Patna High Court
RAMESHWAR CHOUDHARY and ORSversusSTATE OF BIHAR
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISPOSED
- Bench
- SONI SHRIVASTAVA
Holding
The court upheld the convictions of the first two appellants under IPC section 326/34, acquitted the third appellant of the IPC section 307/34 charge, and reduced the sentence of the first two to the period already served.
Summary
The appellants Suresh, Heera and Sevalal Choudhary were convicted for assaulting Yogeshwar Dhanuk with a fasuli, resulting in multiple injuries, under IPC sections 326 and 307/34. The prosecution relied on six eye‑witnesses, an injured witness, a medical doctor’s report and the investigating officer’s statements. The defence argued that the witnesses were related, that key forensic evidence was missing and that there was no intention to kill, contending that the charge under section 307 should be set aside and the conviction under section 326 reduced to section 325. The High Court held that the eye‑witness and especially the injured witness’s testimony, corroborated by medical evidence, was reliable and that the prosecution proved the case beyond reasonable doubt for the assault under section 326, but found no evidence of intent to kill, thus overturning the conviction under section 307/34. Consequently, the court upheld the convictions of Suresh and Heera under section 326/34, reduced their sentence to the period already served, and acquitted Sevalal of the section 307 charge, ordering the release of all three appellants.
Issues considered
- Whether the prosecution proved the charge of voluntarily causing grievous hurt under IPC section 326 beyond reasonable doubt.
- Whether the prosecution proved the charge of attempt to murder under IPC section 307/34 beyond reasonable doubt, particularly the element of intent to kill.
- Whether the convictions under section 307/34 should be set aside.
- Whether the conviction under section 326 can be substituted with section 325.
- Whether the sentence imposed should be reduced in view of mitigating circumstances.
Legislation cited
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 313
- Indian Evidence Act, 1872 — s. 134
- Indian Penal Code — s. 307, 325, 326, 34
Subjects
- assault
- grievous hurt
- attempt to murder
- intent to kill
- injured witness
- eye‑witness
- conviction
- sentence reduction
- criminal appeal
- IPC sections 326
- IPC sections 307
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL APPEAL (SJ) No.309 of 2004
======================================================
1. Suresh Choudhary.
2. Heera Choudhary.
3. Sevalal Choudhary @ Subelal Choudhary
all are sons of Late Rameshwar Choudhary, R/o Village- Gaurakshni,
Warisaliganj, P.S.- Warisaliganj, District- Nawada.
... ... Appellants
Versus
State of Bihar
... ... Respondent
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Appellant/s : Mr. Pramod Kumar Sinha, Advocate
For the Respondent/s : Ms. Anita Kumari Singh, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE JUSTICE SMT. SONI SHRIVASTAVA
ORAL JUDGMENT
Date : 31-01-2026
Heard Mr. Pramod Kumar Sinha, learned counsel for the
appellants and Mrs. Anita Kumari Singh, learned APP for the
State.
2. The present criminal appeal has been preferred
against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated
19.03.2004 passed by learned Additional District and Sessions
Judge (Fast Track Court-III), Nawada in Sessions Trial No.173 of
1995/147 of 2004, (arising out of Warisaliganj P.S. Case No.32 of
1995) whereby and whereunder appellants no.1 and 2, namely
Suresh Choudhary and Heera Choudhary have been convicted
under Sections 326 and 307/34 of the Indian Penal Code
(hereinafter referred to as ‘the I.P.C.’), while appellant no.3,
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.309 of 2004 dt.31-01-2026
2/20
namely Sevalal Choudhary @ Subelal Choudhary along with Late
Rameshwar Choudhary (against whom the appeal has abated), has
been convicted under Section 307/34 of the I.P.C., however, all of
them have been sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for seven
years.
