Patna High Court
Munna Yadav and AnrversusThe State Of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- ALLOWED
Holding
The conviction under IPC 302/34 is unsustainable due to unreliable eyewitness testimony and material gaps, leading to the acquittal of the appellants.
Summary
The appellants Munna Yadav and Dilip Yadav were convicted by the Sessions Court for the murder of Jageshwar Yadav under IPC sections 302 and 34, based primarily on the testimony of the deceased’s wife (PW‑7) and her son (PW‑4), who were alleged eye‑witnesses, and on medical evidence suggesting blunt‑force injuries. On appeal under CrPC 374(2), the appellants contended that the witnesses were interested parties, their statements were contradictory, the investigating officer was not examined, and the injuries could have resulted from an accidental fall after alcohol consumption, with the land‑dispute motive being unsubstantiated. The High Court examined the credibility of the witnesses, noted material contradictions, the absence of the investigating officer’s testimony, and the medical report’s indication that the injuries were consistent with a fall. It held that the prosecution’s case was riddled with reasonable doubt and that the testimony of the interested witnesses could not be relied upon. Consequently, the court acquitted the appellants, set aside the conviction and sentence, and ordered their immediate release.
Issues considered
- Whether the testimony of the deceased’s wife and son, as interested witnesses, is reliable enough to sustain a conviction under IPC 302/34.
- Whether the non‑examination of the investigating officer creates a material lacuna in the prosecution case.
- Whether the medical evidence supports the theory of homicide or an accidental fall.
- Whether the alleged land‑dispute motive is a credible basis for the alleged murder.
Legislation cited
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 161, 207, 209, 313, 374(2)
- Indian Penal Code — s. 302, 34
Subjects
- murder
- IPC 302
- criminal conspiracy
- eyewitness testimony
- hearsay
- land dispute
- acquittal
- appeal
- Criminal Procedure Code
- non‑examination of investigating officer
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL APPEAL (DB) No.780 of 2018
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-17 Year-2011 Thana- KHAIRA District- Jamui
======================================================
1. Munna Yadav, son of Baiju Yadav,
2. Dilip Yadav, son of Baiju Yadav,
Both resident of Village- Mangobandar, P.S.- Khaira, District- Jamui.
... ... Appellants
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Respondent
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Appellant/s : Mr.S.K. Lal, Sr. Advocate
Mr.Umesh Prasad, Advocate
Mr.Pritish Kumar Lal, ADvocate
For the Respondent : Mr.Abhimanyu Sharma, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BIBEK CHAUDHURI
and
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE CHANDRA SHEKHAR JHA
CAV JUDGMENT
(Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE CHANDRA SHEKHAR JHA)
Date : 24-04-2026
Heard Mr. S.K. Lal, learned senior counsel appearing
on behalf of the appellants and Mr. Abhimanyu Sharma, learned
A.P.P. for the State.
2. The present appeal preferred under section 374(2) of
the Cr.P.C. against the impugned judgment of conviction dated
4th June, 2018 and order of sentence dated 12.06.2018, passed
by learned A.D.J., F.T.C.- 1st, Jamui in S. Tr. No. 278/2011
arising out of G.R. No. 169/2011 arising out of Khaira P.S. Case
No. 17 of 2011, whereby and whereunder the aforesaid two
appellants were convicted for the offences punishable under
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.780 of 2018 dt.24-04-2026
2/19
section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code (in short the “I.P.C.”)
and ordered to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life.
Brief facts of the case
3. Brief case of the prosecution as it speaks through
Fard-e-beyan of Manju Devi (informant/PW-7) wife of Late
Jageshwar Yadav of village – Mangobandar, P.S. - Khaira,
District – Jamui, recorded by the S.I. of Khaira Police Station
dated 08.02.2011, that on 07.02.2011 at about 7:00 P.M., the
husband of informant (PW-7) had gone to supply the milk in the
breakfast-cum-tea shop of one Vinod Rawat, which was situated
in Mangobandar Bazar, but her husband did not return to his
home. The informant alleged that when she went in search of
her husband and was going on road at about 8:00 P.M., then, she
saw that near to the house of one Prayag Thakur of village – Nai
Tola, the accused persons, who belonged to the same family,
namely, Dilip Yadav (appellant no.2) , Munna Yadav (appellant
no.1) and Huro Yadav were assaulting her husband by means of
brick and stones and also dragging him by holding Gamchha in
his neck. The informant further alleged that on seeing the such
condition of her husband, she started raising alarm. Thereafter,
all the accused persons fled away leaving the husband of the
informant in injured condition at the place of occurrence. She
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.780 of 2018 dt.24-04-2026
3/19
further states that anyhow with the help of her Gotni (PW-3),
she taken away the dead body of her husband to their house and
informed the family members. The informant alleged that there
was land dispute between the accused persons and the deceased
husband of the informant and due to this reason her husband
was murdered by the aforesaid accused persons/appellants.
