Patna High Court
Awadh SinghversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- PARTLY ALLOWED (DISPOSAL)
- Bench
- SANDEEP KUMAR
Holding
The conviction is upheld as the prosecution proved the elements of Section 324 IPC, but the sentence is modified to the period already served with a fine of Rs.25,000 each.
Summary
The appellants Awadh Singh, Birju Singh and the late Naro Singh were convicted for assaulting informant Ramdeo Yadav with firearms, garasa and lathi, causing grievous injuries, under IPC sections 324, 325 and 149 and for violating Section 27 of the Arms Act. The appeal under CrPC sections 374(2) and 389(1) challenged both the conviction and the sentence, alleging lack of weapon recovery, biased prosecution witnesses and procedural lapses. The High Court examined the evidence, including medical reports and eyewitness testimony, and held that the prosecution had proved the elements of Section 324 IPC. While upholding the conviction, the Court found no justification for the trial court’s imposition of the maximum term and, considering the appellants’ advanced age and the death of one appellant, modified the sentence to the period already served and imposed a fine of Rs.25,000 each, with default imprisonment of one month. The bail bonds were ordered cancelled and the fine to be paid to the informant’s heirs. The appeal was partly allowed with modification of the sentence.
Issues considered
- Whether the evidence establishes the ingredients of offence under Section 324 IPC and related charges.
- Whether the trial court erred in imposing the maximum punishment without specific reasons.
- Whether procedural deficiencies such as non‑recovery of the weapon and exclusion of certain witnesses warrant reversal of conviction.
Legislation cited
- Arms Act — s. 27
- Code of Criminal Procedure — s. 313, 374(2), 389(1)
- Indian Penal Code — s. 147, 148, 149, 307, 323, 324, 325, 326
Subjects
- Section 324 IPC
- violent assault
- dangerous weapons
- sentencing modification
- appeal under CrPC
- conviction upheld
- proportionality in sentencing
- fine imposition
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL APPEAL (SJ) No.532 of 2003
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-71 Year-1993 Thana- MAGADH MEDICAL COLLEGE
District- Gaya
======================================================
1. Awadh Singh Son of Sri Satrughn Singh Resident of Village - Chaparadah,
P.S. - Magadh Medical, District - Gaya
2. Birju Singh Son of Sri Satrughn Singh Resident of Village - Chaparadah,
P.S. - Magadh Medical, District - Gaya
... ... Appellants
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Respondents
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Appellant : Mr. Abhishek Kumar, Amicus Curiae
For the State : Mr. A.M.P. Mehta, APP
For the Informant : Mr. Rashid Izhar, Advocate
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP KUMAR
C.A.V. JUDGMENT
Date : 27-02-2026
The present appeal is filed under section 374(2)
read with section 389(1) of the Code of Criminal procedure,
1973 (herein after “Cr.P.C.”) challenging the judgment of
conviction and order of sentence dated 22.11.2003 passed by the
learned 7th Additional Session Judge, Gaya, in connection with
Sessions Trial No.75 of 1999, whereby the appellants Awadh
Singh and Naro Singh @ Narendra Singh (since deceased) have
been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three
years for the offence under section 324 of the Indian Penal Code
(for short “I.P.C.”) and the appellant- Awadh Singh has been
further sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two
years for the offence under section 27 of the Arms Act. Both the
sentences, imposed upon aforesaid appellants were directed to
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.532 of 2003 dt.27-02-2026
2/17
run concurrently. Whereas, appellant- Birju Singh has been
sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years for
the offence under section 325 of the I.P.C. No separate sentence
has been imposed upon the convicted-appellants under section
149 of the I.P.C.
2. During the pendency of this appeal, the
original appellant no.2 namely, Naro Singh @ Narendra Singh
had died and vide order dated 29.08.2024, the appeal stood
abated as against him and therefore, now, this appeal is
restricted only with respect to appellants herein.