3. The case of the prosecution, based upon the
fardbeyan of the informant, Kapil Prasad Sardar recorded on
07.05.1995 at 4:00 p.m., is that on the same day at around 2:30
p.m., he was going along with his brother-in-law, namely
Yogeshwar Dhanuk towards the toddy shop of accused Rameshwar
Choudhary where the said Rameshwar Choudhary along with his
three sons, namely Suresh Choudhary, Heera Choudhary and
Sevalal Choudhary were also present, while one Gokhul Mahto
was also present along with the informant. It has been alleged that
the money due on account of milk was demanded by his brother-
in-law from Rameshwar Choudhary, on account of which the
parties entered into some verbal altercation whereafter, the
brother-in-law of the informant was caught hold of and the
informant tried to intervene in the matter. It has, however, been
stated that on the order of Rameshwar Choudhary, Suresh
Choudhary and Heera Choudhary inflicted a Hausli (Pasuli) blow
on head, neck, ear, hands and arm of the brother-in-law,
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.309 of 2004 dt.31-01-2026
3/20
Yogeshwar Dhanuk causing him injuries. Rameshwar Choudhary
and Sevalal Choudhary have been alleged to have caught hold of
informant’s brother-in-law and local people of the vicinity
assembled at the place of occurrence subsequently, whereafter
accused persons fled away. Informant has stated that since the
injured was unconscious, the statement was being given by him.
4. Based on the said fardbeyan, Warisaliganj P.S. Case
No.32 of 1995 was instituted and upon completion of
investigation, the police submitted charge-sheet on 30.06.1995 ,
finding the case true against the accused persons including the
present appellants under Sections 341, 324, 326, 307 and 34 of the
I.P.C., whereafter the learned Magistrate took cognizance of the
offence and committed the case to the Court of sessions. The
present case, upon being committed, was numbered as Sessions
Trial No.173 of 1995/147 of 2004 and charges were framed on
08.04.1996 under Sections 326 and 307/34 of the I.P.C. to which
they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
5. In order to substantiate its case, the prosecution has
examined altogether six witnesses out of whom, PW-1, Balmiki
Raut happens to be the nephew of the informant and claims to be
an eye-witness, PW-2, Yogeshwar Dhanuk, an injured eye-witness
also the brother-in-law of the informant, PW-3, Dr. Rajendra
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.309 of 2004 dt.31-01-2026
4/20
Prasad Mishra, the Doctor who examined the injuries of the
injured, PW-4, Bhola Raut, who also claims to be an eye-witness,
PW-5, Kapil Prasad Sardar, who is the informant himself and also
an eye-witness to the occurrence and PW-6, Mahadev Murmu,
who is the Investigating Officer of the case.
6. Two witness have also been examined by the defence,
DW-1, Gokhul Mahto and DW-2, Ramswaroop Yadav.
7. The statement of the accused persons was also
recorded under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. and the case of the
defence is complete denial of the occurrence, claiming themselves
to be innocent.
8. The learned Trial Judge upon appreciation, analysis
and scrutiny of the evidence adduced during the trial has found the
appellants guilty of the offence and sentenced them to
imprisonment by impugned judgment and order.
9. I have heard the arguments of the learned counsel for
the appellants and learned APP for the State.
10. Mr. Pramod Kumar Sinha, learned counsel for the
appellants has contended that the prosecution case suffers from
several infirmities and as such, the conviction of the appellants is
not fit to be sustained. It has been submitted by him that all the
witnesses examined by the prosecution are related and interested
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.309 of 2004 dt.31-01-2026
5/20
witnesses and not a single independent witness has been examined
by the prosecution although the occurrence is said to have taken
place in broad daylight and it is also the case of the prosecution in
the F.I.R. itself that a number of villagers had assembled at the
place of occurrence. Further submission on behalf of the appellants
is that the witnesses are not truthful and believable inasmuch as,
PW-1, Balmiki Raut has himself stated in his evidence that he
reached the place of occurrence ten minutes after the incident and
at that time the assault was going on which is contrary to the
evidence of PW-2, who is the injured witness, who has rather
stated that the entire act of assault occurred within a minute, as
such, the evidence of PW-1 as an eye-witness appears to be
doubtful. The learned counsel has submitted that there are several
loopholes in the case of the prosecution and the investigation has
also been conducted in a perfunctory and shoddy manner
inasmuch as, neither the blood nor blood-stained cloth was
recovered from the place of occurrence, nor produced for
examination. Further, the assault weapon Fausli (Pasuli) is also not
said to have been recovered, either from physical possession of the
appellants or from their house, which is said to be the place of
occurrence, despite the fact that the appellants Sevalal Choudhary
and Suresh Choudhary were arrested on the same day from their
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.309 of 2004 dt.31-01-2026
6/20
house. It has rather been submitted that it was the informant’s side
who were the aggressors as even according to them, the place of
occurrence is the shop of the accused Rameshwar Choudhary,
where the informant and others had entered and made certain
demands leading to verbal altercation which subsequently
escalated into a physical fight between the parties.