4. On the basis of said written information, Khaira P.S.
Case No. 17 of 2011 dated 08.02.2011 was registered for the
offences punishable under sections 302/34 of the Indian Penal
Code. After concluding investigation, police submitted charge-
sheet against the appellants. The learned jurisdictional
Magistrate after perusal of materials and records took
cognizance accordingly and after compliance of section 207 of
the Cr.P.C. committed this case to the court of sessions under
section 209 of the Cr.P.C. for its trial and disposal.
5. After commitment, learned trial court, upon perusal
of records, framed charges against accused persons/appellants
under section 302/34 of the IPC and explained the charges to the
accused/appellants in their vernacular language, which they
pleaded “not guilty” and claimed to be tried.
6. To substantiate its case, prosecution altogether
examined seven (7) witnesses namely, Sushil Yadav (PW-1);
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.780 of 2018 dt.24-04-2026
4/19
Sukhdeo Yadav (PW-2); Janakwa Devi (PW-3); Praveen
Kumar Yadav (PW-4); Dr. Syed Naushad Ahmad (PW-5);
Badri Yadav (PW-6) and Manju Devi (PW-7/informant).
7. The prosecution has also produced certain documents
viz.
Exhibit ‘1’ - Fardbeyan without objection;
Exhibit ‘2’ - Signature of Sukhdeo Yadav on the
Inquest report of the deceased Jageshwar Yadav;
Exhibit ‘3’ - Post-mortem report;
Exhibit ‘4’ - Signature of Badri Yadav (PW-6) on the
fardbeyan.
8. The defence has produced Exhibit ‘A’ which is the
certified copy of sale deed dated 16.03.2010, Rajendra Singh do
in favour of Munna Yadav.
9. After examination of prosecution witnesses and by
taking note of evidence as surfaced during trial, statement of
accused/appellants were recorded under Section 313 of the
Cr.P.C., which was denied by the appellants in totality by
claiming their complete innocence and false implication.
10. Upon perusal of the evidence surfaced during the
trial and hearing the parties, learned trial court convicted the
accused/appellants for the offences punishable under section
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.780 of 2018 dt.24-04-2026
5/19
302 of the IPC and passed the order of sentence as mentioned
aforesaid. Being aggrieved with, the present appeal has been
preferred by the accused/appellants.
11. Hence, the appeal.
Argument on behalf of the appellants
12. Mr. S.K. Lal, learned senior counsel appearing on
behalf of the appellants submitted that none of the witnesses are
the eye witness of the occurrence and merely due to land dispute
as it surfaced during the trial, the appellants were implicated
falsely with the present crime in question.
13. It is submitted by Mr. Lal that taking FIR as basic
script of prosecution, major contradictions as surfaced during
the trial, upon conjoint reading of testimony of PW-4 and PW-7
(the informant), were overlooked by the learned trial court while
recording the judgment of conviction. PW-4 is none but the son
of PW-7 (informant). It is submitted that except PW-4 & PW-7,
rest of the witnesses are the hearsay witnesses.
14. It is pointed out that FIR in issue is based upon the
fard-e-beyan of PW-7, where she nowhere stated that she was
accompanied by her son (PW-4) in search of her husband, when
become late to reach home after supplying the milk, but PW-4
during trial categorically stated that he accompanied with her
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.780 of 2018 dt.24-04-2026
6/19
mother in search of his father. Except PW-4 and PW-7, being
son and wife are interested witnesses as to secure conviction in
the background of land dispute.
