Patna High Court
Sanjay Paswan vs State Of Bihar on 13 May, 2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL APPEAL (DB) No.192 of 1998
======================================================
Sanjay Paswan, Son of Sri Naresh Paswan, Resident of Village-Murgiachak,
P.S. -Sare (Asthawa), District-Nalanda.
... ... Appellant/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
with
CRIMINAL APPEAL (DB) No. 255 of 1998
======================================================
Naresh Paswan, Son of Lalo Paswan, Resident of Village-Murgiachak, Police
Station Sare (Asthawan), District-Nalanda.
... ... Appellant/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
(In CRIMINAL APPEAL (DB) No. 192 of 1998)
For the Appellant/s : Mr. Ajay Kumar Thakur, Advocate
Md. Imtiyaz Ahmad, Advocate
Mr. Purushotam Kumar, Advocate
For the Respondent/s : Mr.Abhimanyu Sharma, APP
(In CRIMINAL APPEAL (DB) No. 255 of 1998)
For the Appellant/s : Mr. Ajay Kumar Thakur, Advocate
Md. Imtiyaz Ahmad, Advocate
Mr. Purushotam Kumar, Advocate
For the Respondent/s : Mr. Abhimanyu Sharma, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NANI TAGIA
and
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANSUL
CAV JUDGMENT
(Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANSUL) Date : 13-05-2026 Heard Mr. Ajay Kumar Thakur, learned counsel assisted with Md. Imtiyaz Ahmad and Mr. Purushotam Kumar, learned counsels for the appellants and Mr. Abhimanyu Sharma, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.192 of 1998 dt.13-05-2026 2/15
2. In the instant appeal, the appellants have challenged the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 26.03.1998 and 30.03.1998 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge- V, Nalanda in Sessions Trial No. 610 of 1996, arising out of Asthawan (Sare) P.S. Case No. 159 of 1996, whereby the appellants have been convicted under Sections 302/34 and 323 of Indian Penal Code (for short "I.P.C."). For the offence under sections 302/34 IPC, the appellants have been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life. No separate sentence was awarded under Section 323 IPC.
3. The prosecution case is that the informant (P.W. 6) Dwarika Paswan lodged information in the emergency ward of PMCH, Patna, before the Pirbahore Police, Patna alongwith his cousin Garbhu Paswan, P.W. 4, alleging therein that his son Sitaram Paswan aged about thirty years was a labour. On 12.07.1996 at 11 A.M., his son had gone to take bath at the government hand pump in front of the house of Naresh Paswan- appellant, who was doing agriculture work at some distance. Naresh Paswan prohibited the son of the informant from taking bath and started abusing him. When he did not agree to the same, Kanti Devi, wife of Naresh Paswan brought a saif and gave it to Naresh Paswan. Meanwhile, Sanjay Paswan also came there armed Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.192 of 1998 dt.13-05-2026 3/15 with lathi and started assaulting the son of the informant. Naresh Paswan assaulted his son with saif due to which he fell down and started crying. When the informant ran to save his son, Sanjay Paswan also assaulted the informant by giving him a lathi blow on his neck. On hulla, co-villagers, Ayodhya Paswan-P.W. 2, Subelal Paswan-not examined, Rampreet Paswan, P.W. 3 came there. Thereafater, all the three accused persons went back to their house. The informant brought his son to Barbigha Government Hospital from where he was sent to Biharsharif Government Hospital and was lastly brought to PMCH, Patna. He was admitted at PMCH, Patna in state of unconsciousness and in the same state at around 7 A.M. to 8 A.M. he succummbed to the injuries. The fardbeyan was given on 13.07.1996 which was received by Asthawan Police Station on 19.07.1996 and it was sent to the Court on 20.07.1996.
4. During investigation, police submitted charge-sheet for the offence under Sections 302/34 and 323 IPC and charges were framed under Sections 302/34 and 323 IPC against the appellants which they denied and claimed to be tried.
