Patna High Court

RAMASHISH PANDEYversusSTATE OF BIHAR

Decided: 9 July 2026
Disposal: PARTLY ALLOWED (DISPOSAL)
Bench: PURNENDU SINGH

Holding

The conviction under Section 326 IPC is not sustainable and is modified to a conviction under Section 324 IPC.

Summary

Ramashish Pandey was convicted by the Additional Sessions Judge for voluntarily causing grievous hurt under Section 326 of the IPC, based on an alleged assault with a dabia that caused a neck injury. The appellant challenged the conviction, arguing that the prosecution failed to prove his guilt beyond reasonable doubt, citing unreliable eyewitnesses, lack of forensic evidence, and inconsistencies in medical testimony. The High Court examined the testimonies of seven prosecution witnesses, four defence witnesses, medical reports, and the investigation record, noting that the injury could have been caused by a fall on a sharp bamboo and that the intent to cause death was not established. Applying principles from Supreme Court precedents on intent and the nature of the weapon, the Court held that the evidence did not satisfy the requirements for a Section 326 conviction. Consequently, the conviction was modified to Section 324 (voluntarily causing hurt) and the seven‑year rigorous imprisonment was deemed to have been served, leading to the appellant's release. The appeal was partially allowed, with the conviction and sentence altered accordingly.

Issues considered

The prosecution proved the elements of an offence under Section 326 IPC beyond reasonable doubt.
Whether the injury was caused by a dangerous weapon with intent to cause grievous hurt or death.
Whether the evidence, including eyewitness and medical testimony, is sufficient to sustain a conviction under Section 326.
Whether the conviction should be reduced to a lesser offence under Section 324 IPC.

Legislation cited

Criminal Procedure Code — s. 313
Indian Penal Code — s. 300, 307, 319, 323, 324, 326, 379

Subjects

criminal law
Indian Penal Code
Section 326
Section 324
grievous hurt
intent
evidence evaluation
appeal
land dispute
medical evidence

Judgment

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL APPEAL (SJ) No.416 of 2010
======================================================
Ramashish Pandey, son of Shiv Narayan Pandey, resident of village + P.O-
Garoul, P.S.-Bihra, District-Saharsa

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

... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Appellant/s : Mr. Diwakar Prasad Singh, Advocate
For the Respondent/s : Mr. Ajay Mishra, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PURNENDU SINGH
CAV JUDGMENT
Date : 09-07-2026
Heard Mr. Diwakar Prasad Singh, learned counsel

for the appellant and Mr. Ajay Mishra, learned APP for the

State.

2. The appellant has preferred the present criminal

appeal against the judgment of conviction dated 27.04.2010 and

order of sentence dated 29.04.2010 passed in S.Tr. No. 02 of

2009 (arising out of Bihra P.S. Case No. 96 of 2007) by learned

Additional Session Judge F.T.C. - 5th at Saharsa, whereby, the

learned trial court has convicted the appellant for the offence

committed under Section 326 of the Indian Penal Code and

sentenced him to undergo seven years Rigorous Imprisonment

(R.I.) and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- and in default of payment

of fine, to further undergo Simple Imprisonment (S.I.) for three

months.
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.416 of 2010 dt.09-07-2026
2/22

3. The appellant has assailed the impugned judgment

primarily on the ground that the learned trial court has failed to

appreciate the evidence available on record in its proper

perspective and has erred in recording the conviction of the

appellant.

BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE

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

intervening night of 11/12 July 2007 at about 2:30 A.M., the

informant was sleeping on a machan erected in his mango

orchard for guarding the mango crop. It was alleged that the

appellant, Ramashish Pandey, armed with a Dabia (a sharp

cutting weapon), came near the informant. The informant stated

that when he questioned the appellant regarding his presence in

the orchard at such an odd hour, the appellant abused him and

inflicted a single Dabia blow on his neck with the intention to

kill him. The injury caused profuse bleeding. Upon hearing the

informant's alarm, nearby villagers rushed to the orchard. By

that time, the appellant allegedly fled away after taking away the

informant's Nokia mobile phone and torch. The injured was first

taken to his house and thereafter shifted to Sadar Hospital,

Saharsa, where his fardbeyan was recorded. Subsequently, he

was referred to PMCH, Patna, for better treatment. On the basis
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.416 of 2010 dt.09-07-2026
3/22

of the fardbeyan, Bihra P.S. Case No. 96 of 2007 was instituted

under Sections 324, 307 and 379 of the Indian Penal Code. After

completion of investigation, charge-sheet was submitted and

charges under Sections 307, 324 and 379 IPC were framed

against the appellant. The defence pleaded false implication on

account of an old land dispute. Upon conclusion of trial, the

learned Trial Court acquitted the appellant of the charges under

Sections 307 and 379 IPC but convicted him under Section 326

IPC.