3. The prosecution case is that the informant
namely, Ramdeo Yadav, made a statement before the Officer-in-
Charge of Magadh Medical Police Station stating therein that on
08.11.1993 at about 12.00 noon while the informant was
cultivating a piece of land with a tractor along with his sons, the
appellants along with three to four unknown persons came there,
armed with different weapons like Garasa and Bhala and
surrounded the informant and asked him not to cultivate the said
land otherwise he would be killed by them. Thereafter, the
accused persons stopped the tractor and the appellant - Awadh
Singh, fired upon the informant but he managed to escape the
shot and took shelter behind the tractor. Thereafter, the
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.532 of 2003 dt.27-02-2026
3/17
appellant - Birju Singh dragged the informant in open area and
assaulted him with lathi and the appellant -Naro Singh (since
deceased) assaulted the informant with Garasa. In the said
assault, the informant sustained cut injury on his left palm and
fracture in his left hand and some minor injuries on the rest of
his body. It is also alleged that when the informant fell on the
ground, the accused persons also assaulted the sons of the
informant, however, upon hearing the hulla, the local persons
came there. It is further alleged that the occurrence was seen by
one Laknan Yadav, Jatan Yadav and other local people and the
cause of occurrence is that in the previous year the Court had
appointed the informant as Receiver of the land in question and
in pursuance thereof, the informant used to cultivate the said
land. It is next alleged that the accused persons used to threaten
the informant for not cultivating the land in question.
4. On the basis of the statement of the
informant, the F.I.R being Magadh Medical P.S. Case No.71 of
1993 dated 08.11.1993 was registered for the offence under
sections 147, 148, 149, 307, 323, 324, 326 of the I.P.C and
under section 27 of the Arms Act. The informant was sent to the
Medical officer, A.N.M.C.H. for his examination. After
institution of the FIR, the police proceeded with the
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.532 of 2003 dt.27-02-2026
4/17
investigation and after completion of investigation, charge-sheet
was submitted. Thereafter, the trial court took cognizance
against the appellants and the case was committed to the Court
of Sessions for trial.
5. During the course of trial, altogether six
witnesses were examined in support of the prosecution case,
which are as under:-
P.W.-1 Kapil Yadav (son of the informant)
P.W.-2 Vijay Yadav (son of the informant)
P.W.-3 Jatan Yadav (local resident)
P.W.-4 Ramdeo Yadav (informant)
P.W.-5 Dr. Frasat Hussain (Doctor)
P.W.-6 Smt. J.D. Sharma (S.I. and I.O.)
6. Apart from the oral evidences, the
documentary evidences were also exhibited on behalf of the
prosecution, which are as follows:-
Exhibit- 1 Injury Report
Exhibit- 1/1 Injury Report prepared by the I.O.
Exhibit- 2 Original First Information Report
Exhibit- 3 Original Case Diary
Exhibit- 4 Certified copy of the order sheet
dated 21.11.1988 and 17.07.1992 of
Case no. 3180 of 1988 under section
145 of Cr. P.C
7. After completion of prosecution evidence,
the statement of the appellants was recorded under section 313
of the Code of Criminal Procedure, in which the appellants
denied the allegation and stated that they are innocent and have
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.532 of 2003 dt.27-02-2026
5/17
falsely been implicated in the present case and claimed to be
tried.
8. The defense did not procedure any witnesses,
however two documents as were exhibited on behalf of the
defense, which are as under:-
Exhibit- A Certified copy of the judgment in
case no. 223/C of 1993
Exhibit- B Certified copy of the order sheet
dated 26.07.1999 of Case No. 3180
of 1988
9. The trial court, upon appreciation of the
evidence adduced in the trial, has found the appellants guilty of
the offences and has sentenced them to imprisonment, as noted
above, by its impugned judgment of conviction and order of
sentence.
10. The learned Amicus Curiae appearing for the
appellants has submitted that while convicting the appellants,
the trial court has failed to appreciate the fact that the rifle from
which, the appellant no.1 is alleged to have fired upon the
informant, was neither recovered from the place of occurrence
nor was it produced before the court during the trial, also the
pellets of the shot alleged to have been fired, was also not
recovered or produced during the trial.
