Patna High Court
Parmila Jha And Anr vs The State Of Bihar on 23 February, 2026
Author: Chandra Shekhar Jha
Bench: Chandra Shekhar Jha
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL APPEAL (SJ) No.443 of 2019
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-67 Year-2004 Thana- BISFI District- Madhubani
======================================================
1. PARMILA JHA , Wife of Lal Jha, Resident of Village - Chahuta, P.S. Bisfi,
District- Madhubani.
2. Tannu Jha, Daughter of Lal Jha, resident of Village - Chahuta, P.S. Bisfi,
District- Madhubani.
... ... Appellants
Versus
The State of Bihar. ... ... Respondent
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Appellant/s : Mr. Manoj Kumar Jha, Advocate
Mr.Gopal Jha, Advocate
Mr. Shreepal Jha, Advocate
For the Respondent/s : Ms. Anita Kumari Singh, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE CHANDRA SHEKHAR JHA
ORAL JUDGMENT
Date : 18-02-2026
At the outset, it is submitted that appellant no. 1 has
died during pendency of present appeal and, therefore, the
present appeal stands abated against her.
2. Now this appeal survives only against appellant no.
2, namely, Tannu Jha.
3. The present appeal preferred under section 374(2)
of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short the
"Cr.P.C.") by appellant/convict against judgment of
conviction and order of sentence dated 03.01.2010 and
08.01.2019
passed by the Presiding Officer, Fast Track Court
No-II, Madhubani in Sessions Trial No. 334 of 2005/105 of
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.443 of 2019 dt.18-02-2026
2/22
2018, arising out of Bisfi P.S. Case No.67 of 2004,
corresponding to G.R. No. 823 of 2004, whereby and
whereunder appellant/convict has been convicted for the
offences punishable under Section 304(B)/34 of the Indian
Penal Code and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment
for seven (7) years.
4. The brief case of prosecution, as it appears from the
fardbeyan of the informant/PW-10 namely, Amrendra Jha @
Pappu Jha, is that marriage of his sister solemnized with
Chandan Jha of Village Chahuta on 28.04.2003. At the time
of marriage, gift was given by his father according to his
financial capacity. After the Bidagiri ceremony, the deceased
accompanied her husband to Calcutta. It is alleged that while
residing at Calcutta, the accused persons subjected the
deceased to cruelty and harassment in connection with
additional dowry demands. Subsequently, a Panchayati was
convened in order to resolve the dispute and to persuade the
husband and his family members. Thereafter, the father-in-
law is stated to have performed the Bidagiri ceremony and
taken the deceased back, leaving her at Village Chahuta in the
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.443 of 2019 dt.18-02-2026
3/22
company of her grandmother-in-law. In the meantime, the
Nanad (sister-in-law), mother-in-law and father-in-law of the
deceased allegedly demanded a sum of Rs. 50,000/-, along
with a refrigerator and a motorcycle, as additional dowry,
stating that only upon fulfillment of the said demand, they
would take the deceased back to her matrimonial home. It is
further alleged that when the mother-in-law and Nanad of the
deceased came to Village Chahuta, the informant (PW-10)
was intimated by his maternal uncle (PW-1) that they had
called him for talks. Accordingly, on 13.06.2004 at about
7:00 P.M., the informant reached Village Chahuta, where the
deceased disclosed to him that if aforesaid demands were not
fulfilled, she would be done to death. The informant returned
to his village the following morning. On the same day, at
about 1:30 P.M., he received information from his maternal
uncle (PW-1) that Parmila Jha and Tannu Jha had killed his
sister by setting her on fire. Upon receipt of the said
information, the informant proceeded to Village Chahuta
alongwith his friend and found the dead body of his sister
lying in the northern room of the house.
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.443 of 2019 dt.18-02-2026
4/22
5. On the basis of aforesaid fard-e-beyan of the
informant, Police drawn First Information Report and
registered Bisfi P.S. Case No. 67 of 2004 on 14. 06. 2004
under section 304(B), 34 of I.P.C. against accused persons.
