[Cites 32, Cited by 0]
Patna High Court
Suresh @ Rukhendra Manjhi @ Rukander ... vs The State Of Bihar on 16 December, 2025
Author: Anshuman
Bench: Anshuman
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL APPEAL (DB) No.347 of 2017
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-67 Year-2015 Thana- DIGHWARA District- Saran
======================================================
1. Mohd Phool Sharif @ Phool Sharif Son of Late Gafur Miyan.
2. Mohd Shahabuddin Son of Phool Sharif Both are Resident of Village-
Madarpur, P.S. Basantpur, District- Siwan.
... ... Appellant/s
Versus
The State Of Bihar
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
with
CRIMINAL APPEAL (DB) No. 173 of 2017
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-67 Year-2015 Thana- DIGHWARA District- Saran
======================================================
Rajesh Kumar Yadav Son of Motilal Rai, Resident of Village--Kanhauli, P.S.
Basantpur, District-Siwan
... ... Appellant/s
Versus
The State Of Bihar
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
with
CRIMINAL APPEAL (DB) No. 247 of 2017
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-67 Year-2015 Thana- DIGHWARA District- Saran
======================================================
Suresh @ Rukhendra Manjhi @ Rukander Manjhi Son of Shivpujan Manjhi,
resident of Village- Surajpura, P.S. Basantpur, District- Siwan.
... ... Appellant/s
Versus
The State Of Bihar
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
with
CRIMINAL APPEAL (DB) No. 312 of 2017
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-67 Year-2015 Thana- DIGHWARA District- Saran
======================================================
Rashid @ Dilshad son of Late Akhtar Ali R/o Mohalla Bagh Khal, P.S. Pishra,
District Hoogali W.B..
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.347 of 2017 dt.16-12-2025
2/61
... ... Appellant/s
Versus
The State Of Bihar
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
with
CRIMINAL APPEAL (DB) No. 378 of 2017
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-67 Year-2015 Thana- DIGHWARA District- Saran
======================================================
Mahtab Alam Son of Mohd. Saleem Mian, Resident of Village- Kishanpura,
P.S.- Basantpur, District- Siwan.
... ... Appellant/s
Versus
The State Of Bihar
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
(In CRIMINAL APPEAL (DB) No. 347 of 2017)
For the Appellant/s : Mr. Udit Nr. Singh, Advocate
Mr. Dhananjay Mishra, Advocate
Mr. Nilesh Kumar Nirala, Advocate
For the Respondent/s : Mr. Ajay Mishra, APP
(In CRIMINAL APPEAL (DB) No. 173 of 2017)
For the Appellant/s : Mr.Ajay Kumar Thakur, Advocate
Ms. Vaishnavi Singh, Advocate
Mr. Ritwik Thakur, Advocate
Ms. Kiran Kumari, Advocate
For the Respondent/s : Mr. Binod Bihari Sinha, APP
(In CRIMINAL APPEAL (DB) No. 247 of 2017)
For the Appellant/s : Ms. Vaishnavi Singh, Amicus Curiae
For the Respondent/s : Mr. Ajay Mishra, APP
(In CRIMINAL APPEAL (DB) No. 312 of 2017)
For the Appellant/s : Mr.Tribhuwan Narayan, Advocate
For the Respondent/s : Mr. Ajay Mishra, APP
(In CRIMINAL APPEAL (DB) No. 378 of 2017)
For the Appellant/s : Mr.Dewendra Narayan Singh, Advocate
For the Respondent/s : Mr.Binod Bihari Sinha, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BIBEK CHAUDHURI
and
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DR. ANSHUMAN
CAV JUDGMENT
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.347 of 2017 dt.16-12-2025
3/61
(Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DR. ANSHUMAN)
Date : 16-12-2025
Heard Mr. Udit Nr. Singh, learned counsel assisted by
Mr. Dhananjay Mishra and Mr. Nilesh Kumar Nirala, learned
Advocate in Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 347 of 2017; Mr. Ajay
Kumar Thakur, learned counsel assisted by Ms. Vaishnavi
Singh, Mr. Ritwik Thakur, and Ms. Kiran Kumari, Advocates in
Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 173 of 2017; Ms. Vaishnavi Singh,
learned Amicus Curiae in Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 247 of
2017; Mr. Tribhuwan Narayan Singh, learned counsel in
Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 312 of 2017; Mr. Dewendra Narayan
Singh, learned counsel in Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 378 of
2017; Mr. Ajay Kumar Mishra, learned APP in Criminal Appeal
(DB) Nos. 347 of 2017, 247 of 2017, and 312 of 2017; and Mr.
Binod Bihari Sinha, learned APP in Criminal Appeal (DB) Nos.
173 of 2017 and 378 of 2017.
2. The aforementioned appeals have been filed under
Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
(hereinafter referred to as the 'Cr. P.C.'), challenging the
judgment of conviction dated 19.01.2017 and the order of
sentence dated 25.01.2017 passed by the learned 1st Additional
Sessions Judge, Saran at Chapra in Sessions Trial No. 421 of
2015 arising out of Dighwara P.S. Case No. 67 of 2015,
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.347 of 2017 dt.16-12-2025
4/61
whereby all the accused mentioned above were convicted under
Sections 364A and 120B of the Indian Penal Code and
sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of
Rs. 10,000/- each; and in default of payment of fine, the
convicts were directed to further undergo simple imprisonment
for six months. All the sentences were directed to run
concurrently.
3. The prosecution case is based on a written
application submitted before the Superintendent of Police,
Chapra, which was forwarded to the Dighwara Police Station.
On the basis of the written application of the informant,
Shabnam Khatoon, Dighwara P.S. Case No. 67 of 2015 was
registered on 21.04.2015 at 10:30 a.m. against Puri Baba,
Babloo, and seven unknown persons for the offence punishable
under Sections 364/34 of the Indian Penal Code. As per the
prosecution case, one Puri Baba, a resident of Chapra, and
Babloo, a resident of Lemumabagh, Barh, had called the
informant's husband to provide contract work at Chapra. When
her husband Anwar Khan went to Dighwara along with
Salauddin, Puri Baba, with the help of his associates, allegedly
abducted both of them and took them towards the Railway
Wheel Factory. Thereafter, the accused persons released
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.347 of 2017 dt.16-12-2025
5/61
Salauddin and took away the informant's husband. It is further
alleged in the written report that the incident took place on
16.04.2015
at about 9:00 p.m. near Dighwara Station and that
the assailants, seven in number, had arrived in a golden -
coloured Bolero vehicle. The informant further stated that
Salauddin, who had accompanied her husband to Dighwara,
narrated the entire occurrence to her on 17.04.2015 at about
10:00 a.m. She further alleged that even after the expiry of three
days, there was no trace of her husband.
4. During the investigation, on the basis of mobile
tower location and CDR analysis, the police recovered the
victim and submitted chargesheet against Md. Shahabuddin,
Md. Phool Sharif, Suresh Manjhi @ Rukhendra Manjhi, Rajesh
Kumar Yadav, Mahtab Alam, and Md. Rashid Dilshad for
offences punishable under Sections 364A and 120B of the IPC.
The investigation was kept pending against Md. Shahabuddin,
while the FIR-named accused persons Puri Baba and Babloo
were shown as not involved.
5. After submission of the chargesheet, cognizance
was taken by the Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Chapra against
the aforementioned six accused persons for offences under
Sections 364A and 120B IPC. The case was committed to the
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.347 of 2017 dt.16-12-2025
Court of Sessions on 10.08.2015, and was received there on
21.08.2015. Subsequently, the case record was transferred to
the Court of the Vth Additional Sessions Judge, Saran for trial.
Upon further transfer, the case record was received in the Court
of the 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Saran at Chapra on
12.09.2016, at the stage of prosecution evidence.
6. On 5.10.2016, the prosecution evidence was
closed. On 02.11.2016, the statements of the accused persons
were recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C., wherein they
completely denied the prosecution allegations and claimed
innocence. On 11.11.2016, the defence evidence was also
closed.
7. In order to prove the charges leveled against the
accused persons the prosecution has examined altogether 8
witnesses out of whom P.W.1 is Ram Pravesh Ram, P.W.2
Shabnam Khatoon, P.W.3 Munni Khatoon, P.W.4 Anwar Khan
(Victim), P.W.5 Aanand Bhushan, P.W.6 Neeraj Kumar (I.O),
P.W.7 Chaukidar Abhay Kr. Manjhi and P.W.8 is Dr. Suresh
Kumar,. Beside the oral evidence, prosecution has proved Ext.1
written application of Informant, Ext 2 signature of Anwar
Khan on the statement of u/s 164 Cr.P.C., Ext.3 statement of
victim recorded u/s 164 Cr.P.C., Ext.4 seizure list of mobile set
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.347 of 2017 dt.16-12-2025
recovered from accused Shahabuddin, Ext.4/A seizure list of
mobile set recovered from the accused Mohd Rashid @
Dilshad, Ext. 4/B seizure list of mobile set recovered from
accused Phool Sharif, Ext.4/C seizure list of mobile set
recovered from accused Rajesh Yadav, Ext.5 requisite for
examination of injury of victim Anwar khan, Ext.6 injury report
of Anwar Khan and prosecution has also produced the seized
mobile sets as material exhibit and they have been marked as
Ext. I to Ext. V.
8. On the other hand, defence has produced neither
oral evidence nor documentary evidence.
