Mahesh Paswan vs The State Of Bihar
2022 Latest Caselaw 2000 Patna

     IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
                 CRIMINAL APPEAL (DB) No.812 of 2018
     Arising Out of PS. Case No.-180 Year-2003 Thana- HARNAUT District- Nalanda
 ======================================================

Mahesh Paswan son of Paras Paswan resident of village - Bheriya, P.S. - Telmar Harnaut, District - Nalanda.

... ... Appellant Versus The State of Bihar

... ... Respondent ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Appellant : Mr. Mrityunjay Kumar, Adv.

For the Respondent : Mr. Ajay Mishra, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ASHWANI KUMAR SINGH and HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJEEV RANJAN PRASAD ORAL JUDGMENT (Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ASHWANI KUMAR SINGH)

Date : 04-04-2022

In the present appeal, the judgment of conviction

dated 28th April, 2018 and the order of sentence dated 5th May,

2018 passed in Sessions Trial No. 73 of 2005 arising out of

Harnaut (Telmar) P.S. Case No. 180 of 2003 by the learned

Presiding Officer, Fast Track Court No.1, Nalanda, Biharsharif is

under challenge.

2. By the impugned judgment, learned Trial Court has

convicted the appellant Mahesh Paswan under Section 302 read

with 149 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 27 of the Arms

Act. By the impugned order, the appellant has been sentenced to

undergo rigorous imprisonment for life and to pay fine of Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.812 of 2018 dt.04-04-2022

Rs.10,000/- and in default of payment of fine to undergo rigorous

imprisonment for two years under Section 302 of the Indian Penal

Code and rigorous imprisonment for three years and to pay fine of

Rs.1,000/- and in default of payment of fine to undergo rigorous

imprisonment for two months under Section 27 of the Arms Act.

3. The case of the prosecution is based on the oral

statement of Mithilesh Kumar (P.W.5) recorded by one Chandra

Deep Singh, Sub-Inspector of Police on 20th October, 2003 at the

door of his house at 04:15 PM. In his oral statement, Mithilesh

Kumar stated that on 20th October, 2003 at about 01:00 PM while

he and his brother were busy in getting a water hand-pump fixed

in the courtyard of his house by a hand-pump mechanic and his

father was entering the house with a bucket full of water, the

accused persons, namely, Hare Kishun Paswan, Ram Babu

Paswan, Ram Raj Paswan, Mahesh Paswan, Paras Paswan, Shiv

Paswan, Loknath Paswan, Hare Ram Paswan, Sudhir Paswan,

Parmanand Paswan, Ram Jatan Paswan, Arbind Paswan, Lalendar

Paswan, Sucharam Paswan, Mangal Paswan along with 8-10

unknown miscreants being variously armed and forming an

unlawful assembly arrived there and exploded a bomb to create

fear as a result of which they were terrified. Thereafter, Paras

Paswan exhorted upon which Hare Kishun Paswan opened fire Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.812 of 2018 dt.04-04-2022

causing injury to his father in his thigh. When his father rushed

inside the house, the accused persons also entered inside the

house and killed him. In the meantime, when his mother Garbhi

Devi went to his rescue, they shot her fatally. He further stated

that a boy, namely, Sonu @ Ravi Shankar Kumar son of Ranjeet

Singh and Karu Kumar son of Ram Narain Singh also sustained

gun shot injuries in the firing made by the accused persons. The

injured persons were taken to hospital. The motive for the

occurrence was alleged to be an old enmity existing between the

parties.

4. Treating the aforesaid oral statement of Mithilesh

Kumar (P.W.5), Shiv Shambhu Prasad Sahu, the S.H.O. of

Harnaut (Telmar) Police Station registered the first information

report (for short 'FIR') vide Harnaut P.S. Case No. 180 of 2003

dated 20th October, 2003 under Sections 147, 148, 149, 324, 326,

307 and 302 of the Indian Penal Code (for short 'IPC'), 27 of the

Arms Act and 3 and 4 of the Explosive Substances Act at 08:30

PM against the aforesaid 15 named accused persons and 8-10

unknown accused persons and handed over the investigation of

the case to Chandra Deep Singh, Sub-Inspector of Police.