6. Police recorded statement of informant under
section 164 of Cr. P. C, and after concluding investigation,
submitted Charge Sheet in two sets finding the occurrence
true against all the four accused persons on the basis of which
cognizance was taken by the learned C.J.M., Madhubani on
21.08.2004, whereafter vide order dated 30.05.2005, the
case was committed to the court of Session after
amalgamation of the two records with respect to all the four
accused persons vide order dated 25.08.2005 passed by the
learned C.J.M. Madhubani.
7. After commitment the charge was explained to
accused/appellant for offences under sections 304 (B), 34 of
I.P.C., which was denied and trial was claimed.
8. To established its case before the learned trial
court, the prosecution altogether examined total of twelve
witnesses, namely, PW-1 Bhagyan Narayan Chaudhary, PW-
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.443 of 2019 dt.18-02-2026
5/22
2 Manoj Kumar Jha, PW-3 Pan Devi, PW-4 Mahavir Jha,
PW-5 Jagtarni Devi, PW-6 Sudhir Kumar Jha, PW-7 Vidya
Nand Jha, PW-8- Santosh Kumar Jha, PW-9 Jagdish
Choudhary (Doctor), PW-10 Amrendra Kumar @ Pappu
(Informant), PW-11 Md. Shoaib Khan, PW-12 Ashok
Kumar Jha.
9. The prosecution also exhibited following documents
during the trial to substantiate its case which are as:-
Exhibit-1 – Signature of Sujeet Kumar on
fardbeyan dated 14.06.2004
Exhibit-2- Seizure List
Exhibit-3- Postmortem report
Exhibit-4-Entire fardbeyan of case no. 334/05
Exhibit-5- Signature on Formal FIR.
Exhibit-1/1- Written fardbeyan
Exhibit-1/2 Registration on fardbeyan
Exhibit-1/3 Whole fardbeyan
Exhibit-6- Inquest report
Material Exhibit-1- five liters of gallon of
kirosene, matchbox, golden mangalsutra.
Exhibit-7 Charge-sheet no. 50/04
Exhibit-8- Supplementary charge-sheet no.
55/05.
10. After examination of the prosecution witnesses
and by taking note of evidences and incriminating
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.443 of 2019 dt.18-02-2026
6/22
circumstances as surfaced during the trial, the statement of
appellant/accused person were recorded under Section 313 of
the Cr.P.C., which was denied in totality by showing complete
innocence.
11. Total of two defence witnesses were examined
on behalf of accused/appellant during the trial.
12. The defence also exhibited following documents
during the trial to substantiate its case which are as:-
Exhibit-A Attendance register of Shyam Nagar
Consumer cooperative Store Ltd. Initial signature of
accused Lal Jha for the month of June 2004.
Exhibit- B Initial signature of Lal Jha on receipt of
goods purchasing.
Exhibit-C- Initial signature of Chandakur Jha on
attendance register of MARS Mahajain Security
Service Pvt. Ltd., Patna for the month of June 04.
Exhibit-D- Deposition of P.W. Surma Devi in Cr.
1068/04 T.R. No. 1641/08.
Exhibit-D/1 -e.c. of deposition of PW Shobhit
Choudhary in Cr. 1068/04, T.R. No. 1641/08.
13. On the basis of aforesaid evidences as surfaced
during the trial, the learned trial court convicted the
appellant/convict and passed order of sentences in aforesaid
manner, being aggrieved with, appellant/convict preferred the
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.443 of 2019 dt.18-02-2026
7/22
present appeal.
14. Hence the present appeal.
Argument on behalf of Appellant/Accused
15. Mr. Manoj Kumar Jha, learned counsel appearing
on behalf of the appellant submitted that learned trial court
without establishing the foundational aspects of the case qua
offence punishable under section 304B of the I.P.C., merely
on the basis of presumption as available under section 113(b)
of the Indian Evidence Act recorded the judgment of
conviction qua appellant.
16. It is submitted that from the testimony of none of
the prosecution witnesses, it can be gathered that there was
any demand of dowry on the part of the appellant soon before
the death of sister of the informant (PW-10). It is submitted
that appellant is the married sister-in-law and as she was
present in her paternal home at the time of occurrence and
was with her mother (appellant no.1 against whom
appeal stands abated), she was implicated with the present
case. It is submitted that as per the testimony of witnesses, it
can be safely gathered that at the time of occurrence
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.443 of 2019 dt.18-02-2026
8/22
appellant was not available at her house, rather she was in
the house of neighbour in connection with her bath as no
bathroom facility was available in her parental house. She
also came to the place of occurrence on public alarm.