ARGUMENT ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANTS

5. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant

submitted that the impugned judgment of conviction and order

of sentence passed by the learned Trial Court are contrary to the

evidence available on record and settled principles of criminal

law. The prosecution has failed to establish the guilt of the

appellant beyond reasonable doubt. The alleged occurrence took

place at about 2:30 A.M. in a densely grown mango orchard on a

dark night, making the identification of the appellant highly

doubtful. Except the testimony of the injured (P.W.3), no witness

actually witnessed the assault. P.W.1 and P.W.2 admittedly

reached the place of occurrence after hearing alarm and merely

claimed to have seen the appellant fleeing away. P.W.5, namely
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.416 of 2010 dt.09-07-2026
4/22

Niranjan Pandey, the only independent witness and a named

witness in the FIR, did not support the prosecution case and was

declared hostile. The prosecution witnesses are close relatives of

the informant and interested witnesses. The evidence of P.W.3

also suffers from material contradictions and omissions. Though

the fardbeyan alleged that the appellant assaulted him and

thereafter snatched his Nokia mobile phone and torch, P.W.3 did

not depose regarding any theft before the Court, resulting in

acquittal under Section 379 IPC. Further, while P.W.3 claimed

that the appellant assaulted him from the front after he

questioned him, the medical evidence shows that the injury was

on the back/right side of the neck, thereby rendering the

prosecution version doubtful. Even P.W.4, the doctor, admitted

that such injury could be caused by falling on a sharp-edged

bamboo. No blood-stained clothes were seized, no weapon of

offence was recovered, and no forensic evidence was produced.

Moreover, the admitted land dispute between the parties

provided a strong motive for false implication, which the

Investigating Officer admittedly failed to investigate.

6. Learned counsel further submitted that the learned

Trial Court failed to appreciate the serious contradictions and

inconsistencies in the prosecution evidence and wrongly shifted
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.416 of 2010 dt.09-07-2026
5/22

the burden upon the appellant. P.W.1 and P.W.2 gave

contradictory versions regarding who first reached the place of

occurrence, while none of the prosecution witnesses, except the

injured, was an eyewitness to the actual assault. There was also

inconsistency regarding the weapon of assault, as P.W.1 referred

to a knife whereas the prosecution case alleged the use of a

Dabia. The defence examined four witnesses who consistently

stated that only a verbal altercation took place between the

parties and no assault was committed, yet their evidence was not

properly appreciated. Most importantly, the learned Trial Court

acquitted the appellant of the charges under Sections 307 and

379 IPC but illegally convicted him under Section 326 IPC

despite no charge having been framed under that provision,

thereby causing serious prejudice to the appellant. The

conviction is therefore legally unsustainable and liable to be set

aside. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the prosecution

has failed to prove the charge beyond reasonable doubt, and the

appellant is entitled to the benefit of doubt and consequent

acquittal.

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,
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.416 of 2010 dt.09-07-2026
6/22

after considering all the evidences on record and exhibits

submitted on behalf of the parties during the course of trial, has

rightly convicted the appellants for said offences.

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.

10. With reference to the aforesaid rival legal

contention urged on behalf of the parties, I have carefully

examined the case to find out whether the impugned judgment

warrants interference by this Court on the charge levelled

against the accused/appellant under Section 326 of IPC.

11. During the trial, the prosecution has examined

altogether seven witnesses, namely:

(i). P.W.1 – Ramchandra Pawan

(ii). P.W.2 – Pankaj Kumar Pandey

(iii). P.W.3 – Dinesh Pandey (Informant)

(iv). P.W.4 – Dr. S.N. Roy

(v). P.W.5 – Niranjan Pandey (Hostile)

(vi). P.W.6 – Sudhistha Prasad Singh
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.416 of 2010 dt.09-07-2026
7/22

(vii). P.W.7– Basudeo Das

During the trial, the defence has examined altogether

four witnesses, namely:

(i) D.W.1 – Nityanand Pandey

(ii) D.W.2 – Dipu Mukhia

(iii) D.W.3 – Kusho Paswan

(iv) D.W.4 – Sanjay Paswan

12. The prosecution has also relied upon following

documents exhibited during the course of trial:

(i) Ext.-1 - Signature of informant on fardbeyan

(ii) Ext.-1/1 - Signature of P.W.2 on fardbeyan

(iii) Ext.-1/2 - Fardbeyan

(iv) Ext.-2 - Injury Report by Dr. S.N. Roy

(v) Ext.-2/1 - Police injury report proved by I.O.

