Patna High Court
Jai Nandan Paswan vs The State Of Bihar on 10 January, 2024
Author: Chandra Shekhar Jha
Bench: Chandra Shekhar Jha
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL APPEAL (SJ) No.2348 of 2017
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-10 Year-2001 Thana- DANIYAWAN District- Patna
======================================================
1. Jagdip Beldar and Anr son of Late Soman Beldar
2. Moti Paswan son of Late Sharan Paswan Both residents of Arai Benipur, P.S.
- Daniwan, District - Patna.
... ... Appellant/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
with
CRIMINAL APPEAL (SJ) No. 1028 of 2018
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-10 Year-2001 Thana- DANIYAWAN District- Patna
======================================================
Jai Nandan Paswan son of Late Bhajan Paswan resident of village - Arai
Mustafapur, PS Daniawan, District - Patna.
... ... Appellant/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
(In CRIMINAL APPEAL (SJ) No. 2348 of 2017)
For the Appellant/s : Ms. Mili Kumari, Amicus Curiae
For the Respondent/s : Mr. Binod Bihari Singh, APP
(In CRIMINAL APPEAL (SJ) No. 1028 of 2018)
For the Appellant/s : Mr. Anurag Kumar, Amicus Curiae
For the Respondent/s : Mrs. Anita Kumari Singh, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE CHANDRA SHEKHAR JHA
ORAL JUDGMENT
Date : 10-01-2024
1. At the outset, it is important to mention that both
above named appeals are disposed herewith through this
common judgment, as same arises out of S. Tr. No. 801 of
2002/S. Tr. No. 490/2003 (Arising out of Daniawan P.S. Case
No.10 of 2001), disposed by Learned Additional District &
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.2348 of 2017 dt.10-01-2024
2/22
Sessions Judge-IV, Patna City.
2. Heard learned counsel Ms. Mili Kumari,
(Amicus Curiae) appearing on behalf of the appellant and
learned APP Mr. Binod Bihari Singh appearing on behalf of the
State in Cr. APP (SJ) No. 2348 of 2017 and learned counsel Mr.
Anurag Kumar (Amicus Curiae), appearing on behalf of the
appellant and learned APP Ms. Anita Kumari Singh appearing
on behalf of the State in Cr. APP (SJ) No. 1028 of 2018.
3. Both above mentioned appeals have been
preferred under Section 374(2) of Criminal Procedure Code (in
short "Cr.P.C.") by above named all accused/appellants,
challenging the judgment of conviction dated 12.06.2017 and
order for sentence dated 17.06.2017 passed in connection with
S. Tr. No. 801 of 2002/S. Tr. No. 490/2003 (arising out of
Daniawan P.S. Case No.10 of 2001), whereby and whereunder
learned Additional District & Sessions Judge-IV, Patna City
convicted under Section 376/34 and under Section 452 of I.P.C.
and ordered to be sentenced to undergo R.I. for a period of Ten
years for the offence under Section 376/34 of I.P.C. each and a
fine of Rs.15,000/- each and in default of payment of fine, they
shall further be served one year imprisonment. Further all the
convicts are sentenced to undergo R.I. for a period of 5 (five)
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.2348 of 2017 dt.10-01-2024
3/22
years each for the offence under Section 452 of I.P.C. and a fine
of Rs. 5000/- each and in default of payment thereof, they have
to serve sentence of three months. Both sentences shall run
concurrently.
