Patna High Court
Meghan Manjhi vs The State Of Bihar on 17 June, 2025
Author: Rajeev Ranjan Prasad
Bench: Rajeev Ranjan Prasad, Ashok Kumar Pandey
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL APPEAL (DB) No.486 of 2018
In
CRIMINAL APPEAL (SJ) No.466 of 2018
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-4 Year-1999 Thana- KUDHNI District- Muzaffarpur
======================================================
1. Bhuil Manjhi, S/O Khelawan Manjhi,
2. Laxmi Manjhi, S/O Dwarika Manjhi,
3. Jagdev Manjhi, S/O Satya Narayan Manjhi,
4. Jorai Manjhi, S/O Jokhan Manjhi,
5. Shankar Manjhi, S/O Late Khakhnu Manjhi @ Fakanu Manjhi,
6. Raktu Manjhi, S/O Tilak Manjhi,
7. Tuntun Manjhi, S/O Dasrath Manjhi,
8. Chulhai Manjhi, S/O Badri Manjhi,
All are residents of Village-Mahanpur, P.S. Kudhni, District-Muzaffarpur.
... ... Appellants
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Respondent
======================================================
with
CRIMINAL APPEAL (DB) No. 584 of 2018
In
CRIMINAL APPEAL (SJ) No.442 of 2018
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-4 Year-1999 Thana- KUDHNI District- Muzaffarpur
======================================================
Meghan Manjhi, S/O Khelawan Manjhi, Resident of Village-Mohanpur, P.S.-
Kudhni, District-Muzaffarpur.
... ... Appellant
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Respondent
======================================================
Appearance :
(In CRIMINAL APPEAL (DB) No. 486 of 2018)
For the Appellant/s : Mr. Manoj Kumar No.1, Amicus Curiae
For the Respondent/s : Mr. Zeyaul Hoda, Addl. P.P.
(In CRIMINAL APPEAL (DB) No. 584 of 2018)
For the Appellant/s : Mr. Manoj Kumar No.1, Amicus Curiae
For the Respondent/s : Mr. Zeyaul Hoda, Addl. P.P.
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJEEV RANJAN PRASAD
and
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK KUMAR PANDEY
ORAL JUDGMENT
(Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJEEV RANJAN PRASAD)
Date : 17-06-2025
Heard Mr. Manoj Kumar No.1, learned Amicus Curiae for
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.486 of 2018 dt.17-06-2025
2/20
the appellants and Mr. Zeyaul Hoda, learned Additional Public
Prosecutor for the State.
2. These two appeals are arising out of the judgment of
conviction dated 27.11.2017 (hereinafter referred to as the
'impugned judgment') and the order of sentence dated
30.11.2017
(hereinafter referred to as the ‘impugned order’)
passed by learned Additional District & Sessions Judge-VI,
Muzaffarpur (hereinafter referred to as the ‘learned trial court’)
in S.Tr. No. 532 of 2000 in connection with Kudhni (Turki) P.S.
Case No. 04 of 1999 registered under Sections 147, 148, 149
and 302 of the Indian Penal Code (in short ‘IPC).
3. By the impugned judgment and order, the learned
trial Court has been pleased to convict the appellants for the
offences punishable under Sections 302 read with Section 149
IPC and sentenced them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for
life. The trial Court has also imposed a fine of Rs. 10,000/-
upon each of the appellants.
