Case Background
The case arises from a violent clash on 18 November 2006 at about 8:30 a.m. on the land of a shrine or Mazar in village Khiribandh, P.S. Jagdishpur, District Bhagalpur.
According to the prosecution, the land of the shrine was traditionally used for Urs fair and Janaza prayers. On the date of occurrence, a dispute broke out when some persons attempted to construct a school building on this land. Many villagers, including the informant and his family, objected to this construction.
The main criminal case, Jagdishpur P.S. Case No. 274 of 2006, was registered on the written report of Md. Nejamuddin. He alleged that during the protest against the construction, one of the respondents, Chand Alam @ Manu, caught his grandson Sams Tabrej @ Tinku by the hair, threw him to the ground and ordered another respondent, Shamsher @ Samsul Mistry, to fire at him. On this order, Shamsher allegedly fired from a country‑made pistol, hitting Sams Tabrej on the right side of his back. After the shot, the accused side allegedly fled while firing indiscriminately.
On this report, FIR in P.S. Case No. 274 of 2006 was lodged under Sections 147, 148, 149, 323, 324, 307 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and Section 27 of the Arms Act. The police, after investigation, initially submitted charge‑sheet only against Shamsher @ Samsul Mistry. The case was committed to the Court of Sessions and registered as Sessions Trial No. 259 of 2007.
During the trial, on the basis of evidence of prosecution witnesses, the Sessions Court used its power under Section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to summon the remaining named persons, including Chand Alam and others. A separate case was ordered against them and registered as Sessions Trial No. 259(A) of 2007. Charges were framed under Sections 147, 148, 149, 323, 324 and 307 IPC, and all witnesses were re‑examined afresh.
On the same day as the first FIR, the opposite side registered Jagdishpur P.S. Case No. 275 of 2006 under Section 307 IPC and other sections, alleging that the informant’s group had attacked them and that there had also been firing from their side. That counter‑case was also committed to the Sessions Court and tried as part of the connected proceedings.
After the evidence of witnesses, statements of the accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C. and hearing of arguments in all connected trials, the learned Additional District & Sessions Judge‑VII, Bhagalpur, passed a common judgment on 11 January 2018. The trial court acquitted all accused persons of all charges, including the attempt to murder charge.
Feeling aggrieved, the victim Sams Tabrej and others filed Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 439 of 2018 and Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 452 of 2018 before the Patna High Court, seeking reversal of the acquittal. These appeals were heard together because they challenged the same common judgment.
What the Court Examined and Decided
The Division Bench of the Patna High Court, comprising Hon’ble Mr. Justice Bibek Chaudhuri and Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rana Vikram Singh, carefully re‑examined the entire oral and documentary evidence from both connected trials.
The Court first looked at the testimony of the injured victim, Sams Tabrej @ Tinku (PW‑7 in both trials). He gave a clear and consistent account that on 18.11.2006, around 8:30 a.m., he was at the shrine with his grandfather, the informant Md. Nejamuddin, and his father Md. Anwar Alam. At that time, according to him, Chand Alam @ Manu caught him by the hair, dashed him to the ground and ordered Shamsher @ Samsul Mistry to shoot him. Following this order, Shamsher fired from a country‑made pistol, hitting him on the right side of his back and causing him to fall unconscious.
The Bench noted the settled principle that the evidence of an injured witness is given special importance because his presence at the scene is proved by his injury and he is unlikely to spare the real culprit and falsely implicate others. The Court referred to Supreme Court decisions such as State of U.P. v. Naresh, Balraje v. State of Maharashtra and others to underline that an injured witness’s testimony should be relied on unless there are major contradictions or inherent improbabilities.
The High Court observed that the victim had consistently named Chand Alam as the person who caught him and gave the firing order, and Shamsher as the person who actually fired. This consistency, from the FIR stage through to his deposition in both trials, was considered to carry high probative value. The Court found no convincing reason why the victim would falsely single out Shamsher as the shooter if he was not so.
Next, the Court examined whether the victim’s version was supported by other evidence. It found that his testimony was materially corroborated by several eye‑witnesses: his grandfather and informant Md. Nejamuddin (PW‑8), his father Md. Anwar Alam (PW‑5/PW‑3) and other witnesses (PW‑1 to PW‑6). All of them consistently narrated that Chand Alam caught the victim and gave the order, and Shamsher fired the shot.
The Court pointed out that even though many of these witnesses were relatives of the victim, the law does not allow their evidence to be rejected merely because they are related. Relying on Supreme Court judgments such as Gangadhar Behera v. State of Orissa and Waman v. State of Maharashtra, the Bench stressed that related witnesses can be truthful and their testimony has to be scrutinised carefully, not discarded outright.
