BIJALI CHOUDHARYversusTHE STATE OF BIHAR

     IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
                 CRIMINAL APPEAL (SJ) No.99 of 2011
======================================================
Bijali Choudhary, S/o Late Karu Choudhary, Resident of Village- Inguna, P.S-
Akbarpur, Distt- Nawada.                         ... ... Appellant/s
                                  Versus
The State of Bihar                                   ... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Appellant/s    :     Mr. Prabhakar Singh, Advocate
                             Mr. Sumit Kumar, Advocate
                             Ms. Ritika Kumari, Advocate
                             Mr. Anubhav Vatsa, Advocate
                             Mr. Pranav Bhaskar, Advocate
For the Respondent/s   :     Mr. Abhay Kumar, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANSUL
                     ORAL JUDGMENT
 Date : 03-02-2026

               This appeal has been preferred by the appellant for set-

ting aside the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sen-

tence dated 08.12.2010 and 14.12.2010 respectively passed by

learned Additional Sessions Judge, F.T.C., Nawada in S.Tr. No.

148/09/95/09 arising out of Akbarpur P.S. Case No. 59 of 2008,

whereby the concerned Trial Court has convicted the appellant and

sentenced under Section 324 of the Indian Penal Code (for short

‘I.P.C.’) with R.I. for one year, under Section 307/34 IPC with R.I.

for 10 years and fine of Rs. 10,000/- (in default of payment of fine

he will further go R.I. of six months) and under Section 27 of the

Arms Act and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for

three years and fine of Rs. 5,000/- (in default of payment of fine

he will further go R.I. for three months).
              Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.99 of 2011 dt.03-02-2026
                                  2/8




            2. The brief case of the prosecution, as per fardbeyan

of informant, namely, Rambalak Yadav (P.W.-6) is that on

07.07.2008 in the night when he was sleeping at Verandah

alongwith his son Indradeo Prasad (P.W. 1) at about 11.30. P.M. he

heard a sound of crying to shoot upon which he awakened and saw

in the light of lantern that his villagers Dinesh Chaudhary and Bi-

jali Chaudhary were standing armed with pistol with intention to

kill him and they opened fire twice out of which one bullet was

shot at left side neck and second shot did not hit him. Thereafter,

they sought for rescue and on hearing the shouting his wife,

Sugiya Devi and other neigbours Sarjug Mahto, Sanjay Mahto,

Rambachan Yadav and others came there and they saw the accused

persons fleeing in light of torch, thereafter, he was taken to the

hospital.

            3. After completion of investigation and on the basis of

materials collected during investigation, the Investigating Officer

of this case submitted charge-sheet on 31.12.2008 under Sections

447, 324, 307/34 of the IPC and Section 27 of the Arms Act

against the appellant before the learned Trial Court.

            4. The learned trial court after perusal of materials col-

lected during investigation and hearing the accused/appellant

framed the charges under Sections 324 and 307/34 IPC and Sec-
            Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.99 of 2011 dt.03-02-2026
                                3/8




tion 27 of the Arms Act against the appellant, which was explained

to the appellant, to which, he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be

tried.

          5. To substantiate its case, the prosecution has examined

altogether eight witnesses. They are:-(i) PW-1 Indradeo Prasad

(Son of the Informant) supported the prosecution story and stated

that he was sleeping with his father and saw the occurrence (ii)

PW-2 Ram Sugia Devi (Wife of Informant) has supported the

prosecution story; (iii) PW-3 Sanjay Yadav has supported the

prosecution story; (iv) P.W. 4 Ganesh Yadav (Nephew of the in-

formant) has stated that he had not seen the occurrence and he

came after hearing sound of firing and found the informant in in-

jured condition; (v) P.W. 5 Sanjay Mahto (Nephew of the infor-

mant) had not seen the occurrence and came after hearing sound

of firing and found the informant in injured condition; (vi) P.W. 6

Rambalak Yadav (Informant) was sleeping at his Dalan along

with his son (P.W. 1) and saw the accused person who were armed

with pistol. Both of them made firing and one of the bullet injured

the informant at his neck; (vii) P.W. 7 Doctor (Narender

Sharma) has proved the injury report and (viii) P.W. 8, Dhanan-

jay Jha, Investigating Officer has supported the case of the pros-

ecution and proved the same true.
             Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.99 of 2011 dt.03-02-2026
                                 4/8




          6. The defence has also examined four witnesses. They

are:- (i) DW 1 Lakhan Chaudhary has deposed that his son (fa-

ther of Dinesh Choudhary) was doing job in Calcutta at the time of

occurrence and the informant is a veteran criminal whose hand

was damaged by a bomb in a dacoity. He further deposed that in-

formant was sleeping at the place which is Gair Majaruwa land

and 1/2 KM away from his house which has been grabbed by him.

