Back
2025 Supreme(Pat) 1356
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
RUDRA PRAKASH MISHRA, J.
Criminal Appeal (SJ) No. 63 of 2005
(20.9.2025)
Shyam Sunder Prasad ... Appellant
vs.
State of Bihar ... Respondent
For the Appellant : Mr. Satish Kumar Sinha.
For the State : Mr. Zeyaul Hoda, APP.
Headnote:
Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Section 324 – Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Sections 374(2) and 389(1) – Grievous hurt – Conviction and sentence – Prosecution's failure to examine Investigating Officer (I.O.) seriously undermines its case – I.O.'s testimony was vital to establish material aspects such as precise place of occurrence, recovery of physical evidence, and any indications of struggle or violence at the scene – His absence from witness box is not a mere technical lapse but a material omission that affects credibility and completeness of prosecution's case – Ambiguity surrounding place of occurrence is further aggravated by admitted land dispute between parties – Despite nature of dispute, prosecution failed to produce any site map, photographs, or official land records to substantiate its version – In absence of such corroborative material and without I.O.'s evidence to clarify investigative steps, prosecution's version of incident becomes seriously doubtful – Failure to clarify critical aspects such as scene identification and recovery due to I.O.'s non-examination creates substantial lacuna – Medical evidence presented by Doctor, raises material contradictions – Impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence set aside – Appeal allowed. (Paras 21, 22, 23, 27, 28 and 29)
Indian Evidence Act, 1872 – Section 3 – A fact is said to be proved when, after considering evidence, Court believes its existence or considers its existence so probable that a prudent man would act upon supposition that it exists – Court must determine whether facts alleged, including criminal acts attributed to accused, have been proved in accordance with this standard – Prosecution is not required to prove its case beyond all doubts, but beyond all reasonable doubt – A reasonable doubt is not an imaginary or trivial doubt but a fair doubt based upon reason and common sense. (Paras 18 and 19)
Rudra Prakash Mishra, J. – The present appeal is filed under sections 374(2) and 389(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for brevity ‘the Cr.P.C.’), arising out of the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 07.01.2005 passed by the learned Additional District & Sessions Judge, F.T.C-I, Nalanda in connection with Sessions Trial No. 36 of 1997, arising out of Asthawan (Bind) P.S. Case No. 168 of 1996, whereby and whereunder the appellant was found guilty and convicted for the offences punishable under Section 324 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for brevity ‘the IPC’) and appellant was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three (3) years and fine of Rs. 5,000/- and in default of payment of fine, the appellant was further directed to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of nine months.
2. The prosecution's case is that on July 24, 1996, at around 4:30 PM, the appellant – Shyam Sundar Prasad, who belongs to the same village as that of the informant – Sadanand Prasad, arrived at a disputed piece of land and asked the informant to remove bricks from a boundary wall which he claimed was constructed on his land. Upon the informant’s refusal, the accused allegedly attacked him using a Phasuli upon his neck, which hit to his right side of the head, and blood started oozing out. Thereafter, appellant cut the web (gansa) of his left hand by Phasuli , and also hit his left arm thereby by rendering him injured completely. Appellant also injured him on his both cheeks by the infliction of aforesaid Phasuli blows.
2.1. On the basis of the Fardbeyan of the informant, Asthawan (Bind) P.S. Case No. 168 of 1996 was registered against the appellant for offences punishable under Sections 307, 324 & 341 of the IPC.
2.2. After investigation, the police submitted charge-sheet under Sections 307, 323 & 341 of the IPC, whereupon cognizance was taken by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nalanda on 27.09.1996 and case was transferred to the Court of Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Biharsharif, which committed the case to the Court of Sessions on 28.01.1997 and the case was further transferred to the Additional Sessions Judge 5th, Nalanda for speedy disposal and which ultimately came to the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, F.T.C.-I, Nalanda, where charges were framed under sections 307, 323 & 324 of the IPC on 23.03.1998, where the same was registered as Sessions Trial No. 36 of 1997.
3. During the trial, four prosecution witnesses were examined: P.W.1 – Girish Prasad (nephew of the informant), P.W.2 – Rameshwar Prasad (uncle of the informant), P.W.3 – Sadanand Prasad (the informant himself), and P.W.4 – Dr. Prabhat Keshav, the medical officer who treated the injuries of the informant. Thereafter the statement of the appellant under section 313 of the Cr.P.C. came to be recorded , wherein he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. After conclusion of the Trial, the Trial Court convicted the appellant in the manner stated above.
4. Heard Mr. Satish Kumar Sinha, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. Zeyaul Hoda, learned APP for the State.
5. Learned counsel for the appellant contended that the testimony of the prosecution witnesses does not inspire confidence as all the three eye-witnesses were closely related to the informant, raising legitimate concerns regarding impartiality. Although the prosecution claimed that 15–20 villagers were present at a nearby Devi Asthan (place of occurrence), who were only 8 to 10 bamboo lengths away, no independent witness was examined. No explanation was provided for this omission, which seriously weakens the prosecution’s case. Reliance in this regard is placed on a decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Tahsildar Singh vs. State of U.P., since reported in (AIR 1959 SC 1012), wherein it was opined that failure to examine available independent witnesses can be fatal to the prosecution.
6. The appellant’s counsel further submitted that the medical evidence critically underm
