Ram Shobhit Yadav vs The State Of Bihar
2023 Latest Caselaw 2498 Patna

         IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
                     CRIMINAL APPEAL (DB) No.205 of 2017
        Arising Out of PS. Case No.-121 Year-2013 Thana- KAMTAUL District- Darbhanga
     ======================================================

1. Shyam Sunder Raut

2. Nawal Kishore Raut.

3. Awadh Kishore Raut.

4. Rambabu Raut.

5. Sanjay Raut.

6. Manoj Raut,

7. Uma Raut @ Umashankar Raut, All Sons of Late Radha Krishna Raut, Resident of Village Baggha, P.S. Kamtaul, District- Darbhanga.

... ... Appellant/s Versus The State Of Bihar

... ... Respondent/s ====================================================== with CRIMINAL APPEAL (DB) No. 169 of 2017 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-121 Year-2013 Thana- KAMTAUL District- Darbhanga ====================================================== Rakesh Yadav Son of Ram Shobhit Yadav, Resident of Village- P.S.- Kamtaul, District- Darbhanga.

... ... Appellant/s Versus The State Of Bihar

... ... Respondent/s ====================================================== with CRIMINAL APPEAL (DB) No. 191 of 2017 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-121 Year-2013 Thana- KAMTAUL District- Darbhanga ======================================================

1. Ram Chandra Yadav and Ors S/o Chethru Yadav

2. Naresh Yadav S/o Ramchandra Yadav

3. Ram Sudhar Yadav S/o Ram Chandra Yadav All Resident of Village-Baagha, P.S. Kamtaul, District-Darbhanga.

... ... Appellant/s Versus The State Of Bihar

... ... Respondent/s Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.205 of 2017 dt.19-05-2023

====================================================== with CRIMINAL APPEAL (DB) No. 236 of 2017 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-121 Year-2013 Thana- KAMTAUL District- Darbhanga ====================================================== Ram Shobhit Yadav Son of Late Nirshu Yadav, resident of Village- Bagha, P.S.- Kamtaul, District- Darbhanga.

... ... Appellant/s Versus The State Of Bihar

... ... Respondent/s ====================================================== with CRIMINAL APPEAL (DB) No. 278 of 2017 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-121 Year-2013 Thana- KAMTAUL District- Darbhanga ====================================================== Ram Sewak Yadav Son of late Rameshwar Yadav Resident of Village- Bagha, Police Station- Kamtaul, District- Darbhanga.

... ... Appellant/s Versus The State Of Bihar

... ... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance :

(In CRIMINAL APPEAL (DB) No. 205 of 2017) For the Appellant/s : Mr. Ajay Kumar Thakur, Adv.

Ms. Vaishnavi Singh, Adv.

Mr. Ritvik Thakur, Adv.

Mr. Purushottam Kumar, Adv.

For the Respondent/s : Mr. Dilip Kumar Sinha, APP (In CRIMINAL APPEAL (DB) No. 169 of 2017) For the Appellant/s : Mr. Ajay Kumar Thakur, Adv.

Ms. Vaishnavi Singh, Adv.

Mr. Ritvik Thakur, Adv.

Mr. Purushottam Kumar, Adv.

For the Respondent/s : Mr.Sri Satya Narayan Prasad, APP (In CRIMINAL APPEAL (DB) No. 191 of 2017) For the Appellant/s : Mr. Ajay Kumar Thakur, Adv.

Ms. Vaishnavi Singh, Adv.

Mr. Ritvik Thakur, Adv.

Mr. Purushottam Kumar, Adv.

For the Respondent/s : Mr.Sri Satya Narayan Prasad, APP (In CRIMINAL APPEAL (DB) No. 236 of 2017) For the Appellant/s : Mr. Ajay Kumar Thakur, Adv.

Ms. Vaishnavi Singh, Adv.

Mr. Ritvik Thakur, Adv.

Mr. Purushottam Kumar, Adv.

For the Respondent/s : Mr.Sri Dilip Kumar Sinha, APP (In CRIMINAL APPEAL (DB) No. 278 of 2017) For the Appellant/s : Mr. Ajay Kumar Thakur, Adv.

Ms. Vaishnavi Singh, Adv.

Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.205 of 2017 dt.19-05-2023

Mr. Ritvik Thakur, Adv.

Mr. Purushottam Kumar, Adv.

For the Respondent/s : Mr. Binod Bihari Singh, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ASHUTOSH KUMAR and HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HARISH KUMAR ORAL JUDGMENT (Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ASHUTOSH KUMAR)

Date : 19-05-2023

1. We have heard Mr. Ajay Kumar Thakur assisted by

Ms. Vaishnavi Singh, Ms. Kiran Thakur, Mr. Ritvik Thakur

and Mr. Purushottam Kumar, learned Advocates and Shri

Dilip Kumar Sinha and Shri Satyan Narayan Prasad for

the State and Mr. Shantanu Kumar for the informant in

all the above mentioned criminal appeals, which are being

disposed of by this common judgment.

2. Before, we proceed to decide this case, it is

necessary to be recorded that we found that the

predecessor Bench had been informed about the demise

of Shyam Sundar Raut, appellant no. 1 in Criminal Appeal

(DB) No. 205/2017. A statement had been made on

behalf of the appellants that Shyam Sundar Raut had

passed away on 11.05.2017. The Bench vide order dated

20.01.2022 directed the appellants to file an I.A.

application, bringing the death certificate on record and Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.205 of 2017 dt.19-05-2023

also issued non-bailable warrant of arrest against afore-

noted Shyam Sundar Raut, perhaps in expectation of an

execution report confirming the death of the afore-noted

appellant.

3. The Interlocutory Application as directed by the

Bench has already been filed along with a death certificate

issued by the North Delhi Municipal Corporation, Govt. of

India. Notwithstanding the aforesaid, we also directed Mr.

Dilip Kumar Sinha, the learned APP in one of the appeals

to enquire from the office of the concerned

Superintendent of Police whether the statement made by

the appellants about the death of Shyam Sundar Raut is

correct.

4. On necessary enquiry, Mr. Sinha has informed us

today that Shyam Sundar Raut has passed away on

11.05.2017.

5. Since nobody has come forward on behalf of afore-

noted late Shyam Sundar Raut to continue with Criminal

Appeal (DB) No. 205/2017, the appeal, so far as it

relates to him, stands abated under the provisions

contained in Section 394 of the Code of Criminal Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.205 of 2017 dt.19-05-2023

Procedure.

6. The appellants in all the above appeals have been

convicted under Sections 326, 302 with the aid of 149 of

the IPC and 120(B), 147, 148 and 341 of the Indian

Penal Code vide judgment dated 24.01.2017 passed by

the learned 4th Additional Sessions Judge Darbhanga in

Sessions Case No. 318/2014 arising out of Kamtaul P.S.

Case No. 121 of 2013 and vide order dated 27.01.2017,

the appellants have been sentenced to undergo R.I. for

life, fine of Rs. 10,000/- and in default of payment of

fine, to suffer simple imprisonment of one year for the

offence under Section 302/149 of the IPC; R.I. for ten

years, fine of Rs. 5,000/- and in default of payment of

fine, to suffer R.I. for one year for the offence under

Section 326 of the IPC; R.I. for life, fine of Rs. 5,000/-

and in default of payment of fine, one year simple

imprisonment for the offence under Section 120B of the

IPC; R.I. for two years, fine of Rs. 500/- and in default of

payment of fine, simple imprisonment for one month for

the offence under Section 147 of the IPC; R.I. for three

years, fine of Rs. 5,00/- and in default of payment of Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.205 of 2017 dt.19-05-2023

fine, simple imprisonment for one month for offence

under Section 148 IPC and simple imprisonment for one

month and in default of payment of fine, simple

imprisonment for 15 days for the offence under 341 of

the IPC. The sentences, however, have been ordered to

run concurrently.

7. Mr. Ajay Kumar Thakur, the learned Advocate for

the appellants has contended, while assailing the

judgment of conviction and order of sentence, that

nobody had seen the occurrence and that the appellants

have falsely been framed in this case because of enmity.

He has further submitted that none of the witnesses could

be relied upon for upholding their conviction and

sentence.

