Patna High Court
Ajay ChoudharyversusThe State Of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- ALLOWED
Holding
The court held that the prosecution failed to establish the essential elements of Sections 304B and 201 IPC, and therefore set aside both convictions.
Summary
The appellant, husband of the deceased, was convicted by a Fast Track Court for dowry death under Section 304B IPC and for causing disappearance of evidence under Section 201 IPC, based largely on testimonies of the deceased's brothers and other relatives alleging dowry demands and harassment. On appeal, the Patna High Court examined the prosecution evidence and found no medical or post‑mortem proof of the cause of death, no eyewitness to the alleged poisoning, and that the witnesses were interested parties with no independent corroboration of cruelty shortly before death. The court also noted that the investigating officer was not examined, and the statutory presumption under Section 113B of the Evidence Act could not be invoked without solid foundational facts. Applying the Supreme Court’s guidelines on the essential ingredients of a dowry death, the court held that the prosecution failed to establish that the death occurred otherwise than under normal circumstances or that cruelty was inflicted soon before death. Consequently, the convictions under Sections 304B and 201 IPC were set aside and the appellant was acquitted.
Issues considered
- Whether the prosecution proved the essential ingredients of an offence under Section 304B IPC, including death within seven years of marriage, cruelty or harassment soon before death, and death occurring otherwise than under normal circumstances.
- Whether the statutory presumption under Section 113B of the Evidence Act can be invoked in the absence of medical or forensic evidence of the cause of death.
- Whether the appellant can be convicted under Section 201 IPC for causing disappearance of evidence without proof of intentional act.
Legislation cited
- Indian Evidence Act, 1872 — s. 113B
- Indian Penal Code — s. 201, 304B
Subjects
- dowry death
- Section 304B IPC
- Section 201 IPC
- presumption under Section 113B
- evidence law
- acquittal
- criminal appeal
- post‑mortem evidence
- medical evidence
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL APPEAL (DB) No.1130 of 2018
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-35 Year-1992 Thana- NATWAR District- Rohtas
======================================================
Ajay Choudhary, S/o Kailash Choudhary, R/o Vill.- Muswat, P.S.- Natwar,
District- Rohtas Sasaram.
... ... Appellant/s
Versus
The State Of Bihar
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Appellant/s : Mr.D.K. Sinha, Sr. Advocate
Mr.Alexander Ashok, Advocate
Mr.Jawaed Akhtar, Advocate
For the Respondent/s : Mr.Ajay Mishra , APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BIBEK CHAUDHURI
and
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DR. ANSHUMAN
CAV JUDGMENT
(Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BIBEK CHAUDHURI)
Date : 25-02-2026
The present criminal appeal has been preferred by the
appellant against the judgment of conviction dated 12.07.2018
and order of sentence dated 12.07.2018 passed by the learned
Presiding Officer, Fast Track Court No. II, Rohtas at Sasaram in
Sessions Trial No. 206 of 1994 arising out of Natwar P.S. Case
No. 35 of 1992.
2. By the impugned judgment, the learned trial court has
held the appellant guilty for the offence punishable under
Section 304B of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced him to
undergo rigorous imprisonment for life. The appellant has
further been convicted under Section 201 of the Indian Penal
Code and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for
Patna High Court CWJC No.1130 of 2018 dt.25-02-2026
2/20
seven years. Both the sentences have been directed to run
concurrently.
3. The appellant, who is the husband of the deceased
woman, has assailed the aforesaid judgment and order of
conviction and sentence before this Court.
4. The prosecution case originates from the fardbeyan of
Bikrama Pandey, a village chaukidar of village Muswat within
Natwar Police Station in the district of Rohtas.
5. According to the prosecution, on 29.04.1992 the
informant, after returning from night patrolling duty, came to
know from one Ramayan Choudhary that the daughter-in-law
of Kailash Choudhary, namely the wife of the present appellant
Ajay Choudhary, had died during the preceding night. Upon
enquiry regarding the cause of death, it was stated that she had
allegedly died after consuming poison.
6. On receiving such information, the informant
proceeded to the house of Kailash Choudhary to verify the said
information. However, according to him, no satisfactory
explanation was furnished regarding the circumstances of death.