17. It is further argued by learned counsel that
prosecution witnesses suggests that room in which the
occurrence took place was closed from inside which was
opened by the crowd gathered after the alarm raised by the
grandmother-in-law (not an accused) of the deceased,
suggests prima facie that it is a case of suicide as the victim
was prevented to meet with her paramour Santosh Kumar
Jha, who examined as PW-8 during the trial.
18. It is submitted that PW-8 is the brother-in-law of
PW-10 (the informant0 and he also appears interested
witness. It is submitted that PW-1 and other prosecution
witnesses are interested witnesses being relative of deceased.
19. Arguing further, it is submitted by learned counsel
that with same set of evidence, the husband and father-in-law
of the deceased were acquitted by learned trial court believing
that at the time of occurrence, they were not present at the
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.443 of 2019 dt.18-02-2026
9/22
residence, though PW-7 categorically stated that demand of
dowry was raised only by father-in-law of the deceased. It is
submitted that the conviction of appellant was secured only
for the reason that she being married sister-in-law was
present in her paternal home, who arrived there just before
four days of the occurrence.
20. In support of his submission, learned counsel for
the appellant relied upon the legal report of Hon’ble Supreme
Court as available through Karan Singh V. State of
Haryana, [2025] 1 S.C.R. 1370: 2025 INSC 133.
21. Mrs. Anita Singh, learned Additional Public
Prosecutor for the State, while opposing the appeal,
submitted that appellant, who is sister-in-law was present at
the time of occurrence. It is conceded that witnesses not
supported the fact that any demand of dowry was raised by
this appellant. It is also conceded that with same evidence,
father-in-law and husband of the deceased were acquitted by
learned trial court.
22. I have perused the trial court records carefully
and gone through the evidences available on record as also
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.443 of 2019 dt.18-02-2026
10/22
considered the rival submissions as canvassed by learned
counsel appearing on behalf of the parties.
23. PW-1 is Bhagya Narayan Choudhary, who is
maternal uncle of the deceased. It appears from his
deposition that he was the person who negotiate the marriage
of the deceased with accused Chandan Jha (who acquitted
after trial). It was deposed by him that after marriage, the
deceased went Kolkata with her father-in-law Lal Jha,
mother-in-law Pramila Jha, husband Chandan Jha and sister-
in-law Tanu Jha. He also deposed that all the four persons
demanded dowry. He is the resident of paternal village of the
appellant/accused. He went to the place of occurrence on
14.06.2004 on public alarm alongwith co-villagers and found
that smoke was coming out from the house of Lal Jha
(accused/father-in-law) and found the gate closed. It was
deposed that he alongwith other co-villagers pushed the door
forcibly whereafter it was opened half and they saw the burnt
body of the deceased sister of the informant. It was deposed
that on seeing him, appellant alongwith her mother started to
run away but the villagers after chasing for a short,
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.443 of 2019 dt.18-02-2026
11/22
apprehended them. It is also deposed by him that accused
persons committed the murder of her niece by putting her on
fire.
23.1. Upon cross-examination, it was deposed by him
that appellant/accused Pramila Jha (since died) also lodged a
case against him. The demand of motorcycle was raised at the
time of Duragman. He stated that on the date of occurrence,
the co-accused Chandan Jha was not available in the village,
but the co-accused Lal Jha was available in his village, as he
saw him in morning of the date of occurrence. It was stated
that appellant was not apprehended by him rather she was
apprehended by villagers. Even the gate was opened with the
help of villagers, it was not broken. He also stated that
whether it was opened or closed or appellant was
apprehended before his arrival, he could not say.
