{"id":261952,"date":"2008-08-28T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2008-08-27T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ram-nath-tiwary-vs-state-of-bihar-on-28-august-2008"},"modified":"2015-10-19T15:48:06","modified_gmt":"2015-10-19T10:18:06","slug":"ram-nath-tiwary-vs-state-of-bihar-on-28-august-2008","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ram-nath-tiwary-vs-state-of-bihar-on-28-august-2008","title":{"rendered":"Ram Nath Tiwary vs State Of Bihar on 28 August, 2008"},"content":{"rendered":"
Patna High Court<\/div>\n
Ram Nath Tiwary vs State Of Bihar on 28 August, 2008<\/div>\n
Author: Smt. Mridula Mishra<\/div>\n
                         CRIMINAL APPEAL No.453 OF 2002(D.B.)\n\n                                               With\n\n                         CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.458 OF 2002(D.B.)\n\n          (Against the Judgment of Conviction and Order of Sentence dated 26 th of July, 2002,\n          passed by Sri Lakshman Ram, Presiding Judge, Fast Track Court No.III, Bhojpur at\n          Ara, in Sessions Trial No.927\/45 of 1989\/2002)\n\n                         CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.453 OF 2002(D.B)\n\n\n         RAM NATH TIWARY-------------------------------------------------------------APPELLANT.\n                                       Versus\n         THE STATE OF BIHAR--------------------------------------------------------RESPONDENT.\n\n                                                With\n\n                         CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.458 OF 2002(D.B.)\n\n          1.BABBAN THAKUR\n          2.KALLU THAKUR\n          3.SHEO SHANKAR THAKUR\n          4.DADDAN THAKUR\n                           ----------------------------------------------------------APPELLANTS.\n                                         Versus\n          THE STATE OF BIHAR-------------------------------------------------------RESPONDENT.\n                                     ----------------\n<\/pre>\n
          For the Appellants:   M\/s. Kanhaiya Prasad Singh, Senior Advocate, Ashutosh
\n                                Kumar and Nachiketa Jha, Advocates(in Cr.Appeal No.453
\n                                2002)
\n                                M\/s. Kanhaiya Prasad Singh, Senior Advocate, Dharnidhar
\n                                Mishra and Nityanand Tiwary, Advocates(in Cr. Appeal
\n                                No.458 of 2002)
\n          For the State    :    Mr. Lala Kailash Bihari ,A.P.P. (in both the Appeals.)\n<\/p>\n
                                    ——————-\n<\/p>\n
                                    PRESENT
\n                        THE HON’BLE JUSTICE SMT. MRIDULA MISHRA
\n                        THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ABHIJIT SINHA<\/p>\n
Abhijit Sinha,J:             Both these appeals have been taken up together as they arise out of<\/p>\n
                   the same judgment and order passed in Sessions Trial No.927\/45 of 1989\/2002,<\/p>\n
                   and having been heard together is being disposed of by this common judgment.<\/p>\n
                   2.           Consequent to the alleged murder of one Jawala Thakur taking place<\/p>\n
                   at around 06.30 P.M. on the 23rd day of April, 1989, in Village Chandwa within<\/p>\n
                   Ara (Nawada) P.S. in the district of Bhojpur, the fardbeyan of one Collector
\n                                2<\/span><\/p>\n
Thakur, the unfortunate son of the deceased(P.W.5), was recorded by J.N. Ram,<\/p>\n
A.S.I. at the outdoor ward of the Sadar Hospital, Ara, wherein the five appellants<\/p>\n
along with two others , Madan Thakur and Amawas Thakur, since deceased,<\/p>\n
were specifically named as the culprits.\n<\/p>\n
3.                 At the conclusion of the trial, whereas accused Babban<\/p>\n
Thakur was convicted for commission of offence under Section 304<\/a>\/34<\/a> I.P.C.,<\/p>\n
accused Kallu Thakur, Sheo Shankar Thakur, Dadan Thakur and Ram Nath<\/p>\n
Tiwary were convicted for commission of offence under Section 304<\/a> read with<\/p>\n
Section 149<\/a> I.P.C. and each of them was sentenced to undergo imprisonment for<\/p>\n
life. That apart accused Babban Thakur was further convicted for the offence<\/p>\n
under Section 435<\/a> I.P.C., accused Ram Nath Tiwary was found guilty of the<\/p>\n
offence under Section 109<\/a> I.P.C. and accused Sheo Shankar Thakur was held<\/p>\n
guilty of the offence under Section 323<\/a> I.P.C., being the lesser offence of<\/p>\n
Secition 307 I.P.C<\/a>., whereunder he was charged, but no separate sentence was<\/p>\n
pronounced for these convictions.\n<\/p>\n
4.                 The sum and substance of the prosecution case as culled out<\/p>\n
from the fardbeyan of Collector Thakur(Ext.1\/1) briefly stated is that at about<\/p>\n
