The notification dated July 14, 2025 signed by Jaganrntth Srinivasan, Joint Secretary, Appointments Division, Department of Justice, Ministry of Law & Justice, Government of India reads:"In exercise of the power conferred by clause (1) of Article 217 of the Constitution of India, the President is pleased to appoint Shri Justice Vipul Manubhai Pancholi, Judge, Patna High Court, to be Chief Justice of the Patna High Court with effect from the date he assumes charge of his office." The notification is addressed to The Manager, Government of India Press, New Delhi. Justice Pancholi has a Masters in Law. He had entered the Bar in September 1991 and started practice as an advocate at Gujarat High Court. He was elevated as Additional Judge, Gujarat High Court on October 1, 2014 and confirmed as permanent Judge on June 10, 2016. He was transferred to Patna High Court and took oath as Judge, Patna High Court on July 24, 2023. He will retire on May 27, 2030. His date of birth is May 28, 1968.
On the first day at the Patna High Court, Justice Pancholi (who is all set take oath as the Chief Justice of the High Court), was part of the Division Bench headed by Justice Ashutosh Kumar (who is all set take oath as the Chief Justice of the Guwahati High Court) which pronounced their 19-page long judgement in Rupchand Kewat vs. The State of Bihar & Ors. (2023) wherein it set aside the judgement and order of the 2nd Additional District and Sessions Judge, Hilsa at Nalanda, which had convicted the appellants under Section 304(B)/34 and 201/34 of the Indian Penal Code and had sentenced them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 10 years and rigorous imprisonment for 7 years for the offences under Sections 304(B) and 201/34 of the I.P.C. respectively along with a fine of Rs. 10,000/- each. The sentences were ordered to run concurrently. The judgement was authored by Justice Kumar.
As part of the Division Bench of the High Court, Justice Pancholi authored his first judgement four days after joining the High Court in Shankar Yadav & Ors. vs. The State Of Bihar (2023) and Jagdeo Yadav vs. The State Of Bihar (2023) wherein he upheld the judgment and order of the Additional Sessions Judge, Rosera, Samastipur in a Sessions Trial in a case which arose in 2012. The Trial Court had convicted the appellants/accused person from Muzaffarpur for the offences punishable under Sections-302 read with 149, 148 and 323 of the Indian Penal Code and the appellants/accused are sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for life and fine of Rs.10,000/-for the offences punishable under Sections-302/149 of the Indian Penal Code. In his 13-page long judgement dated July 28, 2023, Justice Pancholi observed that the Trial Court did not commit any error while passing the impugned order.
In the penultimate of para of the judgement, he observed:" 19. We have also gone through the other documentary evidence, including the Panchnama of the place of incident. We have re-appreciated the entire evidence produced before the concerned Trial Court and we are of the view that all the eye-witnesses have specifically stated about the role played by each of the appellants/accused. They have supported the case of the prosecution. The version given by the eye-witnesses is fully supported by the medical evidence and, therefore, we are of the view that the prosecution has proved the case against the appellants/accused beyond reasonable doubt. Merely because there are certain minor contradictions in the depositions given by the prosecution witnesses, their version cannot be discarded and the same is not fatal to the case of the prosecution. Thus, when the version given by the eye-witnesses is fully supported by the medical evidence, we are not impressed by the submission canvassed by the learned counsel for the appellants that at the place of occurrence blood-stains were not found.
Justice Pancholi concluded: "20. We have also gone through the reasoning recorded by the Trial Court while passing the impugned order and we are of the view that the Trial Court has not committed any error while passing the impugned order and, therefore, no interference is required in the present appeals. 21. Accordingly, both these appeals are dismissed".
In The State of Bihar vs. Ram Prakash Mahto & Ors. (2025), Patna High Court's Division Bench led by Justice Vipul M. Pancholi delivered his 23rd 29-page long judgement dated July 1, 2025 upholding the judgment of acquittal dated September 22, 1999, rendered by the 5th Additional Sessions Judge, Samastipur in a Sessions Trial of 1986, which arose out of Hasanpur P.S. case of 1983. The judgement authored by Justice Pancholi reads: "we are of the view that the appellate court should not disturb the finding of acquittal recorded by the Trial Court even if two reasonable conclusions are possible on the basis of the evidence on record. 30. Looking to the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the present case, no interference is required in the impugned judgment rendered by the Trial Court." He relied on decisions rendered by the Supreme Court in the case of Chandrappa and Ors. vs. State of Karnataka, reported in (2007) 4 SCC 415. and Nikhil Chandra Mondal Vs. State of West Bengal, reported in (2023) 6 SCC 605. Against the judgment dated September 22, 1999 passed by the Trial Court by which the respondents-accused were acquitted of the charges levelled against them, the appellant/State of Bihar had filed the appeal.
