Patna High Court
VICKY SINGH @ AJIT KUMARversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISMISSED
- Bench
- SHAILENDRA SINGH
Holding
The appeal is dismissed and the convictions under Section 307 read with Section 34 IPC and Section 27 Arms Act are upheld.
Summary
The appellants Vicky Singh (Ajit Kumar) and Ranjeet Singh were convicted for attempt to murder under Section 307 read with Section 34 of the IPC, and Vicky Singh was also convicted under Section 27 of the Arms Act. The prosecution case rested on the victim‑informant’s ocular testimony and her medical injury report, despite some inconsistencies noted by the defence. The appellants challenged the sufficiency of the victim’s evidence, the applicability of Section 34 to Ranjeet Singh, alleged contradictions in the medical findings, and procedural lapses in the investigation. The High Court held that the victim’s testimony was reliable, the medical evidence did not defeat the prosecution case, and the facts demonstrated a common intention to kill, thereby upholding the convictions and dismissing the appeal.
Issues considered
- The victim's ocular testimony is sufficient despite contradictions in medical evidence.
- Whether Section 34 IPC (common intention) applies to Ranjeet Singh.
- Do inconsistencies in the medical report warrant overturning the conviction?
- Do procedural lapses in the investigation affect the validity of the conviction?
- Does the number of entry wounds contradict the prosecution's claim of two gunshots?
Legislation cited
- Arms Act — s. 27
- Code of Criminal Procedure — s. 313
- Indian Penal Code — s. 27, 307, 323, 34, 341, 354, 504, 506
Subjects
- attempt to murder
- common intention
- Section 34 IPC
- Arms Act
- firearm injury
- medical evidence
- procedural lapses
- conviction upheld
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL APPEAL (SJ) No.3104 of 2023
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-320 Year-2020 Thana- SALIMPUR District- Patna
======================================================
1. Vicky Singh @ Ajit Kumar, Son Of Late Nandu Singh, Resident Of Village -
Manjhauli, P.S. - Salimpur, Distt. - Patna
2. Ranjeet Singh, Son Of Late Nandu Singh, Resident of village - Manjhauli,
P.S. - Salimpur, Distt. - Patna
... ... Appellant/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Appellants : Ms. Deepshikha, Advocate
Mr. Jai Prakash Singh, Advocate
Mr. Dharmendra Kumar Paswan, Advocate
Mr. Suraj Kumar, Advocate
Mr. Amar Kumar, Advocate
For the Informant : Mr. Saroj Kumar Choudhary, Advocate
For the State : Mrs. Abha Singh
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHAILENDRA SINGH
ORAL JUDGMENT
Date : 18-06-2026
Heard Ms. Deepshikha, learned counsel appearing for
the appellants, Mr. Saroj Kumar Choudhary, learned counsel for
the informant, and Mrs. Abha Singh, learned Additional Public
Prosecutor for the State.
2. The instant criminal appeal has been preferred by the
appellants against the judgment of conviction dated 05.04.2023
and the order of sentence dated 16.05.2023 passed in Sessions
Trial No. 782 of 2021 arising out of Salimpur P.S. Case No. 320 of
2020 by the Court of the learned Additional District & Sessions
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.3104 of 2023 dt.18-06-2026
2/20
Judge-V, Barh, Patna, whereby and whereunder both the appellants
have been convicted for the offence punishable under Section 307
read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (in short, ‘IPC’).
Appellant Vicky Singh @ Ajit Kumar has also been convicted for
the offence punishable under Section 27 of the Arms Act. Both the
appellants have been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment
for a period of ten years and to pay a fine of Rs. 50,000/- each for
the offence under Section 307 read with Section 34 of the IPC, and
in default of payment of fine, they shall further undergo simple
imprisonment for a period of one year. Appellant Vicky Singh @
Ajit Kumar has been further sentenced to undergo rigorous
imprisonment for a period of three years and to pay a fine of Rs.
10,000/- for the offence under Section 27 of the Arms Act, and in
default of payment of the said fine, he shall further undergo simple
imprisonment for a period of three months. Both the sentences of
imprisonment awarded to appellant Vicky Singh @ Ajit Kumar
have been directed to run concurrently.
