Patna High Court

Raj Kumar Singh @ Bhola Singh and Anr.versusThe State Of Bihar

Decided: 31 January 2026
Disposal: ALLOWED
Bench: SHAILENDRA SINGH

Holding

The convictions under IPC 323, 504 and 354 are set aside because the prosecution evidence is unreliable and contradictory, making it unsafe to uphold the convictions.

Summary

The appellants, Raj Kumar Singh and Ram Kumar Singh, were convicted by the Additional Sessions Judge, Darbhanga, for assault (IPC 323), criminal intimidation (IPC 504) and, in the case of the first appellant, outraging the modesty of a woman (IPC 354). The prosecution’s case relied on the testimony of five witnesses, but the court noted serious contradictions, especially concerning the alleged eyewitnesses and the eight‑day delay in filing the complaint. The defence highlighted that key witnesses were not eye‑witnesses, medical documents were not produced, and a dispute over a bamboo orchard suggested a motive to fabricate the allegations. The High Court held that the inconsistencies rendered the prosecution evidence unreliable, and that when the main allegations are disbelieved, it is unsafe to sustain convictions for the related minor offences. Consequently, the court set aside the convictions and ordered the cancellation of bail bonds. The appeal was allowed, and the appellants were discharged.

Issues considered

Whether the delay of eight days in filing the complaint defeats the prosecution’s case.
Whether the contradictions in the testimonies of prosecution witnesses undermine the credibility required for conviction under IPC sections 323, 504 and 354.
Whether convictions for minor offences can be sustained when the principal allegations are not proved.

Legislation cited

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 200, 313
Indian Penal Code — s. 313, 316, 323, 354, 376, 504, 511
SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act — s. 3(1)(x)

Subjects

IPC
assault
outraging modesty
evidence credibility
delay in filing complaint
appeal
SC/ST Act
CrPC

Judgment

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL APPEAL (SJ) No.37 of 2014
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-936 Year-2002 Thana- DARBHANGA COMPLAINT CASE
District- Darbhanga
======================================================
1. Raj Kumar Singh @ Bhola Singh, Son of Late Jai Krishna Singh, Resident
of Village- Jakhara, Police Station- Hayaghat, District- Darbhanga
2. Ram Kumar Singh @ Shambhu Singh, Son of Late Jai Krishna Singh,
Resident of Village- Jakhara, Police Station- Hayaghat, District- Darbhanga

... ... Appellant/s
Versus
The State of Bihar

... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Appellant/s : Mr. Alok Kumar, Sr. Adv.
Mr. Birendra Kumar Singh, Adv.
Mr. Raghwendra Pratap Singh, Adv.
Ms. Tanya Kumari, Adv.
For the State : Mr. Bipin Kumar, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHAILENDRA SINGH
ORAL JUDGMENT
Date : 31-01-2026

The instant appeal has been filed by the appellants,

Raj Kumar Singh @ Bhola Singh and Ram Kumar Singh @

Shambhu Singh, against the judgment of conviction and order of

sentence dated 20.12.2013, passed by the Court of the learned

1st Additional Sessions Judge, Darbhanga, in Sessions Trial Case

No. 291 of 2009, arising out of Complaint Case No. 936 of 2002,

whereby and whereunder the appellants have been convicted for

the offences punishable under Sections 323 and 504 of the

Indian Penal Code (in short, “IPC”). Appellant No. 1 has been

further convicted under Section 354 of the IPC. Both the
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.37 of 2014 dt.31-01-2026
2/12

appellants have been sentenced to undergo imprisonment for six

months each under Sections 323 and 504, and Appellant No. 1

has been sentenced to undergo imprisonment for one year under

Section 354 of the IPC.

Prosecution Story

2. The prosecution story as appearing from the

complaint filed by the PW-5 is as follows:

On 23.08.2002 at about 5:30 A.M., the complainant

along with the wife of his brother namely, Urmila Devi went to a

bamboo orchard located 50 laggis away from their house to attend

the call of nature then the accused Mukesh Singh came there and

stated to his uncle that the bird had been trapped then the appellant

Raj Kumar Singh @ Bhola Singh came and abused the

complainant with asking them as to what they were doing there.