5. On completion of investigation, the Investigating

Officer initially submitted charge-sheet against five accused Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.812 of 2018 dt.04-04-2022

persons, namely, Ram Jatan Paswan, Arbind Paswan, Lalendra

Paswan, Sucharan Paswan and Mangal Paswan under Sections

147, 148, 149, 324, 326, 307 and 302 of the IPC, 27 of the Arms

Act and 3 and 4 of the Explosive Substances Act vide charge-

sheet no. 23 of 2004 dated 10 th March, 2004 and kept the

investigation open in respect of the other accused persons.

Subsequently, a supplementary charge-sheet, vide charge-sheet

no. 134 of 2004 dated 17th October, 2004 under the aforesaid

provisions of law was submitted by the Investigating Officer

against Mahesh Paswan (appellant), Hare Ram Paswan and

Sudhir Paswan and the investigation was kept open with respect

to the remaining accused persons.

6. After commitment of the case, the appellant Mahesh

Paswan was charged together with Sudhir Paswan and Hare Ram

Paswan for the offences under Sections 302 read with 149 and

307 of the IPC and 27 of the Arms Act by the Trial Court. Since

the appellant and the two other accused persons did not plead

guilty to the charges, the trial commenced.

7. In support of its case, the prosecution examined

altogether eight witnesses. After closure of the prosecution

evidence, the appellant and other co-accused persons were

examined under Section 313(1)(b) of the Code of Criminal Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.812 of 2018 dt.04-04-2022

Procedure. They denied that they have committed the offences

alleged against them. The case of the defence was that all the

accused persons were innocent. The defence did not adduce any

evidence.

8. After hearing the parties, though the Trial Court

acquitted Sudhir Paswan and Hare Ram Paswan and discharged

them from the liabilities of their bail bonds, it arrived at a finding

that charges under Section 302 read with 149 of the IPC and

Section 27 of the Arms Act had been proved beyond reasonable

doubt against the appellant. It convicted the appellant for the

aforesaid offences and sentenced him accordingly.

9. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid conviction and

sentence passed against him, the appellant has preferred the

instant appeal.

10. We have heard Mr. Mritunjay Kumar, learned

counsel for the appellant and Mr. Ajay Mishra, learned Additional

Public Prosecutor for the State and carefully perused the

evidences adduced during trial.

11. On perusal of the record, we find that the

examination-in-chief of Mithilesh Kumar (P.W.5) was held by

the Trial Court on 26th September, 2011. He had reiterated the

prosecution case as narrated by him in his oral statement recorded Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.812 of 2018 dt.04-04-2022

by Chandra Deep Singh, the Investigating Officer of the case. He

was cross-examined at length on 27th September, 2011. However,

his cross-examination could not be completed on that day.

Thereafter, he did not turn up before the Trial Court for further

cross-examination.

12. Bijendra Beldar (P.W.1) son of the deceased Kailu

Bind and Garbhi Devi stated in his testimony that on 20th October,

2003 at 12:30 PM he was at his house. His brother Fuchchu Bind,

his wife Manju Devi, aunt Kanti Devi and father Kailu Bind were

present in the house. At that time, water hand-pump was being

affixed. While his mother and father were sitting in the lane, 10-

12 accused persons arrived out of whom he could identify Hare

Krishna Paswan, Ram Raj Paswan, Mahesh Paswan, Paras

Paswan, Shiv Paswan, Parmanand Paswan, Ram Jatan Paswan,

Arbind Paswan and Dularchand Paswan. They were variously

armed with gun and rifle. It was Hare Krishna Paswan, who fired

first causing injury in the thigh of his father, Ram Raj Paswan

shot his mother fatally and Mahesh Paswan shot Sonu Kumar in

his abdomen. After sustaining gun shot injury when his father

rushed inside the house, Paras Paswan exhorted that nobody

should be spared whereupon Hare Krishna Paswan entered inside

the house with his gun and again shot his father in his chest as a Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.812 of 2018 dt.04-04-2022

result of which he died on the spot. The injured Sonu Kumar was

taken to hospital for treatment. He further stated that one Karu

had also sustained injury in his chest. He stated that Sonu Kumar

died while he was on way to the hospital whereas his mother died

on the spot. He stated that his brother had given his oral statement

before the police in his presence. He proved his signature on the

oral statement reduced into writing by the Investigating Officer of

the case. He identified the accused persons in the dock.

