Pintu Yadav vs The State Of Bihar
2023 Latest Caselaw 5065 Patna

     IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
                    CRIMINAL APPEAL (DB) No.982 of 2015
    Arising Out of PS. Case No.-101 Year-2012 Thana- PIRPAINTI District- Bhagalpur
======================================================

Pintu Yadav, son of Late Ramdeo Yadav, resident of Village - Bakiya Diyara, P.S. Barari, District - Katihar.

... ... Appellant Versus The State of Bihar ... ... Respondent ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Appellant : Mr.N.K. Agarwal, Sr. Advocate Mr.Vikram Singh, Advocate Mr.Vijay Anand, Advocate For the State : Mr.Sujit Kumar Singh, A.P.P.

====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE VIPUL M. PANCHOLI and HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE CHANDRA SHEKHAR JHA ORAL JUDGMENT (Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE VIPUL M. PANCHOLI) Date :05-10-2023

Heard Mr. N.K. Agarwal, learned Senior Advocate

assisted by Mr. Vikram Singh and Mr. Vijay Anand, learned

Advocates for the appellant and Mr. Sujit Kumar Singh, learned

Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondent-State.

2. In this appeal, which is filed under Section 374(2)

of the Code of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (hereinafter

referred to as the "Code"), the appellant-convict has assailed the

impugned judgment of conviction dated 07.10.2015 and order of

sentence dated 10.10.2015 rendered by learned 3rd Additional

Sessions Judge, Bhagalpur in Sessions Trial No. 89 of 2013

whereby the concerned trial court has convicted the present

appellant for the offences punishable under Section 302 of the Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.982 of 2015 dt.05-10-2023

Indian Penal Code (in short the 'I.P.C.') and Section 27 of the

Arms Act. He has been sentenced to undergo rigorous

imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 25,000/- and in

default of payment of fine, to further undergo additional

imprisonment for five years under Section 302 of the I.P.C. and

rigorous imprisonment for three years and to pay a fine of Rs.

5000/- and in default of payment of fine to further undergo

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

All the sentences have been ordered to run concurrently.

3. The prosecution story in brief is as under:-

"Fardbeyan of Kailash Mandal was recorded on 20th

July, 2012 at about 19:30 hours by one Ranjan Kumar, S.H.O. of

Pirpainti Police Station. In the said fardbeyan, the informant

stated that on 20th July afternoon, the informant along with his

elder brother Umesh Mandal and wife of Umesh Mandal

namely, Anju Devi had gone to market for the work related to

bank and for marketing. While returning to the village by

Tractor, when they reached near the agriculture farm/farm house

of Sudip Mandal near Athania Diyara, Pintu Yadav came at the

said place fully armed along with 5-6 other people and stopped

the tractor. Thereafter, the said assailant pulled out Umesh

Mandal from the tractor and killed him by firing 5-6 bullets Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.982 of 2015 dt.05-10-2023

from the mini-revolver like weapon just along the road.

Thereafter, the body of Umesh Mandal was dragged towards

Bahiyar. However, on seeing the people of the nearby village

approaching towards them and after hearing hulla, the assailants

left the dead body there and fled away from the place of

occurrence. It is further stated that the brother of the informant

Umesh Mandal sustained gunshot injuries on his face, mouth,

nose and stomach. It has been further stated that the reason for

such cruel murder is that around two years ago the brother of the

informant and one Pagla Yadav were residing together and they

were good friends and Pintu Yadav was having enmity with

Pagla Yadav as a result of which Pintu Yadav with the help of 5-

6 other unknown persons killed the brother of the informant i.e.

Umesh Mandal. It is also alleged that the accused also took the

mobile phone of the deceased after killing him."

4. After the fardbeyan of the informant was recorded,

formal First Information Report (in short the 'F.I.R.') came to be

registered with the Pirpainti Police Station at about 10:00 P.M.

on 20th July, 2012. The investigation of the case was

commenced and the Investigating Officer carried out the

investigation during which he recorded the statement of the

witnesses and also collected the necessary evidence. Inquest Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.982 of 2015 dt.05-10-2023

report was also prepared and the dead body of the deceased was

sent for post-mortem. During course of investigation, the

appellant-accused came to be arrested on 01.09.2012 and after

the investigation was over, the Investigating Officer filed a

charge-sheet against the appellant-accused before the concerned

Magistrate court. As the case was exclusively triable by court of

sessions, learned Magistrate committed the same to the

concerned session's court where the same was registered as

Sessions Trial No. 89 of 2013.