Prosecution Story:-
3. The prosecution case, in brief, is that the informant of
the case got her fardbeyan recorded before the police officer,
wherein she stated that on 23.11.2020 (Monday) at about 12:00
noon, she was returning after purchasing medicines from
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.3104 of 2023 dt.18-06-2026
3/20
Khusrupur Bazaar. When she reached near the house of one
Gurudeo Singh, adjacent to Manjhauli Halt, the accused persons,
namely Vicky Singh @ Ajit Kumar (appellant no.1), Ranjeet Singh
(appellant no.2) and Roshan Kumar, who were already lying in
wait, caught hold of her. When she protested, Ranjeet Singh
(appellant no.2) exhorted the others by saying to shoot her.
Thereupon, Vicky Singh @ Ajit Kumar (appellant no.1) with the
intention to kill her, fired a shot from the pistol he was carrying,
which hit her on the back. When she raised an alarm, Vicky Singh
(appellant no.1) again fired another shot from the pistol, which
also struck her on the back. Thereafter, Roshan Kumar arrived on a
motorcycle and while abusing the members of her family, resorted
to aerial firing. When the villagers opposed their acts, all the
accused persons fled towards the west direction while firing shots.
Before leaving, they threatened that they would kill her husband.
4. On the basis of the fardbeyan of the informant, a
formal FIR bearing Salimpur P.S. Case No. 320 of 2020 was
registered against three persons, including the appellants, for the
offences punishable under Sections 341, 323, 504, 506, 354 and
307 read with Section 34 of the IPC, as well as Section 27 of the
Arms Act, thereby setting the criminal law into motion.
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.3104 of 2023 dt.18-06-2026
4/20
5. After completion of the investigation, the police
submitted a charge-sheet against all the FIR-named accused,
including the appellants, for the offences punishable under
Sections 341, 323, 307, 354, 504 and 506 read with Section 34 of
the IPC and Section 27 of the Arms Act.
6. The appellants, along with another accused person,
stood charged for the offences punishable under Sections 341,
323/34, 307/34, 354/34, 504/34 and 506/34 of the IPC, as well as
Section 27 of the Arms Act. The charges were read over and
explained to them in Hindi, to which they pleaded not guilty and
claimed to be tried.
7. During the trial, the prosecution examined the
following witnesses:
Sl No. Name of witness Description
PW-1 XXX The victim, informant and the injured
witness
PW-2 YYY Father-in-law of the victim (eyewitness)
PW-3 Dr. Mridul Rai Doctor who examined the victim
PW-4 Shambhu Singh Brother of PW-2 ( eyewitness)
PW-5 ZZZ Husband of the victim
PW-6 Kamleshwar Ram Investigating Officer
8. The prosecution also proved the following documents
and got them marked as exhibits:
Exhibit Description of Exhibit Proved by/Attested
No. by
Ext.-1 Signature of the informant on PW-1
fardbeyan of Salimpur P.S. Case No.
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.3104 of 2023 dt.18-06-2026
5/20
320 of 2020
Ext.-1/1 Signature of one Umesh Kumar on PW-5
the fardbeyan
Ext.-1/2 Signature of Shambhu Singh on the PW-4
fardbeyan
Ext.-2 Injury report of the victim PW-3
Ext.-3 Entire Fardbeyan of Salimpur P.S. S.H.O., Salimpur P.S.
Case No. 320 of 2020
Ext. 4 Formal FIR of Salimpur P.S. Case S.H.O., Salimpur P.S.
No. 320 of 2020
9. After completion of the prosecution evidence, the
statements of the appellants were recorded by the trial court under
Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (in short,
‘Cr.P.C.’). The appellants denied the material circumstances
appearing against them in the prosecution evidence and pleaded
innocence.
10. The appellants did not give any evidence in their
defence.
Consideration and Analysis:-
11. I have heard the learned counsels appearing for the
parties, perused the impugned judgment, the evidences adduced by
the prosecution, and the statements of the appellants recorded
under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C.
12. The appellants stood charged for the offences
punishable under Sections 341, 323/34, 307/34, 354/34, 504/34
and 506/34 of the IPC, as well as under Section 27 of the Arms
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.3104 of 2023 dt.18-06-2026
6/20
Act. However, appellant Ranjeet Singh has been convicted only
for the offence punishable under Section 307 read with Section 34
of the IPC, whereas appellant Vicky Singh @ Ajit Kumar has been
convicted under Section 27 of the Arms Act in addition to the
offence punishable under Section 307 read with Section 34 of the
IPC.
