Patna High Court

MD.MOHIUDDIN ANSARI @ MOHIBUDDIN ANSARIversusSTATE OF BIHAR

Decided: 15 January 2026
Disposal: PARTLY ALLOWED (DISPOSAL)
Bench: ALOK KUMAR PANDEY

Holding

The Court set aside the convictions under Sections 307, 341 and 504 IPC, upheld the convictions under Sections 323 and 498A IPC, and reduced the sentence to the period already undergone.

Summary

The appellant, Md. Mohiuddin Ansari, was convicted in 2009 for offences under Sections 307, 323, 341, 498A and 504 of the IPC based on the testimony of his wife (the informant) and several relatives. After a 16‑year delay, the appellant sought relief and an Amicus Curiae was appointed. The High Court examined whether the prosecution proved each charge beyond reasonable doubt, focusing on the nature of the injuries, the credibility of the injured wife‑witness, and the admissibility of a child’s testimony. It held that the evidence did not establish the intention required for Sections 307, 341 and 504, but was sufficient for Sections 323 and 498A. Consequently, the convictions under 307, 341 and 504 were set aside and the sentence was reduced to the period already served for the remaining offences. The appeal was therefore partly allowed.

Issues considered

Whether the prosecution proved the offence under Section 307 IPC beyond reasonable doubt
Whether the offence under Section 323 IPC was proved
Whether the offence under Section 341 IPC was proved
Whether the offence under Section 498A IPC was proved
Whether the offence under Section 504 IPC was proved

Legislation cited

Indian Evidence Act, 1872 — s. 118
Indian Penal Code — s. 307, 323, 341, 498A, 504

Subjects

Attempt to murder
Domestic violence
Criminal conspiracy
IPC Section 307
IPC Section 323
IPC Section 341
IPC Section 498A
IPC Section 504
Child witness
Evidence Act Section 118
Appeal partially allowed

Judgment

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL APPEAL (SJ) No.279 of 2009
======================================================
Md.Mohiuddin Ansari @ Mohibuddin Ansari son of Late Maqubool Hussain,
resident of Mohalla-Islampur, Amir Mishra Lane, Champanagar, P.S.-
Nathnagar, District-Bhagalpur.
... ... Appellant/s
Versus
State of Bihar
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Appellant/s : Mr. Paritosh Parimal (Amicus Curiae)
For the Respondent/s : Mr. Ramchandra Singh, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK KUMAR PANDEY
ORAL JUDGMENT

Date : 15-01-2026

None appears on behalf of the appellant. Learned

Additional Public Prosecutor for the State is present.

2. It is noted that the matter is pending

consideration for about 16 years.

3. It has been requested and Mr. Paritosh Parimal,

learned counsel, has shown his willingness to assist as Amicus

Curiae in the present matter.

4. Accordingly, learned counsel Mr. Paritosh

Parimal, has been appointed as Amicus Curiae in the present

matter.

5. Heard Mr. Paritosh Parimal, learned Amicus

Curiae for the appellant and Mr. Ramchandra Singh, learned

A.P.P. for the State.

6. The present appeal is directed against the
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.279 of 2009 dt.15-01-2026
2/22

judgment of conviction dated 10.02.2009 and order of sentence

dated 13.02.2009 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge,

Fast Track Court-5, Bhagalpur in Sessions Trial No. 10 of

2006 / 73 of 2008 arising out of Nath Nagar P.S. Case No. 183

of 2005 whereby and whereunder the appellant has been

convicted for the offence punishable under Sections 307, 323,

341, 498A and 504 of the IPC and has been sentenced to

undergo rigorous imprisonment for five years under Section 307

IPC, rigorous imprisonment for three months under Section 323

IPC, rigorous imprisonment for one month under Section 341

IPC, rigorous imprisonment for three years under Section 498A

IPC and rigorous imprisonment for one month under Section

504 IPC. All the sentences have been directed to run

concurrently.

7. According to written statement of the

informant Fatima Khatoon (PW-5), who is the wife of sole

appellant, addressing to the Officer-in-Charge of Nath Nagar

Police Station on 06.06.2005 at 5:30 P.M., it is stated that the

informant has six daughters from the wedlock and her husband

(appellant) took away four daughters under threat and coercion.