15. It is further submitted by Mr. Lal that husband of
informant was returning from the market after consuming liquor
as same is evident from post-mortem itself which suggest that
stomach contained semi digested food with smell of alcohol and
the injuries what he received may possible by falling to the hard
surfaced ground, as deposed by the doctor. It is submitted that
husband of the informant died due to accidental fall by
consuming alcohol and taking advantage of his death, in the
background of suspicion that her husband could not purchase
the desired land from one Rajendra Mandal as same was
purchased by appellant Munna Yadav (appellant), the present
false implication was raised.
16. While concluding argument, it is submitted by Mr.
Lal that Investigating Officer of this case was not examined and,
therefore, the appellants could not take the benefit of the
contradictions and thus by deprived from their valuable legal
right of defence. It is submitted that the nature of occurrence
suggests that non-examination of I.O. prejudiced the appellants
and, therefore, on this score also the conviction as recorded by
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.780 of 2018 dt.24-04-2026
7/19
learned trial court is not appears sustainable in the eyes of law.
17. In support of submission, Mr. Lal relied upon the
legal report of Hon’ble Supreme Court as available through
Punimati and Another Vs. State of Chhattisgarh and Others
reported as 2025 SCC OnLine SC 2866 and Munna Lal vs.
State of Uttar Pradesh reported in (2023) SCC OnLine SC 80.
Argument on behalf of the State
18. Mr. Abhimanyu Sharma, learned A.P.P. for the
State, while opposing the appeal, submitted that the PW-7
(informant) is the eye witness of the occurrence who is none but
the wife of the deceased and there is no occasion to disbelieve
her version being an eye witness. It is submitted by learned
A.P.P. that the informant (PW-7) categorically stated that she
had seen the occurrence that how the accused/appellants were
brutally assaulting her husband while he was returning to his
home after supplying milk.
19. It is submitted that during cross-examination the
version of chief remains intact and there is no occasion to view
the testimony of informant (PW-7) with doubt. It is submitted
that non-examination of I.O. is not vital to the prosecution in
every case, particularly where the oral testimony appears
corroborating with medical evidence. It is pointed out that the
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.780 of 2018 dt.24-04-2026
8/19
nature of injury as found upon the deceased appears
corroborating with the testimony of informant qua manner and
weapon used to cause assault during the occurrence and,
therefore, there is no occasion to interfere with the judgment of
conviction as recorded by the learned trial court.
20. We have perused the trial court records carefully
and gone through all the evidences available on record and has
also considered the rival submissions as canvassed by the
learned counsel appearing on behalf of the parties.
21. As to re-appreciate the evidence, while disposing
the present appeal, it appears apposite to us to discuss the
evidences available on record with aforementioned legal notes
which are as under:-
22. PW-1 & PW-2 namely, Sushil Yadav and
Sukhdeo Yadav are the brother-in-law of the deceased and
brother of PW-7 (informant) namely, Manju Devi. They were
informed regarding the occurrence by PW-7 and appears
hearsay witnesses of the occurrence and they deposed during the
trial that they were informed by PW-7.
23. PW-3 is Janakwa Devi. She is the sister-in-law
(gotni of PW-7). It appears from her examination-in-chief that
she was informed about the occurrence by PW-4 and PW-7,
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.780 of 2018 dt.24-04-2026
9/19
thereafter she went to the place of occurrence, where she found
the deceased lying on the ground. He was lifted from the place
of occurrence to the shop of one Banarsi Modi and thereafter,
the deceased husband of the informant was taken to one
Dayanand of Badha Khan by Tempo, where he was declared
dead. It was also deposed by PW-3 that Dilip, Munna Yadav and
Huro Yadav were involved in assaulting the deceased as she was
informed by PW-7 (informant/wife of the deceased).
23.1. Upon cross-examination, she stated that she
deposed before the court on the direction of PW-4, who is son of
the informant and further categorically stated that the
occurrence did not take place before her. She did not saw any
accused/appellants assaulting the deceased or involved in
assaulting the deceased.
24. PW-4 is Pravesh Kumar Yadav. He is son of the
deceased. He supported the date and time of the occurrence. It
was deposed by him that when his father got late in returning,
he went in search of his father along with his mother (PW-7)
and as they reached near the house of one Prayag Thakur of
Nauwa Tola, they saw that Munna Yadav (appellant no.1), Huro
Yadav and Dilip Yadav (appellant no. 2) all were assaulting his
father. He deposed that his father was died due to assault by the
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.780 of 2018 dt.24-04-2026
10/19
accused/appellants. It was deposed by him that when he and his
mother raised alarm, the people were assembled at the place of
occurrence. He claimed to identify the accused/appellants in
torch light. He identified both the appellants in dock during the
trial.
