Patna High Court
Jagdish Sah and Ors.versusThe State Of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- ALLOWED
- Bench
- PRABHAT KUMAR SINGH
Holding
The conviction under Section 323 IPC was set aside because the prosecution failed to prove the accused's guilt beyond reasonable doubt, given the material contradictions, lack of independent witnesses, and non‑examination of the investigating officer.
Summary
The appellants were convicted under Section 323 of the Indian Penal Code for assaulting an informant's family and stealing jewellery. They appealed, arguing that the prosecution's case relied solely on witnesses related to the informant, that there were material contradictions in their statements, and that the investigating officer was not examined, depriving the defence of a chance to rebut. The trial court had sentenced each appellant to one year of rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 500. The High Court found that these evidentiary deficiencies amounted to a material infirmity, noting that the injuries were simple and that pending land disputes indicated bias. Consequently, the Court held that the prosecution had not proved guilt beyond reasonable doubt and set aside the conviction, acquitting the appellants. The appeal was therefore allowed.
Issues considered
- Did the prosecution establish the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt under Section 323 IPC?
- Does the non‑examination of the investigating officer and reliance on interested witnesses vitiate the conviction?
- Do the nature of the injuries and the context of a land dispute affect the evidentiary assessment?
Legislation cited
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 107
- Indian Penal Code — s. 323
Subjects
- assault
- IPC 323
- burden of proof
- acquittal
- evidence
- interested witnesses
- procedural fairness
- Bihar
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL APPEAL (SJ) No.54 of 2016
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-8 Year-2006 Thana- BHAGWANPUR District- Begusarai
======================================================
1. Jagdish Sah, Son of Late Mohar Sah
2. Bipin Sah
3. Sudhir Sah, Both Nos. 2 & 3 are Sons of Shri Jagdish Sah
4. Sunil Sah Son of Ram Prakash Sah
5. Mukund Sah Son of Ramadhar Sah
6. Anilsah Son of Ram Prakash Sah
7. Ramadhar Sah Son of Late Mohar Sah All are Residents of village - Bhith,
Police Station Bhagwanpur, District - Begusarai
... ... Appellant/s
Versus
The State Of Bihar
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Appellants : Mr. Saroj Shandilya, Advocate
Mr. Binay Kumar Jha, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Binod Bihari Singh, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRABHAT KUMAR SINGH
ORAL JUDGMENT
Date : 30-04-2026
Heard learned counsel for the appellants and
learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.
2. This appeal has been filed challenging the
judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 04.12.2015
passed in Sessions Trial No. 127 of 2007 arising out of
Bhagwanpur P.S. Case No. 08 of 2006 whereby all these
appellants have been convicted under Section 323 of the Indian
Penal Code and have been sentenced to undergo rigorous
imprisonment for one year and fine of Rs. 500/- each.
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.54 of 2016 dt.30-04-2026
2/6
3. The prosecution case, in brief, is that on
16.01.2006 at about 7 AM, all these accused-appellants, armed
with lathi, danda, khanti and garsa, came to the house of
informant and assaulted informant, her husband, her son and
other family members. It is further alleged that the accused
persons also took away a box containing jewellery and other
household articles.
4. In this case, in order to bring home guilt of the
accused person, the prosecution has examined altogether six
witnesses. P.W. 1, namely Gulten Sah, is husband of informant.
P.W. 2, namely Mahendra Sah, is son of informant. P.W. 3,
namely Gita Devi, is sister-in-law (Gotni) of the informant.
P.W. 4, namely Sarjugia Devi, is informant. P.W. 5, namely Dr.
Devendra Singh, is doctor who examined the injuries. P.W. 6,
namely Suresh Poddar Karpardaz, is a formal witness who
proved the Fardbeyan. The prosecution has also adduced
documentary witnesses, which are marked as:-
Exhibit 1 Injury Report
Exhibit 2 Fardbeyan
Exhibit 3 Formal F.I.R.
Exhibit 4 and 4/1 Certified copy of deposition
5. On the other hand, the defence has also produced
four defence witnesses, i.e., D.W. 1, namely Devendra Pd.