13. While convicting the appellants for the aforesaid
charged offences, the learned trial court mainly placed reliance
upon the evidence of PW-1, who is the informant as well as the
injured witness.
14. The prosecution story is based on the fardbeyan of
the informant (PW-1), which was recorded at PMCH, Patna on
25.11.2020 at 17:00 hours by one Uday Kumar, Assistant Sub-
Inspector of Salimpur Police Station.
15. The informant alleged in her fardbeyan that on
23.11.2020 at 12:00 noon she was returning from Khusrupur
market after having purchased some medicines and when she
reached near the house of one namely, Gurudeo Singh, both the
appellants and co-accused Raushan Kumar who were already
present there, stopped her and the appellant Ranjeet Singh caught
hold of her that was resisted by her and then the appellant Ranjeet
Singh instigated the appellant Vicky Singh with abusing the victim
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.3104 of 2023 dt.18-06-2026
7/20
to kill her and then the appellant Vicky Singh who was carrying a
pistol in his hand fired at her causing an injury to her back. And
when she cried, the appellant Vicky Singh again fired and that shot
also hit at her back and thereafter, the third accused Raushan
Kumar brought a motorcycle and started abusing the family
members of the victim and also fired in the air and when the
villagers gathered, all the accused/appellants fled away from the
place of occurrence. From this story, it appears that the alleged
incident was pre-planned.
16. Now, I have to examine the evidence of the
informant, who appears to be the most important witness for the
prosecution, so as to ascertain whether her testimony is sufficient
to corroborate and prove the allegations levelled by her.
16.1. The informant, examined as PW-1, deposed almost
the same version of the prosecution story in her examination-in-
chief, particularly with regard to the alleged roles of both the
appellants. She was cross-examined at length by the
accused/appellants, and except with regard to the distance of the
accused from her at the time she sustained firearm injuries and the
presence of her family members, who claimed themselves to be
eyewitnesses, no serious contradiction emerges from her cross-
examination. So far as the motive of the appellants to commit the
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.3104 of 2023 dt.18-06-2026
8/20
alleged occurrence is concerned, she stated in her cross-
examination that the accused/appellants used to harass her by
uttering vulgar words, for which she had complained about six
months prior to the occurrence to their family members.
16.2. Here it is relevant that a land dispute had existed
in between the informant and the appellants though the said
dispute had been resolved but even then it did not come in her
(informant) evidence that there was fully cordial relation between
the victim’s family and the appellants’ family during the relevant
period of time of the commission of the alleged occurrence.
Further the victim deposed in her examination-in-chief that when
she was returning from the market, the appellant Vicky Singh
firstly caught hold of her and then started abusing her and during
that course, the appellant Ranjeet Singh asked the appellant Vicky
Singh to kill her by causing firearm injuries and also abused her at
that time and only thereafter, the appellant Vicky Singh fired with
a pistol and thereafter again fired upon her and both shots hit at her
back. In the cross-examination she stated that at the time of firing,
the appellants were at the distance of about 4 to 5 feets/ 2 deg
(Deg:- a term commonly used in village for measuring distance).
Though as per the learned counsel appearing for the appellants,
the victim made contradictory statements with regard to the
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.3104 of 2023 dt.18-06-2026
9/20
position of her body when both shots were fired at her as before
the trial court in the cross-examination she stated that she fell
down after sustaining the second gunshot injury but no such
statement was made by her in the fardbeyan.
16.3. This Court finds no substance in the said
contention. The fardbeyan of the victim was recorded at PMCH,
Patna while she was under treatment, and at that time she could
not be expected to give complete details of her body position when
both shots were fired at her.
17. Now, I come to the medical evidence, which is very
important and relevant in the present matter, as the allegations
levelled by the victim pertain to causing firearm injuries to her.
The victim’s injury report was exhibited as Ext.-2, and the
following injuries were found by the medical expert, which are as
under:
Injury details of the informant:-
(1) Entry wound of size 3cm x 1cm x depth could not be
assessed over midback at level L3- L4.
(2) Exit wound of size 1cm x 1cm x depth could not be
assessed over left inguinal region.
