Jharkhand High Court
Nijamuddin @ Lamboo vs The State Of Bihar (Now Jharkhand) on 10 June, 2024
Author: Rongon Mukhopadhyay
Bench: Rongon Mukhopadhyay, Deepak Roshan
Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 81 of 1995(P)
Against the judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated
04.07.1995 (sentence passed on 05.07.1995) passed by Shri Rameshwar
Prasad Verma, learned Additional Sessions Judge, Gumla in Sessions
Trial No. 101 of 1991.
Nijamuddin @ Lamboo ... Appellant
Versus
The State of Bihar (now Jharkhand) ... Respondent
----
PRESENT
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK ROSHAN
For the Appellant : Mr. Peeyush Krishna Choudhary, Amicus
For the Respondent : Mr. Pankaj Kumar, A.P.P.
Dated 10th June, 2024
----
Rongon Mukhopadhyay, J. : 1. Heard Mr. Peeyush Krishna Choudhary, learned
amicus curiae appearing for the appellant and Mr. Pankaj Kumar, learned
A.P.P.
2. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order of conviction
and sentence dated 04.07.1995 (sentence passed on 05.07.1995) passed by Shri
Rameshwar Prasad Verma, learned Additional Sessions Judge, Gumla in S.T.
No. 101 of 1991, whereby and whereunder, the appellant has been convicted
for the offence punishable u/s 302 of the Indian Penal Code and has been
sentenced to imprisonment for life.
3. The prosecution case arises out of the fardbeyan of Sunil Kumar Sinha
recorded on 19.12.1990 wherein it has been stated that on 18.12.1990 at about
7:00PM, his father Hemant Kumar Sinha had gone to purchase clothes at
Khadi Gram Udyog situated at Shankh More. When the father of the
informant did not return till 08:30PM, the informant and his younger brother
Anil Kumar Sinha and their servant Birsu Munda went in search of his father
towards Shankh More and when they reached near the turning at Mission
More, they heard some commotion near the field and in the torchlight he saw
3-4 persons pinning down another person with one of the persons identified
as Lamboo (appellant) assaulting the person lying on the ground with a
bhujali with the aunt of the informant standing nearby exhorting the other
persons to do away with the life of the person lying in the field. The informant
could understand that it was his father who was being assaulted at which he
immediately returned back to his village and informed about the matter to
Manmohan Prasad, Surendra Prasad, Madhu Korva, Chotan Munda, Kishore
Beck and others and all of them went to the place of occurrence where none
of the miscreants could be found but the person who was lying was identified
as the father of the informant in a pool of blood with several injuries on his
person and Khadi clothes, a torch and a plastic cap lying beside him. The
reason for the occurrence is that about fifteen days back, there was an
altercation between his father and Lamboo and Kusum Lata on account of
illicit relationship between Lamboo and Kusum Lata, for which threats were
extended to the father of the informant.
Based on the aforesaid allegations, Raidih P.S. Case No. 71/90 was
instituted for the offences punishable under Sections 302/3109/120B IPC
against Kusum Lata, Lamboo and 3-4 unknown persons. On completion of
investigation, charge sheet was submitted against Kusum Lata, Lamboo and
Md. Kalam and after cognizance was taken, the case was committed to the
Court of Sessions where it was registered as Sessions Trial No. 101 of 1991.
Charge was framed against the accused persons under Section 302/34 IPC
and the accused Kusum Lata was further charged under Section 302/109 IPC
which was read over and explained to the accused in Hindi to which they
pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
4. The prosecution has examined as many as nineteen (19) witnesses in
support of its case.
P.W.1 Dr. Hemant Kumar was posted as a Civil Assistant Surgeon at
Sadar Hospital, Gumla and on 20.12.1990 he had conducted autopsy on the
dead body of Hemant Kumar Sinha and had found following injuries: -
(i) Incised wound chin and the face 5" x1" x 1½" with cutting of
mandible bone.
(ii) Incised wound chin of the face 5" x 1" x 1½" below injury
no. 1
2|Page
(iii) Incised wound on the vertex of head 4" x 3" x bone deep in
the fracture of parietal bone brain matter congested blood clot
present.
(iv) Incised wound vertex the head by the left side of injury no. 3
3" x ¾ " x bone deep with fracture of parietal bone. Brain matter
congested blood clot present.
