Patna High Court
Biran Singh And Ors vs The State Of Bihar on 16 April, 2026
Author: Prabhat Kumar Singh
Bench: Prabhat Kumar Singh
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL APPEAL (SJ) No.60 of 2016
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-122 Year-2007 Thana- BARBIGHA District- Sheikhpura
======================================================
1. Biran Singh and Ors Son of Late Dukhan Singh, Resident of village-
Sherpar, P.S.- Barbigha, District- Sheikhpura
2. Bimal Singh, son of Late Kameshwar Singh, Resident of village- Sherpar,
P.S.- Barbigha, District- Sheikhpura
3. Maheshwar Singh, Son of Late Jago Singh, Resident of village- Sherpar,
P.S.- Barbigha, District- Sheikhpura
4. Hira Singh, Son of Sajjan Singh, Resident of village- Sherpar, P.S.-
Barbigha, District- Sheikhpura ... ... Appellants
Versus
The State Of Bihar ... Respondent
======================================================
with
CRIMINAL APPEAL (SJ) No. 72 of 2016
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-122 Year-2007 Thana- BARBIGHA District- Sheikhpura
======================================================
Bijay Kumar Singh @ Vijay Kumar Singh S/o Late Basudev Singh Resident
of Village- Serpar, P.S. Barbigha, Dist- Sheikhpura ... Appellant
Versus
The State Of Bihar ... ... Respondent
======================================================
with
CRIMINAL APPEAL (SJ) No. 120 of 2016
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-122 Year-2007 Thana- BARBIGHA District- Sheikhpura
======================================================
SHARVAN SINGH @ SHRAWAN KUMAR SINGH Son of Ramanugrah
Singh Resident of village - Sherpar, P.S. Barbigha, Distt. - Sheikhpura
... ... Appellant
Versus
The State Of Bihar ... Respondent
======================================================
Appearance :
(In CRIMINAL APPEAL (SJ) No. 60 of 2016)
For the Appellant/s : Mr.Arun Kumar, Advocate
Mr. Raghubir Chandrapur, Advocate
For the Respondent/s : Mr.S.A.Ahmad, A.P.P.
(In CRIMINAL APPEAL (SJ) No. 72 of 2016)
For the Appellant/s : Mr.Ajit Kumar, Advocate
For the Respondent/s : Mr. AMP Mehta, A.P.P.
(In CRIMINAL APPEAL (SJ) No. 120 of 2016)
For the Appellant/s : Mr.Alok Kumar Chaudhary, Senior Advocate
Mr. Kulanand Jha, Advocate
For the Respondent/s : Mr. M. Dayal, A.P.P.
Mr. Arun Bharti, Pratik Kumar, Advocates
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRABHAT KUMAR SINGH
ORAL JUDGMENT
Date : 16-04-2026
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.60 of 2016 dt.16-04-2026
2/9
At the outset, learned counsel appearing for the appellants
submits that appellant Maheshwar Singh (of Cr.Appeal SJ No.
60 of 2016) died during pendency.
2. In view of the above, appeal abates against appellant
Maheshwar Singh.
3. All the three criminal appeals are directed against
impugned Judgement of Conviction and Sentence dated
15.01.2016passed by Shri Nazre Imam Ansari, the learned Ist Addl. Distt. and Sessions Judge cum Special Judge, Civil Court, Sheikhpura in Sessions Case No. 466/2009 arising out of Barbigha P.S. Case No. 122/2007, by which appellants have been held guilty and convicted u/ss 147,148,323,504,379 1.P.C and 27 Arms Act and u/s 3(1)(X) SC/ST Act. All the convicts have been sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment of two years and fine of rupees 1000/- u/s 147 I.P.C and in default of payment of fine they are sentenced to undergo one month simple imprisonment. They are sentenced to undergo R.I of two years and fine of Rs. 1000/- u/s 148 I.P.C and in default of payment of fine they are sentenced to undergo one month S.I. They are sentenced to undergo R.I of one year and fine of Rs.1000/- u/s 323 IPC and in default of payment of fine, they are sentenced to undergo one month simple imprisonment. They are also sentenced to undergo two years R.I and fine of Rs.1000/-u/s 504 I.P.C. In default of payment of fine, they are sentenced to undergo two months S.I. Appellants Biran Singh, Bimal Singh and Maheshwar Singh (since deceased) are further sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for two years and fine of Rs. 15,000/- each u/s 379 I.P.C. and in default of payment of fine they are further sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment of two months. Appellants Bira Singh, Bimal Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.60 of 2016 dt.16-04-2026 3/9 Singh and Maheshwar Singh are sentenced to undergo three years R.I and fine of Rs. 5000/- each u/s 27 Arms Act. In default of payment of fine, they are further sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment of two months. The accused/convicts are also sentenced to undergo RI of two years and fine of Rs. 5000/- each u/s 3(1)(X) SC/ST Act and in default of payment of fine, they are further sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment of two months each. All the sentences have been directed to run concurrently.
