Patna High Court

LUTA YADAVversusTHE STATE OF BIHAR

Decided: 22 April 2026
Disposal: PARTLY ALLOWED (DISPOSAL)
Bench: PURNENDU SINGH

Holding

The conviction under Section 307 IPC was not sustainable, but the conviction under Section 324 IPC stands, with the sentence reduced to the period already undergone.

Summary

Luta Yadav was convicted by the Fast Track Court in Jamui for assaulting an informant and his wife with a garasa, resulting in injuries, and was sentenced to two years' rigorous imprisonment under Section 324 IPC. He appealed under CrPC sections 374(2) and 389(1), contending that the prosecution evidence was contradictory, that key witnesses were hostile, and that the injury was simple, thus negating the intention required for a conviction under Section 307 IPC. The High Court examined the testimony of eleven prosecution witnesses, noting that only PW‑1’s account was substantive and that the medical report showed only simple incised injuries. Relying on Supreme Court precedents, the Court held that the prosecution failed to prove the specific intent or knowledge to cause death necessary for Section 307, but the evidence was sufficient to sustain the conviction under Section 324. Consequently, the conviction under Section 307 was set aside, the conviction under Section 324 was upheld, and the sentence was reduced to the time already served, resulting in the appellant’s release. The appeal was therefore partly allowed.

Issues considered

Whether the prosecution proved the requisite intention to cause death for conviction under Section 307 IPC.
Whether the conviction under Section 307 IPC is sustainable on the evidence presented.
Whether the conviction under Section 324 IPC is justified despite the simple nature of the injuries.
Whether the sentence of two years' rigorous imprisonment should be modified in view of time already served.
Whether the appeal under CrPC sections 374(2) and 389(1) is maintainable.

Legislation cited

Code of Criminal Procedure — s. 313, 374, 389
Indian Penal Code — s. 307, 324

Subjects

Section 307 IPC
Section 324 IPC
attempt to murder
voluntarily causing hurt
evidence appraisal
hostile witnesses
land dispute motive
sentence modification
CrPC appeal

Judgment

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL APPEAL (SJ) No.300 of 2012
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-93 Year-2006 Thana- SONO District- Jamui
======================================================
Luta Yadav s/o late banwari yadav resident of village- naiyadeeh, p.s.- Sono,
District- Jamui
... ... Appellant/s
Versus
The State Of Bihar
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Appellant/s : Mr.Pankaj Kumar Sinha, Advocate
For the Respondent/s : Mr.Mukeshwar Dayal, APP

======================================================

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PURNENDU SINGH

CAV JUDGMENT

Date : 22-04-2026

Heard Mr. Pankaj Kumar Sinha, learned counsel

appearing on behalf of the appellant and Mr. Mukeshwar Dayal,

learned APP for the State.

2. The present appeal has been filed under Section

374(2) and 389(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure

challenging the judgment of conviction dated 30.03.2012 passed

by the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Fast

Track Court-II, Jamui in Sessions Trial No. 377 of 2007 (arising

out of Sono P.S. Case No. 93 of 2006, G.R. No. 13.11.2006
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.300 of 2012 dt.22-04-2026
2/14

dated 05.10.2006), whereby and whereunder, the appellant has

been convicted for the offence punishable under Section 324 of

the Indian Penal Code and has been sentenced to undergo

rigorous imprisonment for two years.

3. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the

aforesaid judgment of conviction and order of sentence, the

appellant has preferred the present appeal before this Court. The

appellant has assailed the impugned judgment primarily on the

ground that the learned Trial Court failed to appreciate the

evidence available on record in its proper perspective and has

wrongly recorded the conviction of the appellant despite the

existence of serious contradictions and deficiencies in the

prosecution case.

FACTS OF THE CASE

4. The prosecution case, in brief, is that on

03.10.2006 the calf of the informant grazed the saplings of

beans, whereupon on 04.10.2006 the appellant, Luta Yadav,

allegedly came to the house of the informant, Haricharan Yadav,

armed with a garasa and started abusing him. Upon protest, it is

alleged that the accused persons assaulted the informant with

garasa, lathi and danda. When the wife of the informant

intervened, the appellant allegedly assaulted her with garasa
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.300 of 2012 dt.22-04-2026
3/14

with an intention to kill, causing injuries. On alarm being raised,

villagers assembled and intervened, thereby saving the

informant and his wife.

ARGUMENT ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANT

5. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the

appellant submitted that the impugned judgment of conviction is

wholly unsustainable in the eyes of law as well as on facts. It is

submitted that though the prosecution has examined seven

witnesses, out of them four material witnesses have been

declared hostile and have not supported the prosecution case.