Notably, Fardbeyan of Ram Sagar Mahto was recorded on August 20, 1983 at 18:00 hrs. in Samastipur Malaout Door Hospital wherein the informant stated that on the previous day, i.e., on August 19, 1983 at 04:30 p.m., when he, Tarni Mahto, Ramlal Mahto, Hakru Mahto etc. were sitting in Dihwar Sthan, he saw that a mob of 40-50 persons armed with Bhala, Farsa, Lathi, Nalkatua, pistol etc. were going towards south direction raising slogans and abusing Kastakars. It was also stated that inthe said mob Dr. Umesh, Deo Shankar Sahu, Irfan Miyan, Guneshwar Mahto, Ram Prakash Mahto, Keshav Mahto, Dargahi Miyan, Sagar Mahto, Banarsi Das, Akbar Miyan, Ram Swaroop Mahto and Suresh Yadav were present. This mob was headed by Dr. Umesh Jha of Garpura. When the mob reached near Dihwar Sthan, Irfan Miyan said that these persons deposed in the case lodged by the C.O., kill them. At this, the mob started attacking and Guneshwar Mahto assaulted him by means of Bhala which hit his thigh and others started assaulting by Lathis. Ram Dayal Mahto and Tarni Mahto were also assaulted. On their alarm, the village people came and encounter started between the village people and the said mob. Irfan Miyan shot fire and commotion started and members of the mob fled away. All three were brought to Gajpati Hospital by the villagers where the doctors were warned by the naxalites not to give treatment. Thereafter they were brought to Samastipur Hospital by train where their treatment is going on. The reason for the occurrence is that a few days ago, the naxalites committed a crime with C.O. Saheb and they (prosecution side) gave testimony against the naxalites. After registration of the formal FIR on the basis of the fardbeyan, the Investigating Agency started investigation. During course of investigation, the Investigating Officer recorded the statement of the witnesses, collected the documentary evidence and thereafter filed charge-sheet against the respondents-accused. The case was exclusively triable by court of sessions and, therefore, the Magistrate committed the same to the concerned sessions court where the same was registered as Sessions Trial No. 55 of 1986. During course of trial, the prosecution had examined 13 witnesses. Three defence witnesses and three court witnesses have also been examined. Thereafter further statement of the accused under Section 313 of the Code came to be recorded.
Justice Pancholi observed:"It is required to be observed at this stage that none appears on behalf of the respondents-accused. However, as the present appeal is pending since the year 1999 and is listed for hearing since long, the same has been taken up for final disposal." He recorded:"23. We have re-appreciated the entire evidence led by the prosecution. From perusal of the evidence led by the prosecution, it transpires that one Ram Sagar Mahto gave his fardbeyan on 20.08.1983 at 18:00 hours. As per his case, the incident in question took place on 19.08.1983 at 04:30 p.m. Thus, it appears from the record that there is a delay of more than 25 hours in lodging the FIR for which the prosecution has failed to give any explanation."
Justice Pancholi underlined that the prosecution has failed to examine Ram Sagar Mahto (informant) as prosecution witness and, therefore, the court had examined him as Court Witness (CW-1). From the deposition given by CW-1 and more particularly from his cross-examination, it was revealed that counter case has been lodged by the other side, i.e., Ram Prakash regarding killing of Bhuneshwar Mahto against the informant as well as the witnesses of the present case. The said witness had also admitted that all witnesses of the present case are accused of that case. It was also revealed that Ram Prakash lodged the FIR on the date of occurrence, i.e., on August 19, 1983 at 04:30 p.m. whereas the informant of the present case, i.e., Ram Sagar Mahto lodged the FIR on the next day. At this stage, we have also gone through the impugned judgment rendered by the Trial Court. It has been specifically observed in para-12 of the judgment that for the counter case, S.T. No.55/84 was conducted in which Tarni Mahto (PW-6) has been convicted for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and his associates including both the injured have been convicted for the offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code in the judgment pronounced on the same day. Thus, from the aforesaid evidence, it can be said that for the murder of Bhuneshwar Mahto, two separate trials were conducted and in the counter case, in fact, the informant of the present case as well as two injured witnesses and other witnesses have been convicted.