13. In cross-examination, he admitted that accused Hare

Ram Paswan and Sudhir Paswan are his co-villagers and they

were not involved in the occurrence. He stated that his father has

four brothers and all his uncles live in separate house. He stated

that it was Indra Deo Mistri (not examined) who was fixing the

water hand-pump in the courtyard. He stated that he had seen his

mother being shot from point blank range. He further contended

that when his father entered inside the house after sustaining gun

shot injury, accused persons again shot him inside the house. He

admitted that the neighbours had arrived at the place of

occurrence after the incident. He further admitted that because the

gun shots hit the gamchha and underwear of his father and the

sari and petticoat of his mother, who had sustained injury in her

thigh, hole was caused on those clothes. He admitted that blood Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.812 of 2018 dt.04-04-2022

had fallen on the earth and the Investigating Officer was shown

blood at the place of occurrence and the holes in the sari and

petticoat of his mother and gamchha and underwear of his father.

His attention was drawn towards his previous statement made

before the police. He stated that he had narrated to the

Investigating Officer that it was Hare Krishna Paswan who

opened fire first, which caused injury in the thigh of his father,

whereafter Ram Raj Paswan fatally shot his mother and Mahesh

Paswan opened fire causing injury in the abdomen of Sonu. He

stated that he had also stated before the Investigating Officer that

on the exhortion made by Paras Paswan, Hare Krishna Paswan

entered inside the house and shot his father with his rifle causing

injury in his chest as a result of which his father died on the spot.

His mother also died on the spot. He had also stated that the

injured Sonu died on way to the hospital. He denied the defence

suggestion that his father was a veteran criminal and he and

others died in a different manner and a false case has been

instituted due to old enmity.

14. Ranjeet Singh (P.W.2) stated in his evidence that his

son Sonu @ Ravi Shankar had gone to bring sugar. He sustained

gun shot injury as a result of which he became restless. He stated

that his cousin brother Karu also sustained gun shot injury. Kailu Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.812 of 2018 dt.04-04-2022

Bind and Garbhi Devi also sustained gun shot injuries. In his

examination-in-chief itself he admitted that he did not see who

shot Sonu. It was Sonu who disclosed him that Mahesh Paswan

had shot him in the navel. He stated that because of the gun shot

injuries Kailu Bind, Garbhi Devi and Sonu died. However, Karu

Bind survived. He identified the accused persons in the dock.

15. In cross-examination, he admitted that he did not

witness the occurrence. He further admitted that his statement

was recorded by the police at 04:00 PM on the date of occurrence.

He admitted that he came to know through his son Sonu that it

was Mahesh Paswan who had caused gun shot injury to him. He

stated that the occurrence took place at 01:00 PM. At that time,

his son was conscious. He died at about 04:00 PM. He stated that

he took his son to hospital on a cot first. After some distance, the

cot was drenched with blood. However, it was not shown to the

police. After some distance, he took his son in the police jeep. He

stated that at that time neither his statement nor the statement of

his son was recorded by the police. He stated that his statement

was recorded in the hospital. He denied the defence suggestion

that since the accused persons belong to weaker section of the

society, he has implicated them in a false case.

16. Kanti Devi (P.W.3), aunt of the informant, stated in Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.812 of 2018 dt.04-04-2022

her testimony that the incident occurred at around 01:00 PM. At

that time she was at her house. She was informed about the deaths

and came to the scene of the crime. She stated that Ram Raj

Paswan shot Kailu Bind, Hare Krishna Paswan shot Garbhi Devi,

Mahesh Paswan shot Sonu and Paras Paswan shot Karu.

17. In cross-examination she also admitted that she had

not witnessed the occurrence. She admitted that her husband has

four brothers and they all live in their own house separately. She

stated that she had seen the injuries sustained by the deceased

Kailu Bind and Garbhi Devi. She had also seen the injured Sonu.

She stated that at that time Sonu was alive and was able to speak.

Her attention was drawn towards her previous statement made

before the police. She admitted that she had stated in her previous

statement that Ram Raj Paswan shot Kailu Bind, Hare Krishna

Paswan shot Garbhi Devi, Mahesh Paswan shot Sonu and Paras

Paswan shot Karu. She denied the defence suggestion that she has

given tutored evidence before the court.