Prosecution Case
4. The prosecution case is based on the fardbeyan of
one Bhola Manjhi, who is the brother of the deceased and has
been examined as P.W. 6 in the present case. In his fardbeyan
recorded by S.I. Ajay Kumar, I/c of Turki O.P. on 08.01.1999 at
7 A.M. at Turki O.P., the informant (P.W. 6) has stated as under:-
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.486 of 2018 dt.17-06-2025
3/20On 07.01.1999 at about 6.30 hours, brother of the
informant, namely, Maheshwar Manjhi @ Bhonu Manjhi was
called by the villagers, namely, Meghan Manjhi, Laxman Manjhi,
Bhuil Manjhi, Laxmi Manjhi, Badri Manjhi on the pretext of
some purpose. Maheshwar Manjhi went with them. The
informant also followed them. They took him in the ‘potato field’
of Jugal Manjhi, where Jagdev Manjhi, Gorai Manjhi, Shankar
Manjhi, Raktu Manjhi, Khublal Manjhi, Tuntun Manjhi, Deeplal
Manjhi, Chulhai Manjhi being equipped with arms were
standing. Meghan Manjhi took ‘Bhala’ from Khublal Manjhi and
made a blow upon Maheshwar Manjhi @ Bhonu Manjhi, which
hit him upon his neck. Thereafter, other co-accused persons made
assault with various arms upon him leading to serious injuries
upon his body. As a result of which, Maheshwar Manjhi died on
the spot. The informant raised alarm. The villagers, namely,
Langar Manjhi, Dhodha Manjhi, Bechan Manjhi, Akal Manjhi
and others rushed there, having seen them, the accused persons
ran away. The informant with the help of the villagers brought
the dead body of Maheshwar Manjhi at the O.P. of the police
station on 08.01.1999. The cause of occurrence is said to be the
theft of grain of Langar Manjhi.
5. Upon investigation, police submitted a chargesheet
against altogether thirteen accused persons. The chargesheet was
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.486 of 2018 dt.17-06-2025
4/20filed for the offences under Sections 147, 148, 149 and 302 IPC.
The learned Sub-divisional Judicial Magistrate, Muzaffarpur
(West) took cognizance of the offences and transferred the
records to the Court of Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Muzaffarpur
for the purpose of commitment. On 31.08.2000, the records were
committed to the Court of Sessions where the trial was
registered. During trial, two accused persons, namely, Laxman
Manjhi and Khublal Manjhi absconded therefore, their records
were separated on 21.07.2007 and 10.09.2007 respectively from
the original records. Another accused Deeplal Manjhi and Badri
Manjhi died during trial therefore, the proceedings against them
were closed. In this manner, only nine accused faced the trial.
6. In the trial Court, the charges were explained to the
accused persons in Hindi which they denied and claimed to be
tried. They claimed that they are innocent and have been falsely
implicated because of some earlier grudge against them.
7. In course of trial, the prosecution examined as many
as eleven witnesses and exhibited certain documentary evidences
whereafter the statement of the accused were recorded under
Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. in which they pleaded innocence. The
defence examined one witness, who is the Assistant Director of
the District Security Cell of Muzzafarpur. List of witnesses
examined on behalf of the prosecution and the defence as also
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.486 of 2018 dt.17-06-2025
5/20
the documents exhibited on behalf of the prosecution and
defence are being provided hereunder in a tabular form:-
List of Prosecution Witnesses
P.W. 1 Akal Manjhi
P.W. 2 Dodha Manjhi (Maternal brother of the
deceased)
P.W. 3 Bechan Manjhi (Uncle of the deceased)
P.W. 4 Krishna Manjhi
P.W. 5 Banarsi Manjhi (Wife of the deceased)
P.W. 6 Bhola Manjhi (Informant)
P.W. 7 Dr. Mumtaz Ahmad
P.W. 8 Dharmendra Manjhi
P.W. 9 Narendra Kumar
P.W. 10 Ram Briksh Chaudhary
P.W. 11 Jitendra JhaList of Exhibits
Exhibit ‘1’ Signature of Krishna Manjhi on the
post mortem report
Exhibit ‘2’ Post mortem report
Exhibit Signature of Dharmendra Manjhi on
‘1/1’ the post mortem report
Exhibit ‘3’ Signature of Madan Paswan on the
F.I.R.
Exhibit '4' Signature of Madan Paswan on the
fardbeyan
Exhibit '5' Signature of Madan Pawan on
fowarding report of Ajay Kumar
8. The defence examined only one witness and
exhibited two documentary evidences which are as under:-
Exhibit ‘A’ Signature of Sri Surendre Singh Meena
(District Officer) on the order vide
Memo No. 821 dated 30.10.1999
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.486 of 2018 dt.17-06-2025
6/20Exhibit ‘B’ Own handwriting of Sri Surendra
Singh Meena (District Officer) on the
record No. 24/1999-2000.
Findings of the Learned Trial Court
9. Learned trial Court after examining the evidences of
P.Ws. 1, 2, 3, 5 and 6 observed that these witnesses have stated
that on the date of occurrence i.e. 07.01.1999 informant’s brother
Maheshwar Manjhi @ Bhonu was killed by the accused persons.