11. The Amicus Curiae has next submitted that
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.532 of 2003 dt.27-02-2026
6/17
all the prosecution witnesses are relatives of the informant and
has further submitted that the trial court has failed to appreciate
the fact that the driver of the tractor, who was cultivating the
land in question at the time of occurrence was not examined as a
witness though as per the F.I.R. he was present at the time of
occurrence.
12. It has been submitted by learned Amicus
Curiae that the trial court has also failed to appreciate the fact
that no documents were produced or adduced showing the fact
that he was appointed as a Receiver by the court, inasmuch as,
the Investigating Officer (P.W.-6) during the investigation also
did not produce any document showing the appointment of the
informant as a Receiver of the land in question. It is, therefore,
the contention of learned Amicus Curiae that the informant
himself was not authorized by the competent court to cultivate
the land, since the Circle Officer was the Receiver appointed by
the Court.
13. The learned counsel for the informant while
opposing the present appeal has submitted that the informant
was cultivating the land lawfully, but the appellants with an
intention to kill the informant came at the place of occurrence
and fired upon the informant, however, he somehow managed to
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.532 of 2003 dt.27-02-2026
7/17
escape the shot and saved his life. It is, therefore, the submission
of the learned counsel for the informant that the appellants are
the aggressors of the aforesaid incident and had assaulted the
informant with Garasa, lathi and firearm causing grievous
injuries.
14. It is next submitted by the learned counsel
for the informant that due to the said assault the informant
sustained injuries, which are grievous in nature and the same
has been confirmed by the injury report and the deposition of
P.W.5- Doctor.
15. Learned APP for the State has supported the
impugned judgment of conviction and the order of sentence by
submitting that the trial court upon appreciating the relevant
documents as well as the depositions of the witnesses adduced
during the trial has convicted the appellants and therefore, this
court may not interfere with the same.
16. I have considered the submissions of the
parties and perused the materials available on record including
the original trial court records.
17. Upon a meticulous perusal of the records
including the F.I.R. and the depositions, it appears that in the
present case, the appellant - Awadh Singh had fired upon the
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.532 of 2003 dt.27-02-2026
8/17
informant, the appellant- Naro Singh @ Narendra Singh (since
deceased) had used a Garasa to inflict grievous injuries to the
informant, whereas, the appellant- Birju Singh had used lathi to
assault the informant. From the reading of the records, it also
appears that the informant in order to dodge the gun shot had
tried to take shelter behind the tractor, however, the bullet/pellet
is said to have hit the tractor standing in the field. Further, from
the perusal of the injury report and the deposition of P.W.-5, it is
apparent that the informant had sustained five injuries, out of
which three were grievous in nature and two were simple in
nature.
18. The trial court while convicting the
appellants had placed a decisive reliance upon the injury report,
the deposition of the Medical Officer (P.W.-5) and the
deposition of the informant himself and thereafter, came to the
conclusion that the offence of voluntarily causing grievous hurt
is made out against the appellants.
19. At this stage, it would be apposite to refer to
the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court rendered in the case
of Anuj Singh vs. State of Bihar, reported as 2022 SCC
OnLine SC 497 to emphasis the ingredients of section 324 of
the I.P.C. In the aforesaid decision, the Hon’ble Supreme Court
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.532 of 2003 dt.27-02-2026
9/17
has held as under:-
“20. It is a well-known fact that the term
“hurt” simply means performing an act
which leads to physical pain, injury or
any disease to a person. At times, hurt
may be caused voluntarily or it can by
caused by using dangerous weapons or
mean. A person will be liable to have
caused hurt voluntarily through
dangerous weapons and means under
Section 324 IPC which reads as under:—
“324. Voluntarily causing hurt by
dangerous weapons or means.—
Whoever, except in the case
provided for by section 334,
voluntarily causes hurt by means
of any instrument for shooting,
stabbing or cutting, or any
instrument which, used as 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 of either description
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.532 of 2003 dt.27-02-2026
10/17
for a term which may extend to
three years, or with fine, or with
both.”
