Patna High Court - Orders
Umesh Keshri vs The State Of Bihar on 8 October, 2025
Author: Mohit Kumar Shah
Bench: Mohit Kumar Shah
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL APPEAL (DB) No.349 of 2025
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-109 Year-1998 Thana- ROSERA District- Samastipur
======================================================
1. Umesh Keshri S/o- Late Munshi Prasad Yadav Village- Mahuli P.S- Rosera
Dist- Samastipur
2. Ghanshyam Kant Nirala S/o- Late Munshi Prasad Yadav Village- Mahuli
P.S- Rosera Dist- Samastipur
3. Krishna Kant Himanshu S/o- Late Munshi Prasad Yadav Village- Mahuli
P.S- Rosera Dist- Samastipur
... ... Appellants.
Versus
The State of Bihar. ... ... Respondent.
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Appellants : Mr. Ansul, Senior Advocate
Mr. Anuj Kumar, Advocate
Mr. Shreyanshu Kumar, Advocate
Ms. Eashita Raj, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Manish Kumar No.2, APP
For the Informant : Mr. Yatindra Narayan, Advocate
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MOHIT KUMAR SHAH
And
HONOURABLE JUSTICE SMT. SONI SHRIVASTAVA
ORAL ORDER
(Per: HONOURABLE JUSTICE SMT. SONI SHRIVASTAVA)
9 08-10-2025Heard Mr. Ansul, learned senior counsel for the appellants, assisted by Mr. Anuj Kumar, the learned counsel for the informant, Mr. Yatindra Narayan and the learned APP for the State, Mr. Manish Kumar No.2.
2. The present appeal has been preferred against the Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.349 of 2025(9) dt.08-10-2025 2/11 judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 30.01.2025 and 05.02.2025 respectively, passed by the learned District and Additional Sessions Judge-II, Sub-Divisional Civil Court, Rosera, Samastipur in Sessions Trial No. 465 of 2000, CIS. 260/2014 (arising out of Rosera P.S. Case No. 109 of 1998), whereby and whereunder the appellants have been convicted under Sections 147, 148, 452/149, 427/149, 302/149 of the Indian Penal Code 1860 (hereinafter referred to as the "I.P.C.") and Section 27 of the Arms Act and have been directed to undergo sentence as mentioned hereunder:-
Section 147 IPC Simple imprisonment for 2 years and fine of Rs.1000.
Section 148 IPC Simple imprisonment for 2 years and fine of Rs.1000.
Section 452/149 Simple imprisonment for 5 years and
IPC fine of Rs.5000.
Section 427/149 Simple imprisonment for 2 years and
IPC fine of Rs.1000.
Section 302/149 Life imprisonment and fine of
IPC Rs.25,000
Section 27 of the Rigorous imprisonment of 7 years and Arms Act fine of Rs. 10,000 and in default thereof, rigorous imprisonment for 6 months All sentences have been directed to run concurrently.
3. The records of the present appeal have been placed before this Court to consider the prayer of the appellants for suspension of their sentence and release on bail during the Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.349 of 2025(9) dt.08-10-2025 3/11 pendency of the present appeal.
4. The case of the prosecution, in brief, as per the FIR, bearing Rosera P.S. Case No. 109 of 1998 dated 21.06.1998, based on the fardbeyan of the informant, namely Yogeshwar Yadav recorded on 21.06.1998 at 8 AM, lodged against the accused persons including the appellants herein under Sections 147, 148, 149, 448, 307, 302, 34 of the IPC and 27 of the Arms Act, is that 4 days prior to the occurrence, the informant had constructed a boundary wall on his land adjacent to a hay stack and the informant had mowed down the hay stack at around 3 PM on 20.06.1998. It is alleged that one hour thereafter, at around 4 PM, Munshi Prasad Yadav, Umesh Kumar Kesri, and Krishnakant Himanshu came and hurled abuses and left with a threatening that their brother Ramakant Akela would come and severely damage them. It is further alleged that in pursuance of planning done by Ramakant, his brothers and others, they came variously armed at 11 PM and started demolishing the wall of the informant while he was sitting along with his wife and daughter in his courtyard and he saw in torch light that while Munshi Yadav and Ramakant were armed with country made pistol, Krishnakant Himansu was armed with a three-knot, Umesh Kesri was armed with a gun and Ghanshyakant Nirala Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.349 of 2025(9) dt.08-10-2025 4/11 and Arun were having a khanti in their hands and they were demolishing the wall, however in the meantime the informant's wife and daughter came there. Upon protest raised by the informant, Ramakant Akela fired gun shot at his daughter, Sikam Kumari (deceased) which hit at her left arm and the bullet pierced through the bones causing profuse bleeding to her. The informant had further stated that Umesh Kumar Kesri, thereafter fired at him with his gun which failed to hit him and then he rushed inside the house, however the accused persons fired 8 to 10 rounds of bullets and went away. The neighbors Bhushan Prasad Yadav, Arvind Kumar Yadav, Bhuvneshwar Yadav, Shankar Yadav came and saw the miscreants firing shots and fleeing away. The daughter of the informant Shikam Kumari died while being taken for treatment.
