Patna High Court
Ram Prasad Mandal And Ors vs The State Of Bihar on 28 April, 2026
Author: Purnendu Singh
Bench: Purnendu Singh
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL APPEAL (SJ) No.200 of 2014
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-90 Year-2007 Thana- JAGDISHPUR District- Bhagalpur
======================================================
1. Ram Prasad Mandal. S/o Chhedi Mandal
2. Fantush Mandal S/o Ram Prasad Mandal
3. Anirudh Mandal S/o Ram Prasad Mandal
4. Sudhir Mandal S/o Ram Prasad Mandal
All residents of Village- Kadwa Mohanpur, P.S- Goradih, District-
Bhagalpur.
… … Appellant/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
… … Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Appellant/s : Mr.Davendra Kumar Pandey, Advocate.
For the Respondent/s : Mr.Abhay Kumar, APP.
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PURNENDU SINGH
C.A.V. JUDGMENTDate : 28-04-2026
Heard Mr. Davendra Kumar Pandey, learned counsel
appearing on behalf of the appellants and Mr. Abhay Kumar,
learned APP for the State.
2. The present appeal has been filed under Sections
374(2) and 389(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure
challenging the judgment of conviction and order of sentence
dated 31.03.2014 passed by the learned Ad hoc Additional
Sessions Judge-I, Bhagalpur in Sessions Trial No. 1185/2007
(Tr. No. 332/2013) (arising out of Jagdishpur (Goradih) P.S.
Case No. 90 of 2007, G.R. No. 1290/07), whereby and
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.200 of 2014 dt.28-04-2026
2/20whereunder, the appellants have been convicted for the offence
punishable under Section 323/34 of the Indian Penal Code and
have been sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for six
months.
3. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the
aforesaid judgment of conviction and order of sentence, the
appellants have preferred the present appeal before this Court.
The appellants have assailed the impugned judgment primarily
on the ground that the learned Trial Court failed to appreciate
the evidence available on record in its proper perspective and
has wrongly recorded the conviction of the appellants despite
the existence of serious contradictions and deficiencies in the
prosecution case.
FACTS OF THE CASE
4. The prosecution case, in brief, is that as per the
fardbeyan of the informant recorded on 13.05.2007 at about
4:00 P.M., on 12.05.2007 at about 11:00 A.M., a quarrel took
place between the informant’s son, Om Prakash Sah, and one
Mukesh Mandal while they were playing, and when the
informant’s wife intervened to pacify the matter, accused Ram
Prasad Mandal and Fantush Mandal, armed with lathi, arrived
there, abused her and assaulted her, causing injuries on her
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.200 of 2014 dt.28-04-2026
3/20
hand, forearm and waist; it is further alleged that upon the
informant returning home, accused Anrudh Mandal and Sudhir
Mandal, armed with danda and khanti, came to his door, abused
and assaulted him, resulting in injuries on his head and right
hand, and during the occurrence, accused Sudhir Mandal
allegedly took away Rs. 5,000/- from his pocket along with a
Sonata wristwatch and two silver rings, the entire incident
having arisen out of a dispute between the children, and on the
basis of the said fardbeyan, Jagdishpur (Goradih) P.S. Case No.
90 of 2007 dated 12.05.2007 was instituted under Sections 341,
447, 323 and 379/34 of the Indian Penal Code.
5. Charges were framed on 30.11.2007 under
Sections 307, 323, 341, 379, 447 and 504/34 of the Indian Penal
Code against all the accused persons, to which they pleaded not
guilty and claimed to be tried.
ARGUMENT ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANTS
6. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
appellants submitted that the impugned judgment of conviction
and order of sentence passed by the learned Trial Court is
wholly illegal, perverse, and unsustainable both in law and on
facts. It is contended that there is unexplained delay in lodging
the F.I.R., which casts serious doubt on the prosecution story
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.200 of 2014 dt.28-04-2026
4/20
and suggests possibility of false implication due to admitted
prior enmity between the parties. The counsel further submitted
that although the appellants were charged under Sections 307,
323, 341, 379, 447 and 504/34 IPC, the medical evidence does
not support the allegation of attempt to murder, as no grievous
or cut injury has been found despite the allegation of use of a
sharp weapon (Khanti), and all injuries are simple in nature. It is
further argued that the testimonies of PW-2, 3 and 5 suffer from
material contradictions and inconsistencies, which go to the root
of the case and render the entire prosecution version unreliable.