5. Before the trial court, the prosecution had

examined nine witnesses and also produced the documentary

evidence. Thereafter, further statement of the accused-appellant

under Section 313 of the Code came to be recorded. After

conclusion of the trial, the trial court passed the impugned order

against which the appellant-convict has preferred the present

appeal.

6. Heard Mr. N.K. Agarwal, learned Senior Advocate

assisted by Mr. Vikram Singh and Mr. Vijay Anand, learned

Advocates for the appellant and Mr. Sujit Kumar Singh, learned

Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondent-State.

7. Learned Senior Advocate for the appellant would

mainly submit that PW-1, PW-2, PW-5 and PW-6 who were Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.982 of 2015 dt.05-10-2023

independent witnesses have not supported the case of the

prosecution and they have turned hostile. Learned senior

counsel would further submit that even PW-3 the informant,

namely, Kailash Mandal has specifically stated in his deposition

that he did not identify the appellant who was present in the

court. PW-3 further stated that he is not sure whether Pintu

Yadav has killed his brother or not. Learned senior counsel for

the appellant, therefore, submitted that though the informant has

not supported the case of the prosecution, he was not declared

hostile by the prosecution nor he has been re-examined by the

prosecution and, therefore, the deposition given by the said

witness in favour of the accused should be taken to the benefit

of the accused.

7.1 At this stage, learned counsel has placed reliance

upon the decision rendered by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the

case of Virendra Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh reported in

AIR 2022 SC 3373.

8. Learned senior Advocate thereafter submitted that

PW-4 Anju Devi, who is the wife of the deceased is projected

eye-witness and, in fact, the said witness had not seen the

occurrence in question. In support of the said submission,

learned counsel has referred to the deposition given by PW-3 Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.982 of 2015 dt.05-10-2023

Kailash Mandal, PW-7 Ranjan Kumar Mandal, the Investigating

Officer and PW-8 Niranjan Kumar Yadav. Learned senior

counsel, therefore, submitted that the trial court has committed

grave error while placing reliance upon the deposition given by

PW-4 Anju Devi, who is, in fact, not the eye-witness of the

occurrence.

9. Learned counsel would further submit that even as

per the case of the so-called eye-witness Anju Devi, the

deceased sustained five fire-arm injuries, whereas as per the

deposition given by PW-9 namely, Dr. Yogesh Prasad Sah, only

three gunshot injuries were found on the dead body of the

deceased. Learned Senior Advocate, therefore, urged that when

the prosecution has failed to prove the case against the appellant

beyond reasonable doubt, trial court ought to have acquitted the

appellant herein.

10. Learned senior counsel, therefore, submitted that

the impugned order passed by the trial court be quashed and set-

aside and the present appeal be allowed.

11. On the other hand, learned Additional Public

Prosecutor for the respondent-State has opposed this appeal.

Learned A.P.P. has referred to the deposition of PW-4 Anju Devi

by contending that she is the eye-witness to the occurrence in Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.982 of 2015 dt.05-10-2023

question and from the deposition of the said witness, it is clear

that the present appellant with the help of 5-6 other persons

have killed the husband of the said witness. It is submitted that

when the version given by the eye-witness is trustworthy only

relying upon the said version, the conviction can be recorded,

and therefore, the trial court has not committed any error while

passing the impugned order. Learned A.P.P. has also referred

Exhibit-6 i.e. the confessional statement of the appellant which

was recorded by the Investigating Officer i.e. PW-10 Bharat

Ram. It is submitted that before the said witness the appellant

herein has confessed his guilt and disclosed the manner in which

he along with the others have killed the deceased. Learned

A.P.P. has also submitted that there are antecedents of the

present appellant and number of F.I.Rs. have been registered

against the appellant. In support of the said contention, learned

A.P.P. has referred to the examination-in-chief of PW-10 Bharat

Ram, who was the Investigating Officer of the case. Learned

A.P.P., therefore, urged that this appeal be dismissed.