5. During the course of trial, altogether eight witnesses were examined in support of the prosecution case, which are as under: -
P.W.-1 Binod Paswan
P.W.-2 Ayodhya Paswan
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.192 of 1998 dt.13-05-2026 4/15 P.W.-3 Ramsharan Paswan P.W.-4 Garbhu Paswan P.W.-5 Ram Prit Paswan P.W.-6 Dwarika Paswan P.W.-7 Thakur Choudhary P.W.-8 Raja Ram Prasad
6. Apart from the oral evidences, the documentary evidences were also exhibited on behalf of the prosecution, which are as follows: -
Exhibit- 1 Signature of Binod Paswan on the Fardbeyan Exhibit- 2 Fardbeyan Exhibit- 2/1 Written report signed by R.P. Singh on the Fardbeyan Exhibit- 2/2 Forwarding on the Fardbeyan Exhibit-3 Formal FIR Exhibit- 4 Inquest Report Exhibit- 5 Post-mortem Report
7. P.W. 1 namely Binod Paswan is the witness to the FIR. He has stated that wife of Naresh Paswan brought saif and Naresh Paswan assaulted the deceased on his head with saif and thereafter Sanjay Paswan assaulted Dwarika Paswan with lathi. In para 12 of the statement, he has stated before the police that Sanjay Paswan assaulted Sitaram Paswan with lathi. He stated that till the time Sitaram was alive he did not give any statement to the police. On his statement on recall, this witness stated Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.192 of 1998 dt.13-05-2026 5/15 that he saw him near the hand pump and saw that Sitaram Paswan son of Dwarika Paswan had fallen. He stated that he did not see Ram Naresh Paswan or Sanjay Paswan.
8. P.W. 2 namely Ayodhya Paswan referred in the FIR has been declared hostile and P.W. 3 namely Ramsharan Paswan has also been declared hostile. P.W. 6, Informant namely Dwarika Paswan has also been declared hostile. P.W. 7 namely Thakur Chaudhary stated that he has taken the statement of witnesses who had supported the prosecution case in toto.
9. P.W. 8 namely Raja Ram Prasad is a formal witness who proved the handwriting of Dr. Arbind Kumar Singh. Interestingly, this witness is a Court clerk. Hon'ble Supreme Court has deprecated in a number of cases the practice of getting documents proved through the person who has no concern with the case at all.
10. Dr. Arbind Kumar Singh who had conducted the post-mortem examination of the deceased Sitaram Paswan on 13.07.1996 at 2.30 P.M., found the following injuries on the dead body of Sitaram Paswan:-
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.192 of 1998 dt.13-05-2026 6/15 "(i) One inch wound 3" long on mid scalp expanding from left to right parietal region, margin lacerated.
(ii) One abrasion 1"x1"
over left eyebrow. All the viscera ingredients are congested. Left scalp was full of blood colours. There was a deepen commuted mark over left parietal region 2"x1 1/2" brain underneath lacerated.
Opinion:-
1. Time elapse since death:-
Three to twelve hours.
2. Cause of death:-Head injury
3. Nature of weapon:- Hard blunt substance & its impact."
11. After completion of prosecution evidence, the statement of the appellants was recorded under section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, in which the appellants denied the allegation and stated that they are innocent and have falsely been implicated in the present case.
12. The trial court, upon appreciation of the evidence adduced at the trial, has found the appellants guilty of the offences and has sentenced the appellants to life imprisonment, as noted above, by its impugned judgment and order.
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.192 of 1998 dt.13-05-2026 7/15
13. Learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that all the witnesses have not supported the case of the prosecution during trial. He further submits that there was no corroboration of the ocular evidence of the question of weapon being used and there was no medical report to support the same. It is also submitted that the doctor who had conducted the post-mortem of the deceased Sitaram Paswan was not examined during trial.
14. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State has supported the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence and has submitted that the appellants are supposed to be assailants who have blown the lathi on the head of the deceased as such the impugned order passed by learned Trial Court finds no infirmity.
15. We have heard and considered the submissions of the parties and perused the material on record.
16. This case is an example of the violation of prosecuting agency as well as the entire justice delivery system. P.W. 1 has initially supported the prosecution allegation but on recall he turned hostile. Thereafter, all the witnesses turned hostile. The statement of I.O. that these persons supported the prosecution case during the investigation is of no value as the Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.192 of 1998 dt.13-05-2026 8/15 evidence in the Court is substantive evidence and during the trial witnesses have not supported the prosecution case at all. There is not a single witness to support the factum of assault on the deceased by the appellants.
17. If one goes beyond the deposition and looks at the post- mortem it is apparent that the injury sustained by the deceased has been caused by hard and blunt substance whereas the allegation is that the assault was made by saif which is a sharp cutting weapon. There is no explanation either in the FIR or during investigation that the blunt portion of the weapon was used and, thus, in view of the aforegoing discussions it would be relevant to place reliance on a judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Hallu and Ors. vs. State of Madhya Pradesh reported in (1974) 4 SCC
300. The relevant paragraphs 10, 11 and 12 are as under:-
"10. The High Court observed in its judgment that the trial court was "mainly influenced by the so-called discrepancies in the three reports lodged with the police". We may point out that the trial court was influenced by a variety of considerations and the discrepancies in the three Reports are not by any standard "so called". The discrepancies have a fundamental importance for they tend to falsify the evidence of the eyewitnesses and show that the incident happened under cover of darkness and was in all probability not witnessed by anyone.
