Patna High Court
Criminal LawCriminal Procedure and Evidence

Unexplained FIR delay, defective investigation, and medical discrepancies warranted acquittal on benefit of doubt.

Pappu Rai vs The State Of Bihar

Patna High CourtJUDGMENT: August 10, 20263 MIN READSOURCE JUDGMENT
Unexplained FIR delay, defective investigation, and medical discrepancies warranted acquittal on benefit of doubt.. Pappu Rai vs The State Of Bihar. Patna High Court. LawLens
THE ORIGINAL LAWLENS SUMMARY
01

Facts

On 20 October 2007, the informant, Binda Sah, alleged that he found the appellant, Pappu Rai, and co-accused Hridaya Rai assaulting his father, Gajadhar Sah, at his sweets and tea shop.

Source reference: p. 2

Hridaya Rai allegedly caught Gajadhar Sah by the neck, while the appellant assaulted him. When Binda Sah intervened, the appellant allegedly hurled a brick at him, causing injury. The injured persons were taken to Sadar Hospital, Chapra, where they were medically examined.

Source reference: p. 2

The prosecution examined ten witnesses, including the injured witnesses Binda Sah and Gajadhar Sah, supporting eyewitnesses, the medical officer, and the Investigating Officer. Two witnesses were declared hostile.

Source reference: p. 3

The Investigating Officer admitted that he had neither recorded the statements of witnesses during investigation nor inspected the place of occurrence.

Source reference: p. 3

The fard beyan was allegedly recorded at approximately 8:30 p.m. on the date of occurrence, but the formal First Information Report was registered about twelve days later, without satisfactory explanation for the delay.

Source reference: pp. 4–6

The trial court convicted the appellant under Section 325 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced him to two years’ rigorous imprisonment, a fine of ₹10,000, and one month’s imprisonment in default. The co-accused was acquitted.

Source reference: p. 2
02

Issues

1. Whether the prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt that the appellant voluntarily caused grievous hurt to Binda Sah, thereby attracting liability under Section 325 of the Indian Penal Code?

Source reference: paras. 9–11

2. Whether the unexplained delay in formal registration of the FIR, defective investigation, and discrepancies between the ocular and medical evidence created reasonable doubt entitling the appellant to acquittal?

Source reference: paras. 7, 9–11
03

Law Applied

The Court applied Section 325 of the Indian Penal Code, which penalises voluntarily causing grievous hurt.

Source reference: no citation

It applied the general criminal-law principle that the prosecution must establish the accused’s guilt beyond reasonable doubt and that any reasonable doubt must enure to the accused’s benefit.

Source reference: no citation

The Court further applied the principle that the testimony of an injured witness is entitled to due weight but must be assessed in conjunction with the surrounding circumstances, medical evidence, and investigative material.

Source reference: para. 9

It also held that delay in lodging an FIR is not invariably fatal, but unexplained delay assumes significance when accompanied by other infirmities in the prosecution case.

Source reference: para. 9
04

Reasoning

The Court accepted that the evidence of an injured witness could not be rejected merely because of that status. However, it found that the testimony of Binda Sah required corroboration in the circumstances of the case.

Source reference: para. 10

The formal FIR was registered approximately twelve days after the occurrence, and the prosecution offered no satisfactory explanation for the delay.

Source reference: paras. 7, 9

The investigation was materially deficient because the Investigating Officer neither recorded witness statements nor inspected the place of occurrence, depriving the Court of objective corroboration regarding the place and manner of the incident.

Source reference: para. 9

The medical evidence established that injuries had been sustained, but did not fully corroborate the prosecution’s specific account.

Source reference: para. 9

Although the doctor opined that Binda Sah’s injury was caused by a hard and blunt substance and was grievous, he stated in cross-examination that there were no external injuries on the forehead, cheek, neck, or chest—the sites attributed in the prosecution version.

Source reference: para. 9

The injuries to Gajadhar Sah were found to be simple.

Source reference: para. 9

Considering these medical discrepancies cumulatively with the unexplained FIR delay and investigative lapses, the Court held that reasonable doubt existed regarding the precise manner in which the injuries constituting the Section 325 conviction were caused by the appellant.

Source reference: para. 11
05

Holding

The Court held that the prosecution failed to prove the appellant’s guilt under Section 325 of the Indian Penal Code beyond reasonable doubt.

It set aside the judgment of conviction dated 29 June 2018 and the order of sentence dated 30 June 2018, acquitted Pappu Rai by extending the benefit of doubt, discharged him from the liabilities of his bail bond, and allowed the appeal.

Source reference: paras. 12–14
06

Acts & Sections Cited

1 provisions across 1 statute referred to in this judgment. Each provision opens on LawLens.

Indian Penal Code, 18601

Patna High Court

Original Court PDF

Pappu RaivsThe State Of Bihar

Patna High Court · August 10, 2026

Click to open original judgment

Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in

Click to open original judgment