Pappu Rai vs The State of Bihar

Date : 10-08-2026 Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.

This appeal has been preferred against the judgment of conviction dated 29.06.2018 and the order of sentence dated 30.06.2018 passed by the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge-IX, Saran at Chapra in Sessions Trial No. 722 of 2010 arising out of Garkha P.S. Case No. 191 of 2007, whereby and whereunder this appellant has been convicted for the offence punishable under Section 325 of the Indian Penal Code and has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/- and in case of default of payment of fine, to further undergo imprisonment for one month. The co-accused, Hridaya Rai, has been acquitted of the charges.

The prosecution case, in brief, is that the informant, Binda Sah, was running a sweets and tea shop. On 20.10.2007, at about 5:00 PM, when he returned to the shop, he allegedly found this appellant, namely Pappu Rai and co-accused Hridaya Rai were assaulting his father, namely Gajadhar Sah. It is alleged that co-accused Hridaya Rai caught hold of the neck of Gajadhar Sah while this appellant assaulted him. When informant intervened to save his father, this appellant picked up a brick and hurled the same at him, causing injury. On hearing the alarm, villagers reached the place of occurrence and the injured persons were taken to Sadar Hospital, Chapra.

In order to establish the charges, the prosecution examined altogether ten witnesses. P.W. 1, namely Rajeshwar Rai, was declared hostile; his evidence, however, indicates that he had learnt about the occurrence from the villagers. P.W.-2, namely Gajadhar Sah, is the father of the informant and the injured person, who supported the prosecution case and attributed assault to the appellant. P.W.-3, namely Laxman Sah, is the cousin of the informant and has supported the prosecution case regarding the occurrence and the assault upon Binda Sah by means of a brick. P.W.-4, namely Vijay Kumar Sah; P.W.-5 namely Brajkishore Kumar Sah and P.W.-6, namely Vinod ,Sah are the sons of the informant and have supported the prosecution case. P.W.-7, namely Binda Sah, is the informant as well as the principal injured witness and has attributed the assault by means of a brick to the appellant. P.W.-8, namely Dr. A.K. Singh, is the doctor who examined Binda Sah and Gajadhar Sah at Sadar Hospital, Chapra and proved their injury reports and the related medical documents. P.W.-9, namely Suresh Singh, was declared hostile and did not support the prosecution case. P.W.-10, namely Sayeed Ahmad Ansari, is the Investigating Officer, who admitted that he had not recorded the statement of any witness during investigation and had not inspected the place of occurrence, though he submitted the charge-sheet and proved the relevant endorsements and formal F.I.R. The remaining evidence is formal or documentary in nature.

On the other hand, the defence has not examined any oral or documentary evidence.

After hearing the parties and upon consideration of the evidence available on record, the learned trial Court convicted the appellant and sentenced him in the manner indicated hereinabove.

Learned counsel for the appellant has assailed the judgment of conviction and order of sentence on several grounds. It is submitted that although the fard beyan of the informant is stated to have been recorded at about 8:30 PM on the date of occurrence, however, the formal First Information Report was registered approximately twelve days thereafter and no satisfactory explanation whatsoever for such inordinate delay has been furnished by the prosecution during trial. It is further submitted that the Investigating Officer, though examined during trial, admitted that he did not record the statement of any witness during investigation and did not inspect the place of occurrence. It is further submitted that such lapses have caused serious prejudice to the defence and have deprived the Court of objective corroboration regarding the place and manner of occurrence. Learned counsel further submits that the medical evidence does not fully support the ocular version. The doctor, in cross-examination, stated that no external injury was found on the forehead, cheek, neck and chest of Binda Sah, whereas the prosecution version attributes the assault with a brick to those parts of his body. Moreover, he found the injuries sustained by Gajadhar Sah to be simple in nature. It is argued that the aforesaid discrepancy, when considered along with the unexplained delay in formal registration of the FIR and the defective investigation, creates a reasonable doubt regarding the prosecution case and the appellant is, therefore, entitled to be given the benefit of doubt.

Per contra, learned Additional Public Prosecutor has supported the judgment of conviction and submitted that the evidence of the injured informant and the other witnesses, read with the medical evidence, sufficiently establishes the occurrence and the participation of the appellant and thus, no interference is warranted.

Having heard the parties and upon consideration of the material on record, this Court finds that the prosecution case requires careful scrutiny. The evidence of an injured witness is entitled to due weight, but it must be considered along with the surrounding circumstances, medical evidence and the investigation. The occurrence is alleged to have taken place on 20.10.2007 and the informant's fard beyan was recorded at about 8:30 PM on the same day. However, the formal F.I.R. was registered about twelve days thereafter. No satisfactory explanation for such delay has been furnished by the prosecution. Though delay in lodging an F.I.R. is not by itself fatal, an unexplained delay assumes significance when considered with other infirmities in the prosecution case. The investigation also suffers from material lapses. P.W.-10, the Investigating Officer, admitted that he neither recorded the statement of any witness during investigation nor inspected the place of occurrence. Such omissions deprive the Court of independent corroboration regarding the place and manner of occurrence. Moreover, the doctor (P.W. 8) found injuries on Binda Sah and opined that the injury was caused by a hard and blunt substance and was grievous in nature. However, in cross-examination, he stated that no external injury was found on the forehead, cheek, neck and chest of Binda Sah. The doctor also found injuries on Gajadhar Sah caused by a hard and blunt substance, but the same were opined to be simple in nature. Thus, while the medical evidence establishes that injuries were sustained, it does not furnish complete corroboration to the specific manner and sites of assault alleged by the prosecution.

The principal evidence against the appellant is that of P.W.-7 Binda Sah, the informant and injured witness, supported to some extent by P.W.-2 Gajadhar Sah and P.W.-3 Lakshman Sah. P.Ws.-1 and 9 were declared hostile. The testimony of P.W.-7 cannot be discarded merely because he is an injured witness; nevertheless, in the facts of the present case, his evidence has to be assessed in the light of the unexplained delay in formal registration of the F.I.R., the material lapses in investigation and the aforesaid discrepancies in the medical evidence.

The cumulative effect of these circumstances creates a reasonable doubt regarding the prosecution case and, in particular, regarding the precise manner in which the injuries constituting the basis of the conviction under Section 325 of the Indian Penal Code were caused by the appellant. Thus, in view of the facts and circumstances of the case, as discussed above, it is evident that the prosecution has failed to prove the guilt of these appellants beyond reasonable doubt and thus, the appellants are entitled to be given the benefit of doubt.

Accordingly, the judgment of conviction dated 29.06.2018 and the order of sentence dated 30.06.2018 passed by the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge-IX, Saran at Chapra in Sessions Trial No. 722 of 2010 arising out of Garkha P.S. Case No. 191 of 2007 are hereby set aside with respect to this appellant.

The appellant, above named, is acquitted of the charge under Section 325 of the Indian Penal Code by extending to him the benefit of doubt and he is discharged from the liabilities of his bail bond in connection with this case.

Accordingly, this appeal stands allowed.

Interlocutory application(s), if any, also stand disposed of.