The court ruled on the suspension of a life sentence while highlighting concerns over evidence corroboration and over-implication in a land dispute context.

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJEEV RANJAN PRASAD and HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRAVEEN KUMAR ORAL ORDER (Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJEEV RANJAN PRASAD)

8 19-01-2026 Heard Mr. Yogesh Chandra Verma, learned Senior counsel for the appellant, Mr. Shailesh Kumar, learned counsel for the informant and Mr. Bipin Kumar, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.

2. Records have been placed before this Court to consider the prayer of the appellant for suspension of his sentence and release on bail during pendency of the appeal.

3. The appellant has been convicted vide judgment dated 11.06.2024 and sentenced vide order dated 22.06.2024 in Sessions Trial No. 413 of 2021 arising out of Yogapatti P.S. Case No. 10 of 2021 passed by learned Additional District and Sessions Judge-IX, West Champaran, Bettiah, for the offence punishable under Sections 302 /34, 323/34, 324/34, 341/34, 447/34, 504/34 and 506/34 of the Indian Penal Code (in short ‘I.P.C.’) and has been ordered to undergo life imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 25,000/- for the offence under Section 302 /34 of the I.P.C. and in default of payment of fine, he shall further undergo simple imprisonment for six months. For the sake of brevity, the sentences awarded under other sections are not mentioned.

4. The prosecution case is based on the fardbeyan of Preeti Pandey, wife of the deceased recorded on 05.01.2021 at about 18:00 Hrs. at Government Medical College, Bettiah. According to the prosecution case, altogether ten named accused persons had called and taken away the husband of the informant from his house, they were armed with weapons, they were also hurling abuses on her husband and the family members. When her husband opposed the accused persons then Sanjay Pandey and Maksudan Pandey (appellant) both having lathi in their hands assaulted Dhananjay Pandey (husband of the informant) as a result whereof his head was fractured and he fell down. The informant alleged that Sanjay Pandey and Maksudan Pandey had also assaulted some other members of the family causing injuries to them. So far as this appellant is concerned, it is alleged that when the gotni of the informant, namely, Kintu Devi came there then this appellant having lathi in his hand had assaulted her.

5. Learned Senior Counsel for the appellant submits that in her first version which was recorded twenty minutes after reaching the hospital, the informant alleged that Sanjay Pandey and Maksudan Pandey (appellant) both were having lathi in their hands and had assaulted by the lathi but in course of trial the informant (PW-5) changed the weapon of crime in the hand of Sanjay Pandey and made a statement that Sanjay Pandey had assaulted on the head of the husband by a Garasa as a result whereof the head was fractured and it started bleeding. She has stated in the trial that this appellant had assaulted on the nose of her husband causing fracture of nose but from the post-mortem report of the deceased which has been brought on record through the Doctor (PW-8), it would appear that Doctor had only noted an incised wound 4’’x1’’x bone deep on left temporal area of head and the second is abrasion on nose tip.

6. It is submitted that Doctor has specifically recorded in his opinion that the nasal bone was not fractured and there was no blood congested in the nose tip. It is, thus, submitted that the prosecution case coming through PW-5 that this appellant had caused fracture of nose of her husband is not corroborated from the medical evidence on the record.

7. Learned Senior Counsel further submits that from the evidences on the record it would appear that both the parties are co-sharers and PW-5 has stated that in the family of her sasural, partition had not taken place. The dispute is over the land which was being used as Pokhra. It is submitted that the case is one of over-implication of the accused as all the family members have been made accused in this case. The evidence of the I.O. (PW-7) would rather show that when this a