11. Per contra, Ms. Anita Kumari Singh, learned APP for
the State has submitted that the prosecution has examined as
many as six witnesses in its favour and all have supported the case
as eye-witnesses including the injured eye-witness, PW-2,
Yogeshwar Dhanuk. It has also been submitted that the First
Information Report has also been lodged with due promptness, on
the same day, as such, there is no scope of any concoction of facts.
She has also submitted that the statement of the injured witness,
who has received grievous injury, cannot be doubted as the
evidence of the injured witness stands on a higher pedestal, which
even stands corroborated by the injury report (Exhibit-1) as also
the evidence of the doctor (PW-3) during trial, inasmuch as, the
doctor has clearly stated in his cross-examination that all the
injuries were caused by sharp cutting weapon like Fasuli (Pasuli).
Further submission on behalf of the State is that merely because
the witnesses are related, their testimony as eye-witness cannot be
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.309 of 2004 dt.31-01-2026
7/20
doubted or brushed aside as they were the most natural witnesses,
who were present in the shop, by virtue of them being the family
members of the informant and the injured.
12. A cursory perusal of the evidence would go to show
that PWs-1, 2, 4 and 5 are all eye-witness of the occurrence, PW-2
being injured witness too, who have all supported the case of the
prosecution. PW-3, Dr. Rajendra Prasad Mishra, is the Doctor who
had examined the injuries of Yogeshwar Dhanuk (PW-2) and he
has found following injuries on the person of the injured:
1. Incised wound in the front of scalp with cutting of the
frontal bone of the scalp, longitudinally the size the injury
was 3½ X ½ cutting deep up to bone. Grievous sharp
cutting
2. One incised wound below left ear on left side of the
neck parallel to injury no.4. dimension of the injury was 3
½’ X ½ ’X 1’ simple sharp cutting.
3. Lower third of the left pinna was chopped off.
Grievous sharp cutting
4. Incised wound on mandibular region on left side just
below injury no.2, the dimension being 1½’ X 1/2’ X ½’.
Simple sharp cutting.
5. Incised wound on left upper arm middle portion
anterior part, the dimension being 3’ X 1’ X 1 ½’ Simple
sharp cutting.
6. Incised wound on the thenar area of the left palm being
2½ X ¼ X ¼ Simple sharp cutting.
7. Incised wound on hypothenar area of left palm the
dimension was 1”X ¼ X ¼. Simple sharp cutting.
8. All the injuries were caused by sharp cutting weapon
like Fasuli.
13. The Doctor has further stated that all the injuries
were caused by sharp cutting weapon like Fasuli and in the cross-
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.309 of 2004 dt.31-01-2026
8/20
examination the Doctor has further stated that the injury no.4
cannot be manufactured and the above mentioned injuries cannot
be possible due to fall from the tree with any deadly weapon or
sharp cutting weapon.
14. PW-6, who is the Investigating Officer of the present
case, has proved the First Information Report as Exhibit-5 and had
also inspected the place of occurrence. He has further stated that
he recorded the statement of the injured at Warisaliganj Hospital
on 07.05.1995, at around 6:00 p.m., and at the time of taking his
statement, Yogeshwar Dhanuk (PW-2) was in an injured
condition, however he was conscious. In his cross-examination,
this witness has stated that he saw four injuries on the body of the
injured, but the same was not covered or tied up and also that he
did not take the statement of other persons of the hospital. Upon
inspection of the place of occurrence, this witness had found some
broken container of toddy and also blood at the place of
occurrence, however, he has stated that he did not seize any blood
and he also did not mention in case diary with regard to blood-
stains being found on the cloth of the injured. The attention of the
Investigating Officer has also been drawn to the statements of the
witnesses recorded by him during investigation, including the
informant, and further, he has admitted that he had arrested Suresh
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.309 of 2004 dt.31-01-2026
9/20
Choudhary and Sevalal Choudhary on the same day i.e. on
07.05.1995, from their house.
ANALYSIS AND CONSIDERATION
15. I have perused the impugned judgment of the5
learned Trial Court, entire materials on record and I have given
thoughtful consideration to the rival submissions made on behalf
of the learned counsel for the appellants as well as learned APP for
the State.
16. The contents of the F.I.R. have already been
discussed in detail, which discloses an allegation that the
appellants had indulged in assaulting the injured PW-2, causing
serious injury to him.
17. The moot question for consideration now is as to
whether the prosecution has been able to bring home the charges
levelled against the appellants beyond all reasonable doubt, so as
to sustain the conviction, and for such purpose the evidence on
record needs to be analyzed and examined.