8. The FIR was lodged by Jaiveer Yadav (PW1), the

brother of the deceased (Mahavir Yadav). PW1 in his

fardbeyan, which was recorded by the S.H.O./Sandeep

Kumar of Kamtaul Police Station (PW8) on 27.07.2013 at

about 9. P.M. near the house of one of the appellants,

namely, Umakant Raut near the dead body of the

deceased, he has alleged that on the same day at about Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.205 of 2017 dt.19-05-2023

10 'O' Clock in the morning, the deceased had gone to his

daughter's matrimonial home on a bicycle. While

returning, it became dark. At around 7.00 P.M., when

the deceased had reached near the house of one Upendra

Yadav, all the appellants and others, who were standing

there from before and who were variously armed,

surrounded the deceased and started assaulting him

indiscriminately. As a result of the afore-noted assault,

the deceased fell down on the ground and started crying

for help. Thereafter also, the deceased was assaulted by

various weapons by the appellants. The cause of

occurrence as stated in the fardbeyan is that the co-

accused/Uma Raut had accepted the sale price of

approximately 2 ½ kathas of land from the deceased but

later sold the said land in favour of appellant/Ram Sobhit

Yadav by a registered sale deed. Because of this, the

deceased had filed a case before the Civil Courts for

cancellation of the registered sale deed in favour of

aforesaid Ram Sobhit Yadav, which had angered the

appellants. In fact, PW1 alleges in the fardbeyan that the

deceased was always threatened of being killed and later Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.205 of 2017 dt.19-05-2023

on the day of occurrence, all the appellants killed the

deceased. After killing, the dead body was dragged to the

house of appellants/Ram Sobhit Yadav and Uma Raut in

order to give it a colour of a loot case in which the

deceased was killed in defence of private property.

9. On the basis of the afore-noted fardbeyan

statement, Kamtaul P.S. Case No. 121 of 2013 dated

28.07.2013 was registered for investigation for offences

under Sections 147, 148, 149, 341, 326 and 302 of the

Indian Penal Code.

10. The police, after investigation, submitted charge-

sheet against the appellants whereafter cognizance was

taken and the case was committed to the Court of

Sessions for trial.

11. The Trial Court, after having examined 8 witnesses

on behalf of the prosecution, convicted the appellants and

sentenced them in the manner afore-noted.

12. During the Trial, PW1 supported the prosecution

case by stating that the deceased was killed at 7. P.M. on

27.07.2013 while on his way to his home from the

matrimonial home of his daughter where he had gone in Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.205 of 2017 dt.19-05-2023

the morning. PW1 reiterated that the deceased had

purchased 2 ½ kathas of land from appellant / Uma Raut

but no sale deed was executed and the same was

postponed for a later date. However, the land in question

was sold to appellant / Ram Sobhit Yadav. When the

deceased started pressurizing aforesaid Uma Raut to

execute the sale deed in his favour, he was brutally

murdered by all the accused persons. On 26th of July

2013, appellant / Ram Sobhit Yadav had specifically

threatened the deceased that he shall be killed. A day

later, the deceased was beaten to death.

13. While narrating the occurrence, PW1 has further

stated that after the accused persons had left the scene of

occurrence, the deceased was alive for about two hours

but he breathed his last only after giving his partial

statement to the police party which had arrived at the

place of occurrence. PW1 thereafter gave the entire

account of the occurrence to the police which was

recorded read over to him and such statement was signed

by PW1 and one Mrtyunjay Yadav (PW3) put his L.T.I.

over the same.

Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.205 of 2017 dt.19-05-2023

14. In his cross-examination, PW1 has further stated

that no sooner did he learn about the occurrence, he

raised alarm on which many people arrived including

Laxmi Yadav (PW7), Mrityunjay Yadav (PW3), Lakhandeo

Yadav (PW4) and many others who were not examined at

the Trial. PW1 wanted to save his brother but he was

pinned down to the ground he was but not assaulted by

the appellants. The clothes of the deceased were

drenched with blood. The dead body, by the time the

police had arrived, had not been kept on any cot. The

police party had also seen the blood smeared clothes.