She further states that the informant was ousted from her own

house. It is alleged that the appellant has solemnized second
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.279 of 2009 dt.15-01-2026
3/22

marriage in January, 2005 without consent of the informant

(PW-5). It is further alleged that when the informant went to

reside at her own house with her youngest daughters, then, the

appellant and his second wife prevented to do so. The appellant

and other asked to leave the house. It is is further alleged that

the appellant and his second wife dragged her by grabbing her

hair and dashed on the ground. It is further stated that the

informant fell on the ground by keeping the child in her lap. It is

further alleged that the appellant and his second wife

concertedly assaulted the informant with fists and slaps. It is

further alleged that the appellant is alleged to have assaulted the

informant holding the neck and pressed with intention to kill.

The informant saved her life anyhow and she has alleged that

nearby people do not want to be a witness of the case on

account of fear from the appellant.

8. On the basis of written statement of the

informant, Nath Nagar P.S. Case No. 183 of 2005 was registered

under Sections 307, 323, 341, 498A and 504 of the IPC. Routine

investigation followed. Statement of witnesses came to be

recorded and on the completion of investigation final form has

been submitted against the appellant. But on the basis of protest-

cum-complaint petition, the I.O. has submitted charge sheet
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.279 of 2009 dt.15-01-2026
4/22

under Sections 498A, 341, 323, 307 and 504 of the IPC and

learned trial court took cognizance against the appellant under

the aforesaid sections. The case was committed to the court of

sessions after following due procedure. The learned trial court

has framed charges against the appellant under Sections 307,

323, 341, 498(A) and 504 of the IPC. Charges were read over

and explained to the appellant to which he pleaded not guilty

and claimed to be tried.

9. In order to bring home guilt of accused person,

prosecution has examined all together thirteen witnesses. PW-1

Md. Sagir, PW-2 Noor Saba @ Ladli, PW-3 Muslim Ansari,

PW-4 Noozi, PW-5 Fahima Khatoon (informant), PW-6 Md.

Momin, PW-7 Md. Usman, PW-8 Iliyas, PW-9 Md. Mahboob,

PW-10 Nabi Hussain, PW-11 Abdul Qayum, PW-12 Dinesh

Kumar (I.O.) and PW-13 Dr. Amrendra Kumar.

10. Prosecution has relied upon following

documentary evidence on record:-

Ext. P-1-Signature of the Md. Sagir on
Fardbeyan
Ext. P-2 & 2/1- Injury reports proved
by the doctor (PW-13)
11. Defence has produced one witness as DW-1

and also produced divorce papers which have been marked as

Exhibits A and B.
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.279 of 2009 dt.15-01-2026
5/22

12. After hearing the parties, the learned trial

court has convicted the appellant and sentenced him as indicated

in the second paragraph of the judgment.

13. Learned Amicus Curiae for the appellant has

submitted that being husband of the informant, the appellant has

been falsely implicated in the present case. It has been

submitted that appellant was in custody from 27.07.2006 to

21.05.2009 and out of five years of sentence awarded to him,

appellant has already remained in custody for near about two

years and ten months. It has been further submitted that PW-3,

PW-6, PW-7, PW-8, PW-9, PW-10 and PW-11 have not

supported the prosecution story. It has been further submitted

that the entire prosecution case stands on the testimony of Md.

Sagir ((PW-1), Noor Saba @ Ladli (PW-2), Noozi (PW-4) and

Fahima Khatoon, the informant herself (PW-5) and all the

witnesses of this case are relative witnesses and interested

witnesses. It has been further submitted that from the evidences

of PW-1, PW-2, PW-4 and PW-5 it is evident that there is a

series of cases between the appellant on the one side and the

informant and PW-1 on the other, on account of which Md.

Sagir (PW-1), who is son-in-law of the appellant and the

informant, has deposed against the appellant and in favour of
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.279 of 2009 dt.15-01-2026
6/22