4. The crux of prosecution case as it springs from the
fard-e-beyan of informant that on 3/4.5.2001 at about 12 A.M.,
while the informant was sleeping in her house alongwith her
two children, three accused persons entered into her house, to
whom she recognized as Jagdip Beldar, Moti Paswan, Jhandu
Dusadh. She has further stated that all three persons entered in
her room and raped her one after another, where 4-5 unknown
persons were standing in "Angan" (court-yard) armed with
"Lathi" & "Danda". She has further stated that her husband had
gone to other village for installing pump and her mother-in-law
was sleeping in another room in the same house. It had been
further stated that Jagdip Beldar tied her mouth with a
"Gamcha", Moti Dusadh caught hold her hands and Jhandu
Dusadh caught hold of her legs and they have committed rape
upon her one after another. It had been further stated that after
committing rape all the accused persons fled away alongwith
the 'Gamcha'. It has been further stated that upon raising alarm
Lal Bahadur Das (Bhaisur/brother-in-law), Smt. Gunja Devi and
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.2348 of 2017 dt.10-01-2024
4/22
Mithlesh Das reached there to whom the complainant/victim
narrated the incident. The complainant/victim had stated that on
the following day i.e. on 3.5.2001 Lal Bahadur Das
(Bhaisur/brother-in-law) went to bring Lal Bihari Das, the
husband of the complainant and they come back to the house at
6:00 P.M. on 3.5.2001 and the complainant's Bhaisur informed
about the occurrence to his brother Lal Bihari Das. It is further
stated in the complaint petition that both the brothers alongwith
complainant went to the house of accused and asked them why
they had committed the crime, upon which the accused
threatened them to face consequences if they would report the
matter to the Police, upon which they returned to their houses. It
is further stated that on the following day ie. on 4.5.2001 at 9
A.M. the complainant alongwith her husband went to Police
Station Daniawan and matter was reported to the Police, upon
which the Police said that it would come to the place of
occurrence at the evening but the Police did not come. It had
also been stated that the complainant's husband again visited to
the Police Station on 19.5.2001 and learnt that the Police has not
registered the case in collusion with the accused.
5. Due to aforesaid non co-operation of police, having
no option left a complaint Case No. 354(c)/2001 was lodged
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.2348 of 2017 dt.10-01-2024
5/22
before CJM Patna, which was transferred to concerned police
station to investigate after lodging FIR under Section 156(3) of
Cr.P.C., where police registered a case being Daniwana P.S.
Case No. 10 of 2001 for the offence under Sections
376/448/504/345
of the I.P.C. After completion of investigation,
the police submitted charge-sheet against all accused persons
including appellants under Sections 452/376/504/34 of I.P.C.,
where learned Jurisdictional Magistrate took cognizance for
afore-mentioned offences and after compliance of Section 207
of Cr.P.C., committed case to session court for trial and disposal
as per mandate available under Section 209 of Cr.P.C.
6. Learned trial Court after perusal of record and
materials/evidences collected during course of investigation
framed charges against accused persons under Sections
452/376/504/34 of I.P.C, which were duly explained to accused
persons including accused/appellants, where they pleaded "not
guilty" and claimed trial.
7. On commencing trial, to establish its case before the
learned trial court, the prosecution altogether examined four
witnesses, namely, Lal Bahadur Das (PW-1), Mahazani
Devi/victim(PW-2), Lal Bihari Das (PW-3), Mithilesh Das (PW-
4).
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.2348 of 2017 dt.10-01-2024
8. After closure of the prosecution case, the
statement of accused/appellants were recorded under Section
313 of Cr.P.C. by putting all incriminating
circumstances/evidences as surfaced during trial, where they
had shown their complete innocence by denying all
incriminating circumstances/evidences explained to them.
9. In defense no evidence was produced.
10. After conclusion of trial, learned trial court by
taking note of evidences available on record, legal positions and
argument advanced by the parties, convicted the accused/
appellants for the offence under Sections 376/34/452 of I.P.C.
and sentenced to undergo R.I. for a period of ten years for the
offence under Section 376/34 of I.P.C. each and a fine of
Rs.15,000/- each and in default of payment of fine, they shall
further to undergo one year imprisonment. Further all the
appellants were sentenced to undergo R.I. for a period of 5
(five) years each for the offence under Section 452 I.P.C. and a
fine of Rs. 5000/- each and in default of payment thereof, they
have to serve sentence of three months. Being aggrieved, with
aforesaid order of conviction and sentence accused/appellants
preferred the present appeals.
11. Hence, the present appeals.
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.2348 of 2017 dt.10-01-2024
12. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
appellants-convicts submitted that the trial court has erred in
convicting the accused for the offences under sections 376 and
452 of the IPC. It is submitted that neither the I.O. of the case
has been examined nor the lady doctor who had medically
examined the victim, had been examined by the prosecution. It
is stated that the learned trial court has erred in properly
appreciating the fact that medical report does not support the
case of the prosecution. As per the medical report, no injury
whatsoever, either on external part of the victim or on the
private part of the victim was found during examination and
even it is difficult to say that victim is sexually assaulted as also
no spermatozoa was found near genital organ of the victim.