5. Mr. Anshul, the learned senior counsel for the appellants has submitted, at the very outset that the earliest information with regard to the incident was recorded in the form of a Sanha (Exhibit-T) which was recorded by the SHO, Rosera P.S. on 21/06/1998 at 6 AM, bearing Sanha No. 460/98, which discloses that the prosecution witnesses nos. 2, 3 & 4 had brought the dead body of the deceased Sikam Kumari to the police station and it was only disclosed that she had died on Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.349 of 2025(9) dt.08-10-2025 5/11 account of firearm injury, but no disclosure of the name of the assailants was made therein. He next submits in this context that the inquest report (Exhibit -A), which was prepared at the police station at 6 AM, also does not disclose any names of the assailants and the fardbeyan was recorded thereafter, at 8 AM disclosing the names of the assailants. It has also been submitted that the medical evidence does not corroborate the oral allegations in as much as the evidence of the doctor (PW-13), who conducted the postmortem examination on the dead body of the deceased, indicates presence of six injuries out of which the first two injuries are communicating with each other being one wound of entry and one wound of exit which is in tune with the allegations levelled but there is no explanation tendered by the prosecution with respect to the other injuries, especially injury nos. 5 and 6 which are lacerated wounds under the chin and at the back of the scalp. He thus submits that there is a conflict between the medical and the oral evidence.
6. Further submission on behalf of the appellants is that out of 14 prosecution witnesses, PW-2 and PW-6 to PW-9 have not supported the prosecution case, hence they have been declared hostile. As far as the other witnesses are concerned, they are all related witnesses, hence come in the category of Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.349 of 2025(9) dt.08-10-2025 6/11 interested witnesses, whose evidence needs to be scrutinized with care and caution. With regard to the motive of the occurrence, it has been contended that even accepting the dispute regarding demolition of boundary wall, there is no reason why a young girl would be done to death. Lastly, it has also been submitted with regard to individual allegations that the specific act of firing on the deceased has been attributed to accused Ramakant Akela and not upon the present appellants who are in custody since 30.01.2025 which is the date of the judgment and have mostly remained on bail during trial.
7. Per contra, Mr. Manish Kumar No.2, learned APP for the State and the learned counsel for the informant have opposed the prayer of the appellants for suspension of sentence and grant of bail and have submitted that P.Ws.-1, 3, 4, 11 and 12 are all eye witnesses to the occurrence and are consistent in their evidence with regard to the allegations made against the accused persons including the present appellants, thereby have supported the prosecution case. It has also been submitted that the medical evidence corroborates the oral allegations as the cause of death has been stated to be firearm injury by the doctor (PW-13), who had conducted the postmortem examination on the dead body of the deceased hence, it has been submitted that Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.349 of 2025(9) dt.08-10-2025 7/11 there is no iota of doubt about the appellants having participated in the killing of the daughter of the informant i.e. the deceased.
8. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and having cursorily perused the evidence on record, we prima facie find that the case of the prosecution stands supported by several eyewitnesses and the evidence against the accused persons including the present appellants is consistent with regard to their definite roles. The offence involves killing of a 4 to 5 years old girl who was first being taken to Rosera Hospital for treatment but succumbed to her injuries on the way. The records reveal that the prosecution side reached the police station with the dead body at 6.00 AM and soon thereafter, the fardbeyan of the informant was recorded at 8.00 AM disclosing the name of the accused persons, hence non-disclosure of names in the Sanha seems to be totally inconsequential. Moreover, the delay does not seem to be an inordinate one so as to have a fatal effect on the prosecution case, especially in the background of the fact that the eyewitnesses to the occurrence have supported the case of the prosecution during the trial. The testimony of these witnesses, even though related to the deceased, cannot be brushed aside or discarded merely on the ground of them being related witnesses. It is a well settled law that merely because Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.349 of 2025(9) dt.08-10-2025 8/11 witnesses are related, they cannot be termed to be interested witnesses as has also been held in a recent judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Maukam Singh & Ors vs State of M.P. [SLP (Crl.) 13369 of 2024] neutral citation thereof being 2025 INSC 435. Rather, we find that such witnesses are the most natural and competent witnesses, since the occurrence is said to have taken place near the house of the informant and the time of occurrence was about 11 PM.
9. With regard to the contention of the defence that the medical evidence is in conflict with the ocular testimony, we find that the same is also not substantiated in view of the fact that the doctor (PW-13), who has conducted the postmortem examination of the body of the deceased has clearly mentioned about the bullet injury found on the left arm (both entry and exit wounds) and such injury is completely in consonance with the specific oral allegation of gun shot having hit the left arm of the deceased piercing her bones. Injury Nos.1 and 2 indicated in the postmortem report have been opined to be the cause of death and the weapon used has been specifically stated to be a projectile firearm. Thus, it appears prima facie that the medical evidence is not irreconcilably in conflict with the ocular testimony. The records of the case also reveal that it is the Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.349 of 2025(9) dt.08-10-2025 9/11 consistent case of the prosecution right from its inception in the FIR, that the dispute was with regard to the mowing of the hay stack on the boundary wall of the informant for which a threatening had been given in the evening of 20.06.1998 followed by the occurrence at 11.00 PM. It thus appears that the genesis of the occurrence also stands proved in view of the testimony of the eyewitnesses coupled with the objective finding of the Investigating Officer (PW-14), who has found damage of the boundary wall and some hay stack on the boundary wall being cut. Since it is a case of direct evidence, coupled with the genesis and the place of occurrence seemingly being proved, the question of motive for causing the death of the deceased looses its significance. We have also noticed the existence of a counter case from the records but the same is in the form of a complaint filed belatedly and subsequently, in which final form was submitted by the police in connection with the FIR registered u/s 156 (3) Cr. PC, however protest petition (Exhibit F ) was proceeded with treating it as a complaint giving rise to a separate trial. The argument of the defence counsel with respect to the fatal injury on the left arm of the deceased being specifically attributable to accused Ramakant Akela and not on the present appellants, would not absolve the appellants of their Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.349 of 2025(9) dt.08-10-2025 10/11 liability as they were part of the unlawful assembly, the common object of which was to cause death, thereby invoking Section 149 of the IPC with the substantive offence under Section 302 IPC, especially in the backdrop of the consistent evidence that while appellant nos. 1 & 3 were armed with country made pistol and the appellant no.1 had even resorted to firing, the appellant no. 2 was armed with khanti.
10. Thus, taking a holistic view of the facts and circumstances of the present case as discussed hereinabove, considering the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and for the foregoing reasons, at this stage of consideration of suspension of sentence, we are of the prima facie view that the impugned judgment of conviction does not appear to be one which may not be held to be sustainable. Moreover, it has to be kept in mind that at a post-conviction stage, the presumption of innocence comes to an end as has been held in the case of Pritpal Singh vs. State of U.P. and Anr., reported in (2020) 8 SCC 645. Thus, we find that prima facie, a case for suspension of order of sentence and grant of bail during the pendency of the appeal has not been made out. Accordingly, the said prayer for suspension of sentence and grant of bail qua the appellants is rejected.
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.349 of 2025(9) dt.08-10-2025 11/11
11. 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 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 appeal.
12. List this appeal for hearing in its own turn.
(Mohit Kumar Shah, J.) (Soni Shrivastava, J.) Trivedi/-
U T