(vi) Ext.-3- Bed-head ticket

(vii) Ext.-3/A - Medical prescription

(viii) Ext.-3/B-Referral endorsement to PMCH

13. From the perusal of records, I proceed to analyse

the statements of the prosecution witnesses whether they have

supported the prosecution case.

(i) P.W.1 – Ramchandra Pawan has deposed that the

occurrence took place in the year 2007 at about 2:00 A.M. while
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.416 of 2010 dt.09-07-2026
8/22

he was present in a nearby orchard. Hearing the alarm raised by

the informant, he rushed to the place of occurrence and found

Dinesh Pandey lying injured on the machan with a bleeding

injury on his neck. He also claimed to have seen the appellant

running away from the place of occurrence. According to him,

the clothes of the injured were soaked with blood and the injured

disclosed that Ramashish Pandey had assaulted him with a

Dabia. He further stated that the injured was first taken to his

house and thereafter shifted to Saharsa Hospital by tempo.

During cross-examination, he admitted that the appellant and the

informant are cousin brothers and that the orchard belongs to the

family. His testimony remained substantially unshaken.

(ii) P.W.2 – Pankaj Kumar Pandey, who is the nephew

of the informant, has stated that upon hearing alarm at about

2:00–3:00 A.M., he rushed to the mango orchard and saw the

appellant running away from the place of occurrence. He found

the informant unconscious and bleeding from his neck. He

stated that the injured was taken to Saharsa Hospital and

thereafter referred to PMCH, Patna. He proved the signatures of

the informant and his own signature on the fardbeyan as

Exhibits 1 and 1/1 and also proved the fardbeyan as Exhibit 1/2.

During cross-examination, he admitted that the appellant is also
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.416 of 2010 dt.09-07-2026
9/22

his uncle and belongs to the same family. He denied the

suggestion that he was falsely deposing against the appellant.

(iii) P.W.3 – Dinesh Pandey (Informant/Injured) is the

informant as well as the injured eyewitness. He deposed that

while sleeping on the machan in his mango orchard at about

2:30 A.M., he noticed the appellant standing beside him holding

a Dabia. When he asked the appellant why he had come there,

the appellant abused him and immediately gave one Dabia blow

on his neck, causing a deep cut injury. Thereafter, the appellant

fled from the place of occurrence. The witness stated that he

regained consciousness in the hospital, where his fardbeyan was

recorded, and thereafter he was referred to PMCH for better

treatment. During cross-examination, he admitted that only one

Dabia blow was inflicted and the appellant immediately fled

away. He also admitted that the appellant is his cousin brother

but denied the existence of any prior dispute. Significantly,

although theft of a mobile phone and torch was alleged in the

FIR, he did not depose regarding theft during his evidence

before the Court.

(iv) P.W.4, the Medical Officer of Sadar Hospital,

Saharsa, has deposed that he medically examined the injured

Dinesh Pandey on 12.07.2007. He found one incised wound
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.416 of 2010 dt.09-07-2026
10/22

measuring approximately 6 inches × 2 inches extending over the

neck, which was muscle deep and caused profuse bleeding. He

opined that the injury had been caused by a sharp-cutting

weapon within six to twelve hours prior to examination and that

the injury was grievous and dangerous to life. He proved the

injury report as Exhibit 2. During cross-examination, he

admitted that a similar injury could also result from falling on a

sharp-edged bamboo. He further stated that the patient was

conscious at the time of examination.

(v) P.W.5 – Niranjan Pandey did not support the

prosecution case and was declared hostile. He denied having

made any statement before the police during investigation.

However, the Investigating Officer later stated that his statement

had in fact been recorded during investigation.

(vi) P.W.6 – Sudhistha Prasad Singh (Investigating

Officer), has deposed that he took up investigation, inspected the

place of occurrence, recorded the statements of witnesses and

obtained the injury report from the hospital. He proved the

police injury report as Exhibit 2/1 and stated that after

completing investigation, he submitted charge-sheet against the

appellant. During cross-examination, he admitted that he had not

investigated the alleged land dispute between the parties. He
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.416 of 2010 dt.09-07-2026
11/22

denied the suggestion that he had conducted a false

investigation.

(vii) P.W.7 – Basudeo Das is a formal witness who

proved the bed-head ticket, medical prescription and referral

endorsement relating to the treatment of the injured. He proved

the bed-head ticket as Exhibit 3, the medical prescription as

Exhibit 3/A and the referral endorsement to PMCH as Exhibit

3/B. His evidence establishes that the injured was admitted to

Sadar Hospital at about 4:15 A.M. on 12.07.2007 and was later

referred to PMCH due to the seriousness of the injury.