18. At the outset, it has been noticed that the First
Information Report lodged by the informant has been done with all
promptness, inasmuch as, the fardbeyan had been recorded on the
same day in the Warisaliganj hospital, where the injured was being
treated. The reason for fardbeyan being recorded by the informant
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.309 of 2004 dt.31-01-2026
10/20
has also been explained as the injured was not in a state to record
his statement at that point of time. The story propounded in the
fardbeyan recorded by the informant stands supported to a large
extent by the witnesses of the prosecution and upon going through
the narration of the prosecution witnesses, it would be apparent
that out of the six witnesses examined on behalf of the
prosecution, four are eye-witnesses and they have all stood the test
of the cross-examination and there is nothing substantial or
tangible to doubt their testimony. The only challenge to the
evidence of these witnesses is that they are related and hence, are
interested, as such, they are not worthy of reliance. This would not
be the correct perspective to approach the issue as merely because
the witnesses are related it is not proper to categorize them as
interested witnesses, rather, it is to be considered that they were
the competent witnesses who were present at the place of
occurrence and could have given an eye-witness account of the
same. It may be true, as argued on behalf of the appellants, that
some of the witnesses may not have seen the entire occurrence, as
they arrived later at the place of occurrence, but the very fact that
the informant was very much present at the scene of occurrence,
along with injured, PW-2, and if there is no sufficient reason to
doubt their presence and the veracity of their testimony, the same
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.309 of 2004 dt.31-01-2026
11/20
would be sufficient to establish the occurrence in the manner as
alleged by the prosecution. So far as the injured witness,
Yogeshwer Dhanuk is concerned, he is no doubt the brother-in-law
of the informant, but his injury report (Exhibit-1) would indicate
that he had suffered several injuries, out of which, two were
grievous in nature and also on vital part of the body. The law is
well settled with regard to injured witnesses that they are accorded
a special status in law and the injury to the witness is an inbuilt
guarantee of his presence at the scene of crime because the witness
will not want to let his actual assailant go unpunished, merely to
falsely implicate a third party for the commission of the offence.
This proposition was laid down very clearly by the Hon’ble
Supreme Court in the case of Abdul Sayeed v. State of M.P.
reported in, (2010) 10 SCC 259 and paragraph-30 of the same is
being quoted herein:
“30. The law on the point can be summarised
to the effect that the testimony of the injured witness is
accorded a special status in law. This is as a consequence
of the fact that the injury to the witness is an inbuilt
guarantee of his presence at the scene of the crime and
because the witness will not want to let his actual assailant
go unpunished merely to falsely implicate a third party for
the commission of the offence. Thus, the deposition of the
injured witness should be relied upon unless there are
strong grounds for rejection of his evidence on the basis of
major contradictions and discrepancies therein.”
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.309 of 2004 dt.31-01-2026
12/20
19. This Court would gainfully refer to another recent
judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court rendered in the case of
Baljinder Singh @ Ladoo And Others vs. State of Punjab,
(2024 INSC 738), wherein a reference has been made to the case
of Balu Sudam Khalde v. State of Maharashtra, reported in
(2023) 13 SCC 365, laying down the legal principles to be kept in
mind while appreciating the evidence of an injured eyewitness.
Paragraph-26 of the case of Balu Sudam Khalde (supra) is being
quoted hereinunder:
“26. When the evidence of an injured eyewitness
is to be appreciated, the undernoted legal principles
enunciated by the courts are required to be kept in mind:
26.1. The presence of an injured eyewitness at
the time and place of the occurrence cannot be doubted
unless there are material contradictions in his deposition.
26.2. Unless, it is otherwise established by the
evidence, it must be believed that an injured witness would
not allow the real culprits to escape and falsely implicate the
accused.
26.3. The evidence of injured witness has greater
evidentiary value and unless compelling reasons exist, their
statements are not to be discarded lightly.
26.4. The evidence of injured witness cannot be
doubted on account of some embellishment in natural
conduct or minor contradictions.
26.5. If there be any exaggeration or immaterial
embellishments in the evidence of an injured witness, then
such contradiction, exaggeration or embellishment should
be discarded from the evidence of injured, but not the whole
evidence.
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.309 of 2004 dt.31-01-2026
13/20
26.6. The broad substratum of the prosecution
version must be taken into consideration and discrepancies
which normally creep due to loss of memory with passage of
time should be discarded.”
