Allowed¶31

Judagi Thakur @ Lal Babu v. The State Of Bihar

Acquittal – benefit of doubt – hostile witnesses

Patna HC15 Jul 2026CR. APP (SJ)/4198/2018

Download

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Judagi Thakur @ Lal Babu v. The State of Bihar; Patna High Court; Criminal Appeal (SJ) No.4198 of 2018; decided 15-07-2026 by Prabhat Kumar Singh, J.; appeal against conviction under Section 324 IPC by Additional District and Sessions Judge – V, Patna in Sessions Trial No. 1605 of 2007 (Punpun P.S. Case No. 51 of 2006); acquittal on benefit of doubt; hostile eyewitnesses (P.Ws. 2, 3, 4); hearsay witness P.W.6; non-examination of investigating officer and of doctor who first treated injured; prejudice to defence; Section 313 CrPC statements; FIR under Sections 323, 341, 324, 307/34 IPC; discharge from bail bond; appeal allowed.

What did the court decide?

Conviction and sentence set aside; appellant acquitted of all charges and discharged from the liability of his bail bond. ¶31

Judagi Thakur @ Lal Babu Vs The State Of Bihar — Patna HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Conviction and sentence set aside; appellant acquitted of all charges and discharged from the liability of his bail bond.

¶31

Issue for consideration

Whether the conviction of the appellant under Section 324 IPC and the sentence imposed could be sustained where the material witnesses turned hostile and the doctor who first treated the injured and the investigating officer were not examined.

¶26

Court's answer

The prosecution failed to prove the guilt of the appellant beyond all reasonable doubt: most witnesses did not support the prosecution case and turned hostile, and P.W.6 Dev Prasad Singh was a hearsay witness; the appellant is therefore entitled to the benefit of doubt.

¶28

Ratio / Principle

Non-examination of the doctor who first treated the injured at the Primary Health Centre, Punpun, and of the investigating officer caused prejudice to the defence.

¶25

Key takeaways

The impugned judgment of conviction dated 06.09.2018 passed by the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge – V, Patna in Sessions Trial No. 1605 of 2007, arising out of Punpun P.S. Case No. 51 of 2006, is set aside.ratio¶29
The appellant is acquitted of all the charges and, being on bail, is discharged from the liability of his bail bond in connection with this case.ratio¶30

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Acquittal — benefit of doubt — hostile witnesses — non-examination of doctor and investigating officer. The conviction of the appellant under Section 324 IPC and sentence of two years' simple imprisonment imposed by the Additional District and Sessions Judge – V, Patna (Sessions Trial No. 1605 of 2007, arising out of Punpun P.S. Case No. 51 of 2006) were set aside. Of the seven prosecution witnesses, P.Ws. 2, 3 and 4, though claimed eyewitnesses, turned hostile; P.W.6 was a hearsay witness; the doctor who first treated the injured at the Primary Health Centre and the investigating officer were not examined, causing prejudice to the defence. The prosecution having failed to prove guilt beyond all reasonable doubt, the appellant was given the benefit of doubt, acquitted of all charges, and discharged from his bail bond. (Prabhat Kumar Singh, J.; oral judgment dated 15-07-2026.)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CRIMINAL APPEAL (SJ) No.4198 of 2018

¶2

Arising Out of PS. Case No.-51 Year-2006 Thana- PUNPUN District- Patna

¶3

======================================================

¶4

Judagi Thakur @ Lal Babu Son of Late Kripal Thakur R/o Kamalpura,P.S. Punpun,Distt.-Patna

... ... Appellant/s

Versus

The State Of Bihar

... ... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Appellant/s : Mr. Tuhin Shankar, Advocate For the Respondent/s : Mr. S. A. Ahmad, A.P.P. ======================================================

¶9

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRABHAT KUMAR SINGH ORAL JUDGMENT Date : 15-07-2026

¶10

Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned A.P.P. for the State.

¶11

This appeal has been filed against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence 06.09.2018 passed by the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge – V, Patna in Sessions Trial No. 1605 of 2007, arising out of Punpun P.S. Case No. 51 of 2006, whereby and whereunder this appellant has been convicted under Section 324 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for two years.