12. We have considered the submissions canvassed

by learned counsel appearing for the parties. We have also

perused the materials placed on the record and the evidence

produced by the prosecution before the trial court. It is not in Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.982 of 2015 dt.05-10-2023

dispute that PW-1, PW-2, PW-5 and PW-6 who are independent

witnesses have not supported the case of the prosecution and,

therefore, they were declared hostile.

13. In the present case, therefore, we have to consider

the deposition given by PW-3, the informant, PW-4 Anju Devi,

wife of the deceased, the Medical Officer, who has conducted

the post-mortem on the dead body of the deceased i.e. PW-9 and

three other police officers who have carried out the investigation

of the present case.

14. PW-3 the informant, Kailash Mandal, has stated

in examination-in-chief that the occurrence took place almost a

year ago from the date of deposition when he along with his

brother Umesh Mandal and Narayan Mandal and other people

were going back to home by tractor, when they reached

Athaniya Diyara, 5-6 persons came there and they chased the

tractor and thereafter dragged Umesh Mandal and shot him

dead. Thereafter, the said witness took the dead body to

Pirpainti Police Station and informed the police about the

occurrence which was written down by the police. However, the

same was not read out to the informant. The said witness further

stated that he is not sure whether Anju Devi put her thumb

impression on the fardbeyan or not. However, the said witness Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.982 of 2015 dt.05-10-2023

did not identify Pintu Yadav who was present in the court.

Immediately thereafter, he had stated that though he knows

Pintu Yadav, he is not sure whether he had killed the brother of

the said witness or not. At that stage, the court asked certain

question to the said witness PW-3. The court asked him whether

the appellant accused has given him any threat, in reply he has

said that 'No'. He knows accused because he is residing in the

same village. He further stated that fardbeyan was not read out

by Daroga Jee and only it was stated to him that he should put

his signature and therefore he put his signature on the

fardbeyan. Thereafter, the said witness has further specifically

stated that Pintu Yadav had not made any assault with the fire-

arm on his brother. He further stated that his sister-in-law

(Bhabhi) Anju Devi was present with him in the police station.

However, she was not present at the time of occurrence with

him.

15. PW-4 Anju Devi, who is the wife of the deceased

Umesh Mandal has stated in her examination-in-chief that on

the date of occurrence at around 5:00 P.M. while she was

returning to her home along with her husband by tractor, Pintu

Yadav, Pradeep Yadav, Akhilesh Yadav, Varun Yadav and

Awadhesh Yadav stopped the tractor and pulled out her husband Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.982 of 2015 dt.05-10-2023

Umesh Mandal and shot him on his face, stomach with pistol.

She had further stated that after killing Umesh Mandal i.e. her

husband, the dead body of her husband was dragged by the

accused. However, in the meantime, the villagers came at the

said place after hearing hulla, the assailants fled away from the

place of occurrence. The said witness identified the appellant-

accused who was present in the court. The said witness has also

stated in her examination-in-chief that her husband sustained

five fire-arm injuries on various parts of his body.

15.1. During cross examination, the said witness has

stated that her husband was sent to jail in four cases. She has

further stated that occurrence took place at about 5:30 P.M. near

the agriculture farm/farm house of Sudip Mandal. She had also

stated that the police had collected the blood-stained soil as well

as the clothes of her husband having blood-stained were also

seized by the police from the place of occurrence. She had also

stated that she had shown the place of occurrence to the police

from where the deceased was being taken out and killed.

16. PW-7 Ranjan Kumar is the officer who had

recorded the fardbeyan of the informant at the place of

occurrence. The said witness was working as S.H.O. at Pirpainti

Police Station, district-Bhagalpur. The said witness has Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.982 of 2015 dt.05-10-2023

identified his handwriting in fardbeyan and he has also

identified the signature on the fardbeyan.

16.1. The said witness in cross-examination has stated

that he went to the place of occurrence after getting the

information from unknown persons and on reaching at the place

of occurrence he met Kailash Mandal who gave his fardbeyan.

However, the said witness has further stated that he had not

written the date and time in the station diary. He had not

collected any material from the place of occurrence at the time

of recording the fardbeyan. He did not record the statement of

any of the witnesses at the place of occurrence. The said witness

has further stated that the fardbeyan was recorded during night

hours in the light of torch, dragon light and light of the car. At

that time 50-100 persons were present. Thereafter, he came back

to the police station at about 10:00 P.M. and handed over the

investigation to Niranjan Kumar.