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.54 of 2016 dt.30-04-2026
3/6
Singh, D.W. 2, namely Bipin Paswan, D.W. 3, namely
Devendra Pd. and D.W. 4, namely Balmiki Singh. The defence
has also adduced documentary witnesses, which are marked as:-
Exhibit A Complaint Petitino No. 83C of 2006
Exhibit B Report in proceeding under Section 107 of the Cr.P.C.
Exhibit C Attendance register relating to accused Ramadhar Sah
Exhibit D Rent receipt
Exhibit E Complaint of Title Suit No. 56 of 2006
Exhibit F Deposition of Gulten Sah dated 28.02.2011
Exhibit G Sale deed
6. After hearing the parties, the learned trial court
convicted the appellants and sentenced them, as indicated in the
opening paragraph of this order.
7. Learned counsel appearing for the appellants
assails the order of conviction and sentence on multiple
grounds. He contends that the impugned order of sentence and
conviction are fit to be quashed and set aside on the basis of
facts and circumstances. The learned trial court has committed
grave illegality in facts and law both. As a matter of fact, both
parties are Gotiyas and due to admitted land dispute between
the parties, a series of litigation are pending between them. As a
matter of fact, the alleged incident occurred spontaneously in
the spur of the moment over a minor dispute. It is further
contended that a case has been lodged by Appellant No. 5,
namely Mukund Sah, against informant and others, in which
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.54 of 2016 dt.30-04-2026
4/6
other appellants are witnesses and only with a view to save their
skin from the aforesaid case, this false and concocted case has
been lodged. Moreover, there is material contradiction in the
statement of the witnesses. In this case, the Investigating
Officer has not been examined. Non-examination of the
Investigating Officer has caused great prejudice to the defence
of the these appellants as they were not able to contradict the
evidence of the witnesses and the place and manner of
occurrence could not be proved. The doctor who examined the
injured (P.W. 5) has opined the injuries as simple in nature. It is
lastly submitted that all the witnesses are family members of
the informant and are highly interested witnesses and there is
no independent eye-witness to the alleged occurrence. Thus, the
prosecution has failed to prove the case beyond reasonable
doubts and the trial court has wrongfully convicted these
appellants ignoring material contradictions and hence, the
appellants are fit to be acquitted.
8. On the other hand, learned A.P.P. for the State has
submitted that there is no need of any interference in this appeal
since the prosecution witnesses have supported the corroborated
the prosecution story and there is no reason to differ with the
findings of the learned trial court and the judgement of
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.54 of 2016 dt.30-04-2026
5/6
conviction and order of sentence are justified and legal.
9. From going through the evidence and perusal of
the records, this Court finds that the impugned order of
conviction and sentence suffers from material infirmity. In this
case, there is material contradiction in the deposition of the
witnesses. It appears that all the independent prosecution
witnesses are related to the informant and are highly interested
witnesses. In this case, the Investigating Officer has not been
examined, which has caused great prejudice to the defence as
the defence could not get opportunity to explain the material
discrepancy and contradict the witnesses. The doctor has opined
the injuries, allegedly caused by these appellants, simple in
nature and a series of litigation are pending between the parties.
10. 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.
11. In that view of the matter, the impugned judgment
of conviction and order of sentence dated 04.12.2015 passed by
the learned Additional Sessions Judge-I, Begusarai in Sessions
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.54 of 2016 dt.30-04-2026
6/6
Trial No. 127 of 2007 in connection with Bhagwanpur P.S. Case
No. 08 of 2006 are hereby set aside with respect to these
appellants only.
12. Appellants, above named, are acquitted of all the
charges and are discharged from the liability of the bail bonds in
connection with this case.
13. Accordingly, this appeal stands allowed.
14. Interlocutory application/s, if any, also stands
disposed off.
(Prabhat Kumar Singh, J)
shashank/-
AFR/NAFR NAFR
CAV DATE NA
Uploading Date 05.05.2026
Transmission Date 05.05.2026
Checking your session…