Patna High Court
Ram Bilas SinghversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISPOSED
- Bench
- ARUN KUMAR JHA
Holding
The Court modified the sentences to the period already served and ordered the release of the petitioners.
Summary
The petitioners, Ram Bilas Singh and Bablu Singh, were convicted under Sections 323, 341, 324 and 447 of the Indian Penal Code for assaulting the informant Ram Avtar Singh in a land‑dispute related altercation in 2002. They appealed the conviction and sentence, arguing that the evidence was contradictory, that the land‑dispute context should have been considered, and that the younger petitioner deserved probation under Section 360 of the Cr.P.C. The High Court examined the concurrent findings of the trial and appellate courts and found no manifest illegality or perversity in the convictions, rejecting the petitioners' claim of factual error. However, noting the protracted delay, the advanced age of petitioner No. 1 (about 72 years) and the youth of petitioner No. 2 at the time of the offence, the Court deemed it appropriate to modify the sentences to the period already served. Consequently, both petitioners were ordered to be released from custody and the revision petition was disposed of.
Issues considered
- The correctness of convictions under IPC Sections 323, 341, 324 and 447
- Whether there was manifest illegality, perversity or material irregularity in the trial and appellate orders
- Whether the petitioners are entitled to benefit of probation under Cr.P.C. Section 360
- Whether the sentence should be modified on account of delay, age and circumstances of the offence
Legislation cited
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 360
- Indian Penal Code — s. 307/34, 323, 324, 341, 447
Subjects
- IPC
- Section 323
- Section 324
- Section 341
- Section 447
- Criminal Revision
- Probation
- Sentence modification
- Land dispute
- Evidence evaluation
- Benefit of doubt
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL REVISION No.207 of 2025
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-65 Year-2002 Thana- WARISNAGAR District- Samastipur
======================================================
1. Ram Bilas Singh Son of Late Bhavichan Singh Resident of Village -
Satmalpur, P.S. - Waris Nagar, District - Samastipur
2. Bablu Singh @ Divya Jyoti Kumar Son of Sri Ram Bilash Singh Resident of
Village - Satmalpur, P.S. - Waris Nagar, District - Samastipur
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar
2. Ram Avtar Singh S/o- Late Bhanichhan Mahto @ Bhanichhan Singh
Resident of Village - Satmalpur, P.S. - Waris Nagar, District - Samastipur
... ... Opposite Parties
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Ms. Megha, Advocate
Mr. Priyajeet Pandey, Advocate
Mr. Kaustubh Kumar, Advocate
Mr. Lakshmindra Kumar Yadav, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Nityanand, APP
For the O.P. No. 2 : Mr. Satish Kumar Sinha, Advocate
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN KUMAR JHA
ORAL JUDGMENT
Date : 03-02-2026
Heard the learned counsels for the respective parties
and perused the record.
2. The present criminal revision petition has been
preferred against the judgment and order dated 24.01.2025
passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-IX, Samastipur
in Criminal Appeal No. 39 of 2016 (CIS No. 39 of 2016),
whereby and whereunder the judgment/order dated 24.05.2016
passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate-VI,
Samastipur has been affirmed and also against the judgment of
conviction and order of sentence dated 24.05.2016 passed in
Patna High Court CR. REV. No.207 of 2025 dt.03-02-2026
2/8
G.R. no. 765 of 2012 (Tr. No. 1945/16) by the learned ACJM-
VI, Samastipur, in which the petitioners Ram Bilash Singh and
Bablu Singh were ordered to undergo simple imprisonment of
one year for the offence punishable under Section 323 of the
Indian Penal Code, simple imprisonment of one month for the
offence under Section 341 of IPC and simple imprisonment of
three months for the offence under Section 447 of IPC. Further,
the petitioner, Bablu Singh, has also been convicted for the
offence under Section 324 of IPC and sentenced to undergo
simple imprisonment of two years.
3. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the
opposite party no. 2 is the informant of Warisnagar P.S. Case No.
65 of 2002 which was registered on the basis of fardbeyan of
opposite party no. 2/informant, Ram Avtar Singh. The informant
alleged that petitioner no. 1, who is the brother of informant,
came to his doors and there was verbal exchange between them
with regard to partition. The petitioner no. 1 got infuriated
during this talk and ordered to kill the informant. Thereafter,
petitioner no. 2 inflicted a farsa blow upon the head of the
informant due to which he got injured and fell down. Thereafter,
the petitioners and co-accused persons assaulted him. On the
basis of fardbeyan of the informant/opposite party no. 2,
aforesaid case was registered under Sections 341, 323, 324, 447,
Patna High Court CR. REV. No.207 of 2025 dt.03-02-2026
3/8
307/34 of IPC against the petitioners and other co-accused
persons. After investigation, charge-sheet was submitted for the
offences under Sections 323, 341, 324, 447/34 of IPC against the
petitioners and other co-accused persons. Thereafter, cognizance
was taken for the offences under Sections 323, 341, 324, 447/34
of IPC by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Samastipur
against the accused persons. Charges were framed under
Sections 323, 341 and 447 of IPC against the petitioners and co-
accused and after trial, the petitioners and co-accused were held
guilty for the charges under Sections 323, 341 and 447 of IPC
and the petitioner, Bablu Singh, was further held guilty for the
charge under Section 324 of IPC. Thereafter, the convicts
petitioners and co-accused Pappu Singh were ordered to undergo
simple imprisonment of one year for the offence punishable
under Section 323 of the IPC, simple imprisonment of one moth
for the offence punishable under Section 341 of the IPC and
simple imprisonment of three months for the offence under
Sections 447 of the IPC. Apart from that, petitioner, Bablu
Singh, was also ordered to undergo simple imprisonment of two
years for the offence punishable under Sections 324 of the IPC.