14. From the perusal of records, I proceed to analyse

the statements of the defence witnesses whether they have

supported the defence version.

(i) D.W.1 – Nityanand Pandey has deposed that on the

night of the occurrence he heard noise from the mango orchard

and saw only a heated exchange of words between the informant

and the appellant. He specifically denied having seen any assault

by the appellant upon the informant.

(ii) D.W.2 – Dipu Mukhia has stated that his house is

situated near the mango orchard. According to him, only an

altercation took place between the appellant and the informant
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.416 of 2010 dt.09-07-2026
12/22

and no assault was committed by the appellant.

(iii) D.W.3 – Kusho Paswan has also supported the

defence version by stating that only a verbal altercation took

place and no assault occurred. His testimony was consistent with

that of the other defence witnesses.

(iv) D.W.4 – Sanjay Paswan has deposed that at about

2:00 A.M. on the date of occurrence he saw the appellant and

the informant engaged in a heated discussion in the orchard.

According to him, after the exchange of words, the appellant left

the place and no assault was committed in his presence.

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

the appellant/accused was examined under Section 313 of the

Cr.PC by putting incriminating circumstances/evidences

surfaced against him, which he denied and showed his complete

innocence.

16. It would be appropriate to reproduce the

provisions of Sections 319, 323 and 326 of I.P.C. for

reappreciating the facts and circumstances of the case, which,

inter alia, are reproduced as under:-

"Section 319. Hurt.—
Whoever causes bodily pain, disease or
infirmity to any person is said to cause hurt.
Section 323. Punishment for voluntarily
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.416 of 2010 dt.09-07-2026
13/22

causing hurt.—
Whoever, except in the case provided for by
section 334, voluntarily causes hurt, shall be punished with
imprisonment of either description for a term which may
extend to one year, or with fine which may extend to one
thousand rupees, or with both.
Section 326. Voluntarily causing grievous
hurt by dangerous weapons or means—
Whoever, except in the case provided for by
section 335, voluntarily causes grievous hurt by means of
any instrument for shooting, stabbing or cutting, or any
instrument which, used as a 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 for life,
or with imprisonment of either description for a term which
may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine.”
17. The record reveals that P.W.5 – Niranjan

Pandey has been declared hostile during trial as he has not

supported the prosecution case on material particulars. In

absence of any reliable and independent corroboration from

other prosecution witnesses, the testimony of this witness loses

its evidentiary value for the purpose of establishing the guilt of

the accused/appellants. Accordingly, the evidence of P.W.5 is

not of much assistance to the prosecution case.

18. The prosecution case substantially rests upon

the testimonies of P.W.-1, P.W.-2, P.W.-3, P.W.-4 (the Medical

Officer), P.W.-6 (the Investigating Officer), and P.W.-7 (the

formal witness who proved the hospital records). A careful

appreciation of their evidence reveals that the prosecution has
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.416 of 2010 dt.09-07-2026
14/22

succeeded in establishing a consistent and cogent chain of

circumstances regarding the occurrence. P.W.-3, being the

injured witness, has given a clear description of the assault and

has categorically attributed the injury to the accused. His

testimony finds substantial corroboration from P.W.-1 and P.W.-

2 on the material particulars of the occurrence. Nothing

substantial has emerged in their cross-examination to impeach

their credibility or to establish any material contradiction

affecting the core of the prosecution case. Although P.W.-5

turned hostile and did not support the prosecution during trial,

the same does not adversely affect the prosecution case,

particularly when the testimony of the injured witness stands

corroborated by other reliable evidence. The Investigating

Officer (P.W.-6) has duly proved the investigation, the place of

occurrence, and the submission of the charge-sheet after

completion of investigation. The defence witnesses merely

attempted to project a land dispute between the parties but,

significantly, admitted the presence of both the accused and the

informant at the place of occurrence, thereby lending indirect

support to the prosecution version rather than discrediting it.

