Patna High Court – Orders
Sanju Chaudhary vs The State Of Bihar on 10 April, 2025
Author: Sunil Dutta Mishra
Bench: Sunil Dutta Mishra
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL APPEAL (DB) No.1322 of 2024
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-39 Year-2020 Thana- OBRA District- Aurangabad
======================================================
1. Sanju Chaudhary Son of Kail Chaudhary, Resident of Village- Tejpura, P.S.-
Obra, District- Aurangabad (Bihar).
2. Sanjay Chaudhary @ Manjhil Chaudhary Son of Late Bhagwan Chaudhary
Resident of Village- Tejpura, P.S.- Obra, District- Aurangabad (Bihar).
... ... Appellant/s
Versus
The State of Bihar.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
with
CRIMINAL APPEAL (DB) No. 1270 of 2024
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-39 Year-2020 Thana- OBRA District- Aurangabad
======================================================
1. Tunnu Chaudhary @ Ashok Chaudhary Son of Sri Nath Choudhary,
Resident of Village- Tejpura, P.S.- Obra, Dist- Aurangabad.
2. Gabudan @ Gabudan Chaudhary @ Om Prakash Chaudhary son of
Vishwanath Chaudhary, Resident of Village- Tejpura, P.S.- Obra, Dist-
Aurangabad.
... ... Appellant/s
Versus
The State of Bihar.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
with
CRIMINAL APPEAL (DB) No. 1337 of 2024
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-39 Year-2020 Thana- OBRA District- Aurangabad
======================================================
Golu Chaudhary S/o Jag Narayan Chaudhary, R/o Village- Tejpura, P.S- Obra,
District- Aurangabad.
... ... Appellant/s
Versus
The State of Bihar.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
(In CRIMINAL APPEAL (DB) No. 1322 of 2024)
For the Appellant/s : Mr. Krishna Prasad Singh, Sr. Advocate.
: Ms. Veena Singh, Advocate
For the Respondent/s : Mr. Parmeshwar Mehta, APP.
(In CRIMINAL APPEAL (DB) No. 1270 of 2024)
For the Appellant/s : Mr. Ajay Kumar Thakur, Advocate.
: Md. Imtiyaz Ahmad, Advocate.
: Mrs. Vaishnavi Singh, Advocate.
: Mr. Ritwik Thakur, Advocate.
For the Respondent/s : Mr. Parmeshwar Mehta, Advocate.
(In CRIMINAL APPEAL (DB) No. 1337 of 2024)
For the Appellant/s : Mr. Pramod Kumar, Advocate.
For the Respondent/s : Mr. Parmeshwar Mehta, APP.
======================================================
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.1322 of 2024(5) dt.10-04-2025
2/11
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE VIPUL M. PANCHOLI
and
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL DUTTA MISHRA
ORAL ORDER
(Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE VIPUL M. PANCHOLI)
5 10-04-2025
Heard Mr. Krishna Prasad Singh, learned Sr.
Advocate assisted by Mrs. Veena Singh for the appellants in Cr.
Appeal (DB) No.1322 of 2024, Mr. Ajay Kumar Thakur, learned
Advocate for the appellants in Cr. Appeal (DB) No.1270 of
2024, Mr. Pramod Kumar, learned Advocate for the appellant in
Cr. Appeal (DB) No.1337 of 2024 and learned APP for the State,
Mr. Parmeshwar Mehta in all the three appeals.
2. These appeals have been filed on behalf of the
appellants under Section 374(2) read with Section 389(1) of the
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter, referred as the
Code’) against the common judgment of conviction dated
11.09.2024 and the order of sentence dated 20.09.2024,
rendered by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-IV,
Aurangabad, Bihar, in Sessions Trial Case No.89 of 2024,
arising out of Obra P.S. Case No.39 of 2020, CIS No.147 of
2020, whereby the appellants/convicts have been convicted for
commission of the offences punishable under Section 302 read
with 34 of I.P.C. and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life
for the offence under Section-302 read with 34 of I.P.C. with
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.1322 of 2024(5) dt.10-04-2025
3/11
fine of Rs.20,000/- (Rupees Twenty Thousand) each and, in
default of payment of fine, to undergo R.I. for six months.
3. Learned advocates appearing for the appellants
would mainly submit that though the prosecution has projected
PW-2, PW-3, PW-5 and PW-7 as eye witnesses, in fact, from the
deposition of the said witnesses as well as from the deposition
given by PW-8, the Investigating Officer, it can be said that
there is no eye-witness to the occurrence in question and the
prosecution has projected the aforesaid witnesses as eye-
witnesses.