The informant suspected that the death was not natural. He is
stated to have instructed the family members of the deceased
not to cremate the dead body until the police authorities arrived.
7. The informant thereafter proceeded to inform the
police. On his way, he met the police party and returned to the
Patna High Court CWJC No.1130 of 2018 dt.25-02-2026
3/20
village along with them. Upon reaching the village, it was
allegedly found that the dead body of the deceased had already
been cremated by the family members of the appellant along
with their co-villagers.
8. The informant alleged that the deceased had not died
a natural death but had been done to death by her matrimonial
family members and that the cremation of the body had been
hurriedly conducted in order to screen the evidence of the
offence.
9. On the basis of the aforesaid fardbeyan, Natwar P.S.
Case No. 35 of 1992 came to be instituted initially under
Sections 302, 328 and 201/34 of the Indian Penal Code against
the accused persons including the present appellant.
10. After registration of the case, investigation was
taken up by the police. Upon completion of investigation, the
Investigating Agency submitted charge-sheet against the
accused persons including the present appellant under Sections
304B and 201/34 of the Indian Penal Code.
11. The case being exclusively triable by the Court of
Sessions, it was committed to the Court of Sessions by the
learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Bikramganj, Rohtas
on 21.02.1994.
12. During the pendency of the trial, two of the accused
persons, namely Laxman Choudhary and Rajaram Choudhary,
Patna High Court CWJC No.1130 of 2018 dt.25-02-2026
4/20
died and the proceedings against them stood abated. Ultimately,
the trial proceeded against the remaining accused persons
including the present appellant.
13. Upon consideration of the materials available on
record, the learned trial court framed charges against the
accused persons including the appellant under Sections
304B/34 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code.
14. The charges were read over and explained to the
accused persons, to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed
to be tried. The defence of the accused, as would appear from
the trend of cross-examination and the statements recorded
under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, was one
of complete denial and false implication.
15. In order to substantiate the charges, the prosecution
examined altogether nine witnesses.
16. P.W.1 Surendra Kumar Rai and P.W.7 Devendra Rai
are the brothers of the deceased.
17. P.W.2 Ram Pravesh Rai, P.W.3 Shyam Bihari Barai
and P.W.6 Satyendra Rai are co-villagers from the parental
village of the deceased.
18. P.W.4 Laxman Choudhary and P.W.5 Ram Raj
Choudhary are residents of village Muswat, the matrimonial
village of the deceased.
19. P.W.8 Bikrama Pandey is the informant and village
Patna High Court CWJC No.1130 of 2018 dt.25-02-2026
5/20
chaukidar.
20. P.W.9 Ram Narayan Rai is another co-villager from
the parental side.
21. The prosecution also brought on record certain
documentary evidence including the fardbeyan, formal FIR,
seizure list and a letter alleged to have been written by the
deceased to her parental family complaining of harassment.
22. After closure of the prosecution evidence, the
statements of the accused persons were recorded under Section
313 CrPC. The defence did not adduce any evidence.
23. The learned trial court, upon appreciation of the oral
and documentary evidence, recorded a finding that the deceased
had died within seven years of her marriage and that she had
been subjected to cruelty and harassment in connection with
demand of dowry. The trial court invoked the statutory
presumption under Section 113B of the Evidence Act and held
the appellant and other accused persons guilty for the offence
punishable under Section 304B of the Indian Penal Code.
24. The trial court further held that the cremation of the
dead body prior to arrival of police amounted to causing
disappearance of evidence of offence and accordingly convicted
the appellant under Section 201 of the Indian Penal Code.
25. On the basis of the aforesaid findings, the appellant
was sentenced in the manner indicated hereinabove.
Patna High Court CWJC No.1130 of 2018 dt.25-02-2026
6/20
26. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the
aforesaid judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed
by the learned trial court, the present appeal has been preferred
by the appellant seeking setting aside of the impugned
judgment and order.
27. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
appellant submitted that the judgment of conviction and order
of sentence passed by the learned trial court are unsustainable in
law and on facts. It was contended that there is no medical
evidence on record to establish the cause of death of the
deceased and no post-mortem examination was conducted. It
was further submitted that the Investigating Officer has not
been examined in the present case, thereby causing serious
prejudice to the defence.