7. Learned counsel further submitted that the
prosecution has failed to prove the charges against the
appellants beyond reasonable doubt, and the learned Trial Court
has erred in convicting the appellants without proper
appreciation of evidence on record. It was also contended that
the defence evidence has not been considered in its proper
perspective and has been wrongly discarded. The appellants
have remained on bail throughout the trial and have never
misused the privilege granted to them, which reflects their bona
fide conduct. On these grounds, learned counsel submits that the
impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence is liable
to be set aside and the appellants deserve to be acquitted of all
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.200 of 2014 dt.28-04-2026
5/20
the charges in the interest of justice.
ARGUMENT ON BEHALF OF THE STATE
8. Per Contra, learned APP appearing on behalf of the
State while opposing the appeal submitted that the learned
District court, after considering all the evidences, both oral and
documentary, adduced during the course of trial, has committed
no error, either of fact or of law, in recording the conviction of
the appellants on the basis of cogent and reliable material on
record, warranting no interference by this Court.
ANALYSIS AND CONCLUSION
9. Heard the parties.
10. I have perused the lower court records and
proceedings and also taken note of the arguments canvassed by
learned counsel appearing on behalf of the parties. It would be
apposite to discuss the oral/documentary evidences as available
on record to re-appreciate the evidences for just and proper
disposal of the present appeal.
11. During the trial, the prosecution has examined
altogether nine witnesses, namely:
1. PW-1 Makhan Mandal
2. PW-2 Sita Devi,
3. PW-3 Om Prakash Sah
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.200 of 2014 dt.28-04-2026
6/20
4. PW-4 Munia Devi
5. PW-5 Manoj Kumar Sah
6. PW-6 Pradip Sah
7. PW-7 Ram Pravesh Sharma
8. PW-8 Ajablal Mandal
9. PW-9 Dr. Manoj Kumar Jha
The Defence have also examined three witnesses, namely,
1. DW.1 – Pawan Mandal
2. DW-2 Jay Prakash Mandal
3. DW-3 – Om Prakash Mandal
12. The prosecution has also relied upon following
documents exhibited during the course of trial:
(i) Exhibit-1 – Signature of the informant on the
fardbeyan
(ii) Exhibit-1/1- signature of the brother of the
informant on fardbeyan
(iii) Exhibit-2- Formal FIR
(iv) Exhibit-3- Marginal note
(v) Exhibit-4- fardbeyan of the informant
(vi) Exhibit-5- writing and signature of the
chargesheet
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.200 of 2014 dt.28-04-2026
7/20
(vii) Exhibit-6 and 6/A – injury report
13. Upon a meticulous examination of the record,
the evidence of the prosecution witnesses (PWs) can be
summarized as follows:
(I) P.W.-1: Makhan Mandal: P.W.-1 has deposed
that on the alleged date at about 11:00 A.M., while he was at his
house, he came to know about an occurrence of assault between
Ram Prasad Mandal and Manoj Mandal. He stated that he heard
that Manoj Mandal was assaulted on his shoulder by lathi.
However, he clearly admitted that he had not witnessed the
occurrence and his knowledge is purely hearsay. He further
stated that he had not heard about any bleeding injury and also
admitted that he did not visit the place of occurrence. He could
not say who took the injured to the hospital or for how long he
was treated. PW-1 is a Hearsay witness and not an eye-witness.
(II) P.W.-2: Sita Devi (Injured Witness): P.W.-2
deposed that the occurrence took place on 12.05.2007 at about
11:00 A.M. While she was at home, she went to pacify a quarrel
between Om Prakash and Mukshi Mandal. During this, accused
Ram Prasad Mandal and Fantush Mandal, armed with lathi,
came and assaulted her, causing injuries on her waist and hand.
She further stated that when her husband (Manoj) came and
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.200 of 2014 dt.28-04-2026
8/20
questioned the accused persons, Anirudh Mandal (armed with
garasa) and Sudhir Mandal (armed with khanti/lathi) assaulted
her husband on the head, causing bleeding and he fell down.