9. P.W.1, Rampravesh Ram, was examined on
09.02.2016. In his examination-in-chief, he stated that he
worked as a painter on the contract work of Anwar Khan at
Patna and he resided in Anwar Khan's Patna house on rent.
9.1 In paragraph 2, he stated that Salauddin also
worked for two months on Anwar Khan's contract work and
had told Anwar Khan to arrange good contractual work at
Chapra. On 16.04.2015, at about 11 A.M., Salauddin left with
Anwar Khan for Chapra. When Ram Pravesh Ram (P.W.1) went
to Anwar Khan's house on 17.04.2015, he found Munni
Khatoon and her children crying. Upon inquiry, Munni Khatoon
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.347 of 2017 dt.16-12-2025
informed him that Anwar Khan had been abducted, and the
kidnappers were demanding Rupees One Crore as ransom. In
paragraph 3, the witness has further stated that Anwar Khan
was recovered by the police on 24.04.2015, and after returning
to Patna, Anwar Khan told him that six to seven persons had
abducted him and kept him at Madarpur. Anwar Khan allegedly
named Dilshad Ahmad, Mahtab Alam, Suresh Manjhi, Phool
Sharif Miya, Shahabuddin Miya, Rajesh Kumar Yadav, and
Salauddin Miyan as the persons involved in his kidnapping.
9.2 He was cross-examined only on behalf of
accused Rajesh Kumar. In para 5, he stated that Anwar Khan
did not tell him the parentage or address of the kidnappers. In
para 7, he denied having told the police that after the victim's
recovery on 24.04.2015, Anwar Khan disclosed the names of
the kidnappers to him. In para 8, he admitted that he does not
know the native village of Anwar Khan and has no
documentary proof of working with him. In para 11, he stated
that he had given his statement before Dighwara Police on
23.04.2015, and that he went to the police station on his own,
without being summoned.
10. P.W.2 Shabnam Khatoon, the informant of this
case and the wife of Anwar Khan (the victim), deposed in her
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.347 of 2017 dt.16-12-2025
examination-in-chief at paragraph 1 that on 16.04.2015 at about
1:00 P.M., Salauddin and her husband Anwar Khan proceeded
to Chapra. They first reached Hajipur by motorcycle, and from
Hajipur they proceeded to Chapra by train. When the train
reached Dighwara station, they got down, and from Dighwara,
the men of Salauddin took her husband away in a Bolero
vehicle. In paragraph 2, she stated that when her husband did
not return that night, she called his mobile number, but the
phone was switched off. She further stated that she went to the
house of Salauddin, but he was not present. On 17.04.2015,
Salauddin came to her house and informed her that Anwar
Bhaiya had been abducted. In paragraph 3, she stated that
Salauddin told her that Puri Baba and Babloo had called Anwar
and that they, through their men, had abducted him, and that
near the wheel factory they released Salauddin and took Anwar
Bhaiya away. In paragraph 5, she stated that her husband was
recovered by the police on 23.04.2015, and her husband
informed her that it was Salauddin who had planned his
kidnapping for ransom through his associates, namely Dilshad,
Rukhendra Manjhi, Rajesh Yadav, and Mahtab Alam, who had
taken him away in a vehicle.
10.1 This witness was cross-examined only on behalf
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.347 of 2017 dt.16-12-2025
of accused Rajesh Kumar. In paragraph 10, she stated that she
had submitted her written application based on the information
given by Salauddin, and she had given her restatement on the
basis of information provided by her husband. She further
deposed in paragraph 11 that accused Rajesh Kumar had no
involvement in the alleged occurrence.
11. P.W.3 Munni Khatoon, the first wife of Anwar
Khan (the victim), has supported the prosecution case in her
examination-in-chief. She stated that her husband was abducted
on 16.04.2015 for a ransom of Rupees One Crore. On that day,
Salauddin came to her house between 1:00-2:00 P.M. and, on
the pretext of providing good contract work, took her husband
from the house. On receiving a phone call from Dilshad, her
husband and Salauddin went to Dighwara, after which her
husband did not return. When the informant's sister dialed her
husband's mobile number, the phone was found switched off.
At paragraph 2, the witness stated that on 17.04.2015,
Salauddin came to her house and informed her that both he and
her husband had been abducted, but he was released near the
wheel factory while the kidnappers had taken her husband to an
unknown place. At paragraph 3, she stated that on 17.04.2015,
between 12:00 and 1:00 P.M., a missed call was received from
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.347 of 2017 dt.16-12-2025
her husband's mobile number. She further stated that on
20.04.2015, between 9:00 and 10:00 A.M., a call was received
from Dilshad's mobile on the mobile phone of her sister,
Shabnam Khatoon, in which a demand of Rupees One Crore
was made as ransom, along with a threat that her husband
would be killed if the ransom was not paid. She further stated
that similar calls continued to be received every 24 hours on her
mobile phone until 22.04.2015.
11.1 This witness has further stated at paragraph 4,
that on 23.04.2015 at about 12:30 A.M. (night), Dighwara
Police recovered her husband from the house of accused Phool
Sharif of Madarpur village, where four accused persons,
namely, Dilshad, Rajesh, Phool Sharif, and Shahabuddin were
arrested. At paragraph 5, this witness has stated that her
husband told her that it was Salauddin who had planned his
kidnapping for ransom. She also stated that her husband had
two marriages, and his second marriage was with her sister,
Shabnam Khatoon.
11.2 In her cross-examination on behalf of accused
Rajesh Kumar Yadav, at paragraph 9, she stated that accused
Rajesh had no role regarding contract work with her husband.
She further stated that she did not know from which mobile
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.347 of 2017 dt.16-12-2025
number the ransom calls were made or to which mobile number
they were received. At paragraph 10, she stated that on
17.04.2015 she came to know for the first time that her husband
had been abducted, and that Salauddin did not disclose the
names of the kidnappers. She further stated that her husband
was recovered on 23.04.2015 by the police of Basantpur and
Dighwara Police Stations, and after receiving information from
the police station, she and Shabnam went to Dighwara P.S. At
paragraph 11, she deposed that her husband told her at the
police station that accused Rajesh threatened to kill him, and
she conveyed this information to the police.
11.3 In her cross-examination on behalf of accused
Dilshad, the witness stated that Shabnam is her own sister and
that she did not accompany her husband from Hajipur to
Dighwara. She also stated that she did not know the address or
the parentage of Dilshad. At paragraph 16, she stated that the
occurrence was not committed in her presence. At paragraph
18, she denied the defence suggestion regarding her husband's
alleged involvement in fake currency business.
11.4 In her cross-examination on behalf of accused
Shahabuddin and Phool Sharif Miya, at paragraph 21, she stated
that she was unaware of whether her husband paid income tax
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.347 of 2017 dt.16-12-2025
on his annual income, or whether he possessed a licence for
contract work. At paragraph 24, she admitted that her husband
was also engaged in the business of sale and purchase of land.
At paragraph 25, she denied the defence suggestion that her
husband had taken Rupees Three Lakhs from the wife of Phool
Sharif for three Kathas of land, misappropriated the amount,
and filed a false case.
12. P.W.4 Anwar Khan (the victim) stated at
paragraph 1 of his deposition that on 16.04.2015, Salauddin
came to his house at Phulwarisharif, Patna and informed him
about a good contract work available at Chapra. He further
stated that Salauddin told him that Dilshad would arrange the
contract work and for that they would have to go to Dighwara.
He further deposed that on the same day, he along with
Salauddin reached Hajipur at about 1:30 p.m., and from Hajipur
they reached Dighwara by train at about 8:30 p.m. near the
railway crossing, where a cinema hall is situated, Salauddin
introduced him to Dilshad, Mahtab, Suresh Manjhi, and Rajesh
Yadav, and at that place a silver-coloured Bolero was standing.
He further stated that Dilshad told him that they would visit the
site, whereupon he sat in the Bolero. Dilshad then told him that
the main road was jammed, so they proceeded through the
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.347 of 2017 dt.16-12-2025
bypass. However, when they reached near the Rail Wheel
Factory at Bela, he felt something suspicious. He took out his
mobile, whereupon Dilshad snatched it. Suresh Manjhi tied a
cloth over his mouth and Dilshad tied his hands; thereafter they
placed him under the middle seat of the vehicle.
12.1 This witness further stated at paragraph 2, that
accused Rajesh Yadav threatened him, and when they reached
Malmaliya, Salauddin got down from the vehicle and told the
other accused persons to kill him after realizing the ransom. He
further stated that from Malmaliya the accused persons took
him to Madarpur, where they kept him in a dark room, tied him
to a cot, and assaulted him with lathis, telling him to bring one
crore rupees, failing which he would be killed and his body
thrown away. At paragraph 3, he stated that on 17.04.2015, the
accused persons attempted to contact his house from his mobile
phone, but the call could not be connected for some reason.
Thereafter, from 19.04.2015 to 22.04.2015, they contacted his
house once every 24 hours from their own phones and
demanded ransom from his wives. At paragraph 4, he stated
that on 23.04.2015, with the assistance of Basantpur P.S. and
Dighwara P.S., he was recovered from a house at Phoolsharif in
Madarpur. At paragraph 5, he stated that he had given his
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.347 of 2017 dt.16-12-2025
statement before the Judicial Magistrate under Section 164
Cr.P.C., and he proved his signature on that statement, which
has been marked as Exhibit 2. At paragraph 6, this witness
identified all the accused persons in the courtroom.