4. Learned advocates appearing for the appellants
thereafter referred the deposition of the prosecution witnesses
and submitted that PW-2, Surendra Singh has admitted in
paragraph-19 of his cross-examination that when he reached to
the place of occurrence, he saw the accused and none else was
present at the said place and after hearing hulla the village
people gathered at the said place. Thereafter, it has been pointed
out from the deposition of PW-8, the Investigating Officer, that
PW-2 has given the statement before the said witness, i.e. the
Investigating Officer, that at the time of incident he was at his
house and he heard that knife blow was given to Sunil Kumar @
Videshi (deceased) and he was lying at the door of Baliram
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.1322 of 2024(5) dt.10-04-2025
4/11
Singh. At this stage learned Advocate has referred the deposition
given by the PW-3, the informant, and thereafter referred
paragraph-14 of the said deposition wherein the informant has
admitted that after hearing hulla Surendra Singh, Jay Prakash
Tiwari, Ajit Kumar and Lalsa Devi came at the said place.
Learned advocate, therefore, urged that Surendra Singh, Jay
Prakash Tiwari, Ajit Kumar and Lalsa Devi are not the eye-
witnesses and from the deposition of PW-2, Surendra Singh, it
transpires that when he reached at the place of occurrence,
except accused no one else was present. Learned advocates
thereafter referred deposition given by PW-8, the Investigating
Officer and more particularly paragraph 25 to 30 of the
deposition of the said witnesses and other eye-witness. Learned
advocates submit that there are major contradictions and
inconsistency in the deposition of the prosecution witnesses.
Thus, the deposition of the said witness is required to be
discarded.
5. Learned advocates further submit that there is
discrepancy with regard to the place of occurrence. It has been
contended that, as per the case of informant, the incident took
place near Banyan tree, however, from the deposition given by
the Investigating Officer, it transpires that the blood was found
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.1322 of 2024(5) dt.10-04-2025
5/11
near the house of Baliram Singh and there is distance of 40 to
50 metre between the house of Baliram Singh and the so called
place of occurrence.
6. Learned advocates would thereafter submit that
there is a discrepancy with regard to the alleged weapons which
were used in commission of the crime and, in fact, there is no
recovery or discovery of the weapons from any of the
appellants/convicts.
7. Learned advocates further submit that, in fact, there
are no antecedents of the appellants herein and one case has
been registered against Sanjay Chaudhary @ Manjhil
Chaudhary and Tunnu Chaudhary @ Ashok Chaudhary,
however, the said F.I.R. has been registered under Sections 147,
149, 447, 323, 504, 379 of Indian Penal Code and Section 3/4 of
Prevention of Witch (Daain) Practices Act, 1999. At this stage,
it has been pointed out from the record that various F.I.Rs. were
registered against the deceased. Said aspect has been pointed out
from the cross-examination of the prosecution witnesses.
8. At this stage, it is also submitted that appellants,
namely, Tunnu Chaudhary @ Ashok Chaudhary, Golu
Chaudhary and Gabudan Chaudhary are in custody since last
five years and the present appeals are of the year 2024, which
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.1322 of 2024(5) dt.10-04-2025
6/11
are not likely to be heard in near future and, therefore, learned
Advocates urged that the appellants be released on bail.
9. It has been further pointed out that, so far as
appellants, namely, Sanju Chaudhary and Sanjay Chaudhary are
concerned, the only allegation levelled against them is that they
caught hold of the hands of the deceased whereas the other
accused gave blow with knife to the deceased and both the
aforesaid appellants were released on bail during pendency of
trial and it is not the case of prosecution that they have misused
the liberty granted to them. Learned advocates, therefore, urged
that all these appellants be released on bail and the sentence
imposed by the Trial Court be suspended.
10. On the other hand, learned APP has opposed the
prayer for grant of bail and for suspension of sentence of the
present appellants. Learned APP would mainly submit that there
are 4 eye-witnesses to the incident in question and all the eye-
witnesses have deposed before the Court with regard to the
manner of occurrence and the role played by each of the present
appellants in the incident in question. Thus, the case of the eye-
witnesses has been supported by the medical evidence. Learned
APP has referred deposition given by PW-6, the Doctor who had
conducted the post-mortem of the dead body of the deceased.
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.1322 of 2024(5) dt.10-04-2025
7/11
Learned APP, therefore, urged that the Trial Court has not
committed any error while passing the impugned judgment and
order whereby the appellants have been convicted for
committing offence punishable under Section 302 read with
Section 34 of the I.P.C. Thus, the appellants may not be released
on bail, as prayed for.
11. We have considered the arguments canvassed by
the learned advocates appearing for the parties. We have also
perused the materials placed on record and the trial Court
records.
12. From the material placed on record, prima facie, it
would emerge from the evidence led by the prosecution that the
informant has lodged an F.I.R. at 12:45 A.M. on 13.02.2020 for
the incident which took place at 07:00 P.M. on 12.02.2020. The
informant has projected himself as an eye-witness and, as per
his case, the incident took place near Banyan tree. It is further
revealed from the evidence led by the prosecution that after
hearing hulla the other village people, including PW-2 Surendra
Singh, PW-5 Ajit Kumar, PW-7 Lalsa Devi and PW-4 Jay
Prakash Tiwari came at the place of occurrence. However, the
prosecution has projected the aforesaid witnesses as eye
witnesses.