She also alleged that the accused persons took away Rs. 5000/-,
a Sonata watch, and a silver ring from her husband. She stated
that she also sustained injury on her forehead. After the
occurrence, they went to the police station and were sent to
Mayaganj Hospital, where her husband was hospitalized for
about 15 days.
(III) P.W.-3: Om Prakash Sah (son of the injured):
P.W.-3 deposed that the occurrence took place on 12.05.2007 at
about 11:00 A.M. while he was playing cricket. A quarrel started
with Mukshi Mandal, who assaulted him with a lathi. He stated
that when his mother (Sita Devi) came to intervene, Ram Prasad
Mandal assaulted her, causing bleeding injury. Thereafter, when
his father Manoj came and questioned the accused, Anirudh
Mandal assaulted his father with a garasa on the head and
Sudhir Mandal assaulted him with a lathi. He further alleged
that Sudhir Mandal took away Rs. 5000/-, a Sonata watch, and a
silver ring. The injured was taken to police station and then to
Mayaganj Hospital for treatment.
(IV) P.W.-4: Muniya Dev: P.W.-4 deposed that the
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.200 of 2014 dt.28-04-2026
9/20occurrence took place at about 11:00 A.M. due to a quarrel
between children over cricket. She stated that Sita Devi was
assaulted and fell unconscious. She further deposed that when
Manoj Sah came and questioned the accused persons, all
accused assaulted him. Specifically, Sudhir Mandal assaulted
Manoj with a garasa on the head causing bleeding, while others
assaulted him with lathi. She stated that Manoj was taken to
Goradih Police Station and then to Mayaganj Hospital where he
remained admitted for about 8 days. She is the Eye-witness of
the occurrence and supports the prosecution case.
(V) P.W.-5: Manoj Kumar Sah (Informant &
Injured): P.W.-5 is the informant of the case. He proved his
signature and that of his brother on the fardbeyan (Exhibit-1
series). He deposed that on 12.05.2007 at about 11:00 A.M., his
wife informed him about a quarrel between children and
subsequent assault. Later, accused Ram Prasad Mandal and
Fantush Mandal came to his house and assaulted his wife. When
he went to question them, Anirudh Mandal (armed with khanti)
and Sudhir Mandal (armed with lathi) along with others
assaulted him. He specifically stated that Anirudh Mandal
caused injury on his head and Sudhir Mandal assaulted him on
his waist. He further alleged that Rs. 5000/-, a Sonata watch,
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.200 of 2014 dt.28-04-2026
10/20and two silver rings were taken away. He was taken to
Mayaganj Hospital, where his fardbeyan was recorded.
(VI) P.W.-6: Pradeep Sah: P.W.-6 deposed that the
occurrence took place on 12.05.2007 at about 11:00 A.M. due to
a quarrel between Om Prakash and Mukshi Mandal during
cricket. He stated that Sita Devi was assaulted by Muski and
Fantush. He further stated that later he heard from Om Prakash
that Manoj Sah was assaulted by accused persons. Upon
reaching the place, Manoj told him that Ram Prasad and
Anirudh Mandal had assaulted him. He helped in taking Manoj
to the police station and then to hospital, where he was treated
for about 6-7 days. He stated that he has no knowledge
regarding theft.
(VII) P.W.-7 (Investigating Officer): Ram Pravesh
Sharma (Investigating Officer): P.W.-7 deposed that he
investigated the case, visited the place of occurrence, and
recorded statements of witnesses. He described the place of
occurrence as a parti land in front of the informant’s house at
village Kadwa Mohanpur, with specific boundaries. He proved:
• Formal FIR (Exhibit-2)
• Marginal note (Exhibit-3)
• Fardbeyan in his handwriting (Exhibit-4)
• Charge-sheet (Exhibit-5)
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.200 of 2014 dt.28-04-2026
11/20He stated that after investigation, he found the case true and
submitted charge-sheet.
(VIII) P.W.-8: Ajab Lal Mandal (Hostile
Witness): P.W.-8 deposed that he neither witnessed nor had
direct knowledge of the occurrence. He only heard that a quarrel
had taken place. He was declared hostile by the prosecution.