the informant, who is mother-in-law of PW-1. It has been

further submitted that, from the evidence of PW-1, para 2 of his

cross-examination, it is crystal clear that the appellant has six

daughters. Out of them four daughters reside with the informant

(PW-5) and one daughter Noor Saba @ Ladli (PW-2), who is

daughter of the appellant and the informant, is married with

PW-1. It has been further submitted that in cross-examination,

PW-1 has stated that a case was instituted against PW-1 by the

appellant for the offence of marrying PW-2 without the consent

of the appellant. There are so many contradictions and

inconsistencies in the statement of PW-1 and PW-5 that their

evidences cannot be relied upon. PW-1 has inimical term with

the appellant as the PW-1 is an accused in the case lodged by

the appellant and in order to save the skin from the case, PW-1

has falsely deposed in favour of the informant, which is not

sustainable and tenable. It has been further submitted that Noor

Saba @ Ladli (PW-2) during cross-examination, has stated that

the appellant brought case against PW-1 who is the husband of

PW-2. It has further been submitted that the appellant and the

informant were leading a very happy conjugal life and cordial

relation and both were blessed with six children, from which it

is evident that there was no dispute between the them. But the
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.279 of 2009 dt.15-01-2026
7/22

present case clearly indicates as to how the informant has

framed the allegation against the appellant in order to suit the

prosecution story. It has been further submitted that Noozi (PW-

4) is daughter of the informant and her age is of five years and

at the time occurrence her age was of three years as occurrence

took place in the year 2005 and it is highly improbable for her to

understand the nature of occurrence that had taken place

between the appellant and the informant and the court has not

taken any precautionary steps to ascertain as to how the child of

five years is fit to adduce evidence before the court which is the

very foundation of Section-118 of Evidence Act. Hence, her

evidence is fit to be discarded. It has been further submitted that

all the witnesses are relative witnesses and their evidences

cannot be taken into account. It has been further submitted that

for instituting the offence under Section 307 of the I.P.C. there

was nothing on record to prove the case under Section 307 of

the I.P.C. and there was no intention on the part of the appellant

to kill the informant (wife), rather the allegations are made just

to falsely implicate the present appellant in the said case as the

injuries are simple in nature caused by hard blunt substance and

suggestion has also been given that all such injuries may be

caused by falling on the ground. In this way, the charges
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.279 of 2009 dt.15-01-2026
8/22

levelled against the appellant have not been proved and

judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the

concerned court is not based on the material available on record

and trial court has reached to the wrong conclusion and passed

the said order. Hence, the judgment of conviction and order of

sentence passed by the concerned court are liable to be set aside.

14. Learned counsel for the State submits that the

informant is the victim and is none else than the wife of

appellant and she has stated the story of prosecution while she

has suffered mental agony as the appellant has solemnized the

marriage with another lady. On account of said reason, she tried

to avail the facility of accommodation but when the same was

denied she protested, as mentioned in the initial version of

prosecution story. The manner in which she was assaulted has

been clearly mentioned in the initial version of prosecution story

by the informant (PW-5). She has given details how she suffered

by the act of her husband along with his second wife and finally

she left the house just on account of the act committed by none

else than the appellant. He further submits that marrying another

woman by the husband during existence of his first marriage is

something which is most likely to cause trauma and grave injury

to the mental health of the first wife, unless it has been done
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.279 of 2009 dt.15-01-2026
9/22

with the consent of the first wife. He further submits that the

judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the trial

court is legal and justified and no interference is needed.

15. The question which arises for consideration

is :-

“Whether the prosecution has been
able to prove its case under Sections 307,
323, 341, 498A and 504 of the IPC
beyond all reasonable doubts or not?”

16. 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.

17. It is necessary to evaluate, analyze and screen

out the evidence of the prosecution-witnesses adduced before

the trial court.

18. P.W. 5 is informant as well as victim of the

case. She has stated that the occurrence took place on

06.06.2005. She has also stated that she was being ousted from

the house, thrashed on the ground, assaulted and her neck was

pressed by the appellant. She has supported the initial version of

prosecution-story on the point of assault. During cross-

examination nothing is revealed to disbelieve the statement of
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.279 of 2009 dt.15-01-2026
10/22

P.W. 5 that she was being ousted from the house, thrashed on the

ground, assaulted and her neck was pressed by the appellant on

account of which she has suffered injury by the act of the

appellant. In this way, she has supported and corroborated the

initial version of prosecution story.

19. P.W. 13 is Dr. Amrendra Kumar. He has

stated that on 06.06.2005 he examined Noozi, daughter of

Mohiuddin, aged about four years and found following injuries

on her person:

i. A small lacerated wound on the left toe.

ii. Tenderness of the right and left hand.

Opinion: All the injuries are simple in nature

caused by hard and blunt substance.

On the same date, he examined Bibi Fima

Khatoon, wife of Mohiuddin and found following injuries:

i. Tenderness of the right side of the neck.

ii. Tenderness of the right ring finger.

iii. Complain of pain in whole of the body.