(3) Abrasion of size 2.5cm x 2cm over midback at below
left infra scapular area.
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.3104 of 2023 dt.18-06-2026
10/20
Following investigation suggested:
* X-Ray whole abdomen- Erect
* X-Ray Chest [AP, PA, Lateral]
{Plate and report not provided.}
* USG whole abdomen- Mild Peritoneal Collection
- Rest normal
* Patient Managed Operatively on 23.11.2020.
* Finding was Hemoperitoneum with minor laceration
of spleen. Patient discharged in well condition on 03.12.2020.
* Time since injury > 2 hours
* Cause of Injury- Penetrating Projecting Object.
* Nature of Injury- Grievous Injury
* Mark Of Identification- A mole over Chin
17.1. In the above medical opinion regarding the injuries
of the victim, the medical expert opined in his report that the
injuries were caused by a penetrating and projecting object, and all
the injuries were opined to be grievous in nature.
18. Learned counsel appearing for the appellants has
vehemently argued that the medical findings with regard to the
number and nature of injuries seriously contradict the allegations
levelled by the victim in her fardbeyan, particularly with regard to
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.3104 of 2023 dt.18-06-2026
11/20
the number of gunshots which allegedly hit her back. It is
submitted that as per Ext.-2, only one entry wound was found over
the mid back at L3–L4 level. Out of the remaining two injuries,
one was found to be an exit wound over the left inguinal region,
and the other was found to be an abrasion over the mid back below
the left infrascapular area. Learned counsel further submits that if
the prosecution story as narrated by the victim is taken to be true
then there must have been two entry wounds on the back; but,
only one entry wound was found, which, according to the
appellants’ counsel, falsifies the prosecution version. It is further
submitted that the exit wound was of the size 1 cm x 1 cm, depth
of which could not be assessed, whereas the entry wound was
measured as 3 cm x 1 cm, depth not be assessable. It is contended
that, as per settled principles of medical jurisprudence, the size of
an exit wound is normally larger than that of an entry wound, and
this discrepancy also creates a serious doubt on the prosecution
case.
18.1. In support of this contention, learned counsel has
placed reliance upon the judgment rendered by the Hon’ble
Division Bench of this Court in Cr. APP (DB) No. 358 of 1993.
Particular reliance has been placed upon paragraph no. 33 of the
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.3104 of 2023 dt.18-06-2026
12/20
said judgment, which is reproduced hereinbelow for ready
reference:
“ 33. Mr. Thakur, learned amicus curiae
submitted that the earliest version given to the police by
the informant has been suppressed in the present case. He
contended that the manner, time and place of occurrence
were not proved by prosecution with cogent and reliable
evidence. The witnesses examined in this case have
deposed falsely with intention to implicate the accused-
appellants. The informant did not support the manner of
occurrence as stated by him in the FIR while being
examined before the court. He completely changed his
version. The other witnesses who were examined in this
case have also contradicted the manner of occurrence as
narrated in the FIR. He contended that the six witnesses
who were examined as eyewitnesses in this case have
contradicted each other giving different version. He
further contended that P.Ws. 1, 2 and 3 are non-FIR
witnesses and the persons who are mentioned as witness
in the FIR have not been examined in this case. Therefore,
an inference can be drawn that the witnesses mentioned in
the FIR did not agree to support the case of the informant.
Hence, the non-FIR witnesses were brought to support the
case of the prosecution. He contended that falsity of the
prosecution case would be evident from the medical
evidence of the doctor who held the postmortem
examination on the body of the deceased. The doctor said
that he found three splinter injuries on the body of the
deceased surrounded with blackening. He argued that
splinters are used in a substance which can be made to
explode like bomb. Finding of splinters in all the injuries
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.3104 of 2023 dt.18-06-2026
13/20
which were the cause of death of the deceased would
clearly indicate that it was a death caused due to bomb
explosion. He further contended that the doctor was not
truthful while deposing before the court would be manifest
from the fact that he said that blackening of margin of
wound is possible if firing is made from a distance of 12,
20 and 30 meters. The said opinion of the doctor is
contrary to it Modi’s Medical Jurisprudence and Medical
Jurispurendence authored by other experts who have said
that there would be no blackening of margin if the firing is
done beyond six feet. He further contended that in the
instant case, though the informant claims that he
sustained bhala injury, the injury report (Exhibit-2) would
clearly show that the injury found on the person of the
informant was caused by a hard and blunt substance.”