24.1. During cross-examination, he stated that his
father had gone home from the market at about 5:00 P.M. It was
also stated that he did not find anyone while searching for his
father. He found his father lying on the road. His father was
dead by that time. He raised alarm for about half an hours.
Whereafter about 100 persons were gathered over there. It was
stated that though torch was given to police but the milk bucket
was not seized by Daroga. It was stated by him that he made
statement before the police that the appellants killed his father.
He also stated that he identified the appellants in torch light. He
denied the false implication in the background of land dispute as
the land in issue was purchased by the appellant Munna Yadav.
25. PW-5 is Dr. Naushad Ahmad. He was the
Medical Officer, Sadar Hospital, Jamui. He deposed during the
trial that he had examined and conducted post-mortem
examination upon the deceased Jageshwar Yadav. He deposed
that the body of the deceased was brought from Mangobandar
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.780 of 2018 dt.24-04-2026
11/19
accompanied by Chowkidar and others. On examination on the
body of deceased, the following injuries were found, which are
as under:
“2. (i) An abrasion 1” x 1” on left side of fore-head.
(ii) An abrasion 2” x 1½” on anterior chest wall.
(iii) An abrasion 1/2” x 1/2” on nose.
(iv) An abrasion 1/2” x 1/2” on right malear eminence.
(v) A diffused swelling on occipital region.
(vi) A bruise 1” x 1” on left scapular region.
3. On dissection of skull – a hoehistoma found between
pericranium and meanings on occipital region.
4. Chest – N.A.D.
5. Abdomen – Stomach contained semi digested food with
smell of alcohol.
6. All above injuries were ante-mortem, caused by hard and
blunt substance.
7. Cause of death – due to injury no. 5.
8. Time elapsed since death – within 24 hrs.
9. This post-mortem report is in my pen & signature.”
25.1. Upon cross-examination, the doctor (PW-5)
deposed that aforesaid injuries are possible upon falling on the
hard road after consuming alcohol. It is also stated by the doctor
that abrasion may be possible by fall.
26. PW-6 is Badri Yadav. He is not the eye witness of
the occurrence. He came to know about the occurrence only
from someone else. He is Samdhi of the deceased. It is stated by
him that fardbeyan of PW-7 was recorded by police, which was
signed by him and also stated that PW-7 put her thumb
impression and upon his identification, his signature was
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.780 of 2018 dt.24-04-2026
12/19
exhibited as Exhibit – ‘4’. He denied that the deceased died
under influence of liquor. He stated in clear terms that
occurrence did not took place before him.
27. Now, the most important witness of the crime in
question is PW-7, who is the informant of this case and wife of
the deceased. She deposed in her examination-in-chief that it
was about 8:00 P.M. and her husband went to nearby market to
supply milk to the shop of Vinod Rawat, son of late Brahmdeo
Rawat, which is located in the area of Mangobandar, upon
getting late, she went to search her husband and when she
reached near to the house of one Prayag Thakur, she found that
Dilip Yadav, Munna Yadav and Huro Yadav were engaged in
assaulting her husband by using bricks and stone chips. Neck of
her husband was also tied by Gamchha. It was stated that she
raised alarm after arriving over there and found her husband
dead, she deposed that appellant fled away from there. She
brought her husband to the house of her Gotni Janakwa Devi
(PW-3). She identified the accused/appellants in dock.
27.1. Upon cross-examination, she stated before police
regarding land dispute. It was also stated that her husband went
to the shop of Vinod Rawat for supplying the milk. It was also
stated by her that the shop of Vinod Rawat was at a distance of
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.780 of 2018 dt.24-04-2026
13/19
500 Yards from house. She was living with her husband since
last 20 years and had never visited Mangobandar. The milk was
taken by her husband in a bucket which was made of steel
having maximum capacity of 5 Kgs. It was stated by her that it
was a dark night and she came with a torch. It was stated that by
the time when she reached at the place of occurrence her
husband was died. She deposed that she saw the brick and
stones. It was also seen by the police. She further stated that
blood was not found at the place where her husband was lying
to the ground. She loosed her sense after seeing the dead body
of her husband, but she immediately returned to herself. It was
also stated that she informed the police through her parental
village. She denied that her husband was not consuming liquor
on that day. She also stated that at that time, road was under
construction and brick plates and stones were stored beside the
road. She denied that her husband fell on the stones and brick
plates in drunken condition and due to said accident he received
injury and died. She denied the false implication due to land
dispute.