(v) Incised wound occipital region of the head 4" x ¾" x bone
deep with fracture of the occipital bone brain matter congested
blood clot present.
(vi) Incised wound occipital region of the head below injury no.
5, 4" x ¾" x 3" brain matter lacerated with fracture of bone and
blood clot present.
(vii) Incised wound lower part of the occipital region of the
lacerated 4" x ¾" x 3" with fracture of occipital bone brain
matter congested and lacerated, blood clot present.
All the injuries were caused by sharp cutting weapon, that is, bhujali
and all the injuries except injury no. 5 were grievous in nature. Injury nos. 3,
4, 5, 6 and 7 were sufficient to cause death in ordinary course of nature either
singly or in combination. The cause of death was shock and haemorrhage due
to the above noted injury. He has proved the post mortem report which has
been marked as Ext.-1. The death would be instantaneous after receiving the
above noted injuries.
P.W.2 Sunil Kumar Sinha is the informant who has stated that on
18.12.1990 at 07:00PM, his father Hemant had gone to Shankh More to bring
clothes from the tailor and to purchase clothes from Khadi Bhandar. When he
did not return till 08:30PM, he and his brother Anil Kumar Sinha as well as
his servant Birsu Munda had gone in search of his father with a torch. When
they reached Mission More, they heard some sounds from the northern side
and in the flashlight of the torch it was found that 4-5 persons were assaulting
a person lying on the ground. He could identify Nijamuddin alias Lamboo
who was having a bhujali with him and was giving repeated blows of bhujali
on the person lying on the ground. In the same place, Kusum Lata was
3|Page
standing who was exhorting the accused to kill that person as he has always
been a thorn in their relationship. At this he could make out that it was his
father who was being subjected to assault. All three of them returned back to
the village and informed about the incident to Madhu Korva, Chotan Munda
and Kishore Beck. All of them thereafter returned back to the place of
occurrence where no one was found except the dead body of the person. The
dead body was that of his father. A bhujali, a cap, a torch, a piece of pyjama
were seen lying besides the dead body. He has stated that fifteen days prior
to the murder, there was a quarrel between his father and Kusum Lata and
Nijamuddin and her father was threatened by the accused persons. He has
stated that there is an illicit relationship between Kusum Lata and
Nijamuddin for which a litigation is also going on. Due to this enmity, his
father has been murdered by the accused persons. When the Police had come,
his fardbeyan was recorded. He has identified his signature as well as the
signature of Manmohan Prasad and Kishore Beck in the fardbeyan which has
been marked as Ext.-2, Ext.-2/a and Ext.-2/b respectively. The Police had
prepared the inquest report in his presence and had also send the body for
post mortem examination.
In cross-examination he has deposed that at the time of the incident his
father was the mukhiya of the village. He had seen Lamboo committing
assault. They had heard the sound of assault but had not heard what they
were speaking. He had seen the assault from a distance of 10 yards. The
incident was witnessed by flashing a torchlight which was switched off after
seeing the incident. The persons who were committing the assault did not
react on seeing the torchlight. After returning from the place of occurrence,
he had called Manmohan, Surendra and Kishor Beck. The entire duration of
witnessing the assault and returning back to the place of occurrence was 10
minutes. When they had reached the place of occurrence, some blood was
oozing out from the dead body. There is a land related case pending between
his mother and Kusum Lata. He has deposed that a Panchayat was also held
in the village regarding the illicit relationship between Kusum Lata and
4|Page
Nijamuddin. He cannot say as to the clothes worn by the accused or with
what arms they were equipped with.
P.W. 3 Anil Kumar Sinha has stated that on 18.12.1990 his father had
gone to purchase clothes at Khadi Bhandar and to take delivery of some
clothes, he had gone to the tailor. When even at 8.30 PM his father did not
return back, he along with his elder brother Sunil Kumar Sinha and their
servant Birsu Munda went in search of his father towards Shankh More.
When they reached Mission More they had heard the sound of 4-5 persons.
