Patna High Court
Birendra Bahadur Singh (Abated vide order by Hon'ble court dated 06-12-2025)versusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISMISSED
- Bench
- ALOK KUMAR PANDEY
Holding
The conviction under Sections 323, 325 and 34 IPC is upheld, but the sentence is reduced to the period already undergone.
Summary
The appellants were convicted for assaulting the informant and his wife during a family dispute over a gift deed, resulting in injuries. They were found guilty under Sections 323, 325 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to six months and three years of rigorous imprisonment, respectively, to run concurrently. On appeal, the appellants argued that the incident was a spontaneous quarrel, they had no prior criminal record, and the lengthy litigation (26 years) and advanced age of one appellant warranted a reduced sentence. The High Court examined the testimony of the injured victims, the investigating officer, and a medical expert, finding the prosecution evidence reliable and the offences proved beyond reasonable doubt. While upholding the conviction, the Court reduced the sentence to the period already served, effectively releasing the appellants, and dismissed the appeal.
Issues considered
- Whether the facts constitute offences under Sections 323, 325 and 34 of the IPC
- Whether the conviction of the appellants is legally sustainable
- Whether the sentence imposed should be reduced in view of the appellants' age, health and prolonged litigation
Legislation cited
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 313
- Indian Penal Code — s. 307, 323, 325, 34, 341, 379, 504
Subjects
- assault
- voluntary hurt
- grievous hurt
- common intention
- sentencing
- sentence reduction
- criminal appeal
- family dispute
- IPC
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL APPEAL (SJ) No.280 of 2005
======================================================
1. Birendra Bahadur Singh (Abated vide order by Hon'ble court dated 06-12-
2025) son of Late Bishwanath Singh Resident of village- Sahengi, Ps-
Agiaon, (Garhani), Dist- Bhojpur
2. Banarasi Singh (Abated vide order by Hon'ble court dated 06-12-2025) son
of Late Awadhesh Singh Resident of village- Sahengi, Ps- Agiaon,
(Garhani), Dist- Bhojpur
3. Sri Bhagwan Singh son of Late Awadhesh Singh Resident of village-
Sahengi, Ps- Agiaon, (Garhani), Dist- Bhojpur
4. Mantu Singh son of Shri Sri Bhagwan Singh Resident of village- Sahengi,
Ps- Agiaon, (Garhani), Dist- Bhojpur
... ... Appellant/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Appellant/s : Mr. Baxi S.R.P. Sinha, Sr. Advocate
Mr. S. Nand Singh, Advocate
Mr. Mukund Kumar, Amicus Curiae
For the Respondent/s : Mrs. Anita Kumar Singh, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK KUMAR PANDEY
ORAL JUDGMENT
Date : 11-02-2026
At the outset, it is pertinent to mention that vide
order dated 06.12.2025 the present appeal already stands
abated with respect appellant No. 1 Birendra Bahadur Singh
and appellant No. 2 Banarasi Singh and now the appeal is
confined with respect to appellant No.3 Sri Bhagwan Singh
and appellant No. 4 Mantu Singh.
2. Heard learned Senior Counsel as also learned
Amicus Curiae appearing on behalf of the appellants and
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.280 of 2005 dt.11-02-2026
2/20
learned A.P.P. for the State.
3. The present appeal is directed against the
judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated
25.4.2005 passed learned Addl. Sessions Judge-cum-
Presiding Officer of F.T.C. IInd, Ara in Sessions Trial No.
267 of 1999, whereby and whereunder appellants Birendra
Bahadur Singh (since deceased), Banarasi Singh (since
deceased), Sri Bhagwan Singh and Mantu Singh have been
convicted under Sections-323, 325 and 34 of I.P.C. and they
have been sentenced to undergo R.I. for six months under
Section-323 of I.P.C. and R.I. for three years under Section-
325/34 of I.P.C. and the sentences have been ordered to run
concurrently and the trial court has acquitted the appellants
from the charges under Sections- 307 and 341 of I.P.C.