12.2 In his cross-examination on behalf of accused
Rajesh Kumar at paragraph 7, he stated that the discussion
regarding arranging contract work was between him and
Salauddin, and Salauddin worked under him in contract work;
however, there is no documentary proof of this. He stated that
during this discussion both his wives and a labourer,
Rampravesh (PW-1), were present. At paragraph 8, he admitted
that he does not hold a licence for contract work. At paragraph
9, he stated that he was abducted from the northern side of the
railway crossing near the cinema hall, which is about half a
kilometre from Dighwara P.S. At paragraph 10, he stated that he
sat in the Bolero vehicle of his own free will. At paragraph 12,
he stated that Dilshad used to speak with his wives in the
presence of the other accused persons and Dilshad obtained his
wife's mobile number from his mobile phone. He also stated
that during the investigation only his mobile phone was seized,
and his wife's mobile phone was not seized. At paragraph 13,
he stated that he does not pay income tax. At paragraph 15, he
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.347 of 2017 dt.16-12-2025
stated that he does not know the address or the parentage of
accused Rajesh Yadav.
12.3 In his cross-examination on behalf of accused
Phool Sharif, Shahabuddin, and Satyendra @ Suresh Manjhi, he
stated at paragraph 19 that he was unaware of the lodging of
Siwan Muffasil P.S. Case No. 110/2005 against him and he does
not know the facts of that case. At paragraph 21, he stated that
he employs 15-20 labourers and, after expenses, earns Rs.
30,000-35,000 per month. At paragraph 22, he denied being
involved in the business of sale and purchase of land. At
paragraph 23, he denied involvement in fake currency business
and also denied that he had taken three lakh rupees from the
wife of accused Phoolsharif for purchasing land and had filed
this false case to misappropriate that amount. At paragraph 24,
he stated that the accused persons had contacted his wife 3-4
times on the phone, but there is no recording of those
conversations. At paragraph 29, he stated that he is originally a
resident of Lauwan Village in Siwan district, where his father
and brothers reside. At paragraph 30, he stated that after his
kidnapping, his father did not come to his house, but his brother
came. He stated that his own house is at Phulwarisharif and the
papers of the house are in his wife's name, but then added that
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.347 of 2017 dt.16-12-2025
the papers are in the name of his two sons. At paragraph 33, he
stated that after the occurrence he visited his native village
twice, but no villager came to visit his house thereafter. At
paragraph 34, he stated that he had been residing at
Phulwarisharif for 18 years. At paragraph 45, he stated that
prior to this occurrence he knew only Salauddin and did not
know the other accused persons. At paragraph 47, he stated that
besides his house in Patna, he also owns two kathas of land at
Akbarpur. At paragraph 51, he stated that before this incident he
had not received any large amount of money and that he had
only 4-5 lakh rupees in his bank account. At paragraph 52, he
stated that the mobile phone he used was not in his name; it was
in a woman's name, though he does not know her. He had been
using that phone for the last 4-5 years. A phone in his own
name was at his village. At paragraph 55, when confronted with
portions of his statement before the police, he denied having
made those statements. At paragraph 58, he again denied
involvement in fake currency business and denied falsely
implicating the accused persons in this case.
13. P.W.5 Anand Bhushan, who had recorded the
statement of victim Anwar Khan in his capacity as Judicial
Magistrate, 1st Class, at Chapra, proved the statement, which
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.347 of 2017 dt.16-12-2025
has been marked as Ext. 3.
13.1 In his cross-examination, this witness stated that
Anwar Khan was brought before him by his staff for the
purpose of recording his statement. He further stated that he did
not demand any identity proof from Anwar Khan to verify his
identity.
14. PW-6 Niraj Kumar is the Investigating Officer of
this case, and in his examination-in-chief he has stated that on
21.04.2015, he was posted as Police Sub-Inspector at Dighwara
P.S. On that day, he took charge of the investigation of
Dighwara P.S. Case No. 67/15 by order of the Officer-in-
Charge. After taking charge of the investigation, he recorded
the restatement of the informant Shabnam Khatoon, and
thereafter he also recorded the statement of Munni Khatoon,
who is the sister of the informant and the second wife of Anwar
Khan. In paragraph 3, he has stated that on the basis of the
statement of the informant, he wrote a letter to the Technical
Cell of the S.P., Saran, requesting the CDR and CAF of mobile
numbers 9386284724, 7677931975, 7779829830, 7631741665,
and 9128942299. In paragraph 4, he has stated about
conducting the inspection of the place of occurrence. In
paragraph 5, he has stated that he made inquiries from the local
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.347 of 2017 dt.16-12-2025
people and also went to the Railway Wheel Factory, but nothing
was found during his inquiry.
14.1 From paragraph 6 to paragraph 29, this witness
has stated about the CDR, CAF, and tower locations of different
mobile numbers. In paragraph 26, he has stated that IMEI No.
911257807862040 was found associated with mobile no.
9128942299, and the same IMEI number was also found
associated with mobile no. 8651348067, which was used by
Dilshad. He further stated that the tower locations of both
mobile numbers were at Village Kishanpura, P.S. Basantpur,
District Siwan. In paragraph 27, he has stated that from
20.04.2015 to 22.04.2015, several conversations were found
between mobile no. 9128942299 and mobile no. 7541909728.
Mobile no. 7541909728 belongs to the informant, and ransom
of Rupees One Crore was demanded on this number from
mobile no. 9128942299. In paragraph 28, this witness has
stated that on the basis of the CDR and tower locations, it was
clear that abducted Anwar Khan was kept within the
jurisdiction of Basantpur P.S. In paragraph 29, he has stated
about receiving the CAF of mobile no. 9973268206, which
shows that the holder of this mobile number is Rajesh Kumar
Yadav.
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.347 of 2017 dt.16-12-2025
14.2 In paragraph 30, he has stated that with the help
of Basantpur P.S., he reached the house of Rajesh Kumar Yadav
on 22.04.2015, where Rajesh's brother, Vikesh Yadav, told him
that Rajesh had not returned with his vehicle. Vikesh also
informed that on 16.04.2015, Suresh Manjhi @ Rukhendra
Manjhi had come and taken the vehicle along with Rajesh
Yadav to bring the relative of Md. Phoolsharif from Dighwara
Station. Vikesh further told the mobile number of Rajesh Yadav
as 9973268206. In paragraph 31, this witness has stated that on
23.04.2015, he raided the house of Phoolsharif at Madarpur
village, and upon opening the room situated near the main door
of the house, three persons were found standing inside the
room, and one person was found tied to a cot. The persons
standing in the room were Rashid @ Dilshad, Md.
Shahabuddin, and Phoolsharif. In paragraph 32, he has stated
that the man who was tied to the cot was Anwar Khan (victim),
and the police rescued him from there and arrested the above-
named three persons. In paragraph 33, the witness has stated
that, on search, one double-SIM mobile set was recovered from
the pocket of the pant of Md. Shahabuddin, having IMEI Nos.
354873052548759 and 35487305748754, with SIM Nos.
9708455764 and 8809044192. Two double-SIM mobile sets
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.347 of 2017 dt.16-12-2025
were also recovered from the possession of Rashid @ Dilshad
--one having IMEI Nos. 911257807652049 and
911257807862044, with SIM No. 9128942299; and another
mobile having IMEI Nos. 911367852962613 and
911367852962621, with SIM Nos. 7563920474 and
8100704195. In paragraph 34, this witness has stated about the
preparation of the seizure lists of the recovered mobile sets and
proved the same, which have been marked as Exhibits 4 to 4/B.
In paragraph 35, he has stated that from the mobile number of
Dilshad, conversations had been made to the mobile number of
the informant. In paragraph 36, he has stated that accused
Rashid @ Dilshad made a confessional statement, and along
with the abducted person and the arrested accused persons, he
raided the house of Rukhendra Manjhi at Village Surajpura, but
he was not found there. Thereafter, he went to Village Kanhauli
and raided the house of Rajesh Yadav and arrested him. On
search, one Samsung mobile set was recovered from Rajesh's
possession, having IMEI Nos. 356841/05/585603/0 and
356842/05/585603/8, with SIM Nos. 9973268206 and
9430595376. He also stated about the preparation of the seizure
list and proved the same, which has been marked as Exhibit
4/C. In paragraph 37, he has stated that efforts were made to
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.347 of 2017 dt.16-12-2025
trace the vehicle used in the occurrence, but it could not be
found. In paragraph 38, he has stated that he raided the house of
Hasim Miya, but he was not present there. In paragraph 39, he
has proved the requisition for the medical examination of
Anwar Khan (victim), which has been marked as Exhibit 5.
14.3 At paragraph 43, this witness deposed that on
26.04.2015, the CDR of mobile no. 9973268206 was received,
which was registered in the name of Rajesh Kumar Yadav, son
of Motilal Rai, resident of Village Kanhauli, P.S. Vasantpur,
District Siwan. From the perusal of the CDR, it was found that
on 16.04.2015, a conversation took place between mobile nos.
9973268206 and 9973184639 at 11:50:34, and the tower
location of mobile no. 9973268206 was at Village Kishanpura,
P.S. Vasantpur, District Siwan. Another conversation took place
between these two mobile numbers at 12:32:56, whose tower
location was also Kishanpura. A further conversation occurred
at 13:31:17, and at that time, the tower location of mobile no.