Clothes of the victim was also not sent for chemical analysis,
but this aspect has not been fully considered by the trial court to
reach on the conclusion as to whether the alleged incident has
been committed or this is a case of false implication due to
previous enmity on the issue of Tar-tree. Even the chemical
examination did not reveal anything to substantiate the offence
of rape on the victim. While concluding the argument, learned
counsel submitted that no doubt, conviction in case of rape can
be secured on the basis of sole testimony of victim/prosecutrix
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.2348 of 2017 dt.10-01-2024
but she must qualify the criteria of "Sterling Witness", which is
calling in present case.
13. Learned counsel while arguing the matter
relied upon the legal report of Hon. Supreme Court in the
matters of [Raju and others v. State of Madhya Pradesh (2008)
15 SCC 133] and Rai Sandeep @ Deepu v. State (NCT)
[(2012)8 SCC 21].
14. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor while
arguing for the State submitted that learned trial court has
rightly convicted the appellants/convicts under section 376 and
452 of the IPC. Learned A.P.P. further submitted that the victim
except minor contradiction appears to be "Sterling Witness"
having no apparent reason to disbelieve her. It is pointed out that
on the ground of sole witness of rape victim, conviction can be
secured and in support of his submission, he relied upon legal
report of Vishnu @ Undriya (2006) 1 SCC 283.
15. Lower Court records and proceeding was
perused and also upon consideration of arguments as canvassed
by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the parties, it
appears apposite to discuss evidences for the sake of re-
appreciation, which is as under:-
16. PW-1 Lal Bahadur Das is Bhaisur/brother-in-
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.2348 of 2017 dt.10-01-2024
law of prosecutrix/victim and he has deposed that occurrence is
of 2/3-5-2001 at 12-1 hrs. night. By that time he was on the roof
of Ramdeo Das together with Mithilesh and 2-4 children. He
heard the sound of wife of his younger brother (Bhabhu)
Mahajani Devi and mother Gunja Devi and thereafter, he along
with one, Mithilesh Das came to his house where his Bhabhu
and mother told that Jagdip Beldar, Moti Paswan, Jhandu
Paswan and Jai Nandan Paswan all the four persons have raped
her one by one. He has further stated that accused Jagdip Beldar
had covered her mouth with Gamcha and Moti Paswan had
caught her hand and Jhandu Paswan had caught her legs. He has
further stated that due to night, he could not go anywhere. The
husband of Mahajani Devi(victim) was not at home and he had
gone to affix hand pump at village Faldawa and on next
morning, he went to call him and returned along with his brother
at 6-7 hrs. evening and then they went along with 2-4 villagers
to ask the accused Jhandu and Moti as why they have
committed such occurrence, but they threatened to kill his whole
family, if case is filed. Then his brother and Bhabhi went to
Daniawan police station to lodge the case, but the police did not
register the case and told them to go and he will come in the
evening but the police did not come to his home and thereafter,
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.2348 of 2017 dt.10-01-2024
they filled the case in the court on 22 nd, whereafter, the police
recorded his statement.
16.1. In cross examination he has stated that from
the roof of Radeo Das, the house of Mahajani Devi is at distance
of 50 meters and there is KHAND in between them and he used
to sleep on the roof due to hot weather. Further he has stated that
his Bhabhu has two children one is son aged about 8-9 years and
another is girl child aged about 1- 1½ years. Further he has
been cross-examined on the point of boundary of the PO house.
Further he has denied the suggestion put by the defence by
negating false implication.
17. PW-2, Mahazani Devi, is victim herself. She
has stated that on the day and time of occurrence, she was
sleeping in the room, where accused Jagdip Beldar, Moti
Paswan, Jhnadu Paswan and Jai Nandan Paswan entered and
tied her mouth with red Gamcha. Accused Moti Dusadh tied her
hands and Jhandu Dusadh caught her legs and all the four
accused persons committed rape with her one by one and
threatened that if she filed any case then they would kill her. Her
husband and bhaisur were also threatened by accused persons
on next day for not to file any case. When the police failed to
register the case then only then, she filed the case in the court
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.2348 of 2017 dt.10-01-2024
from where the case was sent to police station for institution of
case. She has stated that she put her LTI on complaint petition
and police has also recorded her statement.
