BHOLA SINGH @ RAKESH KUMARversusThe State of Bihar

          IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
                            CRIMINAL REVISION No.29 of 2022
           Arising Out of PS. Case No.-283 Year-2008 Thana- GHOSI District- Jehanabad
     ======================================================
     Bhola Singh @ Rakesh Kumar S/O Satendra Sharma R/o village-
     Mahmadpur, P.S.- Ghoshi, District- Jehanabad

                                                                        ... ... Petitioner/s

                                            Versus

1.   The State of Bihar
2.   Rajesh Kumar S/o Late Vidyanand Singh R/o Village- Mahmadpur, P.S.-
     Ghosi, Distt- Jahanabad.

                                               ... ... Respondent/s
     ======================================================
     Appearance :
     For the Petitioner/s       :      Mr. Abhishek Kumar, Advocate
     For the State              :      Mr.Ashok Kumar Singh, APP
     For the O.P. No. 2        :      Mr. Hridayal Kumar, Advocate
     ======================================================
     CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN KUMAR JHA
     ORAL JUDGMENT
      Date : 18-02-2026


                            Heard learned counsel for the parties.

                            2. The present revision petition has been filed for

      setting aside the judgment and order dated 24.11.2021 passed by

      learned Additional Sessions Judge-III, Jehanabad in Criminal

      Appeal No. 01 of 2016/16 of 2019, whereby and whereunder the

      judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated

      10.12.2025 passed by learned Additional Chief Judicial

      Magistrate, Jehanabad in G.R. No. 2416 of 2008 (Tr. No. 275 of

      2015), by which the petitioner has been sentenced to
Patna High Court CR. REV. No.29 of 2022 dt.18-02-2026
                                            2/7




         undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years and fine

         of Rs.2,000/- for the offence under Section 325 of the

         Indian Penal Code and in case of default in payment of fine the

         convict was to further undergo S.I. for a term of one month, has

         been affirmed by the learned appellate court and appeal has

         been dismissed.

                            3. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that

         Ghosi P.S. Case No. 283 of 2008 was filed by Rajesh Kumar

         (P.W.3) with regard to the occurrence stated to have taken place

         on 13.11.2008, wherein he has stated that while he was in his

         khalihan he saw that accused-petitioner Bhola Singh was cutting

         the ridge (Aari) between their khalihan. When he tried to stop

         him, accused-petitioner Bhola Singh started assaulting and

         abusing him. The other family members of Bhola Singh, namely

         Ravindra Sharma, Rakesh and Birendra Singh also came and

         started assaulting the informant and when the sister of the

         informant, namely Reena Kumar came to his rescue, she was

         assaulted by lathi and thereafter, villagers came and saved them.

         The case was registered for the offences under Sections 341,

         323, 325, 504/34 of the Indian Penal Code and after completion

         of the investigation, police submitted charge sheet and

         thereafter, trial proceeded. After conclusion of trial, the learned
Patna High Court CR. REV. No.29 of 2022 dt.18-02-2026
                                            3/7




         trial court acquitted co-accused persons Ravindra Sharma and

         Birendra Singh and accused-petitioner Bhola Singh was

         convicted and sentenced to undergo R.I. for three years and fine

         of Rs.2,000/- for the offence under Section 325 of the Indian

         Penal Code. Thereafter, the petitioner filed Criminal Appeal No.

         01 of 2016/16 of 2019 before the learned Sessions Court which

         was dismissed by the learned appellate court. The petitioner

         approached this Court impugning the aforesaid two judgments

         and orders.

