Patna High Court
Banarsi Singh (Abated Vide Honble courts order 17-03-2026)versusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISPOSED
- Bench
- PRABHAT KUMAR SINGH
Holding
The conviction under Sections 324 and 34 is upheld, but the sentence is reduced to the period already served.
Summary
The appeal challenged the conviction of Badshah Singh under IPC Sections 324 and 34 for a shooting incident that occurred in 2002, where he was alleged to have ordered his co‑accused Banarsi Singh to fire. The trial court convicted him and sentenced him to three years' rigorous imprisonment. The appellant argued that he only instigated the act, that there was no overt act by him, and that the non‑examination of the investigating officer prejudiced his defence. The High Court held that the evidence was trustworthy, that the appellant’s instruction to fire satisfied the requirement of common intention under Section 34, and therefore upheld the conviction. However, considering the appellant’s advanced age (87 years), frail health, the lapse of time since the incident, and the fact that he had already served one month and eighteen days, the Court reduced the sentence to the period already undergone and discharged him from further liability.
Issues considered
- Whether the appellant can be held liable under Section 34 of the IPC for the shooting committed by the co‑accused based solely on his alleged instruction.
- Whether the non‑examination of the investigating officer caused a substantial prejudice warranting reversal of the conviction.
- Whether the sentence should be modified on account of the appellant’s age, health, and time already served.
Legislation cited
- Arms Act — s. 27
- Indian Penal Code — s. 307, 324, 326, 34
Subjects
- IPC Section 324
- IPC Section 34
- common intention
- instigation
- sentence reduction
- age and health considerations
- non‑examination of investigating officer
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL APPEAL (SJ) No.71 of 2016
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-72 Year-2002 Thana- OBRA District- Aurangabad
======================================================
1. Banarsi Singh (Abated Vide Honble courts order 17-03-2026) Son of Late
Lakhu singh Resident of village- Sananpura, Ps- Obra, Dist- Aurangabad
2. Badshah Singh sons of Late Lakhu Singh Residence of village - Sananpura,
P.S. - Obra, Dist. - Aurangabad.
... ... Appellant/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Appellant : Mr. Anil Kumar, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Z. Hoda, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRABHAT KUMAR SINGH
ORAL ORDER
6 02-04-2026 Heard learned counsel appearing for the appellant and
learned Additional Public Prosecutors appearing for the State.
2. This appeal survives only with respect to Appellant
No. 2, above named.
3. This appeal has been filed challenging the
judgment of conviction and order of sentence 09.01.2016 passed
by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-III, Aurangabad in
Sessions Trial No. 122/04/145/14 in connection with Obra P.S.
Case No. 72 of 2002 whereby and whereunder Appellant No. 2
has been convicted for committing offence under Sections 324
and 34 of the Indian Penal Code and has been sentenced to
undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years for committing
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.71 of 2016(6) dt.02-04-2026
2/7
offence under Sections 324 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code.
4. The prosecution story, as alleged in the Fardbeyan
of the informant, namely Upendra Singh, in brief, is that on
07.06.2002, when the informant, along with one Satish Kumar
Singh, was returning after attending the dinner at the house of
one Ajay Kumar Singh and reached near the house of Jagdish
Singh, in the meantime, on the order of Appellant No. 2, namely
Badshah Singh, co-accused Banarsi Singh fired upon them from
his licensed gun from the roof of their house as a result of
which, informant and his associate Satish Kumar Singh both
became injured and fell down and further, co-accused Banarsi
Singh also threatened the informant.
5. In this case, on the basis of the Fardbeyan of the
informant dated 08.06.2002, Obra P.S. Case No. 72 of 2002 was
registered for the offence punishable under Sections 324, 326,
307 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 27 of the
Arms Act against two named accused persons, including this
appellant and after completion of the investigating, charge-sheet
was submitted on 31.07.2002 and accordingly, the learned trial
court took cognizance on 09.08.2002 and case was committed to
the learned Sessions Court. Accordingly, charges were framed
under Sections 307 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code against
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.71 of 2016(6) dt.02-04-2026
3/7
both the accused persons.
6. In this case, in order to bring home guilt of the
accused persons, the prosecution has examined altogether seven
witnesses. P.W. 1, namely Satish Kumar Singh, is injured
witness. P.W. 2, namely Mahendra Singh, is hearsay witness.
P.W. 3, namely Upendra Singh, is the informant. P.W. 4, namely
Dr. Bhola Prasad Sinha, is the doctor who examined the injured.