4. Prosecution Case is based on the Complaint Case No. 389C/2007 and complainant Dharamvir Kumar has alleged that on the day and time of the alleged occurrence, i.e., 25.11.2007 at 09 a.m. on Sunday, complainant had gone to see his paddy field situated at Mouza Narayanpur which was given on Batai to the witness Krishna Choudhary. It is further alleged that when he reached at his field under Khata No. 458, Khesra No. 1336 he saw his Bataidar sitting on the boundary of the field and he also saw the accused persons there, having country made Pistol in their hand and were holding Krishna Chaudhary and were threatening him not to harvest Paddy crop and if he does so he will be killed. Informant reached there and forbidden them whereupon they became furious and abused him by "Harijan Sala Pasi" they will see who will save him and also said to parade him naked. Thereafter, all the accused persons opened the lungi as a result of which he became naked and began to cry. Informant rushed there to save him whereupon all the accused persons assaulted him by hands and fists and also by the butt of Pistol and the accused/ appellant Biran Singh allegedly snatched Titan Watch worth Rs. 1700/- from the informant while the accused Bimal Singh snatched golden chain worth Rs.10,000/- Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.60 of 2016 dt.16-04-2026 4/9 from his neck. Accused Mahesh Singh allegedly snatched woolen shawl worth Rs. 500/- from his body. On hulla, witnesses came and gave their gamcha to victim Krishna Chaudhary. Accused persons fled away threatening to kill him if he again comes on the field.
5. Complaint was sent for institution of Barbigha P.S. where it was registered as Barbigha P.S. Case No. 122/2007 dated 04.12.2007 for the alleged offences 147, 148, 323, 379 of the Indian Penal Code & also u/s 27 of the Arms Act & 3/4 of SC/ST Act. After registration of the F.I.R, investigation was made and subsequently charge sheet was submitted against the appellants on 30.09.2008 for the alleged offences u/s 147, 148, 323, 504, 506/379 of the Indian Penal Code & also u/s 27 of the Arms Act & also u/s 27 of the Arms Act. & 3/4 of SC/ST Act. Accordingly, cognizance was taken against the appellants by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sheikhpura and the accused persons were put on trial. Case was committed to the court of Sessions by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sheikhpura and subsequently charge were framed and trial proceeded. Accused persons pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. In their statements under sections 313 of the Cr.P.C. stated to have not committed any offence and are innocent. However, trial court found the case true against these appellants and thereafter convicted and sentenced them vide judgement of conviction and order of sentence dated 15.1.2016, which was under-challenge before this Court. Thereafter, a co-ordinate Bench of this Court, admitted these three appeals for hearing and called for lower court records and also granted bail to convicts, who were in custody. Out of six appellants in three appeals, appellant Maheshwar Singh, passed away during Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.60 of 2016 dt.16-04-2026 5/9 pendency of appeal, as such, appeal abated against him and now, these appeals are alive only in respect of rest five appellants.
6. Learned counsel the appellants assails the judgment of conviction and sentence on numerous grounds. He submits that the prosecution case suffers from material contradictions, absence of corroboration, and failure to prove essential ingredients of the offences. Evidence available on record clearly demonstrates that the prosecution has failed to establish the charges beyond reasonable doubt. Contradiction in timing of occurrence, inconsistent description of weapons, absence of recovery of alleged stolen property, non examination of independent witnesses, absence of medical evidence and non- examination of investigating officer cumulatively create serious doubt regarding the prosecution case. It is contends that the learned trial court has committed illegality in facts and law both. In the case, neither investigation officer nor doctor has been examined and only on the basis of evidences, adduced by prosecution witnesses, the judgment of conviction and order of sentence has been passed, which are fit to be quashed and set aside on the basis of facts and circumstances of the case. Therefore, appellants are fit to be acquitted.
7. On the other hand, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State as well as learned counsel appearing for the complainant/opposite party no.2 oppose these appeals and submit that there is no need of any interference in these appeals, since the prosecution witnesses have supported and corroborated the prosecution story and there is no reason to differ with the findings of the learned trial court and the judgment of conviction and order of sentence are justified and Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.60 of 2016 dt.16-04-2026 6/9 legal.
8. The prosecution, in order to prove the charges, examined altogether six witnesses. PW 1 Parbhu Chaudhary has been declared hostile by the prosecution. P.W. 2 Abhiram Prasad Singh is formal witness. PW3 is Naresh Yadav, whereas P W 4 is Krishna Chaudhary, He is victim of this case. P.W. 5 Dharamvir Kumar is informant of this case, whereas PW 6 is Rabindra Prasad.
9. Defence has examined only one witness in their defence namely Nawal Kishore Singh. This witness has only proved letter no.1308 dated 22.11.2007 given to D.M. And the Notification regarding "Thakurwari" but this evidence is no way proving innocent of the accused persons regarding the unlawful assembly assault, theft, abuse alleged to have been committed by the accused.