24. PW-2 is Manoj Kumar Jha and it appears from
his examination-in-chief that he is a chance witness to the
occurrence. It was deposed by him that while he was
returning after attending his doctor and so when he reached
near to the house of accused Lal Jha, he witnessed that
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.443 of 2019 dt.18-02-2026
12/22
smoke was coming from his house. He shouted and
thereafter, 10-15 persons/villagers gathered over there. It
was deposed that thereafter the northern gate was pushed by
the villagers and he found that the dead body was lying near
to stairs. The smoke was also coming from the dead body. It
was the dead body of the wife of accused Chandan Jha
(husband). It appears from his deposition that he witnessed
appellant to exit from the room by using the southern gate,
whereafter, she was apprehended by the villagers. It was
deposed that he heard about the demand of dowry.
24.1. In cross-examination, it was stated by him that
he witnesses Santosh Kumar Jha (PW-8) in the village on the
date of occurrence after arrival of the police. It was also
stated by him that appellant was coming from southern side
upon alarm and upon arrival at the place of occurrence both of
them were apprehended and assaulted by co-villagers. This
statement contradict his own version of examination-in-chief
that he witnessed appellant to exit from the house by using
southern gate. His testimony is creating a doubt whether he
saw the appellant to exit from the house or found them
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.443 of 2019 dt.18-02-2026
13/22
coming towards the house, making the presence of appellant
doubtful at the place of occurrence.
25. PW-3 is Pan Devi, who is also a chance witness
to the occurrence. She also witnessed that smoke was coming
from the house of the accused persons, while she was going
to a local shop for purchasing sugar. She deposed that
appellant found exit using the other gates and thereafter she
was apprehended by the villagers.
25.1. Upon cross-examination, it was stated by her
that PW-1 arrived at the place of occurrence after ten minutes
of the opening the gate. This statement of PW-3 makes the
statement and presence of PW-1 doubtful at the place of
occurrence at the time when the door was opened.
26. PW-4 is Mahavir Jha, who is the father of the
deceased and supported the marriage with accused Chandan
Jha. It was stated by him that his son (PW-10) was told by
PW-1 that the accused persons are demanding cash of Rs.
50,000/- and one motorcycle as dowry. He was informed by
PW-1 on phone about the occurrence on 24.06.2004 at about
1:30 P.M. It was stated by him that he did not paid any cash
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.443 of 2019 dt.18-02-2026
14/22
at the time of marriage, however, gift was given in form of
ornaments etc.
27. PW-5 is Jagtarni Devi, who is mother of the
deceased. She deposed regarding the occurrence on the same
line as PW-4, who is her husband.
28. PW-6 is Sudhir Kumar Jha. He is the witness of
fardbeyan, who identified his signature which upon
identification was exhibited during the trial as Exhibit -1.
29. PW-7 is Vidya Nand Jha, who is a co-villager. It
was deposed by him in his examination-in-chief that Rs.
50,000/- and one motorcycle was demanded by father-in-law
of the deceased. In his cross-examination, it was stated by
him that there are four accused in this case but when he
visited the place of occurrence, he saw none of them. This
testimony of fFPW-7 makes the presence of appellant
doubtful at place of occurrence again.
30. PW-8 is Santosh Kumar Jha, with whom the
deceased was said to be in illicit relation by the defence side.
He is the brother-in-law of PW-10 (informant). He identified
his signature on seizure list, which upon his identification,
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.443 of 2019 dt.18-02-2026
15/22
exhibited as Exhibit ‘2’. He deposed that Mangalsutra of
deceased was also found burnt during the occurrence, but he
could not see any burn mark on plastic jar ( dabba). It was
stated by him that Chandan Jha was present in village but
after the occurrence he fled away. It was stated that Lal Jha
was also present in village but after the occurrence he also
fled away. It appears from his deposition that he was not
questioned by the defence qua his relation with the deceased,
making the defence version unbelievable as despite of having
all opportunity, why not any question was asked on this point
to PW-8.
31. PW-9 is Dr. Jagdish Choudhary, who was
posted as Medical Officer on 15.02.2004 in Sadar Hospital,
Madhubani and examined the dead body of Sonu Jha at about
9.20 A.M. and found following ante-mortem injuries on her
person:-
(i) Superficial to deep burn over scalp, face, neck chest,
abdomen, back superior extremist & inferior extremist.
Percentage of burn is 99% On dissection rain & mangus
congested. Heart Right chamber face of blood & left
chamber empty lungs, liver, spleen and kidney congested.
