Patna High Court
Dadan Ojha and OrsversusThe State Of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- ALLOWED
- Bench
- PRABHAT KUMAR SINGH
Holding
The appellate court set aside the convictions and acquitted the appellants, holding that the prosecution evidence was insufficient to sustain the charges.
Summary
The appellants were convicted by the Additional Sessions Judge for offences under Sections 148, 307/149 IPC and Section 27 of the Arms Act, based on an alleged shooting that caused eye injury. On appeal, the Patna High Court examined the prosecution's case, noting that several key witnesses were hostile, the remaining witnesses were interested and inimical, and crucial forensic and medical evidence was missing or not original. The court found serious lapses in investigation, including failure to seize blood‑stained soil, pellets, or firearms, and the medical report did not conclusively establish grievous injury or permanent blindness. Consequently, the court held that the prosecution had not proved the offences under Sections 307 IPC and 27 Arms Act beyond reasonable doubt, and while a case under Section 326 IPC could be made out, the lack of medical evidence precluded sustaining any conviction. The appellate court therefore set aside the conviction and acquitted the appellants, allowing the appeal.
Issues considered
- Whether the prosecution proved the offence under Section 307 IPC beyond reasonable doubt.
- Whether the conviction under Section 27 of the Arms Act can be sustained in the absence of forensic and medical evidence.
- Whether the conviction under Section 148 IPC is tenable given the evidential deficiencies.
- Whether the conviction should be altered to Section 326 IPC based on the facts.
- Whether the appellate court should set aside the convictions and acquit the appellants.
Legislation cited
- Arms Act — s. 27
- Indian Penal Code — s. 148, 149, 307, 326
Subjects
- criminal law
- conviction
- acquittal
- evidence
- hostile witnesses
- IPC
- Arms Act
- Section 307
- Section 326
- forensic evidence
- medical report
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL APPEAL (SJ) No.74 of 2016
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-15 Year-2005 Thana- KUCHILA District- Kaimur (Bhabua)
======================================================
1. Dadan Ojha
2. Nanda Ojha, Both sons of Late Budhan Ojha,
3. Tejnarayan Singh @ Tejnarayan Yadav, Son of Late Kedar Yadav,
4. Bajrangi Singh @ Bajrangi Yadav, Son of Late Prithviraj Singh,
5. Dukhu Singh @ Dukhu Singh Yadav, Son of Late Sant Yadav,
Appellant No. 1 and 2 are resident of village - Bashahi, P.S. - Rajpur,
District - Buxar and appellant no. 3 to 5 are the resident of village -
Shivpur, P.S. - Kuchila, District - Kaimur Bhabua.
... ... Appellant/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
with
CRIMINAL APPEAL (SJ) No. 203 of 2016
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-15 Year-2005 Thana- KUCHILA District- Kaimur (Bhabua)
======================================================
Dipan Singh Yadav @ Dipnarayan Yadav @ Deepan Singh Son of Late
Kedar Yadav Resident of Village-Shivpur, P.S.-Kuchila, Distt.-Kaimur
Bhabua.
... ... Appellant/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
(In CRIMINAL APPEAL (SJ) No. 74 of 2016)
For the Appellant/s : Mr. Swapnil Kumar Singh, Advocate
Md. Najmul Hodda, Advocate
For the Respondent/s : Mr. Anand Mohan Pd. Mehta, A.P.P.
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.74 of 2016 dt.13-05-2026
2/8
(In CRIMINAL APPEAL (SJ) No. 203 of 2016)
For the Appellant/s : Mr. Swapnil Kumar Singh, Advocate
Md. Najmul Hodda, Advocate
For the Respondent/s : Ms. Anita Kumari Singh, A.P.P.
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRABHAT KUMAR SINGH
ORAL JUDGMENT
Date : 13-05-2026
1. Both the aforementioned appeals arise out of same
Kuchila P. S. Case No. 15 of 2005 and hence, with the consent
of all the parties, are being heard and disposed of by a common
judgment.
2. Heard learned counsel appearing for the appellants
and learned Additional Public Prosecutors appearing for the
State.
3. These appeals have been filed challenging the
judgment of conviction dated 20.01.2016 and order of sentence
25.01.2016 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, III,
Kaimur at Bhabua in Sessions Trial No. 129 of 2009 / Reg no.
243 of 2015 arising out of Kuchila P.S. Case No. 15 of 2005
whereby and whereunder these appellants have been convicted
and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 2 years
under Section 148 of the Indian Penal Code and imprisonment
for 7 years under Sections 307/149 IPC with fine of Rs. 5,000/-
each and in default of payment further simple imprisonment for
one month. In addition, appellant, namely, Dipan Singh Yadav
@ Dipnarayan Yadav @ Deepan Singh was also sentenced to
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.74 of 2016 dt.13-05-2026
3/8
under rigorous imprisonment for 5 years and fine of Rs. 3,000/-
for the offence under Section 27 of Arms Act and in case of
default of fine, appellant to undergo simple imprisonment for
one month.
4. The prosecution case, in brief, is that when
informant along with others was digging and carrying soil from
the riverside by tractor, the accused persons, variously armed,
reached there and objected the same. It is alleged that appellant
Dipan Singh Yadav @ Dipnarayan Yadav @ Deepan Singh fired
from a double barrel gun, causing pellet injuries on the right eye
and forehead of informant, resulting in loss of eyesight.
5. In this case, in order to bring home guilt of these
appellants, the prosecution has examined altogether nine
witnesses.
