Patna High Court
Daso KewatversusThe State Of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- ALLOWED
Holding
The conviction under Sections 302/34 IPC was set aside and the appellants were acquitted as the prosecution failed to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
Summary
The appellants Daso Kewat and Saryug Yadav were convicted for murder under Sections 302/34 IPC based on the testimony of village witnesses who claimed the deceased Suresh Yadav was assaulted with a bhala. The appellants challenged the conviction, arguing that key prosecution evidence was missing: the investigating officer, the treating doctor, and the post‑mortem report were not examined, and the witnesses were largely hearsay with contradictory statements. The High Court examined the credibility of the seven prosecution witnesses, noting that the primary eye‑witness (the brother of the deceased) was contradicted by another villager and that several witnesses had not seen the assault. Citing Supreme Court precedents that a conviction cannot stand when the genesis of the incident is doubtful and material evidence is absent, the Court held that the prosecution failed to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt. Consequently, the convictions and sentences were set aside, the appeals were allowed, and the appellants were acquitted and ordered to be released.
Issues considered
- Whether a conviction under Sections 302/34 IPC can be sustained in the absence of direct eye‑witness testimony and medical evidence.
- Whether the non‑examination of the investigating officer, the treating doctor, and the non‑production of the post‑mortem report create a material lacuna leading to reasonable doubt.
- Whether hearsay statements of village witnesses are sufficient to prove the charge of murder.
- Whether contradictions among prosecution witnesses affect the reliability of the prosecution case.
- Whether procedural irregularities such as delay in filing the FIR and inquest report invalidate the conviction.
Legislation cited
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 313
- Indian Penal Code — s. 302, 34, 382
Subjects
- murder
- culpable homicide not amounting to murder
- life imprisonment
- acquittal
- benefit of doubt
- procedural lapse
- hearsay evidence
- post‑mortem report
- criminal appeal
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL APPEAL (DB) No.802 of 2018
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-47 Year-1993 Thana- HALSI District- Lakhisarai
======================================================
Daso Kewat Son of Late Narayan Kewat, Resident of Village- Siyani, P.S.-
Karandey, District- Sheikhpura.
... ... Appellant/s
Versus
The State Of Bihar
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
with
CRIMINAL APPEAL (DB) No. 822 of 2018
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-47 Year-1993 Thana- HALSI District- Lakhisarai
======================================================
Saryug Yadav Son of Narayan Yadav, Resident of Village- Ballopr, Police
Station- Halsi, District- Lakhisarai.
... ... Appellant/s
Versus
The State Of Bihar
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
(In CRIMINAL APPEAL (DB) No. 802 of 2018)
For the Appellant/s : Mr.Arun Kumar, Advocate
For the Respondent/s : Ms.Shashi Bala Verma, APP
(In CRIMINAL APPEAL (DB) No. 822 of 2018)
For the Appellant/s : Ms. Eashita Raj, Advocate
For the Respondent/s : Mr.Sri Satya Narayan Prasad, APP
======================================================
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.802 of 2018 dt. 18-03-2026
2/20
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BIBEK CHAUDHURI
and
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DR. ANSHUMAN
C.A.V. JUDGMENT
(Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DR. ANSHUMAN)
Date : 18-03-2026
The aforementioned appeals have been filed
challenging the judgment of conviction dated 16.05.2018 and
the order of sentence dated 22.05.2018 passed by the learned
ADJ-cum- Fast Tract Court No.I, Lakhisarai in Sessions Trial
No. 436 of 1996 arising out of Halsi P.S. Case No. 47 of 1993
whereby all the accused mentioned above were convicted under
Sections 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to
undergo rigorous imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.
5000/- (five thousand) each; and in default of payment of fine,
all the convicts were directed to further undergo rigorous
imprisonment for two months.
