Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
ALOK KUMAR PANDEY, J.
Bipin Rai @ Bipin Ray S/O Late Tripit Rai @ Late Tripit Rai - Appellant
Versus
The State of Bihar - Respondent
CRIMINAL APPEAL (SJ) No.1412 of 2025 with CRIMINAL APPEAL (SJ) No. 1524 of 2025
Decided On : 20-01-2026
Indian Penal Code, 1860—Sections 307 and 448 read with Section 34 read with Section 27 of Arms Act, 1959—Attempt to murder and house trespass—Common intention—Conviction and sentence—Informant did not attribute firing to any specific accused and merely alleged that appellants and others collectively fired and were identified while fleeing—However, while adducing evidence before court he materially improved prosecution case—Motive stated during evidence relating to threats in connection with an earlier case in which informant was a witness, is wholly inconsistent with earlier motive assigned in prosecution narrative—No firing material was seized from place of occurrence—Role of I.O. is not fair and he has not conducted investigation in a fair manner—Statement of informant regarding manner of occurrence as well as place of occurrence is quite inconsistent with initial version of prosecution story as well as evidence of IO—Doctor who prepared injury report was required to enter witness box to prove injuries of injured person—In absence of examination of doctor, injury report is merely a formality—Prosecution has prepared a plan to frame false allegation in order to suit prosecution case—False implication of appellants and others cannot be denied in present case—Impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence set aside—Appeals allowed. (Paras 12.2, 13.2, 15, 18, 19, 21, 22 and 23)
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. overview of the case and charges (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
| 2. arguments presented by appellants and prosecution (Para 6 , 7 , 8) |
| 3. court's analysis of evidence and inconsistencies (Para 10 , 12 , 13 , 20) |
| 4. importance of medical testimony in proving injury (Para 19 , 21) |
| 5. final order and release of appellants (Para 23 , 24 , 25 , 26) |
JUDGMENT :
Both the above stated appeals have been directed against the common judgment of conviction dated 06.03.2025 and order of sentence dated 11.03.2025 passed by learned Additional District and Sessions Judge-IV, Barh (Patna) in S.T. Case No. 423 of 2023, arising out of Mokama P.S. Case No. 368 of 2022 whereby and whereunder appellant/ Bipin Rai @ Bipin Ray in Cr. Appeal (SJ) No. 1412 of 2025 and appellant/ Manoj Rai in Cr. Appeal (SJ) No. 1524 of 2025 have been convicted for the offences punishable under Sections 307 , 448 read with 34 of the IPC and 27 of the Arms Act and they have been sentenced to undergo R.I. for one year and fine of Rs. 1,000/- under Section 448 read with 34 of the IPC and in default of payment of fine, they will further undergo one week simple imprisonment. The appellants have further been sentenced to undergo R.I. for five years and fine of Rs. 10,000/- under Section 307 read with 34 of the IPC and in default of payment of fine, they will further undergo simple imprisonment of six months. The appellants have further been sentenced to undergo R.I. for three years and a fine of Rs. 5,000/- under Section 27 of the Arms Act and in default of payment of fine, they will further undergo simple imprisonment of three months. All the sentences have been directed to run concurrently. Therefore, both these appeals are being disposed of by this common judgment.
2. The prosecution case, as disclosed by informant, Abhinash Kumar (PW-6), is that on 25.11.2022 at about 07:20 PM, while he was sleeping in his house, 5-6 persons forcibly entered in the house, abused him, and opened indiscriminate fire, discharging 3-4 rounds at him. It is further alleged that while retreating, the assailants again fired, as a result of which the informant sustained a gunshot injury on his left arm. On his alarm, the miscreants fled. The informant asserts that he has identified the appellants and others, being well acquainted with them as residents of village Mekra. The alleged motive for the occurrence is stated to be a dispute relating to crop seeding and threats. The informant has further alleged that the firing was carried out with intention to kill him.
3. On the basis of written report of the informant/PW-6, Mokama P.S. Case No. 368 of 2022 dated 25.11.2022 was registered under Sections 448 , 326, 307, 34 of the IPC and Section 27 of the Arms Act . Routine investigation followed. Statement of witnesses came to be recorded and on the completion of investigation, charge sheet has been submitted against the appellants under Sections 448 , 326, 307/34 of the IPC and 27 of the Arms Act whereas investigation continued in respect of others. Thereafter, the learned trial court took cognizance against the appellants. The case was committed to the court of sessions after following due procedure. The learned trial court framed charges against the appellants under Sections 307 /34, 326/34 and 448/34 of the IPC and 27 of the Arms Act . Charges were read over and explained to the appellants to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
4. In order to bring home guilt of accused persons, prosecution has examined altogether seven witnesses. PW-1/Chintu Kumar @ Karu, PW-2/ Pawan Devi, PW-3/ Ranju Devi, PW-4/ Ghuran Rai @ Ghus Rai, PW-5/ Anita Devi, PW-6 Abhinash Kumar (informant) and PW-7/ Chandra Bhushan Sinha (I.O.). Prosecution has relied upon following documentary evidence on record:-
Ext. 1- Written report of informant.
Ext. 1/1-Endorsement of SHO, Mokama on written report of informant.
Ext. 2 & 2/1- Discharge ticket of Avinash Kumar from PMCH, Patna & signature of doctor.
Ext. 3- Charge sheet No.
The court found that the prosecution failed to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt due to significant inconsistencies in witness testimonies and lack of reliable evidence, leading to the reversal o....
The court found that an injury categorized under IPC Section 324 does not meet the criteria for attempted murder under Section 308 due to the lack of intent to endanger life.
Attempt to murder – Intention to kill must be apparent from act of accused.
The prosecution must prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt; insufficient evidence and contradictions in witness statements led to acquittal.
Point of Law : Obviously, enmity was existing between both the sides and some altercation is stated to have taken place which has been trid to be coloured differently by the prosecution witnesses.
Voluntarily causing hurt by dangerous weapons - Benefit of doubt given to accused – Conviction set aside - On account of enmity based on litigation, there are chances of developing a false case and t....
The central legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for the prosecution to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt, including the place of occurrence and the examination of crucial ....
The prosecution failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt due to unreliable witness testimonies and procedural errors, resulting in the acquittal of the appellants.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