9973268206 was Village Bhagwanpur Malmaliya, District
Siwan. Another conversation between the same two mobile
numbers took place at 14:17:05, in which the tower location of
9973268206 was Village Dumri (Tupia), P.S. Taraiya, District
Chapra. Again, at 15:45:10, a conversation took place between
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.347 of 2017 dt.16-12-2025
mobile nos. 9973268206 and 9934363357, and the tower
location of 9973268206 was Village Fatehpur, P.S. Parsa.
Another conversation between these two numbers occurred at
16:53:35, and at that time, the tower location of 9973268206
was Village Basti Jalal, P.S. Dighwara, District Saran.
14.4. This witness further stated at paragraph 45, that
from the perusal of the said CDR, it was also revealed that
Rajesh, along with his associates Md. Rashid @ Dilshad,
Rukhendra Manjhi, Mahatb, and Rajesh Kumar Yadav, came to
Dighwara in his Bolero vehicle bearing registration BR-29S-
3225, and along with Salauddin, abducted Anwar Khan and
took him away. At paragraph 47, this witness stated that on
06.05.2015, the CAF of mobile no. 9128942299 was received,
and upon its perusal, it was found that the said mobile number
was in the name of Wusan Rai, son of Manager Rai, resident of
Village Surajpura, P.S. Vasantpur, District Siwan. This mobile
number was recovered from Dilshad @ Rashid, and it was the
same number from which a ransom demand of Rupees One
Crore was made to Shabnam Khatoon, wife of abducted Anwar
Khan. At paragraph 48, this witness stated that the injury
investigation report of abducted Anwar Khan was received. On
13.05.2015, the CAF and CDR of mobile no. 9102983628 were
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.347 of 2017 dt.16-12-2025
received, and upon perusal, it was found that this mobile
number was in the name of Rukhendra Manjhi, son of
Shivpujan Manjhi, resident of Village Surajpura, P.S. Vasantpur,
District Siwan. From the CDR, it was found that on 16.04.2015,
a conversation took place from mobile no. 9102983628 to
mobile no. 7563920474 at 11:46:09, and the tower location of
9102983628 was Village Kishanpura, P.S. Vasantpur, District
Siwan. At paragraph 51, the witness stated that on 25.06.2015,
an application was given, seeking a report regarding the
ownership of the Bolero vehicle no. BR-29S-3225 used in this
case, but no report was received. On 26.06.2015, Suresh Manjhi
@ Rukhendra Manjhi was arrested from Surajpura, and accused
Mahatab Alam was arrested from Village Kishanpura. On
27.06.2015, on being questioned, Pushpa Devi, wife of arrested
accused Suresh Manjhi @ Rukhendra Manjhi, provided mobile
no. 9102983628. At paragraph 52, this witness stated that on the
basis of the supervisory comments and the report of the senior
officer received during the investigation, and on the basis of the
CDRs, CAFs, tower locations of the mobile numbers, and other
materials collected during investigation, he submitted the
charge sheet against accused Md. Shahabuddin, Md. Phoolsarif,
Suresh Manjhi @ Rukhendra Manjhi, Rajesh Kumar Yadav,
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.347 of 2017 dt.16-12-2025
Mahatab Alam, and Md. Rashid @ Dilshad for the offences
punishable under Section 364(A)/120(B)/34 IPC.
14.5 Upon recall of this witness, at paragraphs 90
and 91, he proved the FIR and the endorsement on the written
application, which have been marked as Exhibits 6 and 7.
15.On behalf of the defence, this witness was
examined at length. In paragraph 54 of his cross-examination,
he stated that he had not recovered the cot or the rope. In
paragraph 55, the witness stated that he had sent an application
regarding the Bolero vehicle to the D.T.O. Office, but no report
was received. In paragraphs 58 and 59, he stated that he had not
recorded the statement of any shopkeeper. In paragraph 60, he
further stated that he had not recorded the statement of any
employee of the Rail Wheel Factory. In paragraph 61, he stated
that during the investigation, upon perusal of the CDR, the
name of accused Rajesh Yadav surfaced as a companion of the
other accused persons; however, no other document was found
showing his association or business dealings with the co-
accused. In paragraph 64, he stated that the victim Anwar Khan
was recovered on 23.04.2015, brought to the police station, and
on 25.04.2015 he was produced before the Judicial Magistrate
for recording of his statement. After recording the statement,
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.347 of 2017 dt.16-12-2025
the victim was handed over to him. In paragraph 65, he also
stated that the vehicle of Rajesh Yadav was hired by the other
accused persons. In paragraph 66, the witness denied the
suggestion that he had submitted a false charge sheet or that
accused Rajesh Yadav was falsely implicated in this case. In
paragraph 67, he stated that the informant Shabnam never
talked to the accused persons in his presence, and he did not ask
her for any audio tape of conversations regarding ransom. In
paragraph 69, he stated that accused Dilshad had confessed
about a dispute involving the exchange of money with Anwar
Khan (victim), and had also stated about Anwar Khan's
involvement in fake-currency business. The witness further
stated that he had investigated this aspect, but did not mention it
in the case diary.
15.1 This witness further stated at paragraph 70, that
he had not made any effort to inquire into the criminal history
of Anwar Khan (victim). In paragraph 72, he stated that the
informant had provided him five mobile numbers, and out of
these, three numbers were found to be registered in the names
of Hirdaya Yadav of Village Balli, District Siwan; Sunanda
Devi of Mohalla Surahiganj, Patna; and Budhan Rai of Village
Suryapura, P.S. Basantpur, District Siwan. In paragraph 73, he
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.347 of 2017 dt.16-12-2025
stated that he had not recorded the statement of any of the
holders of those mobile numbers. In paragraph 74, this witness
stated that he had not attached the copy of the letter sent to the
Superintendent of Police, Saran (Technical Cell), requesting the
CDR and CAF reports. In paragraph 79, he clearly stated that
he had not recorded the statement of any neighbour of Anwar
Khan at Phulwarisharif, Patna, except that of Rampravesh Ram
(P.W.1), who was the tenant of Anwar Khan. In paragraph 80,
he stated that he had not investigated the social or financial
status of victim Anwar Khan, nor his criminal background. In
paragraph 81, he stated that after arresting the three accused
persons, he had prepared their arrest memos, but these memos
were not available with the case diary. In paragraph 82, he
stated that although he had mentioned the place of arrest at
paragraph 30 of the case diary, he had not written the boundary
details of that place and had not recorded the statement of any
person from that locality. In paragraphs 88 and 89, the witness
denied the suggestion that the accused persons had been falsely
implicated with his assistance.
16. P.W.7 Chaukidar Abhay Kumar Manjhi, is a
formal witness. He has only produced six mobile sets before the
trial court from the Malkhana of Dighwara Police Station and
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.347 of 2017 dt.16-12-2025
stated that, in compliance with the order of the Court, these
mobile sets were handed over by the Officer-in-Charge for
production before the Court. These mobile sets are related to
Dighwara P.S. Case No. 67/15 and have been marked as
material exhibits Ext. 1 to V.
16.1 In his cross-examination, in paragraph 3, he
stated that all the mobile sets had been wrapped in paper, which
was neither sealed nor bearing the signature of any police
officer; only the case number, i.e., Case No. 67/15, was written
on the wrapped paper.
17. P.W.8 is Dr. Suresh Kumar, who was posted at
PHC, Dighwara on 23.04.2015. On that day, at about 1:25 p.m.,
he examined the victim, Anwar Khan, and found the following
injuries on his person:
(i) complaint of pain in both legs;
(ii) complaint of pain in both soles with swelling;
(iii) complaint of pain in the whole body.
This witness stated that the age of the injuries was
between 5 to 20 hours. In paragraph 2, he proved the injury
report, which has been marked as Ext. 6.
17.1 In his cross-examination, in paragraph 3, he
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.347 of 2017 dt.16-12-2025
stated that he had not found any apparent external injury on the
person of the injured. In paragraph 4, he admitted that there was
overwriting in the column indicating the time of injury, and in
paragraph 5, he stated that a complaint of pain does not fall
within the category of "injury."
18. After completion of the prosecution evidence, the
learned Trial Court fixed the case for examination of the
accused persons under Section 313 Cr.P.C. Thereafter, no
defence witness was examined. Upon appreciation of the
evidence on record, the Trial Court held that the victim, Anwar
Khan, had been abducted by the accused persons after full
preparation and for the purpose of ransom. Accordingly, the
Trial Court found all the accused persons guilty, convicted
them, and imposed the sentences mentioned above, directing
that both the sentences shall run concurrently.