Learned trial Court though found some contradictions in the
evidence of the prosecution but those contradictions were not
such that to disbelieve the prosecution case. Learned trial Court
found that P.W. 7 (doctor) deposed that deceased died due to
assault on the neck. Accordingly, the learned trial Court found
the accused persons guilty under Section 149 IPC.
10. Learned trial Court found that the accused persons
in furtherance of common intention formed unlawful assembly
and committed the occurrence and all the accused persons were
present at the place of occurrence when Maheshwar Manjhi @
Bhonu was killed. Accordingly, the trial Court found the accused
persons guilty under Section 149 IPC.
Submissions on behalf of the appellant
11. Mr. Manoj Kumar No.1, learned Amicus Curiae
has submitted that in this case, it is the informant (P.W. 6) who
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.486 of 2018 dt.17-06-2025
7/20
alone claims to be an eye witness of the occurrence. In his
submission, P.W. 6 is a closely related witness, who is not
consistent in his deposition and has contradicted himself on
material aspects of the matter. It is submitted that the manner of
occurrence as claimed by P.W. 6 does not find corroboration
from the evidence of the doctor (P.W. 7).
12. Learned counsel further submits that in this case
the place of occurrence has also not been proved by the
prosecution. It would be evident from the fardbeyan of P.W. 6
that the occurrence had taken place on 07.01.1999 at about 6:30
P.M. It was the month of January and at 6:30 P.M. the sunset had
already taken place and darkness had prevailed. According to the
informant, he could not inform police about the occurrence
because there was no mode of transportation and he along with
the co-villagers had lifted the dead body from the place of
occurrence and brought to Turki O.P. on 08.01.1999 where his
fardbeyan was recorded.
13. It is submitted that the inquest report has though
not been proved in accordance with law but the signature of
Krishna Manjhi and Dharmendra Manjhi, who are P.W. 4 and
P.W. 8 respectively have been proved as Ext. 1 and Ext. 1/1
respectively. It would appear that the inquest report was prepared
at Turki O.P. on 08.01.1999 at 7:15 A.M. In this regard, the
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.486 of 2018 dt.17-06-2025
8/20
attention of this Court has been drawn towards the evidence of
the wife of the deceased, who has stated that the dead body
remained in the field for the whole night and on the date of
occurrence, ‘Chowkidar’ had gone to the police station. The wife
of the deceased who has been examined as P.W. 5 has stated that
‘Darogaji’ had come after four days and he had taken away the
dead body from the field. P.W. 5 is not an eye witness of the
occurrence but on the point of taking away the dead body from
the place of occurrence, she has given a completely different
version from that of the informant (P.W. 6).
14. It is further pointed out that the son of the
deceased, namely, Dharmendra Manjhi has been examined as
P.W. 8 who has stated that after murder of his father, police had
arrived and prepared the inquest report at the place where the
dead body was lying. He has proved his signature as a witness
on the inquest report. In his cross-examination, however, P.W. 8
has stated that police came one day after the death of his father.
He has further stated that the inquest report was prepared in his
house. His statement was not recorded on the said date, he had
gone to the police station on the next day and then Darogaji had
recorded his statement. From his deposition also, it would appear
that he is not an eye witness of the occurrence and he claims to
have come to know that accused persons had killed his father.
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.486 of 2018 dt.17-06-2025
9/20
He has not disclosed the name of the person from whom he came
to know this.
15. Learned counsel points out that in this case, the
Investigating Officer (I.O.) has not been examined. The non-
examination of the I.O. has seriously prejudiced the case of the
defence as the defence could not take out the contradictions
through the I.O. with regard to the statements of the prosecution
witnesses recorded by the I.O. in course of the investigation. In
absence of the examination of the I.O., the place of occurrence
has also not been proved.
16. It is further submitted that all the prosecution
witnesses have stated that there was no prior enmity between the
deceased and the appellants. No motive behind the occurrence
has been given by the prosecution. The defence suggested the
prosecution witnesses that because of the old enmity, the accused
persons have been falsely implicated.
