Case Background
This case comes from a village dispute in Akasthama, under Bhargama Police Station, District Araria. On 15.03.2014, one villager (PW-1) was getting his house courtyard filled with mud using a tractor. To reach his house, the tractor had to pass through or by the land of his neighbours, including the two appellants.
Those neighbours objected to the tractor passing through their land. Because of this objection, the work of filling mud was stopped that day. According to the fardbayan, it was alleged that the accused later met at night and decided they would not allow the tractor laden with earth to go by that way.
On the next morning, 16.03.2014, around 7:30 a.m., the dispute flared up again at the door of the informant’s house. The informant’s mother, Meena Khatoon, came out to talk and tried to resolve the issue about the tractor and mud. What began as a conversation turned into a heated verbal dispute.
According to the informant (PW-6), some of the neighbours, including the two appellants, started abusing and quarrelling. It was alleged that one appellant, who was already ripping bamboo cob or maize root with an axe, used that axe to hit Meena Khatoon on the right side of her neck after the other appellant exhorted or ordered to assault her.
Due to this single axe blow, Meena Khatoon fell down on the spot and died almost immediately. The informant stated that some accused caught hold of his mother while the axe blow was given, though this detail was not consistently repeated by all witnesses. Villagers gathered soon after the assault, and two of the accused (including both appellants) were apprehended at or near the place of occurrence.
The fardbayan of the informant, Md. Saheb Alam (PW-6), was recorded on 16.03.2014 at 9:30 a.m. at Akarthapa. A formal FIR, Bhargama P.S. Case No.35 of 2014, was registered the same day at about 2:30 p.m. under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) against four accused, including the present two appellants and two others named Md. Saiyyed and Md. Naushad.
After investigation, the police submitted a charge-sheet on 31.05.2014 only against the two present appellants for offences under Section 302/34 IPC, keeping investigation pending against the other two accused. Cognizance was taken on 18.06.2014 and the case was committed to the Sessions Court on 15.07.2014 as Sessions Trial No. 826 of 2014.
On 03.12.2014, the trial court framed charges under Section 302/34 IPC against both appellants. They pleaded not guilty and faced trial. After examining nine prosecution witnesses and one defence witness, the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge-IV, Araria, convicted both appellants under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC and sentenced them to life imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 10,000/- each (and one year simple imprisonment in default).
Against this conviction and sentence, the appellants filed Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 642 of 2016 and Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 397 of 2016 before the Patna High Court under Sections 374(2) read with 389(1) Cr.P.C. Both appeals arose from the same judgment and were heard together.
What the Court Examined and Decided
The Patna High Court examined the entire trial record, including the FIR, fardbayan, evidence of nine prosecution witnesses, one defence witness, the medical evidence, and the arguments of both sides. The Court focused on four main areas: delay in FIR reaching court, credibility of eyewitnesses, non-recovery of the axe, and whether the case was of “murder” or “culpable homicide not amounting to murder”.
On delay, defence argued that though the FIR was recorded on 16.03.2014, it reached the court only on 18.03.2014, suggesting ante-dating. The Court noted that the fardbayan was recorded promptly at 9:30 a.m., within about two hours of the 7:30 a.m. occurrence, that the formal FIR was drawn on the same day at 2:30 p.m., and that the inquest report was prepared that morning at 10:00 a.m. No questions or suggestions were put to the Investigating Officer (PW-5), the informant (PW-6) or the inquest witness (PW-8) about ante-dating. In these circumstances, the Court held that a one-day delay in the FIR reaching the court did not affect its reliability.
The prosecution’s key eyewitnesses were family members: PW-1 (uncle of the informant and brother-in-law of the deceased), PW-2 (son of the deceased), PW-3 (daughter of the deceased), and PW-6 (informant and son of the deceased). PW-4 was a co-villager and was the only non-family eyewitness. PW-8 (brother of deceased) and PW-9 (husband of deceased) were hearsay witnesses.
The defence argued that most witnesses were “interested” as they were related, and that no truly independent villagers had been examined despite a crowd gathering. The Court referred to the Supreme Court judgment in Dalip Singh v. State of Punjab (AIR 1953 SC 364), which clarifies that a relative is not automatically unreliable; in fact, close relatives often are the last persons to falsely implicate and let the real culprit go free. Each case must be judged on its own facts.
Applying that principle, the Court observed that the incident happened at 7:00–7:30 a.m. at the doorway of the deceased’s house. Naturally, family members were the first persons likely to be present and see the attack. Villagers would come only after hearing the alarm. The evidence showed the occurrence was sudden and quick, leaving little time for outsiders to witness the very moment of assault. The Court held that merely because most eyewitnesses were relatives, their testimony could not be discarded when it was broadly consistent and survived cross-examination.