17. PW-8 Niranjan Kumar is the Investigating Officer

who took over the investigation after 10:00 P.M. on 20 th July,

2012. The said witness has stated that he had recorded the

statement of Anju Devi, Raju Mandal, Narayan Mandal,

Bhuvesh Mandal, Arjun Mandal. Call details of the mobile of

the deceased was also called for from S.S.P. Bhagalpur. Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.982 of 2015 dt.05-10-2023

17.1. During cross-examination the said witness has

specifically stated that on 21.07.2012, he had recorded the

statement of wife of the deceased i.e. Anju Devi. He has further

stated that her statement was recorded at the place of occurrence

at about 7:30 P.M. during night hours. The said witness further

stated that Anju Devi did not state in her statement recorded

under Section 161 of the Code that the deceased sustained five

fire-arm injuries on various parts of the body nor she had stated

that the assailants have dragged the body of her husband while

giving her statement before Police. The said witness also

admitted that he did not collect the blood-stained soil from the

place of occurrence nor he had prepared sketch map of the place

of occurrence. He further stated that he had also not seized the

blood-stained clothes of the deceased nor he had verified about

the antecedents of the informant.

18. PW-9 Dr. Yogesh Prasad Sah is the doctor, who

had conducted the post-mortem on the dead body of the

deceased. The said doctor was posted at Jawahar Lal Nehru

Medical College, Bhagalpur as Assistant Professor. The post-

mortem was conducted at about 1:30 P.M. on 21.07.2012. The

said witness found the following injuries:

"(i) One entry wound ½" x ½" size with inverted and black margin on right side of nose, projectile entered Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.982 of 2015 dt.05-10-2023

and come out by on exit wound ¼" x ¼" in size with everted margin on tragers of left ear.

(ii) One entry wound ½" x ½" with inverted and black margin on right lower part of abdomen 3½" away from midline and 1½" away from interior superior iliac spine. Exit wound ¼" x ¼" was 5" away at the level of fore lumber vertebra on right side of back.

(3) 1" wound ¼" x ¼" size with inverted and black margin on mid part of abdomen 2" away from midline 3" away from umblicus. Exit wound was 1½" away from midline at the level third mumber vertebra on left side of back.

Opinion - The above noted injuries were antemortem and caused by fire arm.

Cause of death - above noted injuries.

Time Since Death - 12 to 24 hours prior to time of examination.

This is original copy of P.M. report prepared and signed by me which is marked as Ext.5."

19. PW-10 Bharat Ram is the third Investigating

Officer who had carried out the investigation and the said

witness has arrested the appellant-accused on 01.09.2012 and

thereafter the accused was produced before the concerned

Magistrate court. In his deposition, the said witness has narrated

about the details of the F.I.Rs. registered against the appellant-

accused. The said witness has also produced the confessional

statement of the appellant-accused recorded by him during

course of investigation and surprisingly the said confessional

statement has been exhibited by the trial court as Exhibit '6'. Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.982 of 2015 dt.05-10-2023

19.1. During cross-examination, the said witness has

denied the suggestion made by the defence that by using the

force or by giving threats signature of the appellant-accused was

obtained on the confessional statement.

20. From the aforesaid evidence, produced by the

prosecution before the trial court, it would emerge that the

independent witnesses i.e. PW-1, PW-2, PW-5 and PW-6 have

not supported the case of the prosecution and, therefore, they

have declared hostile. Further, from the deposition given by

PW-3 Kailash Mandal, who is the informant, it is clear that the

said witness has not supported the case of the prosecution by

stating before the court in his examination-in-chief itself that the

appellant-accused Pintu Yadav has not killed his brother. It is

further revealed from the deposition of PW-3 informant that

PW-4 Anju Devi, who is the wife of the deceased, was not

present at the place of occurrence and she was present at the

police station along with the said witness.

21. At this stage, it is pertinent to note that the

aforesaid witness who is the informant and main witness of the

prosecution was not declared hostile by the prosecution and,

therefore, we have to consider the deposition given by the said

witness as it is.

Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.982 of 2015 dt.05-10-2023

22. At this stage, we would like to refer the decision

rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Virendra

(supra), where the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed in

paragraph '7' as under:

"7. Both the courts shifted the burden on the defence. The evidence rendered by the prosecution witnesses was rejected, either as that of indifferent witnesses or as irrelevant evidence. We may note that these are all prosecution witnesses who were not treated as hostile. No attempt whatsoever was made either to treat them as hostile or to re-examine them except that of PW10. Not even a suggestion was put to them on the presence of PW15. In such a scenario, the statement made by the prosecution witnesses in favour of the accused would certainly inure to his benefit. Our view is fortified by the decision of this Court in Raja Ram v. State of Rajasthan, (2005) 5 SCC 272 : (AIR Online 2000 SC 474):

"9. But the testimony of PW 8 Dr. Sukhdev Singh, who is another neighbour, cannot easily be surmounted by the prosecution. He has testified in very clear terms that he saw PW 5 making the deceased believe that unless she puts the blame on the appellant and his parents she would have to face the consequences like prosecution proceedings. It did not occur to the Public Prosecutor in the trial court to seek permission of the court to heard (sic declare) PW 8 as a hostile witness for reasons only known to him. Now, as it is, the evidence of PW 8 is binding on the prosecution. Absolutely no reason, much less any good reason, has been stated by the Division Bench of the High Court as to how PW 8's testimony can be sidelined."

It is reiterated in Javed Masood v. State of Rajasthan, Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.982 of 2015 dt.05-10-2023

(2010) 3 SCC 538: (AIR 2010 SC 979):

"20. In the present case the prosecution never declared PWs 6, 18, 29 and 30 "hostile". Their evidence did not support the prosecution. Instead, it supported the defence. There is nothing in law that precludes the defence to rely on their evidence."

Reliance was made on the recovery from the appellant. The fact remains that there was sufficient evidence to conclude that only one shot was fired which could be seen even from the evidence of PW15. While assessing the evidence produced by the defence, courts discarded them without appreciating the fact that it has to be seen only on the degree of probability."

23. From the aforesaid observation made by the

Hon'ble Supreme Court, it can be said that the statement of the

prosecution witness who was not treated as hostile and no

attempt was made by the prosecution either to treat him as

hostile or to re-examine him, the statement made by such

prosecution witness in favour of the accused would certainly

inure to the benefit of the accused.

24. In the present case also, no attempt was made by

the prosecution to declare PW-3 informant to declare him

hostile or to re-examine him, and, therefore, the statement made

by the said witness which is in favour of the accused is to be

considered as beneficial to the appellant-accused herein in the

facts of the present case.

25. It would further reveal from the deposition of Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.982 of 2015 dt.05-10-2023

PW-3 that PW-4 Anju Devi was not present at the place of

occurrence and, therefore, it can be said that the prosecution has

projected Anju Devi as eye-witness but, in fact, she is not an

eye-witness to the occurrence.

26. At this stage, we would like to refer the

deposition of the prosecution witnesses and the fardbeyan given

by PW-3. It is revealed from the record that fardbeyan was

recorded by the P.W.7 Ranjan Kumar, S.H.O., at the place of

occurrence at 19:30 hours on 20th July, 2012 and thereafter

formal F.I.R. was registered at concerned police station at about

10:00 P.M. If the said fardbeyan is carefully examined, it is

revealed that PW-4 Anju Devi has put her thumb impression on

the said fardbeyan.

26.1. At this stage, if the deposition of PW-7 Ranjan

Kumar Mandal who has recorded the fardbeyan of the informant

is examined, it is revealed that the said officer reached at the

place of occurrence during the night hours. He had recorded the

fardbeyan in torch light, dragon light and light of the car. While

recording the fardbeyan 50-100 persons were present and while

recording the fardbeyan he did not record the statement of any

other person who were present.