The conviction rests solely on the testimony of P.W.1, who,

though an injured witness, has made statements which are not

corroborated by the Investigating Officer and suffer from

material contradictions, even the doctor (P.W.6) has found the

injury to be simple in nature, which belies the allegation under

Section 307 and 323 of the IPC. The informant himself has not

been examined and there is complete absence of any

independent witness to support the prosecution version.

6. Learned counsel further submitted that the case

admittedly arises out of a land dispute between the parties,

which provides strong motive for false implication. There is

unexplained delay in lodging the FIR despite the police station
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.300 of 2012 dt.22-04-2026
4/14

being situated at a short distance, and even the scribe of the

written report has not been examined. Serious lapses in

investigation are evident from the record, including the

statement of P.W.1 that the police had not visited the village. In

such circumstances, it is submitted that the prosecution has

failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt and the

appellant is entitled to benefit of doubt, and the impugned

judgment is fit to be set aside.

ARGUMENT ON BEHALF OF THE STATE

7. Per Contra, learned APP appearing for the State while

opposing the appeal submitted that the learned District court,

after considering all the evidences both oral and documentary

which have come in course of the trial, has not committed error

of record or law in convicting the appellants for the offences on

the basis of the material evidence which calls no interference of

this Court.

ANALYSIS AND CONCLUSION

8. Heard the parties.

9. I have perused the lower court records and

proceedings and also taken note of the arguments canvassed by

learned counsel appearing on behalf of the parties. It would be

apposite to discuss the oral/documentary evidences as available
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.300 of 2012 dt.22-04-2026
5/14

on record to re-appreciate the evidences for just and proper

disposal of the present appeal.

10. During the trial, the prosecution has examined

altogether eleven witnesses, namely:

1. PW-1 Jagia Devi (injured witness),

2. PW-2 Rameshwar Yadav,

3. PW-3 Ramdeo Yadav,

4. PW-4 Baleshwar Yadav,

5. PW-5 Sukhdeo Yadav,

6. PW-6 Dr. K.P. Ladia (Medical Officer) and

7. PW-7 Mukh Ram Tiwari (Investigating Officer).

11. The prosecution has also relied upon following

documents exhibited during the course of trial:

Exhibit-1:-forwarding of injury of Haricharan Yadav

Exhibit-1/A:- Forwarding of injury of Jagia Devi

Exhibit-2:- Injury report of Jagia Devi

Exhibit-2/A:- Injury report of Haricharan Yadav

Exhibit-3:- Forwarding of written report

Exhibit-3/1:- Noting of registration of the case

Exhibit-4:- Signature on formal FIR

12. Upon a meticulous examination of the record,

the evidence of the prosecution witnesses (PWs) can be
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.300 of 2012 dt.22-04-2026
6/14

summarised as follows:

(I) PW-1 Jagia Devi, wife of the informant and

injured witness, supported the prosecution case and stated that

on account of grazing of bean saplings by the informant’s calf,

the accused persons came and assaulted her husband, and she

too was assaulted by Luta Yadav with a garasa.

(II) PW-2, PW-3, PW-4 and PW-5 did not support the

prosecution case and were declared hostile.

(III) PW-6, Dr. K.P. Ladia, proved the injury reports

of both the injured persons and found simple incised injuries on

their persons caused by a sharp cutting weapon.

(IV) PW-7, the Investigating Officer, proved the

formal aspects of the investigation including the FIR and place

of occurrence and stated that he recorded statements of the

witnesses.

13. On the basis of materials surfaced during the trial,

the appellant/accused was examined under Section 313 of the

CrPC by putting incriminating circumstances/evidences

surfaced against him, which he denied and shows his complete

innocence.

14. It would be apposite to discuss the
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.300 of 2012 dt.22-04-2026
7/14

oral/documentary evidences as available on record to re-

appreciate the evidences for just and proper disposal of the

present appeal.

15. It would be appropriate to reproduce the

provision of Sections 307 and 324 of IPC for the sake of

convenience and better understanding of the facts, which is as

under:-

“ 307. Attempt to murder.—Whoever
does any act with such intention or knowledge, and
under such circumstances that, if he by that act
caused death, he would be guilty of murder, shall be
punished with imprisonment of either description for
a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also
be liable to fine; and if hurt is caused to any person
by such act, the offender shall be liable either to
[imprisonment for life], or to such punishment as is
hereinbefore mentioned.
Attempts by life-convicts.—[When any
person offending under this section is under
sentence of [imprisonment for life], he may, if
hurt is caused, be punished with death].

324. Voluntarily causing hurt by
dangerous weapons or means.—Whoever,
except in the case provided for by section 334,
voluntarily causes hurt by means of any
instrument for shooting, stabbing or cutting, or
any instrument which, used as weapon of
offence, is likely to cause death, or by means of
fire or any heated substance, or by means of any
poison or any corrosive substance, or by means
of any explosive substance or by means of any
substance which it is deleterious to the human
body to inhale, to swallow, or to receive into the
blood, or by means of any animal, shall be
punished with imprisonment of either description
for a term which may extend to three years, or
with fine, or with both.”