17. Learned Amicus Curiae further submits that Dr.
Mumtaz Ahmad (P.W. 7) had conducted the autopsy on the dead
body of the deceased. He had found several injuries on the
person of the deceased. The allegation against Meghan Manjhi is
that he had thrown up ‘Bhala’ which hit on the neck of the
deceased and he started bleeding and fell down whereafter the
other accused persons had assaulted by ‘rod’, ‘bhala’ and
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.486 of 2018 dt.17-06-2025
10/20
‘knife/dragor’ but the doctor has opined in his cross-examination
that any injury by ‘bhala’ shall cause penetrating wound, he did
not find any penetrating wound on any part of the body of the
deceased and he did not find such injury which (mentioned in the
P.M. report), is not suggestive of the fact that it could be caused
by ‘bhala’.
18. Learned counsel submits that the defence witness,
who is a Government Officer, has stated that Record No. 10-
15/24-1999-2000 was prepared on the basis of the application
received from Banarsi Devi, wife of late Maheswar Manjhi. On
the basis of the application and the inquiry report received from
the Block, the records were prepared on which his signature and
that of the signature of the then District Officer are present. At
his instance, this document has been marked as Ext. A. This
witness has stated that in this document regarding the cause of
death, it is stated that Late Maheswar Manjhi died on 07.01.1999
in an accident. The applicant was given a grant of Rs. 10,000/-.
D.W.-1 has proved the note-sheet which is in his handwriting and
under his signature dated 28.10.1999. This document has been
marked Ext. B. It is submitted that when P.W. 5 was asked about
the receiving the benefit from the District Authority under the
‘Rastriya Pariwarik Labh Yojana’, she denied to have received
the same which would only prove that she tried to suppress the
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.486 of 2018 dt.17-06-2025
11/20
real fact with regard to the cause of death, as disclosed by her in
her application for grant.
19. On all these grounds, it is submitted that it seems
to be a case of death, may be a case of blind murder which was
not seen by anyone and later on with an afterthought, the
prosecution case has been developed in which the appellants
have been falsely implicated. According to him, it would not be
safe to convict the appellants on the sole testimony of P.W. 6,
who is not consistent in his evidence and there is no
corroboration of the evidence by any independent material
particulars.
Submissions on behalf of the State
20. Mr. Zeyaul Hoda, learned Additional Public
Prosecutor for the State has contested the appeals. It is
submitted that even as the informant is a related witness but he
is an eye witness of the occurrence and his testimony cannot be
discarded only on account of certain minor and irrelevant
discrepancies.
21. It is submitted that though the Investigation Officer has
not been examined in this case but the prosecution witnesses
have stated that the occurrence took place in the ‘potato field’ of
Jugal Sah. Non examination of the I.O., according to learned
Additional P.P. shall not prove fatal to the prosecution case. In his
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.486 of 2018 dt.17-06-2025
12/20
opinion, the fact that there is no other eye witness to the
occurrence would not be important because conviction may be
sustained on the basis of sole testimony of the informant.
Consideration
22. We have heard learned Amicus Curiae for the
appellants, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State as
also perused the records.
23. It is evident that in this case the occurrence is said to
have taken place on 07.01.1999 at 6:30 P.M. The informant has
stated in his ‘fardbeyan’ that he could not give information with
regard to the occurrence to the police station because there was
no mode of communication during the night hours. It is evident
from his ‘fardbeyan’ itself that the occurrence had taken place in
the month of January when the darkness had already prevailed.