Thereafter he caught hold of her both hands and co-accused

Mukesh Singh pressed her mouth. After that the appellant no.1

tore her blouse and pushed her down and tried to commit wrong

with her by lifting her saree and petticoat then she started

struggling then her brother's wife came there and raised an alarm

with asking the accused why were they committing the wrong

with a pregnant lady and then both the accused started assaulting

her and during that course they inflicted two or three leg blows to
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.37 of 2014 dt.31-01-2026
3/12

her abdominal area causing severe pain to her thereafter her

brother's wife tried to save her but she was also assaulted and

upon hearing their cries and alarm, the witnesses rushed to the

place of occurrence then both the accused managed to escape. As

per the complainant, when her father and brother later went to the

guardian of the said accused namely, Ram Kumar Singh @

Shambu Singh (appellant no.2), he abused them by using filthy

language and also assaulted them and made them fleeing away. As

per the complainant, on account of the alleged assault, her two and

half months old pregnancy terminated and regarding the said

occurrence, a Panchayat meeting was convened by the accused

themselves but they refused to follow the Panchayat and again

used the abusing language towards them and thereafter, she went

to the police station after her health condition improved but the

SHO of police station concerned did not take her complaint rather

he ousted her from police station with rebuking her also.

3. On the basis of the above complaint, the concerned

Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate proceeded under Section 200 of

the Cr.P.C. and examined four witnesses. Thereafter, the learned

Magistrate took cognizance of the alleged offences, and the case

was committed to the Court of Sessions, from where it was sent to

the Court of the learned 1st Additional Sessions Judge. Appellant
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.37 of 2014 dt.31-01-2026
4/12

No. 1 and co-accused Mukesh Kumar Singh were charged with

offences under Sections 313 and 316 read with Section 34 of the

IPC. Appellant No. 1 was separately charged for the offence under

Section 376 read with Section 511 of the IPC. Both the appellants

and co-accused Mukesh Kumar Singh were jointly charged for the

offences under Section 323 of the IPC and the offence under

Section 3(1)(x) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. The

charges were read over and explained to the appellants in Hindi, to

which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

4. After the framing of charges, co-accused Mukesh

Kumar Singh was found to be a juvenile on the date of the alleged

occurrence. Consequently, his trial was separated and sent to the

Juvenile Justice Board for trial in respect of him, and both the

appellants faced trial jointly for the offences charged against them.

5. Here, it is important to mention that the trial court

acquitted Appellant No. 1 of the charged offences under Sections

313, 316, and 376 read with Section 511 of the IPC, and both the

appellants were also acquitted of the offence punishable under

Section 3(1)(x) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. The

trial court convicted both the appellants for the offences under

Sections 323 and 504 of the IPC, and Appellant No. 1 was

separately convicted for the offence under Section 354 of the IPC.
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.37 of 2014 dt.31-01-2026
5/12

Both the appellants were sentenced to undergo imprisonment for

six months each for the offences under Sections 323 and 504 of the

IPC, and Appellant No. 1 was sentenced to undergo imprisonment

for one year for the offence under Section 354 of the IPC. The

sentences of imprisonment were directed by the trial court to run

concurrently.

6. During the trial, the prosecution examined altogether

five following witnesses:

Sl. No. Name Relevancy
P.W.1 Ram Chandra Ram Father of the complainant
P.W.2 Vinod Ram Brother of the complainant
P.W.3 Sumitra Devi Mother of the complainant
Wife of the complainant's
P.W.4 Urmila Devi
brother
P.W.5 Kishmat Devi Complainant herself

7. No documentary evidence was given by the

prosecution party in addition to ocular offence.

