Patna High Court
Satya Narayan Yadav And Ors vs The State Of Bihar on 2 January, 2024
Author: Ashutosh Kumar
Bench: Ashutosh Kumar, Alok Kumar Pandey
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL APPEAL (DB) No.715 of 2017
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-45 Year-2010 Thana- MANJHAGARH District- Gopalganj
======================================================
Lalan Yadav, Son of Late Bachcha Yadav, resident of Village-Domahata, P.S.-
Maghagarh, District-Gopalganj.
... ... Appellant/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
with
CRIMINAL APPEAL (DB) No. 448 of 2017
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-45 Year-2010 Thana- MANJHAGARH District- Gopalganj
======================================================
1. Satya Narayan Yadav, Son of Late Ganga Yadav;
2. Baij Nath Yadav @ Baidya Nath Yadav, Son of Late Rudal Yadav;
3. Dhruv Yadav, Son of Late Rudal Yadav;
4. Rama Jee Yadav, Son of Babu Lal Yadav;
5. Sadhu Yadav, Son of Babu Lal Yadav;
All are residents of Village-Domahatta, P.S.-Manjhagarh, District-
Gopalganj.
... ... Appellant/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
with
CRIMINAL APPEAL (DB) No. 666 of 2017
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-45 Year-2010 Thana- MANJHAGARH District- Gopalganj
======================================================
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.715 of 2017 dt.02-01-2024
2/28
1. Ramadhar Yadav;
2. Laxman Yadav;
Both Sons of Mus Yadav, residents of Village-Doma Hatta, Police Station-
Manjhagarh, District-Gopalganj.
... ... Appellant/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
with
CRIMINAL APPEAL (DB) No. 756 of 2017
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-45 Year-2010 Thana- MANJHAGARH District- Gopalganj
======================================================
1. Wakil Yadav, Son of Late Mukhlal Yadav;
2. Bhola Yadav, Son of Wakil Yadav;
3. Saral Yadav, Son of Wakil Yadav;
4. Sukhal Yadav, Son of Late Awadh Yadav;
5. Devata Yadav, Son of Sukhal Yadav;
6. Kisan Yadav, Son of Lalan Yadav;
7. Vijay Yadav, Son of Lalan Yadav;
All residents of Village-Domahata, P.S.-Majhagarh, District-Gopalganj.
... ... Appellant/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
(In CRIMINAL APPEAL (DB) No. 715 of 2017)
For the Appellant/s : Mr. Ajay Kumar Thakur, Adv.
Ms. Vaishnavi Singh, Adv.
For the State : Mr. Dilip Kumar Sinha, APP
(In CRIMINAL APPEAL (DB) No. 448 of 2017)
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.715 of 2017 dt.02-01-2024
3/28
For the Appellant/s : Ms. Rina Sinha, Adv.
For the State : Mr. Dilip Kumar Sinha, APP
(In CRIMINAL APPEAL (DB) No. 666 of 2017)
For the Appellant/s : Mr. Umesh Kumar Singh, Adv.
For the State : Mr. Dilip Kumar Sinha, APP
(In CRIMINAL APPEAL (DB) No. 756 of 2017)
For the Appellant/s : Mr. Ajay Kumar Thakur, Adv.
Ms. Vaishnavi Singh, Adv.
For the State : Mr. Dilip Kumar Sinha, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ASHUTOSH KUMAR
and
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK KUMAR PANDEY
ORAL JUDGMENT
(Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ASHUTOSH KUMAR)
Date : 02-01-2024
All the criminal appeals have been heard
together and are being disposed off by this common
judgment.
2. We have heard Mr. Ajay Kumar Thakur,
Ms. Rina Sinha and Mr. Umesh Kumar Singh, the
learned Advocates on behalf of the appellants. The
State, in all the appeals, has been represented by Mr.
Dilip Kumar Sinha, the learned Additional Public
Prosecutor.
3. The appellants (fifteen in number) have
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.715 of 2017 dt.02-01-2024
4/28
been convicted under Sections 302 and 201/34 of the
Indian Penal Code (in short, the I.P.C.) vide judgment
dated 28.03.2017 passed by the learned Additional
Sessions Judge-VIII, Gopalganj in Sessions Trial No.