He observed: "25. We have also gone through the deposition given by the injured witnesses and we are of the view that there are major contradictions and inconsistencies in their deposition. In the present case, the prosecution has failed to prove the manner in which the incident took place and, in fact, they have tried to put a different story before the court. Even the prosecution has also failed to explain the injury sustained by the accused of the present case."
In Chandeshwar Das @ Baba Ji @ Baba Jee vs. The State of Bihar (2025), Patna High Court's Division Bench led by Justice Vipul M. Pancholi delivered his 24th 13-page long judgement dated July 2, 2025 upholding the judgment of the trial Court. The judgement reads:"10. We are of the view that while considering the prayer under Section 389 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for suspension of sentence, this Court cannot re-appreciate the entire evidence in detail and thereby tried to find out certain loopholes on the part of the prosecution. It is not open for this Court to pick up the lacunae or loopholes here or there in the case of the prosecution."
The appeal was filed under Section 374 (2) read with 389 (1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, wherein the appellant challenged the judgment of conviction dated September 30, 2024 and order of sentence dated October 7, 2024 rendered by District and Additional Sessions Judge-IV, Samastipur in Sessions Trial of 2021, which arose out of Samastipur Town P.S. case of 2020, whereby the Trial Court had convicted the appellant for commission of the offences punishable under Section 302 of Indian Penal Code and 27 of the Arms Act. The trial Court sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life and a fine of Rs. 20,000/- for the offence under Section 302 of Indian Penal Code. He was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years for the offence punishable under Section 27 of the Arms Act. Both the sentences were directed to run concurrently.
Justice Pancholi relied on paragraphs 6 and 7 of the judgement by the Supreme Court dated April 9, 2025 in Janardan Ray vs. The State of Bihar & Anr. ETC. rendered in Cr. Appeal Nos. 1892-1893 of 2025 which arose out of SLP (Crl.) Nos. 18326-18327 of 2024. In this case, the Court placed reliance upon another reported decision rendered in the case of Om Prakash Sahni Vs. Jai Shankar Chaudhary and Anr., reported in (2023)6 SCC 123.
He also relied on paragraph nos. 28 to 30 and 33 of the Supreme Court's judgement in Sidhartha Vashisht @ Manu Sharma Vs. State (NCT of Delhi) reported in (2008) 5 Supreme Court Cases 230.
Justice Pancholi observed:"...it can be said that it is not open for the High Court to pick up a few lacunae or loopholes here or there in the case of prosecution at the stage of considering requests made under Section 389 of the Code. It is not open for this Court to re-appreciate the evidence at the stage of Section 389 of the Code. Further, it is clear from the observation made by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in both the aforesaid cases that while considering the prayer for bail in a case involving a serious offence like murder punishable under Section 302 of the IPC, the Court should consider all the relevant factors like the nature of accusations made against the accused, the manner in which the crime is alleged to have been committed and the gravity of offence, the desirability of releasing the accused on bail after he has been convicted for committing serious offence of murder. Further, it is only in rare and exceptional circumstances, the benefit of suspension of sentence should be granted by the Appellate Court to the accused convicted for the serious offence under Section 302 of the IPC."
The judgement reads:"14....We have considered the nature of offence and the manner in which the incident took place. From the post-mortem report, as observed hereinabove, it is revealed that total 14 bullet injuries have been sustained by the deceased. Thus, in brutal manner, the deceased was killed by the assailants." Justice Pancholi pointed out that the counsel for the appellant failed to point out that the present is an exceptional case in which this Court has to exercise powers under Section 389 (1) of the Code. He added: "It is also required to be observed at this stage that it is specific case of the prosecution in the written objection with details that there are four FIRs registered against the appellant. The appellant has not filed any counter to the said written objection filed on behalf of the State. Thus, we have considered the antecedents of the appellant also while considering his prayer for grant of bail or for suspension of sentence. 17. Looking to the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the present case, we are of the view that the present is not the fit case in which this Court should exercise the powers under Section 389 (1) of the Code. 18. Accordingly, the request made by the appellant for grant of bail and for suspension of sentence is rejected."
In The State of Bihar vs. Rajeshwar Singh & Ors. (2025), Patna High Court's Division Bench led by Justice Vipul M. Pancholi delivered his 25th 30-page long judgement dated July 7, 2025 concluded: "28.....we are of the view that the prosecution has failed to prove the case against the respondents/accused beyond reasonable doubt. Further, we have also gone through the reasoning recorded by the trial court while passing the impugned judgment. We are of the view that the trial court has not committed any error while passing the impugned judgment of acquittal. We are of the view that the trial court has not committed any error while passing the impugned judgment of acquittal." The case Sudarshan Singh vs. The State of Bihar & Ors. (2025) was heard along with the The State of Bihar vs. Rajeshwar Singh & Ors. (2025). Both were decided by a common judgement but the High Court's website has committed a proofing error in referring to the judgement in the former as judgement dated July 6, 2025 (Sunday) on the home page.