18. Manju Devi (P.W.4), wife of Bijendra Beldar

(P.W.1) stated in her evidence that at the time of incident she was

at her house. She heard sound of firing. When she came out, she

saw her mother-in-law dead due to gun shot injury. She saw that

Sonu had sustained gun shot injury. She stated that she came to Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.812 of 2018 dt.04-04-2022

know that her father-in-law and mother-in-law were shot by Hare

Krishna Paswan and Sonu was shot by Mahesh Paswan. She

stated that because of the gun shot injury his father-in- law and

mother-in-law died.

19. In cross-examination, she stated that Kailu Bind and

Garbhi Devi were shot dead at the door of their house and Sonu

was shot near the shop. She admitted that the police arrived at the

place of occurrence at 02:00 PM on the date of occurrence. She

further admitted that she and her husband gave their statements in

writing to the police. Mithilesh Kumar also gave his statement in

writing to the police. She admitted that her statement was

recorded by the police in which she had stated that it was Mahesh

Paswan who shot Sonu and Hare Krishna Paswan had fired twice

at her father-in-law, which caused injury in his thigh and chest.

He also fatally shot her mother-in-law. She denied the defence

suggestion that her father-in-law was a veteran criminal of the

area and he had been killed in a different manner due to his

criminal activity.

20. Devnandan Singh (P.W.6) stated in his

examination-in-chief that he does not know anything about the

incident. He further stated that his statement was never recorded

by the police during investigation. At the request of the Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.812 of 2018 dt.04-04-2022

Prosecutor, the Trial Court declared him hostile. He was cross-

examined by the prosecution. However, nothing relevant could be

taken out from him in the cross-examination.

21. Madheshwar Rai (P.W.7) stated in his testimony

that he was entrusted with the supplementary investigation of the

case. After taking over the investigation of the case, he collected

the post-mortem report of Kailu Bind, Garbhi Devi and Sonu and,

pursuant to the direction given by the superior police officer, he

submitted supplementary charge-sheet against Mahesh Paswan,

Hare Ram Paswan and Sudhir Paswan.

22. Dr. Ramanand Sah Suman (P.W.8) was the

Medical Officer posted at the Sadar Hospital, Biharsharif on 21 st

October, 2003. On that date he had conducted the post-mortem

examination of Kailu Bind and Garbhi Devi. In his evidence, he

admitted that the original post-mortem report was not available

before him. He further admitted that the attested copy of the post-

mortem reports of Kailu Bind and Garbhi Devi, which were

marked as Exhibits 1 and 1/1, were not clearly visible. He

admitted that he is not in a position to say as to why the original

reports were not produced before the court. From the attested

copies of the post-mortem reports, which were not visible, he

could only say that Kailu Bind had died due to massive Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.812 of 2018 dt.04-04-2022

hemorrhage and shock caused by fire arm within 24 hours.

Similarly, after going through the attested copies of the post-

mortem report of Garbhi Devi he could simply say that cause of

death was massive hemorrhage and shock due to fire arm injury

sustained by her.

23. Mr. Mritunjay Kumar, learned counsel for the

appellant submitted that the Trial Court has convicted the

appellant in absence of any reliable evidence. He submitted that

since the informant did not turn up for further cross-examination

after he was cross-examined in part, his evidence should not have

been taken into consideration for arriving at a conclusion of guilt

against the appellant by the learned Trial Court. He further

contended that Ranjeet Singh (P.W.2), Kanti Devi (P.W.3) and

Manju Devi (P.W.4) are not the eye-witnesses to the occurrence.

They are hearsay witnesses. They are not consistent while

deposing before the court. The only other witness is Bijendra

Beldar, who claims himself to be an eye-witness.

24. He submitted that the main Investigating Officer,

who had conducted the investigation of the case was not

examined during trial. The place of occurrence has not been

established as neither empties were seized nor blood nor blood

stained clothes of the deceased and the two injured were seized by Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.812 of 2018 dt.04-04-2022

the police. In absence of his examination, the case of the defence

has greatly been prejudiced. He argued that though the trial was

held for killing of three persons, the doctor, who had conducted

the post-mortem examination on the body of deceased Sonu, was

not examined during trial. Even the post-mortem report of Sonu

was not produced and proved by any formal witness. Not only

this, the post-mortem report of the other two deceased was also

not produced in original. The attested copy of the post-mortem

report, which was produced before the court was not legible.