4. According to the fardbeyan of informant-cum-
victim recorded at Sadar Hospital, Ara at 21 hours early in
the morning, the occurrence is of 07.06.1999 at about 06:00
a.m. The informant’s younger brother (appellant No.1)
Birendra Bahadur Singh (since deceased) was sitting near
Guava tree which was situated at a distance of 5-6 metres
from the house of the informant. When the informant came
out of the house, appellant Birendra Bahadur Singh asked
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.280 of 2005 dt.11-02-2026
3/20
him as to why he had executed a deed of gift in the name of
his daughter-in-law. Informant stated that he had executed
the same out of his share, whereupon appellant Birendra
Bahadur Singh began to abuse the informant and upon
hearing the voice of Birendra Bahadur Singh, appellants
Banarasi Singh, Sri Bhagwan Singh and Mantu Singh,
armed with lathi and danda came there and started abusing
him. Upon exhortation of Banarasi Singh, all the appellants
assaulted the informant with lathi and danda on his head
causing head injury. Appellant Birendra Bahadur Singh
gave two lathi blows on the head of the informant and on
hearing the alarm raised by the informant when the
informant’s wife came there, it is alleged that Geeta Devi
(not sent up for trial), wife of appellant Birendra Bahadur
Singh caught hold of her hair and thrashed her on the
ground causing head injury and appellants are alleged to
have snatched gold chain from the informant and his wife.
5. On the basis of fardbeyan of informant, Agiaon
Garhani P.S. Case No. 31/1999 was registered on
15.06.1999 under Sections- 341, 325, 323, 379, 504/34 of
I.P.C. and routine investigation followed, statements of
witnesses came to be recorded and after completion of
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.280 of 2005 dt.11-02-2026
4/20
investigation, charge-sheet has been submitted under
Sections- 341, 323, 325, 307, 504/34 of I.P.C. against the
appellants/accused. Police has not submitted charge-sheet
against accused Geeta Devi and she has been discharged
from the case vide order dated 04.10.1999 passed by
learned C.J.M. Cognizance was accordingly taken against
the appellants. The case was committed to the court of
sessions on 01.12.1999 and charge has been framed on
20.01.2001 under Sections-323, 307/ 34 and 341 of I.P.C. to
which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
6. In order to bring home the guilt of the accused
persons, the prosecution has produced all together 7
witnesses. P.W. 1 Hridaya Nand Singh, P.W. 2 Nawaliq
Singh, P.W. 3 Gangajala Devi, wife of informant, P.W. 4
Jyoti Prasad Singh, informant-cum-victim, P.W. 5 Ram
Shreshth Ram, I.O., P.W. 6 Dr. Birendra Kumar Rai and
P.W. 7 Bishwanath Prasad.
7. Prosecution has relied upon following
documentary evidence on record:-
Ext. 1, Signature over fardbeyan;
Ext. 2, Formal F.I.R.;
Ext. X and X/1, Photo, attested copy of injury
report of Jyoti Prakash Singh and Gangajala
Devi;
Ext. 3, Carbon copy of injury report of Jyoti Prasad;
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.280 of 2005 dt.11-02-2026
5/20
Ext. 3/1 Carbon copy of injury
report of Gangajala Devi;
8. Defence has also produced three witnesses,
D.W. 1 Saryu Pandey, D.W. 2 Raj Narayan Chaudhary and
D.W. 3 Tarkeshwar Prasad. Defence has also relied upon
the following documentary evidence:-
Ext. A, Fardbeyan G.R. No.
1392/99/Tr. No. 865/03;
Ext. B, Formal F.I.R. G.R. No.
1392/99/Tr. No. 865/03;
Ext. C, The written information by
Jyoti Prasad Singh;
Ext. C/1, Endorsement for
registering Sanha on the written
information;
Ext. C/2, Sanha No. 131 dated
07.06.1999 in the Sanha Register;
Ext. D, C.C. of injury report of
Geeta Devi;
Ext. D/1, C.C. of injury report of
Birendra Bahadur Singh.