The informant has been examined as P.W.6. He has stated that
he was in his house when the accused persons came to his house
and called his brother Maheshwar Manjhi on some pretext. He
claims to have followed them. P.W.6 claims that the accused
persons took Maheshwar to the ‘potato field’ of Jugal Sah
where the accused persons were present. According to him,
Meghan Manjhi took ‘Bhala’ from the hand of Khublal Manjhi
and threw on the neck of Maheshwar Manjhi whereafter the
other accused persons assaulted Maheshwar Manjhi by ‘lathi’,
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.486 of 2018 dt.17-06-2025
13/20
‘rod’ ‘Bhala’ and ‘dagger’. Maheshwar died after sometime on
the spot. He has stated that on the next day, he went to the police
station where his statement was recorded by ‘Darogaji’ on
which he put his thumb impression. He has stated that two days
prior to the occurrence, Langar Manjhi and Maheshwar were
abusing without taking name of anyone because the paddy crops
of Langar Manjhi had been stolen away. In his cross-
examination, P.W.6 has stated that it was a cold weather and the
night was dark. He had not been assaulted. ‘Potato’ were grown
in the field and ‘Potato’ plants were there. He had gone with
‘Darogaji’ to the place of occurrence on the next day at about
7:00 A.M. where the dead body of his brother was lying. The
dead body was brought at the door of the house and ‘chowkidar’
was informed. In Paragrpah-4 of his cross-examination, P.W. 6
has stated that ‘Darogaji’ was also informed and ‘Darogaji’
had come in the night. His statement was taken by ‘Darogaji’ at
his house and thereafter at the police station. It is evident from
this part of the cross-examination of P.W.6 that ‘Darogaji’ had
come in the night itself on the date of occurrence and the
informant had made some statements in the night when
‘Darogaji’ / I.O. had visited his house but this statement of
P.W.6 which was made at first instance in the night has not been
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.486 of 2018 dt.17-06-2025
14/20
brought on record by the prosecution. The I.O. has not been
examined therefore the defence had no opportunity to put
question to the I.O. regarding the place of occurrence, the
prevailing condition in the potato field and also about the first
statement of the informant in the night.
24. This Court finds that the accused persons are from the
same family but they are living separately in mess and business.
According to P.W. 6, the deceased had no quarrel with any of
the accused persons and the accused persons used to visit the
house of the informant.
25. This Court further finds that the evidence of the P.W.
‘6’ that the ‘Potato field’ is situated at a distance of two ‘laggi’
only from the house of the informant and from both the sides
of the field, houses of at least 10 persons are situated. According
to him, the persons, whose houses were there had started
assembling but this Court finds that none of those persons
whose house are said to be situated around the place of
occurrence has been examined in this case. P.W. 6 was
suggested by the defence that he is not an eye witness of the
occurrence and had falsely implicated the appellants because of
the old enmity.
26. This Court further finds that on the point of
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.486 of 2018 dt.17-06-2025
15/20
preparation of the inquest report the wife of the deceased
(P.W.5) and his son (P.W.8) are also not consistent. The police
had arrived at the place of occurrence and prepared inquest
report at the place of occurrence is highly doubtful and in fact
the claim of P.W.6 that ‘Darogaji’ had gone to the place of
occurrence on the next day of the occurrence in the morning at
7:00 A.M. stands contradicted from his own statement wherein
he has stated that ‘Darogaji’ had come in the night of the
occurrence and he made his statement before ‘Darogaji’ at his
house. The place of occurrence is situated at a distance of two
‘laggi’ only which is hardly at a distance of about 15-20 fits
from the house of the informant. Therefore, it is highly
unbelievable that ‘Daroga’ who had visited the house of the
informant in the night of the place of occurrence itself could not
have gone to the place of occurrence in the night and it remains
a big question mark as to why the first version of the informant
and the correct date and time of preparation of the inquest report
are being suppressed by the prosecution.
27. This Court has noticed that the Doctor (P.W.7) has
found the following injuries on the body of the deceased which
are as under:-
“No.1 incised wound were found on the
following parts of the body.
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.486 of 2018 dt.17-06-2025
16/20(A) 1 /2″ below and lateral to left eye, 1 “x0.2″x
muscle deep.
(B) On front and left lateral side of neck, 2″
below the left lobule of ear, 5″x1 1/2″ x cutting
muscle vessels, and trachea.
(C) On front of left side of chest 3.2″ below, and1
1/2″ medial to left areola, 0.75″ x 0.2″ x muscle
deep.
(D) On front of left side of abdomen 4.7″ Lateral
and in the line of umblieus 1.5″ x0.2″x muscle
deep.
(E) On front of left side of abdomen 4.6″ Lateral
and 11/2″ below the umblieus 0.5″x 0.2″ x
muscle deep.
(F) On right lateral side of chest in mid axillary
line four inch below axilla, 2.7 “x0.3″x muscle
deep.
(G) On right lateral side of chest 8″ below axilla
4.5″ x 0.3″ x muscle deep.
(H) Two places on right lateral side of thigh 1″x
0.2″ x muscle deep, 0.75″ x 0.25″ x muscle deep.
(I) On middle of front of left leg 2″ x 0.75″ x
muscle deep.
J) On back of left side of chest 8″ below left thigh
1″ x 0.25″x muscle deep.
