(Appellant in Jail)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

(Criminal Appellant Jurisdiction)

Cr. Appeal (S.J.) No.___________/ of 2024

In the matter of an
application Under Section
374(2) and 389(1) of the code
of Criminal Procedure.

And

In the matter of: -

1. Sidhnath Yadav, aged about 44 years (male), S/o

Shivkumar Yadav
2. Jitendra Kumar Yadav @ Baila Yadav, aged about 24
years (male), S/o Nand Kumar Yadav, both resident of
village- Itwa, P.S. Shahpur, District- Bhojpur...Appellant

Versus

1. The State of
Bihar…………………………….Respondent
To,

The Hon’ble Mr. Justice K. Vinod Chandran, the Hon’ble

Chief Justice of the Hon’ble High Court of judicature at Patna
and his Companion Justices of the said Hon’ble High Court.

The humble appeal on behalf

of the appellant named
above.

Most Respectfully Sheweths:-

1. That this criminal appeal is being filed for setting aside

the judgement dated 06.06.2024 and order dated-
21.06.2024 passed by Shri Aditya Suman, Additional
Session Judge, XIIIth , Bhojpur, Ara in Session Trial
Case No. 221/2018 arising out of Shahpur P.S. case
no. 333/2017, whereby appellants have been convicted
and held guilty for committing the offence under
section 304/ 34 of Indian Penal Code and sentenced to
undergo rigorous imprisonment of 10 years and fine of
Rs. 25,000- 25,000 and in case of not paying the said
fine, they will further undergo an imprisonment of
another 1 years and offence under section 307 of
Indian Penal Code, they are sentenced to undergo the
rigorous imprisonment of 7 years and fine of Rs.
 10,000- 10,000 and in case of not paying the said fine,
they will further undergo imprisonment for another 3
months. Both the above- mentioned sentence will run
concurrently and period of detention undergone by
them shall be set off as per the provision of section 428
Cr. P.C.

2. That the appellants have not filed any appeal, Revision

or any other application against the impugned order/
Judgement in this Hon’ble High Court against the
Judgement dated 06.06.2024 and 21.06.2024 on earlier
occasion.

3. That the case of prosecution briefly stated is as follow:

One Sunil Kumar Singh has filed a written application
before S.H.O., Shahpur Police Station, Bhojpur. He
stated and alleged therein that on 08.12.2017, he had to
attend a wedding of one Janardan Singh’s daughter in
which he was invited. Vishal Singh along with Rohit
Kumar was also there to attend the said wedding. They
were travelling with the bike whose registeration
number is BR03H-6628. He further stated that on their
way to return, they took a turn and suddenly a Bolero
hit the bicycle that caused severe injuries to both of
them. The informant witnessed the whole incident and
rushed to them to help and saw that Vishal Singh
 succumbed to head injury. The registration number of
the Bolero is JH-01-4078AE. He claimed that the
driver of the said Bolero was Jitendra Kumar @ Bail
Yadav whose then age was 16- 17 years. The said
Bolero consisted of Jitendra Yadav, Pawan Kumar
Yadav and a unknown person. He further claimed the
fact that the said Bolero was in the care of Sidhnath
Yadav. He also stated that there was past dispute
between the victims and the appellants that caused this
incident.

4. That after the completion of investigation, charge sheet

no. 40/2018 dated- 06.03.2018 offence u/s 302 and
307/ 34 of I.P.C. was submitted against the accused
person namely Sidhnath Yadav and Jitendra Kumar
Yadav. Thereafter cognizance of the offence was taken
on 21.05.2018 and thereafter charges were framed on
14.09.2018 and proceeded to trial. Defence is denial of
entire offence and innocence and denial of
incriminating evidence brought against him.

5. That in this case altogether 7 witnesses namely P.W.-1

Narendra Singh @ Barfi Singh (uncle of deceased),
P.W.-2 Vishal Kumar Singh (co- victim), P.W.-3 Niraj
Kumar Singh (Independent Witness), P.W.-4 Sunil
Kumar Singh (father of the deceased), P.W.-5 Dr. S.M.
 Hasrat Abbas (Medical officer), P.W.-6 Dr. Sanjay
Kumar Sinha, (Medical officer) and P.W.- 7 Sohrai
Rai (Investigating officer) have been examined by the
prosecution.

6. That prosecution ahs also exhibited Ext- 1 statement of

Vishal Kumar Singh under section 164, Ext- 2 Injury
Report of Vishal Kumar Singh, Ext- 3 Post mortem
report of the deceased, Rohit Singh, Ext- 4 carbon
copy of death review report of the deceased, Rohit
Singh, Ext- 5 Signature of S.H.O. Arbind Kumar on
F.I.R., Ext- 6 confessional statement of appellant,
Jitendra Yadav @ Baila Yadav, Ext- 7 Search report of
Motor vehicle inspector, Ext- 8, Charge sheet no.
40/2018, Ext- 9 Endorsement of investigating officer
on the written application of the informant and Ext- 10
Signature of informant on written application.