21. To establish an offence under Section 324
IPC, the presence of following ingredients is a
must which are as follows:—
1. Voluntary hurt caused to another person
by the accused, and
2. Such hurt was caused:
a. By any instrument used for
shooting, cutting or stabbing, or
any other instrument likely to
cause death, or
b. By fire or other heated
instruments, or
c. By poison or other corrosive
substance, or
d. By any explosive substance, or
e. By a substance that is dangerous
for the human body to swallow,
inhale, or receive through blood,
or
f. By an animal.
22. When a person commits an offence of
voluntarily causing hurt by dangerous weapons
and means under Section 324 of Indian Penal
Code, then such person shall be punished with
imprisonment for a period of three years, or
with fine.” (emphasis supplied).
20. At the cost of repetition, it is required to be
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.532 of 2003 dt.27-02-2026
11/17
noted that the trial court had given decisive strength to the
evidence given by P.W.-5 (Doctor) and the injury report
prepared by this witness. Evidently, the appellants, had gone to
the place of occurrence with deadly weapons and had caused
grievous injuries on the informant, which is corroborated from
the injury report as well as the statement of the P.W.- 05
(Doctor).
21. Pertinently, the informant was cultivating the
land which was given to him lawfully by a competent court, as
on the date of occurrence. Therefore, the very presence of the
appellants at the place of occurrence with deadly weapons and
having caused grievous injuries on the informant clearly
establishes the ingredients of section 324 of the I.P.C.
22. In view of the above, this Court does not find
any error in the impugned judgment of conviction and therefore,
this Court is not inclined to interfere with the impugned
judgment of conviction.
23. Now, at this stage, this Court has noted that
the trial Court had failed to ascribe any reasons for imposing the
maximum punishment as permissible under the statute. The
Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Rajasthan vs.
Mohan Lal, (2018) 18 SCC 535 has held as under:-
“10. Currently, India does not have structured
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.532 of 2003 dt.27-02-2026
12/17
sentencing guidelines that have been
issued either by the legislature or the
judiciary. However, the courts have
framed certain guidelines in the matter of
imposition of sentence. A Judge has wide
discretion in awarding the sentence
within the statutory limits. Since in many
offences only the maximum punishment is
prescribed and for some offences the
minimum punishment is prescribed, each
Judge exercises his discretion
accordingly. There cannot, therefore, be
any uniformity. However, this Court has
repeatedly held that the courts will have
to take into account certain principles
while exercising their discretion in
sentencing, such as proportionality,
deterrence and rehabilitation. In a
proportionality analysis, it is necessary
to assess the seriousness of an offence
in order to determine the commensurate
punishment for the offender. The
seriousness of an offence depends, apart
from other things, also upon its
harmfulness.
11. This Court in Soman v. State of Kerala
(2013) 11 SCC 382 observed thus: (SCC
p. 393, para 27)
“27.1. Courts ought to base sentencing
decisions on various different
rationales — most prominent
amongst which would be
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.532 of 2003 dt.27-02-2026
13/17
proportionality and deterrence.
27.2. The question of consequences of
criminal action can be relevant
from both a proportionality and
deterrence standpoint.
27.3.Insofar as proportionality is
concerned, the sentence must be
commensurate with the
seriousness or gravity of the
offence.
27.4. One of the factors relevant for
judging seriousness of the offence
is the consequences resulting from
it.
27.5. Unintended consequences/harm
may still be properly attributed to
the offender if they were
reasonably foreseeable. In case of
illicit and underground
manufacture of liquor, the chances
of toxicity are so high that not
only its manufacturer but the
distributor and the retail vendor
would know its likely risks to the
consumer. Hence, even though any
harm to the consumer might not
be directly intended, some
aggravated culpability must
attach if the consumer suffers
some grievous hurt or dies as
result of consuming the spurious
liquor.