2. The prosecution story, as narrated in the fardbeyan
of the informant, Karyanand Yadav, dated 03.06.1993, is that on
30.05.1993, at about 10:30 PM, while he was sleeping at his
doorstep, he heard a commotion with cries of “Chor Chor”
coming from the side of the boring belonging to his bagina
(nephew), Suresh Yadav. Upon hearing the alarm, he, along
with Rameshwar Yadav, Bharat Yadav, Bannu Yadav, and other
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.802 of 2018 dt. 18-03-2026
3/20
villagers, proceeded to the boring, which was situated in the
field of Suresh Yadav. There, they found Suresh Yadav lying
injured, with blood oozing from his stomach. Umesh Yadav was
tying a cloth around his injured stomach. Upon being asked,
Umesh Yadav informed him that he was going to the boring to
deliver food to Suresh Yadav when, in the meantime, 5–6
accused persons, armed with lathis and bhalas, arrived at the
boring. On noticing them, Umesh Yadav called out to Suresh
Yadav, saying “Bhaiya-Bhaiya,” asking who was present there.
As soon as Suresh Yadav woke up, the accused persons began
assaulting him. When Suresh Yadav attempted to flee towards
the north, he was assaulted in the stomach with a bhala by
accused Daso Kebat (appellant in Crl. App (DB) 802 of 2018).
The other identified accused were Saryug Yadav, Bhushan
Yadav, Sunil Yadav, and Sahdeo Yadav, who were armed with
bhalas and lathis, and who also participated in the assault upon
Suresh Yadav. The injured Suresh Yadav stated to the informant
that he was first assaulted with a bhala by Daso Kebat, and
thereafter by accused Saryug Yadav (appellant in Criminal
Appeal (DB) No. 822 of 2018), who also struck him in the
stomach with a bhala. Suresh Yadav further stated that all the
accused persons had come with the intention of committing
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.802 of 2018 dt. 18-03-2026
4/20
theft of the boring machine. Thereafter, Umesh Yadav, the
informant, and other villagers carried the injured Suresh Yadav,
who was in an unconscious state, to Sikandra Government
Hospital. However, the doctors there refused to provide
treatment. He was then taken to Mokama Hospital, where the
doctors were reportedly on leave. Subsequently, Suresh Yadav
was brought to Patna, where he was admitted to N.M.C.H.,
Patna, for treatment. During the course of treatment, he
succumbed to his injuries on Monday. The fardbeyan of the
informant, Karyanand Yadav, was recorded on 03.06.1993 at
03:00 PM by S.I. B. Ram of Halsi P.S.
3. On the basis of the fardbeyan of the informant,
Halsi P.S. Case No. 47/93 was registered under Sections 382
and 302/34 of the I.P.C. against all the named accused persons.
Upon completion of the investigation, the Investigating Officer
submitted a charge-sheet against six accused persons named in
the F.I.R., including the appellant in the present matters.
Consequently, cognizance was taken on 04.05.1996, and the
case was committed to the Court of Sessions on 07.06.1996.
Thereafter, charges were framed on 22.02.2000 against the
accused persons under Sections 302/34 and 382 of the I.P.C.
Upon denial of the charges by the accused persons, the trial
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.802 of 2018 dt. 18-03-2026
5/20
proceeded. However, during the pendency of the trial, one of
the accused, namely Sahdeo Yadav, died. Accordingly, only the
remaining five accused persons faced the trial. The prosecution
evidence was closed on 13.06.2017.
4. On 13.06.2017, the statements of the accused
persons were recorded under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C.,
wherein they denied the prosecution allegations in toto and
claimed themselves to be innocent.
5. In order to prove its case, the prosecution
examined altogether seven witnesses. Among them, P.W.1 is
Karyanand Yadav (informant), P.W.2 Bharat Yadav, P.W.3
Madan Yadav, P.W.4 Umesh Yadav, P.W.5 Jagdish Yadav, P.W.6
Bouni Yadav, and P.W.7 Ramsnehi Pandit.
The following documentary evidence has been
adduced on behalf of the prosecution:
Ext. 1 – Signature of the informant on the
fardbeyan;
Ext. 2 – Carbon copy of the inquest report of the
deceased, Suresh Yadav;
Ext. 3 – Formal F.I.R.
6. During examination-in-chief, P.W.1, Karyanand
Yadav (informant), deposed that he is the informant of the case.
