Case Background
The case began with a quarrel over joint family land in Village Parshurampur, Tola Lohgajar, Police Station Asawn, District Siwan. On 26.05.2014, one of the agnates, Rajkishore Yadav, was digging the plinth on land described as joint property.
Informant Vijay Kumar Yadav objected and asked him not to dig without proper demarcation. According to the prosecution, this led to an assault on the informant’s family by Rajkishore and his close relatives. Several members of the informant’s family, including his father, mother, brother, sister and the informant himself, suffered injuries.
On the basis of a written report given by Vijay Kumar Yadav, Asawn P.S. Case No. 33 of 2014 was registered on 28.05.2014, under Sections 147, 148, 341, 323, 324, 337 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). After investigation, the police submitted charge sheet under Sections 147, 148, 341, 323, 325, 308, 337, 504 IPC.
The learned Magistrate took cognizance on 20.12.2014 and later committed the case to the Court of Sessions. The Sessions Trial was numbered as Sessions Trial No. 165 of 2016 (G.R. No. 2159 of 2014). The trial court framed charges against all appellants under Sections 147, 148, 341, 323, 325, 308 IPC. The accused pleaded not guilty and faced trial.
After examining seven witnesses and various injury reports, the District and Additional Sessions Judge-5, Siwan, by judgment dated 12.02.2025, convicted:
(a) Rina Devi and Geeta Devi under Sections 147 and 323 IPC and released them after due admonition under Section 3 of the Probation of Offenders Act.
(b) Rajkishore Yadav, Dhirendra Yadav @ Dhirendra Kumar Yadav and Balindar Yadav under Sections 147 and 325 IPC, sentencing each to simple imprisonment (S.I.) for one year under Section 147 IPC, and S.I. for four years and fine of Rs. 500/- each under Section 325 IPC, with three months’ further imprisonment in default of fine.
All five convicted persons challenged this common judgment and sentence before the Patna High Court in Criminal Appeal (SJ) No. 1132 of 2025 and Criminal Appeal (SJ) No. 1120 of 2025. Both appeals were heard together, as they arose out of the same incident and judgment.
What the Court Examined and Decided
Hon’ble Mr. Justice Alok Kumar Pandey heard both appeals and delivered an oral judgment on 11.11.2025.
The key question framed by the Court was whether the offences under Sections 147 and 325 IPC were made out on the given facts and evidence.
Defence Arguments
On behalf of the appellants, senior counsel Mr. Y.C. Verma argued that the dispute was essentially a land dispute between agnates. According to the defence, the appellants were only asserting their right over the joint land and had not formed an unlawful assembly.
He pointed out that the alleged occurrence took place on 26.05.2014, while the FIR was lodged only on 28.05.2014, i.e., after a delay of about three days. This delay, he said, cast doubt on the truthfulness of the prosecution story.
The defence also highlighted that there was a counter case from the appellants’ side for the same date of occurrence, though formal reference to it was not made in the trial judgment. They claimed false implication due to the pre-existing land dispute.
It was further submitted that all appellants were without criminal antecedents, that the incident was a one-time clash and that they could not be treated as habitual offenders or as a danger to society. Counsel stressed that the occurrence was in 2014, and that the appellants have faced litigation for about eleven years. The three male appellants had already been in custody for about five months post-conviction. On these grounds, leniency in sentence was sought.
Prosecution Stand
The State, represented by the learned Additional Public Prosecutors, opposed the appeals. It was argued that the FIR clearly described how the accused persons assaulted the informant’s family, resulting in injuries to five people, three of them with grievous injuries.
The prosecution emphasised that out of the five prosecution witnesses of fact, PW-1 (Tulsi Devi), PW-2 (Arun Kumar Yadav) and PW-5 (Vijay Kumar Yadav) were themselves injured in the incident. Their presence at the scene was, therefore, natural, and their testimony carried greater weight.
PW-7, the Investigating Officer (I.O.), confirmed the place of occurrence and admitted that the dispute related to land. The prosecution pointed out that the trial court had already analysed the entire evidence and concluded that the case under Sections 325 and 147 IPC was fully established against the three male appellants, and under Sections 147 and 323 IPC against the two women appellants. It was argued that there was no reason for the High Court to interfere with these findings.
Appreciation of Evidence
The High Court carefully went through the trial court record and the evidence of all prosecution witnesses.