28. Learned counsel further submitted that all the
material witnesses regarding alleged cruelty and dowry demand
are interested witnesses from the parental side of the deceased
and independent witnesses of the matrimonial village have not
supported the prosecution case. It was argued that there is no
evidence of cruelty or harassment soon before the death of the
deceased so as to attract the provisions of Section 304B IPC or
the presumption under Section 113B of the Evidence Act. It was
lastly submitted that the conviction recorded by the trial court is
based on suspicion and not on legal evidence and the appellant
Patna High Court CWJC No.1130 of 2018 dt.25-02-2026
7/20
is entitled to acquittal.
29. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing on
behalf of the State supported the judgment of the trial court and
submitted that the death of the deceased occurred within seven
years of marriage and there is consistent evidence regarding
demand of dowry and harassment of the deceased. It was
contended that the trial court has rightly invoked the
presumption under Section 113B of the Evidence Act and
recorded the conviction. It was thus submitted that the judgment
of conviction requires no interference.
30. Having noticed the background of the prosecution
case and the findings recorded by the learned trial court, this
Court now proceeds to reappreciate the evidence on record in
its entirety, as is required in an appeal against conviction
P.W.8 – Bikrama Pandey (Informant and Chaukidar)
31. Since the prosecution case originates from his
fardbeyan, it is appropriate to first examine his testimony.
32. P.W.8 has deposed that on 29.04.1992 he was
returning from night patrolling duty when he met Ramayan
Choudhary near Muswat bridge, who informed him that the
daughter-in-law of Kailash Choudhary had died during the
night allegedly after consuming poison. Upon hearing this, he
went to the house of Kailash Choudhary and made enquiry.
According to him, he was told that the deceased had consumed
Patna High Court CWJC No.1130 of 2018 dt.25-02-2026
8/20
poison and died.
33. He has further stated that he suspected foul play
because the deceased had been healthy till the previous day. He
claims that he instructed the family members not to cremate the
dead body until police arrived. Thereafter, while proceeding to
the police station, he met the police party and returned with
them to the village. Upon arrival, he allegedly found that the
body had already been cremated.
34. He proved his fardbeyan and signature thereon. He
also proved the seizure list relating to recovery of ash and bones
from the cremation site.
35. In cross-examination, he admitted that he had not
seen the deceased consuming poison nor had he witnessed any
assault upon her. His information was based on what he was
told by villagers. He further admitted that when he reached the
cremation site, villagers were present but he did not specify
who had actually set fire to the body.
36. He denied the suggestion that his statement was
recorded at the police station and not at the place of occurrence.
However, it is significant that the Investigating Officer has not
been examined to corroborate the manner of recording of the
fardbeyan.
37. The testimony of P.W.8 establishes that the deceased
had died and that her body was cremated prior to police
Patna High Court CWJC No.1130 of 2018 dt.25-02-2026
9/20
intervention. However, his evidence is entirely hearsay with
respect to the cause of death and the alleged involvement of the
accused in causing death. He is not a witness to any act of
cruelty, harassment, poisoning or assault.
38. His evidence is relevant only to the extent of
suspicious circumstances and cremation of the body.
39. P.W.1 Surendra Kumar Rai (Brother of the
Deceased) is one of the principal witnesses of the prosecution.
He has deposed that the deceased was his sister and that her
marriage with the appellant was solemnized in the year 1988.
He stated that the accused persons used to demand a colour
television and used to subject his sister to harassment on that
account.
40. He further deposed that the deceased had written
letters to the parental family informing them of ill-treatment.
According to him, one such letter was exhibited in the case. He
also stated that during the marriage of his brother Devendra
Rai, the appellant and his sister had come and at that time also
demand of television was raised. He stated that at the time of
departure, the deceased told them that if the television was not
given, they would not see her face again.
41. He further stated that within a few days of her return
to the matrimonial home, information was received that she had
died. According to him, the accused persons had killed her and
Patna High Court CWJC No.1130 of 2018 dt.25-02-2026
10/20
cremated her body without informing the parental side.
42. In cross-examination, P.W.1 admitted that he had not
lodged any complaint before any authority regarding the alleged
harassment prior to the death. He admitted that no report was
filed with the police during the lifetime of the deceased
regarding demand of television.
