[ad_1]
Patna High Court
Shankar Singh vs The State Of Bihar on 29 July, 2025
Author: Rajeev Ranjan Prasad
Bench: Rajeev Ranjan Prasad, Shailendra Singh
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL APPEAL (DB) No.841 of 2022
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-38 Year-2017 Thana- WAJIRGANJ District- Gaya
======================================================
Shankar Singh Son of Late Harakhdeo Singh R/o Village- Kolhana, P.S.-
Wazirganj, District- Gaya
... ... Appellant
Versus
1. The State of Bihar
2. Satya Narayan Singh @ Santan Singh Son of Late Rampal Singh R/o
Village- Kolhana, P.S.- Wazirganj, District- Gaya
3. Nakul Singh Son of Late Bachchan Singh R/o Village- Kolhana, P.S.-
Wazirganj, District- Gaya
4. Bharat Singh Son of Late Rampal Singh R/o Village- Kolhana, P.S.-
Wazirganj, District- Gaya
5. Sujeet Singh Son of Late Awadh Kishore Singh R/o Village- Kolhana, P.S.-
Wazirganj, District- Gaya
6. Lalan Singh Son of Late Sachchidanand Singh R/o Village- Kolhana, P.S.-
Wazirganj, District- Gaya
... ... Respondents
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Appellant/s : Mr. Ashok Kumar Chaudhary, Sr. Advocate
Mr. Prafull Chandra Jha, Advocate
Mr. Akshansh Ankit, Advocate
Mr. Anil Kumar Tiwari, Advocate
For the Respondent/s : Mr. Ajay Mishra, APP
For the Resp. No. 2 to 6 : Mr. Nand Kishore Prasad Sinha, Advocate
Mr. Anil Singh, Advocate
Mr. Pramod Kumar, Advocate
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJEEV RANJAN PRASAD
and
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHAILENDRA SINGH
ORAL JUDGMENT
(Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJEEV RANJAN PRASAD)
Date : 29-07-2025
Heard learned Senior Counsel for the appellant, learned
Additional Public Prosecutor for the State and learned counsel for
the respondent nos. 2 to 6. Perused the trial court's records.
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.841 of 2022 dt.29-07-2025
2/13
2. This appeal has been preferred by the informant for
setting aside the judgment dated 29.08.2022 (hereinafter referred
to as the 'impugned judgment') passed by learned Additional
Sessions Judge-III, Gaya in Sessions Trial No. 293 of 2017 and
Sessions Trial No. 192 of 2021 arising out Wazirganj P.S. Case No.
38 of 2017 by which the respondent nos. 2 to 6 of the present
appeal have been acquitted of the charges under Sections 147, 148,
302/149, 120(B) and 341/149 of the Indian Penal Code (in short
'IPC') and Section 27 of the Arms Act.
3. The prosecution case is based on the FIR of Shankar
Singh (PW-3) aged about 75 years, son of Harakhdeo Singh,
Resident of Village-Kolhana, P.S.-Wazirganj, District Gaya
recorded by Station House Officer (S.H.O.) Pradeep Kumar, P.S.-
Wazirganj on 24.01.2017 at 12:30 Hrs. In his fardbeyan (Exhibit
'4'), the informant has stated that like everyday on 24.01.2017 at
09:40 AM, his son Ashok Singh left for his office (Civil Court) on
his motorcycle and behind him, the informant, his daughter-in-law
and his grandson Chandrama Kumar were going to Wazirganj
Market by another motorcycle driven by his grandson. When they
were just before railway crossing Wazirganj, they saw that Ashok
Singh was surrounded by accused persons. The informant alleged
that Arun Singh was assaulting with 'pasuli' in his hand, Nakul
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.841 of 2022 dt.29-07-2025
3/13
Singh was assaulting with sharp-edged weapon, Sujeet Singh fired
from his pistol, Bharat Singh was holding hands of Ashok Singh
and Lallan Singh was assaulting with stone. The informant
identified accused persons as (1) Arun Singh, (2) Nakul Singh, (3)
Bharat Singh, (4) Lallan Singh and (5) Sujeet Singh. When the
informant, his daughter-in-law and his grandson went at the place
of occurrence raising hulla, all the above-named accused persons
along with three unknown accused fled away from the spot leaving
behind red colour passion motorcycle bearing No. BR 2J-6197. As
soon as they reached near his son, they found that his son was dead
smeared with blood. On hearing their screams, nearby villagers
and police personnel reached there. The neck, throat and both the
hands of his son were incised and the forehead was smashed. The
informant alleged that the occurrence took place on the
provocation by Kiran Devi as four days ago, Kiran Devi, Bharat
Singh and others had threatened his son Ashok Singh that he will
be chopped into pieces and he would not be able to do anything.