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.802 of 2018 dt. 18-03-2026
6/20
He stated that upon hearing the ‘hulla’, he proceeded to the
boring of Suresh Yadav along with others and found Suresh
Yadav lying injured, with blood oozing from his stomach. He
further stated that Umesh Yadav informed him that he had gone
to the boring to deliver food to Suresh Yadav and saw 5–6
accused persons present there, who were attempting to detach
the boring machine. The accused persons were armed with
bhalas and lathis. Umesh Yadav raised an alarm by shouting
“Kaun aaya, Kaun aaya,” upon which Suresh Yadav woke up.
Thereafter, the accused persons chased Suresh Yadav with the
intention to assault him, and while he was fleeing towards the
northern side, he was assaulted with a bhala by Daso Kebat and
Saryu Yadav. He was also assaulted with lathis by Bhushan
Yadav, Sunil Yadav, and Sahdeo Yadav. The witness further
stated that Umesh Yadav told him that Suresh Yadav had
sustained a bhala injury on his stomach. He also deposed that
the injured Suresh Yadav disclosed the names of the accused
persons who had assaulted him with the bhala. He stated that
Suresh Yadav was taken to Sikandra Hospital by the informant
and other villagers, where the doctor referred him to Patna for
further treatment. Thereafter, the injured was taken to Mokama
Hospital, but as the doctors were not available and were
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.802 of 2018 dt. 18-03-2026
7/20
reportedly on leave, he was taken to N.M.C.H., Patna, where he
subsequently died. The witness stated that his fardbeyan was
recorded on 03.06.1993, and his signature on the fardbeyan was
marked as Ext. 1.
During cross-examination, the witness stated that he
did not accompany Suresh Yadav and Umesh Yadav to Patna
for treatment and, therefore, could not say with certainty at
which hospital Suresh Yadav was treated.
7. During examination-in-chief, P.W.2, Bharat Yadav,
deposed that the occurrence took place about seven years prior
at approximately 10:30 PM, while he was sleeping at his
doorstep. Upon hearing a commotion from the side of the
boring of Suresh Yadav, he woke up and proceeded there along
with others. He stated that Suresh Yadav told him that Daso
Kebat had assaulted him with a bhala on his stomach. He saw
Suresh Yadav lying injured, with blood oozing from his
stomach. He further stated that the injured was taken to
Sikandra Hospital, then to Mokama Hospital, and thereafter to
N.M.C.H., Patna, where he died during the course of treatment.
8. P.W.3, Madan Yadav, deposed that the occurrence
took place on 30.05.1993 at about 10:30 PM. He stated that
while he was at his house, he heard cries of “Chor Chor” and
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.802 of 2018 dt. 18-03-2026
8/20
went to the boring of Suresh Yadav along with others. He saw
Suresh Yadav lying injured with a bhala injury on his stomach.
He further stated that, in the moonlight, he saw Daso Kebat,
Saryug Yadav, Bhushan Yadav, Sahdeo Yadav, and Arjun Yadav
fleeing away from the place of occurrence. He deposed that
Suresh Yadav told him that Daso Kebat had assaulted him with
a bhala on his stomach and that the remaining accused persons
had also assaulted him with lathis and bhalas. Suresh Yadav
also stated that the accused persons had come there with the
intention of committing theft of the boring machine.
During cross-examination, the witness stated that he
had merely seen the injured Suresh Yadav lying at the place of
occurrence. He further admitted that he did not witness the
assault upon Suresh Yadav with his own eyes.
9. P.W.4, Umesh Yadav, deposed that the occurrence
took place on 30.05.1993 at about 10:30 PM. He stated that he
had gone to the boring to deliver food to Suresh Yadav and saw
accused Daso Kebat, Bhushan Yadav, Saryu Yadav, Sunil
Yadav, Sahdeo Yadav, and Arjun Yadav present there with the
intention of committing theft of the boring. He further stated
that he raised an alarm by shouting “Chor Chor,” upon which
Suresh Yadav woke up. Thereafter, accused Daso Kebat
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.802 of 2018 dt. 18-03-2026
9/20
assaulted Suresh Yadav with a bhala on his stomach, followed
by accused Saryug Yadav, who also assaulted him with a bhala.
