Patna High Court – Orders
Mukesh Singh @ Mukesh Kumar Singh vs The State Of Bihar on 3 March, 2025
Author: Rajiv Roy
Bench: Rajiv Roy
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL APPEAL (SJ) No.4573 of 2024
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-113 Year-2009 Thana- NAGARNAUSA District- Nalanda
======================================================
Mukesh Singh @ Mukesh Kumar Singh Son of Sadhu Sharan Singh Resident
of Village- Badiha, P.S.- Nagar Nausa, District -Nalanda . ... Appellant/s
Versus
The State of Bihar ... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Appellant/s : Mr.Nafisu Zzoha, Adv.
For the Respondent/s : Mr.Mukeshwar Dayal, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV ROY
ORAL ORDER
3 03-03-2025
Heard Mr. Nafisu Zzoha, learned counsel for the
appellant and Mr. Mukeshwar Dayal, learned APP.
2. The present memo of appeal has been filed for:-
” against the Judgment of
conviction dated 11.09.2024 and sentence
dated 19.09.2024 A passed in S.T. No.
885/2010, C.I.S. No. 1525/2013, Arising out
of Nagar Nausa P.S. Case No. 113/2009
(G.R. No. 1188/2009) whereby and where
under the learned A.D.J. IV, Hilsa, Nalanda
convicted the appellant u/s 324 IPC and
sentenced him undergo R.I for 3 years and
fine of Rs. 1,000/- and in default of payment
of fine he shall further undergo S.I. for 30
days and the appellant also convicted under
section 27 of the Arms Act and sentenced
him R.I. for 5 years and fine of Rs. 5000/-
and in default of payment of fine he shall
further undergo S.I. for 60 days and all the
sentences as imposed will run
concurrently..”.
3. Earlier, the present appeal stands admitted on
01.10.2024 by the Co-ordinate Bench and the Trial Court
Record was called for, which has now been received.
4. As per the prosecution story, the informant alleged
that while he was returning home after attending nature’s call,
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.4573 of 2024(3) dt.03-03-2025
2/4
he saw quarrel between Ram Nath Singh and Sadhu Saran
Singh. As he move forward, found his cousin brother, Kanhaiya
Kumar going towards the under constructed house of Bachchu
Singh where the appellant was present with pistol. He opened
fire causing injury to his cousin brother who was rushed to
Primary Health Centre, Nagarnausa and then for better
treatment to Patna Medical College Hospital. As he was unable
to speak, the FIR was lodged by the informant.
5. Subsequently, the police investigated the matter,
charge-sheet was submitted on 28.02.2010. Thereafter, the
cognizance was taken under sections 341, 323, 504, 307, 120B
of the IPC and 27 of the Arms Act on 15.04.2010, charges were
framed on 20.07.2011, the trial commenced/concluded resulting
into the conviction and sentence dated 11.09.2024/19.09.2024 as
under:-
Sl. No. Appellant Sentence Fine
1. Mukesh R.l. for 03 years u/s section 324 IPC, 1000/-
Singh @
Mukesh in default of payment of fine, SI for
Kumar Singh
30 days., RI for 05 years under
5000/-
Section 27 of the Arms Act, in default
of payment of fine, SI for 60 days.
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.4573 of 2024(3) dt.03-03-2025
3/4
6. Aggrieved. The present appeal.
7. It is the case of the appellant that on the basis of
wrong prosecution story, the investigation took place, the
appellant had no role to play in the matter. The doctor also
during cross-examination, conceded that it can be self inflicted
injury. He has remained in custody for less than a year and in
that background when the appeal has been admitted, he deserves
relief.
8. Learned APP as also learned counsel representing
the informant have taken this Court to the deposition of the
injured, Kanhaiya Kumar (PW 3) who has made allegation
against this appellant and from the same, it also reflects that the
bullet is still inside the body. According to him, the Doctor
opined that in case, the same is operated upon, the injured may
die. It is their submission that such kind of self inflicted injury
theory is beyond imagination. Further, joint submission is that
against the conviction of five years, he has not even completed
one year and in that background, when he is the main assailant,
the conviction is of five years, he is not entitled to any relief.
9. Having gone through the facts of the case as also
order of the learned Trial Court, submissions put forward by the
learned State/informant seem justified.
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.4573 of 2024(3) dt.03-03-2025
4/4
10. The appellant has been attributed a role, the
injury inflicted by him led to the rolling of the present trial in
which he stands convicted and the sentence amongst other is of
five years Rigorous Imprisonment. In that background, when he
has not completed even one third of the said sentence,
considering the nature of allegation that resulted into his
conviction, for the present, this Court is not inclined to grant
any relief to the appellant. The bail, as such, stands rejected.
(Rajiv Roy, J)
perwez
U T
[ad_1]
Source link