Opinion: Injuries are simple in nature, caused by

hard and blunt substance.

20. From perusal of evidence of P.W. 13

(Doctor), it is evident that injuries are simple in nature and there
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.279 of 2009 dt.15-01-2026
11/22

is no description of any visible injury on any vital part of the

body. So, injuries are superficial in nature and no inference can

be drawn that there was intention on the part of the appellant to

kill the informant.

21. 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.
22. For the purpose of constituting offence under

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

initiation on account of intervening circumstances. The intention

or knowledge of the cause must be such as a necessary to

constitute a murder. In absence of intention or knowledge which

is a necessary ingredient of Section 307 IPC, there can be no

offence of attempt to murder.

23. From perusal of evidence of P.W. 13

(Doctor), it is evident that injuries are simple in nature and there
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.279 of 2009 dt.15-01-2026
12/22

is no description of any visible injury on any vital part of the

body. So, injuries are superficial in nature and no inference can

be drawn that there was intention on the part of the appellant to

kill the informant. In view of the evidence of P.W.13 (doctor)

and P.W. 5 (informant/victim), there is no material on record to

show that Section-307 of I.P.C. is made out in the light of facts

and circumstances of the case.

24. It is necessary to quote the judgment passed by

Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Brahm Swaroop and

another v. State of U.P., reported in AIR 2011 SC 280, in which

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."
25. In the present case, the informant/P.W. 5 is
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.279 of 2009 dt.15-01-2026
13/22

the wife of the appellant as well as victim of the case as she was

being assaulted and ousted from the house. She pointed out the

reason that her husband/appellant solemnized marriage with

another lady without her consent. So, she is the victim and her

statement cannot be disbelieved on the said account and for that

purpose her presence at the place of occurrence cannot be

disbelieved.

26. It is also necessary to quote the following

judgments:-

In Ranjit Singh and others v. State of 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:-
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.279 of 2009 dt.15-01-2026
14/22

"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 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
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.279 of 2009 dt.15-01-2026
15/22

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 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
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.279 of 2009 dt.15-01-2026
16/22

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
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.”
27. P.W. 1 is the close relative and in the cases of

dowry demand, the statement of close relatives cannot be
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.279 of 2009 dt.15-01-2026
17/22

disbelieved. The allegation made by the victim/ P.W. 5 is

corroborated and supported by P.W. 1. Being a close relative,

his statement cannot be disbelieved on the said point.

28. It is necessary to produce Section 118 of the

Evidence Act which reads as under:

118. who may testify- All persons
shall be competent to testify unless the
Court considers that they are prevented
from understanding the questions put to
them, or from giving rational answers to
those questions, by tender years, extreme
old age, disease, whether of body or mind,
or any other cause of the same kind.

29. P.W. 4 Noozi who is daughter of the

appellant as well as informant/victim, has stated that she and her

mother were assaulted by the appellant. PW-4 is the child of

tender years, who was aged about five years at the time of

adducing her evidence. The court has not taken care to testify as

to how she is found able to adduce the evidence. Just because

her age is of tender years, she must be tested, otherwise there is

possibility of such witnesses being tutored and it must be

carefully evaluated with greater circumspection and should be

tested in the light of Section 118 of Evidence Act. In this way,

the court has departed from said procedure of recording
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.279 of 2009 dt.15-01-2026
18/22

evidence and has erroneously committed error on record.

30. P.W. 2, who is the daughter of informant as

well as appellant, has supported the case of prosecution on the

point of assault, torture, ousted from the house and the demand

to get the land of her mother transferred in the name of the

appellant. During cross-examination, she has corroborated the

prosecution story. She has stated that her mother was being

assaulted, tortured, ousted from the house and was being asked

to transfer her land in favour of the appellant. Being a close

relative, her version cannot be disbelieved.

31. P.Ws. 3, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 and 11 have not

supported the case of the prosecution and they have been

tendered.

32. P.W. 12 is the I.O. of the case. He has not

been cross-examined by the defence side and whatever the

evidence adduced by the I.O. is totally against the appellant.

33. D.W. 1 has produced divorce papers in the

Court.

34. So far as Section 341 of the IPC is concerned,

there is no specific and categorical evidence of restraining or

preventing the victim by the appellant from going which is quite

obvious from the evidence adduced by the PW-5/informant
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.279 of 2009 dt.15-01-2026
19/22

during her deposition. In absence of said evidence, no offence is

made out under Section 341 of the IPC.