He, thereafter, along with others, went to the D.M.C.H.,

were his statement was recorded by the police. On that

statement, Mrityunjay Yadav (PW3) had also signed. The

house of PW3 and 4, PW1 asserts, is situated very close

to his house. He denies of having told the I.O. (PW8) that

at the time of the occurrence, he was not present on the

spot but was informed about the occurence by PW3. He

also denies that he had not stated before the police that

the deceased had remained alive for two hours and had

given some statement to the police but before he could Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.205 of 2017 dt.19-05-2023

complete the same, he died.

15. In order to test the correctness of the version of

PW1 at the Trial, it would be necessary to first refer to

deposition of PW3 and 4 and the I.O. (PW8) of the case.

16. Mrityunjay Yadav (PW3) claims to have witnessed

the occurrence as he was present on the spot when the

deceased was assaulted. He is distantly related to the

deceased as also PW1. After the assault, the deceased is

stated to have remained alive for about two hours and

died only after giving some statement to the police. PW3

has supported the motive behind the occurrence, namely,

the insistence of the deceased for execution of sale deed

in his favour by one of the appellants for a portion of land

for which sale price was accepted by the afore-noted

appellant but the sale deed of the land in question was

executed in favour of another. He has also supported the

statement of PW1 that the police party had arrived at the

place of occurrence and the deceased at that time was

alive, who started giving statement to the police but

before he could complete his statement, he died. PW1

thereafter gave his statement which was recorded as his Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.205 of 2017 dt.19-05-2023

fardbeyan whereafter the F.I.R. was lodged. The

occurrence had taken place in front of the house of

appellant / Uma Raut. At the place of occurrence, he had

a talk with PW1 and others. He also claims to have gone

to the D.M.C.H. along with PW1.

17. Similarly, Lakhandeo Yadav (PW4) has also

claimed to have been present at the place of occurrence

when the assault on the deceased had taken place. He

has stated before the Trial Court that taking the deceased

to be dead, the accused persons left the place of

occurrence. When the deceased was still gasping for life,

an attempt was made to arrange for a vehicle to take him

to the hospital. A cot also was arranged but in the

meantime, the police party arrived. Some of the

assailants were named by the deceased in front of the

police but while making his statement, the deceased had

died. With regard to the motive of the occurrence, PW4

has supported the version of PW1 and 3.

18. The other eye-witnesses of the occurrence as

named in the F.I.R. is one Laxmi Yadav, who appeared in

the witness box as PW7 but has been declared hostile. Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.205 of 2017 dt.19-05-2023

19. Though the wife of the deceased has also

been examined as PW5, who claims to have offered water

to the deceased while he was still alive but has not

claimed to have seen the occurrence herself.

20. This takes us to the deposition of I.O of this

case (PW8), who has confirmed that he had recorded the

fardbeyan statement of PW1 near the dead body. He read

over the fardbeyan before PW1 and PW3. PW1 signed the

document whereas PW3 put his L.T.I. on the same. The

dead body, according to him, was lying on the

macadamized road of the village in front of the house of

one Ram Dayal Raut. He had prepared the inquest report,

which was signed by PW3 and other witnesses.

Thereafter a formal F.I.R. was registered (Ext. 5).

Commencing the investigation of the case, PW8 seized

blood stained earth in front of witnesses. A flood light was

arranged with the help of villagers for making the inquest.

A map also was prepared by PW8. Shortly thereafter, the

dead body was sent for postmortem examination through

two Chowkidars, who have not been examined in this

case.

Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.205 of 2017 dt.19-05-2023

21. In his cross - examination, PW8 has but given

a different story, namely, that at the police station, an

information had been received by around 6 P.M. on

27.07.2013 i.e. the date of occurrence that the deceased

had been killed. On such information, PW8 had come to

the place of occurrence. He does not say anything about

the source of such information. When he reached the

place of occurrence, he found the dead body kept on a

cot. PW8 has confirmed that PW1 had told him that he

learnt about the occurrence from PW3 and that PW1 did

not give any details of the manner of occurrence and of

specific participation of the appellants. Even the cause of

occurrence as narrated by PW1 was not told to him when

he had recorded his fardbeyan statement.