10. P.W.1, an independent witness, did not support prosecution case at all and declared hostile by the prosecution itself. The Deposition of P.W. I clearly records that the witness did not know about the occurrence & denied the prosecution version. When an independent witness turns hostile, prosecution case loses independent corroboration. The prosecution case becomes doubtful in absence of reliable independent evidence. This creates failure of independent corroboration, weakening of prosecution version raises doubt about occurrence itself.P.W.5, the informant stated that occurrence took place at 9:00 AM. However, another prosecution witness (P.W.3) stated that occurrence took place in between 11:00-12:00 Nооn. This contradiction is evident from the deposition record and it creates doubt about presence of witnesses which affects reliability of prosecution story and the same strikes at the Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.60 of 2016 dt.16-04-2026 7/9 root of the case. PW 3 and 6 have given vague statements during their deposition in the trial.
11. Witnesses gave inconsistent description of weapons allegedly used. Some witnesses stated that the accused were armed with Lathi, Bhala, whereas informant primarily referred to pistol threat. Moreover, prosecution failed to prove use of firearms, recovery of weapon and seizure of weapon. Therefore, conviction under Section 27 Arms Act is unsustainable. That apart, prosecution alleged snatching of shawl, watch and golden chain. However, no recovery was made, no seizure list was proved and no identification of property was conducted. Offence under Section 379 IPC requires proof of dishonest intention, removal of property, recovery or identification. None of these ingredients were established. Prosecution witnesses admitted that villagers gathered at the place of occurrence. Despite availability of independent witnesses, no independent witness was examined. P.W.5 has deposed that land belongs to informant /his bataidar, whereas P.W.3 stated that he is uncertain about land ownership. This witness is unable to clearly state ownership/authority refers to administrative authority and trust- related control Ownership/possession of land is uncertain. This weakens motive, trespass, unlawful assembly. Prosecution has failed to establish the genesis of the occurrence and the place of incident with any degree of certainty. Thus, from close scruteny of the depositions, witnesses do not appear to be trustworthy. Reference can be given to the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, in case of Kannaiya Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh rendered in Criminal Appeal No. 116/2012.
12. Prosecution has alleged that there was assault on the prosecution side, but neither injury report is on the record Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.60 of 2016 dt.16-04-2026 8/9 nor the doctor has been examined during trial. Thus, because of absence of medical corroboration, allegation of assault under Section 323 IPC remains unproved.
13. So far as, conviction under the SC/ST Act is concerned, prosecution must prove intentional insult by caste name in public view. In the case in hand, alleged incident took place in an agricultural field, and no independent public witness proved the occurrence. However, the intent with which the abuse were hurled must be found to be denigrating towards the caste, resulting into a feeling of caste based humiliation. Reliance is placed to the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court rendered in case of Keshaw Mahto @ Keshaw Kumar Mahto Vs. State of Bihar and another, passed in Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No. 12144/2025. Therefore, conviction under the SC/ST Act is legally unsustainable.
14. The Investigating Officer was not examined during trial. As a result, discrepancies with respect to place, time and manner of occurrence have not been appreciated. Non- examination of the IO has caused serious prejudice to Defence.
15. No evidence of prior meeting of minds, common object, overt act by each accused and as such conviction under Sections 147 and 148 IPC is unsustainable. If each defect is considered separately, like cumulative effect of hostile witness, contradictory timing, inconsistent weapon description, absence of recovery, absence of medical evidence, absence of independent witnesses, non-examination of Investigating Officer, the prosecution case becomes unreliable. It is a settled principle of law that Prosecution must prove its case beyond reasonable doubt & where doubt exists, benefit must go to the accused.
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.60 of 2016 dt.16-04-2026 9/9
16. Hon'ble Supreme court in case of Ravishwar Manjhi Vs. State of Jharkand (2008) 16 SCC 561 has highlighted that examining the IO is vital when the defence is denied the opportunity to confront witnesses with their earlier statements, causing significant prejudice. It becomes essential if there are crucial gaps in the prosecution case, such as when witnesses are unreliable, to establish the correct place/time of occurrence.
17. As a result of the above discussions, I feel persuaded to hold that the conviction of the appellants recorded by the trial court does not stand to scrutiny. Resultantly, the impugned judgement of Conviction and Sentence dated 15.01.2016 passed by Shri Nazre Imam Ansari, the learned Ist Addl. Distt. and Sessions Judge cum Special Judge, Civil Court, Sheikhpura in Sessions Case No. 466/2009 arising out of Barbigha P.S. Case No. 122/2007, is set aside.
18. All the appellants, namely, (1) Biran Singh, (2) Bimal Singh, (3) Hira Singh [Cr. Appeal (SJ) No. 60/2016], (4) Bijay Kumar Singh @ Vijay Kumar Singh of Cr. Appeal (SJ) No. 72/2016 and (4) Sharvan Singh @ Sharwan Kumar Singh of Cr. Appeal (SJ) No. 120/2016) are on bail and they are discharged from the liabilities of their respective bail bonds. All the three appeals are accordingly allowed.
(Prabhat Kumar Singh, J)
Shashi
AFR/NAFR NAFR
CAV DATE NA
Uploading Date 24.4.2026
Transmission Date 24.4.2026