4. It appears from the records that before recording of
the fardbeyan of the informant Shankar Singh on the same day at
11:30 PM, the investigating agency had prepared the inquest report
(Exhibit '6') at 12:00 noon and the recovery memo of the list of
articles including the motorcycle from the scene of occurrence
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.841 of 2022 dt.29-07-2025
4/13
were also prepared (Exhibit '5', '5/1', '5/2' and '5/3'). The dead
body of the deceased Ashok Singh was sent for autopsy which was
performed on the same day at 4:30 PM.
5. The case was investigated by Sub-Inspector Manish
Kumar (PW-6) and subsequently the investigation was
entrusted/transferred to the Station House Officer Pradeep Kumar
on 15.02.2017 vide order dated 10.02.2017 of the Deputy
Inspector General of Police.
6. It is a matter of record that after investigation police
submitted a charge-sheet on 07.05.2017 against Satyanarayan
Singh @ Santan Singh, Ashok Kumar Singh @ Dara Singh,
Naresh Kumar and Tarun Manjhi @ Karun Manjhi under Sections
147, 148, 149, 341, 302/120(B) of the IPC and Section 27 of the
Arms Act. The investigation against Arun Singh, Nakul Singh,
Kiran Devi, Rajesh Manjhi and Satyendra Pandey @ Satyendra
Giri remained pending. Later on a charge-sheet was submitted on
31.07.2017
against accused Nakul Singh and Rajesh Manjhi.
7. The Investigating Officer (I.O.) did not find sufficient
materials to proceed against three accused namely Lallan Singh,
Sujit Singh and Bharat Singh who were named in the FIR. Thus,
these three were not chargesheeted. After submission of the two
charge-sheets, accused Naresh Kumar absconded. The case against
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.841 of 2022 dt.29-07-2025
5/13
Satyanarayan @ Santan, Tarun Manjhi @ Karun Manji and Ashok
Kumar Singh @ Dara Singh, Nakul Singh and Rajesh Manjhi was
committed to the court of Sessions where it was registered as
Sessions Trial No. 293 of 2017.
8. On going through the records of the learned trial court
it is found that in Sessions Trial No. 293 of 2017 prosecution
witnesses upto PW-7 had already been examined and discharged
upto 18.11.2019. On 18.01.2020 an application under Section 319
of the Code of Criminal Procedure (in short ‘CrPC‘) was filed on
behalf of the informant to summon Bharat Singh, Lallan Singh and
Sujit Singh who were not chargesheeted earlier. The learned trial
court considered the said application under Section 319 CrPC and
vide order dated 13.02.2020 directed summoning of Bharat Singh,
Lallan Singh and Sujit Singh to face the trial with the other co-
accused.
9. On 09.12.2020 an application was filed on behalf of
the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor to segregate the trial of
these three accused. This application was also considered by the
learned trial court on 22.03.2021. The trial court has recorded in
it’s order the direction of the Hon’ble High Court in Cr. Misc. No.