At the same time, the Court noted that PW-4, the non-family witness, was a “chance witness”, and her presence was not mentioned by other prosecution witnesses. She also stated in cross-examination that appellant Kallamuddin “did not do anything”. Therefore, her evidence, especially against him, had to be viewed with caution.
On reading all eyewitness accounts together, the Court found a consistent core: there was a dispute about carrying mud through the appellants’ land; the next morning, a verbal quarrel occurred near or at the appellants’ and deceased’s house; one appellant (Ajaj @ Bauka) was already ripping bamboo cob/root with an axe; and he used that same axe to inflict a single blow on the right side of the deceased’s neck when tempers rose.
The informant (PW-6) had, in the FIR and evidence, alleged that the deceased was held by some accused while the axe blow was given. Not all other witnesses confirmed this “holding” detail. The Court treated such differences as minor discrepancies which did not shake the core prosecution story of one clear axe blow by appellant Ajaj.
The defence highlighted that the Investigating Officer (PW-5) did not recover the axe from the spot, despite searching, and found no incriminating articles. Prosecution witnesses stated that family members of the accused had hidden the axe. The Court held that non-recovery of the weapon was not fatal because:
- All material witnesses, including the defence witness, admitted that the death was caused by the same axe that appellant Ajaj had been using to rip bamboo cob/root.
- The doctor (PW-7) confirmed a deep incised wound caused by a sharp cutting weapon in the neck region, matching the allegation of an axe blow.
The defence version, through DW-1, was that the deceased slipped on bamboo, fell on the axe lying on the ground, and thereby received the fatal neck injury. The Court rejected this story, noting that the nature and direction of the wound, as described by the doctor — “deep incised wound below right ear transverse in direction extending from right neck exposing muscles and large vessels of neck” — was not consistent with a simple accidental fall on an axe. Instead, it suggested a deliberate axe stroke.
The Court held that the prosecution had proved, beyond reasonable doubt, that appellant Ajaj inflicted the single axe blow that caused the death and that this was done on exhortation by appellant Kallamuddin during the heated quarrel.
The crucial question then became: did this amount to “murder” under Section 302 IPC, or “culpable homicide not amounting to murder” under Section 304 Part II IPC?
The Court examined the nature of the weapon, injuries, and circumstances. Important features were:
- There was only one incised injury from the axe; there was no repetition of blows.
- The doctor (PW-7) stated that if an axe is used “forcefully”, bone injury may occur, but here no bone injury was found, though the wound was deep enough to cut muscles and large vessels.
- The other injuries were multiple abrasions on the chin, neck, ear, back, knees and legs, which the doctor described as scratches from pushing or dragging, not heavy weapon blows.
- The background shows a sudden quarrel over the tractor and mud issue; there was no prior confrontation on the previous day with the deceased herself, only an objection about the tractor.
- There was no evidence that appellant Ajaj carried the axe with a plan to kill; he was using it to work on bamboo cob/root at the spot.
- There was no material to show a pre-planned meeting or conspiracy to murder, beyond the general allegation of a night meeting about not allowing the tractor to pass.
Relying on Supreme Court judgments such as Khokhan @ Khokan Vishwas v. State of Chhattisgarh (2021) 3 SCC 365, Litta Singh v. State of Rajasthan (2015) 15 SCC 327, Deepak v. State of Uttar Pradesh (2018) 8 SCC 228, and Buddhu Singh v. State of Bihar (2011) 14 SCC 471, the Patna High Court noted that when an assault occurs in a sudden fight, without premeditation, in the heat of passion, and the accused has not acted in a cruel or unusual manner or taken undue advantage, the case may fall under Exception 4 to Section 300 IPC. In such situations, the appropriate conviction is often under Section 304 Part II IPC, where the accused did not intend to cause death, but had knowledge that the act was likely to cause death.
Applying those principles, the Court concluded that the appellants did not have an intention to kill the deceased, nor had they made any special preparations to do so. However, by using an axe on the neck, even in the spur of the moment, they must be taken to have knowledge that such a blow was likely to cause death. The case was therefore held to be culpable homicide not amounting to murder, punishable under Section 304 Part II IPC, and not murder under Section 302 IPC.
On sentence, the Court took note that appellant Kallamuddin was elderly (age indicated between 70 and 85 years at the time of his Section 313 Cr.P.C. statement) and had been in custody for more than eight years, and that appellant Ajaj had been in continuous custody since 18.03.2014, i.e., for more than eleven years, and both had already faced long trial and appeal proceedings. In line with Supreme Court precedents where sentences under Section 304 Part II were sometimes reduced to the period already undergone, the Court decided to alter their sentence to “period already undergone”.