                            4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that

         the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence are

         bad in law as well as on facts and there was no sufficient

         material on record before the learned subordinate courts for

         convicting the petitioner. There was no proper appreciation of

         evidence as well as law. The orders have been passed merely on

         surmises and conjectures. Learned counsel further submits that

         for the same occurrence, the informant has also filed a

         complaint case on 18.11.2008 before the learned Chief Judicial

         Magistrate, Jehanabad vide Complaint Case No. 955 of 2008 in

         which the complainant was examined and cognizance was

         taken. After appearance of the accused persons, when no

         evidence was adduced by the complainant, the learned trial
Patna High Court CR. REV. No.29 of 2022 dt.18-02-2026
                                            4/7




         court discharged all the accused persons including the petitioner

         vide order dated 11.06.2015. Therefore, prosecuting the

         petitioner for the occurrence of same day and on same set of

         facts is double jeopardy. Learned counsel further submits that

         the learned appellate court did not take into consideration the

         statement of the witnesses. From the evidence of P.W. 6, the

         doctor, the doubt is created over the fact that the sister of the

         informant received injury in her left or right leg. This fact has

         not been appreciated as there was no clarification about the

         injury of the sister of the informant. It has come in the

         evidence of witnesses that either two or four persons assaulted

         the sister of the informant, but according to doctor only one

         injury has been found on the person of the sister of the

         informant. Learned counsel further submits that the judgment of

         conviction and order of sentence passed by the learned

         subordinate courts could not be sustained as it suffers from

         illegality.

                            5. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of

         opposite party no. 2 submits that there is concurrent finding of

         two courts and the findings are well discussed taking into

         consideration all the point raised by the petitioner before this

         Court including the issue of double jeopardy. Learned counsel
Patna High Court CR. REV. No.29 of 2022 dt.18-02-2026
                                            5/7




         further submits that the petitioner caused injury and fracture of

         left leg of the injured witness was found. Learned counsel

         further submits that the appellate court also considered the

         evidence and came to a finding that the learned Magistrate

         has rightly passed the judgment of conviction and order of

         sentence.

                            6. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the

         rival submission of the parties and perused the record.

                            7. From the judgment of conviction of learned

         subordinate courts, I find that the learned subordinate courts

         properly appreciated the evidence on record and came to the

         finding of the guilt of the petitioner. The prosecution appears to

         have proved its case against the petitioner for causing injury to

         P.W. 1 Reena Kumari, who herself stated about the involvement

         of the petitioner in assaulting her with lathi and causing injury

         which was subsequently found to be grievous as fracture was

         found on her leg. Though some confusion has been caused due

         to the statement of P.W. 6, the doctor, who examined the sister

         of the informant at Sadar Hospital and stated about the injury on

         right ankle. However, this fact was also considered by the

         learned appellate court in detail and it was found to be an error

         in record regarding the injury of the sister of the informant as
Patna High Court CR. REV. No.29 of 2022 dt.18-02-2026
                                            6/7




         the doctor further stated that the X-ray shows injury on the left

         and fracture on the left leg. This fact is also corroborated by

         exhibits 3 and 3/1. So, it appears only to be a slip of pen.

         Further, so far as the order on the ground of double jeopardy

         was concerned, the same was also considered by the learned

         appellate court which recorded its finding that as the accused

         persons have been discharged in the complaint case due to non-

         production of witnesses, the same would not be hit by Section

         300 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The other issue raised

         by the petitioner is not material for the present revision petition.

                            8. Therefore, in the light of aforesaid discussion, I

         am of the opinion that there appears no infirmity in the

         judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the

         learned appellate court as well as learned trial court finding the

         petitioner guilty for the offence under Section 325 of the Indian

         Penal Code. However, the petitioner suffered a lot due to ordeals

         of trial and considering the length of the trial, I am of the view

         that the lenient view regarding the sentence of the petitioner

         could be taken. Therefore, the sentence awarded to the petitioner

         is reduced to six months simple imprisonment. The petitioner is

         directed to surrender forthwith to serve the remaining part of

         sentence.
             Patna High Court CR. REV. No.29 of 2022 dt.18-02-2026
                                                         7/7




                                         9. Accordingly, the present revision petition

                      stands disposed of.


                                                 (Arun Kumar Jha, J)

  DKS/-
AFR/NAFR                NAFR
CAV DATE                NA
Uploading Date          20.02.2026
Transmission Date       20.02.2026