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 flag ,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 7/13 rnkuqlkj 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 12/13 benefit 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. Rishi/- (Rajeev Ranjan Prasad, J) (Shailendra Singh, J) AFR/NAFR CAV DATE Uploading Date 31.07.2025 Transmission Date 31.07.2025