26.2. At this stage, it is also relevant to examine the Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.982 of 2015 dt.05-10-2023

deposition of PW-8 Niranjan Kumar, officer to whom the

investigation was handed over by PW-7 Ranjan Kumar at about

10:00 P.M. in the police station. The said witness has

specifically observed or stated that he had recorded the

statement of Anju Devi on 21.07.2012 at 7:30 P.M. at the place

of occurrence. Thus, from the aforesaid evidence produced

before the trial court, it can be said that Anju Devi was present

at 19:30 hours at the place of occurrence when fardbeyan was

recorded by PW-7 Ranjan Kumar despite which, her statement

was not recorded. Further, even assuming that she was not

present at the place of occurrence at 7:30 or 19:30 hours on 20 th

July, 2012 while recording fardbeyan and she has put her thumb

impression at the police station when the formal F.I.R. was

registered at 10:00 P.M. on the very same day, why the

statement of such an important eye-witness who is wife of the

deceased was not recorded by the investigating agency. Once

again, it is to be recalled that statement of Anju Devi was

recorded for the first time on 21.07.2012 at 7:30 P.M. i.e. almost

after 24 hours of recording of the fardbeyan, we fail to

understand the version given by the prosecution before the trial

court by leading such type of evidence.

27. Thus, from the aforesaid event, the submission Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.982 of 2015 dt.05-10-2023

canvassed by learned senior counsel for the appellant that PW-4

Anju Devi is a projected eye-witness is required to be accepted.

28. Thus, the prosecution case rests upon only two

witnesses i.e. PW-3 informant and PW-4 Anju Devi. If PW-3

informant has not supported the case of the prosecution and

specifically stated that the appellant herein has not killed his

brother and when PW-4 is considered as projected eye-witness,

we are of the view that the prosecution has failed to prove the

case against the appellant beyond any reasonable doubt.

29. It is also pertinent to note that as per the case of

so-called eye-witness PW-4 Anju Devi, the deceased sustained

five fire-arm injuries on various parts of the body, whereas as

per PW-9 Dr. Yogesh Prasad Sah who has conducted the post-

mortem of the dead body of the deceased, deceased sustained

three fire-arm injuries. Three were entry wounds and three were

exit wounds. Thus, the medical evidence also does not support

the case of so-called eye-witness.

30. Now, it is contended by learned Additional Public

Prosecutor by relying upon the deposition given by PW-10

Bharat Ram who has recorded the confessional statement of the

appellant-accused that the said confessional statement is

exhibited i.e. Exhibit '6' and, therefore, the said document is to Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.982 of 2015 dt.05-10-2023

be read by this court once the same has been exhibited. It is

submitted that the in the confessional statement, the appellant-

accused has admitted his guilt and the manner in which he along

with the other accused have committed the alleged offences.

However, we are not impressed by the argument canvassed by

learned A.P.P.

30.1. At this stage, we would like to refer the

provision as contained in Section 25 of the Evidence Act which

provides as under:

"No confession made to a police officer investigating a case shall be proved as against a person accused of any offence"

31. In the present case, as observed hereinabove, PW-

10 Bharat Ram was an investigating officer who was

investigating the case and before whom the so-called

confessional statement was made by the appellant-accused, we

are of the view that the trial court has committed grave error

while exhibiting the said confessional statement and, therefore,

we are of the view that the said confessional statement cannot

be read as an evidence against the appellant.

32. In view of the aforesaid discussions, we are of the

view that when the prosecution has failed to prove the case

beyond reasonable doubt against the appellant. Merely because

there are certain antecedents against the appellant, he cannot be Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.982 of 2015 dt.05-10-2023

convicted, if there is no evidence against him in the present

case.

33. Accordingly, the impugned judgment of

conviction dated 07.10.2015 and order of sentence dated

10.10.2015 passed by learned 3rd Additional Sessions Judge,

Bhagalpur in Sessions Trial No. 89 of 2013 arising out of

Pirpainti P.S. Case No.101 of 2012 is quashed and set aside. The

appellant, namely, Pintu Yadav is acquitted of the charges

levelled against him by the learned Trial Court. The appellant is

in custody since 01.09.2012 i.e. more than eleven years, he is

ordered to be set at liberty forthwith, if his presence is not

required in any other case.

34. The appeal stands allowed.

(Vipul M. Pancholi, J.)

(Chandra Shekhar Jha, J.) Sanjeet/Rajeev-

AFR/NAFR                  NAFR
CAV DATE                   N/A
Uploading Date          07.10.2023
Transmission Date       07.10.2023