20. Upon perusal of the above mentioned judgments, it
would be apparent that the evidence of the injured witness, who
happens to be an eye-witness, has a greater evidentiary value, and
the same cannot be lightly discarded or brushed aside unless,
compelling reasons for the same exists.
21. Non-examination of independent witnesses is one of
the grounds urged on behalf of the appellants and it is true that
when witnesses in the form of local persons were available, the
withholding of such witnesses by the prosecution can be viewed
with suspicion, but such non-examination of independent
witnesses cannot be the sole ground for doubting the case of the
prosecution when it stands supported not only by the other
prosecution witnesses but also by the medical evidence. The law is
clear in accordance with Section 134 of the Evidence Act, that it is
not the quantity but quality of evidence which has to be considered
as the determinative factor for proving and deciding a case and
when there is no material to doubt the veracity of the witnesses
who have been examined on behalf of the prosecution, mere non-
examination of the independent witnesses would not have any
adverse impact on the prosecution case.
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.309 of 2004 dt.31-01-2026
14/20
22. The medical evidence as discussed earlier in the
form of the injury report (Exhibit-1) as also the evidence of the
Doctor (PW-3), goes to demonstrate clearly that the injured, PW-2,
has suffered a number of injuries as alleged by the prosecution and
the medical evidence is as such, corroborative of the ocular
testimony of the witnesses as it lends further strength and support
to the truthfulness of their evidence.
23. There may be certain defects in the investigation but
the Investigating Officer has been examined and he has also
supported the prosecution case in its material particulars. The
existence of some discrepancy or inconsistency in the evidence,
not going to the core of the case, would not materially affect the
credibility of the prosecution case, as a whole, and they could be
only termed as some trivial embellishments and exaggerations not
shaking the very foundation of the prosecution case.
24. Thus, in the background of the consistent nature of
evidence, imputing allegations of assault upon the appellants,
coupled with the existence of injury on the person of the injured
(PW-2), establishes the manner of occurrence and leads to the
irresistible conclusion that the injured had suffered injuries at the
hands of the appellants.
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.309 of 2004 dt.31-01-2026
15/20
25. Further argument on behalf of the appellants points
towards the informant’s side being the aggressor, leading to a
provocation caused and the occurrence having happened only in
self defence. However, from a perusal of the evidence and on
examining the other attending facts and circumstances, it does not
appear that any attempt has been made on behalf of the defence to
put forward such a plea and conclusively establish the same
through any cogent evidence. There is virtually no evidence on
record to show that some injuries were being caused to the accused
persons and in retaliation of the same, the accused persons had
caused the injuries as alleged upon the injured (PW-2). In
complete dearth of any such evidence, the aforesaid argument of
the defence is rejected.
26. Thus after a careful scrutiny of the entire evidence
on record, I find that the evidence of prosecution witnesses are
cogent, convincing and reliable and in such view of the matter, the
prosecution has been able to prove its case beyond reasonable
doubt, to the extent that injured Yogeshwar Dhanuk (PW-2) had
suffered injuries on account of assault inflicted upon him by the
appellants, by means of Fasuli (Pasuli) or any other sharp cutting
weapon.
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.309 of 2004 dt.31-01-2026
16/20
27. Now, the question which remains to be determined is
as to whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, an
intention to kill can be gathered in order to justify the conviction
of the appellants under Section 307 of the I.P.C. The medical
evidence no doubt demonstrates the existence of a number of
injuries on the injured and out of those injuries, two have also been
found to be grievous in nature but the fact remains that the entire
dispute between the parties had taken place on account of asking
for some due amount of milk from the accused Rameshwar
Chaudhary and upon refusal of the same, verbal altercation took
place which, subsequently, escalated into a physical assault being
made on Yogeshwar Dhanuk (PW-2) by the appellants. In such
background of the fact that the occurrence had taken place at the
‘spur of the moment’, and injuries were caused only to PW-2 and
not others, and also considering that barring two, the other injuries
were found to be simple in nature it can be concluded safely that
the appellants never had any intention to kill, as such, the essential
element of mens rea required for an act of assault to be brought
within the ambit of Section 307 of the I.P.C., seems to be missing.
28. For constituting an offence under Section 307 of the
I.P.C., there has to be clear evidence that the intent behind the act
is to cause death of the person. In the case of Shoyeb Raja v.