80833 of 2019 passed on 24.02.2021 wherein a direction was
given to the learned trial court to conclude the trial within six
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.841 of 2022 dt.29-07-2025
6/13
months. The trial court held a view that there would be delay in
conclusion of trial against Bharat Singh, Lallan Singh and Sujit
Singh, therefore, the court found it appropriate to conduct a
separate trial for these three accused. The order dated 22.03.2021
is being extracted hereunder for a ready reference:-
“22@3@2021
dkjk/khu vfHk;qä udqy flag dks dsUæh; dkjk ls fofM;ks dUÝsUl
ds tfj;s çLrqr fd;k x;k rFkk okil ykSVk;k x;kA vfHk;qDr
lR;ukjk;.k flag dh vksj ls /kkjk 317 Cr.PC .ds rgr odkyru
iSjoh dk vkosnu fn;k x;k ftls pkfYkr djus ij flQZ vkt Hkj ds
fy, Loh–r fd;k x;kA vfHk;qä Hkjr flag] yyu flag ,oa lqthr
flag dh vksj ls U/s 227 Cr. P.C. ds rgr mUeksapu ds vk’k; dk
vkosnu fn;k x;k ftldh çfr lgk;d vfHk;kstu vf/kdkjh dks
çnku fd;k x;kA
okn iqdkjk x;kA iqdkj ij mHk; i{kksa ds fo}ku vf/koäk mifLFkr
gq,A fo}ku lgk;d yksd vfHk;kstu fnukad 9&12&2020 dks
nkf[ky i`Fd okn [kksyus ds vk’k; dk vkosnu dks pkfyr djrs gq,
dgrs gSa fd bl ckn esa vHkh dqy ¼5½ vfHk;qä fopkj.k esa gS vkSj
dkjk/khu vfHk;qä udqy flag dk tekur ;kfpdk ekuuh; mPp
U;k;ky; iVuk ds Cr.Misc No. 80833/2019 esa ikfjr fnukad
24&2&2021 ds vkns’k ds rgr vLohd`r fd;k tk pqdk gS vkSj
fopkj.kh; U;k;ky; esa Li”V funsZ’k fn;k x;k fd 6 ekg ds vUnj
fu”ikfnr djsA blds vykos bl ckn esa U/S 319 Cr.PC. ds rgr
Hkjr flag] yyu flag ,oa lqthr flag Hkh bl okn esa mifLFkr
gksdj tekur çkIr dj pqds gS ftlls fopkj.k esa foy; gksus dh
laHkkouk gSA vr% u;s mifLFkr vfHk;qäksa ds okn dk fopkj.k i`Fd
djds fd;k tk;A vfHk;qäx.k dh vksj ls vkosnu ij lqukA
vkosnu tks APP ds }kjk nkf[ky fd;k x;k FkkA ml ij mHk; i{kksa
dks lquk ,oa vfHkys[k dk voyksdu fd;kA vfHkys[k ds voyksdu ls
Kkr gksrk gS fd çLrqr dsl esa vkjksi i= ds lkjs lk{kh dk lk{;
ntZ fd;k tk pqdk gS vkSj vfHkys[k ij FSL fjiksVZ dh çfr Hkh çkIr
gks pqdk gS vkSj bl okn ds vfHk;qä Hkjr flag] yyu flag ,oa
lqthr flag vkt mifLFkr gq, vkSj mudk vkjksi xBu Hkh ugha
fd;k x;k gS vkSj vU; vfHk;qä udqy flaag ,oa lR;ukjk;.k flag
dh mifLFkfr esa lkjs lk{kh ijhf{kr fd;s x;s gSaA vr% okn ds
rF;ksa ,oa ifjfefr;ks dks ns[krs gq, rFkk ekuuh; mPp U;k;ky;
iVuk ds vkns’k ds vkyksd esa vfHk;qä Hkjr flag] yyu flag rFkk
lqathr flag ds okn dks bl okn ls i`Fd djuk mfpr ,oa U;k;
laxr çrhr gksrk gSA
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.841 of 2022 dt.29-07-2025
7/13rnkuqlkj U/s 319 Cr.PC. rgr ukfer vfHk;qä Hkjr flag] yyu
flag rFkk lqthr flag ds okn dks bl okn ls i`Fd djus dk vkns’k
fn;k tkrk gSA
dk;kZy; mi;qDZr vfHk;qäksa dk i`Fd okn [kksys rFkk fopkj.k la[;k
vafdr djs ,oa FSL ds çfrosnu ds vkyksd esa ewy FSL fjiksVZ ds
eaxkus gsrq A.C.J.M. I x;k dks ekax i= tkjh djsaA
okn fnukad 31&3&21 dks i`Fd okn [kksyus ,oa vxzhe dk;Zokgh
gsrqA
¼ys[kfir½
A.D.J. III”
10. By virtue of the aforementioned order of the learned
trial court, separate trial being Sessions Trial No. 21 of 2019 was
registered which was later on renumbered. Separate records were
opened and witnesses have been examined in the said trial.