342 of 2010 (CIS No. 2898 of 2013) arising out of
Manjhagrah P.S. Case No. 45 of 2010. On the same
day of conviction, i.e., on 28.03.2017, the appellants
were sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life, to pay
a fine of Rs. 20,000/- each for the offence under Section
302/34 of the I.P.C. and to undergo rigorous
imprisonment for four years, to pay fine of Rs. 1000/-
each for the offence under Section 201 of the I.P.C.
The default clauses have been made composite, namely,
to suffer an additional period of simple imprisonment of
six months for not paying the fine. The Trial Court has
also directed that 50% of the fine amount would be paid
to the informant, who is the wife of the deceased.
Additionally, one of the appellants, namely, Lalan Yadav
[Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 715 of 2017] has been directed to
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.715 of 2017 dt.02-01-2024
5/28
pay an amount of Rs. 1,00,000/- as compensation to
the wife of the deceased, who incidentally is none else,
but the daughter of the afore-noted appellant.
4. Dayanand Yadav is alleged to have been
bludgeoned to death and his dead-body was put on fire
with the active assistance of appellant/Lalan Yadav, who
is the father-in-law of afore-noted Dayanand Yadav.
5. The F.I.R. has been lodged by the wife of
the deceased, namely, Asha Devi (P.W. 3). She has
alleged in her fardbeyan statement recorded by
S.I./Ram Kumar Singh (P.W. 7) that the appellants had
entered her house; dragged out her husband and
assaulted him to death. The dead-body was lifted by the
appellants and thrown on the verandah. Later, her
father (appellant/Lalan Yadav) commanded his co-
villagers/appellants to burn the dead-body in the fire
which was already burning in front of his house. Seeing
the occurrence, P.W. 3 claims to have made her escape
to a different village to take shelter in the house of one
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.715 of 2017 dt.02-01-2024
6/28
Parmanand Yadav. After some time, she came to her
village home and saw the dead-body of her husband in
front of her father's house. She has been very specific
in alleging that in order to screen the offence, the dead-
body was attempted to be burnt.
6. On the basis of afore-noted fardbeyan,
Manjhagarh P.S. Case No. 45 of 2010 dated
13.03.2010
was registered for investigation against all
the appellants under Sections 302, 201 and 34 of the
I.P.C.
7. The police, after investigation, submitted
charge-sheet against the appellants, whereupon they
were tried.
8. The Trial Court, after having examined
seven witnesses in all on behalf of the prosecution,
convicted and sentenced the appellants as aforesaid.
9. The learned Advocates for the appellants
have argued that the Trial Court completely went along
the deposition of P.W. 3 as a daughter to a father would
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.715 of 2017 dt.02-01-2024
never falsely accuse him for having murdered her
husband. The deposition of P.W. 3, it has been argued,
ought to have been seen in the correct perspective and it
should have been analyzed more deeply for placing
implicit reliance on it only on account of the filial
relationship between appellant/Lalan Singh and P.W. 3.
10. Apart from this, it has been urged in
defence of the appellants that notwithstanding the tall
claims of P.W. 3 of having witnessed the occurrence, her
presence at the P.O., especially at the time of assault,
has been rendered doubtful, which fact becomes evident
from a bare reading of the deposition of all the
witnesses.
11. No independent person has been
examined at the Trial, the learned Advocates grieve, and
only those persons who are directly related to the
deceased have deposed before the Trial Court. Some of
the persons, who could have disentangled this complex
weave of the story, have been purposefully left behind.
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.715 of 2017 dt.02-01-2024
Even the manner of occurrence, the learned Advocates
have argued, is not in sync with the ocular testimony
offered at the Trial.
12. The time-lines suggested by the
prosecution has further lessened the credibility of the
prosecution version. The F.I.R., according to them, was
prepared after due deliberation in order to include an
explanation for the physical injury on the deceased,
including minor burn of the hair which could not have
had been the case if the deceased were put on fire.
Even the accusation of fifteen persons assaulting the
deceased before his death is not borne out by the ante-
mortem injuries found by the doctor who had conducted
the post-mortem examination.