The State had preferred the appeal under Section 378(1) and (3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 against the judgment dated November 25, 1998 passed by the court of Additional Sessions Judge-VII, Rohtas, Sasaram in a Sessions Trial of 1992/92, whereby the Trial Court had acquitted all the respondents/accused of all the charges levelled against them. As per the fardbeyan dated November 18, 1991 given by Sudarshan Singh, given before S.H.O. of Shivsagar P.S., is that at 07:00 a.m. on November 18, 1991 the informant’s son Lalan Singh along with Janardan Singh and Rameshwar Singh had gone for answering the call of nature when some of the accused persons were standing in the lane near the door of Baij Nath Singh. When they reached near the orchard of Tileshwar Singh, accused Rajeshwar Singh, Baijnath Singh, Rajkeshwar Singh and Butai Singh instigated Kameshwar Singh to kill them upon which accused Kameshwar Singh fired on Lalan Singh from the house which hit Lalan Singh on his jaw and he fell down and died. Then Janardan Singh and Rameshwar Singh raised alarm. After they raised alarm, so many persons opened fire from the roof of Deo Nath Singh’s house out of whom he identified Deonath Singh, Shiv Kailash Raut, Surendra Raut, Vipin Raut, Suresh Raut, Ram Janam Singh, Dukhi Singh, Jairam Singh, Girish Singh firing from the roof of Deonath Singh’s house. The accused persons came out of the house of Deonath Singh and ran away towards their village. Deonath Singh also followed them. The reason behind the incident was a land dispute going on between Kameshwar Singh and Shivadhar Singh leading to Shiv Sagar P.S. case of 1991 in which charge-sheet was submitted against Kameshwar Singh and others. In that case, Babban Singh, brother of the deceased Lalan Singh, is a witness. Due to this previous enmity, accused persons have killed Lalan Singh by hatching a conspiracy.” After filing of the F.I.R., the investigating agency carried out the investigation and, during the course of investigation, the Investigating Officer recorded the statement of the witnesses and collected the relevant documents and thereafter filed the charge-sheet against the accused. As the case was exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions, the case was committed to the Court of Sessions. The informant had projected himself as an eye-witness to the occurrence in question, which was disputed.
Justice Pancholi noted that from the deposition given by the aforesaid eye-witnesses, it transpired that there were major contradictions, improvement and inconsistencies in the story put forward by the so called eye-witnesses and the eye-witnesses are interested and related witnesses. He observed:"It is true that merely because a witness is an interested or related witness, his deposition cannot be discarded solely on the said ground. At the same time, the deposition given by such a witness is required to be scrutinized closely." He recorded that "from the medical evidence produced before the trial court, it transpires that the medical evidence does not support the version given by the eye-witnesses who are near relatives of the deceased. The story put forward by the eye-witnesses that firing took place from a roof, that too, from a height of 20-25 ft. does not inspire confidence."
In The State of Bihar vs. Dasharath Raut & Ors. (2025), Patna High Court's Division Bench led by Justice Vipul M. Pancholi delivered his 26th 32-page long judgement dated July 8, 2025 concluded:"we examined the evidence led by the prosecution as well as the impugned judgment of acquittal rendered by the trial court, we are of the view that the prosecution has failed to prove the case against the accused beyond reasonable doubt and the trial court has not committed any error while passing the impugned judgment of acquittal. 19. In view of the aforesaid discussion, we are of the view that no interference is required in the impugned judgment rendered by the trial court". He drew on decisions rendered by the Supreme Court in para 42 in Chandrappa and Ors. vs. State of Karnataka, reported in (2007) 4 SCC 415 and in para-22 in Nikhil Chandra Mondal vs. State of West Bengal, reported in (2023) 6 SCC 605. It is apparent that this decision is the last judgement by Justice Pancholi before taking charge as the Chief Justice of the Patna High Court.
On July 17, 2025, Acting Chief Justice Ashutosh Kumar was given a warm farewell. The proceedings are available at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ofUBP6XYAiI
Also read: Justice Vipul Pancholi led bench dismisses Bihar Govt's appeal of 1999 against judgment of acquittal in 1987 case
Justice Pancholi led Division Bench upholds judgment of acquittal by Additional District & Sessions Judge-I, Sherghati, Gaya
No comments:
Post a Comment