19. Learned counsel for the appellants in Criminal
Appeal (DB) No. 347 of 2017 submits that PW-2, Shabnam
Khatoon, the informant of the case, did not state in her
deposition who had demanded the ransom. He further submits
that PW-6, Neeraj Kumar, the Investigating Officer, has not
produced any reliable evidence except the recovery of the
victim. In the entire evidence of PW-6 or PW-2, as well as in
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.347 of 2017 dt.16-12-2025
the testimony of PW-4, the victim himself, nothing has been
disclosed regarding any conspiracy. Even the victim, Anwar
Khan, did not state that the appellants were present at the time
of abduction, and the identification of the appellants is also
doubtful. Learned counsel further submits that although the I.O.
referred to mobile phone conversations, no certificate under
Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 has been
produced. It is contended that the names of the appellants did
not appear in the FIR and that they were identified for the first
time in court, despite the fact that the witnesses had already
seen them at the police station. According to the learned
counsel, the identification of the accused has not been duly
proved. He also argues that though one Salauddin was named,
he was not made an accused, and no witness has deposed that
the appellants participated in any conspiracy. The named
accused, Puri Baba and Babloo, were not chargesheeted. It is
further submitted that no separate charge under Section 120B of
the Indian Penal Code was framed against the present
appellants. Therefore, according to him, the prosecution has
failed to establish the case against the appellants, who
accordingly deserves acquittal.
20. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.347 of 2017 dt.16-12-2025
Rajesh Kumar Yadav (in Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 173 of
2017) submits that the appellant was not known to the victim as
per the evidence of PW-4 and also no CDR has been produced.
It is further argued that nothing has come on record to show that
the appellant participated in the alleged abduction. Learned
counsel submits that no identification of the appellant ever took
place, as no Test Identification Parade (TIP) was conducted. He
further points out from the evidence of PW-6 (the Investigating
Officer) that the owner of the vehicle allegedly used in the
crime was not identified. The appellant has not been named in
the FIR, nor is he known to the victim or alleged to be a
conspirator. The victim saw him for the first time at the police
station. Learned counsel further submits that apart from the
alleged telephonic conversation, there is no other material
against the appellant. No TIP has been conducted, and except
for repeating the same allegations, nothing incriminating has
been established. It is further submitted that the appellant was
not arrested from the place of the alleged recovery of the
victim; rather, he was arrested from his own house. Counsel
also contends that the mobile phone allegedly recovered from
the appellant has no proven connection with the alleged
occurrence. Neither any CDR has been exhibited nor has any
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.347 of 2017 dt.16-12-2025
certificate under Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act been
produced. Learned counsel additionally submits that although
the appellant is alleged to be the owner of the vehicle used in
the offence, he has not been identified either as the owner of the
said vehicle or as an accused involved in the commission of the
crime.
21. Ms. Vaishnavi Singh, learned Amicus Curiae,
appearing for appellant Suresh @ Rukhendra Manjhi @
Rukander Manjhi (Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 247 of 2017),
submits, upon a perusal of the record, that nothing was
recovered from the possession of this accused either, and he too
was not arrested from the place from where the so-called victim
Anwar Khan was recovered. According to her, the appellant has
been falsely implicated on account of previous enmity, and
there exist significant contradictions in the prosecution's
evidence. She further submits that the appellant is not named in
the F.I.R. and, like the previous appellant, was identified only in
the Court by the victim.
22. In support of their argument learned counsel for
the appellant in (Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 247 of 2017) and
learned Amicus Curiae in (Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 173 of
2017) has relied upon the following judgements :-
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.347 of 2017 dt.16-12-2025
(i) AIR 2024 Supreme Court 3233 :: AIR Online 2024
SC 437 titled Naresh Kumar Vs. State of Delhi in which it has
been held that failure on the part of the trial court in asking
incriminating circumstances in course of examination of the
accused under section 313 of the Cr.P.C. causes material
prejudice and it resulted in blatant miscarriage of justice. Said
defect was not curable defect and it was nothing but patent
illegality vitiating trial of accused.
(ii) In Raj Kumar @Suman Vs. State (NCT of Delhi),
AIR SC 3113, where the hon'ble Supreme Court was pleased to
hold that not confronting the accused during their examination
under Section 313 Cr.P.C. with the only allegation of the
prosecution against them causing serious prejudice to the
accused. The Court further observed that, only alleged
incriminating circumstance appearing against the appellant in
the evidence produced by the prosecution has not been put to
him in his statement under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. and,
therefore, he had no opportunity to explain the said
circumstance. Moreover, his conviction is based only on this
circumstance. The relevant paragraphs 14 and 25 of Raj Kumar
(supra) are extracted below:
14. Thus, we will have to proceed on the
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.347 of 2017 dt.16-12-2025
footing that the only alleged incriminating
circumstance appearing against the appellant in
the evidence produced by the prosecution has not
been put to him in his statement under Section 313
CrPC and, therefore, he had no opportunity to
explain the said circumstance. Moreover, his
conviction is based only on this circumstance.
25. The prosecution examined 37
witnesses. The material against the appellant is in
the form of one sentence in the evidence of PW 5.
As mentioned earlier, if we read 42 questions put to
the appellant in his statement under Section 313
CrPC, any accused having ordinary intelligence
will carry an impression that there is absolutely no
material against him. The appellant was not
confronted during his examination under Section
313 CrPC with the only allegation of the
prosecution against him. This is how, on facts, we
find that a serious prejudice was caused to the
appellant.
(iii) In Anvar P.V. v. P. K. Basheer and Ors., (2014)
10 SCC 473, in which the hon'ble Apex Court has held that
admissibility of secondary evidence of electronic record
depends upon satisfaction of conditions as prescribed under
Section 65B. Paragraph 15 to 18 of Anvar P.V. (Supra) are
relevant and quoted below:
15. Under Section 65-B(4) of the
Evidence Act, if it is desired to give a statement in
any proceedings pertaining to an electronic record,
it is permissible provided the following conditions
are satisfied:
(a) There must be a certificate which
identifies the electronic record containing the
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.347 of 2017 dt.16-12-2025
statement,
(b) The certificate must describe the
manner in which the electronic record was
produced;
(c) The certificate must furnish the
particulars of the device involved in the production
of that record;
(d) The certificate must deal with the
applicable conditions mentioned under Section 65-
B(2) of the Evidence Act; and
(e) The certificate must be signed by a
person occupying a responsible official position in
relation to the operation of the relevant device.
16. It is further clarified that the person
need only to state in the certificate that the same is
to the best of his knowledge and belief. Most
importantly, such a certificate must accompany the
electronic record like computer printout, compact
disc (CD), video compact disc (VCD), pen drive,
etc., pertaining to which a statement is sought to
be given in evidence, when the same is produced in
evidence. All these safeguards are taken to ensure
the source and authenticity, which are the two
hallmarks pertaining to electronic record sought to
be used as evidence. Electronic records being more
susceptible to tampering, alteration, transposition,
excision, etc. without such safeguards, the whole
trial based on proof of electronic records can lead
to travesty of justice.
17. Only if the electronic record is duly
produced in terms of Section 65-B of the Evidence
Act, would the question arise as to the genuineness
thereof and in that situation, resort can be made to
Section 45-A-opinion of Examiner of Electronic
Evidence.
18. The Evidence Act does not
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.347 of 2017 dt.16-12-2025
contemplate or permit the proof of an electronic
record by oral evidence if requirements under
Section 65-B of the Evidence Act are not complied
with, as the law now stands in India.
(iv) In the case of Arjun Panditrao Khotkar Vs.
Kailash Kushanrao Gorantyal and Ors., (2020) 7 SCC 1, in
which it has been held that certificate required under Section
65-B(4) is a condition precedent to the admissibility of
evidence by way of electronic record.
(v) In the case of Gireesan Nair and Ors. Vs. State of
Kerala, (2023) 1 SCC 180, in which it has been held, that, in
cases where the witnesses have had ample opportunity to see
the accused before the identification parade is held, it may
adversely affect the trial. It is the duty of the prosecution to
establish before the court that right from the day of arrest, the
accused was kept "baparda" to rule out the possibility of their
face being seen while in police custody. If the witnesses had the
opportunity to see the accused before the TIP, be it in any form
i.e. physically, through photographs or via media (newspapers,
television, etc.), the evidence of the TIP is not admissible as a
valid piece of evidence. Para 31 of Gireesan Nair (Supra) is
relevant and quoted below:
31. In cases where the witnesses have had
ample opportunity to see the accused before the
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.347 of 2017 dt.16-12-2025
identification parade is held, it may adversely affect
the trial. It is the duty of the prosecution to establish
before the court that right from the day of arrest, the
accused was kept "baparda" to rule out the
possibility of their face being seen while in police
custody. If the witnesses had the opportunity to see
the accused before the TIP, be it in any form i.e.
physically, through photographs or via media
(newspapers, television, etc.), the evidence of the
TIP is not admissible as a valid piece of evidence
(Lal Singh v. State of U.P. and Suryamoorthi v.
Govindaswamy).
(vi) Judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court of India in the
case of Jafar Vs. State of Kerala in Criminal Appeal No. 1607
of 2009 wherein it has been held that in the absence of proper
identification parade being conducted, the identification for the
first time in the Court cannot be said to be free from doubt. Para
7 of the judgement is relevant and reproduced below:
7. In the absence of proper
identification parade being conducted, the
identification for the first time in the Court cannot
be said to be free from doubt. We find that the
other circumstance that the Courts relied for
resting the order of conviction is with regard to
the recovery of an iron rod. An iron rod is an
article which could be found anywhere. It is not
the case of the prosecution that any stolen article
was recovered from the appellant herein.