¶12

The prosecution case, in brief, is that on 15.06.2006 at about 8:00 A.M., due to dispute over digging of Hand-Pump, co-accused Mukesh Thakur assaulted wife of informant with fist & slaps and when informant came to save his wife, this appellant pierced scissor in the chest of informant. However, with the

¶13

Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.4198 of 2018 dt.15-07-2026 2/4

¶14

intervention of some co-villagers, informant was saved and admitted to the Punpun Hospital.

¶15

In this case, on the basis of the Fardbeyan of the informant, Punpun P.S. Case No. 51 of 2006 was registered for the offence punishable under Sections 323, 341, 324, 307/34 of the Indian Penal Code against appellant and co-accused Mukesh Thakur. After completion of the investigation, charge-sheet was submitted under aforesaid sections of the Indian Penal Code against them and thereafter, cognizance was taken against them and case was committed to the court of sessions. Accordingly, on 18.09.2009, charges were framed against accused persons and thereafter, statement of accused under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. was recorded, in which, both accused persons claimed to be tried.

¶16

In this case, in order to bring home guilt of both accused persons including appellant, the prosecution has examined altogether 7 (seven) witnesses, who are:

¶17

“P.W.-1 – Bimala Devi (wife of informant and supported the prosecution case)

¶18

P.W.-2 – Mahendra Pandey (declared hostile)

¶19

P.W.-3 – Udit Thakur (declared hostile)

¶20

P.W.-4 – Chandra Bhushan Ram (declared hostile)

¶21

P.W.-5 – Yoga Thakur (informant of this case, who exhibited his signature over Fardbeyan , as Exhibit -1 and signature of witness Dev Prasad Singh, as Exhibit – 1/1 and fully supported his prosecution version.

¶22

P.W.-6 – Dev Prasad Singh

¶23

Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.4198 of 2018 dt.15-07-2026 3/4

¶24

P.W.-7 – Dr. Suryadev Prasad Singh, who examined informant at PMCH, Patna and exhibited injury report, as Exhibit – 2.”

¶25

During trial, P.Ws. 2, 3 & 4, who claimed to be eyewitness to the occurrence, did not support the prosecution case and declared hostile. In this case, investigation officer has not been examined on behalf of prosecution and as such, place of occurrence and manner of occurrence have not been proved. P.W.6 Dev Prasad Singh is hearsay witness and did not support the prosecution case. He deposed before the trial Court that he has not seen the occurrence with his naked eyes and both accused persons are his co-villagers. In this case, the doctor, who treated injured/informant at Primary Health Centre, Punpun, has not been examined during trial and no injury report, issued by the Primary Health Centre, was brought on record. Thus, due to nonexamination of doctor, who firstly treated injured, and investigation officer, prejudice has been caused to defence.

¶26

Thus, in view of the facts and circumstances of the case, as discussed above, and the fact that most of the witnesses did not support the prosecution case & were turned hostile as also the fact that doctor, who firstly treated the injured, and investigation officer have not been examined on behalf of prosecution, the prosecution has miserably failed to prove the guilt

¶27

Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.4198 of 2018 dt.15-07-2026 4/4

¶28

of appellant beyond all reasonable doubt and thus, the appellant is entitled to be given the benefit of doubt.

¶29

In that view of the matter, the impugned judgment of conviction dated 06.09.2018 passed by the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge – V, Patna in Sessions Trial No. 1605 of 2007, arising out of Punpun P.S. Case No. 51 of 2006, is hereby set aside.

¶30

Appellant, above named, is acquitted of all the charges and since appellant is on bail, he is discharged from the liability of his bail bond in connection with this case.

¶31

Accordingly, the appeal stands allowed.

¶32

(Prabhat Kumar Singh, J.)

¶33

Anay

¶34

AFR/NAFR	AFR
CAV DATE	N/A
Uploading Date	17.07.2026
Transmission Date	17.07.2026

Judagi Thakur @ Lal Babu v. The State Of Bihar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Judagi Thakur @ Lal Babu v. The State Of Bihar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Rohit Kumar Bin @ Rohit Kumar@Rohit Bin Vs The State of Bihar

Anil Kumar Vs The State of Bihar

Tuntun Sao @ Rajesh Kumar Vs The State of Bihar

Ajay Singh Vs The State of Bihar

Khusnawaz Vs The State of Bihar

Rahul Kumar Vs The State of Bihar