9. Defence of appellants as gathered from the line
of cross-examination of prosecution-witnesses as well as
from the statement under Section-313 Cr.P.C. is that of total
denial of the charges.
10. After hearing the parties, the learned trial
court convicted the appellants and sentenced them as
indicated in the 2nd paragraph of the judgment.
11. Following submissions have been made on
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.280 of 2005 dt.11-02-2026
6/20
behalf of learned senior counsel on behalf of the the
appellants:-
12. Learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of
the appellants submitted that he confines his submission
only to the quantum of sentence as awarded by the learned
trial court. He has submitted the appellants are having no
criminal antecedent and the informant and appellant
Birendra Bahadur Singh are full brothers and the nature of
dispute clearly indicates that appellant Birendra Bahadur
has asked the question regarding the gift deed which has
been executed by the informant in favour of his daughter-
in-law. In this way, there is a dispute which is related with
the family arrangement and the appellants have disputed the
family arrangement and the dispute culminated, giving birth
to tussle between both sides and there was nothing on
record which entails that appellants had intention to cause
any injury upon the informant rather the incident has taken
place on the spur of moment and appellants have already
suffered a lot while facing the trial since the date of
institution of F.I.R. dated 15.06.1999. In this way, near
about 26 years have already elapsed in facing the criminal
trial and appellants have suffered a lot and during the
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.280 of 2005 dt.11-02-2026
7/20
course of trial two appellants have already died regarding
which report has already been given by S.P., Bhojpur at Ara
and appellants have already spent about one month in jail
custody and appellant Sri Bhagwan Singh has already
crossed the age of 69 years and being a senior citizen, he
has suffered a lot in facing the trial and appellant Mantu
Singh is also 45 years old and they have been sufficiently
punished by way of facing trial for so many years and if the
sentence of the appellants is reduced to the period already
undergone by them, it would meet the ends of justice.
13. Learned Amicus Curiae has endorsed the
submissions advanced by the learned senior counsel for the
appellants.
14. Learned APP for the State has submitted that
informant and his wife, who are victims, are the star
witnesses of this case. The presence of informant at the
place of occurrence cannot be disputed as he has suffered
six injuries upon his body and injury No.5 was found to be
grievous. Rest of the injuries are simple in nature and
informant’s wife (P.W. 3) has sustained two injuries upon
her body. Both the injuries are simple in nature. The
statements of informant (P.W. 4) and his wife (P.W. 3) are
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.280 of 2005 dt.11-02-2026
8/20
quite in consonance with the evidence of P.W. 6, who is the
doctor and the case of prosecution has been proved by the
statements of victims as well as injury report of the doctor.
He further submits that the I.O. (P.W.5) has identified the
place of occurrence and there are sufficient materials
available on record to prove the prosecution-case. The
concerned Court has analyzed all the evidences of
witnesses, including the statements of the victims and
passed the impugned judgment. In this way, the judgment of
conviction passed by the concerned Court is justified and
legal. However, learned A.P.P. for the State has also
conceded that appellants have already suffered a lot while
facing the criminal trial since 1999 and though maximum
punishment awarded by the concerned Court is 3 years,
appellants have no criminal antecedent and appellants have
already spent near about one month in custody and they
have been punished sufficiently.
15. The question which arises for
consideration is:
“Whether offence under Sections-323 and
325/34 of I.P.C. is made out in the light of given
facts and circumstances of the case or not?”
16. I have perused the impugned judgment and
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.280 of 2005 dt.11-02-2026
9/20
order of the trial Court and the trial court record and I have
given my thoughtful consideration to the submissions
advanced on behalf of the parties as noted above.
17. It is necessary to analyze and screen out the
evidences of prosecution-witnesses adduced before the trial
court.