28. Upon close scrutiny of testimony of PW-3, PW-4
and PW-7 (informant), it appears that they are the relatives and
family members of the deceased. PW-3 is the gotni of PW-7
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.780 of 2018 dt.24-04-2026
14/19
(informant), whereas PW-4 is the son and PW-7 is the wife of
the deceased. It appears from the testimony of PW-7 what she
deposed through examination-in-chief that the dead body of her
husband was brought by her to the house of PW-3 from the
place of occurrence. Whereas, PW-3 not supported this fact
rather deposed that the dead body was taken to one Dayanand of
village Badha Khan on Tempo on the direction of one Banarsi
Modi. PW-3 was told by PW-4 & PW-7 that the deceased was
assaulted by the accused/appellants and on said information she
went to the place of occurrence and found the husband of PW-7
dead there.
29. PW-7, neither through her fardbeyan nor through
her testimony disclosed that she was accompanied by PW-4,
whereas PW-4, who is the son of the deceased, categorically
deposed that he went to the place of occurrence with her mother
(PW-7) and found the accused/appellants assaulting his father. If
the testimony of PW-7 be taken into consideration the presence
of PW-4 claiming the eye witnesses of the occurrence appears
doubtful. PW-4 stated that prior to the occurrence his father was
under habit of consuming liquor. He could not met with anyone
during search of his father and found his father lying on the
ground and he was dead.
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.780 of 2018 dt.24-04-2026
15/19
30. Contradicting the testimony of PW-3, PW-7 failed
to depose that her husband was taken to Badha Khan through
Tempo on the advise of one Banarsi Modi, for Dayanand, who
declared him dead. It was also stated by PW-3 in her cross-
examination that by the time when she reached to the place of
occurrence, her husband was fallen on the ground. She also
stated that she had taken torch. PW-4 also stated that his father
was taken to doctor in Badha Khan, who declared him dead. His
mother (PW-7) was accompanied by PW-3. PW-4 categorically
deposed that he went in search of his father along with PW-7,
but said fact was not supported by PW-7 through her
examination in chief. Rather, she stated that she went alone in
search of her husband. She said to collect torch on the way
whereas PW-4 stated that he proceeded with torch from his
home only.
31. From the available medical evidence out of
Exhibit ‘3’ which is the post-mortem report of the deceased, it
appears that he received total of six injuries, where the death
was said to be caused by injury no. 5 (a defused swelling on
occupital region. Four injuries were “abrasions” and one was
“bruise”. The abdomen was also contained with semi digestive
food with smell of alcohol. The doctor also supported that this
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.780 of 2018 dt.24-04-2026
16/19
type of injuries are possible due to fall on the ground like hard
road. The road was said to be made of concrete in terms of
testimony of PW-4 and also stolen bricks were stored beside
place of occurrence in terms of PW-7.
32. Admittedly, the Investigating Officer of this case
was not examined. The factum of land dispute is also not
convincing for the reason that it was already purchased by
Munna Yadav (appellant no. 1) from one Rajendra Mandal,
which was intended to be purchased by the deceased, therefore,
the land dispute between the parties are not convincing which
said to be main motive behind the occurrence. The land in issue
was sold to Munna Yadav on 06.03.2010 as per sale deed, which
is exhibited as Exhibit ‘A’, whereas the occurrence took place
on 07.02.2011, which appears remotely connected with the
crime in question. Torch which was said to be source of
identification of appellant was not seized by the police.
33. It would be apposite to refer para No. 13 of the
legal report of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of
Punimati and Another (supra), which reads as under:-
“13. It is a well-settled law that merely because the witness
is an interested or related witness, his/her deposition cannot
be discarded. Further, deposition of such witnesses is
required to be scrutinized closely. As such, we have closely
scrutinized the deposition given by PW-4, who is the
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.780 of 2018 dt.24-04-2026
17/19
mother of the deceased. As observed hereinabove, there are
material contradictions in her deposition regarding the
manner in which the incident took place and with regard to
which the information about the incident was given by her
granddaughter.”