Stomach containing it required flied. Intestine containing
trickle matter & gase. Urinary bladder empty. Uterus nor
graud.
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.443 of 2019 dt.18-02-2026
16/22
2. Time of death within 24 hours.
3. Death was clued to shock cause by thermal burn. This
burn can be caused by kerosene oil.
4. This postmortem report is my pen and signature and
obsuror has also put his signature on P.M. master it as
exhibit no.3. XXX
5. In cross-examination, he has not mention the small of
kerosene oil in his P.M. report.
6. If the deceased try to save herself then 99% burn injury
can not be occur. 7. It is wrong to say that the postmortem
report is collusive one.
32. PW-10 is Amrendra Kumar @ Pappu, who is
the informant/brother of the deceased Soni Jha. It was
deposed by him that demand was made on phone by the
accused persons. It also deposed that before four days of the
occurrence matrimonial family members of his deceased
sister came to village Chahuta, whereafter he was informed
by his maternal uncle namely, Bhagya Narayan Choudhary
(PW-1) that they are now available in village and therefore
please come to discuss the issue regarding their demands.
Whereafter he visited village – Chahuta on 13.06.2004 in
evening and discussed the issue with family members of the
deceased. It was told by the deceased to him that “bhaiya
whatever they are demanding, give them, otherwise they may
kill her”. It was stated by him that when he arrived at
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.443 of 2019 dt.18-02-2026
17/22
Chahuta, the villagers apprehended Pramila Jha (since died),
whereas Chandan Jha and Lal Jha were fled away. It was
stated that occurrence was took place in Chahuta village.
33. From the testimony of all aforesaid discussed
witnesses, it transpires that none of the witnesses are the eye
witness of the actual occurrence, even the chance witnesses
(PW-2 & PW-3), who are the co-villagers, were not the eye
witness of the actual occurrence and they arrived at the place
of occurrence on seeing the smoke coming out from the house
of the deceased. Upon their arrival, gate was found closed
which was pushed by the villagers and they saw the dead
body of the deceased was lying over there in burnt condition.
Testimony of PW-2 and PW-7 makes the presence of
appellant at house/place of occurrence at real time of the
occurrence.
34. Testimony of PW-10/informant is appearing more
important to understand the nature of demand. It appears
from his testimony that on the preceding day of the
occurrence, he visited the village Chahuta upon information
given by PW-1 that matrimonial family members of the
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.443 of 2019 dt.18-02-2026
18/22
deceased are available in village, therefore, to come and
discuss the issue. PW-1 is the maternal uncle (Mama) of the
PW-10 and also of the deceased. Upon information, he visited
there and meet with the family members of the deceased and
discussed the issues, but it nowhere transpired from his
testimony that during discussion any demand of dowry was
ever raised by appellant or other accused persons, rather he
was told by the deceased only that “whatever their demand
please give them”.
35. Certainly, aforesaid statement of deceased cannot
be accepted that any demand of dowry was raised on the part
of appellant soon before the occurrence, therefore, the basic
foundational aspect that cruelty was committed in connection
with demand of dowry soon before death not appears
established in this case as to import the presumption available
under section 113(b) of the Indian Evidence Act. Though,
other basic ingredients like death within seven years of the
marriage or also death due to burn injury appears available in
this case, but to attract the offence completely, the aforesaid
essential ingredients qua demand of dowry is missing. With
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.443 of 2019 dt.18-02-2026
19/22
the same set of occurrence, learned trial court acquitted
father-in-law (Lal Jha) and husband (Chandan Jha) of the
deceased.
36. In this context, it would be apposite to reproduce
para nos. 3, 6 and 7 of Karan Singh‘s case (supra), which
reads as under:
“3. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant has
taken us through the notes of evidence of material
prosecution witnesses. He submitted that all the
allegations made by the witnesses regarding the demand
of dowry are omissions. Therefore, there is no legal
evidence to show that the appellant demanded dowry.
Moreover, there is no evidence that the appellant
subjected the deceased to cruelty. Learned counsel relied
upon a decision of this court in the case of Charan Singh
alias Charanjit Singh v. State of Uttarakhand and
submitted that there is no evidence to show that soon
before her death, the deceased was subjected to cruelty or
harassment by the appellant for or in connection with
demand for dowry. He would, therefore, submit that in the
absence of legal evidence against the appellant, the Courts
ought to have acquitted him.