(vii) Learned counsel submits that when an accused
has not been subjected to a Test Identification Parade, the
prosecution fails to prove the identification. He further submits
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.347 of 2017 dt.16-12-2025
that the applicability of Section 313 Cr.P.C. has specific
relevance, but the allegations put to the accused therein are
absolutely defective, and on this ground alone, the appellants
are fit to be acquitted. With respect to the non-availability of a
certificate under Section 65B of the Evidence Act, it is argued
that any statement of the Investigating Officer relating to
mobile phone data is inadmissible, and even the CDR has not
been exhibited. Hence, the evidence of the Investigating Officer
is essentially a futile exercise and nothing can be proved against
the appellant.
23. Learned counsel for the appellant (in Criminal
Appeal No. 312 of 2017) submits that it also appears from the
examination of PW-4 that he played an important role, as a
series of conversations had taken place from his mobile phone.
He further submits that in Exhibit 4A, the Investigating Officer
produced three mobile phones allegedly belonging to the
present appellant, Rashid @ Dilshad and others, from which the
ransom was allegedly demanded; however, the said phones
were actually registered in the name of another person. The
prosecution has neither produced the CDRs nor the certificate
under Section 65B of the Evidence Act. In the absence of the
CDRs and the mandatory certificate under Section 65B, any
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.347 of 2017 dt.16-12-2025
allegation sought to be made through the oral testimony of the
Investigating Officer regarding mobile phone data is neither
sustainable nor admissible. He further submits that no specific
charge under Section 120B of the Indian Penal Code has been
framed against the accused persons. Therefore, the appellant
deserves to be acquitted.
24. It has been submitted on behalf of the appellant
Mahtab Alam (in Criminal Appeal No. 378 of 2017) that the
FIR does not contain even a whisper regarding any demand for
money or ransom. It has further been stated that PW-6
categorically deposed in paragraph 3 of his examination-in-
chief that at the time of recovery of the victim only three
persons were found present, and no material has emerged to
show that the appellant had abducted the victim. Except for his
mere presence, no other allegation has been made against him.
25. Learned counsel for the appellants in all the
Criminal Appeals mentioned above have collectively argued
that the prosecution witnesses have given contradictory
statements; that the appellants are not named in the F.I.R.; and
that no villager of Madarpur has been examined to support the
prosecution claim that the victim Anwar Khan was recovered
from the house of Phoolsharif in a tied condition on a cot, in the
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.347 of 2017 dt.16-12-2025
presence of the appellants, who were then arrested. Learned
counsel further argue that no seizure list regarding the cot or
rope was prepared, which casts serious doubt on the
prosecution case, and that no independent witness has been
examined. They also contend that only the tenant of the alleged
victim and the victim's wives have deposed, their evidence
lacks consistency, and that the C.D.R. of the recovered mobile
phone has not been proved in accordance with law. No TIP was
conducted, the place of occurrence has not been proved and the
role of accused has also not been established and hence the
entire prosecution's case is fundamentally unsustainable and
therefore fit to be dismissed
26. In support of his argument, learned counsel for
the appellants in Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 347 of 2017 has
relied upon the judgement rendered in the case of Chhote
Pathak, Naresh Bin and Singhasan Yadav Vs. the State of Bihar
reported in 2002 (e) PLJR-PT 1717720 (in Criminal Appeal No.
381 of 1997) decided on 31.10.2002. In the said judgement it
has been held that appellants were convicted for life
imprisonment by the trial court. It was found from the evidence
of the witnesses that some of the accused persons directly
participated in the kidnapping and took the victim to an
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.347 of 2017 dt.16-12-2025
unknown place but some of the accused persons after reaching
unknown place provided food and thereafter used to meet
kidnappers. The offence of kidnapping is not a continuing
offence as such conviction of accused persons who were found
directly involved in kidnapping was upheld and remaining
against whom offence was not proved beyond reasonable doubt
were acquitted.
27. Learned counsel further relied on a judgement
rendered in the case of Mohd Mobin Ah @ Moquim Ali Vs.
State of Bihar reported in 2005 (e) PLJR-PT 1717611 (in
Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 572 of 2001) decided on 07.09.2005
in which it has been held that in a case of kidnapping for
ransom, where the alleged occurrence is supported only by
hearsay witnesses who have not claimed to identify any of the
kidnappers, and where the victim himself did not disclose the
names of the kidnappers after his release from captivity, a
serious doubt arises that the implication of the appellants is an
afterthought.
28. On the other hand, the learned A.P.P. has argued
on behalf of the prosecution that the non-recovery of the cot
and rope is not fatal to the prosecution case, especially when
the prosecution witnesses have supported the case without any
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.347 of 2017 dt.16-12-2025
major contradictions. It is further submitted that, on the basis of
the C.D.R. and the tower location of the mobile phone, the
victim Anwar Khan was recovered from the house of accused
Phoolsharif at Madarpur village in Siwan district, from where
three accused persons were arrested. On the basis of the
confessional statement of accused Rashid @ Dilshad, accused
Rajesh Kumar Yadav who was the driver of the vehicle
allegedly used in the kidnapping was also arrested.
28.1 The learned A.P.P. further contended that, due to
the present trend of reluctance among the public to participate
in criminal investigations, the non-examination of independent
witnesses cannot be a ground to discard the prosecution's case.
He argued that the statements of the victim Anwar Khan under
Sections 161 and 164 Cr.P.C., as well as his deposition before
the Court, are consistent, and that the testimony of the victim
alone is sufficient to prove the charges against the accused
persons.
29. After hearing the parties and upon going through
the prosecution witnesses, it transpires that P.W.1 Ram Pravesh
Ram is the staff of the victim who was subject to abduction,
P.W.2 Shabnam Khatoon is the informant and wife of victim,
P.W.3 Munni Khatoon is the second wife of victim and sister of
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.347 of 2017 dt.16-12-2025
informant, P.W.4 Anwar Khan is the victim, P.W.5 Aanand
Bhushan is the Judicial Magistrate who has recorded the
statement of victim under Section 164 of the Cr. P.C., P.W.6
Neeraj Kumar is the I.O., P.W.7 Chaukidar Abhay Kr. Manjhi is
Chaukidar who has exhibited mobile sets recovered from the
accused persons and P.W.8 is Dr. Suresh Kumar before whom
the victim was produced after recovery. Besides the oral
evidence, the prosecution has proved Ext.1 written application
of Informant, Ext 2 signature of Anwar Khan on the statement
of u/s 164 Cr.P.C., Ext.3 statement of victim recorded u/s 164
Cr.P.C., Ext.4 seizure list of mobile set recovered from accused
Sahabuddin, Ext.4/A seizure list of mobile set recovered from
the accused Mohd Rashid @ Dilshad, Ext. 4/B seizure list of
mobile set recovered from accused Phool Sharif, Ext.4/C
seizure list of mobile set recovered from accused Rajesh Yadav,
Ext.5 requisite for examination of injury of victim Anwar khan,
Ext.6 injury report of Anwar Khan and the prosecution has also
produced the seized mobile sets as material exhibit and they
have been marked as Ext. I to Ext. V.
30. Before coming to conclusion it is necessary to
examine the evidence adduced by the prosecution witnesses.
PW-1 has deposed that the informant disclosed to him that the
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.347 of 2017 dt.16-12-2025
kidnapping of her husband had taken place and the abductors
had demanded a ransom of Rupees One Crore. However, this
assertion does not find place in the First Information Report.
PW-1 has further stated that he learnt about the recovery of
Anwar Khan from the victim himself, who allegedly informed
him about the abduction. This Court finds that the evidence of
PW-1, insofar as it pertains to the act of abduction and the
alleged demand of ransom, is wholly derivative and based on
the information supplied by others. Such testimony is hearsay
in nature and cannot be relied upon to establish the factum of
abduction against the accused persons.
30.1 PW-2, the informant, has stated that her husband
had gone with one Salauddin in connection with a contract and
that it was Salauddin who informed her about the alleged
abduction. She further stated that she initially approached the
Dighwara Police Station where no FIR was registered and
thereafter approached the Superintendent of Police, Chapra,
upon which her written fardbeyan was recorded which is
marked as Exhibit-1. However, the FIR itself has not been
formally exhibited in the present case.
30.2 PW-2 has further deposed that her husband
disclosed to her that Salauddin was also involved in the
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.347 of 2017 dt.16-12-2025
abduction; yet, surprisingly, Salauddin has not been made an
accused. PW-2 identified all the accused persons before the
Court but admitted that she had already seen them earlier at the
police station. In cross-examination, she categorically stated
that her knowledge regarding the kidnapping and the names of
the accused was based exclusively on the information provided
by her husband. Her evidence, therefore, is not based on direct
knowledge and is essentially hearsay. Moreover, she has neither
stated in her fardbeyan nor in her deposition before the Court
that the abduction was for ransom or any demand for ransom
was communicated to her directly. She only stated that her
husband told her that the abduction was made "for money."
Such testimony does not satisfy the legal requirement for
establishing a charge of kidnapping for ransom.
30.3 PW-3, the second wife of the victim, has
deposed that she had received a call in the night demanding
Rupees One Crore. However, this material fact is conspicuously
absent from the FIR. She admitted that the recovery of the
victim did not take place in her presence and that she came to
know of the recovery only through her husband. She also
disclosed that she, along with her sister, first went to the police
station after the recovery, where they saw the accused persons.
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.347 of 2017 dt.16-12-2025
In cross-examination, PW-3 candidly admitted that the
kidnapping did not occur in her presence. Although she denied
the suggestion that the present case was lodged due to a land-
related dispute, her testimony remains based on information
received from her husband and is not an account of events
witnessed by her.