17.1. In cross examination she has stated that the
occurrence was held inside her house and there is no any gate
affixed in the door, consequently the door was opened and at the
time of occurrence, no other persons were present except her
and accused persons as on the day of occurrence her husband
had gone to village Falnama to affix the hand pump. Further she
has stated that she filed the case after two days of the occurrence
and after occurrence she came at Kankarbagh Colony where her
Nandosi(sister-in-law) lived. She has no any dispute with
accused persons. Further she has stated that at the time of
occurrence she had slept on the ground and she had wore sari,
which was stained during occurrence but due to poverty she
washed that sari. She has further stated that the blood was not
oozed from her hands, legs or from any part of her body and that
the occurrence is of 12 hrs. night and due to fear she could not
chase the accused persons.
18. PW-3, Lal Bihari Das is the husband of
preecutix/complainant and he has deposed that the occurrence is
of 2-5-2001 at hrs. night. By that time his wife was sleeping in
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.2348 of 2017 dt.10-01-2024
room where Jagdip Beldar, Moti Paswan, Jhandu Paswan and
Jai Nandan Paswan came and tied the mouth of his wife
Mahajani Devi and caught hold her hands and leg and raped her
one by one and told to kill her, if any case is filed. On non-
registration of case in police station, the complaint case was
filed in court and from where the same was sent to the P.S. for
its institution and his statement was recorded by the police and
his wife got medically examined in Guru Govind Singh
Hospital, Patna City.
18.1. In cross examination he has stated that on the
day and at the time of occurrence he was at village Falnama
(Harnaut) and he came back from there in the evening on 3-5-01
and his wife had told about entire occurrence. He has further
stated that on 7-5-01 he had gone to PS to lodge the case, but
the police told him to go and he is coming. Further he has
denied to have remember that the case was filed in the court 5-6
days after of the occurrence.
19. PW-4 is Mithilesh Das, who has been declared
hostile by the prosecution. This witness has stated in his
evidence in chief that occurrence is of 2-5-01 at 12 hrs. night.
By that time he was in Patna and when he went after 3-4 days of
occurrence, he knew about that, but he has not remembered
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.2348 of 2017 dt.10-01-2024
about said knowledge and that his statement was not recorded
by the police. Learned Addl. P.P. has cross examined this hostile
witness with the permission of the court and drawn this attention
towards statement allegedly made by him before the police
previously supporting the prosecution case, but he has denied to
have made any such statement before the police. In cross
examination by the defence he has stated that since he was in
Patna, hence he did not get any information about the
occurrence. This witness has further denied about dispute with
accused persons of Tar tree and false implication rather he has
given his statement voluntarily. In the court question he has
stated that he was at Patna at Musllahpur Haat to the house of
Girja Babu where he was doing the work of painting, but he
denied to have remember the exact date of doing said work
there. Although this witness has been declared hostile but his
whole evidence cannot be discredited.
20. As per the statement in the complaint petition,
the alleged occurrence was said to had been taken place at 12
A.M. in the night of 2/3-5-2001 and the complaint in question
had been filed before the court of A.C.J.M., Patna City on
22.5.2001. The trial court has failed to appreciate that there is no
iota of evidence to support the case of the prosecution that the
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.2348 of 2017 dt.10-01-2024
and her husband on the next date i.e. on 4.5.2001, had gone to
the Police Station-Daniyama and matter was recorded there
upon which the Police said that they would come to their
residence, in the evening but the Police did not turn up and on
19.5.2001, when they again visited Police Station Daniyama,
they learnt that F.I.R. was not registered, then they filed
complain petition on 22.5.2001. For that statement of the had
been recorded by the Police on 27.05.2001 at Para-4 of the case
diary wherein the has stated that after the occurrence the and
her husband alongwith her children had fled to Patna and stayed
there in the residence of her "Nandoshi" and from there she has
lodged the complaint on 22.5.2001. She has also stated that she
had not gone to Police. For that trial Court has failed to
appreciate and consider that the P.W.2 has stated in her
deposition that she had gone to Kankarbagh Colony (Patna)
after the occurrence and this falsify the explanation that the
Police did not lodge the F.I.R.
21. From the impugned judgments and orders
passed by the learned trial court, it appears that the appellants
have been convicted solely relying upon the deposition of the
prosecutrix. Neither any independent witness nor even the
medical evidence supports the case of the prosecution. It has
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.2348 of 2017 dt.10-01-2024
also come on record that there was a dispute going on between
both the parties. It further appears that there is no eye witness in
this case and the only private witness who had been named as
witness in complaint petition namely Mithlesh Das has been
declared hostile as he did not support the case of the .
