2026
10/25
13. It is necessary to evaluate, analyze and
screen out the evidences of witnesses adduced before the trial
court.
14. PW-4/ Sadhusharan Sharma is the
informant of the case. He has clearly narrated the manner of
occurrence, explaining how he sustained a firearm injury on
the left thigh near the scrotum due to his refusal to pay the
rangdari amount demanded by the appellant. He has also
described the medical treatment he received at the hospital.
14.1. During cross-examination, the evidence
of PW-4 is quite intact and there is nothing on record to
disbelieve the prosecution version or to cast doubt on the
statement of the injured victim. No material contradiction or
infirmity has been elicited to disbelieve his evidence.
15. CW-1/ Sanjiv Kumar is the Investigating
Officer of the case. He has deposed that on 21.04.2006 he
reached Gogri Referral Hospital, where he recorded the
fardbayan of PW-4 (informant). He proved the fardbayan,
which was written by him and which bears the thumb
impression of the informant, as well as the signature of Sujay
Kumar Sharma (PW-1). The fardbayan was marked as
Exhibit-1. He further stated that he inspected the place of
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.25 of 2010 dt.16-01-2026
11/25
occurrence and found drops of blood there. He also recorded
the statements of other witnesses. Though he has admitted
that he has not examined the witnesses of boundary of place
of occurrence but from the perusal of the evidence adduced by
the I.O., it is crystal clear that he has proved the place of
occurrence. Though his evidence indicated that investigation
has not been conducted in a fair manner but he has proved the
fact that fardbayan was read over to the informant and finding
the same true the informant put his thumb impression on the
fardbeyan and informant’s son also put his signature upon the
fardbayan and the same has been marked as Exhibit-1. Hence,
there is no reason to disbelieve the core aspects of prosecution
story. However, some infirmities have been found with regard
to the investigation, but the whole prosecution story cannot be
thrown away just because of a faulty investigation.
16. It is necessary to cite a decision passed by
Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Dhanaj Singh alias
Shera and Ors. v. State of Punjab, reported in (2004) 3 SCC
654, in which the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held in
paragraphs 5 and 7 that:
“5. In the case of a
defective investigation the court has to
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.25 of 2010 dt.16-01-2026
12/25
be circumspect in evaluating the
evidence. But it would not be right in
acquitting an accused person solely on
account of the defect; to do so would
tantamount to playing into the hands of
the investigating officer if the
investigation is designedly defective.
7. As was observed in
Ram Bihari Yadav v. State of Bihar if
primacy is given to such designed or
negligent investigation, to the omission
or lapses by perfunctory investigation
or omissions, the faith and confidence
of the people would be shaken not only
in the law-enforcing agency but also in
the administration of justice. The view
as again reiterated in Amar Singh v.
Balwinder Singh. As noted in Amar
Singh case it would have been certainly
better if the firearms were sent to the
Forensic Test Laboratory for
comparison. But the report of the
ballistic expert would be in the nature
of an expert opinion without any
conclusiveness attached to it. When the
direct testimony of the eyewitnesses
corroborated by the medical evidence
fully establishes the prosecution
version, failure or omission or
negligence on the part of the IO cannot
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.25 of 2010 dt.16-01-2026
13/25
affect the credibility of the prosecution
version.”
17. CW-2 / Dr. Arvind Kr. Gupta has
examined Sadhusharan Sharma (informant) on 21.04.2006 in
injured condition at 6:45 A.M. and has found the following
injuries:
1. One lacerated injury 1/6” x 1/6” inner
side of upper part of left thigh just beside scrotum (wound
of exit).
2. One lacerated injury 1/6” x 1/6” on
lateral side of left thigh in upper third with bleeding burning
effect below the wound (wound of entry). X-ray of thigh
advised. The patient was referred to Sadar Hospital,
Khagaria for further treatment.
3. One lacerated injury of upper part of
right side of scrotum 1/2” x 1/6” skin deep. The nature of
injury opinion was reserved for report of X-ray and opinion
of Sadar Hospital, Khagaria. Injury caused by firearm, the
3rd injury was caused by firearm.