(K) On back of left chest 8.3″ below post axillary
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.486 of 2018 dt.17-06-2025
17/20
line 1.5″x0.25″x muscle deep.
(L) On back of left side of hip at three places,
1/2″x1/4″x muscle deep, 1/2″x1/4″x muscle deep,
1/4″x1/4″x muscle deep.
Injury no. 2:-
Abrasions were found on left lateral side of
forearms in the middle 2.5″x1/2″ on front of left
wrist, 2.2″x1/4″ on back of left shoulder just
below shoulder blade 4.2″x0.2″ on back of left
chest 7″ below shoulder 2.5″x0.2″.
Opinion; the deceased died due to shock and
hemorrhage, mainly as a result of neck injury
cutting trachea, injury no. 1, was caused by sharp
cutting weapon, such as ‘bhala’ and Injury no. 2
caused by hard and blunt substance such as lathi.
Time since death is within twelve to eighteen
hrs.”
28. The doctor has opined that the deceased died due to
shock and hemorrhage mainly as a result of neck injury cutting
trachea. According to him, the injury no. 1 was caused by sharp
cutting weapon such as ‘bhala’ and injury no. 2 was caused by
hard and blunt substance such as ‘lathi’. In his cross-
examination, the doctor has opined that any injury by ‘bhala’
must cause penetrating wound but he did not find any
penetrating wound on any part of the body of the deceased. It is
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.486 of 2018 dt.17-06-2025
18/20
thus evident that the opinion of the doctor is not proving the
manner of occurrence as suggested by P.W.6.
29. The evidence of the D.W. 1 would be important to
take note off. Ext. A & B are the two official documents which
would show that the wife of the deceased had claimed grant
from the government under ‘Rastriya Parivarik Labh Yogna,
1995’. Her application was forwarded by the ‘Panchayat’ and
based on the recommendation on the ‘panchayat’ level, a sum of
Rs. 10,000/- was allowed as a grant. In her application, she had
given the cause of death due to accident.
30. In the opinion of this Court, the non-examination of
the I.O. of the case would prove fatal to the prosecution. The
fact that the ‘Daroga’ had visited the house of the informant in
the night of the occurrence itself and the informant had given
statement to the ‘Daroga’ in the night still ‘Daroga’ did not visit
the place of occurrence in the night and the dead body was
brought to the Turki O.P by the informant with the help of the
villagers are some of the vital facts which could have been
tested only when the I.O. would have been examined and cross-
examined. Yugal Manjhi whose potato field is said to be the
place of occurrence has not been examined and there is no
evidence that potato plants were found trampled. To this Court,
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.486 of 2018 dt.17-06-2025
19/20
it appears that even the place of occurrence, cannot be said to
have been duly proved by the informant as neither any
inspection of the place of the occurrence was done by the I.O.
nor the immediate circumstance available on the spot could be
brought on record by the prosecution.
31. In the considered opinion of this Court, it would not
be safe to sustain the conviction of the appellants on the sole
testimony of the informant (P.W.6) who though claims to have
followed the accused persons with the deceased to the place of
occurrence but was not assaulted by the accused persons. His
very presence at the place of occurrence becomes doubtful even
as the wife of the deceased (P.W.5) does not talk of the visit of
the accused persons to her house and taking away of her
husband from the house. The appellants have made out a case
for their acquittal giving them benefit of doubts.
32. In the given facts and circumstances and the materials
available on the record, the impugned judgment and order are
set aside. Both the appeals are allowed.
33. The appellants shall be released forthwith if not
wanted in any other case, the order shall be communicated
through FAX at the cost of the High Court.
34. Trial Court Records and copy of the judgment be sent
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.486 of 2018 dt.17-06-2025
20/20
down to the trial Court.
35. We acknowledge the assistance rendered by Mr.
Manoj Kumar No. 1 in these appeals on the dates of hearing. In
token of his assistance, we direct that he shall be paid a sum of
Rs. 15,000/- (Fifteen Thousand) each in these appeals by the
Patna High Court Legal Services Committee.
(Rajeev Ranjan Prasad, J)
(Ashok Kumar Pandey, J)
Jagdish/lata/-
AFR/NAFR NAFR CAV DATE NA Uploading Date 23.06.2025 Transmission Date 23.06.2025