Thus, he urged that the conviction has been recorded by the Trial

Court merely on the basis of uncorroborated testimony of

Bijendra Beldar (P.W.1).

25. On the other hand, Mr. Ajay Mishra, learned

Additional Public Prosecutor for the State submitted that Bijendra

Beldar (P.W.1) is an eye-witness to the incident. He has fully

supported the prosecution case during trial. He is a witness to the

oral statement of the informant. He contended that the informant

had also adduced his evidence before the Trial Court. He was

cross-examined at length. Unfortunately, his cross-examination

could not be completed on the day on which he was present

before the court. He submitted that non-examination of the

Investigating Officer or the doctor, who conducted post-mortem Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.812 of 2018 dt.04-04-2022

examination on the body of Sonu has not prejudiced the case of

defence in any manner. His contention is that Ranjeet Singh

(P.W.2), Kanti Devi (P.W.3) and Manju Devi (P.W.4) had arrived

at the place of occurrence immediately after the incident took

place and their evidence also fully corroborates the prosecution

case. The doctor, who had conducted post-mortem examination

on the body of the deceased Kailu Bind and Garbhi Devi, was

also examined during trial and his evidence would also suggest

that the death of the aforesaid two deceased was caused due to

fire arm injury.

26. Mr. Mishra, learned Additional Public Prosecutor

submitted that there is no error in the judgment passed by the

Trial Court and the appellant has rightly been held guilty for the

charges under Section 302 read with 149 of the IPC and Section

27 of the Arms Act.

27. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and

having perused the evidence on record, we find force in the

submissions of the learned counsel for the appellant. It would be

evident from the prosecution case, as narrated by the witnesses

examined during trial, that the accused persons had resorted to

several rounds of firing at the door of the house of the informant

and inside the house. However, there is no seizure of either Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.812 of 2018 dt.04-04-2022

weapon of the crime or the empties from the scene of crime.

There is no evidence that bullet mark was found on the walls of

the house. It is the case of the prosecution that blood had fallen on

the ground in huge quantity and the gamchha and the underwear

of Kailu Bind and sari and petticoat of Garbhi Devi were hit by

gun shots and they were having holes. However, the prosecution

failed to lead any evidence in this regard. It also failed to produce

either the seizure list or the material exhibits during trial. Under

the circumstances noted above, we are of the opinion that the

prosecution failed to establish the place of occurrence.

28. It has come in the evidence of Ranjeet Singh (P.W.2)

that the injured Sonu was first taken to some distance on a cot and

thereafter he was taken to hospital in a police jeep. However, on

way, he died. The cot on which Sonu was being carried had also

blood mark. However, neither the cot was seized nor the blood

found on the cot was sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory for

test.

29. It is shocking to note that the prosecution has dealt

with the case involving triple murder in the most casual and

insensitive manner. The Investigating Officer, who recorded the

oral statement of the informant, inspected the place of occurrence

after the incident took place, recorded the statements of witnesses Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.812 of 2018 dt.04-04-2022

and submitted the initial report under Section 173(2) of the Code

of Criminal Procedure against some of the accused persons did

not turn up during trial. There is no explanation for his non-

examination during trial. The oral statement reduced into writing

by him, which led to the institution of the FIR, was also not

proved during trial. The attention of the witnesses examined

during trial was drawn towards their previous statements, but

owing to non-examination of the Investigating Officer, the

contradictions could not be taken by the defence. In that view of

the matter, we are of the opinion that the defence has certainly

been prejudiced in the present case.

30. The lack of sensitivity on the part of the prosecution

would further be reflected from the fact that the original post-

mortem reports of the three deceased were also not produced

during trial. The prosecution brought the attested copies of the

post-mortem reports of Kailu Bind and Garbhi Devi. However,

those attested copies of the post-mortem reports are also of no use

because the doctor, who conducted the post-mortem examination

on the body of the two deceased, namely, Dr. Ramanand Sah

Suman (P.W.8) categorically admitted in his examination-in-chief

that the attested copies are so faint that injury on the person of the

two deceased are not visible. There is no explanation as to why Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.812 of 2018 dt.04-04-2022

the original post-mortem reports of the three deceased could not

be produced.

