IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CRIMINAL APPEAL (SJ) No.86 of 2004 ======================================================

UPENDRA RAI Son of Mahendra Rai Resident of village- Muktapur, PS-

kalyanpur, Dist- Samastipur ... ... Appellant Versus The State of Bihar ... ... Respondent ======================================================

Appearance :

For the Appellant : Mr. Gyan Prakash, Advocate Mr. Parul Priya, Advocate For the State : Mr. Anita Kumari Singh, A.P.P.

======================================================

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK KUMAR PANDEY

ORAL JUDGMENT

Date : 22-11-2025 Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and learned Addition Public Prosecutor of the State.

2. The present appeal has been directed against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 18.12.2003 passed by learned Additional District and Sessions Judge – IV, Fast Track Court, Samastipur in Sessions Trial No. 105/1996/105/2002 arising out of Kalyanpur P.S. Case No. 55 of 1994 registered under Section 341, 342, 323, 324, 307/34 of IPC whereby and whereunder the appellant has been convicted for the offence punishable under Sections 323, 341, 342, 326 of the IPC and has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for five years along with fine of rupees two thousand (Rs. 2,000/-) for the offence under Section 326 of IPC and in case of default of payment of fine, appellant has to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months. The appellant has further been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months for the offences under Section 323 of IPC. The appellant has further been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one month for the offence under Section 341 of IPC. The appellant has further been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months for the offence under Section 342 of IPC. All the sentences shall run concurrently.

3. According to fardbeyan of informant/Upendra Rai @ Bageria, on 27.07.1994, he was returning home from Kushaiya after seeing fair with Manoj Paswan on his bicycle. It is alleged that when they reached near the road of the house of co-accused Maheshwar Rai, at around 4 PM in the evening, co- accused Maheswar Rai pulled informant off the bicycle and caught hold of informant by his collor and brought the informant to his door, tied his hand and leg with rope in pillar and assaulted the informant with stick, and closed the informant inside the house and put lock from outside. It is further alleged that again at around 7 PM, co-accused Maheshwar Rai and appellant took the informant out from the room and assaulted him. It is further alleged that at around 12:00 o’clock in the night the above mentioned two persons thrashed the informant down on the ground and the appellant opened both eyes of informant and co-accused Maheshwar Rai with the intention to kill and blind the informant, poured acid into both eyes due to which informant was unable to see from both eyes. It is further alleged that appellant exploded three bombs near the Bar tree in Pethiya and co-accused Maheshwar Rai started dragging the informant and started making noise as dacoit-dacoit. Many people from village came after hearing noise. Co-accused Maheswar Rai said that 10-12 people came to his house to commit dacoity, they chased and caught the informant and other people ran away. It is alleged that this is how co-accused Maheshwar Rai framed fake dacoity case against the informant and exploded bomb. It is further alleged that, owing to previous enmity, the informant has admitted that he was falsely implicated, apprehended, assaulted, blinded, and that acid was poured into both of his eyes.

4. On the basis of fardbeyan of the informant, Kalyanpur P.S. Case No. 55 of 1994 was instituted for the offences punishable under Sections 341, 342, 323, 324, 307/34 of the IPC. Routine investigation followed. Statement of witnesses came to be recorded and on the completion of investigation, charge sheet has been subm