PW-5 (informant and injured) stated that appellant Rajkishore Yadav assaulted his father with a spade, causing injury. When PW-5 tried to intervene, appellant Balindar Yadav attacked him with a farsa, and appellant Dhirendra Yadav assaulted him with a lathi.
He further narrated that when his mother Tulsi Devi (PW-1) and sister Vibha (also referred as Vina) came to their rescue, appellants Rina Devi and Geeta Devi, along with a co-accused, hit them on the head with bricks. PW-5 also stated that Dhirendra Yadav assaulted his mother and sister with lathi, leading to head injuries.
PW-5 identified his signature on the fardbeyan (Ext. 1). In cross-examination, he accepted that the appellants were agnates and that for the same date, a case was also filed by the appellants against the informant. He denied that there was any land dispute, but other witnesses and the I.O. admitted that the incident was linked to land dispute.
PW-1 Tulsi Devi, mother of the informant and injured witness, fully supported the informant’s account about the assault on herself and other family members. Her version was consistent with PW-5 and there was no major contradiction brought out in cross-examination.
PW-2 Arun Kumar Yadav, another injured witness, also corroborated PW-1 and PW-5 on the main events and the assault. The Court found no reason to discard his testimony.
PW-3 and PW-4 were supporting witnesses who also confirmed the prosecution story, but they frankly admitted that the occurrence took place due to land dispute.
Medical and Investigating Evidence
PW-6, Dr. Sanjay Kumar, then posted at Sadar Hospital, Siwan, examined all five injured persons on 26.05.2014 in the evening and night. He detailed the injuries and later gave supplementary reports based on X-ray and CT scan results.
According to the doctor:
- Vibha Kumari had a lacerated wound on the right parietal region with scalp hematoma. Her injury was simple in nature.
- Vijay Yadav had multiple lacerated wounds on the forehead and parietal bone. Subsequent reports showed fracture in the frontal region, with extra-axial acute blood collection. Injury No. 1 was opined as grievous.
- Arun Kumar had swelling and lacerated wound on the right occipito-parietal region. CT scan revealed acute extra-dural hematoma over the left parietal lobe, compression of the brain and fracture of the left parietal bone. One injury was classified as grievous.
- Tulsi Devi had a lacerated wound on the right occipital region, with X-ray confirming fracture of the occipital region. This injury was grievous.
- Awadh Yadav had a lacerated wound on the right parietal region; his injuries were ultimately found simple.
These injury reports and supplementary reports were exhibited as Exts. 2 to 2/4 and 3 to 3/3. They established that at least three members of the informant’s family had sustained grievous hurt.
PW-7, Investigating Officer Surendra Rai, deposed that he visited the place of occurrence, identified as the eastern side of a bathan at Village Parshurampur, Tola Lohrajan. He recorded the statements of several witnesses including Rina Devi, Ashok Choudhary, Devant Kumar, Suresh Yadav, the informant and injured witnesses. He obtained all the injury reports and noted them in the case diary.
In cross-examination, the I.O. clearly stated that, on reading the FIR and from investigation, it appeared that the occurrence took place because of land dispute between two brothers. This supported the background of a family property quarrel.
Finding on Guilt
On an overall assessment, the Patna High Court held that PW-1, PW-2 and PW-5, all being injured witnesses, had consistently supported the prosecution version regarding the assault, place of occurrence and manner of attack. Their testimony was corroborated by medical evidence and by the I.O.’s investigation.
The Court held that the prosecution had proved its case beyond reasonable doubt. It found the trial court’s judgment of conviction against:
- Rajkishore Yadav, Dhirendra Yadav @ Dhirendra Kumar Yadav and Balindar Yadav under Sections 147 and 325 IPC, and
- Rina Devi and Geeta Devi under Sections 147 and 323 IPC with benefit of probation,
to be justified and legal. There was no basis to interfere with the conviction.
Consideration of Sentence
While considering the sentence, the Court referred to the Supreme Court decision in State of M.P. v. Bablu, (2014) 9 SCC 281. In paragraph 10 of that judgment, the Supreme Court reminded that criminal law aims at proportionate punishment, taking into account the gravity of offence and the manner of its commission, and that a sentence should not be so lenient as to shock society.
However, applying these principles to the facts of the present case, the High Court looked at several circumstances:
- The incident occurred in 2014; the appellants had already faced 11 years of litigation by 2025.
