In Aneesh Manjhi vs. The State of Bihar (2026), Justice Ansul of Patna High Court delivered a 6-page judgement dated January 27, 2026 wherein, he quashed and set aside the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated June 30, 2021 passed1st Additional District & Sessions Judge-cum-Special Judge Excise, Jamui in a case of 2018. He took oath as a judge of the High Court on January 27, 2026, taking total number of working judges in the High Court to 38. The court has 53 sanctioned posts, which means that even after his joining, 15 posts still remain vacant.
In his first judgement as judge, Justice Ansul observed:"....it appears that there is no independent witness to support the prosecution case and all the witnesses are official witnesses and the breath analyzer machine has not been produced to substantiate the charge under Section 37(b) of Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act, 2016 and also there is nothing on record to suggest that whether breath analyzer machine was capable to give correct report. Again no blood test of accused seems to have been conducted which is a major flaw. The procedure for search and seizure has not been followed, therefore, it creates a serious doubt and thus the appellant deserves to be acquitted of the charges levelled against him."
The trial court had convicted the appellant for the offence punishable under Section 37(b) of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act, 2016 and awarded sentence to a fine of Rs. 50,000/- and on default of payment of fine the appellant will have to suffer imprisonment for three months. The High Court noted that the appellant had already suffered prior to conviction, the same shall be adjusted against three months sentence. Consequently, the appellant was acquitted from the charges levelled against him. Since the appellant was on bail, he was discharged from his liabilities of bail bonds and sureties.
As per fardbeyan of informant, namely, Kamlesh Kumar Singh, ASI, Malaypur Police Station, the case of the prosecution was that he had lodged a written report stating that on August 20, 2018 at about 14.30 o'clock when he along with his patrolling party proceeded he got an information on mobile that the appellant was in inebriated condition and creating nuisance in the locality. In order to verify his intoxicating condition, he was examined by breath analyzer machine and it was found that he has consumed 0.19 Ml alcohol, thereafter, on the basis of the written report the case, i.e., Malaypur P.S. Case was registered for the offences under Section 290 of the IPC and 37(b) of Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act, 2016. The trial court after perusal of materials collected during investigation and hearing the accused/appellant took cognizance on February 28, 2019 under Section 290 IPC and Section 37(b) of Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act, 2016, thereafter, the charges were framed on May 4, 2019 under Section 290 IPC and Section 37(b) of Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act, 2016 against the appellant, which was explained to the appellant, to which, he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. To substantiate its case, the prosecution examined six witnesses.
---------------------------------------------------------0-----------------------------------------------------------------
Sentencing order by 2nd Additional District & Sessions Judge, Bhojpur modified
In Jitendra Singh @ Jitendra Kumar Singh vs. The State of Bihar (2026), Justice Ansul of Patna High Court delivered a 7-page judgement dated January 27, 2026 wherein, he concluded:"13. Having carefully considered the witnesses', testimony and the medical evidence, I find no grounds to interfere with the appellant's conviction. 14. However, the matter arises out of a land dispute and no previous conviction has been proved against the appellant. He has remained in custody for six years six months and is facing prosecution for last nine years and is in his 30's. Taking a holistic view, ends of justice would be saved if he is sentenced to period already undergone. Accordingly, the sentence awarded to the appellant is reduced to the period already undergone by him. 15. In the result, the appeal is dismissed with the aforesaid modification in the sentence."
The appeal was preferred by the appellant for setting aside the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated July 9, 2021 and July 31, 2021 respectively passed by 2nd Additional District & Sessions Judge, Bhojpur at Arrah in a case of 2019 which arose out of a P.S. Case of 2017, whereby the concerned Trial Court convicted the appellant for the offence punishable under Section 307 of the IPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for ten years and fine of Rs. 50,000/- only and for the offences under Section 504/34 IPC one year and six months R.I. and fine of Rs. 10,000/- only.
The prosecution case, as per fardbeyan of informant, namely, Harendra Singh (P.W.-2) was that the appellant who was the cousin of the informant Harendra Singh came to his native village on April 24, 2017. On the same day, due to a domestic dispute, the appellant, appellant's brother namely, Krishna Singh and his mother Parvati Devi were abusing the informant at around 02:00 P.M. and when the informant and his mother stopped them from abusing, the accused suddenly came out of the room with a pistol in his hand and fired a shot at the informant, which hit him on his back and he fell down. After falling down, the accused fired another shot. Upon the informant's shouting the accused left the house with the pistol in his hand and said that whoever comes in his way will be shot. The informant's father and a villager Yogendra Singh took the injured to the police station and then to Sadar Hospital Arrah for treatment where after primary treatment by the doctor, he was referred to P.M.C.H., Patna where he was treated from April 24, 2017 to April 29, 2017. During this period no statement was recorded by any police officer. Due to this, the informant gave a written application to Arrah Mufassil on May 1, 2017. Based on the written application of the informant, Arrah Mufassil P.S. Case was registered under Sections 341, 323, 504, 307 read with 34 of the IPC and under Section 27 of the Arms Act against the appellant and other co-accused persons namely Krishna Singh and Parvati Devi.
After completion of investigation and on the basis of materials collected during investigation, the Investigating Officer of this case submitted charge-sheet dated April 30, 2018 under Sections 341, 323, 504, 307/34 of the IPC and Section 27 of the Arms Act against the appellant before the Trial Court. The trial court after perusal of materials collected during investigation and hearing the accused/appellant took cognizance on May 16, 2018 under Sections 341, 323, 504, 307/34 IPC and Section 27 of the Arms Act, thereafter, the charges were framed on August 9, 2019 under Sections 341, 323, 504, 307 and 34 of the IPC against the appellant, which was explained to the appellant, to which, he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. To substantiate its case, the prosecution examined altogether five witnesses. On the basis of evidences/circumstances which emerged during the trial, the trial court examined the appellant/accused under Section 313 of the CrPC, wherein, he completely denied the evidences during the trial and claimed his complete innocence. The Trial Court had convicted the appellant for the offences under Section 307 of the IPC and sentenced him.
Justice Ansul observed: "11. It appears from perusal of record that altogether five witnesses have been examined during trial. P.W.-1, Sunaina Devi, who is mother of the informant has deposed that the appellant has shot two bullets which hit on the back of the informant. Thereafter, he was taken to the hospital. She has further deposed that due to partition of land in the family the present occurrence has taken place. P.W.-2, Harendra Singh, the informant of this case has supported the prosecution case as narrated above. P.W.-3, Rekha Devi has been declared hostile during trial. P.W-4, Dr. Ashok Kumar Pandey, who is the doctor and had examined the informant, has deposed that oval shaped wound injury below the neck, i.e., 0.6 cm X 0.4 cm was found on the informant. P.W-5, Sambhunath Panday, the Investigating Officer of this case has supported the case of the prosecution. 12. It also appears that there is delay of six days in lodging the FIR. The delay is sought to be explained by treatment at PMCH. It seems that neither the treatment record at PMCH nor the version provided at PMCH has been brought on record thus making the initial version unavailable. This casts shadow of doubt on the prosecution version in view of Hon'ble Supreme Court decision rendered in the case of Thulia Kali vs. The State of Tamil Nadu reported in (1972) 3 SCC 393." Being aggrieved with the trial court's judgment of conviction and order of sentence,
the appellant had preferred the appeal before the High Court.
No comments:
Post a Comment