Simplified Explanation of the Judgment
In this case, the Patna High Court confirmed the conviction of an individual (referred to as the appellant) who had been sentenced to 10 years in prison under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code (attempt to murder) and 3 years under Section 27 of the Arms Act. The incident occurred during a wedding celebration in Bhojpur District, Bihar, in May 2014.
According to the prosecution, the victim (referred to as the informant or injured person) was attending a local wedding when the appellant approached and suddenly shot him in the abdomen at close range using a country-made pistol. The victim was initially taken to Ara Sadar Hospital and later shifted to PMCH, Patna, for intensive treatment. Medical records confirmed internal injuries, including damage to the colon, and the need for major surgery.
During the trial, multiple witnesses, including the injured person and his relatives, testified against the appellant. While most of the witnesses were related to the victim, the court emphasized that this did not automatically render their testimonies unreliable. The Court highlighted that the victim’s consistent account, supported by medical evidence, carried significant weight.
The appellant argued that the injury was accidental, possibly resulting from celebratory firing during the marriage procession, and claimed he was falsely implicated due to a longstanding land dispute. However, the court found these claims unsubstantiated, as no evidence was presented to support this theory. Moreover, the appellant himself had indirectly admitted that a firearm injury occurred during the event.
The High Court also addressed various procedural lapses raised by the defense—such as the absence of cartridge recovery, lack of forensic evidence, and minor contradictions in witness statements—but held that these did not undermine the core prosecution case. The presence of the accused at the scene, his identification by the victim, and the nature of the injury were found sufficient to sustain the conviction.
The appeal was accordingly dismissed, and the court ordered that the appellant remain in custody to serve the remainder of his sentence.
Significance or Implication of the Judgment
This judgment underscores the judiciary’s firm approach towards violent crimes committed in public settings, especially during social gatherings. It sends a strong message that the presence of large crowds does not provide immunity from accountability. Importantly, the court reaffirmed that the testimony of an injured person can be sufficient for conviction if it is credible and supported by medical evidence. The ruling also clarifies that minor lapses in police investigation do not automatically weaken a case if the overall evidence is reliable.
Legal Issue(s) Decided and the Court’s Decision
- Whether the prosecution proved its case beyond reasonable doubt?
✔ Yes, based on the victim’s testimony and medical reports. - Whether inconsistencies in witness statements affected the prosecution’s case?
✘ No, minor discrepancies were considered non-material. - Whether lack of forensic recovery (bloodstains, cartridges) weakened the case?
✘ No, the conviction was sustained based on credible eyewitness and medical evidence. - Whether related witnesses are inherently unreliable?
✘ No, courts ruled that credibility depends on testimony, not relationship alone.
Judgments Relied Upon or Cited by Court
- Smt. Shamim vs. State (GNCT of Delhi), 2018 (4) PLJR 160 (SC)
- Kuna @ Sanjaya Behera vs. State of Odisha, 2018 (1) PLJR 5 (SC)
- Motiram Padu Joshi vs. State of Maharashtra, 2018 (3) PLJR 349 (SC)
- Lahu Kamlakar Patil vs. State of Maharashtra, (2013) 6 SCC 417
- Gian Chand vs. State of Haryana, 2013 (4) PLJR 7 (SC)
Case Title
Mintu @ Tulsi Rai vs. The State of Bihar
Case Number
Criminal Appeal (SJ) No.1923 of 2017
Citation(s)
2020 (1) PLJR 474
Coram and Names of Judges
Hon’ble Mr. Justice Aditya Kumar Trivedi
Names of Advocates and who they appeared for
- Mr. Manoj Kumar, Advocate – for the appellant
- Mr. Sujit Kumar Singh, APP – for the State
- Mr. Praveen Kumar, Advocate – for the informant
Link to Judgment
https://patnahighcourt.gov.in/viewjudgment/MjQjMTkyMyMyMDE3IzEjTg==-U5W3Ek7Y6l0=
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.