He further stated that the other accused persons assaulted
Suresh Yadav with a paina. He deposed that he tied the stomach
of Suresh Yadav with a gamcha. The injured was first taken to
Sikandra Hospital, then to Mokama Hospital, and finally to
Patna, where he died during the course of treatment.
During cross-examination, the witness stated that he
had accompanied Suresh Yadav to Patna for treatment and that
Suresh Yadav died there during treatment. He denied the
suggestion that his fardbeyan was recorded at N.M.C.H., Patna,
by the Alamganj Police.
10. P.W.5, Jagdish Yadav, deposed that the occurrence
took place about seven years prior at approximately 10:30 PM.
He stated that upon hearing the commotion, he went to the
boring of Suresh Yadav along with others and saw Suresh
Yadav lying injured, with blood oozing from his stomach.
During cross-examination, the witness stated that
Umesh Yadav arrived at the place of occurrence about five
minutes after his arrival.
11. P.W.6, Bonnu Yadav, the brother-in-law (sadhu)
of the deceased, deposed that the deceased was taken to Patna
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.802 of 2018 dt. 18-03-2026
10/20
for treatment and never regained consciousness.
12. P.W.7, Ram Sanehi Pandit, formally proved the
formal F.I.R. Initially marked as Ext. 1, upon correction it was
renumbered and marked as Ext. 3.
13. On the other hand, defence has produced neither
oral evidence nor documentary evidence.
14. After closure of the evidence, the Trial Court
examined the accused under Section 313 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure and put to him specific questions relating to
the commission of the offence.
15. The Trial Court, upon considering the entire
oral and documentary evidence, found that the charges levelled
against the accused has been proved beyond all reasonable
doubts. Accordingly, the appellant was convicted under Section
302/34 of the Indian Penal Code.
16. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the
judgment of conviction dated 16.05.2018 and the order of
sentence dated 22.05.2018, the appellants have preferred the
present criminal appeal.
17. Heard learned counsel for the appellant and
learned APP for the State in both the appeals.
18. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that,
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.802 of 2018 dt. 18-03-2026
11/20
from perusal of the FIR, it is apparent that the date of
occurrence is 30.05.1993, the FIR was lodged on 03.06.1993,
and it was forwarded to the concerned Judicial Magistrate on
05.06.1993. It is further submitted that neither the Investigating
Officer nor the Doctor has been examined in the present case,
and the post-mortem report has also not been brought on record.
Out of the seven prosecution witnesses examined, PW-1 is the
informant. From the statement made in the fardbeyan, it
becomes clear that PW-1 is only a hearsay witness. PW-2, a co-
villager, is also a hearsay witness who has stated that upon
hearing halla, he went to the place of occurrence. PW-3,
another co-villager, similarly reached the place of occurrence
after hearing the alarm and is, therefore, also a hearsay witness.
Learned counsel further submits that PW-4, the alleged eye-
witness and brother of the deceased, has made statements which
are in complete contradiction to the evidence of PW-5. PW-4
has stated that he saw the appellants assaulting the deceased
with a bhala, whereas PW-5 has categorically stated that he
reached the place of occurrence first and that PW-4 (the brother
of the deceased) arrived there after about 10 minutes. PW-5 has
further deposed in his cross-examination that there was an
ongoing dispute in the village between the deceased and one
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.802 of 2018 dt. 18-03-2026
12/20
Saryug Sah; however, the said Saryug Sah has not been made
an accused in the present case. It is also submitted that the FIR
has been exhibited through a formal witness and not through
the Investigating Officer. Learned counsel further submits that
although the FIR was lodged on 03.06.1993, the inquest report
was prepared on 31.05.1993, which, according to the
appellants, falsifies the prosecution case. PW-6, a relative of the
deceased, never reached the place of occurrence and instead
accompanied the injured to Patna. It is also contended that the
examination of the accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C. is
defective. In the absence of the examination of the Investigating
Officer and the doctor, and in the absence of the post-mortem
report and medical evidence regarding the injuries, the entire
prosecution case collapses. The prosecution, therefore, has
failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt.