43. He also admitted that the letters allegedly written by
the deceased were handed over to the police several months
after the occurrence. There is no expert evidence to prove the
handwriting of the deceased.
44. He further admitted that the Investigating Officer
had not visited his village more than once and that he did not
know whether any village panchayat complaint had been filed.
45. The evidence of P.W.1 is that of an interested
witness being the brother of the deceased. His testimony does
indicate allegations of dowry demand and harassment.
However, the delay in producing letters, absence of handwriting
verification and absence of prior complaint weaken the
evidentiary value of his testimony.
46. P.W.7 Devendra Rai (Brother of the Deceased) has
supported the prosecution case in material particulars. He has
stated that his sister was subjected to cruelty and dowry
demand. He reiterated that at the time of his own marriage, the
appellant demanded a television and threatened consequences if
Patna High Court CWJC No.1130 of 2018 dt.25-02-2026
11/20
the demand was not fulfilled.
47. He stated that shortly thereafter information was
received that the deceased had died and later it was learnt that
she had been poisoned
48. In cross-examination, he admitted that he had not
personally witnessed any assault upon his sister. He also
admitted that he did not go to the matrimonial village
immediately upon receiving information. He further admitted
that the information about death was received through others.
49. P.W.7’s evidence, like that of P.W.1, is largely based
on what the deceased had allegedly told them. It establishes
allegations of harassment but does not provide direct evidence
of the circumstances of death.
50. P.W.2 Ram Pravesh Rai is a co-villager of the
parental side. He has stated that at the time of departure from
parental house after the marriage ceremony, the appellant
demanded a colour television and said that if it was not given,
he would not see the face of the deceased.
51. In cross-examination, he admitted that he had not
visited the matrimonial village and that his knowledge was
limited to what he saw during the marriage function.
52. His testimony supports the allegation of demand of
television but does not speak about cruelty soon before death.
His evidence is limited in scope.
Patna High Court CWJC No.1130 of 2018 dt.25-02-2026
12/20
53. P.W.3 Shyam Bihari Barai has stated that the
appellant demanded television and threatened that if not given,
he would not see the face of the deceased. He further stated that
later information was received that she had been killed and
cremated.
54. In cross-examination, he admitted that he did not
witness any occurrence of assault and that his knowledge about
death was based on what he heard.
55.. His testimony corroborates the allegation of
demand but does not provide evidence regarding actual cause of
death.
56. P.W.6 Satyendra Rai has deposed that the deceased
was harassed for dowry and that she was taken back to her
matrimonial home after the marriage of her brother. According
to him, within a few days, information was received that she
had been killed and cremated.
57. In cross-examination, he admitted that he had not
personally seen any assault and that he came to know about the
death from others.
58. His evidence is also hearsay regarding the cause of
death and limited to supporting dowry demand allegations.
59. P.W.4 Laxman Choudhary did not support the
prosecution case fully. He stated that he had only heard that the
deceased had died. He denied witnessing any seizure of bones
Patna High Court CWJC No.1130 of 2018 dt.25-02-2026
13/20
and ash. He suggested that the deceased had good relations in
her matrimonial home.
60. His testimony does not support the allegation of
harassment or dowry death.
61. P.W.5 Ram Raj Choudhary stated that the deceased
died due to stomach pain. He admitted his signature on the
seizure list but stated that it was obtained on blank paper. He
did not support the prosecution version of harassment.
62. P.W.9 Ram Narayan Rai supported the prosecution
case regarding alleged letter written by the deceased and dowry
demand. However, like other parental witnesses, his knowledge
regarding death is based on information received.
63. Observations on Overall Prosecution Evidence
i, There is no eyewitness to the death.
ii, No medical evidence regarding cause of death.
iii, No post-mortem examination conducted.
iv, Investigating Officer not examined.
v, Allegation of dowry demand supported mainly by
interested witnesses.
vi, Independent witnesses from matrimonial village
have not supported prosecution case of harassment.
64. The evidence establishes that the deceased died
within seven years of marriage and that there were allegations
of dowry demand. However, the precise cause and manner of
Patna High Court CWJC No.1130 of 2018 dt.25-02-2026
14/20
death remain unproved through medical or scientific evidence.
65. Having examined the prosecution evidence in detail,
this Court now proceeds to analyse whether the conviction
under Section 304B of the Indian Penal Code can be legally
sustained.