11. At this stage, it is important to take note of the order
dated 06.08.2021 in Sessions Trial No. 293 of 2017. It would
appear that on the said date, the statement of Satyanarayana Singh
@ Santan Singh and Nakul Singh were recorded under Section
313 CrPC. Thereafter, the defence examined it’s witnesses, DW-1
to DW-5 till 02.12.2021. The records were fixed for hearing vide
order dated 05.01.2022, then, on various dates, the arguments were
made on behalf of the prosecution and the defence. Written
submissions were filed on behalf of the prosecution on 06.05.2022
and the accused filed their written submissions on 12.05.2022. The
dates were continuously fixed for further hearing. Finally, the
arguments were concluded in Sessions Trial No. 293 of 2017 on
16.08.2022.
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.841 of 2022 dt.29-07-2025
8/13
12. Later on, on the same day i.e. on 16.08.2022, the
learned trial court passed an order by which it was decided that for
the sake of convenience, both the sessions trial are to be
consolidated. The order dated 16.08.2022 (later on) reads as
under:-
“ckn esa
16-8-22
This Session Trial No. 293/2017, State Vs. Nakul Singh
and another Session Trial No. 192/21, State vs. Bharat
Singh and two others arise from the same case crime no.
committed in the course of same transaction and therefore
in the interest of Justice and for the sake of convenience
both the Session Trial are consolidated as both the trials
have been concluded. The Sessions Trial No. 293/2017,
State vs Nakul Singh and another shall be the leading case.
Fixed for 29.8.2022 for Judgment.
Sd/
A.D.J. III”
13. The learned trial court thereafter proceeded to pass
the impugned judgment by which the accused persons/respondent
nos. 2 to 6 have been acquitted.
Submissions on behalf of the Appellants
14. At the outset, Mr. Ashok Kumar Chaudhary, learned
Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. Prafulla Chandra Jha, learned
counsel for the appellant has submitted that the learned trial court
seems to have committed a grave error by taking into
consideration the evidences adduced by the prosecution and the
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.841 of 2022 dt.29-07-2025
9/13
defence in the separate trials for purpose of reaching to a
conclusion in a composite manner. Attention of this Court has been
drawn towards paragraph ’27’ and ’31’ of the impugned judgment
wherein the learned trial court has considered the oral testimonies
of PW-1, PW-2, PW-3 and PW-4 of one trial and after taking note
of the testimonies of the four defence witnesses adduced in
Sessions Trial No. 192 of 2021, the trial court reached to a
conclusion that there is nothing in the cross-examination of the
defence witnesses to disbelieve their statements. The trial court has
mixed up the entire evidence and reached to a conclusion that the
prosecution had failed to establish the charges against the accused
persons beyond all reasonable doubts.
15. It is submitted that the learned trial court seems to
have missed it’s own order by which separate trials were ordered
to be instituted. The trial court also failed to appreciate that in
Sessions Trial No. 293 of 2017, the prosecution had already
examined all the chargesheet witnesses much before filing of
Section 319 CrPC application. Reliance has been placed upon the
judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of A.T.
Mydeen and Anr. vs. Assistant Commissioner, Customs
Department reported in (2022) 14 SCC 392.
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.841 of 2022 dt.29-07-2025
10/13
16. It is submitted that the impugned judgment is liable
to be set aside and the matter is required to be remanded to the trial
court for passing separate judgments in the two separate trials
based on the evidences available on the record.