22. On the basis of afore-noted deposition of

witnesses, Mr. Thakur has contended that PW1 in his

fardbeyan had not said anything to give any impression

that he was either accompanying the deceased at the time

of the occurrence or was present when the deceased was

being assaulted to death. In fact, his attention was drawn

to his earlier statement before the police that PW3 had Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.205 of 2017 dt.19-05-2023

informed him about the occurrence, which fact was

confirmed by the I.O. (PW8). He further submits that if

the statements of PW1, 3 and 4 are to be believed, then

the deceased must have named some of the assailants

before the police. That statement should necessarily have

been brought on record. Not doing so, completely belies

the correctness of their version with respect to the

occurrence. This statement of afore-noted witnesses do

not get confirmed by deposition of PW8, who has not

stated either in his examination in chief or in his cross-

examination that the deceased was alive and had given

names of few of the assailants but while making such

statement, he had died. In fact, PW8 saw the dead body

of the deceased kept on a cot. This, therefore, pre-

supposes that none of the so called eye-witnesses (PW1,

3 and 4) have made correct statements at the trial. There

could have been no earthly reason for the police to have

withheld the earliest statement of the deceased to the

police, if at all it was made.

23. There is force in such submission that with such

anamoly in the deposition of witnesses, their statements Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.205 of 2017 dt.19-05-2023

cannot wholly be relied upon.

24. Testing the correctness of statement from other

angle, we have analyzed the deposition of PW8, who in

his cross-examination has stated that the information

about the death of the deceased was received in the

police station at 6 'O' clock in the evening.

25. Be it noted that the occurrence is said to have taken

place at around 7.30 P.M. and the fardbeyan was

recorded at 9 P.M. on 27.07.2013. Who gave the

information to the police and what was the content of

such information is not known. No Station Diary entry

appears to have been made by PW8 or else it would have

been brought on record. This again justifies the inference

that the occurrence took place sometimes before than

what was reported and the implication of the appellants in

the fardbeyan was only an afterthought. Though the time

of the occurrence as confirmed by the Doctor does not

clearly render the prosecution case doubtful but it cannot

be said with certainty that the occurrence took place in

presence of PWs1, 3 and 4.

26. The Doctor (PW2) who conducted the postmortem Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.205 of 2017 dt.19-05-2023

on the deceased found seven ante-mortem injuries, the

first to four being dangerous to life and injury nos. 5, 6

and 7 being simple in nature caused by hard and blunt

force. The death however was because of intra-cranial

hemorrhage, compression and shock. The time of death

was assessed to be within 12 to 18 hours from the time

of post-mortem examination which was held at about 11

A.M. on 28.07.2013. It further appears from the

postmortem report that one of the injuries on the head of

the deceased was the fatal one which had led to intra-

cranial hemorrhage leading to death.

27. The deceased has been killed about which there

could be no two opinions. The postmortem report and the

deposition of PW2 confirms that it was a homicidal death.

But who committed the crime is the question which

remains unanswered. The reasons for doubting the

prosecution version can be summarized as follows:-

(i) divergent statements of the so called eye-witnesses,

namely, PW1, 3 and 4.

(ii) the I.O. (PW8) having stated before the Trial

Court that the information about the death of the Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.205 of 2017 dt.19-05-2023

deceased reached the police station at around 6 P.M.

on the day of the occurrence in juxtaposition to the

specific case of the witnesses that the occurrence took

place at 7.30 P.M. and the fardbeyan was record at 9

P.M.

(iii) the claim of PW1, 3 and 4 that the deceased was

alive when the police had arrived and that the

deceased had made some disclosure about the

assailants but before he could complete his statement,

he died. Such statement not being corroborated by the

I.O. (PW8) who reached the place of occurrence only

to find the dead body of the deceased kept on a cot at

the place of occurrence.

(IV) PW1 having told PW1 that he learnt about the

occurrence from PW3 which makes his claim of being

an eye-witness doubtful.

(V) The statement of PW1 and 3 about their

having gone to D.M.C. H. and the further claim of PW1

of having given a statement at D.M.C.H. which

according to PW8 was signed by both PW1 and 3

(VI) was the fardbeyan record in D.M.C.H. then ?. A Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.205 of 2017 dt.19-05-2023

witness is never made to sign a statement made

before the police.

(VII) The reason for committing the crime remaining

doubtful as the deceased is said to have purchased a

plot of land from appellant/Uma Raut 13 years ago

and for the last 13 years, there was no insistence for

registration of the sale deed.