19. On the other hand, Mr. Saroj Kumar Choudhary,
learned counsel for the informant has argued that it is not
necessary in every case for the exit wound to be larger than the
entry wound, as the size of both wounds depends upon several
circumstances.
19.1. I find substance in the aforesaid submission of
learned counsel for the informant, as in every case it is not
necessary that the exit wound must be larger than the entry wound.
The size of the exit wound depends upon several factors, such as
the amount of tissue through which the bullet passes, the bone
struck by the bullet, and the path and obstructions through which
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.3104 of 2023 dt.18-06-2026
14/20
the bullet travelled while exiting the body. In the present case, the
X-ray plate and X-ray examination report were not available
before the medical expert when the opinion was rendered in the
injury report. Though, before the trial court, PW-3, the doctor
concerned, deposed that injury no. 3 was not a firearm injury but
in his report (Ext.-2) he did not give any such opinion and merely
mentioned the cause of injury as due to a penetrating and
projecting object. Thus, there is some contradiction between the
court evidence of the doctor (PW-3) and his opinion recorded in
Ext.-2. As per medical jurisprudence, an abrasion may also be the
result of a gunshot injury. Though there is some contradiction
between the medical opinion in Ext.-2 and the ocular evidence of
PW-1, who is the most important witness and the injured person, it
is a settled proposition of law that ocular evidence prevails over
medical opinion, particularly when such ocular evidence is
consistent, as in the present case. Accordingly, this Court is not
inclined to grant benefit to the appellants merely on the ground of
the said contradiction.
20. Learned counsel appearing for the appellants has
vehemently argued that in the instant matter the investigation
remained completely faulty, as neither the alleged firearm nor the
blood-stained clothes of the victim nor the blood-stained soil from
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.3104 of 2023 dt.18-06-2026
15/20
the place of occurrence were seized and produced before the trial
court. Even the copy of the FIR was received by the concerned
court 10 days after its institution, without any plausible
explanation being furnished. Further, the police official, namely
Uday Kumar, ASI, who recorded the fardbeyan, was also not
produced and examined before the trial court. He was the best
person to prove the circumstances under which the fardbeyan was
recorded. These lacunas on the part of the police/prosecution have,
according to the appellants’ counsel, fatally prejudiced their
defence.
20.1. Though some lapses as pointed out by learned
counsel for the appellants, do appear in the present matter, yet
despite the existence of such lapses, the evidence of the victim
appears to be of sterling quality. These lapses do not go to the root
of the matter so as to dislodge the substratum of the prosecution
case and do not persuade this Court to form the opinion that the
allegations levelled by the victim, which also find support from
her injury report, are false. Accordingly, this Court is not inclined
to grant any benefit to the appellants on account of the said lapses
on the part of the investigating agency.
21. It has been argued by the learned counsel appearing
for the appellants that the alleged incident is stated to have taken
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.3104 of 2023 dt.18-06-2026
16/20
place on 23.11.2020, whereas the FIR was registered on
25.11.2020 and no step was taken by any family member of the
victim to lodge the FIR between 23.11.2020 and 25.11.2020, and
the said delay renders the FIR unreliable.
21.1. I find no force in this contention, as the victim
sustained gunshot injuries and was immediately rushed to the local
hospital and thereafter referred to PMCH, Patna, where she
remained under treatment for several days. She regained
consciousness on 25.11.2020, and her fardbeyan was recorded
immediately thereafter. In this regard, the testimonies of the victim
(PW-1) and the Investigating Officer (PW-6) are relevant.
22. It has been further argued by the learned counsel for
the appellants that as per the prosecution case, the alleged incident
took place near the house of one Gurudeo Singh and none of the
family members residing in the said house, was examined by the
Investigating Officer and, apart from the family members of the
victim, no independent person was examined as a prosecution
witness. Consequently, the prosecution case remains entirely
dependent upon the testimony of related witnesses.
