Baijnath YadavversusThe State Of Bihar

    IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
                  CRIMINAL APPEAL (SJ) No.4 of 2016
      Arising Out of PS. Case No.-70 Year-1985 Thana- HATHIDAH District- Patna
======================================================
Surendra Kapri Son of Ram Kishun Kapri, Resident of Village - Aunta, P.S. -
Hathida, District - Patna.
                                                         ... ... Appellant/s
                                Versus
The State of Bihar
                                                      ... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
                                 with
                  CRIMINAL APPEAL (SJ) No. 41 of 2016
      Arising Out of PS. Case No.-70 Year-1985 Thana- HATHIDAH District- Patna
======================================================
Baijnath Yadav son of Late Gyani Yadav, resident of village Aunta, P.S.
Hathidah, District Patna
                                                       ... ... Appellant/s
                               Versus
The State of Bihar
                                                    ... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
(In CRIMINAL APPEAL (SJ) No. 4 of 2016)
For the Appellant/s  :     Mr. Gouranga Chatterjee, Sr. Advocate
                           Mr. Nilanjan Chatterjee, Mr. Ujjwal Raj,
                           Mr. Sahil Kumar, Mr. Anirvan Choudhuri,
                           Mr. Jyoti Prakash, Mr. Sarvjit Kumar, Advocates
For the Respondent/s :     Mr. Mukeshwar Dayal, A.P.P.
(In CRIMINAL APPEAL (SJ) No. 41 of 2016)
For the Appellant/s  :     Mr. Gouranga Chatterjee, Sr. Advocate
                           Mr. Nilanjan Chatterjee, Mr. Ujjwal Raj,
                           Mr. Sahil Kumar, Mr. Anirvan Choudhuri,
                           Mr. Jyoti Prakash, Mr. Sarvjit Kumar, Advocates
For the Respondent/s :     Smt. Abha Singh, A.P.P.
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRABHAT KUMAR SINGH
ORAL JUDGMENT

 Date : 15-04-2026

             1. Both the aforementioned appeals arise out of same

 Hathidah P. S. Case No. 70 of 1985 and Sessions Trial No. 350

 of 1987 and hence, with the consent of all the parties, are being

 heard and disposed of by a common judgment.

             2. Heard learned senior counsel for the appellants and
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.4 of 2016 dt.15-04-2026
                                             2/8




         learned A.P.Ps. for the State.

                      3. These appeals have been filed challenging the

         judgment of conviction dated 30.11.2015 and order of sentence

         dated 07.12.2015 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge

         3rd, Barh, Patna in Sessions Trial No. 350 of 1987 arising out of

         Hathidah Case No. 70 of 1985 whereby appellant namely,

         Surendra Kapri has been convicted under Section 379 of the

         Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo simple

         imprisonment for a period of three months and appellant,

         namely, Baijnath Yadav has been convicted under Section 307

         of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo rigorous

         imprisonment for four years and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/- and

         in default to undergo a further period of rigorous imprisonment

         for three months.

                      4. The prosecution case, in brief, is that on 9.9.1985

         one Deo Nandan Yadav/informant filed a written report before

         the office-in- charge, Hathidah P.S. alleging therein that he lives

         in his purchased house with his aunt Sridevi. On the said date,

         just before the filing of the written report, four accused named

         in the F.I.R., including these appellants, came and started

         abusing informant and caused bhala injury on his head and

         asked him to vacate the house. When informant fell down
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.4 of 2016 dt.15-04-2026
                                             3/8




         unconscious upon receiving bhala injury, co-accused Manish

         Kapri snatched his wrist watch and appellant namely, Surendra

         Kapri snatched his money. Accordingly, Hathidah P. S. Case No.

         70 of 1985 was registered under Sections 324, 323, 379 of the

         Indian Penal Code.

                      5. Police after investigation submitted charge sheet in

         the case under Sections 307, 326, 324, 379 IPC. During trial,

         charge under Section 379 IPC was framed against appellant

         namely, Surendra Kapri and co-accused Manish Kapri while

         charge under Section 307 IPC was framed against appellant,

         namely, Baijnath Yadav and co-accused Jai Narayan Yadav.

         During the trial, co-accused Manish Kapri and Jai Narayan

         Yadav absconded therefore, trial of these appellants were held

         separately.

                      6. During the trial, prosecution, in all, examined seven

         witnesses, who are PW1 Sharwan Kumar, PW2 Deo Kumar

         Yadav, PW3 Ramesh Chandra Sharma, PW4 Manoj Kumar,

         PW5 Deo Nandan Yadav (informant), PW6 Dr. Krishna Murari

         Prasad Singh and PW7 Rameshwar Singh (I.O.). PW2 was

         declared hostile by the prosecution and PW5 is the informant-

         cum-injured of this case.

                      7. On the other hand, the defence also examined one
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.4 of 2016 dt.15-04-2026
                                             4/8




         witness Rajendra Chaudhary and proved some documents

         regarding the land dispute.