22. It cannot be disputed that there can be a
conviction solely based on the evidence of the prosecutrix.
However, the evidence must be reliable and trustworthy.
Therefore, now let us examine the evidence of the prosecutrix
and consider whether in the facts and circumstances of the case
is it safe to convict the accused solely based on the deposition of
the prosecutrix, more particularly when neither the medical
report/evidence supports nor other witnesses support and it has
come on record that there was an enmity between both the
parties.
23. With aforesaid factual aspects, oral and
documentary evidences in hand, it appears apposite to discuss
the legal ratio settled through different legal reports of Hon'ble
Supreme Cout as under:
In the matter of [Raju and others v. State of
Madhya Pradesh (2008) 15 SCC 133], it was held while
answering the reference in the following terns:
"11. It cannot be lost sight of that rape
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.2348 of 2017 dt.10-01-2024
causes the greatest distress and humiliation
to the but at the same time a false allegation
of rape can cause equal distress, humiliation
and damage to the accused as well. The
accused must also be protected against the
possibility of false implication, particularly
where a large number of accused are
involved. It must, further, be borne in mind
that the broad principle is that an injured
witness was present at the time when the
incident happened and that ordinarily such a
witness would not tell a lie as to the actual
assailants, but there is no presumption or
any basis for assuming that the statement of
such a witness is always correct or without
any embellishment or exaggeration.
12. Reference has been made in Gurmit
Singh case [(1996) 2 SCC 384 : 1996 SCC
(Cri) 316] to the amendments in 1983 to
Sections 375 and 376 of the Penal Code
making the penal provisions relating to rape
more stringent, and also to Section 114-A of
the Evidence Act with respect to a
presumption to be raised with regard to
allegations of consensual sex in a case of
alleged rape. It is however significant that
Sections 113-A and 113-B too were inserted
in the Evidence Act by the same amendment
by which certain presumptions in cases of
abetment of suicide and dowry death have
been raised against the accused. These two
sections, thus, raise a clear presumption in
favour of the prosecution but no similar
presumption with respect to rape is
visualised as the presumption under Section
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.2348 of 2017 dt.10-01-2024
114-A is extremely restricted in its
applicability. This clearly shows that insofar
as allegations of rape are concerned, the
evidence of a prosecutrix must be examined
as that of an injured witness whose presence
at the spot is probable but it can never be
presumed that her statement should, without
exception, be taken as the gospel truth.
Additionally, her statement can, at best, be
adjudged on the principle that ordinarily no
injured witness would tell a lie or implicate a
person falsely. We believe that it is under
these principles that this case, and others
such as this one, need to be examined."
In the context of "sterling witness", it would be
further apposite to refer Paragraph 22 of the legal report in the
matter of Rai Sandeep alias Deepu v. State (NCT) [(2012)8
SCC 21]
"22 In our considered opinion, the "sterling
witness" should be of a very high quality and
calibre whose version should, therefore, be
unassailable. The court considering the
version of such witness should be in a
position to accept it for its face value without
any hesitation. To test the quality of such a
witness, the status of the witness would be
immaterial and what would be relevant is the
truthfulness of the statement made by such a
witness. What would be more relevant would
be the consistency of the statement right
from the starting point till the end, namely, at
the time when the witness makes the initial
statement and ultimately before the court. It
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.2348 of 2017 dt.10-01-2024
should be natural and consistent with the
case of the prosecution qua the accused.
There should not be any prevarication in the
version of such a witness. The witness should
be in a position to withstand the cross-
examination of any length and howsoever
strenuous it may be and under no
circumstance should give room for any doubt
as to the factum of the occurrence, the
persons involved, as well as the sequence of
it. Such a version should have co-relation
with each and every one of other supporting
material such as the recoveries made, the
weapons used, the manner of offence
committed, the scientific evidence and the
expert opinion. The said version should
consistently match with the version of every
other witness. It can even be stated that it
should be akin to the test applied in the case
of circumstantial evidence where there
should not be any missing link in the chain
of circumstances to hold the accused guilty
of the offence alleged against him. Only if
the version of such a witness qualifies the
above test as well as all other such similar
tests to be applied, can it be held that such a
witness can be called as a "sterling witness"
whose version can be accepted by the court
without any corroboration and based on
which the guilty can be punished. To be more
precise, the version of the said witness on the
core spectrum of the crime should remain
intact while all other attendant materials,
namely, oral, documentary and material
objects should match the said version in
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.2348 of 2017 dt.10-01-2024
material particulars in order to enable the
court trying the offence to rely on the core
version to sieve the other supporting
materials for holding the offender guilty of
the charge alleged."