13. The entire story, therefore, was sought to
be debunked on the ground that with the severance of
relationship of P.W. 3 with her parents, because of her
having married against the wishes of the family, she
chose to go along with her in-laws; otherwise she would
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.715 of 2017 dt.02-01-2024
not have any place to go to. Even otherwise, P.W. 3
had not maintained any relationship with her family,
which stayed only next doors.
14. As opposed to the afore-noted
contentions, Mr. Sinha, the learned APP has tried to
justify the judgment on the ground that minor
inconsistencies in the prosecution story would not justify
completely discarding the same. A daughter would not
unnecessary point an accusative finger against her
father, who, for all this while, had not troubled her
except for maintaining a cool reserve. Not only the
daughter, but her uncles-in-law and the mother-in-law
have supported the prosecution case in its entirety.
15. The ribs of the deceased were found to
be broken and the cause of death was attributed to the
physical injuries suffered by him. The hairs and some
part of the face were though found to be burnt;
however, the doctor had found the face and head of the
deceased smeared with mud. This only pre-supposes
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.715 of 2017 dt.02-01-2024
that an attempt may have been made to douse the fire.
Merely because the reason for the mud to be found on
the head and the face of the deceased was not explained
by the prosecution, the defence would not be justified in
castigating the post-mortem report as not being in
concord with the prosecution case. If not for burning
the deceased to death, then it was for concealing and
screening the offence that the deceased was put on fire.
That he did not get burnt completely was because of the
villagers rescuing him and taking him out of fire.
Nonetheless, the deceased had died instantaneously as
there is no evidence of his having been taken to hospital
for any treatment. In that event, the social and moral
context of the explanation of the defence regarding the
futility of the appellants having indulged in such a gory
act, is not worth accepting.
16. Lastly, it has been submitted that there
are no instances of differing time-lines; rather it is only a
venial mistake of referring to a time after 12 O'clock as
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.715 of 2017 dt.02-01-2024
P.M. and not A.M. by the doctor. Even otherwise, any
wrong entry in the documents regarding time would not
make the entire prosecution case doubtful.
17. Thus, the sum and substance of the
argument of the State is that in the event of many
persons including the wife of the deceased having seen
the occurrence and re-counting the same before the Trial
Court, no other effort ought to be made to discredit the
witnesses on account of the human susceptibilities only.
The law, as is trite, enjoins that an eye-witness account,
if undiluted, has to be given preference over any other
factor and in the present case, the eye-witness account
of the wife of the deceased assumes importance and has
been given good worth by the Trial Court.
18. In our efforts to know the reasons for
P.W. 3 to have named her father along with fourteen of
his cohorts, we have analyzed the evidence of all the
seven witnesses in some detail.
19. Asha Devi/P.W. 3 has talked about the
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.715 of 2017 dt.02-01-2024
presence of the deceased, her mother-in-law (P.W. 2)
and one Braj Kishore (not examined) in her house at the
time of the occurrence. In her fardbeyan, she was
categorical in stating that only she and the deceased
were in the house when the occurrence had taken place.
This addition becomes relevant for the reason that Braj
Kishore, who also was alleged to have been assaulted
while trying to rescue the deceased and because of
which assault, he died a year later, was never examined
at the Trial. Along with all these persons, P.W. 3 has
also acknowledged the presence of her brother-in-law in
the house when the occurrence had taken place. She
claims to have been assaulted by the appellants when
she wanted to save her husband. Her mother-in-law and
the younger brother of the deceased were treated in
local hospital for the injuries suffered by them.
However, none of those injuries are on record.
20. Blowing a different wind, P.W. 3 has
given an explanation of appellant/Lalan Yadav, her
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.715 of 2017 dt.02-01-2024
father, not filing a case against the deceased earlier for
his marriage with P.W. 3 against his choice, as his
advancing age. She claims to have married the
deceased of her own choice and also had been blessed
with a son from this marriage. She has confirmed that
the entire ire of the villagers/the appellants, because of
her having married the deceased against the wishes of
the family, was directed towards the decesed. After the
occurrence, P.W. 3 chose to implicate her father and
grandfather, both, but none of the female members of
her parental home. The house, where the occurrence
had taken place, is situated next to the house of
appellant/Lalan Yadav.