A key part of the judgment is the discussion of medical evidence. Dr. Dilip Kumar Singh (PW‑9) examined the victim at 8:40 a.m. on 18.11.2006, just minutes after the occurrence. He found a lacerated wound on the posterior border of the right axilla with tattooing around it and inverted skin margins, and tattooing on the posterior aspect of the right arm. These features are typical of a close‑range firearm injury. An X‑ray later revealed a radio‑opaque metallic shadow over the posterior chest wall, and a bullet was surgically removed on 09.04.2007. The doctor’s final opinion was that the victim suffered “grievous hurt caused by bullet.”
The High Court held that the medical evidence did not contradict the prosecution story at all. Instead, it strongly supported it by confirming a close‑range gunshot wound exactly in the area described by the victim and witnesses. The Court cited Supreme Court authority holding that medical evidence is usually corroborative; unless it totally rules out the possibility of injuries as alleged, it cannot be used to disbelieve eye‑witnesses.
The defence had argued that all prosecution witnesses were “interested” because they were relatives or supporters of the informant, and that there was a strong land and political rivalry between the two sides. They also claimed that, as per prosecution evidence, a huge crowd of 100–400 people from the informant’s side was present, while the accused side was a small group of around 13–15 people. They questioned how such a small group could dominate such a large crowd, shoot in their midst and still escape.
The trial court had placed considerable weight on these points and on variations in witness statements, and on that basis granted the accused the benefit of doubt.
The Patna High Court disagreed with this approach. It observed that in a village setting, it is normal for one faction to mobilise larger numbers than the other, and numerical disparity by itself does not tell who was the aggressor. The key question is whether the direct evidence of the injured witness and other eye‑witnesses, supported by medical evidence, has a “ring of truth”. Referring to State of U.P. v. M.K. Anthony and Rammi v. State of M.P., the Bench noted that minor discrepancies on trivial points or variations in the description of crowd size after many years are natural and should not be blown out of proportion if the core story remains consistent.
The High Court also dealt with criticisms of the investigation. It acknowledged that there were defects: no weapon or cartridge was recovered, no bullet was produced as material exhibit, site plan was not properly prepared, and senior officers present at the spot were not examined. But the Bench emphasised that, as per Supreme Court cases like Karnel Singh v. State of M.P. and Ram Bihari Yadav v. State of Bihar, defective investigation cannot be a ground, by itself, to acquit an accused when the evidence of witnesses and medical proof are otherwise reliable. Otherwise, it would reward poor or biased investigation.
The Court then considered the legality of using Section 319 Cr.P.C. to summon additional accused and conduct a separate trial. Citing the Constitution Bench ruling in Hardeep Singh v. State of Punjab, it noted that Section 319 is an extraordinary but permissible power to summon persons against whom strong evidence appears during trial. In this case, after summoning the additional accused, all witnesses were re‑examined afresh in Sessions Trial No. 259(A) of 2007. Therefore, no prejudice was caused to the defence and the procedural objection was treated as hyper‑technical.
After weighing all these factors, the High Court held that the prosecution had proved beyond reasonable doubt that on 18.11.2006, Chand Alam caught the victim by the hair, threw him down and ordered Shamsher to fire, and that, acting on this, Shamsher shot the victim with a country‑made pistol, causing grievous firearm injury. The Court found that the trial court’s acquittal ignored the special value of the injured witness’s testimony, the strong medical corroboration and long‑settled legal principles. It described the acquittal findings as perverse and contrary to the weight of the evidence.
Consequently, the Division Bench set aside the acquittal and convicted Shamsher @ Samsul Mistry in Sessions Trial No. 259 of 2007 under Section 307 IPC, Section 27 of the Arms Act and Sections 147, 148, 149 IPC as a member of an unlawful assembly. In Sessions Trial No. 259(A) of 2007, it convicted Chand Alam @ Manu and other respondents under Sections 307/149 IPC, 324/149 IPC and Sections 147 and 148 IPC.
On the question of sentence, the Court considered the seriousness of the offence—attempt to murder by firearm—as well as the political and land dispute background, the age of some accused, especially Shamsher who was 75 years old at the time of his statement, and the long pendency since 2006. Balancing these factors, it sentenced Shamsher to seven years’ rigorous imprisonment under Section 307 IPC and three years’ rigorous imprisonment under Section 27 of the Arms Act, with all sentences to run concurrently, and imposed a fine of Rs. 25,000, with six months’ further rigorous imprisonment in default.
For Chand Alam and the other respondents in Sessions Trial No. 259(A) of 2007, it sentenced each to five years’ rigorous imprisonment under Section 307/149 IPC, two years under Section 324/149 IPC and one year under Sections 147/148 IPC, all to run concurrently, plus a fine of Rs. 15,000 each, with three months’ further rigorous imprisonment in default.