17.1. From perusal of evidence of doctor, it
clearly indicates that there is an injury caused by firearm and
doctor has given the opinion that due to excessive blood flow,
the patient may die and from the perusal of the evidence of
CW-2, it is crystal clear that the allegation, as alleged in the
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.25 of 2010 dt.16-01-2026
14/25
FIR, is totally corroborated the injury to the left thigh near the
scrotum by the firearm and there is no reason to disbelieve the
version of CW-2.
18. PW-1 is merely a hearsay witness and not
an eye-witness to the alleged occurrence. The remaining
witnesses (PW-2 and PW-3) have been declared hostile;
therefore, their evidence carries no evidentiary value.
19. To constitute an offence under Section 307
of the IPC, the following ingredients of the offence must be
present;
a. An intention or knowledge relating to
commission of murder and
b. Doing of an act towards it.
For the purpose of Section 307 IPC, what is
material is the intention or knowledge, and not the
consequence of the actual act done for the purpose of carrying
out the intention. The Section clearly contemplates an act
which is done with the intention of causing death but which
fails to bring intended consequence on account of intervening
circumstances. The intention or knowledge of the cause must
be such as necessary to constitute a murder. In absence of
intention or knowledge which is a necessary ingredient of
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.25 of 2010 dt.16-01-2026
15/25
Section 307 IPC, there can be no offence of attempt to
murder.
20. Considering the aforementioned facts and
circumstances, the following judicial decisions are pertinent
to cite:-
In Takdir Samsuddin Sheikh v. State of
Gujarat and another reported in AIR 2012 SC 37, the
Hon'ble Supreme Court observed at para 10(ii) as follows:-
"10 (ii). This Court
has consistently held that as a general
rule the Court can and may act on the
testimony of a single witness provided
he is wholly reliable. There is no legal
impediment in convicting a person on
the sole testimony of a single witness.
That is the logic of Section 134 of the
Evidence Act, 1872. But if there are
doubts about the testimony, the court
will insist on corroboration. In fact, it
is not the number, the quantity, but the
quality that is material. The time-
honoured principle is that evidence
has to be weighed and not counted.
The test is whether the evidence has a
ring of truth, is cogent, credible and
trustworthy or otherwise. The legal
system has laid emphasis on value,
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.25 of 2010 dt.16-01-2026
16/25
weight and quality of evidence rather
than on quantity, multiplicity or
plurality of witnesses. It is, therefore,
open to a competent court to fully and
completely rely on a solitary witness
and record conviction. Conversely, it
may acquit the accused in spite of
testimony of several witnesses if it is
not satisfied about the quality of
evidence."
In Brahm Swaroop and another v. State of
U.P., reported in AIR 2011 SC 280, the Hon'ble Supreme
Court at para 22 of the judgment held as follows:
"22. Where a witness
to the occurrence has himself been
injured in the incident, the testimony of
such a witness is generally considered
to be very reliable, as he is a witness
that comes with a built-in guarantee of
his presence at the scene of the crime
and is unlikely to spare his actual
assailant(s) in order to falsely
implicate someone. "Convincing
evidence is required to discredit an
injured witness."
In Ranjit Singh and others v. State of
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.25 of 2010 dt.16-01-2026
17/25
Madhya Pradesh, reported in AIR 2011 SC 255, the Hon'ble
Supreme court at para 17 of the judgment held as follows:-
"17. Under the Indian
Evidence Act, trustworthy evidence
given by a single witness would be
enough to convict an accused person,
whereas evidence given by half a
dozen witnesses which is not
trustworthy would not be enough to
sustain the conviction."
In Mano Dutt and another v. State of Uttar
Pradesh, reported in (2012) 4 SCC 79, the Hon'ble Supreme
Court at para 30 of the judgment observed as follows:-
"30... Normally, an
injured witness would enjoy greater
credibility because he is the sufferer
himself and thus, there will be no
occasion for such a person to state an
incorrect version of the occurrence, or
to involve anybody falsely and in the
bargain, protect the real culprit."