30.4 The testimony of PW-4, the victim himself, is of
relevance as he is the only witness claiming direct knowledge
of the alleged incident. PW-4 has deposed that he was abducted
by the accused Dilshad @ Rashid, Mahtab, Suresh Manjhi, and
Rajesh Yadav, who allegedly took him to a house, tied him to a
cot, and gagged him. He further claimed that the accused
persons exerted pressure on him for a ransom of Rupees One
Crore and attempted to communicate with his family on his
mobile phone, though no connection was established.
30.5 PW-5, the learned Magistrate, has stated that the
victim narrated his statement before him. However, during
cross-examination, he candidly admitted that when the victim
was produced before him, he did not demand any identification
document to verify whether the person making the statement
was indeed Anwar Khan. In the absence of such verification,
the identity of the person whose statement was recorded
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.347 of 2017 dt.16-12-2025
remains doubtful. Therefore, it cannot be conclusively held that
the identification of Anwar Khan was duly established at the
time of recording of his statement.
30.6 PW-6, the Investigating Officer, stated that he
had taken five mobile numbers belonging to the informant. He
further deposed that he had written to the Superintendent of
Police for obtaining the Call Detail Records (CDRs). According
to him, the CDRs and Customer Application Forms (CAFs)
were made available to him by the service provider, and based
on those details, he made a series of entries in the case diary.
However, surprisingly, no certificate under Section 65B of the
Indian Evidence Act was produced along with the CDRs. In the
absence of such a certificate, the CDRs are inadmissible in
evidence. Similar deficiency persists with regard to the mobile
phones allegedly recovered during the raid. The witness stated
that during the raid for the recovery of the victim, he found
three persons standing at the spot and recovered mobile phones
from them. While he noted the mobile numbers and IMEI
numbers, he failed to correlate which mobile number belonged
to which accused in his deposition. He stated that during
investigation he seized five mobile sets, but only one such
mobile set was produced in Court. Although PW-6 also narrated
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.347 of 2017 dt.16-12-2025
which calls were made and from which mobile numbers, such
evidence again stands unproved for want of the mandatory
certificate under Section 65B. The mobile number from which
conversations allegedly took place also does not match with the
number said to have been recovered from the accused persons.
He also claimed that upon inquiry regarding ownership of the
seized mobile sets, one number was said to belong to Budhan
Roy and another to Rukhendra Manjhi; however, no certificate
or documentary proof to substantiate these claims has been
produced. PW-6 was also unable to specify the exact location
from where the victim was allegedly recovered, and no
description of the surroundings is found in the case diary. He
conceded that there is no witness supporting the alleged
demand of Rupees One Crore as ransom. He further admitted
that it has not been stated anywhere in the case diary how many
rooms were in the house from where the victim was purportedly
recovered.
30.7 With respect to accused Rajesh Kumar Yadav
(appellant in Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 173 of 2017), PW-6
deposed that the said appellant was not recovered from the
place of occurrence. He further stated that investigation
revealed that the kidnapping was committed using a Bolero
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.347 of 2017 dt.16-12-2025
vehicle, for which he had written to the District Transport
Officer, Siwan, seeking ownership details. However, neither
any document showing the ownership of the Bolero nor any
steps for recovery of the vehicle were produced.
30.8 PW-7, the Chaukidar, merely produced six
mobile phone sets before the trial court from the Malkhana of
Dighwara Police Station. In his cross-examination, he admitted
that the mobile sets had been wrapped in plain paper which was
neither sealed nor bore the signature of any police officer. The
only marking on the wrapper was the case number (Case No. 67
of 2015). Such a lack of sealing or authentication raises serious
doubts regarding the sanctity of the seized articles.
30.9 PW-8, the doctor who examined the victim after
his alleged recovery, deposed in his cross-examination that he
did not find any apparent external injury on the body of the
victim. He further admitted that there was overwriting in the
column of the medical examination report indicating the time of
injury. These omissions and discrepancies weaken the
prosecution's version regarding the alleged manner of
confinement and physical treatment of the victim.
31. We deem it appropriate to examine the judgments
relied upon by the learned counsels for the appellants in the
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.347 of 2017 dt.16-12-2025
present case.
31.1 On the point of Test Identification Parade,
learned counsel for the appellant in Criminal Appeal (DB) No.
247 of 2017 and learned Amicus Curiae in Criminal Appeal
(DB) No. 173 of 2017 have placed reliance upon the judgment
rendered in Gireesan Nair and Ors. (supra), paragraphs 28, 30,
31, 32 and 51 whereof are reproduced below
"28. ...........The object of conducting a TIP
is threefold. First, to enable the witnesses to satisfy
themselves that the accused whom they suspect is really
the one who was seen by them in connection with the
crime. Second, to satisfy the investigating authorities
that the suspect is the real person whom the witnesses
had seen in connection with the said occurrence. Third,
to test the witnesses' memory based on first impression
and enable the prosecution to decide whether all or any
of them could be cited as eyewitnesses to the crime
(Mulla v. State of U.P. [Mulla v. State of U.P., (2010) 3
SCC 508, paras 44, 45 & 55 : (2010) 2 SCC (Cri)
1150] ).
30. It is a matter of great importance both for
the investigating agency and for the accused and a
fortiori for the proper administration of justice that a TIP
is held without avoidable and unreasonable delay after
the arrest of the accused. This becomes necessary to
eliminate the possibility of the accused being shown to
the witnesses before the test identification parade. This is
a very common plea of the accused, and therefore, the
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.347 of 2017 dt.16-12-2025
prosecution has to be cautious to ensure that there is no
scope for making such an allegation. If, however,
circumstances are beyond control and there is some
delay, it cannot be said to be fatal to the prosecution. But
reasons should be given as to why there was a delay
(Mulla v. State of U.P. [Mulla v. State of U.P., (2010) 3
SCC 508, para 45 : (2010) 2 SCC (Cri) 1150]
and Suresh Chandra Bahri v. State of Bihar [Suresh
Chandra Bahri v. State of Bihar, 1995 Supp (1) SCC
80 : 1995 SCC (Cri) 60] ).
31. In cases where the witnesses have had
ample opportunity to see the accused before the
identification parade is held, it may adversely affect the
trial. It is the duty of the prosecution to establish before
the court that right from the day of arrest, the accused
was kept "baparda" to rule out the possibility of their
face being seen while in police custody. If the witnesses
had the opportunity to see the accused before the TIP, be
it in any form i.e. physically, through photographs or via
media (newspapers, television, etc.), the evidence of the
TIP is not admissible as a valid piece of evidence (Lal
Singh v. State of U.P. [Lal Singh v. State of U.P., (2003)
12 SCC 554 : 2004 SCC (Cri) Supp 489]
and Suryamoorthi v. Govindaswamy [Suryamoorthi v. G
ovindaswamy, (1989) 3 SCC 24 : 1989 SCC (Cri) 472] ).
32. If identification in the TIP has taken place
after the accused is shown to the witnesses, then not only
is the evidence of TIP inadmissible, even an
identification in a court during trial is meaningless (Sk.
Umar Ahmed Shaikh v. State of Maharashtra [Sk. Umar
Ahmed Shaikh v. State of Maharashtra, (1998) 5 SCC
103 : 1998 SCC (Cri) 1276] ). Even a TIP conducted in
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.347 of 2017 dt.16-12-2025
the presence of a police officer is inadmissible in light of
Section 162 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
(Chunthuram v. State of
Chhattisgarh [Chunthuram v. State of Chhattisgarh,
(2020) 10 SCC 733 : (2021) 1 SCC (Cri) 9]
and Ramkishan Mithanlal Sharma v. State of
Bombay [Ramkishan Mithanlal Sharma v. State of
Bombay, (1955) 1 SCR 903 : AIR 1955 SC 104] ).
51. In Suresh Chandra Bahri v. State of
Bihar [Suresh Chandra Bahri v. State of Bihar, 1995
Supp (1) SCC 80 : 1995 SCC (Cri) 60] , it was held
that : (SCC p. 126, para 78)
"78. ... it is a matter of great importance both
for the investigating agency and for the accused and a
fortiori for the proper administration of justice that such
identification is held without avoidable and unreasonable
delay after the arrest of the accused and that all the
necessary precautions and safeguards were effectively
taken so that the investigation proceeds on correct lines
for punishing the real culprit. ... It is in adopting this
course alone that justice and fair play can be assured
both to the accused as well as to the prosecution. But the
position may be different when the accused or a culprit
who stands trial had been seen not once but for quite a
number of times at different point of time and places
which fact may do away with the necessity of a TI
parade."
31.2 On the very same point, learned counsel have
also placed reliance upon another judgment of the Hon'ble
Apex Court in Jafar v. State of Kerala (supra), Criminal
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.347 of 2017 dt.16-12-2025
Appeal No. 1607 of 2009, wherein para 7 reads as under:
"In the absence of proper identification
parade being conducted, the identification for the
first time in the Court cannot be said to be free
from doubt. ......."