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.1322 of 2024(5) dt.10-04-2025
8/11
13. At this stage, we would like to refer para-19 of the
cross-examination of PW-2 wherein he has specifically stated
that when he reached at the place of occurrence he found the
accused and none else. At this stage, paragraph-25 of the cross-
examination of PW-8 is required to be referred. In para-25 the
said witness has admitted that Surendra Singh, while giving the
statement, has stated that the said witness was at his residence.
At that time, he heard that knife blow was given to Videshi
(deceased) and he is lying at the door of Baliram Singh.
Therefore, he reached at the door of Baliram Singh and he found
that Videshi (deceased) was lying at the said place in the pool of
blood. Thus, from the aforesaid evidence led by the prosecution,
prima facie, it can be gathered that PW-2 was not present at the
place of occurrence. Similarly PW-3 has also admitted in para-
14 that after hearing hulla Surendra Singh, Ajit Kumar, Lalsa
Devi, Jay Prakash Tiwari came at the said place. However, from
the deposition given by PW-2 in paragraph-19, it transpires that
when he reached at the place of occurrence only accused was
present and none else was present. Thus, prima facie, doubt is
raised with regard to presence of informant at the place of
occurrence.
14. Further, it would reveal from the evidence led by
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.1322 of 2024(5) dt.10-04-2025
9/11
the prosecution that there is a discrepancy with regard to the
place of occurrence. As per the informant the incident took
place near Banyan tree and Sone river, however, from the
deposition given by the PW-8, the Investigating Officer, prima
facie, it transpires that he has seized the blood stain from PCC
road situated near to house of Baliram Singh. Said aspect he has
deposed in paragraph-35. Further in paragraph-14 he has
admitted that he did not find any blood at the place of
occurrence. Further, in paragraph-35, the said witness has also
stated about the distance between the place of occurrence and
the house of Baliram Singh as 40 to 50 metre. Thus, prima
facie, there is discrepancy with regard to place of occurrence.
15. Further, from paragraph 25 to 30 of the cross-
examination of the PW-8, the Investigating Officer, it would
reveal that there are major contradictions and discrepancies in
the deposition of the prosecution witnesses.
16. It is also not in dispute that the occurrence took
place at 07:00 P.M. in February, 2020 during night hours. There
is no reference with regard to source of light at the said place.
There is also no recovery of weapon from the
appellants/convicts. It is also required to be observed at this
stage that from the cross-examination of the prosecution
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.1322 of 2024(5) dt.10-04-2025
10/11
witnesses, it would reveal that deceased was having criminal
history and number of F.I.Rs. were registered against him.
Therefore, it is the specific case of the defence that there are all
chances that some other persons might have killed the deceased
because of some enmity.
17. Appellants, namely, Tunnu Chaudhary @ Ashok
Chaudhary, Golu Chaudhary and Gabudan Chaudhary are in
custody since more than 5 years, the present appeals are of the
year 2024 and the same are not likely to be heard in near future.
Further appellants, namely, Sanju Chaudhary and Sanjay
Chaudhary were on bail during pendency of trial and it is not the
case of the prosecution that they have misused the liberty
granted to them. We have also examined the role attributed to
Sanju Chaudhary and Sanjay Chaudhary even as per the case of
prosecution.
18. Looking to the overall facts and circumstances of
the present case, without re-appreciating the evidence in detail,
prima facie, when the evidence led by the prosecution is
examined, we are of the view that case of the appellants for
suspension of sentence and for grant of bail requires
consideration.
19. Accordingly, the appellants, namely Sanju
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.1322 of 2024(5) dt.10-04-2025
11/11
Chaudhary, Sanjay Chaudhary @ Manjhil Chaudhary, Tunnu
Chaudhary @ Ashok Chaudhary, Gabudan @ Gabudan
Chaudhary @ Om Prakash Chaudhary and Golu Chaudhary, are
ordered to be released on bail during pendency of the present
appeals on executing bonds of Rs. 15,000/- (Rupees Fifteen
Thousand) each and upon furnishing two sureties of the like
amount each to the satisfaction of learned Additional Sessions
Judge-IV, Aurangabad, Bihar, in Sessions Trial Case No. 89 of
2024, arising out of Obra P.S. Case No.39 of 2020, CIS No.147
of 2020, and the sentence imposed by the Trial Court is
suspended, so far as these appellants are concerned.
20. It is clarified that the aforesaid observations are
tentative observations made by this Court while considering the
request of the appellants for grant of bail.
21. The appellants should co-operate in this Court till
disposal of the appeal.
22. Realization of fine shall also remain stayed during
the pendency of the appeal.
(Vipul M. Pancholi, J)
(Sunil Dutta Mishra, J)
Utkarsh/-Ritik/-
U T