In State of U.P. v. Kishan Chand and others
reported in (2004) 7 SCC 629, a similar view has been
reiterated observing that the testimony of a stamped witness
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.25 of 2010 dt.16-01-2026
18/25
has its own relevance and efficacy. The fact that the witness
sustained injuries at the time and place of occurrence lends
support to his testimony that he was present during the
occurrence.
In State of Madhya Pradesh v. Imrat and
another reported in (2009) 2 SCC (Cri) 558, the Hon'ble
Supreme Court at para 11 of the judgment observed as
follows:-
"11. What the Court
has to see is whether the act,
irrespective of its result, was done with
the intention or knowledge and under
circumstances mentioned in the
section. An attempt in order to be
criminal need not be the penultimate
act. It is sufficient in law, if there is
present an intent coupled with some
overt act in execution thereof."
In Lachman Singh v. State of Haryana
reported in (2006) 10 SCC 524, the Hon'ble Supreme Court at
para 13 of the judgment observed as follows:-
"13. It is sufficient to
justify a conviction under Section 307
if there is present an intent coupled
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.25 of 2010 dt.16-01-2026
19/25
with some overt act in execution
thereof. It is not essential that bodily
injury capable of causing death should
have been inflicted. Although the
nature of injury actually caused may
often give considerable assistance in
coming to a finding as to the intention
of the accused, such intention may
also be deduced from other
circumstances, and may even, in some
cases, be ascertained without any
reference at all to actual wounds. The
section makes a distinction between
the act of the accused and its result, if
any. The Court has to see whether the
act, irrespective of its result, was done
with the intention or knowledge and
under the circumstances mentioned in
the section. An attempt in order to be
criminal need not be the penultimate
act. It is sufficient in law, if there is
present an intent coupled with some
overt act in execution thereof."
In Sadakat Kotwar and another v. The State
of Jharkhand passed in Criminal Appeal No. 1316 of 2021,
the Hon'ble Supreme Court held at para 4.1 as follows:-
"4.1. As observed and
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.25 of 2010 dt.16-01-2026
20/25
held by this Court in catena of
decisions nobody can enter into the
mind of the accused and his intention
has to be ascertained from the weapon
used, part of the body chosen for
assault and the nature of the injury
caused. Considering the case on hand
on the aforesaid principles, when the
deadly weapon-dagger has been used,
there was a stab injury on the stomach
and near the chest which can be said
to be on the vital part of the body and
the nature of injuries caused, it is
rightly held that the appellants have
committed the offence under Section
307 IPC.
21. In the light of the aforesaid facts and
circumstances of the case where witness to the occurrence has
himself been injured in the incident, the testimony of such a
witness is generally considered to be very reliable, as he is a
witness that comes with a built-in guarantee of his presence at
the scene of the crime and is unlikely to spare his actual
assailant(s) in order to falsely implicate someone. Convincing
evidence is required to discredit an injured witness. In the
present case there was nothing on record to disbelieve the
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.25 of 2010 dt.16-01-2026
21/25
statement of victim. In the present case, the statement of
victim that victim was being threatened for giving the
rangdari amount and when the same was not given by the
victim on account of such defiance he was being fired upon
by the appellant and he sustained injury to the left thigh near
the scrotum.
22. In the present case, the prosecution story,
as narrated by PW-4, is in complete consonance with the
evidence adduced during the course of trial. No material
contradiction has been elicited during cross-examination so as
to discredit the prosecution case. PW-1 has supported and
corroborated the initial version of the prosecution story. There
is nothing on record to disbelieve the testimony of PW-4.
CW-2, the doctor is an expert witness who examined the
injured/victim and analysed the injury sustained by the victim.