All the sentences were directed to run concurrently. The
petitioners preferred appeal against the said order but the learned
appellate court, after giving opportunity of hearing to the parties,
Patna High Court CR. REV. No.207 of 2025 dt.03-02-2026
4/8
vide judgment/order dated 24.01.2025, affirmed the judgment of
conviction and order of sentence dated 24.05.2016 passed by the
learned ACJM-VI, Samastipur and dismissed the appeal.
Aggrieved by these two judgments/orders, the petitioners have
preferred the instant criminal revision.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that
petitioners have been convicted and sentenced against the facts
on record and, therefore, the impugned orders are bad in law as
well as on facts. The learned trial court as well as learned
appellate court have failed to appreciate the material facts as
there was ample evidence and material available on record to
show the innocence of the petitioners. Both the courts below
failed to take into consideration the admitted land dispute
between the parties and their old enmity on this account. The
learned District Courts did not consider the fact that at the time
of occurrence petitioner no. 2 was only 21 years old and ought to
have given benefit of probation under Section 360 of Cr.P.C..
The learned District Courts further failed to appreciate the
material and evidence on record and ignored the contradictions
and lacunae in the evidence of prosecution which make the
prosecution case very doubtful and benefit of doubt should have
gone to the petitioners. The learned trial court as the learned
appellate court did not even consider the fact that the occurrence
Patna High Court CR. REV. No.207 of 2025 dt.03-02-2026
5/8
is stated to be of year 2002 and the impugned judgments/orders
have been passed in the years 2016 and 2025, respectively, and
therefore, the quantum of punishment is too hard and excessive.
5. Learned counsel further submits that the conviction
of petitioner no. 2 is based on the injury stated to be caused by
him with farsa on the victim. But, the doctor during cross-
examination admitted that he did not mention the colour of
injury and also stated that injury no. 1 could have been caused
by shaving blade, if a person takes risk, and also observed that
the injury of farsa could not be such small. Still, the learned
District Courts did not take into consideration this material facts
and hence, the judgments/orders impugned are erroneous.
Therefore, the petition needs to be allowed and judgments of
conviction and orders of sentence are liable to be set aside.
6. Learned APP for the State as well as learned
counsel appearing on behalf of opposite party no. 2 vehemently
oppose the submission made on behalf of the petitioners.
Learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2/informant submits
that there is no infirmity in the impugned orders and the same
are right and correct. The learned trial court as well as the
learned appellate court have considered all the evidence in
minutes details and discussed each and every fact and
circumstance. Learned counsel further submits that the witnesses
Patna High Court CR. REV. No.207 of 2025 dt.03-02-2026
6/8
have supported the prosecution case and this fact was taken note
of by the District Courts. The learned trial court has also
discussed in its judgment about ocular evidence and medical
evidence corroborating each other. Therefore, there is no
illegality, infirmity or impropriety in the impugned
judgment/orders and the present revision petition is liable to be
dismissed.
7. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the
rival submission of the parties and perused the record.
8. There is concurrent findings of two courts which are
under challenge before this Court. To interfere with the two
concurrent findings, the petitioners are required to show some
manifest illegality or perversity which is apparent from the
record or some material irregularity or impropriety in passing the
impugned orders. But, except for assailing the judgments/orders
on facts which have already been examined in details by the two
courts, nothing of interest has been brought to the notice of this
Court. If the petitioners claimed that the occurrence took place in
the background of land dispute or they have been falsely
implicated, it is to be kept in mind that such defence is a double
edged weapon and it cuts both ways. Even if the occurrence
happened over land dispute, the present case cannot be said to be
false only on account of some land dispute.
Patna High Court CR. REV. No.207 of 2025 dt.03-02-2026
7/8
9. Further, there is concurrent findings of two courts
on facts and the same could not be lightly interfered with. To
interfere with such findings, the petitioners were supposed to
show some material which ought to have been apparent on face
of record but no such material has been brought to the notice of
this Court. Another aspect is about overlooking of evidence of
doctor. But I find this submission of learned counsel for the
petitioner is not correct as this aspect was also considered by the
learned trial court and affirmed by the learned appellate court. It
has also come on record that even in an earlier case between the
parties, the petitioners and other co-accused were convicted
under Section 323 of the IPC and they were let off after
admonition and this was the second occurrence by the petitioners
and co-accused person.
10. Therefore, on merit, I do not find much substance
in the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners so as
to interfere with the impugned judgments/orders.
11. However, during argument, it has been submitted
on behalf of the petitioners that petitioner no. 1 has already
served maximum part of the sentence awarded to him as he is in
custody since 12.03.2025 and the petitioner no. 2 is also in
custody since 12.03.2025, though he has been sentenced to
undergo simple imprisonment of two years for the offence
Patna High Court CR. REV. No.207 of 2025 dt.03-02-2026
8/8
punishable under Sections 324 of IPC. Considering the fact that
it is a protracted trial since 2002 and the petitioner no. 1 is stated
to be aged about 72 years and the occurrence is stated to have
taken place when the petitioner no. 2 was only 21 years old,
hence, this Court thinks it fit and proper that the sentence of the
petitioners could be tinkered with so as to release the petitioners
and, accordingly, their sentences are modified to the period
already undergone. Hence, the petitioners above named, are
ordered to be released from the custody forthwith.
11. Accordingly, the present revision petition stands
disposed of.
(Arun Kumar Jha, J)
Ashish/-
AFR/NAFR NAFR
CAV DATE NA
Uploading Date 05.02.2026
Transmission Date 05.02.2026
Checking your session…