66. Having considered the evidence adduced on behalf
of the prosecution and the findings recorded by the learned trial
court, this Court proceeds to examine whether the essential
ingredients of Section 304B of the Indian Penal Code stand
established so as to sustain the conviction of the appellant.
67. For bringing home a charge under Section 304B
IPC, the prosecution is required to establish that the death of a
woman occurred otherwise than under normal circumstances
within seven years of her marriage and that soon before her
death she was subjected to cruelty or harassment by her
husband or his relatives in connection with demand of dowry.
Only upon proof of these foundational facts can the statutory
presumption under Section 113B of the Evidence Act be
invoked.
68. In the present case, it is not in dispute that the death
of the deceased occurred within seven years of her marriage.
However, the crucial question is whether the prosecution has
been able to establish that the deceased was subjected to cruelty
or harassment in connection with demand of dowry soon before
Patna High Court CWJC No.1130 of 2018 dt.25-02-2026
15/20
her death and that her death occurred in circumstances
attracting the provisions of Section 304B IPC.
69. Upon careful scrutiny of the evidence on record, this
Court finds that the prosecution has failed to establish the
precise cause of death of the deceased. No post-mortem
examination was conducted. No medical or scientific evidence
has been adduced to show that the deceased died due to
poisoning or any other unnatural cause. In absence of medical
evidence, the prosecution has not been able to conclusively
establish that the death occurred otherwise than under normal
circumstances.
70. It further appears that all the material witnesses
regarding alleged cruelty and dowry demand are relatives of the
deceased from her parental side. Independent witnesses from
the matrimonial village examined during trial have not
supported the prosecution case with regard to cruelty or
harassment. Their evidence does not indicate that the deceased
was subjected to any such treatment in the matrimonial home
immediately prior to her death.
71. Significantly, the Investigating Officer has not been
examined in the present case. The non-examination of the
Investigating Officer has caused serious prejudice to the
defence as contradictions between the statements of prosecution
witnesses recorded during investigation and their deposition
Patna High Court CWJC No.1130 of 2018 dt.25-02-2026
16/20
before the Court could not be brought on record. The manner of
investigation and seizure of alleged documentary material also
remains unproved.
72. The evidence of the parental witnesses, though
indicative of strained matrimonial relations and allegations of
demand of a colour television, does not establish any specific
instance of cruelty or harassment inflicted upon the deceased
soon before her death. The prosecution evidence is general in
nature and lacks the proximity required to establish a live link
between the alleged harassment and the death of the deceased.
73. In this context, reference may be made to the
decision of the Supreme Court in Karan Singh v. State of
Haryana reported in 2025 SCC OnLine SC 214. In paragraph
6 of the said judgment, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has
observed as follows:
“6. The following are the essential ingredients of
Section 304-B:
a) The death of a woman must have been caused by
any burns or bodily injury, or must have occurred
otherwise than under normal circumstances;
b) The death must have been caused within seven
years of her marriage;
c) Soon before her death, she must have been
subjected to cruelty or harassment by the husband or
any relative of her husband; and
d) Cruelty or harassment must be for, or in
connection with, any demand for dowry.”
74. Further, in paragraph 16, the Supreme Court has
held:
16. In the cross-examination, PW-7 stated
that police had recorded his statements on
Patna High Court CWJC No.1130 of 2018 dt.25-02-2026
17/20
3rd April 1998 and 7th April 1998, which
were marked as exhibits DG and DH,
respectively. He accepted that the allegation
that the accused used to maltreat his sister
on account of insufficient dowry given in the
marriage and having brought broken
furniture is not found in both the police
statements. He also stated that the demand
for a refrigerator, a motorcycle, and a mixi
does not find place in both statements.
Therefore, the version of PW-7 in his
examination-in-chief about the demands of
dowry is a significant and relevant
omission. Hence, this amounts to a
contradiction. The public prosecutor
claimed that the demand for a refrigerator,
a motorcycle, and a mixi was mentioned in
his third statement, which was recorded on
23rd June 1998. The third statement,
recorded belatedly, obviously appears to be
an afterthought. As regards his statement
that the accused used to give a beating to
his sister, it seems that he got this
information when he visited the matrimonial
home of his sister three months after the
marriage. It is a very vague allegation.