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.
7. If the aforesaid four ingredients are established, the
death can be called a dowry death, and the husband and/or
husband’s relative,as the case may be, shall be deemed to
have caused the dowry death. Section 2 of the Dowry
Prohibition Act, 1961 provides that dowry means any
property or valuable security given or agreed to be given
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.443 of 2019 dt.18-02-2026
20/22
either directly or indirectly by one party to a marriage to
the other party to the marriage or by the parents of either
party to a marriage or by any other person, to the other
party to the marriage or to any other person. The dowry
must be given or agreed to be given at or before or any
time after the marriage in connection with the marriage of
the said parties. The term valuable security used in Section
2 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 has the same
meaning as in Section 30 of IPC”
37. It appears that finding of learned trial court is
perverse particularly in view of the reasons assigned through
impugned judgment. In this context, it would be apposite to
reproduce paras 35, 36 & 41 of the impugned judgment
itself, which are as under:
“35. In this case in particular all the five ingredients are
present and this is obviously a case of dowry death and the
provision laid down under section 113B of the Evidence Act is
applicable which reads:-
“Presumption as to dowry death- When the question
is whether a person has committed the dowry death of a
woman and it is shown that soon before her death such
woman had been subjected by such person to cruelty or
harassment for, or in connection with, any demand for
dowry, the court shall presume that such person had
caused the dowry death.”
36. Thus, accused Lal Jha and Chandan Jha are not such
persons within the meaning of 113-B of the Evidence Act for
they were not present at village Chauhuta on the date of
occurrence admittedly. Soni Jha had been at her Naihra for
six months prior to the occurrence and when she was brought
to village Chauhuta whatever happened is happened only
after arrival of accused Parmila Jha and Tannu Jha and in
their presence and accordingly, the presumption of causing
dowry death is sustainable only against them and rest of the
accused persons namely, Lal Jha and Chandan Jha are
entitled to acquittal.
41. Considered. There is evidence on record that during the
occurrence the grandmother-in-law of the deceased was
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.443 of 2019 dt.18-02-2026
21/22
raising alarm from the top of her house on which the people
assembled and this aspect of the matter is indicative of the
fact that the house inmates were not having intention of
killing of the deceased. This has also come on record that the
two convicts came runningly to the house after knowing the
occurrence and this shows that the convicts had no
knowledge of the occurrence as well. Speaking technically,
still, all the five ingredients are present against the convicts
and considering this aspect of the matter, they have been
held guilty. In my view, the minimum prescribed punishment
is required in this case and, accordingly, both the convicts are
awarded seven years rigorous imprisonment under section
304(B)/34 I.P.C. each. They are sent back to District Jail,
Madhubani, to serve out the sentence awarded.”
38. Aforesaid reasons assigned for conviction of
appellant by learned trial court categorically suggest that
conviction was recorded with perverse reasons. Discussing
essential ingredients of section 304B of the I.P.C., learned
trial court arrived to conclusion of conviction on the sole
ground as appellant was present at her parental home during
the occurrence, which is not the correct position of law.
39. Accordingly, conviction of the appellant, as
recorded by the learned trial court, is hereby set-aside. The
impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated
03.01.2019 and 08.01.2019 passed by the Presiding Officer,
Fast Track Court No-I, Madhubani in Sessions Trial No. 334 of
2005/105 of 2018, arising out of Bisfi P.S. Case No.67 of
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.443 of 2019 dt.18-02-2026
22/22
2004, corresponding to G.R. No. 823 of 2004 is hereby set-
aside. Appellant/accused is acquitted of the charges levelled
against her.
40. Since the appellant is on bail, she is discharged
from her liabilities of respective bail bonds. Sureties stands
discharged. Fine, if any paid, be returned to the appellant
henceforth.
41. The appeal stands allowed.
42. TCR, if any, be sent back to learned trial court
along with the copy of this judgment immediately.
(Chandra Shekhar Jha, J)
Rajeev/-
AFR/NAFR AFR CAV DATE NA Uploading Date 26.02.2026 Transmission Date 26.02.2026