21. One other fact disclosed by P.W. 3 which
has made her statement doubtful is of her escaping at
the time of the occurrence to a different village situated
about two and half kilometers away from the P.O. to her
brother-in-law's house and then coming back again to
the village where the occurrence took place, for lodging
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.715 of 2017 dt.02-01-2024
the F.I.R. This version of P.W. 3 does not get supported
by the evidence of the other witnesses.
22. Parmanand Yadav, who though is a
witness to the F.I.R. as also the inquest, is the person to
whom P.W. 3 had looked up to when her husband was
being assaulted by the appellants. So, there was no
reason to the prosecution to have withheld him from
coming to the witness stand.
23. The brother of aforesaid Parmanand
Yadav, namely, Birbal Yadav (P.W. 6) claims to have
learnt about the occurrence only on overhearing P.W.3
talking to Parmanand Yadav. He came to the P.O.
along with Parmanand's wife, who is the sister of the
deceased but before the Trial Court, he has not made
any statement to indicate that his brother/ Parmanand
Yadav had accompanied P.W. 3 to the P.O.
24. Did she actually see the occurrence?
25. Was she present in the house when the
occurrence took place?
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.715 of 2017 dt.02-01-2024
26. There appears to be a gnawing doubt
about it for the reason that the wife of the slain, while
pleading with her father and his other villagers to spare
her husband, would not suddenly get so petrified that
she will escape to a village situated two to three
kilometers away. There have been divergent statements
by the witnesses about assault on her when she had
tried to rescue her husband. After all, she was not the
prey. There was no reason for her to fear for her life.
27. She claims to have been blessed with a
son. Did she leave her matrimonial home along with her
son or left her son behind, also remains unknown. What
mode of travel she chose for traversing the distance, up
and down, within half an hour, is also a matter of our
curiosity. If she had travelled on foot, she would not
have reached the village home of Parmanand Yadav in
time; let alone her going and coming back to the P.O. for
reporting the murder. The occurrence had taken place at
around 04:00 P.M. on 13.03.2010 and the F.I.R. has
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.715 of 2017 dt.02-01-2024
been timed at 05:13 P.M. on the same day. The inquest
report appears to have been prepared at 06:00 P.M.
28. Seen in this context, we find that even
from the deposition of Mintu Yadav (P.W. 1), one of the
uncles of the deceased, and Dularo Devi (P.W. 2), the
mother-in-law of the deceased, such doubts about the
presence of P.W. 3 at the time of assault becomes very
glaring.
29. P.W. 1 has his house located nearby the
P.O. His nephew (deceased) was assaulted in his
presence. The deceased was also put on fire in his
presence. He never objected to the same. None of the
accused persons/appellants were armed with any firearm
or any lethal weapon. That they all were armed with
hard and blunt substance gets confirmed by the nature
of ante-mortem injury on the person of the deceased
and also by the absence of any injury report of P.W. 2,
Braj Kishore (not examined) and the brother of the
deceased.
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.715 of 2017 dt.02-01-2024
30. Would he have been a mute spectator?
31. Apart from appellant/Lalan Yadav, all
other appellants are from different household. The
distance between the P.O. and his house was only one
minute away. When he arrived at the house of the
deceased, he only saw the deceased and his wife (P.W.
3) and the fifteen appellants and none else.
32. Had his sister (P.W. 2) been there in the
house, P.W. 1 would not have missed out on her name
before the Trial court. According to him, P.W. 3 was
standing in the verandah when the deceased was being
assaulted. P.W. 1 saw her witnessing the occurrence for
about five to ten minutes; whereafter she used the
backdoor to go to the house of Parmanand Yadav. With
respect to the other appellants (other than
appellant/Lalan Yadav), P.W. 1 found them standing at
the door. He had not seen them entering the courtyard
of the house where the first part of the occurrence had
been committed. Though he claims to have protested
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.715 of 2017 dt.02-01-2024
the highhandedness action of the appellants, but he was
only left with a threat.
33. When the police party had arrived in the
village, P.W. 3 came along with her sister-in-law (not
examined). After one minute of their arrival, Parmanand
Yadav also arrived.
34. The distance of two and half kilometers,
perhaps, cannot be traversed in less than an hour. Even
otherwise, the entire narration of events do not fit in the
prosecution case.