8. After the completion of the prosecution evidence, the

statements of the appellants were recorded under Section 313 of the

Cr.P.C., in which they denied the main circumstances appearing

against them from the prosecution evidence and claimed

themselves to be innocent. However, they did not take any specific

defence while recording their statements and only took the plea that

they had been falsely implicated.
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.37 of 2014 dt.31-01-2026
6/12

9. In defence, the appellants examined four following

witnesses:

Sl. No. Name
D.W.1 Gageshwar Ram
D.W.2 Shibu Ram
D.W.3 Mahesh Ram
D.W.4 Ram Kumar Singh

10. While convicting the appellants for the aforesaid

offences, the trial court observed that although the prosecution

failed to prove the allegation of causing miscarriage to the

complainant and insulting the prosecution party, and also failed to

bring home the allegation of attempting to commit rape, however

at the same time, the charged offence relating to outraging the

modesty of the complainant by Appellant No. 1 was believed by

the trial court. While recording this finding, the learned trial court

placed reliance on the testimonies of PW-1 to PW-5.

Submissions on behalf of the appellants:

11. Mr. Alok Kumar, learned senior counsel for the

appellants, has argued that the complaint was filed after a delay of

eight days from the commission of the alleged occurrence. He

submits that if the testimonies of PW-1 to PW-5 are taken into

account, PW-1, PW-2, and PW-3 do not appear to be eye-

witnesses. With regard to important facts such as going to the

house of Appellant No. 2, taking the complainant to the hospital,
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.37 of 2014 dt.31-01-2026
7/12

and the presence of the complainant’s family members at the

concerned hospital where the complainant was treated, there are

serious contradictions among the testimonies of all the prosecution

witnesses. Learned senior counsel further submits that even if the

prosecution story is believed some explanation could be deemed

acceptable for a delay of 3–4 days in taking legal action with

regard to the alleged offences; however, in the present case, a

delay of eight days occurred in filing the complaint, and a major

part of the delay remained unexplained. As per the testimonies of

the prosecution witnesses, particularly the complainant and the

wife of the complainant’s brother, several villagers came to the

place of occurrence upon hearing the alarm and cries, but none of

them was produced or examined by the prosecution, and in this

regard, no explanation has been offered. The complainant’s father

was examined as PW-1, who clearly stated the name of the

concerned doctor where the complainant was taken and treated;

however, no documentary evidence, such as medical prescriptions

or any other documents relating to the said treatment, was

produced before the trial court, despite the complainant having

stated that she would produce the same. As per the testimony of

PW-1, he and the complainant’s brother, PW-2, along with others,

had taken the complainant to the hospital and remained there
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.37 of 2014 dt.31-01-2026
8/12

during the course of treatment; however, in view of the testimony

of PW-2 and others, the said fact remained unproved. Regarding

the period of treatment, the prosecution witnesses made

contradictory statements. Learned senior counsel has further

argued that, in fact, there was a dispute between the prosecution

party and the appellants with respect to the appellants’ bamboo

orchard, which was admitted by the prosecution witnesses, and

that the said dispute was the main reason for fabricating a false

story and implicating the appellants with false allegations.

Submissions on behalf of the State:

12. On the other hand, Mr. Bipin Kumar, learned APP

appearing for the State, submits that for proving and attracting the

offences for which the appellants have been convicted, the

testimonies of PW-4 and PW-5 are the most important, and the

trial court has rightly placed reliance on them, as both are

eyewitnesses to the commission of the alleged occurrence.

However, the learned APP accepts that PW-1, PW-2, and PW-3 do

not appear to be eyewitnesses of the alleged occurrence.

Consideration and analysis:

13. I have heard both sides, perused the impugned

judgment, and examined the evidence adduced by both parties as
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.37 of 2014 dt.31-01-2026
9/12

available on the trial court record, taking into account the

statements of the accused/appellants.

14. The first contention raised by the appellants’ counsel

is the inordinate delay of eight days in taking legal action by the

prosecution party in respect of the alleged occurrence. In support

of this contention, learned counsel has drawn attention of this

court to the statements of the prosecution witnesses PW-1 to PW-

5. From a perusal of their testimonies, the main reasons stated for

the delay are the complainant’s treatment at Laheriyasarai by a

private doctor, namely Dr. Sunita Sinha, and the convening of a

Panchayat meeting between the parties. However, no convincing

evidence was produced to substantiate these grounds, despite PW-

1 admitting that medical documents relating to the treatment were

available and could have been produced before the trial court.