The Court directed all convicted respondents to surrender before the trial court within four weeks from the date of judgment to serve their remaining sentence. If they fail to do so, the trial court has been asked to issue process for their arrest. The bail bonds, if any, stand cancelled. The Court further ordered that any fine amount deposited shall be paid to the victim as compensation under Section 357 Cr.P.C. The appeals were accordingly allowed.
Why This Judgment Matters
This Patna High Court judgment is important for villagers and others involved in criminal cases arising out of land and political disputes.
First, it shows that acquittal by a trial court is not final if the higher court finds that key evidence—especially of an injured victim—was wrongly ignored. Where the story of the injured person is consistent and supported by medical records, the High Court can overturn an acquittal even years later.
Second, the judgment explains that being a relative or supporter of the complainant does not automatically make a witness unreliable. In rural fights, independent witnesses from a neutral camp may not come forward. Courts will still rely on family members if, after careful checking, their version appears truthful.
Third, the Court makes clear that poor or incomplete police investigation, such as not recovering the weapon or not producing some documents, does not guarantee acquittal. If the basic facts are proved through trustworthy witnesses and doctors, the accused can still be convicted.
Fourth, the decision highlights that disputes over religious or public land, like a Mazar, and over government land used for public functions, can quickly turn violent. Those who take the law in their own hands, come armed, and fire at opponents can be punished for attempt to murder even if the victim survives.
Lastly, by ordering that the fine be paid to the victim as compensation, the Court recognises the right of the injured person to some financial relief from the convicted persons, apart from their jail terms.
Legal Issues and Answers
Issue: Did the prosecution prove beyond reasonable doubt that Chand Alam caught the victim and ordered Shamsher to fire, and that Shamsher actually shot the victim with a country‑made pistol causing grievous bullet injury?
Answer: Yes. The injured victim’s consistent testimony, supported by several eye‑witnesses and strong medical evidence of a close‑range firearm injury, proved the specific overt act.
Issue: Was the overall prosecution case strong enough to overturn the trial court’s acquittal of all accused persons?
Answer: Yes. The High Court held that the acquittal was perverse and against the weight of evidence. The direct evidence and medical corroboration established the offences under Sections 307, 324, 147, 148, 149 IPC and Section 27 of the Arms Act.
Issue: Do investigation defects and the use of Section 319 Cr.P.C. to add new accused make the prosecution case unreliable?
Answer: No. Although there were investigative lapses, they did not destroy the otherwise reliable ocular and medical evidence. The use of Section 319 Cr.P.C. was proper and caused no prejudice, as all witnesses were re‑examined in the second trial.
Cases Cited by the Court
- State of U.P. v. Naresh, (2011) 4 SCC 324
- Balraje v. State of Maharashtra, (2010) 6 SCC 673
- Solanki Chimanbhai Ukabhai v. State of Gujarat, (1983) 2 SCC 174
- Gangadhar Behera v. State of Orissa, (2002) 8 SCC 381
- Waman v. State of Maharashtra, (2011) 7 SCC 295
- State of U.P. v. M.K. Anthony, (1985) 1 SCC 505
- Rammi v. State of M.P., (1999) 8 SCC 649
- Hardeep Singh v. State of Punjab, (2014) 3 SCC 92
- Karnel Singh v. State of M.P., (1995) 5 SCC 518
- Ram Bihari Yadav v. State of Bihar, (1998) 4 SCC 517
Case Details
Case Number: Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 439 of 2018 with Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 452 of 2018, arising out of Jagdishpur P.S. Case No. 274 of 2006, District Bhagalpur.
Case Title: Md. Shams Tabrez @ Tinku v. State of Bihar & Ors. (Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 439 of 2018) and Md. Shams Tabrez @ Tinku v. The State of Bihar & Ors. (Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 452 of 2018).
Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Bibek Chaudhuri and Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rana Vikram Singh.
Citation: 2026 (6) PLJR 78
Advocates:
- For the Appellant (in both appeals): Mr. Binod Kumar Sinha, Advocate; Ms. Vagisha Pragya Vacaknavi, Advocate.
- For the Respondents (accused side): Mr. Rajendra Narain, Senior Advocate; Mr. Manoj Kumar Jha, Advocate.
- For the State: Mr. Abhimanyu Sharma, APP.
Nature of the Case: Criminal appeals (Division Bench) against a common judgment of acquittal passed by the Additional District & Sessions Judge‑VII, Bhagalpur, in Sessions Trial No. 259 of 2007 and Sessions Trial No. 259(A) of 2007, relating to offences under Sections 147, 148, 149, 323, 324, 307 IPC and Section 27 of the Arms Act.
Date of Patna High Court Judgment: 24 July 2026.
Link: https://patnahighcourt.gov.in/viewjudgment/NSM0MzkjMjAxOCMxI04=-iUmn0XtH1uk=
If you found this explanation helpful and wish to stay informed about
how legal developments may affect your rights in Bihar,
you may consider following Samvida Law Associates for more updates.