32. Any documentary evidence in the form of an
electronic record, in view of Sections 59 and 65-A of the
Evidence Act, can be proved only in accordance with the
procedure prescribed under Section 65-B. On this point, the
learned counsels have placed reliance on the judgment rendered
in Anvar P.V. v. P.K. Basheer and Others (supra), wherein the
relevant paragraphs 7 and 14 read as under:--
"7. Electronic record produced for the
inspection of the court is documentary evidence
under Section 3 of the Evidence Act, 1872
(hereinafter referred to as "the Evidence Act"). The
Evidence Act underwent a major amendment by Act
21 of 2000 [the Information Technology Act, 2000
(hereinafter referred to as "the IT Act")].
Corresponding amendments were also introduced in
the Penal Code (45 of 1860), the Bankers Books
Evidence Act, 1891, etc.
14. Any documentary evidence by way of
an electronic record under the Evidence Act, in view
of Sections 59 and 65-A, can be proved only in
accordance with the procedure prescribed under
Section 65-B. Section 65-B deals with the
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.347 of 2017 dt.16-12-2025
admissibility of the electronic record. The purpose of
these provisions is to sanctify secondary evidence in
electronic form, generated by a computer. It may be
noted that the section starts with a non obstante
clause. Thus, notwithstanding anything contained in
the Evidence Act, any information contained in an
electronic record which is printed on a paper, stored,
recorded or copied in optical or magnetic media
produced by a computer shall be deemed to be a
document only if the conditions mentioned under
sub-section (2) are satisfied, without further proof or
production of the original. The very admissibility of
such a document i.e. electronic record which is
called as computer output, depends on the
satisfaction of the four conditions under Section 65-
B(2). Following are the specified conditions under
Section 65-B(2) of the Evidence Act:
(i) The electronic record containing the
information should have been produced by the
computer during the period over which the same
was regularly used to store or process information
for the purpose of any activity regularly carried on
over that period by the person having lawful control
over the use of that computer;
(ii) The information of the kind contained
in electronic record or of the kind from which the
information is derived was regularly fed into the
computer in the ordinary course of the said activity;
(iii) During the material part of the said
period, the computer was operating properly and
that even if it was not operating properly for some
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.347 of 2017 dt.16-12-2025
time, the break or breaks had not affected either the
record or the accuracy of its contents; and
(iv) The information contained in the
record should be a reproduction or derivation from
the information fed into the computer in the ordinary
course of the said activity."
32.1 On the same point, learned counsels have relied
on another judgement rendered in the case of Arjun Panditrao
Khotkar Vs. Kailash Kushanrao Gorantyal and Ors. (supra).
32.2 Reference may be made to the judgment
rendered in Raj Kumar @ Suman v. State (NCT of Delhi)
(supra), the relevant paragraph 14 of which reads as under
"14. Thus, we will have to proceed on the
footing that the only alleged incriminating circumstance
appearing against the appellant in the evidence
produced by the prosecution has not been put to him in
his statement under Section 313CrPC and, therefore, he
had no opportunity to explain the said circumstance.
Moreover, his conviction is based only on this
circumstance.
32.3 Learned counsels also relied on the judgement
rendered in Naresh Kumar Vs. State of Delhi paragraph 11
whereof reads as under :-
"11. In the context of the issues thus involved,
it is only proper to look into the very object of Section
313, Cr.PC. This aspect has been considered many a
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.347 of 2017 dt.16-12-2025
times by this Court to hold that it embodies one salutary
principle of natural justice viz., audi alteram partem and
empowering the Court to examine the accused thereunder
is to give the accused concerned an opportunity to
explain the incriminating circumstances appearing
against him in the prosecution evidence. In the decision
in V.K. Sasikala v. State1 , this Court held that
examination of an accused under Section 313, Cr.PC,
would not only provide an opportunity to him to explain
the incriminating circumstances appearing in evidence
against him, but also would permit him to forward his
own version with regard to his alleged involvement in the
crime. Furthermore, it was held that such an examination
would have a fair nexus with a defence he might choose
to bring and, therefore, any failure in such examination
might take the effect of curtailing his right in the event he
took up a specific defence. The general position is that if
any incriminating circumstance, appearing against an
accused in the prosecutionevidence, is not put to him it
should not be used against him and must be excluded
from consideration. At the same time, we may hasten to
add that it is a well-neigh settled position that non-
examination or inadequate examination under Section
313, Cr.PC, on any incriminating circumstance, by itself,
would not vitiate a trial qua the convict concerned unless
it has resulted in material prejudice to him or in
miscarriage of justice. In the decision in Suresh Chandra
Bihari v. State of Bihar2 and in Wariyam Singh & Ors. v.
State of U.P.3 , this Court held that mere
defective/improper examination under Section 313,
Cr.PC, would be no ground to set aside a conviction of
the accused unless it has resulted in prejudice to the
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.347 of 2017 dt.16-12-2025
accused. In view of the said position which is being
followed with alacrity we do not think it necessary to
multiply the authorities on it. "
32.4 This Court also feels it necessary to mention the
judgement in the case of Chhote Pathak, Naresh Bin (supra)
rendered by a Division Bench of this Court relied on by the
learned counsel for the appellants in Criminal Appeal (DB) No.
347 of 2017 wherein the Division Bench has held that "it was
found from evidence of witnesses that some of the accused
persons directly taken part in kidnapping and took the victim to
unknown place but some of the accused persons after reaching
unknown place provided food and thereafter used to meet
kidnappers - the offence of kidnapping is not continuing
offence as such conviction of accused persons who were found
directly involved in kidnapping was upheld and remaining
against whom offence was not proved beyond reasonable doubt
were acquitted".
32.5 Another judgement rendered in the case of
Singhasan Yadav Vs. the State of Bihar (supra) by a Division
Bench of this Court in which it has been held that "court below
should have looked for corroboration of victim's evidence from
other independent witness and without corroboration should
have discarded victim's evidence."
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.347 of 2017 dt.16-12-2025
33. After a careful consideration of the evidence and
the exhibits on record, it transpires to this Court that the
Investigating Officer has conducted the investigation in a
manner that suffers from serious procedural lapses. The FIR,
which forms the foundation of the prosecution's case, has not
been exhibited in accordance with law. Furthermore, the Call
Detail Records (CDRs) placed on record are not accompanied
by the mandatory certificate under Section 65B of the Indian
Evidence Act, 1872, rendering them inadmissible in evidence.
For an offence under Section 364A IPC to be established, the
prosecution must prove not only the act of kidnapping or
abduction but also the demand of ransom and the circumstances
indicating that the accused persons committed the act with the
requisite intention. Similarly, to sustain a charge under Section
120B IPC, the prosecution must establish the existence of an
agreement or meeting of minds to commit the offence.
34. In the present case, no Test Identification Parade
(TIP) was conducted, though the accused persons were
allegedly unknown to the witnesses at the initial stage. The
absence of TIP severely undermines the reliability of the in-
court identification, particularly when the witnesses admit to
having seen the accused at the police station prior to such
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.347 of 2017 dt.16-12-2025
identification. Moreover, there are sharp and material
contradictions in the statements of the prosecution witnesses,
and such inconsistencies strike at the very foundation of the
prosecution case.
35. The most crucial aspect, which is fatal to the
present prosecution's case, is the absence of a certificate under
Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act. In the absence of such
a certificate, the electronic evidence, including the materials
extracted from the CDR, becomes inadmissible and cannot be
relied upon. This omission strikes at the very root of the
prosecution's case.
36. In view of the discussions made hereinabove, we
find and hold that the prosecution has failed to establish its case
beyond reasonable doubt. For the reasons stated above, we are
unable to accept the findings recorded by the Trial Court, as
they are unsustainable in law and on facts.
37. In result, all the appeals above-mentioned are
hereby allowed.
38. Accordingly, the judgment of conviction dated
19.01.2017 and the order of sentence dated 25.01.2017 passed
by the learned 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Saran at Chapra in
Sessions Trial No. 421 of 2015 arising out of Dighwara P.S.
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.347 of 2017 dt.16-12-2025
Case No. 67 of 2015 are hereby quashed and set aside.
39. Since the appellants Mohd. Phool Sharif @ Phool
Sharif & Md. Shahabuddin (Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 347 of
2017) are in jail, they are directed to be released from custody
forthwith, if their presence is not required in any other case.
40. So far as appellant Rashid @ Dilshad (Criminal
Appeal (DB) 312 of 2017), Rajesh Kumar Yadav (Criminal
Appeal (DB) No. 173 of 2017), Suresh @ Rukhendra Manjhi
@ Rukander Manjhi (Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 247 of 2017)
and Mahtab Alam (Criminal Appeal (DB) 378 of 2017) are
concerned, since they are already on bail, their respective
bailors are discharged from the liabilities of their bail bonds.
41. Accordingly, Interlocutory Application No. 4 of
2024 preferred in Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 347 of 2017 also
stands disposed of.
42. This Court deems it appropriate to acknowledge
the valuable assistance rendered by Ms. Vaishnavi Singh,
learned Amicus Curiae, in Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 247 of
2017. The Court records its appreciation for her diligent efforts
and the clarity with which she assisted in the adjudication of the
matter. It is further noted that, when the question of
remuneration was raised, Ms. Singh graciously declined the
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.347 of 2017 dt.16-12-2025
same and volunteered to render her services pro bono. The
Court commends her sense of duty and professional
commitment.
( Dr. Anshuman, J)
Bibek Chaudhuri, J : I agree.
(Bibek Chaudhuri, J)
Ashwini/-
AFR/NAFR
CAV DATE 17/11/2025
Uploading Date 16/12/2025
Transmission Date 16/12/2025