5(a) P.W. 1, namely, Jootan Singh claims to be an eye
witness of the occurrence and stated supported the prosecution
case. He further admitted previous litigations pending between
the parties. His evidence discloses material omissions regarding
exact place of occurrence, distance and manner of assault.
5(b) P.W. 2, namely, Bansnarayan Singh is the injured
informant and reiterated the allegations made in the F.I.R. His
testimony also shows inconsistency regarding the direction from
which firing was made and the exact position of the accused
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.74 of 2016 dt.13-05-2026
4/8
persons.
5(c) P.W. 3, namely, Munna Singh was declared
hostile.
5(d) P.W. 4, namely, Rampravesh Singh supported the
prosecution case in a formal manner but his evidence is largely
hearsay in nature and suffers from omission regarding overt act
of individual accused persons.
5(e) P.W. 5, 6 and 7 did not support the prosecution
case on material particulars and were declared hostile.
5(f) P.W. 8, namely, Dr. Rajendra Choudhary
examined the injured on 05.07.2005 and opined that the injuries
were caused by firearms. However, in cross-examination, he
admitted that the injury report produced was not original and the
patient had been referred to higher centre for ophthalmological
management and no final opinion regarding nature of injury or
permanent loss of eyesight was given by him.
5(g) P.W. 9, namely, Bishwanath Sharma is one of the
Investigating Officers and did not seize any blood stained soil,
pellet, empty cartridge or firearms from the place of occurrence.
No ballistic examination was conducted and he also failed to
produce the original injury report.
6. On the other hand, the defence examined two
witnesses and learned Trial Court discarded the evidence of
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.74 of 2016 dt.13-05-2026
5/8
D.W. 1. His testimony creates doubt regarding the prosecution
story of soil digging at the relevant time and evidence of D.W. 2
probabilises the defence plea of previous enmity and false
implication.
7. Learned counsel appearing for the appellants assails
the order of conviction and sentence and submits that the
conviction is wholly unsustainable as out of the alleged eye
witnesses, several witnesses have turned hostile and only
interested and inimical witnesses have supported the
prosecution case. He further submits that the original injury
report was never produced and the doctor himself admitted that
the injury report exhibited was not original. It is also contended
that no final medical opinion proves grievous injury or
permanent blindness. There is complete absence of independent
corroboration. No seizure of blood stained soil, pellets, firearms
or empty cartridges was made and prosecution failed to
establish the place of occurrence beyond reasonable doubt. The
defence has further emphasized that admitted previous enmity
between the parties arising out of earlier criminal litigation
furnished strong motive for false implication. It is lastly
submitted that in the facts of the case no offence under Section
307 IPC is made out since there is no allegation of repetitive
blow and despite there being no intervening circumstance, the
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.74 of 2016 dt.13-05-2026
6/8
life of informant was saved. Thus, the prosecution has failed to
prove the case beyond reasonable doubts and thus, the trial court
has wrongfully convicted these appellants ignoring material
contradictions and hence, the appellants are fit to be acquitted.
8. Learned Additional Public Prosecutors for the State
have supported the judgment of conviction and submitted that
testimony of injured witness carries great evidentiary value and
minor contradictions are not sufficient to discard the prosecution
case. There is no reason to differ with the findings of the learned
trial court and the judgment of conviction and order of sentence
are justified and legal.
9. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and
upon perusal of the trial court records, this Court finds
substantial infirmities in the prosecution case.
10. It is true that testimony of an injured witness
ordinarily receives greater weight. However, such testimony
must inspire confidence and should stand corroborated by
surrounding circumstances and medical evidence. In the present
case, prosecution suffers from serious lapses. Out of material
witnesses, P.W. 3, P.W. 5, P.W. 6 and P.W. 7 were declared
hostile thus, the prosecution, substantially, rests upon the
testimonies of P.W. 1 and P.W. 2, who are, admittedly, interested
and inimical witnesses. The I.O. also failed to produce objective
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.74 of 2016 dt.13-05-2026
7/8
evidence regarding the place of occurrence. No blood stained
soil was seized and no independent witness from the locality
was examined though the occurrence is alleged to have taken
place in broad daylight near riverside.
11. In my opinion, learned Trial Court failed to
properly appreciate the cumulative effect of hostile witnesses,
admitted enmity, defective investigation and inconclusive
medical evidence. I am inclined to accept the proposition that in
the facts of the case no offence under Section 307 IPC and
Section 27 of the Arms Act is made out but in my view, a clear
case under Section 326 IPC would be made out. Considering
that the appellants have remained in custody for sufficient long
period, the conviction under Section 307 IPC can be converted
into Section 326 IPC and they are sentenced to the period
already undergone by them. In absence of medical report,
recovery of any firearms, pellets, the offence under Section 27
of the Arms Act cannot be sustained.
12. In that view of the matter, the impugned judgment
of conviction dated 20.01.2016 and order of sentence
25.01.2016 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, III,
Kaimur at Bhabua in Sessions Trial No. 129 of 2009 / Reg no.
243 of 2015 arising out of Kuchila P.S. Case No. 15 of 2005 are
hereby set aside with respect to these appellants only.
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.74 of 2016 dt.13-05-2026
8/8
13. Appellants, above named, are acquitted of all the
charges and are discharged from the liability of the bail bonds in
connection with this case.
14. Accordingly, this appeal stands allowed.
15. Interlocutory application/s, if any, also stands
disposed off.
(Prabhat Kumar Singh, J)
Navya/-
AFR/NAFR NAFR
CAV DATE N/A
Uploading Date 18.05.2026
Transmission Date 18.05.2026
Checking your session…
Lawyer court records for this case
Associated through the court’s case reference.