Back
2025 Supreme(Pat) 430
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Ramesh Chand Malviya, J.
Sipahi Tiwary Son Of Late Ram Dayal Tiwary - Appellant
Versus
The State Of Bihar - Respondent
Criminal Appeal (SJ) No.400 of 2013
Decided On : 17-04-2025
For the Appellant : Ms. Sarandha Suman, Amicus Curiae
For the Respondent: Mr. A.M.P Mehta APP
Insufficient and contradictory evidence in a criminal case leads to acquittal, as the prosecution must prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
Headnote:(A) Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Section 374(2) - Indian Penal Code - Sections 307 and 341 - Conviction for attempted murder and wrongful confinement - Appellant convicted for 10 years imprisonment and fine, thereafter appealed - Prosecution's case founded on contradictory testimonies, lack of medical evidence, and non-examination of crucial witnesses - Court found insufficient evidence to uphold conviction. (Paras 2, 20)
(B) Burden of Proof - Prosecution must establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt - Inadequate evidence and discrepancies in testimonies weaken prosecution case, leading to acquittal. (Paras 11, 19)
Facts of the case:
The appellant was convicted and sentenced for assaulting the informant's father with intent to kill, resulting in grievous injuries as alleged. Discrepancies in eyewitness accounts raised substantial doubt about the prosecution's version.
Findings of Court:
The court found the prosecution's evidence lacking credibility and ruled the conviction was not sustainable.
Issues: Main issues were the credibility of eyewitness testimony, absence of medical examination, and inconsistent accounts of the incident.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that without reliable evidence and corroborating witness statements, the foundational elements of a conviction under the IPC were not met.
Result: Appeal allowed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. details of the incident and prosecution witnesses (Para 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9) |
| 2. arguments made by the appellants' counsel (Para 10 , 11) |
| 3. analysis of evidence and legal principles (Para 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19) |
| 4. final decision and order (Para 20 , 21 , 22 , 23) |
JUDGMENT :
Ramesh Chand Malviya, J.
Heard Ms. Sarandha Suman, Amicus Curiae for the appellants and Mr. Anand Mohan Mehta, learned APP for the State.
2. The present appeal has been filed under Section 374(2) of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred as ‘Cr.P.C’) challenging the judgment of conviction dated 08.05.2013 and order of sentence dated 10.05.2013 passed in Sessions Trial No. 71 of 2008. in connection with Narainpur P.S. Case No. 08 of 2007 dated 04.04.2007 passed by Adhoc Additional. Sessions Judge-II, Ara, Bhojpur whereby and where-under the appellants have been convicted for the offence under Sections 307 and 341 of INDIAN PENAL CODE (hereinafter referred as ‘IPC’) and for the offence punishable under Sections 307 and 341 of the IPC sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for 10 years and to pay fine of Rs. 5000/- and to undergo simple imprisonment for 3 months in default of payment of fine.
3. The prosecution case as alleged in written application of PW-6 Parmanand Upadhyay the informant to the SHO Narainpur P.S. on 04.04.2007 is that on the date of occurrence that is 04.04.2007 in the evening when son of the appellant Sipahi Tiwary namely, Deepak was uprooting the gram crops from the land of informant and after seeing this father of informant went to house of appellant, and complaint about the same on which the appellant abused him and threatened him how dare you to come to the door of his house to make complaint. Thereafter some verbal altercation ensued in between them and meanwhile Sipahi Tiwary brought lathi and assaulted the father of informant. It is alleged that the appellant with intention to kill the father of the informant hit on his head with a lathi. He fell on the ground after sustaining injury. On alarm, the informant reached to the aforesaid place of incident and tried to bring him to his place in between the appellant also assaulted him on his left hand as a result of which his hand was broken. The aforesaid occurrence was witnessed by many villagers.
4. Further on the basis of written application of informant endorsed to SHO Narainpur P.S. FIR has been registered bearing Narainpur P.S. Case no.8 of 2007 dated 04.04.2007 under Sections 323 , 325, 307 and 504 IPC against appellant and after completing investigation IO has submitted charge-sheet under Sections 341 , 323, 307 and 504 IPC vide Charge-sheet no. 34 of 2007 on 30.06.2007. After that CJM, Bhojpur has taken cognizance on 17.07.2007 and case has been transferred to the JMFC, Ara for commitment. He committed the present case to the Court of Sessions on 20.02.2008 where this case has been registered as Sessions Trial No.71 of 2008 and charges under Sections 307 and 341 of IPC has been framed against appellant and after hearing on the point of charge, on 22.05.2008 case has been transferred to the Court of ADJ FTC IV, Ara for trial and disposal, then after in pursuance of Misc. Order no. 67 of 2009 on 04.05.2009 this case has been transferred to the Court ADJ V, Ara then after in pursuance of Misc. order no. 6 on 10.01.2011 this case has been transferred to the Court of Adhoc Additional Session Judge II, Ara and case has been received on 31.01.2011.
5. In order to prove his case prosecution has examined altogether six witnesses out of which PW-1 Shyamlakant Upadhaya brother of informant, PW-2 Rajendra Sharma has been declared hostile by the prosecution, PW-3 Laldhari Upadhaya (Co-Villager) the chance witness, PW-4 Madan Upadhaya is hearsay witness, PW-5 Ram Bhagat Upadhaya is the victim person and father of informant, PW-6 Parmanand Upadhaya is informant and victim person himself whose signature and writing has been identified of his written application e