31. It is a glaring example of an incompetent, negligent,

insensitive, callous and collusive prosecution in a multiple murder

case. The prosecution has neither produced the post-mortem

report of the deceased Sonu nor the doctor, who conducted his

post-mortem examination was examined during trial.

32. So far as the appellant Mahesh Paswan is concerned,

he is alleged to have shot Sonu Kumar, who sustained injury in

his abdomen. The defence had no opportunity to look into the

nature of injuries sustained by him. It is not known what kind of

injury was sustained by Sonu. The defence did not get any

opportunity to cross-examine the doctor, who conducted autopsy

on the body of the deceased Sonu. One does not know whether

Sonu died due to gun shot injury or his death was a natural one or

due to the injury caused in a different manner by a different

weapon. The withholdment of post-mortem report of Sonu and

non-examination of the doctor, who conducted the autopsy has

certainly caused great prejudice to the case of the defence.

33. Similarly, withholdment of the original post-mortem

reports of the two other deceased because of which the doctor,

who conducted the autopsy, expressed his inability to explain the Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.812 of 2018 dt.04-04-2022

injuries sustained by them has also caused great prejudice to the

case of the defence.

34. Since the informant did not turn up for further cross-

examination, his evidence has to be discarded.

35. The important witnesses like main Investigating

Officer, who recorded the oral statement of the informant on the

basis of which the FIR was instituted, the SHO who drew the

formal FIR and Indradeo Mistri, the mechanic, who was fixing

the water hand-pump in the courtyard of the informant at the

relevant time were not examined during trial. Even the oral

statement of the informant and the formal FIR could not be

proved during trial. The original post-mortem reports of the three

deceased have been suppressed. The attested copies of the post-

mortem reports of the two deceased were so faint that they could

not be read even by the doctor, who conducted the autopsy and

prepared them.

36. Apart from the aforesaid deficiencies in the

prosecution case, when we look at the testimony of Manju Devi

(P.W.4), we find that she admitted in her cross-examination that

the police had arrived at the place of occurrence at 02:00 PM and

she and her husband had given their written statements in writing

to the police. If that be so, either the written statement made by Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.812 of 2018 dt.04-04-2022

the P.W.4 or her husband, who had given the written statement,

first ought to have been treated as the FIR and not the subsequent

statement of Mithilesh Kumar (P.W.5), which was made before

Chandra Deep Singh, the Sub-Inspector of Police at 04:15 PM on

20th October, 2003. In that case, the oral statement, which was

signed by Mithilesh Kumar (P.W.5) would be hit by Section 162

of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

37. Further, Bijendra Beldar (P.W.1) stated in his

testimony that Ram Raj Paswan shot his mother Garbhi Devi

whereas Kanti Devi (P.W.3) and Manju Devi (P.W.4) stated that

Hare Krishna Paswan shot Garbhi Devi. Similarly, Bijendra

Beldar (P.W.1) stated in his testimony that it was Hare Krishna

Paswan who fired causing injury in the thigh of his father Kailu

Bind whereas Kanti Devi (P.W.3) stated that Ram Raj Paswan

shot Kailu Bind and Manju Devi (P.W.4) stated that it was Hare

Krishna Paswan who shot Kailu Bind. Thus, there is material

inconsistencies in the testimony of the prosecution witnesses

examined during trial.

38. In the circumstances mentioned above, we are of the

opinion that the Trial Court has not arrived at a correct finding.

The prosecution has miserably failed to prove the charges beyond

reasonable doubt.

Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.812 of 2018 dt.04-04-2022

39. In the result and for the reasons discussed above, the

impugned judgment of conviction dated 28th April, 2018 and the

order of sentence dated 5th May, 2018 passed in Sessions Trial No.

73 of 2005 arising out of Harnaut (Telmar) P.S. Case No. 180 of

2003 by the learned Presiding Officer, Fast Track Court No.1,

Nalanda, Biharsharif are hereby set aside.

40. The appeal stands allowed. The appellant Mahesh

Paswan, who is in custody, is directed to be released forthwith, if

not wanted in any other case.

(Ashwani Kumar Singh, J)

( Rajeev Ranjan Prasad, J) Pradeep/-

AFR/NAFR                         NAFR
CAV DATE                         N.A.
Uploading Date                05.04.2022
Transmission Date             05.04.2022