The examination by the doctor clearly indicates that the place
of injury, as alleged in the F.I.R., is in consonance with the
injury shown in the injury report. The injury report clearly
indicates that it is a firearm injury. Although the nature of the
injury has not been specifically mentioned, but from the
perusal of the medical evidence, it is crystal clear that the
place of injury is clearly identified and that it is a firearm
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.25 of 2010 dt.16-01-2026
22/25
injury and the doctor has clarified that in case of excessive
bleeding, such injury may cause death to the patient who
suffered the said injury. The victim, being a man of common
prudence the prosecution-case, as stated in the initial version
of the prosecution story, is fully supported by the doctor in his
evidence. CW-1, the Investigating Officer of the case, took up
the investigation, visited the place of occurrence, recorded the
statement of the informant, found the occurrence to be true
and thereafter submitted the charge-sheet. In this way, the
evidence of the Investigating Officer does not, in any way,
derogation from the evidence of prosecution witnesses,
particularly PW-4 (informant). The statement of PW-4 as well
as the statements of the doctor and the Investigating Officer,
remain consistent throughout cross-examination and there is
no reason to disbelieve the statement of prosecution witnesses
merely because some other witnesses have not supported the
prosecution case.
23. PW-4 (the informant) as well as the victim
has clearly supported the initial version of the prosecution
story on the core aspects of the offence as alleged in the light
of Sections 307 and 387 of the IPC and Section 27 of the
Arms Act, and there is no reason to disbelieve the version of
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.25 of 2010 dt.16-01-2026
23/25
the victim, whose presence at the scene of the crime cannot be
doubted. It is also natural that he will not spare his actual
assailant. The statement of CW-2 (the doctor) has clearly
supported the allegation of injury on the left thigh near the
scrotum, and the injury is a firearm injury. The doctor has also
stated that in case of excessive bleeding, such an injury could
cause the death of the patient who suffered the said injury, and
the informant is corroborated by the injury report given by the
doctor. The statement of CW-1 (Investigating Officer) has
supported and corroborated the specific place of occurrence.
He has also supported and corroborated the story of
prosecution regarding place of occurrence. He has pointed out
the place of occurrence and his statement is quite
corroborative with the statement of story of prosecution and
his statement is also supported the story of prosecution
particularly regarding place of occurrence.
24. It is quite evident that appellant is the sole
person for making firing upon the informant causing injury on
his left thigh near the scrotum in order to extort money of Rs.
1,50,000/- and in that course he put the informant in fear of
serious injury for the offences under Section 307 and 387 of
the IPC. Since the appellant has inflicted the injury by firearm
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.25 of 2010 dt.16-01-2026
24/25
having pistol in his hand and he was being responsible for
committing the offence under Section 27 of the Arms Act, I
find no reason to differ with the findings given by the learned
trial court on the point of Sections 307 and 387 of the IPC and
27 of the Arms Act and submission advanced on behalf of
learned A.P.P. is quite tenable in the light of said offences and
hence, in my view, judgment of conviction on the point of
Sections 307 and 387 of the IPC and Section 27 of the Arms
Act requires no interference.
25. However, on the point of sentence under
Sections 307 and 387 of the IPC and Section 27 of the Arms
Act, learned counsel for the appellant submits that the
appellant has already suffered 5 years and 13 days in the
custody,the occurrence took place in the year 2006 and he has
already suffered near about 20 years in litigation and he has
sufficiently been punished and the appellant is having no
criminal antecedent. The Court is of the view that if sentence
of the appellant is reduced to the period already undergone,
that would meet the ends of justice. Accordingly, the sentence
of the appellant is reduced to the period already undergone.
26. With the aforesaid modification in the
sentence, the instant appeal stands dismissed.
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.25 of 2010 dt.16-01-2026
25/25
27. The interlocutory application, if any, also
stands disposed of.
28. Let a copy of this judgment be transmitted
to the Superintendent of the concerned jail for compliance and
for record.
29. The records of this case be also returned to
the concerned trial court forthwith.
(Alok Kumar Pandey, J)
Nilmani/-
AFR/NAFR AFR
CAV DATE N.A.
Uploading Date 23.01.2026
Transmission Date 23.01.2026
Checking your session…