35. According to P.W. 1, the dead body was
brought out of the fire by the villagers and especially one
of the doctors of the village, who has not been examined
at the Trial. It was only thereafter that the police party
had arrived.
36. Had the deceased then died by the time
the police party had arrived? P.W. 1 does not refer to
any resuscitation attempts by the villagers when the
appellants had left the P.O.
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.715 of 2017 dt.02-01-2024
37. At this juncture, it would be necessary to
refer to the deposition of Dr. Sanjeev Kumar (P.W. 5),
the doctor who had conducted the post-mortem
examination on 13.03.2010 at about 12:15 in the day.
38. We have examined the original post-
mortem report (Exhibit-1), which clearly reveals that the
body was received at 11:30 A.M. on 13.03.2010. How
was that possible when the occurrence itself is said to
have taken place in the evening hours of 13.03.2010?
Either the prosecution story is wrong or the timings
entered in the documents are incorrect.
39. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor
suggests that the doctor instead of referring to the time
as A.M. (post midnight), wrongly referred to it in his
deposition as P.M. That does not, but explain the entire
set of timings in the documents exhibited before the
Trial Court. If this were the case, the date would have
changed. After midnight, it would have been
14.03.2010.
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.715 of 2017 dt.02-01-2024
40. There is yet another flip-side to this
explanation. Normally, the post-mortem is not
conducted in the dead of the night as is the regular
directive of the Directorate of prosecution.
41. Taking a line of least opposition by either
of the parties, we find the injuries on the person of the
deceased to be not such which would have led to his
instantaneous death or complete futility of any medical
help or for a medical declaration of death. Rigor mortis
was found in all the four limbs. If the dead-body would
have been brought to the post-mortem table some times
in the night of the occurrence, rigor mortis would not
have been present, for it was the month of March.
42. The face, neck and upper part of the
chest were found to be covered with mud. As we have
already noted, the explanation of the State is that
perhaps that was because of the efforts of the people to
douse the fire.
43. There were some evidence of the hair
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.715 of 2017 dt.02-01-2024
being burnt but the burn injuries had not at all produced
any scalding marks on the body.
44. There was only one lacerated wound on
the right chest which was only skin-deep. The external
genitalia were found to be intact. The skull was
completely intact. There was no intracranial bleeding.
However, P.W. 5 found fracture of ribs on both sides
which had punctured the lungs. Blood was found in the
abdominal cavity. The liver also was lacerated at three
places.
45. The injuries were of course good enough
to cause death, but then the certification of death was
necessary.
46. Had the deceased died the moment he
was thrown in the fire or died when he was pulled out,
remains unknown.
47. The police had arrived at the place of
occurrence before P.W. 3. Before conducting the
inquest examination, in such a scenario, the
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.715 of 2017 dt.02-01-2024
injured/deceased should have been taken to hospital.
48. The prosecution story gets a further jolt
here.
49. With this kind of injury, especially only
internal bleeding, the deposition of the witnesses and the
I.O. appear to be exaggerated. All of them somehow
had found blood marks in the courtyard.
50. Dularo Devi (P.W. 2) claims to have been
injured in the occurrence, but as we have noted, there is
no reference of any injury in the entire records on her
person. She, however, has stated something else which
again militates against the sequence of events suggested
by the prosecution. She has alleged that the deceased
after being taken away from the fire was brought to a
doctor where he was declared dead.
51. When did it happen? Who was the doctor
who certified the death of the deceased? And why had
that doctor not been examined? These are probable
questions which would beckon any answer. If all this
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.715 of 2017 dt.02-01-2024
had happened, then the time of 05:30 P.M. on
13.03.2010 in the F.I.R. appears to be conjured up too.
All this must have taken lot of time.
52. We find some justification in the
submission of the learned Advocates for the appellants
that only after finding the nature of injuries on the
person of the deceased, the F.I.R. was registered with
such accusation. Otherwise, there would not have been
such a mathematical precision in the F.I.R. being lodged
at 05:30 P.M., the inquest done at 06.00 P.M. and the
post-mortem examination at 12:00 A.M. in the night in
the same diurnal expanse.