Further, as per the testimony of PW-1, the complainant’s father,

several villagers belonging to different caste were informed about

the occurrence, and Panchayat meeting was convened, yet neither

any of the Panches nor any of the villagers were produced or

examined by the prosecution to substantiate these claims. Even if

these grounds are taken to be true, a delay of 5–7 days remains

unexplained, giving force to the contention regarding the

inordinate delay.
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.37 of 2014 dt.31-01-2026
10/12

15. The second contention raised by the learned counsel

is the existence of major contradictions among the testimonies of

all the prosecution witnesses. On examining the evidence, I find

that PW-1, the father of the complainant, deposed in chief-

examination that upon hearing the commotion, he rushed to the

place of occurrence with villagers and claimed to be an eyewitness

to the incident. However, as per the testimony of the complainant

(PW-5) and her sister-in-law (PW-4), only the complainant and her

sister-in-law were present at the time of the assault, and PW-4

stated in cross-examination that after the assault, she attended the

complainant while the accused fled away, and her father-in-law,

mother-in-law, and other villagers arrived half an hour later. This

clearly belies PW-1’s claim of witnessing the assault. PW-4 further

stated that she remained with the complainant throughout the

incident, contradicting PW-1’s account. PW-1 also claimed to have

informed members of the society about the incident, naming

several villagers in cross-examination, yet none of them was

examined by the prosecution, and no explanation was given for

their non-production. PW-1 stated that during the occurrence, his

son (PW-2), wife (PW-3), Pramila Devi, and 10–12 other persons

were with him, but he did not disclose the names of these 10–12

persons. PW-4’s testimony contradicts this, stating that the
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.37 of 2014 dt.31-01-2026
11/12

complainant’s parents and some villagers arrived later, and PW-2

was not present at the house at the relevant time and came only

half an hour after the complainant was taken to the hospital. These

contradictions cast serious doubt on PW-1’s testimony. Regarding

the period of treatment, PW-1 deposed that the complainant

regained consciousness after about one and a half hours at Dr.

Sunita Sinha’s clinic and returned home the next morning, while

PW-5 stated that she regained consciousness three days after the

occurrence. This serious discrepancy affects the credibility of PW-

1’s testimony and raises doubt as to the reliability of the

prosecution story.

16. In view of the above, I find merit in the contentions

raised by the appellants. The contradictions in the prosecution

witnesses’ testimonies are serious, particularly in view of the

admitted enmity between the prosecution party and the appellants

over the cutting of bamboo from the appellants’ orchard. Evidence

from independent defence witnesses further supports the doubt. At

this juncture, I would like to mention and of the view that when

the main part of the occurrence, which attracts the major offences,

is disbelieved, it is unsafe to convict the appellants for minor

offences as the alleged incidents relating to major and minor

offences are so interconnected that they cannot be separated. When
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.37 of 2014 dt.31-01-2026
12/12

the material witnesses are disbelieved with respect to the major

allegations, it is improper to rely on their testimony for the

inseparable minor allegations.

Conclusion

17. Accordingly, in the result, the impugned judgment of

conviction and order of sentence dated 20.12.2013, passed by the

Court of 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Darbhanga, whereby the

appellants were convicted and sentenced for the offences charged

in Sessions Trial Case No. 291 of 2009, arising out of Complaint

Case No. 936 of 2002, are hereby set aside.

18. The appeal is allowed.

19. The appellants are presently on bail; accordingly,

their bail bonds stand cancelled forthwith, and they, as well as

their sureties, are discharged from their respective liabilities.

20. Let the records of the trial court, along with a copy

of this judgment, be transmitted forthwith to the trial court for

compliance and necessary action.

(Shailendra Singh, J)

Rajiv/-
AFR/NAFR AFR
CAV DATE NA
Uploading Date 04.02.2026
Transmission Date 04.02.2026

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…