There is an unmetalled road nearby and when his brother flashed the
torchlight, they saw 4-5 persons and one person was lying on the floor. He
has identified Nijamuddin alias Lamboo as the person who was assaulting
the person lying down with a bhujali. Kusum Lata was standing on a rock
who was exhorting the others to commit the murder as that person was a
thorn in their relationship. On hearing this, it dawned on them that the victim
must be their father. They retreated back to the village where the incident was
disclosed to Manmohan Prasad, Surendra Prasad, Chotan Munda, Madhu
Korwa and Kishore Beck. He had once again gone back to the place of
occurrence along with these persons where they found the person lying dead
who was identified by him as his father in the torch light. His father was
having a dispute with Kusum Lata and Nijamuddin and about fifteen days
prior to the incident, these persons have threatened his father that they will
take revenge against him. Due to the illicit relationship of his aunt Kusum
Lata and Nijamuddin a litigation is pending.
In cross-examination he has deposed that the distance between Mission
More and his house is about 200 ft. The miscreants had surrounded his father
and were assaulting him. The torch light was put on only once. They had not
tried to prevent the assault. The police had not recorded his statement.
P.W. 4 Nageshwar Prasad has stated that he was sleeping in his house
when he heard some commotion coming from the house of mukhiya Hemant
Kumar and when he came out, he saw several persons creating a ruckus
going towards Mission Chowk. He had taken a torch and followed them and
when he reached Mission Chowk, he found a gathering of 5-10 persons. The
5|Page
dead body of Hemant Kumar was lying near the unmetalled road.
Manmohan Prasad had disclosed that Nijamuddin @ Lamboo had committed
the murder of mukhiya and Kusum Lata was standing nearby. There was a
dispute between mukhiya and Kusum Lata over distribution of landed
property. Lamboo used to take Kusum Lata for rides on his motorcycle for
which the mukhiya always used to admonish Kusum Lata. He has proved his
signature in inquest report which has been marked as Exbt-3.
In cross-examination, he has deposed that for the last 12 years he is the
Sarpanch. The police had came at 10:00 AM and in the capacity of being a
Sarpanch, he had narrated the incident to the police. A crowd of 1000-1500
had gathered which was enraged with the incident and this was the reason
why it took so long for police to take custody of the dead body.
P.W. 5 Manmohan Prasad has stated that on 18.12.1990, at 08.30 PM he
was in his house when Sunil Kumar Sinha along with his younger brother
Anil Kumar Sinha and their servant Birsu Munda came running from Mission
Road and disclosed that when they had gone to Mission Chowk in search of
their father, they had seen in the flash of torch, Lamboo assaulting a person
lying on the ground with a bhujali and Kusum Lata who was standing nearby
exhorting him. The brothers had a doubt that the victim was their father. On
hearing about such incident, he, Anil, Sunil, Birsu Munda, Surendra Prasad,
Madhu Korva, Chotan Munda and Kishore Beck had gone towards Mission
Chowk when in the light of the truck he had found the dead body of Hemant
Kumar lying. At that point of time, neither Kusum Lata nor Lamboo were
present at the place of occurrence. He has proved his signature in the
Fardbeyan which has been marked as Exbt-2/a. He has also proved his
signature upon the inquest report which has been marked as Exbt-3/a.
In cross-examination, he has deposed that the incident was disclosed
to him by Sunil. There were several persons who were going towards the
place of occurrence and they had not raised any commotion that someone has
been murdered. After they reached the place of occurrence, the wife and
daughter of the deceased as well as his wife had come crying and slowly there
was a deluge in the presence of villagers which numbered about 1500.
6|Page
P.W. 6 Chotan Munda has been tendered by the prosecution.
P.W. 7 Kishore Beck, P.W. 8 Surendra Prasad Sahu, P.W. 9 Punai Oraon
and P.W. 10 Johanus Minj have not supported the case of the prosecution and
were accordingly declared hostile by the prosecution.
P.W. 11 Akshai Rani is the wife of the deceased who has stated that on
18.12.1990 in the evening, after having tea he told her that he is going to the
tailor and Khadi Bhandar for buying some clothes and thereafter he left.
When he did not return till 08.30 PM, she had asked her sons Sunil Kumar
Sinha and Anil Kumar Sinha to bring their father back. At this, her two sons
and servant Birsu went towards Shankh More in search of her husband and
her sons returned back and disclosed that their father had been murdered.