                      8. Learned senior counsel appearing for the appellants

         assails the order of conviction and sentence on numerous

         grounds. He contends that prosecution has failed to prove the

         charge u/s 307 & 309 IPC beyond all reasonable doubt. He

         further submits that in the written report, no specific allegation

         was made against any accused about assaulting with Bhala or

         that he was assaulted with Bhala twice. There is also no

         allegation that informant received any injury on the hand.

         However, during trial, informant including all the witnesses

         improved their case which is contrary to the statement in the

         written report. All the depositions of witnesses during trial are

         totally inconsistent and contrary to the F.I.R. and their previous

         statements before the police.

                      9. It is further submitted that the informant did not

         state in written or in statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. about

         the occurrence as stated before the police and did not disclose in

         written report as to who caused Bhala injury and that he was

         assaulted twice with Bhala and received two injuries.

                      10. None of the independent witnesses, present at the

         place of occurrence, were examined on behalf of the
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.4 of 2016 dt.15-04-2026
                                             5/8




         prosecution. Thus, entire depositions of the witnesses are

         contrary to the written report as well as to their previous

         statements made before the police during the investigation.

         There is no allegation of repetition of blow and as such, no

         offence under Section 307 IPC would be made out since despite

         there being no intervening circumstances, informant saved his

         life and from the injury report it appears that one of the injury

         was simple. The story of theft is also unbelievable for the simple

         reason that as per the statement of the informant, theft was

         committed when he had fallen down unconscious and therefore,

         he could not have seen the said occurrence. Rest of the eye

         witnesses who are chance witnesses have not corroborated the

         allegation of theft the way it was alleged. Thus, in view of the

         inconsistent and contradictory evidence and the circumstances

         which had appeared in the case, accused persons deserve to be

         acquitted and appeals deserve to be allowed.

                      11. On the other hand, learned A.P.Ps. for the State

         supported the prosecution case and submitted that informant is

         eye witness of the occurrence and has supported and

         corroborated the allegation. There is no reason to differ with the

         findings of the court. Judgment of conviction and order of

         sentence passed by the trial court is justified and no interference
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.4 of 2016 dt.15-04-2026
                                             6/8




         is required.

                      12. I have perused the depositions of witnesses,

         impugned judgment and order of the trial court and I have also

         given thoughtful consideration to the submissions made on

         behalf of the parties.

                      13. From perusal of the evidence adduced on behalf of

         the prosecution, it is apparent that all the statements of

         prosecution        witnesses       suffer     from   material   infirmities,

         discrepancies and inconsistencies. Depositions of witnesses are

         apparently in conflict with and contrary to the F.I.R. and their

         previous statements made before the police. Prosecution case

         has been lodged on the basis of written report of the informant

         and as per F.I.R., there is no whisper of second injury on the

         hand of informant. During trial, all the witnesses have improved

         the prosecution case and alleged that it was these appellants who

         assaulted informant with Bhala which is completely in conflict

         and contrary to the F.I.R. as well as their previous statements

         before the police. None of the witnesses, during investigation,

         have stated before the police as to who assaulted informant with

         Bhala. It further appears that in the F.I.R., informant, who

         appears to be the victim of the occurrence, has not alleged that

         who caught hold of him and assaulted him with Bhala.
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.4 of 2016 dt.15-04-2026
                                              7/8




         However,        during      trial,    informant   improved   the   entire

         prosecution case and stated that these appellants assaulted him

         with Bhala. Similarly, informant, in his written statement, is

         silent about the second injury on his hand.

                      14. Testimony of the witnesses are inconsistent with

         the F.I.R. and their previous statements before the police. None

         of the witnesses, during investigation, have stated as to who

         assaulted informant. Thus, the depositions of the witnesses are

         totally untrustworthy and wholly unreliable. There is mismatch

         between medical and ocular evidence. Thus, in view of the

         material contradiction and discrepancies with regard to the

         prosecution case, place and manner of occurrence, I find that the

         impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence are

         difficult to sustain.

                      15. Thus, in view of the facts and circumstances of the

         case, as discussed above, it is evident that the prosecution has

         failed to prove the guilt of these appellants beyond reasonable

         doubt and thus, the appellants are entitled to be given the benefit

         of doubt. In consequences, conviction cannot be sustained and

         accused are entitled to acquittal.

                      16. In that view of the matter, judgment of conviction

         dated 30.11.2015 and order of sentence dated 07.12.2015 passed
             Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.4 of 2016 dt.15-04-2026
                                                          8/8




                      by learned Additional Sessions Judge 3 rd, Barh, Patna in

                      Sessions Trial No. 350 of 1987 arising out of Hathidah Case No.

                      70 of 1985 are, hereby, set aside.

                                   17. Appellants are acquitted of all the charges and are

                      discharged from the liability of the bail bonds in connection

                      with this case.

                                   18. Accordingly, this appeal stands allowed.




                                              (Prabhat Kumar Singh, J)
Navya/-
AFR/NAFR                NAFR
CAV DATE                N/A
Uploading Date          23.04.2026
Transmission Date       23.04.2026