53. All the witnesses, who are related to the
deceased, have at least admitted of the deceased having
contracted an earlier marriage with the daughter of one
Rajbanshi of a neighbouring village. Even the mother of
the deceased (P.W. 2) has confirmed the fact that
before P.W. 3 was married to the deceased, he had
contracted marriage with daughter of Rajbanshi for
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.715 of 2017 dt.02-01-2024
which a case been lodged against him.
54. Appellant/Lalan Yadav also had filed a
criminal case against the deceased when he chose to
marry P.W. 3 against his wishes.
55. None of the F.I.Rs. of these cases or
their status are on record and those details have come in
evidence only through the mouth of witnesses as
answers to the suggestions given to them.
56. This, therefore takes us to the primary
question as to why a daughter would depose against her
father, if the father had not led a gang into her
matrimonial house and had killed the deceased.
57. We have found from the evidence that
the deceased had married P.W. 3 some three years ago.
The couple did not stay in the village in the beginning.
It was only much later that they elected to come back to
the village and lead their lives. The house of the
deceased and appellant/Lalan Yadav is, as we have
noted, are next doors. While P.W. 3 stayed in her own
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.715 of 2017 dt.02-01-2024
village home along with her husband (deceased), she
gave birth to a son. This fact, therefore, presupposes
that the deceased and P.W. 3 were staying in the village
at a stone's throw distance from the house of
appellant/Lalan Yadav for a couple of months before the
occurrence took place.
58. What was the reason for selecting
13.03.2010 as the date to wreak vengeance on the
deceased for having married P.W. 3?
59. Seen in this perspective, it appears that
F.I.R. has been lodged on the asking of P.Ws. 1 and 2
and, perhaps, others, who formed part of a group which
was opposed to the group led by appellant/Lalan Yadav.
Some fight may have taken place or somebody may
have assaulted the deceased. That the death provided
an opportunity for the family members of the deceased
to frame appellant/Lalan and his supporters, is a
possibility which cannot be overlooked, especially when
the inconsistencies pointed out in the prosecution case
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.715 of 2017 dt.02-01-2024
could not be answered.
60. If all the fifteen appellants would have
assaulted the deceased, the external injuries would not
have been so minimal. The deceased appears to have
received internal injury. His ribs were broken, the fallout
of which was the puncturing of the lungs and internal
bleeding. With the assault by fifteen persons, there
would not have been only an external evidence of one
abrasion which was only skin-deep. Even otherwise,
none of the witnesses saw all the fifteen of the
appellants inside the courtyard of the deceased. The
courtyard which is twenty feet in size, as disclosed by
P.W. 2, would not provide sufficient space for all the
fifteen persons to fling their arms.
61. The explanation of P.W. 3 going along
with her matrimonial family and naming her father as
one of the accused persons, who had completely severed
his connection with P.W. 3, appears to be the only
acceptable choice for P.W. 3, which accusation may or
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.715 of 2017 dt.02-01-2024
may not be true.
62. Under the aforesaid circumstances, we
have doubted the participation of all the appellants of
entering the house of the deceased, assaulting him to a
pulp, dragging him out (there are no dragging marks
found in the post-mortem report) and putting him on fire
for removing the evidence of murder, giving no option to
us but to discard the prosecution case by giving benefit
of doubt to all the appellants.
63. For the afore-noted reasons, we set-side
the judgment of conviction and order of sentence
referred to above and acquit the appellants, above-
named, of the charges levelled against them.
64. All other appellants except
appellant/Lalan Yadav [Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 715 of
2017] are on bail. Their liabilities under the bail-bonds
are cancelled.
65. Appellant/Lalan Yadav [Cr. Appeal (DB)
No. 715 of 2017] is said to be custody since
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.715 of 2017 dt.02-01-2024
28.03.2017. He is directed to be set at liberty forthwith
unless his detention is required in any other case.
66. All the appeals stand allowed.
67. Let a copy of this judgment be dispatched
to the Superintendent of the concerned Jail forthwith for
compliance and record.
68. The records of these cases be returned to
the Trial Court forthwith.
69. Interlocutory application/s, if any, also
stand disposed off accordingly.
(Ashutosh Kumar, J)
(Alok Kumar Pandey, J)
Praveen-II/Manoj
AFR/NAFR AFR
CAV DATE N/A
Uploading Date 04.01.2024
Transmission Date 04.01.2024