(IX) P.W.-9: Dr. Manoj Kumar Jha (Doctor):
P.W.-9 deposed that on 12.05.2007, he examined Manoj Sah at
about 3:00 P.M. and found the following injuries:
1. Lacerated injury on right side of skull
2. Swelling and bruise on right hand
3. Abrasion on left hand
4. Complaint of body ache
He advised X-ray and CT scan and reserved opinion. Heopined that injury no. 3 was simple and caused by hard and
blunt substance. Injury report was marked as Exhibit-6.
He further examined Sita Devi at 4:00 P.M. and found:
1. Lacerated injury on forehead
2. Complaint of body ache
Her injury report was marked as Exhibit-6/A.
14. On the basis of materials surfaced during the trial,
the appellants/accused was examined under Section 313 of the
CrPC by putting incriminating circumstances/evidences
surfaced against them, which they denied and showed their
complete innocence.
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.200 of 2014 dt.28-04-2026
12/20
15. It would be appropriate to reproduce the
provisions of Sections 307 and 323 of IPC for the sake of
convenience and better understanding of the facts, which is as
under:-
” 307. Attempt to murder.–Whoever
does any act with such intention or knowledge, and
under such circumstances that, if he by that act
caused death, he would be guilty of murder, shall be
punished with imprisonment of either description for
a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also
be liable to fine; and if hurt is caused to any person
by such act, the offender shall be liable either to
[imprisonment for life], or to such punishment as is
hereinbefore mentioned.
Attempts by life-convicts.–[When any
person offending under this section is under
sentence of [imprisonment for life], he may, if
hurt is caused, be punished with death].
323. Punishment for voluntarily
causing hurt.–
Whoever, except in the case provided
for by section 334, voluntarily causes hurt, shall
be punished with imprisonment of either
description for a term which may extend to one
year, or with fine which may extend to one
thousand rupees, or with both.
16. The record reveals that PW-8 was declared hostile
during the trial, in absence of any corroboration of oral evidence
of the other prosecution witnesses who supported the
prosecution case. Therefore, the testimony of PW-8 is not
relevant for the purpose of establishing the guilt of the
accused/appellant.
17. The prosecution case substantially rests upon the
testimony of P.W.-2 Sita Devi, P.W.-3 Om Prakash Sah and
P.W.-5 Manoj Kumar Sah, with partial support from P.W.-4
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.200 of 2014 dt.28-04-2026
13/20
Muniya Devi, while P.W.-1 Makhan Mandal and P.W.-6 Pradeep
Sah do not provide direct evidence of the occurrence. The
testimony of the material witnesses attributes specific overt acts
mainly against Ram Prasad Mandal, Fantush Mandal, Anirudh
Mandal and Sudhir Mandal; however, their version contains
embellishments and inconsistencies, particularly regarding the
nature of assault, the weapons used (lathi, garasa, khanti), and
the manner of occurrence. Allegations of theft of Rs. 5,000/-, a
Sonata wristwatch and silver rings are also not consistently
supported, as P.W.-6 Pradeep Sah has categorically stated
having no knowledge of such occurrence.
18. The medical evidence of P.W.-9 Dr. Manoj Kumar
Jha indicates only simple injuries, such as lacerations, abrasions
and swelling, caused by hard and blunt substance, and does not
fully corroborate the prosecution version of assault by multiple
accused persons with different weapons, including sharp-cutting
instruments like garasa or khanti. P.W.-8 Ajab Lal Mandal has
turned hostile and other independent witnesses have not
supported the prosecution case on material particulars. It is also
evident that the occurrence arose out of a quarrel which took
between children while playing cricket, which subsequently
escalated into free fight. Simple injury suggests possibility of
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.200 of 2014 dt.28-04-2026
14/20
exaggeration and false implication of all the accused persons.
COMMON INTENTION WHETHER PROVED?
19. It is well settled that an attempt to commit murder
must be clearly distinguished from a mere intention to commit
the offence or from acts that amount only to preparation for its
commission. The law recognizes that the existence of a guilty
intention alone is not sufficient to constitute an attempt. There
must be something more than planning or arranging the means
to commit the crime. Therefore, in order to secure a conviction
under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code, the prosecution
must prove the presence of a definite intention or knowledge to
cause death, accompanied by some overt act that directly moves
towards the execution of that intention. In other words, the
accused must not only possess the intention to commit murder
but must also perform an act that clearly demonstrates the
commencement of the offence.