This information was given at 09.00 PM and it was also disclosed that
Nijamuddin alias Lamboo was assaulting her husband with bhujali and
Kusum Lata was standing nearby. Her sons disclosed this fact to Manmohan
and others after which they went to the place of occurrence where they found
her husband dead. She had gone with her sons to the place of occurrence
where she found her husband lying dead. Kusum Lata is her sister with
whom Nijamuddin alias Lamboo was having an illicit affair. Kusum Lata was
working as a teacher in Raidih where she used to go with Lamboo. Her
husband had written an application for getting Kusum Lata transferred from
Raidih and about 10-15 days back, a Panchayati was called which her
husband attended, and who had disclosed to her that Lamboo had threatened
him. There was already a land dispute existing between Kusum Lata and her
husband.
In cross-examination, she has deposed that she works in the
Anganwadi. She, her daughter and wife of Manmohan had followed Sunil to
the place of occurrence. Her statement was recorded by the Police on
21.12.1990.
P.W.12 Birsu Munda works as a labour in the house of mukhiya,
Hemant Kumar. He has stated that the mukhiya had gone to Shankh More at
07.00 PM to bring his clothes and when he did not return even at 8.30 PM, the
wife of the mukhiya had asked him and his sons to bring him back. When
7|Page
they reached Mission Chowk, they heard some sounds coming from the
unmetalled road and when Sunil flashed the torch light, he found four
persons pinning down a person on the ground and one person was assaulting
him with the bhujali. Kusum Lata was exhorting the others to finish him off.
When the torch light was flashed once again, he recognised Lamboo as the
person who was committing the assault. On seeing the incident, they
returned back and informed Manmohan, Surendra, Madhu Korva and
Chotan and returned back to the place of occurrence and where the
miscreants could not be found and the mukhiya was lying dead. Lamboo had
an illicit relationship with Kusum Lata which was objected to by the
mukhiya, Hemant Kumar.
In cross-examination, he has deposed that while searching for his
master they had not carried any arms. They had seen the assault from a
distance of 50 yards and stopped out of fear. They had stayed there for about
20 minutes. The torch light was kept on for 5 minutes by Sunil. The presence
of Kusum Lata at the place of occurrence solidified their belief that it was the
mukhiya who was being assaulted. The miscreants did not retaliate even
when flashlight from the torch was pointed towards them. He had stayed
near the dead body the entire night. He has deposed that the police had come
in the next day at 10.00 PM.
P.W. 13 Dwarika Prasad is a seizure list witness who has identified his
signature and the signature of Gunjeshwar Jha upon the seizure list which
have been marked as Ext.-4/1, Ext.-4/2, Ext.-5/1 and Ext.-5/2.
P.W.14 Madhu Korva has stated that on the date of the incident he was
in front of his house after having dinner when he heard some sound coming
from the hotel of Manmohan and when he went to the hotel, he found
Manmohan, Anil, Sunil, Birsu and others. They were having barchas in their
possession and he was asked to arm himself with a lathi. He had taken the
lathi and all went towards the Mission Chowk, where in the torchlight, the
dead body of mukhiya Hemant Kumar was seen lying.
In cross-examination he has deposed that there were 10-12 persons in
the hotel of Manmohan and Manmohan had disclosed to him that someone
8|Page
had committed the murder of the mukhiya. He had stated before the Police
that Birsu had disclosed that Lamboo, Kusum Lata and 3-4 other persons had
committed the murder of the mukhiya.
P.W.15 Gunjeshwar Jha has stated that about 2 and half years back on
a Sunday at 01:00PM, Nehru had come and threatened that since he has been
implicated in a false rape case, he would commit his murder as well as the
murder of Dwarika Prasad, Manmohan Prasad and Hemant Kumar Sinha.
He had stated before the Police that Lamboo alias Nijamuddin had come with
a motorcycle and had taken away Nehru with him. After 3-4 days of the
incident, the mukhiya was murdered.
P.W.16 Ramesh Prasad Gupta has been declared hostile by the
prosecution.
P.W.17 Traigan Oraon is the Chowkidar who had taken the dead body
along with Vijay Ram to Sadar Hospital, Gumla for post mortem
examination.