11. The post-mortem report prepared by Dr N. Jain shows that on the body of Jagdeo were Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.192 of 1998 dt.13-05-2026 9/15 found three bruises and a haematoma. On the body of Padum were found four lacerated wounds and two bruises. According to the eyewitnesses the two men were attacked with lathis, spears and axes but that clearly stands falsified by the medical evidence. Not one of the injuries found on the person of Jagdeo and Padum could be caused by a spear or an axe. The High Court however refused to attach any importance to this aspect of the matter by saying that the witnesses had not stated that "the miscreants dealt axe blows from the sharp-side or used the spear as a piercing weapon". According to the High Court axes and spears may have been used from the blunt side and therefore the evidence of the eyewitnesses could safely be accepted. We should have thought that normally, when the witness says that an axe or a spear is used there is no warrant for supposing that what the witness means is that the blunt side of the weapon was used. If that be the implication it is the duty of the prosecution to obtain a clarification from the witness as to whether a sharp-edged or a piercing instrument was used as a blunt weapon."
18. In the case at hand it appears that the evidence adduced by witness and the medical evidence are inconsistent to one another. There is no bar for holding that blunt portion of the weapon was used and it will be presumed that the weapon was used in the minor occurrence in its ordinary course, i.e., the sharp side of the weapon was used. This also shows the prosecution case to be not true to a great extent. In the case of Ram Narain Singh vs. The State of Punjab reported as 1975 SCC (Cri) 571, it has been held that if the evidence of witness for the prosecution is Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.192 of 1998 dt.13-05-2026 10/15 inconsistent with medical evidence, this is a most fundamental defect in the prosecution case and unless reasonably explained it is sufficient to discredit the entire case.
19. This may bring there to another point, i.e., the conflict and contradiction between oral testimony and medical evidence. Though the doctor has not come to depose in the case but if one looks at the post-mortem is clear that the injury had been caused by hard and blunt substance. The time tested principle for interpretation in such a situation is that both the evidences are to be harmoniously constructed. The attached principle is that if they cannot stand together then the oral evidence has to go away to the medical evidence. In support of the aforegoing discussions, it would be relevant to place reliance on the Hon'ble Supreme Court decision in the case of State of Uttarakhand vs. Darshan Singh reported as (2020) 12 SCC 605, where after considering various precedents on the question of conflict between medical evidence and ocular testimony, including the case of Ram Narain Singh (supra) the Apex Court has held as follows:-
"43. In Abdul Sayeed v. State of M.P. [Abdul Sayeed v. State of M.P., (2010) 10 SCC 259 :
(2010) 3 SCC (Cri) 1262], this Court discussed elaborately the case law on the subject of conflict between medical evidence and ocular evidence: (SCC pp. 272-74, paras 32-39) Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.192 of 1998 dt.13-05-2026 11/15 "Medical evidence versus ocular evidence
32. In Ram Narain Singh v. State of Punjab [Ram Narain Singh v. State of Punjab, (1975) 4 SCC 497 : 1975 SCC (Cri) 571] this Court held that where the evidence of the witnesses for the prosecution is totally inconsistent with the medical evidence or the evidence of the ballistics expert, it amounts to a fundamental defect in the prosecution case and unless reasonably explained it is sufficient to discredit the entire case.
33. In State of Haryana v. Bhagirath [State of Haryana v. Bhagirath, (1999) 5 SCC 96 :
1999 SCC (Cri) 658] it was held as follows:
(SCC p. 101, para 15) '15.The opinion given by a medical witness need not be the last word on the subject. Such an opinion shall be tested by the court. If the opinion is bereft of logic or objectivity, the court is not obliged to go by that opinion. After all opinion is what is formed in the mind of a person regarding a fact situation. If one doctor forms one opinion and another doctor forms a different opinion on the same facts it is open to the Judge to adopt the view which is more objective or probable. Similarly if the opinion given by one doctor is not consistent with probability the court has no liability to go by that opinion merely because it is said by the doctor. Of course, due weight must be given to opinions given by persons who are experts in the particular subject.'
34.Drawing on Bhagirath case[State of Haryana v. Bhagirath, (1999) 5 SCC 96 :
1999 SCC (Cri) 658], this Court has held that where the medical evidence is at variance with ocular evidence, 'it has to be noted that it would be erroneous to accord undue primacy to the hypothetical answers Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.192 of 1998 dt.13-05-2026 12/15 of medical witnesses to exclude the eyewitnesses' account which had to be tested independently and not treated as the "variable" keeping the medical evidence as the "constant".