35. So far as Section 504 of I.P.C. is concerned,

there is no specific averment by the informant’s side for specific

abusive word of threatening or anything which proves the

offence under Section 504 of I.P.C. In this way, Section 504

I.P.C. is not proved.

36. So far as Section-498A of I.P.C. is concerned,

marrying another woman by the husband during existence of his

first marriage is something which is most likely to cause trauma

and grave injury to the mental health of the first wife, unless it

has been done with the consent of the first wife. If the act of

performance of second marriage during subsistence of the first

marriage is not interpreted as amounting to cruelty contemplated

under Section 498A of the IPC, it would frustrate the legislative

intent to prevent the torture to a woman by her husband or by

relative of her husband and, therefore, that interpretation has to

be adopted which sub-serves the object sought to be achieved by

the Legislation. Useful reference in this regard may be made to

the case of B.S. Joshi and ors. Vs. State of Haryana and anr.

(2003 Cri. L.J. 2028 (SC) and Reema Aggarwal Vs. Anupam

and ors. (2004) 3 SCC 199. Further, in a case of matrimonial
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.279 of 2009 dt.15-01-2026
20/22

dispute, cruelty and harassment on a married woman and

demand of dowry are generally committed within four walls of

residential houses and in secrecy, thereby making it difficult to

get direct evidence.

37. On the said point, the Hon’ble Supreme

Court has formulated the guidelines in the case of Jagdish and

Others Vs. State of Uttrakhand reported in 2015 (2) PLJR SC

345 wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed that in a

case of cruelty and harassment on a married woman and demand

of dowry are generally committed within four walls of

residential houses and in secrecy, thereby making it difficult to

get direct evidence and presumption under Section 113(B) of the

Indian Evidence Act, due weightage is to be given to the

evidence of father, brother, sister and other relatives of the

deceased with regard to the case put forth relating to demand of

dowry.

38. In the present case, PW-1 is son-in-law of the

appellant and the informant, PW-2 is the youngest daughter of

the appellant as well as informant and all the witnesses are close

relatives. Their evidences cannot be negated in the light of

nature of offence which has been committed under Section

498A of I.P.C. Further, there is allegation of torture, assault and
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.279 of 2009 dt.15-01-2026
21/22

ousted from the house and P.W.1, 2 and 4 have supported the

aforesaid allegations. P.W. 2 has also supported the allegation

of demand to transfer the land of the informant in the name of

appellant.

39. On the point of Section 323 I.P.C., the

evidence of the doctor is quite evident that the wife suffered

injury and the same is marked as Exhibit-2/1 and the doctor has

proved it that the wife (informant) suffered injury and same is

corroborated in the initial version of the prosecution story.

40. In the light of facts and circumstances of the

case, the offences under Sections 498A and 323 of I.P.C. stand

proved against the appellant. However, as discussed above,

there is no material available on record to prove the offence

under Sections 307, 504 and 341 of I.P.C. Hence, the judgment

of conviction under Sections 307, 504 and 341 of I.P.C. and

order of sentence with respect to the same passed by the trial

court are set aside.

41. However, on the point of sentence under

Sections 498A and 323 of I.P.C., the submission of learned

counsel for the appellant is quite convincing that the appellant

has already suffered two years, ten months in the custody and

the occurrence took place in the year 2005 and he has already
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.279 of 2009 dt.15-01-2026
22/22

suffered near about 20 years in litigation and he has sufficiently

been punished. 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.

42. With the aforesaid modification in sentence,

the appeal stands partly allowed.

43. Pending Interlocutory Application(s), if any,

shall stand disposed of.

44. The record of this case be also returned to the

concerned trial court forthwith.

45. Before parting with the judgment, I

appreciate the legal assistance rendered by Mr. Paritosh Parimal,

learned Amicus Curiae. Patna High Court Legal Services

Committee is directed to pay a sum of Rs. 5,000/- (five

thousand) to Mr. Paritosh Parimal, learned Amicus Curiae, as

consolidated fee for the legal assistance rendered by him, within

a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of this judgment.

(Alok Kumar Pandey, J)
amitkumar/-
AFR/NAFR AFR
CAV DATE N/A
Uploading Date 22.01.2026
Transmission Date 22.01.2026

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…