P.W.18 Braj Mohan Prasad was posted as a S.I at Raidih P.S. and on
19.12.1990, in the morning, he received an information that the mukhiya of
Village Manjhatoli, Hemant Kumar Sinha was murdered by unknown
persons. After making a general diary entry, he along with other Police
personnel proceeded towards Manjhatoli. When he reached Mission More,
he found a crowd had gathered and the dead body of the mukhiya was lying
on the ground. He asked about who the offender was and the persons who
had assembled had stated that the sons and servant of the mukhiya are aware
of it. He had prepared the inquest report and send the body for the post
mortem examination to Sadar Hospital, Gumla. He had seized the articles
found near the dead body and seizure list were prepared. He had recorded
the fardbeyan of Sunil Kumar Sinha which has been marked as Ext.-6. He had
thereafter recorded the re-statement of the informant and inspected the place
of occurrence which is an open place of P.wD in the northern side of Gumla-
Jaspur metalled road. He had recorded the statement of the witnesses. After
the officer-in-charge came at 04:30 PM, he had handed over the investigation
to him.
9|Page
In cross-examination he has deposed that the crowd had resorted to
stone pelting as a result which he and Lucus Lakra had suffered injuries.
P.W.19 Orian James Paradhia was posted as the Officer-in-charge of
Raidih P.S. who had returned back from leave on 19.12.1990 and went in the
evening to Manjhatoli. On 20.12.1990, he had arrested Nijamuddin alias
Lamboo from his house and a search was conducted in his house. He had
recorded the statement of the witnesses and on completion of investigation,
had submitted charge sheet. The witness Kishore Beck had stated before him
about the disclosure made by Sunil Kumar Sinha regarding the involvement
of Lamboo and Kusum Lata in the murder. The witnesses Surenda Prasad
Sahu, Punai Oraon, Johanus Minj, Ramesh Prasad all have supported the case
of the prosecution. The witness Akshai Rani had not disclosed the
involvement of Lamboo and Kusum Lata. The witness Madhu Korva had also
not stated before him about accused Lamboo and Kusum Lata committing
the murder of the mukhiya.
5. The statements of the accused was recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C.
in which they have denied their complicity in the offence.
6. It has been submitted by Mr. Peeyush Krishna Choudhary, learned
counsel appearing for the appellant that the appellant has been implicated on
the basis of previous enmity. It has been submitted that none of the witnesses
can be said to be eye witnesses as they have revealed an unnatural conduct
on their part as P.W.2, P.W.3 and P.W.12 had all returned back to their house
inspite of knowing the fact that it was the father of P.W.2 and P.W.3 who was
being assaulted repeatedly with a bhujali by the appellant. It has also been
submitted that no incriminating articles were recovered from the possession
of the appellant.
7. Mr. Pankaj Kumar, learned P.P. has submitted that seeing such brutal
assault and the presence of other persons assaulting the appellant in the
assault had forced P.W.2, P.W.3 and P.W.12 to scramble back home out of
fear and they had returned back to the place of occurrence with several other
villagers, though the accused persons had by that time fled away. The
recovery of a bhujali from near the dead body and the findings in the post
10 | P a g e
mortem report further leads credence to the fardbeyan of the informant
(P.W.2).
8. We have heard the learned counsel for the respective parties and have
also perused the lower court records.
9. The implication of the appellant is based upon the eye witness account
of P.W.2, P.W.3 and P.W.12. The father of P.W.2 and P.W.3 did not return
home by 8:30PM and getting worried, P.W.2 and P.W.3 along with their
servant P.W.12 had gone in search of him and near Mission More, on hearing
some sounds, the torch was put on and it was seen that 3-4 persons were
pinning down another person who was being assaulted with a bhujali by the
appellant and Kusum Lata was exhorting the accused persons to finish off the
victim. These witnesses returned back home and after disclosing the matter
to the other villagers, went back to the place of occurrence where they saw
the dead body of the mukhiya Hemant Kumar lying on the ground. The
assailants had already left by then.
