Patna High Court - Orders
Rameshwar Das vs The State Of Bihar on 13 November, 2025
Author: Mohit Kumar Shah
Bench: Mohit Kumar Shah
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL APPEAL (DB) No.425 of 2025
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-16 Year-2006 Thana- GOVINDPUR District- Nawada
======================================================
Rameshwar Das Son of Late Kali Das Resident of Village - Dumri, P.S. -
Govindpur, District - Nawada
... ... Appellant/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
with
CRIMINAL APPEAL (DB) No. 466 of 2025
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-16 Year-2006 Thana- GOVINDPUR District- Nawada
======================================================
1. Arun Das Son of Rameshwar Das Resident of Village - Dumri, P.S. -
Govindpur, District - Nawada
2. Rajendra Das @ Rajendra Ravidas @ Butta Son of Kishun Das Resident of
Village - Dumri, P.S. - Govindpur, District - Nawada
3. Sanjay Das Son of Shyam Das Resident of Village - Dumri, P.S. -
Govindpur, District - Nawada
... ... Appellant/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
(In CRIMINAL APPEAL (DB) No. 425 of 2025)
For the Appellant/s : Mr. Nilendu Choudhary, Advocate
Mr. Shiv Kr. Prasad, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Abhimanyu Sharma, APP
For the Informant : Mrs. Rina Sinha, Advocate
(In CRIMINAL APPEAL (DB) No. 466 of 2025)
For the Appellant/s : Mr. Nilendu Choudhary, Advocate
Mr. Shiv Kr. Prasad, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Abhimanyu Sharma, APP
For the Informant : Mrs. Rina Sinha, Advocate
======================================================
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.425 of 2025(5) dt.13-11-2025
2/9
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MOHIT KUMAR SHAH
and
HONOURABLE JUSTICE SMT. SONI SHRIVASTAVA
ORAL ORDER
(Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MOHIT KUMAR SHAH)
5 13-11-2025Heard the learned counsel for the appellants, Sri. Nilendu Choudhary, the learned counsel for the informant, Smt. Rina Sinha and the learned APP for the State, Sri. Abhimanyu Sharma.
2. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of appellant nos.1 and 3 of the second case, i.e. Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 466 of 2025, namely Arun Das and Sanjay Das, seeks not to press the prayer of the said appellants for suspension of sentence and grant of bail at the moment, however seeks liberty on their behalf to file appropriate petition for suspension of sentence and grant of bail as and when advised.
3. Accordingly, the prayer of the appellant nos.1 and 3 of the second case, namely Arun Das and Sanjay Das, for suspension of sentence and grant of bail is dismissed as not pressed for the present, however liberty is reserved to them to file a fresh petition for suspension of sentence and grant of bail as and when advised.
4. The aforesaid appeals have been preferred against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.425 of 2025(5) dt.13-11-2025 3/9 07.02.2025 and 12.02.2025 respectively, passed by the learned District and Additional Sessions Judge-1st, Nawada in Sessions Trial No. 37 of 2007 (arising out of Govindpur P.S. Case No.16 of 2006) whereby and whereunder the appellants of the aforesaid appeals have been convicted under Section 302/149 of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as the "I.P.C.") and have been directed to undergo imprisonment for life with fine of Rs.20,000/- and in default of payment of the same, they have been directed to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months.
5. The records of these appeals have been placed before this Court to consider the prayer of the appellant of the first case (Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 425 of 2025) as also the appellant no.2 of the second case, i.e. Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 466 of 2025 for suspension of their sentence and release on bail during the pendency of the appeals.
6. The short facts of the case, according to the fardbeyan of the informant Kaushalya Devi (P.W.10) is that on 27.07.2006 at about 6:00 p.m. in the evening, cow of Dhruvo Chaudhary had entered the agricultural field of Rameshwar Das leading to altercation in between the two and in the meantime, husband of the informant, namely Akhileshwar Choudhary, who Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.425 of 2025(5) dt.13-11-2025 4/9 was coming back from the market had gone there upon alarm being raised as also had tried to make them understand that they should not make sound, after which the appellant of the first case, namely Rameshwar Das had exhorted to kill him and then accused Arun Das had assaulted the deceased by lathi, accused Sanjay Das had also assaulted the deceased by lathi and then Rajendra Das @ Butta is also stated to have assaulted the deceased. The informant had tried to save her husband and in the meantime, Ravindra Choudhary, Dinesh Choudhary and other persons had arrived there for saving the husband of the informant. The deceased, namely Akhileshwar Choudhary was then taken to Sadar Hospital, Nawada from where he was referred to P.M.C.H but he had scummed to injuries at P.M.C.H on 28.07.2006. On the basis of said fardbeyan of the informant, the police had registered an F.I.R bearing Govindpur P.S. Case No.16 of 2006 on 09.08.2006 under Section 302/34 of the IPC against the appellants of the aforesaid two cases and one Mukesh Das.