Moreover, the witness has not stated that
this was disclosed to him by his deceased
sister. Assuming that what he has said is
correct, this incident of beating must have
taken place between 25th June 1996 till end
of September 1996. Therefore, this incident
did not happen soon before the death. It is
not his case that when the deceased
allegedly visited his house nine to ten days
before the incident, she complained about
any cruelty or any harassment. Thus, none
of the three statements of the witnesses
contain any specific instances of cruelty or
harassment.
75. The Supreme Court has further observed in paragraph 17:
17. Now, coming to evidence of PW-8, Ram
Singh. PW-6 has not deposed that any
demand of dowry was made to PW-8 or in
his presence. She claimed in the cross-
examination that PW-8 had told her about
the maltreatment and the demand of dowry
by the accused three to four months after
the marriage. She stated that before
Patna High Court CWJC No.1130 of 2018 dt.25-02-2026
18/20
23rd June 1998, the police did not record
the statement of PW- 8. She stated that
PW-8 had come to her house after the
death of the deceased but she did not tell
her brother to make a statement before the
police. The statement of PW-8 was
recorded more than two and half months
from the date of the incident. Moreover, he
had no personal knowledge whether the
appellant had subjected the deceased to
cruelty or harassment. Therefore, the
prosecution did not prove the material
ingredients of the offence punishable under
Section 304-B. Not a single incident of
cruelty covered by Section 498-A was
proved by the prosecution. Section 304-
B of the IPC was brought on the statute
book in 1986. This Court has repeatedly
laid down and explained the ingredients of
the offence under Section 304-B. But, the
Trial Courts are committing the same
mistakes repeatedly. It is for the State
Judicial Academies to step in. Perhaps this
is a case of moral conviction.
76. The aforesaid principles laid down by the Hon’ble
Supreme Court clearly indicate that vague and general allegations
regarding dowry demand, in absence of specific and proximate
evidence of cruelty soon before death, are insufficient to sustain
conviction under Section 304B IPC and that the statutory
presumption under Section 113B of the Evidence Act cannot be
invoked unless foundational facts are firmly established.
77. Applying the aforesaid principles to the facts of the
present case, this Court finds that the prosecution has failed to
establish by cogent and reliable evidence that the deceased was
subjected to cruelty or harassment soon before her death in
connection with demand of dowry. The cause of death remains
Patna High Court CWJC No.1130 of 2018 dt.25-02-2026
19/20
unproved and the evidence on record does not disclose any
proximate or live link between the alleged harassment and the
death in question.
78. In such circumstances, the foundational facts
necessary for invoking the presumption under Section 113B of
the Evidence Act are not established. Suspicion, however strong,
cannot take the place of legal proof. The prosecution has failed to
prove the charge under Section 304B IPC beyond reasonable
doubt and the conviction recorded by the learned trial court
cannot be sustained.
79. Further, there is no reliable evidence on record to
establish that the deceased committed suicide or that the appellant
abetted the commission of suicide. In absence of proof of suicide
and abetment within the meaning of Sections 306 and 107 of the
Indian Penal Code, conviction under Section 306 IPC would also
be impermissible in law.
80. Accordingly, this Court is of the considered view
that the appellant is entitled to benefit of doubt.
The prosecution has failed to establish beyond reasonable doubt
that the appellant intentionally caused disappearance of evidence
with the object of screening himself from legal punishment. The
conviction under Section 201 IPC therefore cannot be sustained.
81. In view of the discussions and findings recorded
hereinabove:
Patna High Court CWJC No.1130 of 2018 dt.25-02-2026
20/20
82. The conviction of the appellant under Section 304B
of the Indian Penal Code and the sentence imposed thereunder are
set aside.
83. The conviction and sentence of the appellant under
Section 201 of the Indian Penal Code are also set aside.
84. The appellant is acquitted of all the charges.
85.If the appellant is in custody, he shall be released
forthwith, unless required in any other case.
86. If on bail, his bail bonds stand discharged.
(Bibek Chaudhuri, J)
uttam/-
( Dr. Anshuman, J)
AFR/NAFR NAFR
CAV DATE 23.02.2026
Uploading Date 25.02.2026
Transmission Date N/A
Checking your session…