20. The Apex Court laid down the litmus test for
determination of nature of offence in Pulicherla Nagaraju v.
State of A.P. reported in (2007) 1 SCC (Cri) 500. In the facts
and circumstances of a particular case, the Court needs to decide
the pivotal question of existence of intention with care and
caution. The following factors needs to be examined:
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.200 of 2014 dt.28-04-2026
15/20
(i) nature of the weapon used;
(ii)whether the weapon was carried by the accused or
was picked up from the spot;
(iii) whether the blow is aimed at a vital part of the body;
(iv) the amount of force employed in causing injury;
(v) whether the act was in the course of sudden quarrel or
sudden fight or free for all fight;
(vi) whether the incident occurs by chance or whether
there was any premeditation;
(vii) whether there was any prior enmity or whether the
deceased was a stranger;
(viii)whether there was any grave and sudden
provocation, and if so, the cause for such provocation;
(ix) whether it was in the heat of passion;
(x) whether the person inflicting the injury has taken
undue advantage or has acted in a cruel and unusual
manner;
(xi) whether the accused dealt a single blow or several
blows.
21. The similar question came up before the Supreme
Court in the case of Joseph v. State of Kerala, reported in 1995
SCC (Cri) 165 has observed in para 3 which is reproduced
hereinafter:
“3. In this appeal the learned
counsel for the appellant submits that the
intention to cause the injury which was found
sufficient to cause the death in the ordinary
course of the nature was not established. In
support of this submission he relied on the
circumstances namely that the whole incident
took place because of a trivial incident which
resulted in a quarrel and that the weapon
used was only a lathi and in the
circumstances it cannot be said that the
accused intended to cause the death by
inflicting that particular injury which
objectively was proved by the medical
evidence to be sufficient in the ordinary
course of nature to cause death. In other
words he submits that clause 3rdly of Section
300 IPC is not attracted in this case. We find
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.200 of 2014 dt.28-04-2026
16/20considerable force in the submission. The
weapon used is not a deadly weapon as
rightly contended by the learned counsel. The
whole occurrence was a result of a trivial
incident and in those circumstances the
accused dealt two blows on the head with a
lathi, therefore, it cannot be stated that he
intended to cause the injury which is
sufficient (sic). At the most it can be said that
by inflicting such injuries he had knowledge
that he was likely to cause the death. In
which case the offence committed by him
would be culpable homicide not amounting
to murder. We accordingly set aside the
conviction of the appellant under Section 302
IPC and the sentence of imprisonment for life
awarded thereunder. Instead we convict the
appellant under Section 304 Part II IPC and
sentence him to five years’ RI.”
22. The judgment of Joseph (supra) was referred
by the Apex Court in the case of Jugatram Vs. State of
Chhattisgarh, reported in (2020) 9 SCC 520.
23. Further, to sustain a conviction under Section
307 IPC, the Apex Court in the case of Sivamani v. State,
reported in, 2023 SCC OnLine SC 1581, in paragraph no. 9 has
held as under:
” 9. In State of Madhya Pradesh v.
Saleem, (2005) 5 SCC 554, the Court held that to
sustain a conviction under Section 307, IPC, it was
not necessary that a bodily injury capable of
resulting in death should have been inflicted. As
such, non-conviction under Section 307, IPC on the
premise only that simple injury was inflicted does
not follow as a matter of course. In the same
judgment, it was pointed out that ‘…The court has
to see whether the act, irrespective of its result, was
done with the intention or knowledge and under
circumstances mentioned in the section.’ The
position that because a fatal injury was not
sustained alone does not dislodge Section 307, IPC
conviction has been reiterated in Jage Ram v. State
of Haryana, (2015) 11 SCC 366 and State of
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.200 of 2014 dt.28-04-2026
17/20Madhya Pradesh v. Kanha, (2019) 3 SCC 605. Yet,
in Jage Ram (supra) and Kanha (supra), it was
observed that while grievous or life-threatening
injury was not necessary to maintain a conviction
under Section 307, IPC, ‘The intention of the
accused can be ascertained from the actual injury,
if any, as well as from surrounding circumstances.