18. P.W. 4 Jyoti Prasad Singh is the informant
himself and he is also a injured witness of the case. It is
necessary to test the veracity of this witness upon the
touchstone of manner of occurrence, time of occurrence and
place of occurrence.
19. According to informant, the occurrence took
place on 7.6.1999 at about 6:00 a.m. in the morning. He has
stated that he came out of his house and saw that Birendra
Bahadur was standing near the Guava tree. He (Birendra
Bahadur) asked the informant as to why he had gifted the
land to his daughter-in-law upon which the informant
replied that he had gifted his share and not the share of
Birendra Bahadur upon which Birendra Bahadur started
abusing the informant. On hearing the voice of Birendra
Bahadur, Banarasi Singh and Sri Bhagwan Singh came with
lathi. On the exhortation of Banarasi, Birendra assaulted the
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.280 of 2005 dt.11-02-2026
10/20
informant on his head with lathi due to which the informant
sustained head injury. When informant’s wife came to his
rescue, Sri Bhagwan Singh assaulted with lathi on her head
due to which she sustained head injury. Mantu Singh
assaulted on the left leg and arm of the informant with lathi,
as a result of which informant fell down. When the villagers
came, accused persons fled away. The leg of the informant
was broken and he was treated at Sadar Hospital.
20. From the analysis of evidence of P.W.
4/informant, it is crystal clear that he has supported the time
of occurrence, manner of occurrence and place of
occurrence and his version is quite consistent with the
initial version of story of prosecution. His initial version of
prosecution is quite consistent with the examination-in-
chief adduced by this witness during trial. He is the injured
witness and his presence at the place of occurrence cannot
be denied. The defence has failed to make any dent during
cross-examination of this witness. In this way, evidence of
P.W. 4 cannot be disbelieved in the light of the facts as
discussed above.
21. P.W. 3 Ganajala Devi is the wife of the
informant and she is also an injured witness of the case. She
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.280 of 2005 dt.11-02-2026
11/20
has supported the manner of occurrence, time of occurrence
and place of occurrence and her version is also quite
consistent with the initial version of prosecution-story on
the point of assault. She has stated that Birendra Bahadur
started assaulting her husband/P.W. 4 with danda, as a result
of which her husband sustained injury on his forehead.
Thereafter, Banarasi, Sri Bhagwan and Mantu Singh also
came with danda. On exhortation of Banarasi, Sri Bhagwan
and Mantu assaulted the informant with danda upon his left
leg and left shoulder. When informant’s wife went to save
the informant, Sri Bhagwan assaulted on her head as a
result of which she sustained head injury. There is no reason
to disbelieve her version which is quite consistent with the
statement of P.W.4/informant and it cannot be denied that
she is an injured witness and her presence at the place of
occurrence is also consistent with the initial version of
prosecution-story and during trial the statement of P.W. 3 is
quite consistent with the statement of P.W. 4 on the point of
assault. In this way, her presence at the place of occurrence
cannot be denied.
22. P.W. 5 Ram Shresth Ram is the Investigating
Officer of the case. He has stated that he had investigated
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.280 of 2005 dt.11-02-2026
12/20
the present case and inspected the place of occurrence
which the joint house of both sides. He recorded the re-
statement of informant/PW-4 as well as statements of other
witnesses. He received the injury reports of injured and
mentioned the same in the case diary and after completion
of investigation, he submitted charge-sheet against the
appellants. Thus, he has supported the version of
prosecution on the point of place of occurrence.
23. From perusal of F.I.R., it is quite evident that
two persons suffered injury by the act of the appellants and
the place of occurrence is the door of the informant.
Further, P.W. 4 has narrated the story of prosecution and
explained the manner of occurrence, place of occurrence
and time of occurrence and his statement is quite consistent
throughout his evidence and there is no reason to disbelieve
the version of prosecution-witnesses as two witnesses are
injured witnesses whose presence at the place of occurrence
cannot be disbelieved and the concerned Court has
elaborated and explained the details and reached to the
conclusion that prosecution has proved the case beyond
reasonable doubt and convicted the appellants.