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.532 of 2003 dt.27-02-2026
14/17
12. The same is the verdict of this Court in
Alister Anthony Pareira v. State of
Maharashtra (2012) 2 SCC 648 wherein
it is observed thus: (SCC p. 674, para 84)
“84. Sentencing is an important task
in the matters of crime. One of
the prime objectives of the
criminal law is imposition of
appropriate, adequate, just and
proportionate sentence
commensurate with the nature
and gravity of crime and the
manner in which the crime is
done. There is no straitjacket
formula for sentencing an
accused on proof of crime. The
courts have evolved certain
principles: the twin objective of
the sentencing policy is
deterrence and correction. What
sentence would meet the ends of
justice depends on the facts and
circumstances of each case and
the court must keep in mind the
gravity of the crime, motive for
the crime, nature of the offence
and all other attendant
circumstances.
13. From the aforementioned observations, it
is clear that the principle governing the
imposition of punishment will depend
upon the facts and circumstances of each
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.532 of 2003 dt.27-02-2026
15/17
case. However, the sentence should be
appropriate, adequate, just,
proportionate and commensurate with
the nature and gravity of the crime and
the manner in which the crime is
committed. The gravity of the crime,
motive for the crime, nature of the crime
and all other attending circumstances
have to be borne in mind while imposing
the sentence. The court cannot afford to
be casual while imposing the sentence,
inasmuch as both the crime and the
criminal are equally important in the
sentencing process. The courts must see
that the public does not lose confidence
in the judicial system. Imposing
inadequate sentences will do more harm
to the justice system and may lead to a
state where the victim loses confidence in
the judicial system and resorts to private
vengeance.” (emphasis supplied).
24. In view of the law laid down in the afore-
quoted decision, it is abundantly clear that the trial court must
impose appropriate, adequate, just, proportionate and
commensurate sentence upon the convict. In the present case,
though the trial court had convicted the appellants but no
specific, separate and cogent reasons have been assigned for
imposing the maximum punishment. From the perusal of the
injuries sustained on the informant, it is clear that the appellant
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.532 of 2003 dt.27-02-2026
16/17
Naro Singh @ Narendra Singh had inflicted Garasa blow to the
informant causing grievous injuries. Pertinently, the aforesaid
appellant has already died during the pendency of this appeal.
Further, the appellant-Birju Singh had inflicted lathi blow
causing simple injuries and the appellant-Awadh Singh had fired
upon the informant but the same did not hit the informant.
Moreover, it appears from the report of the Senior
Superintendent of Police, Gaya, that both the surving appellants
are in their advanced age approaching approximately 80 years
and they are in a senile condition.
25. In view of the aforesaid facts and in the
interest of justice, this Court deems it appropriate to sustain the
judgment of conviction but modify the impugned order of
sentence. Accordingly, this Court modifies the impugned order
of sentence to the period already undergone by the appellants
and further imposes a fine of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five
Thousand) each on the appellants herein, which shall be paid to
the informant or his surviving legal heirs and in default of
payment of fine, the appellants herein shall undergo simple
imprisonment of one month.
26. The present order shall be communicated to
the concerned trial court for necessary execution.
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.532 of 2003 dt.27-02-2026
17/17
27. The records reveal that the appellants herein
are on bail, therefore, the bail bonds of the appellants shall stand
cancelled after the execution of the modified sentence. The trial
court is directed to ensure the recovery of the fine imposed from
the appellants herein and pay the same to the informant or his
surviving legal heirs.
28. Accordingly, this appeal is partly allowed
with the modification in the impugned order of sentence, as
indicated above.
29. The original records be transmitted to the
concerned trial court.
30. The Patna High Court Legal Services
Committee is hereby directed to pay an amount of Rs.10,000/-
(Rupees Ten Thousand Only) to Mr. Abhishek Kumar, learned
Amicus Curiae as consolidated fee for rendering his valuable
professional service for the disposal of the present appeal.
(Sandeep Kumar, J)
pawan/-
AFR/NAFR N.A.F.R.
CAV DATE 09.12.2025
Uploading Date 27.02.2026
Transmission Date 27.02.2026
Checking your session…