19. Learned APP for the State, on the other hand,
submits that there is a specific allegation in the FIR that the
appellant in Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 802 of 2018, Daso
Kewat, inflicted the first bhala blow and the appellant in
Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 822 of 2018, Saryug Yadav, inflicted
the second bhala blow, while the other accused assaulted the
deceased with lathis. Thereafter, all the accused allegedly went
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.802 of 2018 dt. 18-03-2026
13/20
to the boring of the deceased with an intention to commit theft
of the engine of the boring machine. It is further submitted that
the eye-witness in the case is PW-4, the brother of the deceased,
who has categorically stated that when his brother went to his
boring, he saw the present appellants and others there with the
intention of committing theft. Upon PW-4 raising alarm,
appellant Daso Kewat assaulted the deceased with a bhala and
Saryug Yadav also inflicted a bhala blow. PW-4 has further
stated that in the moonlight (chandani raat), he was able to
identify all the accused persons and has also identified them in
the witness box. Learned APP fairly concedes that it is true that
the Investigating Officer and the doctor have not been
examined and the post-mortem report is not on record, but
submits that the death of the deceased is not in dispute and
there is a direct and specific allegation made by PW-4 against
the present appellants. Therefore, no interference is warranted
with the judgment and order of conviction passed by the
learned trial court, and both the appeals are liable to be
dismissed.
20. Upon hearing the parties and perusal of the
record, it transpires that seven prosecution witnesses have been
examined. PW-1 is a co-villager of the deceased. From the
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.802 of 2018 dt. 18-03-2026
14/20
contents of the FIR and his deposition, it appears that he
reached the place of occurrence after hearing halla and found
the deceased in an injured condition, with his brother Umesh
Yadav tying a gamcha around his stomach. It was Umesh Yadav
who informed him that the present appellants and others had
assaulted the deceased with a bhala. The informant has also
stated that Suresh Yadav disclosed that one bhala blow was
inflicted by Daso Kewat and another by Saryug Yadav.
However, in cross-examination, PW-1 admitted that at the time
of occurrence he was not present at the place of occurrence and
was about half a kilometer away. Thus, he is not an eye-witness
but a hearsay witness. He has also not proved the fardbeyan.
PW-2, another co-villager, has not identified any specific
assailant. He stated that he received information regarding the
assault from Umesh Yadav. He further deposed that the inquest
report was prepared in his presence and that his signature
appears on the inquest report (Exhibit-II). The inquest report
shows that it was prepared on 31.05.1993 at 14:00 hours in the
Emergency Room of NMCH, Patna. However, the FIR was
lodged on 03.06.1993. It is surprising that the inquest report
was prepared on 31.05.1993 whereas the FIR was lodged
subsequently on 03.06.1993. The inquest report was prepared
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.802 of 2018 dt. 18-03-2026
15/20
by the Sub-Inspector of Alamganj Police Station, Patna,
whereas the fardbeyan was recorded at Halsi Thana, District
Lakhisarai. This indicates that the prosecution has failed to
produce the FIR, if any, on the basis of which Alamganj Police
Station conducted the inquest. The delay in lodging the FIR has
also not been explained either in the FIR or in the deposition of
the informant. Thus, PW-1 and PW-2 appear to be hearsay
witnesses. PW-3, also a co-villager, reached the place of
occurrence after hearing the alarm and stated in cross-
examination that he saw the deceased in an injured condition
but did not see any of the accused persons there, as they had
already fled. Hence, PW-3 also does not support the prosecution
case as an eye-witness. PW-4, the alleged eye-witness and
brother of the deceased, has identified all the accused persons
and stated in his examination-in-chief that the present
appellants assaulted the deceased with a bhala. However, PW-
5, another co-villager, deposed that he reached the place of
occurrence first and stated in cross-examination that PW-4
arrived there after about 10 minutes. PW-5 also stated that on
the same day there was a dispute between the deceased and one
Saryug Sah regarding a loan, but Saryug Sah has not been made
an accused in this case. A conjoint reading of the evidence of
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.802 of 2018 dt. 18-03-2026
16/20
PW-4 and PW-5 reveals sharp contradictions. The prosecution
has not declared PW-5 hostile; therefore, his evidence remains
on record and must be considered. PW-6, a relative of the
deceased, has merely stated that Umesh Yadav is his brother-in-
law (sadhu) and that he accompanied the injured to Patna. PW-7
is an advocate’s clerk through whom the FIR has been marked
as Exhibit-1.