24. P.W. 6/Dr. Birendra Kumar Rai has stated that
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.280 of 2005 dt.11-02-2026
13/20
on 07.06.1999 he was posted as a Medical Officer, Sadar
Hospital, Ara. On that date he examined Jyoti Prasad
Singh/informant and found the following injuries:-
(i) Lacerated wound 1(1/2)" x 1/4" x
scalp deep over frontal region of head left to
mid line.
(ii) Lacerated wound 1" x 1/4" x skin
deep over interdigital cleft between thumb and
index finger of left hand with swelling over
dorsum.
(iii) Bruise 3"x1" over left lateral
aspect of left leg in middle.
(iv) Bruise 3"x1" over lateral aspect
of left leg above injury No.3.
(v) Bruise 2”x1” over lateral aspect
of left ankle.
(vi) Bruise 4"x1" over lateral aspect
of left glutal region.
Type of injury – Injury no. (i), (ii)
and (v) opinion reserved till X-Ray report.
Injury No (iii), (iv) & (vi) simple in nature.
Type of weapon- All by hard & blunt substance
such as lathi. Time since injury within 6
Hours.
On the basis of X-ray report, injury
No. (i) and (ii) are found simple in nature &
injury No. (v) has been found grievous in
nature.
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.280 of 2005 dt.11-02-2026
14/20
24.1. He has further stated that on same date at
10.40 A.M. he examined Gangajala Devi, wife of Jyoti
Prasad Singh and found the following injuries on her
person;
(i) Lateraled wound 2½"x1/2"x
Scalp deep over back of head.
(ii) Bruise 4" x 1" over left scapulae
region.
Type of injury – Injury No. 1
reserved till X-Ray report, Injury No. 2 simple
in nature. Nature of weapon-Hard and blunt
substance such as lathi. Age of injury within 6
hours. On the basis of X-ray report, injury No.
1 is found simple in nature.
25. P.W. 6/doctor is an expert witness and his
evidence on the point of nature of injury and number of
injury cannot be disbelieved. The statement of
informant/victim who has suffered injury on the head, left
leg and arm and the statement of P.W. 3 who has also
suffered injury on her head, have been corroborated by the
doctor (P.W. 6) on the point of assault.
26. P.W. 7 is a formal witness and his evidence is
of no significance in the light of the facts and circumstances
of the case. From perusal of evidence of P.W. 1 and P.W. 2,
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.280 of 2005 dt.11-02-2026
15/20
it is evident that they arrived at the place of occurrence after
the incident had taken place and they found the informant
and his wife in injured condition. Thus, on the point of
injury, statements of P.W. 1 and P.W. 2 cannot be
disbelieved in view of the evidence adduced by the doctor
(P.W. 6).
27. Defence has examined three witnesses and
also produced some documentary evidence.
Accused/appellants have taken the defence that at the
relevant place of occurrence, both sides sustained injury as
there was land dispute between both sides and genesis of
occurrence is already admitted by prosecution side as there
was no partition between both the sides by metes and
bounds. Though accused/appellants have taken the said
defence but they have failed to give any supporting
document in support of their defence. The doctor has not
been examined on behalf of the defence to prove that they
have sustained injury. There is only forwarding letter
regarding the injury which is having no substance. In
absence of cogent evidence, the version of defence is
meaningless.