D.W. 2, Gore Lal Rajwanti has deposed that appellant is of good

character and informant is criminal. D.W. 3 Santosh has stated

about the criminal activities of the informant and about innocence

of the appellant and has also deposed that the informant was in-

volved in dacoity and when he was throwing bomb his hand was

damaged. D.W. 4, Baudhu Rajwanti has deposed about the crimi-

nal activities of the informant and has also deposed that the hand

of the informant was damaged in a bomb injury.

         7. Apart from the oral evidence, the prosecution has also

relied upon following exhibits/documentary evidences, which are:-

        Sl. No. of exhibits            Name of documents                 exhib-
        No.                            ited
          1. Exhibit-1                 Signature of the informant on
                                       the fardbeyan.
          2. Exhibit-2                 Signature of the I.O. on the
                                       fardbeyan in his writing.
          3. Exhibit-2/1               Signature of I.O. on forward-
                                       ing fardbeyan
          4. Exhibit-3                 Signature of the S.H.O. on the
                Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.99 of 2011 dt.03-02-2026
                                    5/8




                                          F.I.R. namely Bharat Bhushan
               5. Exhibit-4               Charge-sheet.


           8. On the basis of evidences/circumstances as surfaced

during the trial, the learned trial court has examined the

appellant/accused under Section 313 of the CrPC, where he com-

pletely denied the evidences surfaced during the trial and claimed

his complete innocence.

           9. Taking note of the evidence as surfaced during the

trial and after considering the arguments as advanced by both the

parties, the learned Trial Court has convicted the appellant for the

offences under Sections 324, 307/34 IPC and Section 27 of the

Arms Act and sentenced him in the manner as indicated above.

           10. Being aggrieved with the aforesaid judgment of con-

viction and order of sentence, the appellant has preferred the

present appeal. Hence, the present appeal.

           11. I have considered the rival submissions canvassed by

the learned counsel appearing for the parties and also perused the

deposition of the witnesses examined during trial before learned

trial court.

           12. It appears from perusal of record that altogether

eight witnesses have been examined during trial. P.W.-1, Indradeo

Prasad, who is son of the informant has deposed that the accused
             Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.99 of 2011 dt.03-02-2026
                                 6/8




persons fired indiscriminately and one bullet hit on the neck of his

father and the other was misfired. P.W.-2, Ram Sugia Devi, who is

the wife of the informant has stated that the accused persons had

shot fire to her husband, Rambalak Yadav when he was sleeping at

Verandah along with his son and he sustained injury. P.W.-3, San-

jay Yadav has stated that the accused persons have shot fire caus-

ing injury to the informant and her wife was rushing out from the

house. P.W-4, Ganesh Yadav has stated that on hearing the sound

of firing he went to Dalan of Rambalak Yadav where he saw gun-

shot injury on his neck. P.W-5, Sanjay Mahto has stated that he

had not seen the occurrence and came at the place of occurrence af-

ter hearing sound of firing and found the informant in injured con-

dition. P.W. 6, Rambalak Yadav is the informant of the case and

has supported the case as narrated in the fardbeyan. P.W. 7, Naren-

dra Sharma who is the Doctor of the case and has stated that he was

posted at Sadar Hospital, Nawadah and on 08.07.2008 at 2.10 A.M.

he examined the informant, Rambalak Yadav and found 1/2 CM

circular wound on the right side of the neck and injury was caused

by firearm and, thereafter, he referred the informant to PMCH in

serious condition. P.W. 8, Dhananjay Jha, the Investigating Offi-

cer has investigated the case and he proved the fardbeyan of the in-

formant.
              Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.99 of 2011 dt.03-02-2026
                                  7/8




           13. It also appears that there is an admitted land dispute

between the parties. This casts shadow of doubt on the prosecution

version.

           14. In context of evidence of P.W. 3, the presence of the

wife of the informant P.W. 2 Sugiya Devi appears to be doubtful.

She claimed to be eye-witness of the occurrence while P.W. 3

stated that he rushed from his house after shot fire at a distance of

half kilometer away and he saw the wife of the informant rushing

towards the place of occurrence.

           15. There is also no clarity as to who fired upon the in-

jured the injured exactly.

           16. Having carefully considered the witnesses', testimony

and the medical evidence, I find no grounds to interfere with the

appellant's conviction.

           17. However, the matter arises out of a land dispute and

the Appellant is facing prosecution for last about eighteen years..

Therefore, taking a holistic view to meet the ends of justice to be

served upon the appellant, the sentence awarded to the appellant is

reduced to the period already undergone by him.

           18. In the result, the appeal is dismissed with the afore-

said modification in the sentence.
                                 Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.99 of 2011 dt.03-02-2026
                                                     8/8




                              19. Office is directed to send back the trial court records

                    along with a copy of this judgment to the learned trial court, forth-

                    with.


                                                                (Ansul, J)
Vikash/-
AFR/NAFR                 NAFR
CAV DATE                 N/A
Uploading Date           17.02.2026
Transmission Date        17.02.2026