SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2026 Supreme(Online)(Pat) 325

PATNA HIGH COURT
Shailendra Singh, J
Mofil Sah – Appellant
Versus
The State of Bihar – Respondent
CRIMINAL APPEAL (SJ) No.87 of 2014|Sessions Trial No. 290 of 2009/91 of 2011



Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Mr. Harendra Prasad Singh, Adv., Mr. Adish Raj Singh, Adv.
For the Respondents: Mr. Syed Ashfaque Ahmand, APP

The prosecution's failure to explain injuries to the accused and the unexplained delay in FIR registration raised doubts that led to the allowance of the appeal.

Headnote:(A) Indian Penal Code - Sections 341 and 307 read with Section 34 - Appeal against conviction for assault - The court examined the credibility of witness testimonies and the consistency of the prosecution's evidence, highlighting the absence of corroborating eyewitnesses and unexplained delay in the FIR registration. The court found the injuries sustained by the appellants and the prosecution's failure to explain them raised reasonable doubt about the conviction, ultimately leading to the appeal being allowed. (Paras 12, 11.5, 11.3, 11.1)

Facts of the case:
The appellants were convicted for engaging in a violent assault on the informant and his father using deadly weapons, resulting in injuries. The trial court sentenced them to one month for one offense and three years for another offense, running concurrently. (Paras 1, 3)

Findings of Court:
The court found dissonance in the prosecution's story versus the injuries presented, and the absence of witnesses created reasonable doubt regarding the alleged assault. (Paras 12)

Issues: The issues included the credibility of the prosecution's witnesses, the nature of injuries, and the implications of the unexplained delay in the FIR registration. (Paras 11, 11.2)

Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the prosecution failed to establish the case beyond reasonable doubt due to lack of corroboration and evidence supporting the defense's narrative, resulting in adverse inference against the prosecution. (Paras 11.4, 11.3)

Result: Appeal allowed, conviction and sentence set aside.

Table of Content
1. factual background of the case (Para 1 , 2 , 3)

ORAL JUDGMENT

Date : 05-02-2026 The instant appeal has been preferred by the appellants against the judgment of conviction dated 21.01.2014 and the order of sentence dated 27.01.2014 passed by the Court of the learned Additional District & Sessions Judge-IV, Gopalganj, in Sessions Trial No. 290 of 2009/91 of 2011 (arising out of Kuchaikote P.S. Case No. 01 of 2008), whereby and whereunder the appellants have been convicted for the offences punishable under Sections 341 and 307 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (in short, “IPC”). The appellants have been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one month for the offence punishable under Section 341 read with Section 34 of the IPC and to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years with a fine of Rs. 5,000/- for the offence punishable under Section 307 read with Section 34 of the IPC. In default of payment of fine, they have been directed to undergo one month’s imprisonment additionally. Both the sentences of imprisonment have been directed to run concurrently by the trial court.

Prosecution Story:-

2. The substance of the prosecution story, as appearing from the FIR, is as follows:

As per the informant, on 25.12.2007 at about 2:00 P.M., he was fencing and repairing his private school near Bathan, situated to the east of his village. At that time, the appellants, namely, Mofil Sah, Bishwamitra Sah, Pintu Sah, and Pradip Sah, equipped with farsa, tangi, lathi, and iron rod, came and surrounded him and started assaulting him. The appellant Mofil Sah inflicted a farsa blow upon him, which hit his head, resulting in a cut injury and bleeding. On account of that assault, he fell down, and thereafter the accused/appellant Bishwamitra Sah inflicted a tangi blow, which hit the ankle of his right leg. After that, upon hearing hulla, his father Binda Sah came to save him, but he was also assaulted by the appellant Pintu Sah with an iron rod, resulting in injury to him. Thereafter, all the remaining accused persons assaulted him and his father with lathi and iron rod. As per the informant, on account of the assault, his father sustained injuries, and by then several villagers gathered and saved them.

2.1. The informant, Saheb Lal Sah (PW-6), recorded his fardbeyan at Sadar Hospital, Gopalganj, on the same day of the alleged occurrence at 16:15 hours. The same was recorded by Sub-Inspector A.K. Singh, posted at Town Police Station, Gopalganj. On that basis, the formal FIR bearing Kuchaikote P.S. Case No. 01 of 2008 was registered for the offences punishable under Sections 341, 323, and 307 read with Section 34 of the IPC, which set the criminal law in motion, and the investigation was started.

3. After completion of the investigation, the police submitted a charge-sheet against all the named accused persons, who are the appellants herein, for the same offences as mentioned in the FIR. After taking cognizance, the concerned Magistrate, finding the case to be triable by the Court of Sessions, committed the same to the Sessions Court. 4. The appellants were charged only for the offences punishable under Sections 341 and 307 read with Section 34 of the IPC. The charges were read over and explained to the appellants by the trial court, to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

5. During the trial, in ocular evidence the prosecution examined the following eight prosecution witnesses :-

6. In documentary evidence, the prosecution proved and exhibited the following documents, which are as under :-

Ext-1 The signature of the informant on the fardbeyan Ext-2 The injury report of Saheb Lal Sah (informant)

Ext-2/1 The injury report of Binda Sah

7. After completion of the prosecution evidence, the statements of the appellants were recorded by the trial court, giving them an opportunity to explain all the material circumstances appearing against them from the prosecution evidence, which were denied by them. While

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top