34. It would be apposite to reproduce para 38, 39 &
40 of Munna Lal’s case (supra), which reads hereunder for
ready reference: -
“38. First, statement of PW-3 under section 161, Cr. P.C. was
recorded nearly 24 days after the incident. Since the
Investigating Officer did not enter the witness box, the
appellants did not have the occasion to cross-examine him and
thereby elicit the reason for such delay. Consequently, the
delay in recording the statement of PW-3 in course of
investigation, is not referred to and, therefore, remains
unjustified. The possibility of PW-3, being fixed up as an eye-
witness later during the process of investigation, cannot be
totally ruled out.
39. Secondly, though PW-4 is said to have reached the place of
occurrence at 1.30 p.m. on 5 th September, 1985 and recovered
a bullet in the blood oozing out from the injury at the hip of
the dead body, no effort worthy of consideration appears to
have been made to seize the weapons by which the murderous
attack was launched. It is true that mere failure/neglect to
effect seizure of the weapon(s) cannot be the sole reason for
discarding the prosecution case but the same assumes
importance on the face of the oral testimony of the so-called
eyewitnesses, i.e., PW-2 and PW-3, not being found by this
Court to be wholly reliable. The missing links could have been
provided by the Investigating Officer who, again, did not enter
the witness box. Whether or not non-examination of a witness
has caused prejudice to the defence is essentially a question of
fact and an inference is required to be drawn having regard to
the facts and circumstances obtaining in each case. The reason
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.780 of 2018 dt.24-04-2026
18/19
why the Investigating Officer could not depose as a witness, as
told by PW-4, is that he had been sent for training. It was not
shown that the Investigating Officer under no circumstances
could have left the course for recording of his deposition in the
trial court. It is worthy of being noted that neither the trial
court nor the High Court considered the issue of non-
examination of the Investigating Officer. In the facts of the
present case, particularly conspicuous gaps in the prosecution
case and the evidence of PW-2 and PW-3 not being wholly
reliable, this Court holds the present case as one where
examination of the Investigating Officer was vital since he
could have adduced the expected evidence. His non-
examination creates a material lacuna in the effort of the
prosecution to nail the appellants, thereby creating reasonable
doubt in the prosecution case.
40. In the facts of the present case, particularly conspicuous
gaps in the prosecution case and the evidence of PW 2 and PW
3 not being wholly reliable, this Court holds the present case
as one where examination of the investigating officer was vital
since he could have adduced the expected evidence. His non-
examination creates a material lacuna in the effort of the
prosecution to nail the appellants, thereby creating reasonable
doubt in the prosecution case.”
35. In view of aforesaid, we are of the considered view
that testimony of PW-4 & PW-7 being interested witness not
appears wholly reliable. They are immediate family members of
the deceased. Their depositions are full of contradiction creating
a doubt qua their presence near to the place of occurrence, and
also their claim as an eye witness to the occurrence.
36. Accordingly, both above-named appellants are
acquitted from the charges levelled against them, by giving
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.780 of 2018 dt.24-04-2026
19/19
benefit of doubt.
37. Hence, appeal stands allowed.
38. Accordingly, impugned judgment of conviction
dated 4th June, 2018 and order of sentence dated 12.06.2018,
passed by learned A.D.J., F.T.C.- 1st, Jamui in S. Tr. No.
278/2011 arising out of G.R. No. 169/2011 arising out of Khaira
P.S. Case No. 17 of 2011 is hereby set aside.
39. Appellants namely, Munna Yadav and Dilip Yadav
are in custody in connection with this case, they are directed to
be released forthwith, if not required in any other case. Fine if
any paid, be returned to appellants forthwith.
40. Office is directed to send back the trial court
records along with a copy of this judgment to the trial court,
without delay.
(Chandra Shekhar Jha, J.)
Bibek Chaudhuri, J:- I agree
Rajeev/- (Bibek Chaudhuri, J.)
AFR/NAFR AFR
CAV DATE 15.04.2026
Uploading Date 24.04.2026
Transmission Date 24.04.2026
Checking your session…