28. In the light of given facts and circumstances
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.280 of 2005 dt.11-02-2026
16/20
of the present case, it is found that the informant, who sets
the initial version of story of prosecution into motion by
recording the fardbeyan (Ext. 1) and from perusal of Ext. 1,
it is crystal clear that informant and his wife are the two
victims of the alleged occurrence. The informant has given
graphic detail as to how he has suffered the injury at the
hands of appellants and he has also asserted how the wife of
informant sustained injury during the course of occurrence
and both have supported and corroborated the story of
prosecution regarding manner of occurrence, place of
occurrence and time of occurrence throughout their
evidence and on the point of assault, their evidence is quite
consistent with the initial version of prosecution-story and
their presence at the place of occurrence cannot be
disbelieved. The statement of doctor, who has given the
opinion regarding the injury, specifically corroborated the
version of prosecution story as discussed in foregoing
paragraph. So far as the duration of injury, number of
injury, place of injury and weapon used in causing injury
are concerned, opinion of the doctor (P.W. 6) is quite
consistent with the story of prosecution. Other witnesses,
P.W. 1 and P.W. 2, though they are not eye-witnesses of the
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.280 of 2005 dt.11-02-2026
17/20
alleged occurrence but their statement is quite consistent on
the point that the informant/P.W. 4 and his wife/P.W. 3
sustained injury and they found informant and his wife in
injured condition. In this way, statement of informant/P.W.
4 is quite reliable and inspires confidence which is
corroborated and supported by the doctor who has
examined the injury and statement of informant’s wife/P.W.
3 has also corroborated and supported the initial version of
prosecution-story. PW-5 is the investigating officer of the
case. He has visited the place of occurrence and obtained
the injury reports of the injured witnesses of this case. In
this way, the prosecution has proved its case beyond
reasonable doubt.
29. On all counts from the analysis of evidence of
prosecution witnesses adduced during trial, it is crystal clear
that judgment of conviction passed by the concerned court
is justified and legal and no interference is needed. Hence,
the impugned judgment of conviction is upheld.
30. It is necessary to cite para-10 of decision
rendered by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of
M.P. vs. Bablu, reported in (2014) 9 SCC 281 which reads
as under:-
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.280 of 2005 dt.11-02-2026
18/20
10. It is well settled proposition of
law that one of the prime objectives of
criminal law is the imposition of
adequate, just, proportionate punishment
which is commensurate with the gravity
and nature of the crime and manner in
which the offence is committed. One
should keep in mind the social interest
and consciousness of the society while
considering the determinative factor of
sentence commensurate with the gravity
and nature of crime. The punishment
should not be so lenient that it shocks the
conscience of the society. It is, therefore,
the solemn duty of the court to strike a
proper balance while awarding sentence
as awarding a lesser sentence encourages
any criminal and as a result of the same
society suffers.
31. So far as order of sentence in respect of
appellant No. 3 Sri Bhagwan Singh and appellant No. 4
Mantu Singh is concerned, from perusal of record it is
evident that occurrence is of the year 1999 and appellants
have already suffered about 26 years in litigation and they
have suffered mental agony of facing the trial since 1999
and they have lost their precious time being a first offender.
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.280 of 2005 dt.11-02-2026
19/20
The appellants have remained in judicial incarceration for
one month. Hence, to put the appellants in jail for
remaining period is too harsh as appellant No. 3 Sri
Bhagwan Singh has already crossed the age of 69 years and
being a senior citizen, he has suffered a lot in facing the
trial. Hence, the court is of the view that if sentence of the
appellants is reduced to the period already undergone that
would meet the ends of justice. Accordingly, the sentence of
the appellants is reduced to the period already undergone.
32. With the aforesaid modification in sentence,
the instant appeal stands dismissed.
33. The interlocutory application, if any, also
stands disposed of.
34. Let a copy of this judgment be transmitted to
the Superintendent of the concerned jail for compliance and
for record.
35. The records of this case be also returned to
the concerned trial court forthwith.
36. Before parting with the judgment, I
appreciate the legal assistance rendered by Mr. Mukund
Kumar, learned Amicus Curiae. Patna High Court Legal
Services Committee is directed to pay a sum of Rs. 5000/-
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.280 of 2005 dt.11-02-2026
20/20
(five thousand) to Mr. Mukund Kumar, 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 order.
(Alok Kumar Pandey, J)
K.C.Jha/-
AFR/NAFR A.F.R.
CAV DATE N/A
Uploading Date 18.02.2026
Transmission Date 18.02.2026
Checking your session…