22.1. I find no force in the said contention, as a perusal
of the FIR does not indicate that any family member of the said
Gurudeo Singh or any independent person having no relationship
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.3104 of 2023 dt.18-06-2026
17/20
with the victim had reached the place of occurrence at the time of
the alleged incident. Though, in this regard, the Investigating
Officer ought to have conducted an investigation by examining
persons residing in the nearby houses and in the vicinity of the
place of occurrence, and to that extent he appears to have been
somewhat careless, however, the same does not affect the
prosecution case in view of the other credible evidences available
on record.
23. It has been further argued by the learned counsel
appearing for the appellants that the principal allegation of firing
and causing firearm injuries to the victim is against appellant no.
1, Vicky Singh @ Ajit Kumar. It is submitted that appellant no. 2,
Ranjeet Singh, has been convicted solely with the aid of Section
34 of the IPC. Learned counsel contends that in the light of the
testimony of PW-1, who is the most material witness for the
prosecution, the alleged acts attributed to appellant no. 2 are not
sufficient to establish that he shared a common intention with
appellant no. 1, Vicky Singh @ Ajit Kumar, in the commission of
the offence of attempt to murder. It is argued that the ingredients
necessary for invoking Section 34 of the IPC against appellant no.
2 have not been proved beyond reasonable doubt.
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.3104 of 2023 dt.18-06-2026
18/20
23.1. I find no force in this contention, as from the FIR it
is clearly evident that both the appellants, along with the third co-
accused, firstly stopped the victim when she was returning from
Khusrupur Market after purchasing medicines. The manner in
which they stopped the victim and their position at the alleged
place clearly show that the alleged incident was pre-planned and
the victim was firstly caught hold which was resisted by her then
the appellant Ranjeet Singh (appellant no.2) ordered and instigated
the appellant Vicky Singh @ Ajit Kumar to kill the victim by
opening pistol and only thereafter, the pistol was used and fired by
the appellant Vicky Singh causing gunshot injury at her back and
thereafter second gunshot was also fired by him. These sequences
of events do not persuade this Court to form the opinion that
appellant Ranjeet Singh was not having the intention to kill the
victim along with the main assailant, Vicky Singh. Hence, his
conviction with the aid of Section 34 of the IPC appears to be
proper.
23.2. As far as the evidence of other witnesses, PW-2,
namely YYY (father-in-law of the victim), PW-4 Shambhu Singh,
brother of the father-in-law of the victim, and PW-5, ZZZ, husband
of the victim, is concerned, though they have claimed themselves
to be eye-witnesses to the occurrence but in the background of the
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.3104 of 2023 dt.18-06-2026
19/20
testimony of the victim, they do not appear to be eye-witnesses of
the main incident. The learned trial court appears to have erred in
treating them as eye-witnesses. However, even then, with regard to
the circumstances happened just subsequent to the commission of
the alleged occurrence, such as the victim’s injured position, the
place of occurrence, the steps taken by these witnesses in rushing
the victim to the hospital, their evidence is relevant and to some
extent helpful to the prosecution.
Conclusion:-
24. For the reasons discussed above, I am of the
considered view that the allegations levelled by the informant
(PW-1), who is the most important witness for the prosecution,
find support from her ocular evidence and also from her injury
report. The same are sufficient to inspire confidence of this Court
with regard to her allegations. I find no reason to take a different
view from that of the learned trial court, nor find any ground to
interfere with the conclusion arrived at by the trial court in
convicting both the appellants for the offences under Section 307
read with Section 34 of the IPC and convicting appellant Vicky
Singh @ Ajit Kumar for the offence under Section 27 of the Arms
Act, in addition thereto. There is no merit in this appeal;
accordingly, the same stands dismissed.
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.3104 of 2023 dt.18-06-2026
20/20
25. Appellant No. 2, Ranjeet Singh, is on bail. He is,
therefore, directed to surrender before the trial court within four
weeks from today. In the event of his failure to surrender within
the aforesaid period, the learned trial court shall take all necessary
legal steps to secure his custody so that he may serve the
remaining part of his sentence.
26. Let the records of the trial court, along with a copy
of this judgment, be transmitted forthwith to the trial court for
needful and necessary compliance.
(Shailendra Singh, J)
maynaz/-
AFR/NAFR AFR
CAV DATE N/A
Uploading Date 23.06.2026
Transmission Date 23.06.2026
Checking your session…
Lawyer court records for this case
Associated through the court’s case reference.