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.309 of 2004 dt.31-01-2026
17/20
State of M.P., reported in 2024 SCC OnLine SC 2624, the said
principle was reinforced, while reiterating the well settled legal
principles governing Section 307 of the I.P.C. and the Hon’ble
Apex Court referred to the three essential ingredients, for
constituting an offence under the aforesaid Section as enumerated
in the case of State of Maharashtra v. Kashirao, reported in
(2003) 10 SCC 434. The above-mentioned ingredients are as
follows:
i. an attempt to cause death,
ii. the act must be capable of causing death or should
be done with the intent to cause death.
iii. the action taken by the accused should be
imminently dangerous and no excuse should justify the risk of
death or serious injury.
29. Thus, the critical element which is required to be
present, regardless of the extent of physical injuries, is the intent. It
has been highlighted that even minor injuries can lead to serious
charges if the intent to cause death is evident.
30. On going through the facts of the present case, this
Court finds that none of the above-mentioned ingredients can be
said to be in existence, leading to the inevitable conclusion that
there was no intention to cause death. Thus, it is on account of
such unproved foundational facts, that this Court would come to
the considered conclusion that the prosecution has not been able to
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.309 of 2004 dt.31-01-2026
18/20
bring home the charges under Section 307/34 of the I.P.C. and
thus, the conviction of the appellants under Section 307/34 of the
I.P.C. cannot be sustained.
31. However, this Court needs to consider the alternative
argument made on behalf of the appellants that the conviction
under Section 326 of the I.P.C. against appellants no. 1 and 2,
Suresh Choudhary and Heera Choudhary can also not be sustained
and at best, a case under Section 325 of the I.P.C. would be made
out as against them for voluntarily causing grievous hurt. With
regard to such submissions, this Court finds that the present case
involves not only voluntary causing of grievous hurt but also the
weapon used is a sharp cutting weapon, which has been
consistently stated by all the prosecution witnesses to be a Hasuli
(Pasuli) which no doubt, is a dangerous weapon. Thus, this Court
finds no legal basis for converting the conviction of Section 326
I.P.C. into one under Section 325 I.P.C. As such, since the
prosecution has been able to prove its case beyond all reasonable
doubts with regard to the assault made by appellants no. 1 and 2,
Suresh Choudhary and Heera Choudhary respectively, upon
Yogeshwer Dhanuk (PW-2), this Court finds no reason to interfere
with the conviction of these appellants under Section 326/34 of the
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.309 of 2004 dt.31-01-2026
19/20
I.P.C. However, it has been pointed out that these appellants have
remained in custody for more than two years.
32. On the question of sentence, this Court would take
into consideration the attending circumstances, that the occurrence
had taken place at the ‘spur of the moment’, in view of a verbal
embroil getting escalated into a physical altercation, coupled with
the fact that there was no premeditated action and that the
appellants have suffered rigors of this case for substantially long
period of time, as both the occurrence and the trial is of the year
1995 and their appeal is now finally being heard after about 31
years of the occurrence. In such view of the matter, considering
the above factors as the mitigating circumstances, this Court is of
the opinion that maintaining the conviction of appellants no.1 and
2, Suresh Choudhary and Heera Choudhary under Section 326/34
of the I.P.C., the ends of justice would be met, if their sentence is
reduced to the period already undergone by them.
33. So far as the appellant no.3, Sevalal Choudhary @
Subelal Choudhary is concerned, the charges and conviction as
against him was only under Section 307/34 of the I.P.C. which has
been found to be not sustainable. Considering the fact that there is
no other allegation against him of having indulged in any act of
assault, the appellant no.3, Sevalal Choudhary @ Subelal
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.309 of 2004 dt.31-01-2026
20/20
Choudhary deserves to be acquitted, and he is hence, acquitted of
the charges levelled against him.
34. It would appear from the records of this case that the
appellants had been granted bail, but on account of their non-
appearance at the time of hearing of this case at one point of time,
their bail bonds had been cancelled on 20.09.2025, as such, all
three of them are presently lodged in custody. In view of the
acquittal of appellant no.3 Sevalal Choudhary @ Subelal
Choudhary and the sentence of appellant nos. 1 and 2, namely,
Suresh Choudhary and Heera Choudhary, reduced to sentence
already undergone by them, all the three appellants are directed to
be released forthwith, if not required in any other case.
(Soni Shrivastava, J)
anand/-
AFR/NAFR AFR
CAV DATE NA
Uploading Date 06.02.2026
Transmission Date 06.02.2026
Checking your session…