24. No doubt from the above discussed legal
propositions, conviction can be secured on the basis of sole
testimony of prosecutrix/victim of the rape but she must qualify
the criteria of "sterling witness" in view of aforesaid legal
propositions. This court finds that victim, who was examined as
PW-2 in present case does not qualify the criteria of sterling
witness for the following reasons:
25. Firstly, this case was instituted on the basis of
complaint, which was filed on 22.05.2001 for the occurrence
which was lodged to be committed on intervening night of
02.05.2001, this delay at the first instance makes a doubt
regarding the occurrence as alleged. Secondly, in complaint
petition, it is averred categorically that accused persons, namely,
Jagdeep Beldar, Moti Paswan and Jhandu Dusad entered into the
house of victim and thereafter, they committed rape one after
another but during the course of trial victim stated that Jai
Nandan Paswan also committed rape upon her, which makes
material contradiction regarding allegation of rape as how a
victim can miss the name of person in her complaint petition
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.2348 of 2017 dt.10-01-2024
who committed rape upon her alongwith other co-accused
persons. Thirdly, victim categorically stated in her cross-
examination that at the time of occurrence, no one was present
in room but she stated in complaint petition, which is the basis
of present FIR that in very next room her mother-in-law,
namely, Gunja Devi was sleeping with her son, she is also a
cherge-sheeted witness but could not be examined before the
Court. She also stated in her cross-examination that on the date
of occurrence her mother-in-law was not present in the house
but subsequently, she stated that she was sleeping in next room.
Fourthly, she stated in her examination-in-chief that after the
occurrence, she went to her Bhaisur (Brother-in-law), who was
examined as PW-1 and narrated the occurrence but PW-1 stated
that he came to place of occurrence on alarm, which was raised
from his house and thereafter, occurrence was narrated to him
by victim. Fifthly, PW-1 stated that her wife was also present in
the next room of the house but victim is silent in her deposition
about her presence. Sixthly, PW-1 is Lal Bahadur Das, who
stated that at the time of occurrence, he was sleeping at the roof
of house of Ramdev and after hearing the alarm of his mother
and victim, he came to place of occurrence whereas, PW-
2/Victim nowhere stated in her deposition that she raised any
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.2348 of 2017 dt.10-01-2024
alarm after the occurrence, she did not even follow up the
accused persons and remain inside her house even after the
occurrence.
26. Having aforesaid evidence in hand, it cannot be
said that prosecution established its case during trial beyond
reasonable doubts and, as such, the judgment of conviction and
order of sentence is hereby quashed and set-aside.
27. Accordingly, the present appeals stand allowed.
28. The impugned judgment of conviction dated
judgment of conviction dated 12.06.2017 and order of sentence
dated 17.06.2017, passed by the learned Additional District &
Sessions Judge-IV, Patna City in Sessions Trial No.
801/2002/Sessions Trial No. 490/2003, are set aside. All above
named accused/appellants are acquitted of the charges levelled
against them. They are directed to be set at liberty forthwith
unless their detentions are required in any other case.
29. Before parting with the appeal, I record my
appreciation for the able assistance rendered by Ms. Mili
Kumari, learned Amicus Curiae and Mr. Anurag Singh, learned
Amicus Curiae.
30. The Patna High Court, Legal Services
Committee is, hereby, directed to pay Rs. 5,000/- (Rupees Five
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.2348 of 2017 dt.10-01-2024
Thousand Only) each to Ms. Mili Kumari, learned Amicus
Curiae in Cr. APP (SJ) No. 2348 of 2017 and Mr. Anurag
Kumar, learned Amicus Curiae in Criminal Appeal (SJ) No.
1028 of 2018 as consolidated fee for rendering their valuable
professional service for the disposal of present appeals.
31. LCR, if any, be sent back to learned trial court
along with the copy of this judgment. Fine, if any, paid by
accused/appellants in furtherance of order of sentence, be
returned to them immediately.
(Chandra Shekhar Jha, J)
Archana/-
AFR/NAFR NAFR
CAV DATE NA
Uploading Date 24.01.2024
Transmission Date 24..01.2024