Among other things, the nature of the weapon used
and the severity of the blows inflicted can be
considered to infer intent.”
24. Admittedly, from the prosecution case itself, it
transpires that the alleged occurrence arose out of a trivial
quarrel between children while playing cricket, which suddenly
escalated into a physical scuffle without any premeditation or
prior meeting of minds, the incident having taken place in the
heat of passion upon a sudden altercation; further, the
prosecution evidence suffers from material infirmities as the
case primarily rests upon the testimonies of P.W.-2 Sita Devi,
P.W.-3 Om Prakash Sah and P.W.-5 Manoj Kumar Sah, whose
versions are not wholly consistent on material particulars,
particularly with regard to the manner of assault, weapons
allegedly used, and specific roles of the accused persons, while
independent witnesses do not lend reliable support inasmuch as
P.W.-1 Makhan Mandal is admittedly a hearsay witness, P.W.-6
Pradeep Sah has only limited knowledge and does not support
the allegation of theft, and P.W.-8 Ajab Lal Mandal has turned
hostile; moreover, the medical evidence of P.W.-9 Dr. Manoj
Kumar Jha shows that the injuries are simple in nature and
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.200 of 2014 dt.28-04-2026
18/20
caused by hard and blunt substance, which does not substantiate
any grievous or life-threatening assault, and when considered
along with the admitted background of a minor dispute giving
rise to the occurrence, the cumulative effect of these infirmities
clearly indicates exaggeration and absence of intention or
knowledge to cause death, thereby rendering the charge under
Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code unsustainable.
(emphasis supplied)
25. I find that the facts of the present case are
squarely covered by the judgment passed by the Apex Court in
Sivamani (supra) in view of the aforesaid discussion of factual
and legal aspects and upon a comprehensive re-appreciation of
the entire evidence available on record, it emerges that the
occurrence took place in a sudden manner on account of a trivial
quarrel between children while playing cricket, which escalated
without any premeditation or prior meeting of minds of the
appellant; the nature of the incident, the surrounding
circumstances, and the medical evidence, particularly the
testimony of P.W.-9 Dr. Manoj Kumar Jha, indicate that the
injuries sustained by the injured persons are simple in nature,
and although incised in character, do not establish the requisite
intention or knowledge to cause death so as to attract the
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.200 of 2014 dt.28-04-2026
19/20
provisions of Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code; rather, the
materials on record demonstrate that the act of the appellants
falls within the ambit of voluntarily causing hurt by a dangerous
weapon, and thus, this Court is of the considered opinion that
the offence under Section 307 IPC is not made out and the
learned trial court has rightly appreciated the evidence in
convicting the appellants under Section 323/34 of the Indian
Penal Code, particularly in view of the injury reports showing
simple incised injuries caused by a sharp-cutting weapon.
26. Accordingly, this Court finds that the impugned
judgment of conviction dated 31.03.2014 passed by the learned
Ad hoc Additional Sessions Judge-I, Bhagalpur in Sessions Trial
No. 1185/2007 (Tr. No. 332/2013) (arising out of Jagdishpur
(Goradih) P.S. Case No. 90 of 2007, G.R. No. 1290/07)
whereby, the appellants have been convicted under Section
323/34 of the Indian Penal Code, does not warrant interference
so far as the finding of conviction is concerned.
27. However, so far as, the sentence is concerned,
having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and the
period already undergone by the appellants, the sentence of
simple imprisonment for six months is modified and reduced
to the period already undergone. It is directed that if the
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.200 of 2014 dt.28-04-2026
20/20
appellants have already undergone the modified sentence, they
shall be set at liberty forthwith, unless required in connection
with any other case. The appellants are discharged from the
liabilities of their bail bonds, if any.
28. Accordingly, the present appeal stands partly
allowed.
29. Office is directed to send back the lower court
records along with a copy of the judgment to the learned District
Court forthwith.
(Purnendu Singh, J)
mantreshwar/-
AFR/NAFR NAFR CAV DATE 21.04.2026 Uploading Date 28.04.2026 Transmission Date 28.04.2026