10. The evidence of these eye witnesses leaves no room for doubt that they
had identified the victim as the mukhiya. The wife of the deceased who has
been examined as P.W.11, has stated that when her sons had returned back,
they had disclosed that their father has been murdered after which they had
once again left for the place of occurrence along with other villagers with
P.W.11, her daughter and the wife of P.W.5 following them. The place of
occurrence appears to be in a lonely spot with no source of light visible
nearby. P.W.2 and P.W.3 have stated that the torch light was put on only once
and thereafter it was switched off. P.W.12 seems to have exaggerated his eye
witness account as he has stated that they had witnessed the incident for
twenty minutes and P.W.2 had put on the torch light for five minutes. What
could be culled out from the evidence of the eye witnesses is that the assault
was seen fleetingly but the appellant was identified in that light as the person
who was giving bhujali blows upon his father, who had been pinned down
to the ground by some persons with Kusum Lata exhorting them to kill the
mukhiya. The other interesting aspect seems to be the nonchalant conduct of
the miscreants as though they were aware about the presence of these
11 | P a g e
persons and the flashlight from the torch was pointed at them but neither
there was any reaction from those persons nor were they warned or
threatened. This conduct of the miscreants seems too much to digest. When
we have touched upon the conduct of the miscreants, we must also have a
glimpse about the conduct of P.W.2, P.W.3 and P.W.12. P.W.2 and P.W.3 are
the sons of the deceased, who were in the early 20s and so was their servant
P.W.12, but it seems that inspite of knowing the victim to be their father, no
attempts were made by P.W.2 or P.W.3 to prevent the assault or cause attack
upon the miscreants. As per P.W.12, neither he nor P.W.2 and P.W.3 had any
arms with them but save and except the bhujali, the other miscreants having
arms have not been disclosed by them. P.W.2 and P.W.3 had not stated that
they, out of fear, had fled away from the place of occurrence. The evidence of
P.W.2 and P.W.3 are sans any emotion and are matter of fact statements
which does not help the cause of the prosecution. The identification of the
appellant as the assailant is shrouded with doubt which further gets
intensified with the conduct of P.W.2, P.W.3 and P.W.12. In this context, we
may refer to the case of Narendrasinh Keshubhai Zala Vs. State of Gujarat
Reported in 2023 Livelaw (SC227), wherein it has been held as follows:
"8. It is a settled principle of law that doubt cannot replace proof. Suspicion,
howsoever great it may be, is no substitute of proof in criminal jurisprudence
[Jagga Singh v. State of Punjab, 1994 Supp (3) SCC 463]. Only such
evidence is admissible and acceptable as is permissible in accordance with
law. In the case of a sole eye witness, the witness has to be reliable,
trustworthy, his testimony worthy of credence and the case proven beyond
reasonable doubt. Unnatural conduct and unexplained circumstances can
be a ground for disbelieving the witness. This Court in the case of Anil
Phukan v. State of Assam, (1993) 3 SCC 282 has held that: "3. ... So long
as the single eyewitness is a wholly reliable witness the courts have no
difficulty in basing conviction on his testimony alone. However, where the
single eyewitness is not found to be a wholly reliable witness, in the sense
that there are some circumstances which may show that he could have an
interest in the prosecution, then the courts generally insist upon some
independent corroboration of his testimony, in material particulars, before
recording conviction. It is only when the courts find that the single
12 | P a g e
eyewitness is a wholly unreliable witness that his testimony is discarded in
toto and no amount of corroboration can cure that defect..." The same
principle has been enunciated in: Amar Singh v. State (NCT of Delhi),
(2020) 19 SCC 165."
11. The identification of the appellant by P.W.2, P.W.3 and P.W.12 having
been doubted by us, the reason for such false implication of the appellant is
not hard to gather. It is the consistent case of the prosecution that the
appellant was having an illicit relationship with Kusum Lata who happens to
be the sister-in-law of the deceased which was objected to by the deceased
and which resulted in a Panchayati being held and the deceased was given a
threat by the appellant as per P.W.11. Another aspect of the enmity is with
respect to the landed property between the deceased and Kusum Lata and it
was the deceased who had written an application for transfer of Kusum Lata
from Raidih where she was working in a school. As such, there was a two-
pronged enmity between the deceased and the appellant as well as Kusum
Lata and both were thereby made accused in the murder of mukhiya Hemant
Kumar.
12. The learned trial court having not properly appreciated the evidence
on record and on a conspectus of the discussions made by us which makes
the case of the prosecution totally doubtful, we have no hesitation but to set
aside the judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 04.07.1995
(sentence passed on 05.07.1995) passed by Shri Rameshwar Prasad Verma,
learned Additional Sessions Judge, Gumla in S.T. No. 101 of 1991.
13. This appeal is allowed.
15. Since the appellant is on bail, he is discharged from the liability of his
bail bonds.
(RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY, J.)
(DEEPAK ROSHAN, J.)
Jharkhand High Court, Ranchi
Dated the 10th June, 2024
Preet/N.A.F.R.
13 | P a g e