- The appellants had no criminal antecedents.
- The incident arose from a dispute over digging of plinth on joint property between agnates, and there was a counter case for the same date.
- The three male appellants had undergone almost five months of judicial custody after conviction.
Taking these factors together, the Court concluded that the appellants had “sufficiently been punished” and that reducing their sentence to the period already undergone would meet the ends of justice.
Thus, while the conviction of all appellants was upheld, the substantive jail sentence of Rajkishore Yadav, Dhirendra Yadav @ Dhirendra Kumar Yadav and Balindar Yadav was reduced to the period already undergone. The order granting probation and release after admonition to Rina Devi and Geeta Devi remained undisturbed.
With this modification in sentence, both criminal appeals were dismissed. The Court directed that a copy of the judgment be sent to the Superintendent of the concerned jail for compliance, and that the records be returned to the trial court.
Why This Judgment Matters
This Patna High Court judgment is important for families involved in land disputes that turn violent. It shows that even when the quarrel is within a family and over joint property, the Court will treat serious assaults as criminal offences and confirm convictions where evidence is clear.
At the same time, the Court recognised the long duration of litigation, absence of criminal history and the fact that both sides had cases over the same incident. These factors were considered at the stage of sentencing, not at the stage of deciding guilt.
For common people, this decision makes two points clear. First, using spades, lathis or bricks in a land quarrel can easily result in charges of grievous hurt (Section 325 IPC) and rioting (Section 147 IPC), leading to conviction based on medical and witness evidence. Second, even when the Court reduces the sentence to “already undergone”, the conviction stays on record; the case does not disappear.
For lawyers, the case highlights that injured witness testimony, supported by prompt medical evidence and coherent investigation, remains strong even in the presence of land dispute and cross cases. Delay of a couple of days in lodging FIR, without more, was not treated as fatal when injuries and narrative were consistent.
Legal Issues and Answers
- Issue: Whether, in a family land dispute that turned violent, the offences of rioting under Section 147 IPC and voluntarily causing grievous hurt under Section 325 IPC were proved against the appellants.
Answer: Yes. Based on consistent testimony of three injured witnesses, corroborated by medical and investigating evidence, the Patna High Court upheld the conviction under Sections 147 and 325 IPC (for three male appellants) and under Sections 147 and 323 IPC (for two female appellants). - Issue: Whether the sentence imposed by the trial court on the three male appellants required interference in appeal.
Answer: Yes, to a limited extent. Considering that the occurrence was in 2014, there was a long pendency of about eleven years, the parties were agnates, there was a counter case, the appellants had no criminal antecedents and had already spent about five months in custody, the Court reduced the sentence to the period already undergone while maintaining the conviction.
Cases Cited by the Court
- State of M.P. v. Bablu, (2014) 9 SCC 281 — cited on principles governing sentencing and the need for punishment to be proportionate to the gravity of the offence.
Case Details
Case Numbers: Criminal Appeal (SJ) No. 1132 of 2025 with Criminal Appeal (SJ) No. 1120 of 2025; arising out of Asawn P.S. Case No. 33 of 2014, G.R. No. 2159 of 2014, Sessions Trial Case No. 165 of 2016.
Case Title: Rina Devi & Anr v. The State of Bihar; Rajkishore Yadav & Ors v. The State of Bihar.
Citation: 2026 (1) PLJR 250.
Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Alok Kumar Pandey.
Advocates:
- For the appellants (in both appeals): Mr. Y.C. Verma, Senior Advocate; Ms. Kumari Anupam, Advocate; Mr. Harsh Kumar, Advocate; Mr. Rahul Deovarman, Advocate (in Criminal Appeal (SJ) No. 1132 of 2025); Mr. Salaj Kumar Rai, Advocate (in Criminal Appeal (SJ) No. 1120 of 2025).
- For the State (in Criminal Appeal (SJ) No. 1132 of 2025): Mr. Satyendra Narayan Singh, APP.
- For the State (in Criminal Appeal (SJ) No. 1120 of 2025): Mrs. Anita Kumari Singh, APP.
Nature of Case: Criminal appeals (single-judge) against common judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the Sessions Court in a case of rioting and voluntarily causing hurt and grievous hurt arising out of a land dispute.
Date of Patna High Court Judgment: 11.11.2025.
Link to Judgment: View full judgment on Patna High Court website
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.