7. The learned counsel for the appellants of the first case and the appellant no.2 of the second case has submitted by referring to the evidence on record that as far as the said appellants are concerned, they have not been alleged to have Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.425 of 2025(5) dt.13-11-2025 5/9 assaulted the deceased, hence they are having no complicity in the occurrence in question. It is further submitted that all the eye-witnesses including the informant i.e. Kaushaliya Devi (P.W.10) and P.W.6 i.e. Sudama Chaudhary, who is an independent witness of the occurrence, have deposed that the appellant of the first case had not assaulted the deceased and as far as the appellant no.2 of the second case is concerned, though he is stated to have assaulted the deceased on his leg, however it is submitted that the post-mortem report would show that injuries are present only on the head of the deceased and no injury has been found on any other part of the body of the deceased. Hence, it is submitted that at best the injuries sustained by the deceased are attributable to the appellant nos.1 and 3 of the second case, who are alleged to have assaulted the deceased on his head. As far as the issue of applicability of Section 149 of the IPC is concerned, it is submitted that all the witnesses have said that the appellant Rameshwar Das had only exhorted by saying that the deceased should be assaulted and in fact he had not exhorted to kill him. It is submitted that the evidence on record shows that there was no premeditation on the part of the said appellants to give effect to the occurrence in question and the same had taken place at the spur of the Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.425 of 2025(5) dt.13-11-2025 6/9 moment. Moreover, it is submitted that the evidence on record demonstrates that the said appellants were not having any knowledge that the occurrence in question was being given effect to for the purposes of killing the deceased. Thus, it is submitted that at least the appellant of the first case and the appellant no.2 of the second case be granted the privilege of bail.
8. Per contra, the learned counsel for the informant as also the learned APP for the State have vehemently opposed the prayer of the said appellants for suspension of their sentence and grant of bail and have submitted that there are several eye- witnesses to the occurrence in question, all of whom have supported the factum as narrated in the F.IR, hence the guilt of the appellants has been proved beyond all reasonable doubt.
9. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and having cursorily perused the evidence on record, we prima facie find that as far as the appellant of the first case is concerned, he has not been alleged to have assaulted the deceased and as far as appellant no.2 of the second case is concerned, though he has been alleged to have assaulted the deceased on the leg, however no injury has been found on his leg, as is apparent from the post- mortem examination report of the deceased. We also find from Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.425 of 2025(5) dt.13-11-2025 7/9 the inquest report (Exhibit-3) that the same does not show any external injury on the person of the deceased except swelling on the head. Thus, we find that prima facie the evidence on record does not show that the appellant of the 1 st case and appellant no.2 of the second case had indulged in any overt act qua the deceased.
10. Now coming to the issue of roping in of the appellants under Section 302 of the IPC with the aid of Section 149 of the IPC, we find from the records that the appellant no.2 of the second case had neither engaged in any exhortation nor had committed any sort of overt act nor there is any evidence on record to show that he was member of unlawful assembly and had participated in the occurrence with the knowledge of pursuing the common object of killing the deceased. As far as the appellant of the first case is concerned, we find that though he had exhorted the other accused persons to assault the deceased, however none of the witnesses have stated that he had exhorted the other accused persons to kill the deceased. In fact argument had erupted between the parties at the spur of the moment on account of the cow of the deceased having entered in the agricultural field of the said appellants. Thus, the evidence on record, prima facie shows that the said appellants had not Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.425 of 2025(5) dt.13-11-2025 8/9 pre-planned the alleged incident, the incident in question had taken place suddenly and there is lack of evidence to show that the said appellants had the knowledge that offence was likely to be committed in prosecution of common object to kill the deceased, hence conviction of the said appellants under Section 302 of the IPC with the aid of Section 149 of the IPC does not seem to be sustainable.
11. Thus, taking a holistic view of the facts and circumstances of the present case as discussed hereinabove, considering the evidence on record, taking into account the submissions advanced by the learned counsels for the said appellants and for the foregoing reasons, we find that as far as appellant of the first case and appellant no.2 of the second case are concerned, there is dearth of evidence so as to prove their guilt beyond all reasonable doubt, apart from the fact that the appellant of the first case is aged about 70 years and appellant no.2 of the second case is aged about 60 years as also they have undergone approximately 1½ years of custody, hence we find that a case for suspension of sentence and grant of bail during the pendency of the appeals has been made out by the said appellants.
12. Accordingly, we direct suspension of order of Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.425 of 2025(5) dt.13-11-2025 9/9 sentence dated 12.02.2025 qua the appellant of the first case, namely Rameshwar Das and appellant no.2 of the second case, namely Rajendra Das @ Rajendra Ravidas @ Butta as also direct to release the said appellants on bail during the pendency of the appeals, on each of them furnishing bail bond of Rs.10,000/- (ten thousand only) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned Additional District and Sessions Judge-1st, Nawada in connection with in Sessions Trial No. 37 of 2007 (arising out of Govindpur P.S. Case No.16 of 2006).
13. It is clarified that the observation made hereinabove are prima facie and tentative in nature for the purposes of consideration of the prayer of the appellant of the first case and appellant no.2 of the second case for suspension of sentence and grant of bail and shall not cause any prejudice to either of the parties at the time of hearing of the main appeals.
14. List these appeals for hearing in its own turn.
(Mohit Kumar Shah, J) ( Soni Shrivastava, J) Harsh/-
U T