19. The medical evidence lends complete assurance

to the ocular version of the prosecution witnesses. P.W.-4, Dr.
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.416 of 2010 dt.09-07-2026
15/22

S.N. Roy, examined the injured shortly after the occurrence and

found a grievous incised wound measuring approximately 6" ×

2", extending from the back of the neck to the right side of the

neck with profuse bleeding. The doctor opined that the injury

was caused by a sharp-cutting weapon, was grievous in nature,

and was dangerous to life. The injury report was duly proved by

him. During cross-examination, although the doctor conceded

that such an injury might also be caused by a fall on a sharp-

edged bamboo, he consistently maintained that the injury was

grievous in nature and dangerous to life. This hypothetical

possibility, in the absence of any supporting defence evidence,

does not dilute the evidentiary value of his testimony. Further

corroboration is provided by P.W.-7, who proved the bed-head

ticket, medical prescription, and referral records, establishing

that the injured was admitted to the Sadar Hospital immediately

after the occurrence and was subsequently referred to P.M.C.H.,

Patna, owing to the seriousness of the injury. These

contemporaneous medical records fully corroborate the

prosecution version regarding the nature, location, and gravity

of the injuries. Thus, the medical evidence is wholly consistent

with the ocular account and significantly strengthens the

prosecution case by providing independent corroboration to the
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.416 of 2010 dt.09-07-2026
16/22

testimony of the injured witness.

20. 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 326 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.

21. 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.416 of 2010 dt.09-07-2026
17/22

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."

22. The similar question came up before the Hon'ble

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
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
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.416 of 2010 dt.09-07-2026
18/22

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.”
23.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.

24. Further to sustain a conviction under Section 307

IPC, the Apex Court in the case of Sivamani v. State, reported

in, 2023 SCC OnLine SC 1581, in paragraph no. 9 has 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
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.416 of 2010 dt.09-07-2026
19/22

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.”
25. Admittedly, from the prosecution case itself, it

transpires that the alleged occurrence arose out of previous

enmity between the parties and is stated to have taken place

suddenly at night, without any clear evidence of premeditation

or prior meeting of minds, the incident having occurred in the

course of a sudden confrontation. Further, the prosecution

evidence suffers from material infirmities as the case primarily

rests upon the testimonies of P.W.1- Ramchandra Pawan and

P.W.3 – Dinesh Pandey (informant), with limited support from

P.W.2– Pankaj Kumar Pandey, whose versions are not wholly

consistent on material particulars, particularly with regard to the

manner of occurrence, visibility due to darkness, and the role

attributed to the accused persons, while independent witnesses

do not lend reliable support inasmuch as P.W.5 – Niranjan

Pandey has turned hostile and P.W.7- Basudeo Das is a formal

witness. Moreover, the medical evidence of P.W.4 – Dr. S.N.

Roy, though indicating a grievous head injury caused by an

edged weapon, also admits the possibility of such injury being

caused by a fall on the edged bamboo, thereby not conclusively

supporting the prosecution version. When considered along with
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.416 of 2010 dt.09-07-2026
20/22

the admitted background of prior enmity and the infirmities in

investigation, the cumulative effect of these circumstances

creates serious doubt regarding the manner of occurrence and

the specific involvement of the accused persons.

26. In view of the aforesaid legal principles and

discussion of factual and legal aspects, it emerges that the

alleged occurrence took place on the spur of the moment on

account of prior enmity between the parties and without any

clear premeditation or prior meeting of minds of the accused

persons. The nature of the incident, the surrounding

circumstances, and the medical evidence, particularly the

testimony of P.W.4 – Dr. S.N. Roy, indicate that although the

informant sustained injury at the right side of the neck opined to

be grievous in nature, the same has been attributed to sharp

edged weapon and the doctor has also admitted the possibility of

such injury being caused by a fall upon sharp edge bamboo,

thereby creating doubt regarding the manner of assault. In the

backdrop of inconsistent testimonies of the material witnesses,

lack of reliable independent corroboration, and infirmities in

investigation, the evidence on record does not conclusively

establish the requisite intention or knowledge to cause death.

Rather, the materials on record, at best, indicate an act of
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.416 of 2010 dt.09-07-2026
21/22

causing hurt by use of a sharp edged weapon, and thus, this

Court is of the considered opinion that the offence under Section

326 is not made out and the conviction, if any, can be sustained

only for a lesser offence under Section 324 of the IPC.

27. In the background of the discussions made

hereinabove and on taking an overall view, the Impugned

judgment of conviction dated 27.04.2010 and order of sentence

dated 29.04.2010 passed in S.Tr. No. 02 of 2009 (arising out of

Bihra P.S. Case No. 96 of 2007) by learned Additional Session

Judge F.T.C. - 5th at Saharsa, is varied only to the extent that the

conviction of the appellant stands modified to that under

Sections 324 of the IPC.

28. 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

rigorous imprisonment for seven year is modified and reduced

to the period already undergone. 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 bond, if any.

29. Accordingly, the present appeal is partially
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.416 of 2010 dt.09-07-2026
22/22

allowed.

30. 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)
Niraj/-
AFR/NAFR
CAV DATE 29.06.2026
Uploading Date 09.07.2026
Transmission Date 09.07.2026

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…

Lawyer court records for this case

Associated through the court’s case reference.