35. Where the eyewitnesses' account is found credible and trustworthy, a medical opinion pointing to alternative possibilities cannot be accepted as conclusive. The eyewitnesses' account requires a careful independent assessment and evaluation forits credibility, which should not be adversely prejudged on the basis of any other evidence, including medical evidence, as the sole touchstone for the test of such credibility.
'21. ... The evidence must be tested for its inherent consistency and the inherent probability of the story; consistency with the account of other witnesses held to be creditworthy; consistency with the undisputed facts, the "credit" of the witnesses; their performance in the witness box; their power of observation, etc. Then the probative value of such evidence becomes eligible to be put into the scales for a cumulative evaluation.' [Vide Thaman Kumar v. State (UT of Chandigarh) (2003) 6 SCC 380 : 2003 SCC (Cri) 1362 and Krishnan v. State (2003) 7 SCC 56 : 2003 SCC (Cri) 1577 at SCC pp.
62-63, para 21.]
36. In Solanki Chimanbhai Ukabhai v. State of Gujarat (1983) 2 SCC 174 : 1983 SCC (Cri) 379 this Court observed: (SCC p. 180, para 13) '13. Ordinarily, the value of medical evidence is only corroborative. It proves that the injuries could have been caused in the manner alleged and nothing more. The use which the defence can make of the Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.192 of 1998 dt.13-05-2026 13/15 medical evidence is to prove that the injuries could not possibly have been caused in the manner alleged and thereby discredit the eye witnesses. Unless, however, the medical evidence in its turn goes so far that it completely rules out all possibilities whatsoever of injuries taking place in the manner alleged by eyewitnesses, the testimony of the eyewitnesses cannot be thrown out on the ground of alleged inconsistency between it and the medical evidence.'
37. A similar view has been taken in Mani Ram v. State of U.P. 1994 Supp (2) SCC 289 : 1994 SCC (Cri) 1242, Khambam Raja Reddy v. Public Pro- secutor (2006) 11 SCC 239 : (2007) 1 SCC (Cri) 431 and State of U.P. v. Dinesh (2009) 11 SCC66 : (2009) 3 SCC (Cri) 1484] .
38. In State of U.P. v. Hari Chand (2009) 13 SCC 542 : (2010) 1 SCC (Cri) 1112, this Court reiterated the aforementioned position of law and stated that: (SCC p. 545, para
13) '13. ... In any event unless the oral evidence is totally irreconcilable with the medical evidence, it has primacy.'
39. Thus, the position of law in cases where there is a contradiction between medical evidence and ocular evidence can be crystallised to the effect that though the ocular testimony of a witness has greater evidentiary value vis-à-vis medical evidence, when medical evidence makes the ocular testimony improbable, that becomes a relevant factor in the process of the evaluation of evidence.
However, where the medical evidence goes so far that it completely rules out all possibility of the ocular evidence being true, Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.192 of 1998 dt.13-05-2026 14/15 the ocular evidence may be disbelieved." (emphasis in original)"
20. Having carefully considered the statement of the witnesses and the medical evidence, we find that the impugned judgment passed by learned trial Court is not well considered and the evidence on record is not sufficient to prove the foundational fact of the prosecution case.
21. For the reasons stated above, we are not agreeable with the findings made by the learned trial Court. We find that the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence does not stand to scrutiny, hence the same requires interference, thus, the appellants deserve to be acquitted of the charges levelled against them.
22. Accordingly, both the appeals are allowed and the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 26.03.1998 and 30.03.1998 respectively passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-V, Nalanda in Sessions Trial No. 610 of 1996, arising out of Asthawan (Sare) P.S. Case No. 159 of 1996, whereby the appellants have been convicted under Sections 302/34 and 323 of Indian Penal Code (for short "I.P.C.") are set aside. Consequently, the appellants of the present appeal are acquitted of the charges levelled against them.
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.192 of 1998 dt.13-05-2026 15/15
23. If the appellants are in jail, they shall be released forthwith, if not required in any other case. The appellants are discharged from the liabilities of their bail bonds.
24. Office is directed to send back the trial court records along with a copy of this judgment to the learned trial court, forthwith.
(Ansul, J) I agree (Nani Tagia, J) Vikash/-
AFR/NAFR CAV DATE 13.02.2026 Uploading Date 13.05.2026 Transmission Date 13.05.2026