21. It is indeed an unfortunate situation that the
prosecution has failed to examine the Investigating Officer as
well as the doctor, which is a serious lapse in the present
appeal. The post-mortem report has also not been exhibited.
Furthermore, the person who recorded the fardbeyan has not
been examined. These are not minor irregularities but
substantial lacunae in the prosecution case.
22. In Pankaj v. State of Rajasthan, reported in
(2016) 16 SCC 192, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that
when the genesis and manner of the incident itself are
doubtful, conviction cannot be sustained. The Hon'ble
Supreme Court in paragraph no. 25 of the aforesaid judgement
has held as under:
“25. It is a well-settled
principle of law that when the genesis
and the manner of the incident is
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.802 of 2018 dt. 18-03-2026
17/20
doubtful, the accused cannot be
convicted. Inasmuch as the prosecution
has failed to establish the circumstances
in which the appellant was alleged to
have fired at the deceased, the entire
story deserves to be rejected. When the
evidence produced by the prosecution has
neither quality nor credibility, it would be
unsafe to rest conviction upon such
evidence. After having considered the
matter thoughtfully, we find that the
evidence on record in the case is not
sufficient to bring home the guilt of the
appellant. In such circumstances, the
appellant is entitled to the benefit of
doubt.”
Here in the present case, in the absence of the
testimony of the Investigating Officer, the defence has been
deprived of the opportunity to confront the prosecution with
contradictions and omissions in the statements of witnesses
recorded. Similarly, non-examination of the doctor and non-
production of the post-mortem report deprive the Court of
reliable medical evidence regarding the nature of injuries, cause
of death, and the manner in which the injuries were inflicted.
These lapses are not mere procedural irregularities but go to the
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.802 of 2018 dt. 18-03-2026
18/20
root of the matter. Further, the contradictions in the statements
of the prosecution witnesses, coupled with the absence of
medical and investigative evidence, substantially weaken the
prosecution case. Taken together, these deficiencies create
serious doubt about the prosecution version and render it unsafe
to sustain the conviction solely on such infirm evidence.
23. In Munna Lal v. State of U.P., reported in
(2023) 18 SCC 661, the Hon’ble Supreme Court ruled that the
failure to seize the weapon of offence dents the prosecution
story, leading to the benefit of doubt for the accused. The
relevant paragraph of the judgment is reproduced below:
“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.”
In the present case, the non-examination of the
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.802 of 2018 dt. 18-03-2026
19/20
Investigating Officer as well as the doctor, coupled with the
non-exhibition of the post-mortem report, creates a material
lacuna in the prosecution case. These omissions strike at the
very root of the prosecution story and significantly impair its
ability to establish the manner of occurrence, the cause of
death, and the nexus between the alleged acts of the appellants
and the injuries sustained by the deceased. Such deficiencies do
not merely amount to procedural irregularities but go to the
core of the matter, thereby seriously prejudicing the case of the
prosecution.
24. Hence, in light of the discussions made
hereinabove and upon applying the principles laid down by the
Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the decisions referred to
earlier, we are of the considered and firm view that the
prosecution has failed to prove the guilt of the appellants
beyond all reasonable doubt. Accordingly, the appellants are
entitled to the benefit of doubt.
25. In result, the judgment of conviction dated
16.05.2018 and the order of sentence dated 22.05.2018 passed
by the learned ADJ-cum- Fast Tract Court No.I, Lakhisarai in
Sessions Trial No. 436 of 1996 arising out of Halsi P.S. Case
No. 47 of 1993, are perverse and are hereby set aside.
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.802 of 2018 dt. 18-03-2026
20/20
26. In result, the appeals above-mentioned are
hereby allowed.
27. The appellants are acquitted of all charges.
28. The appellants shall be released forthwith, if
their presence is not required in any other case.
(Dr. Anshuman, J)
Bibek Chaudhuri, J : I agree.
Ashwini/-
( Bibek Chaudhuri, J)
AFR/NAFR
CAV DATE 25.02.2026
Uploading Date 19/03/2026
Transmission Date 19/03/2026
Checking your session…