##PAGE1##

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL APPEAL (DB) No.1324 of 2025

Arising Out of PS. Case No.-32 Year-2010 Thana- GARKHA District- Saran

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

Ramwakil Singh S/O Late Ramvriksh Singh Resident Of Village- Majlishpur,

P.s.- Garkha, Dist.- Saran At Chapra

... ... Appellant/s

Versus

1. The State of Bihar

2. Mithilesh Singh @ Mithilesh Kumar Singh Son of Late Ramprit Singh @

Late Ramprut Singh Resident of Village- Majlishpur, Police Station-

Garkha, District- Saran at Chapra

3. Pawan Kumar Singh Son of Ram Swaroop Singh. Resident of Village-

Majlishpur, Police Station- Garkha, District- Saran at Chapra

4. Sanjay Singh @ Sanjay Kumar Singh Son of Late Rajendra Singh. Resident

of Village- Majlishpur, Police Station- Garkha, District- Saran at Chapra

5. Shailendra Singh @ Shailendra Kumar Singh Son of Late Bhagwan Singh

@ late bhagwat singh Resident of Village- Majlishpur, Police Station-

Garkha, District- Saran at Chapra

6. Manoj Singh @ Manoj Kumar Singh Son of Ram Swaroop Singh Resident

of Village- Majlishpur, Police Station- Garkha, District- Saran at Chapra

... ... Respondent/s

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

Appearance :

For the Appellant/s : Mr. Bindhyachal Singh, Sr. Advocate

Mr. Ram Binod Singh, Advocate

For the Respondent/s : Mr. Satya Narayan Prasad, Advocate

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

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BIBEK CHAUDHURI

and

HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL DUTTA MISHRA

ORAL ORDER

(Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BIBEK CHAUDHURI)

4 06-02-2026 This is an appeal against acquittal filed by the

informant assailing the judgment passed in Sessions Trial No.

Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.1324 of 2025(4) dt.06-02-2026

2/8

109 of 2012 on 14^th May, 2025.

2. The learned Senior Advocate on behalf of the

appellant submits that there were in all five accused persons

among them accused no. 6 (Manoj Singh) was convicted under

Section 325 of the Indian Penal Code (herein to referred as

“IPC”). The learned Trial Court held that the prosecution failed

to prove the charge under section 307 of the IPC against the

accused persons. Therefore, the impugned judgment is perverse

in order to substantiate his argument.

3. The learned Senior Advocate first takes us to

paragraph 12 of the impugned judgment, where the learned Trial

Judge recorded the injuries found by the Medical Officer at the

time of medical treatment on the persons of the

informant/appellant and his brother. Referring to the injury

report, it is submitted by the learned Senior Advocate that

injured Ramvriksh Singh was assaulted in such a way that the

upper part of fibula in the left leg was fractured. The informant

received sharp cut injury on left parietal bone of the scalp

which is a vital organ of the body. It is also submitted by him

that Section 307 of the IPC postulates that if any person

attempts to commit any act with such intention or knowledge

and under such circumstances that if he by that act caused death,

Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.1324 of 2025(4) dt.06-02-2026

3/8

he would be guilty of murder, in such a case, it is open for the

Court to hold the accused guilty of committing offence under

Section 307 of the IPC. Even in order to prove a charge under

Section 307 of the IPC, the accused need not commit any

physical assault upon the victim. If he commits some act which

prove his intention or knowledge that if such act would have

been committed, the victim would have been murdered. It is

open for the Court to hold the accused guilty under Section 307

of the IPC.

4. The learned Senior Advocate on behalf of the

appellant submits that the intention or knowledge can be

gathered from the sum-total of evidence. There cannot be any

direct evidence of intention of the accused or their knowledge.

Intention can be assessed from the act of the accused, the

manner in which the victim was attempted to be assaulted and

all other surroundings circumstances.

5. The learned Trial Court was absolutely wrong that

the p