(VIII) The story of dragging of the deceased from

the place of occurrence to in front of the house of two

of the appellants to give it a colour of death during the

course of loot is not borne out by the evidence. There

are no dragging marks.

(IX) No forensic examination of blood soiled earth

and non-seizure of blood drenched clothes of the

deceased. (X) No seizure of the bicycle used by the

deceased while coming back from his daughter's

matrimonial home etc.

28. In this context, it would also be profitable to look at

the statement of the wife of the deceased, namely,

Kaushalya Devi (PW5), who claims to have gone to the

P.O. after getting the information about the occurrence Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.205 of 2017 dt.19-05-2023

when she claims to have offered water to her still

surviving husband. She saw PW1, 3 and 4 and their

motorcycles. Did PW1, 3 and 4 come to the P.O. at the

nick of the time or had reached the place of occurrence

later on their vehicles ?

29. PW5 does not state the name of the assailants

which the deceased told her while he was still alive.

30. What does all this signify?

31. That apart, it appears to be rather strange that the

inquest report has not been proved. The place of

occurrence also does not appear to have been fixed. PW8

admits of the fact that the dead body was brought from

the place of occurrence to another place were flood light

was arranged for making inquest.

32. Could that have been done under the police

manual.

33. These are some of the yawning gaps which make us

entertain a lingering doubt whether the appellants only

had killed the deceased.

34. To tie the strings together, we have found that the

fardbeyan was recorded at about 9 P.M. on 27.07.2013 Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.205 of 2017 dt.19-05-2023

but the formal F.I.R. was registered only on the next day

i.e. on 28.07.2013 but it was sent to the Chief Judicial

Magistrate on 29.07.2013. The delay has not been

explained. The Courts generally do not disbelieve the

version of the eye-witnesses if there is some delay in

lodging of the F.I.R. but only if the version of the

witnesses are reliable and trustworthy. The delay but

needs to be explained.

35. In Apren Joseph alias Current Kunjukunju &

Ors vs. State of Kerala; 1973 (3) SCC 114, the

Supreme Court emphasized that a properly timed F.I.R.

reduces the chances of embellishment, fabrication or

distortion of memory. This delay in reaching the F.I.R. to

the court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate assumes

significance specially in view of the unreliable statements

of the witnesses with respect to the genesis of the case

or their being eye-witnesses to the occurrence. Different

places of occurrence have been suggested by the

witnesses by introducing the story of dragging the

deceased and the deposition of PW8 that the deceased

was kept on a cot which had been brought at a different Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.205 of 2017 dt.19-05-2023

place where the flood light was arranged. If different

places of occurrence are indicated by the witnesses, it

cannot be said that the place of occurrence has been

established and in that case, the conviction would be

inappropriate (Syed Ibrahim vs. State of Andhra

Pradesh; 2006 Cr. Law Journal 4087).

36. We have also found that the occurrence took

place at about 7.30 P.M. A flood light was required to be

arranged for inquest. How is it to be believed that the

witnesses had seen the occurrence, identified the

assailants and gave a graphic account of the specific roles

played by each of them, without any indication about

lighting at the P.O.

37. Thus, in the absence of proof of sufficient

light to identify the assailants as the occurrence took

place when there was no sunlight, the conviction again

does not appear to be properly recorded (Nallabothu

Ramulu @ Seetharamaiah & Others v/s State of

Andhra Pradesh; 2014 (12) SCC 261)

38. These grounds, therefore, persuade us to

reject the judgment of conviction and order of sentence. Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.205 of 2017 dt.19-05-2023

39. Perforce, we set aside the same and acquit

the appellants of all the charges leveled against them.

40. The appellants are directed to be released from jail

unless their detention is required in any other case.

41. The appeals stand allowed.

42. Let the records of this case be returned to the

concerned court below and the Superintendent of the

concerned jail be intimated about this Judgment for

record and compliance.

(Ashutosh Kumar, J)

( Harish Kumar, J)

sunilkr-

AFR/NAFR                  AFR
CAV DATE                  N/A
Uploading Date            23.05.2023
Transmission Date         23.05.2023