As a result, while maintaining their guilt for causing the death, the Court set aside the life sentence and fine imposed under Section 302/34 IPC, converted the conviction to Section 304 Part II IPC, and directed that no further imprisonment was required beyond what the appellants had already undergone in custody in this case.
Why This Judgment Matters
This Patna High Court judgment is important for both villagers and lawyers because it shows how courts closely look at the real circumstances of a village quarrel before branding someone a “murderer” for life. The Court accepted that the woman died tragically due to an axe blow, but it also recognised that the incident arose suddenly from a dispute over using a neighbour’s land for a tractor, without clear proof of a plan to kill.
For people living in rural areas, the case is a warning that even a short-tempered act in anger with a common tool like an axe can lead to serious criminal liability, including long jail terms. At the same time, it reassures that courts will differentiate between a planned killing and a sudden fight where someone loses control.
The judgment also explains that related witnesses such as family members are not automatically “untrustworthy”. Their evidence can be accepted if it is consistent and supported by medical and other evidence. This is important in village cases where family members are often the only eyewitnesses present.
Finally, by reducing the conviction from murder to culpable homicide not amounting to murder and tailoring the sentence to the long custody already undergone, the Court balanced punishment with fairness. It recognised the gravity of the act, but also considered age, time spent in jail, and the context of the quarrel. This will guide similar appeals where the main question is whether an act was a planned murder or a sudden outburst.
Legal Issues and Answers
- Issue: Whether the prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt that the appellants committed murder under Section 302/34 IPC by intentionally causing the death of the deceased.
Answer: The Court held that the prosecution proved that appellant Ajaj caused the fatal axe injury on the deceased’s neck on exhortation by appellant Kallamuddin, but did not prove intention or premeditation to kill. The conviction under Section 302/34 IPC was altered to Section 304 Part II IPC. - Issue: Whether delay in the FIR reaching the court and non-recovery of the axe made the prosecution case doubtful.
Answer: No. The fardbayan and FIR were promptly recorded on the date of occurrence, and no material was put in cross-examination to show manipulation. Non-recovery of the axe was not fatal because all witnesses and medical evidence consistently showed that death was caused by an axe blow from appellant Ajaj. - Issue: Whether the evidence of related witnesses and one chance witness could be safely relied upon without independent village witnesses.
Answer: Yes. The Court held that related witnesses are not unreliable merely due to relationship. Their evidence was consistent and supported by medical findings. The presence of family members at the door at 7:30 a.m. was natural, and non-examination of more villagers did not undermine the prosecution case.
Cases Cited by the Court
- Dalip Singh and Others v. State of Punjab, AIR 1953 SC 364
- Laxmibai & Anr. v. Bhagwantbuva & Others, (2013) 4 SCC 97
- Khokhan @ Khokan Vishwas v. State of Chhattisgarh, (2021) 3 SCC 365
- Litta Singh and another v. State of Rajasthan, (2015) 15 SCC 327
- Randhir Singh v. State of Punjab, AIR 1982 SC 55
- Deepak v. State of Uttar Pradesh, (2018) 8 SCC 228
- Buddhu Singh & Others v. State of Bihar, (2011) 14 SCC 471
Case Details
Case Number: Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 642 of 2016 with Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 397 of 2016; arising out of Bhargama P.S. Case No. 35 of 2014; Sessions Trial No. 826 of 2014
Case Title: Md. Ajaj @ Bauka v. The State of Bihar; Md. Kallamuddin v. The State of Bihar
Citation: 2025(3) PLJR 48
Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Mohit Kumar Shah and Hon’ble Justice Smt. Soni Shrivastava (CAV Judgment per Hon’ble Justice Smt. Soni Shrivastava)
Date of Patna High Court Judgment: 02.05.2025
Court: High Court of Judicature at Patna
Advocates (in both appeals):
- For the appellants: Mr. Praveen Kumar Agarwal, Advocate; Mr. Santosh Kumar Singh, Advocate
- For the State: Ms. Shashi Bala Verma, APP
- For the informant: Mr. Suraj Narayan Yadav, Advocate; Mr. Upendra Kumar Chaubey, Advocate
Nature of the case: Criminal appeals (Division Bench) against conviction and sentence under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC, with alteration of conviction to Section 304 Part II IPC and modification of sentence by the High Court.
Final Outcome: Conviction altered from Section 302/34 IPC to Section 304 Part II IPC; sentence reduced to period of custody already undergone; one appellant discharged from bail bond liability, the other directed to be released forthwith unless required in any other case; appeals partly allowed.
Link to judgement; https://patnahighcourt.gov.in/viewjudgment/NSM2NDIjMjAxNiMxI04=-i0W–am1–T1tObCY=
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.
