85-Year-Old Man Gets 3-Year Jail Term in 35-Year-Old Attempt-to-Murder Case

Bihar: A District and Additional Sessions Court in Hajipur, Vaishali, Bihar, has sentenced 85-year-old Deep Rai to three years’ rigorous imprisonment in a 35-year-old attempt-to-murder case arising out of a village land dispute that escalated into gunfire. While convicting five accused persons, the court took note of Deep Rai’s advanced age, physical incapacity, and the extraordinary delay in the conclusion of the trial while determining the sentence.

The case stems from an incident that occurred on 10 December 1992, nearly 34 years ago, when a dispute over glass shards allegedly placed on a village pathway escalated into an armed confrontation. The FIR was lodged by Adalat Rai the following day, and a chargesheet was filed on 18 March 1993. The court took cognizance on 31 May 1993 under Sections 147, 148, 149, and 307 of the Indian Penal Code, as well as Section 27 of the Arms Act. Of the seven persons originally arraigned, two passed away during the prolonged pendency of the proceedings, leaving five accused to face trial.

According to the prosecution, the incident was preceded by a dispute over the use of a village road. On the morning of 10 December 1992, when Udesh Rai objected to accused Jungi Rai and Sabal Rai allegedly placing broken glass on a public pathway, the accused reportedly left and later returned armed with firearms. It was alleged that they opened fire, injuring Shambhu Rai, Udesh Rai, Adalat Rai, and Ramsakhee Devi. The investigation also led to the recovery of .315-bore empty cartridges from a nearby field.

In support of its case, the prosecution examined ten witnesses, including eyewitnesses, injured witnesses, seizure witnesses, and the treating doctor. The defence did not lead any evidence. The statements of the surviving accused were recorded under Section 313 CrPC on 4 May 2016, nearly 24 years after the incident, and they denied the allegations, claiming false implication.

The court found the testimony of the injured witnesses reliable and consistent, observing that they had identified the accused and that their version was corroborated by medical evidence showing firearm injuries to all four victims. Relying on State of U.P. v. Naresh, Jarnail Singh v. State of Punjab, and Abdul Sayyed v. State of Madhya Pradesh, the court held that the evidence of injured witnesses carries significant evidentiary value and cannot be discarded in the absence of strong contrary material, which the defence failed to produce.

On the charge under Section 307 IPC, the court held that intent to kill must be assessed from the overall circumstances and not merely the gravity of the injuries. Referring to Roshan Lal v. State of Haryana and Bipin Bihari v. State of M.P., it concluded that the accused’s act of arriving armed with firearms and inflicting multiple gunshot injuries on several persons clearly established the requisite intent and knowledge for the offence of attempt to murder.

The court found all five accused guilty. At the sentencing hearing held on 2 June 2026, the defence urged leniency on the grounds that the offence was thirty-five years old, that it was the accused’s first criminal case, and that their ages ranged between 50 and 85 years. The prosecution sought the maximum sentence, characterising the conduct as a heinous crime against society.

For sentencing, the court placed significant emphasis on the advanced age and physical condition of Deep Rai, who was 85 years old and stated to be completely physically incapacitated. Observing that there was little justification for imposing the maximum punishment on a convict in such a condition, the court noted that he might not survive long in judicial custody, though some punishment was still warranted given the gravity of the offence.

Accordingly, Deep Rai was awarded the minimum sentence of three years’ rigorous imprisonment under Section 307 IPC, along with lesser concurrent sentences under Section 148 IPC and Section 27 of the Arms Act. Considering that the maximum sentence imposed was three years and that he had remained on bail during the proceedings, the court directed that he could continue on the bond furnished, subject to filing an appeal and obtaining bail from the High Court.

The remaining four convicts, Nakeshwar Rai, Jagdish Rai alias Jeesha Rai, Naresh Rai, and Nagdev Rai, were each sentenced to ten years’ rigorous imprisonment under Section 307 IPC, along with concurrent sentences under Section 148 IPC and Section 27 of the Arms Act. While determining the sentence, the court observed that the case had remained pending for nearly 35 years and that the prolonged trial itself had operated as a form of punishment. Taking this factor into account, it declined to impose the maximum sentence. The court also directed that the period of pre-trial detention be set off under Section 428 CrPC and ordered that the entire fine amount be paid to the victims as compensation under Section 357 CrPC.

The court further directed that a copy of the judgment be forwarded to the Secretary, District Legal Services Authority, Vaishali, for disbursement of compensation to the victims under Section 357-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure and the Bihar Victims Compensation Scheme, and that a copy be sent to the District Magistrate, Vaishali.

Case: State v. Sabal Rai and Others, Sessions Trial No. 191/1993, CNR: BRVA01-000006-1993