16. The record reveals that PW-2, PW-3, PW-4 and

PW-5 were declared hostile during the trial, in absence of any

corroboration of oral evidence of the other prosecution
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.300 of 2012 dt.22-04-2026
8/14

witnesses who supported the prosecution case. Therefore, the

testimonies of these witnesses are not relevant for the purpose of

establishing the guilt of the accused/appellant.

17. The prosecution case substantially rests upon the

testimony of PW-1, corroborated by the medical evidence of

PW-6 and formal evidence of PW-7. The evidence of PW-1,

though consistent regarding assault by Luta Yadav, contains

general and omnibus allegations against the other accused

persons. The medical evidence shows only simple injuries and

does not fully support the allegation of multiple assailants

causing injuries. Further, the case admittedly arises out of a land

dispute, suggesting possibility of exaggeration. In such

circumstances, the involvement of co-accused persons is not

established beyond reasonable doubt, and their acquittal by the

trial court appears justified.

18. The Apex Court laid down the litmus test for

determination of nature of offence in Pulicherla Nagaraju v.

State of A.P. reported in (2007) 1 SCC (Cri) 500. In the facts

and circumstances of a particular case, the Court needs to decide

the pivotal question of existence of intention with care and

caution. The following factors needs to be examined:

(i) nature of the weapon used;
(ii)whether the weapon was carried by the accused or
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.300 of 2012 dt.22-04-2026
9/14

was picked up from the spot;
(iii) whether the blow is aimed at a vital part of the body;
(iv) the amount of force employed in causing injury;
(v) whether the act was in the course of sudden quarrel or
sudden fight or free for all fight;
(vi) whether the incident occurs by chance or whether
there was any premeditation;
(vii) whether there was any prior enmity or whether the
deceased was a stranger;
(viii)whether there was any grave and sudden
provocation, and if so, the cause for such provocation;
(ix) whether it was in the heat of passion;
(x) whether the person inflicting the injury has taken
undue advantage or has acted in a cruel and unusual
manner;
(xi) whether the accused dealt a single blow or several
blows.
19. It is well settled that an attempt to commit murder

must be clearly distinguished from a mere intention to commit

the offence or from acts that amount only to preparation for its

commission. The law recognizes that the existence of a guilty

intention alone is not sufficient to constitute an attempt. There

must be something more than planning or arranging the means

to commit the crime. Therefore, in order to secure a conviction

under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code, the prosecution

must prove the presence of a definite intention or knowledge to

cause death, accompanied by some overt act that directly moves

towards the execution of that intention. In other words, the

accused must not only possess the intention to commit murder

but must also perform an act that clearly demonstrates the

commencement of the offence. A reference in this regard has
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.300 of 2012 dt.22-04-2026
10/14

been made by the Apex Court in the case of Sivamani v. State,

reported in, 2023 SCC OnLine SC 1581, wherein in paragraph

no. 9 has been held as under:

“ 9. In State of Madhya Pradesh v.
Saleem, (2005) 5 SCC 554, the Court held that to
sustain a conviction under Section 307, IPC, it was
not necessary that a bodily injury capable of
resulting in death should have been inflicted. As
such, non-conviction under Section 307, IPC on the
premise only that simple injury was inflicted does
not follow as a matter of course. In the same
judgment, it was pointed out that ‘…The court has
to see whether the act, irrespective of its result, was
done with the intention or knowledge and under
circumstances mentioned in the section.’ The
position that because a fatal injury was not
sustained alone does not dislodge Section 307, IPC
conviction has been reiterated in Jage Ram v. State
of Haryana, (2015) 11 SCC 366 and State of
Madhya Pradesh v. Kanha, (2019) 3 SCC 605. Yet,
in Jage Ram (supra) and Kanha (supra), it was
observed that while grievous or life-threatening
injury was not necessary to maintain a conviction
under Section 307, IPC, ‘The intention of the
accused can be ascertained from the actual injury,
if any, as well as from surrounding circumstances.
Among other things, the nature of the weapon used
and the severity of the blows inflicted can be
considered to infer intent.”
20. The similar question came up before the Supreme

Court in the case of Joseph v. State of Kerala, reported in 1995

SCC (Cri) 165 has observed in para 3 which is reproduced

hereinafter:

“3. In this appeal the learned
counsel for the appellant submits that the
intention to cause the injury which was found
sufficient to cause the death in the ordinary
course of the nature was not established. In
support of this submission he relied on the
circumstances namely that the whole incident
took place because of a trivial incident which
resulted in a quarrel and that the weapon
used was only a lathi and in the
circumstances it cannot be said that the
accused intended to cause the death by
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.300 of 2012 dt.22-04-2026
11/14

inflicting that particular injury which
objectively was proved by the medical
evidence to be sufficient in the ordinary
course of nature to cause death. In other
words he submits that clause 3rdly of Section
300 IPC is not attracted in this case. We find
considerable force in the submission. The
weapon used is not a deadly weapon as
rightly contended by the learned counsel. The
whole occurrence was a result of a trivial
incident and in those circumstances the
accused dealt two blows on the head with a
lathi, therefore, it cannot be stated that he
intended to cause the injury which is
sufficient (sic). At the most it can be said that
by inflicting such injuries he had knowledge
that he was likely to cause the death. In
which case the offence committed by him
would be culpable homicide not amounting
to murder. We accordingly set aside the
conviction of the appellant under Section 302
IPC and the sentence of imprisonment for life
awarded thereunder. Instead we convict the
appellant under Section 304 Part II IPC and
sentence him to five years' RI.”
21.The judgment of Joseph (supra) was referred

by the Apex Court in the case of Jugatram Vs. State of

Chhattisgarh, reported in (2020) 9 SCC 520.

22. Admittedly, from the prosecution case itself, it

transpires that the alleged occurrence arose out of a trivial issue

of grazing of bean saplings by the calf of the informant, which

led to a sudden altercation and escalated into a physical scuffle

without any premeditation or prior meeting of minds, the

incident having occurred in the heat of passion upon a sudden

quarrel. Further, the prosecution evidence suffers from material

infirmities as PW-2 to PW-5 have been declared hostile and the

case substantially rests upon the testimony of PW-1, an
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.300 of 2012 dt.22-04-2026
12/14

interested and injured witness, whose evidence itself reflects the

existence of a land dispute between the parties, suggesting

possibility of exaggeration. The medical evidence shows that the

injuries are simple in nature, not supporting the allegation of

intention to commit murder, moreover, the informant has not

been examined, there is no independent witness, and there is

unexplained delay in lodging the FIR, all of which cumulatively

cast serious doubt on the prosecution version and clearly

demonstrate absence of intention to cause death, rendering the

charge under Section 307 IPC unsustainable.

23. I find that facts of the case is squarely covered

by the judgment passed by the Apex Court in case of Sivamani

(Supra). In view of aforesaid discussions of factual and legal

aspects, and upon a comprehensive re-appreciation of the entire

evidence available on record and admitted sequence in which

the occurrence had taken place. The background of the

occurrence was that the calf of the appellant was found grazing

the crop of the informant which was objected by the informant

and the on account of a trivial issue it escalated into a sudden

quarrel between the parties without any premeditation or prior

meeting of minds of the appellant. The nature of the incident,

the surrounding circumstances, and the medical evidence
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.300 of 2012 dt.22-04-2026
13/14

indicating only simple injuries do not establish the requisite

intention or knowledge to cause death so as to attract the

provisions of Section 307 IPC. Rather, the materials on record

demonstrate that the act of the appellant falls within the ambit of

voluntarily causing hurt by a dangerous weapon. Thus, this

Court is of the considered opinion that the offence under Section

307 IPC is not made out and the learned trial court has rightly

appreciated the evidence in convicting the appellant under

Section 324 of the Indian Penal Code and also keeping in mind

that the injury reports of both the injured persons are found to be

simple incised injuries, caused by a sharp cutting weapon.

24. Accordingly, this Court finds that the impugned

judgment of conviction dated 30.03.2012 passed by the learned

Additional District and Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court-II,

Jamui in Sessions Trial No. 377 of 2007 (arising out of Sono

P.S. Case No. 93 of 2006, G.R. No. 1311/2006 dated

05.10.2006, whereby, the appellant has been convicted under

Section 324 of the Indian Penal Code, does not warrant

interference so far as the finding of conviction is concerned.

25. However, so far as the sentence is concerned,

having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and the

period already undergone by the appellant, the sentence of
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.300 of 2012 dt.22-04-2026
14/14

rigorous imprisonment for two years is modified and reduced to

the period already undergone. To that extent, the appeal stands

allowed. It is directed that if the appellant has already undergone

the modified sentence, he shall be set at liberty forthwith, unless

required in connection with any other case. The appellant is

discharged from the liabilities of his bail bonds, if any.

26. Accordingly, the present appeal stands partly

allowed.

27. Office is directed to send back the lower court

records along with a copy of the judgment to the learned District

Court forthwith.

(Purnendu Singh, J)

Ashishsingh/-

AFR/NAFR NAFR
CAV DATE 20.04.2026
Uploading Date 22.04.2026
Transmission Date 22.04.2026

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…