7. That defence has also filed an Exhibit i.e., Exhibit- A

Receipt of Rs. 4500/- imposed by Motor Vehicle
Inspector.

8. That according to F.I.R., occurrence took place on

08.12.2017 but no exact time is mentioned and also the
case was lodged on 09.12.2017 at about 8:30 hours.
 This only reflect the fact that the whole case is filed
with conspiracy.

9. That P.W.-1, Narendra Singh @ Barfi Singh is the

uncle of deceased, P.W.-2, Vishal Kumar Singh is the
co- victim and P.W.-4, Sunil Kumar Singh is the father
of the deceased are the interesting witnesses. All of
them have given false statement due to a past dispute
caused because of cricket with the appellants prior to
seven months of the occurrence to falsely implicate
them in this case.

10. That according to the post- mortem report, cause of

death is clearly Road Traffic Accident which has no
relation will intentional killing.

11. That the statement made by the examined witnesses

and the material provided in the F.I.R. by the
informant do not coordinate at all. This only shows the
fact that informant has filed this case on the foundation
of a concocted story to seek vengeance for his past
dispute with the appellants.

12. That the statement of P.W.- 1 can’t be taken into

consideration as he didn’t see the occurrence but
 listened about it from others and his whole statement is
based on the story he has listened from others.

13. That P.W.- 2 and P.W.-4 has stated that accused had
amputated the hand of the victim but during the course
of investigation, neither did the police recovered any
weapon nor did the medical officer supported the said
statement in the post mortem report. This clarifies that
this is simply an accidental case.
14. That according to F.I.R. appellant no. 2, Jitendra
Yadav @ Baila Yadav was minor at the time of
occurrence but Trial Court didn’t consider this fact.

15. That it is stated and submitted that the evidence

available on record are insufficient to substantiate the
charges levelled against the appellants and the
prosecution has failed to prove the complicity of the
appellants in commission of offence which have been
charged and is entitled to be acquitted.

16. That appellant no.1 was in judicial custody for about 2

month and 24 days, i.e., 12.09.2017 to 23.03.2018 and
appellant no.2 was in judicial custody for about 9
month and 1 day, i.e., 11.12.2017 to 12.09.2018. After
that appellants were all along on bail before his
conviction and never misused the privilege of bail.
17. That the appellants are languishing in judicial custody
since 06.06.2024.
Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the
Judgement dated- 06.06.2024 and order dated-
21.06.2024 passed by the Shri Aditya Suman,
learned court of Additional Session Judge
XIIIth, Bhojpur at Ara in Session Trial Case
No. 221/2018, the appellant prefer this appeal
on amongst other than the following.

GROUNDS

I. For that the judgement and order passed by the

learned court below is based on his own surmises
and conjecture.
II. For that there is contradictory statement of P.Ws.
The trial court should have inferred that the
testimony on behalf of prosecution suffers from
interestedness.
III. For that the statement made by the PWs do not
coordinate with the story of the F.I.R.
IV. For that the offence and Charge, which have been
levelled against the appellant is not made out.
Therefore, sentence passed against the appellant are
much severe.
 V. For that P.W.1, P.W.2 and P.W.4 are the main
witnesses of the case, who are highly interested
persons se they are own relatives.
VI. For that there is no eye witness in this case.
VII. For that the appellant no. 2 was minor at the time of
occurrence and learned court should consider this
fact.
VIII. For that the informant and appellants had past
dispute due to cricket and in order to seek the
vengeance, he has implicated the appellants falsely
in this case.
IX. For that the whole case is a fine work of concoction
and conspiracy to ruin the life of the appellants.
X. For that the judgement and order under appeal is not
said to be balanced judgement as it transpires from
the impugned judgement that it is one sided as all
things has been passed which goes in favor of the
respondent and as such it cannot be sustainable in
the eye of law as the benefits of doubts shall always
go in favor of the respondent. And as such the order
under appeal is bad in law and such it is fit to be
set- aside.
 It is therefore, prayed that your lordship may
graciously be pleased to admit this appeal call
for the lower court record, issue notice.
And
Further be pleased to set- aside the Judgement
dated- 06.06.2024 order dated- 21.06.2024
passed by Shri Aditya Suman, learned court of
Additional Session Judge XIIIth, Bhojpur at
Ara in Session Trial Case No. 221/2018
And
Further be pleased to allow the appellants on
bail or suspended his sentence in Session Trial
Case No. 221/2018 during the pendency of the
appeal.
And
Further be pleased to stay the fine imposed on
the appellants during the stage of trial.
And
Further be pleases to pass such other order or
orders as your lordship may deem fit and
proper.

And for this the appellants shall ever pray.