P.W. 5, namely Hitesh Singh, is again a hearsay witness. P.W. 6,
namely Ramvijay Singh, has been declared hostile and P.W. 7,
namely Umesh Tiwari, is a formal witness. The prosecution has
also adduced documentary evidences, which are marked as:-
Exhibit 1 Letter issued by the S.H.O.
Exhibit 2 Fardbeyan
Exhibit 3 Injury report of injured Satish Kumar Singh
Exhibit 4 and 4/1 Injury report of Upendra Singh (informant)
Exhibit 5 Reference letter regarding patient to Sadar Hospital,
Aurangabad
Exhibit-X Referred receipt
Exhibit-X/1 Discharge slip
Exhibit-X/2 O.D. Slip
7. On the other hand, the defence has not produced
any oral or documentary evidence.
8. After hearing the parties, the learned trial court
convicted this appellant and sentenced him, as indicated in the
opening paragraph of this order.
9. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant assails
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.71 of 2016(6) dt.02-04-2026
4/7
the order of conviction and sentence on multiple grounds. He
contends that from bare perusal of the F.I.R., it is apparent that
this appellant, namely Badshah Singh, is only alleged to have
instigated co-accused Banarsi Singh and it was co-accused
Banarsi Singh who shot informant and his companion. There is
absolutely no allegation of overt act against this appellant. He
further contends that in this case, the Investigating Officer has
not been examined and non-examination of the Investigating
Officer has caused great prejudice to the defence of the
appellant as he was not able to contradict the evidence of the
witnesses and the place and manner of occurrence could not be
proved. It is further contended that P.W. 4 is the doctor who
treated the injured and deposed but in his deposition, he did not
state about the nature and cause of injury. In his deposition, he
categorically stated that he can not say about the cause and
nature of injury of both the injured. He further stated that he did
not find any foreign body from the injury of both the injured. He
contends that the trial court has wrongfully convicted this
appellant ignoring material contradictions and hence, the
impugned order of sentence and conviction are fit to be quashed
and set aside on the basis of facts and circumstances. Learned
counsel for the appellant lastly contends that the incident took
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.71 of 2016(6) dt.02-04-2026
5/7
place in the year 2002 and Appellant No. 2 has remained in
custody fore more than one and a half months. At present, the
appellant is more than 87 years old and also suffering from
various diseases.
10. On the other hand, learned Additional Public
Prosecutor 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 conviction and order of sentence are
justified and legal.
11. On going through the rival submissions, evidences
and upon perusal of the records, this Court finds that in this
case, during trial, the Investigating Officer has not been
examined by the prosecution and no independent witness or the
local chowkidar was examined by the prosecution either. Non-
examination of the Investigating Officer has caused great
prejudice to the defence as the defence could not explain the
material discrepancy and contradict the witnesses. However, this
Court finds that the evidences are completely trustworthy and
there is no reason to disbelieve the evidence that it was co-
accused Banarsi Singh who caused injury to the two injured. It
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.71 of 2016(6) dt.02-04-2026
6/7
is also not in dispute that this appellant, namely Badshah Singh,
is only the order giver and instructed co-accused Banarsi Singh
to fire. This Court further finds that the incident took place in
the year 2002 and at present, appellant is more than 87 years old
and during the aforesaid period, there is no complaint against
this appellant.
12. Keeping in view the age, the fact that the incident
is of the year 2002 and appellant is 87 years old suffering from
various diseases, coupled with the fact that there is no complaint
against this appellant after institution of the present F.I.R., I feel
that end of justice would be met if the sentence is reduced to the
period already undergone. In this case, the appellant has already
remained in custody for a period of one month and 18 days.
13. Accordingly, the impugned judgment of
conviction is upheld and the order of sentence dated 09.01.2016
passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-III,
Aurangabad in Sessions Trial No. 122/04/145/14 in connection
with Obra P.S. Case No. 72 of 2002 is modified and the
sentence awarded to Appellant No. 2, namely Badshah Singh, is
reduced that to the period he has already undergone.
14. In that view of the matter, Appellant No. 2,
above named, is discharged from the liability of the bail bonds
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.71 of 2016(6) dt.02-04-2026
7/7
in connection with this case.
15. Accordingly, this appeal stands disposed of.
16. Interlocutory application/s, if any, also stands
disposed off.
(Prabhat Kumar Singh, J)
shashank/-
U T
Checking your session…
Lawyer court records for this case
Associated through the court’s case reference.