17. Learned Senior Counsel for the appellant has made
submissions on the merit of the case as well but in view of his first
submission, as noticed hereinabove, we would confine our
consideration for the present with regard to his above-mentioned
submissions. We do so in view of our opinion that if the appeal
succeeds on the first ground alone, then any observation of the
appellate court on the merits of the case may prejudice either of
the parties.
Submissions on behalf of Respondent No. 2 to 6 and the State
18. Mr. Nand Kishore Prasad Sinha, learned counsel for
the respondent nos. 2 to 6 and Mr. Ajay Mishra, learned Additional
Public Prosecutor for the State have not contested the submissions
of learned Senior Counsel for the appellant to the extent that the
learned trial court was required to pass separate judgment in the
separate trials. They did not contest the position emerging from the
records that both the trials were conducted separately and even
arguments had taken place separately. There was no reason to pass
an order on 16.08.2022 (later on) saying that both the trials are
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.841 of 2022 dt.29-07-2025
11/13
amalgamated and the leading case would be Sessions Trial No.
293 of 2017. To that extent, learned counsel do not dispute that the
trial court has committed an error.
Consideration
19. Having considered the entire submissions recorded
hereinabove and upon perusal of the trial court’s records, we find
that vide order dated 22.03.2021, the learned trial court directed
for registration of a separate trial for the accused who were
summoned under Section 319 CrPC. Much before the said date,
PW-1 to PW-7 in Sessions Trial No. 293 of 2017 had already been
examined, cross-examined and discharged. Both the trials were
conducted separately, the witnesses were examined and arguments
were heard separately. In such circumstance, the learned trial court
was required to consider the evidences adduced in both the trials
separately and take a view based on the evidences available on the
records. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has in the case of A.T.
Mydeen (supra) observed in paragraph ’40’ as under:-
“40. Now, merely because the seven witnesses
produced by the prosecution were the same in both
the cases would not mean that the evidence was
identical and similar because in the oral testimony,
not only the examination-in-chief but also the
cross-examination is equally important and
relevant, if not more. Even if the examination-in-
chief of all the seven witnesses in both the cases,
although examined in different sequence, was the
same, there could have been an element of some
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.841 of 2022 dt.29-07-2025
12/13benefit accruing to the accused in each case
depending upon the cross-examination which
could have been conducted maybe by the same
counsel or a different counsel. The role of each
accused cannot be said to be the same. The same
witnesses could have deposed differently in
different trials against different accused differently
depending upon the complicity or/and culpability
of such accused. All these aspects were to be
examined and scrutinised by the appellate court
while dealing with both the appeals separately and
the evidence recorded in the respective trials
giving rise to the appeals.”
20. In view of the ratio of the judgment in A.T. Mydeen
(supra), we are of the considered opinion that the learned trial
court has erred in passing a composite judgment by mixing the
evidences of two separate trials. Accordingly, we set aside the
impugned judgment and remand the matter to the learned trial
court for passing separate judgments in Sessions Trial No. 293 of
2017 and Sessions Trial No. 192 of 2021 based on the evidences
available on the record. We understand that the same and one
Presiding Officer of the trial court who had heard the matter on
earlier occasion may not be available at this time, therefore, it is
expected that the learned Presiding Officer of the trial court now
taking up the matters shall give appropriate opportunity of hearing
to the parties.
21. This Court would expect that the parties shall
cooperate on the dates of hearing and since written submissions
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.841 of 2022 dt.29-07-2025
13/13
are already on the record, the learned trial court shall make all
endeavours to pass it’s judgment within four months from the date
of receipt/communication of a copy of this judgment.
22. It is made clear that we have not gone into the merits
of the case and no part of our judgment shall cause any prejudice
to the either parties.
23. The appeal is allowed to the extent indicated above.
(Rajeev Ranjan Prasad, J)
(Shailendra Singh, J)
Rishi/-
AFR/NAFR CAV DATE Uploading Date 31.07.2025 Transmission Date 31.07.2025
[ad_2]
Source link