6.30 P.M. on 23.4.1989 while the informant was sitting in the aangan of his<\/p>\n
house and his father Jawala Thakur was seated in the sahan in front of the<\/p>\n
darwaja of the house , all the five appellants along with Madan Thakur and<\/p>\n
Amawas Thakur, both since deceased, variously armed with lathi, bhala and<\/p>\n
other deadly weapons arrived, started quarrelling with and hurling abuses at<\/p>\n
Jawala Thakur and also started fixing barbed wire on the frontal portion of his<\/p>\n
lands. Remonstration by Jawala Thakur resulted in an altercation between the<\/p>\n
intruders and Jawala Thakur in course whereof, upon the inciting goading of<\/p>\n
accused Ram Nath Tiwary , accused Babban Thakur with the intention to kill<\/p>\n
inflicted a blow with the farsa in his hand on the head of Jawala Thakur resulting
\n                                3<\/span><\/p>\n
in his sustaining bleeding injury. On hearing the agonizing cries of his injured<\/p>\n
father , the informant rushed to his rescue but he was hit on the head with lathi<\/p>\n
by accused Sheo Shankar Thakur as a result whereof he fell down whereupon<\/p>\n
accused Amawas Thakur hit him with bhala.            The informant raised hulla<\/p>\n
attracted whereby his brother Bacha Thakur rushed to his aid but he too was<\/p>\n
assaulted by accused Kallu Thakur, Madan Thakur and Daddan Thakur<\/p>\n
conjointly with bhala and lathi. It is alleged that on the dictates of accused Ram<\/p>\n
Nath Tiwary, accused Babban Thakur set fire to the hut in which grains had<\/p>\n
been stored and as a result thereof the hut along with the grains was reduced to<\/p>\n
ashes. The motive for the occurrence is said to be the purchase of certain lands<\/p>\n
in the front portion of his house by the informant from Ram Nath Tiwary some<\/p>\n
two years back which the accused persons wanted to encroach upon by fixing<\/p>\n
wooden pillars and barbed wire on the lands purportedly belonging to the<\/p>\n
informant.\n<\/p>\n
5.                 Continuing with the unfolding of the prosecution case it<\/p>\n
appears that the injured were taken to the Ara Sadar Hospital where injured<\/p>\n
Jawala Thakur and Collector Thakur were examined by Dr. Manoj Kumar<\/p>\n
Ranjan(P.W.4) and while Collector Thakur was treated at the hospital itself his<\/p>\n
father was referred to P.M.C.H. where he succumbed to his injuries on<\/p>\n
27.4.1989 while undergoing treatment. The inquest(Ext.4) of the dead body as<\/p>\n
also its post mortem was held on the same day. The post mortem report is Ext.5<\/p>\n
whereas the injury reports of the father and son are Exts.2 and 2\/1.<\/p>\n
6.                 It will not be out of place to mention here that the fardbeyan<\/p>\n
of the informant was recorded at the Ara Sadar Hospital on the very day of the<\/p>\n
occurrence by J.N. Ram, A.S.I. of Ara(Town) P.S. and was subsequently<\/p>\n
transmitted to Ara(Nawada) P.S. on the basis whereof the formal F.I.R.(Ext.3) of<\/p>\n
Ara (Nawada) P.S. Case No.72 of 1989 was drawn up and the case was
\n                                4<\/span><\/p>\n
registered under Sections 147<\/a>, 148<\/a>, 149<\/a>, 307<\/a>, 435<\/a> I.P.C. to which Section 302<\/a><\/p>\n
I.P.C. was added consequent to the death of Jawala Thakur.<\/p>\n
7.                 After due investigation a chargesheet was submitted against<\/p>\n
all the 7 accused persons including Madan Thakur and Amawas Thakur both of<\/p>\n
whom died during the pendency of the trial.\n<\/p>\n
8.                 At the trial a charge under Section 302<\/a> I.P.C. read with<\/p>\n
Section 149<\/a> I.P.C. was framed against all the 7 accused whereas accused Babban<\/p>\n
Thakur was further charged under Section 302<\/a> I.P.C. simplicitor and 435 I.P.C<\/a>.,<\/p>\n
Amawas Thakur and Sheo Shankar Thakur were charged under Section 307<\/a><\/p>\n
I.P.C. and Ram Nath Tiwary was charged under Section 109<\/a> I.P.C.<\/p>\n
9.                  The defence plea is one of innocence and false implication<\/p>\n
with ulterior motive and accused Ram Nath Tiwary in particular has pleaded<\/p>\n
alibi for which he examined two witnesses who have proved some documents<\/p>\n
which have been marked as Ext.A, A\/1, B, C and C\/1.\n<\/p>\n
\n
10.               It is now to be seen as to whether on the basis of the materials<\/p>\n
available on the record the conviction and sentence of the appellants in the both<\/p>\n
the cases is warranted and\/or is sustainable.\n<\/p>\n
11.                Assailing the impugned judgment of conviction and order of<\/p>\n
sentence the learned counsel for the appellants sought to submit that the<\/p>\n
conviction of the appellants under Section 304<\/a> read with Section 149<\/a> I.P.C. was<\/p>\n
neither warranted nor justified. In this connection, it was sought to be submitted<\/p>\n
that admittedly a charge under Section 302<\/a> I.P.C. read with Section 149<\/a> I.P.C.<\/p>\n
was framed against all the accused yet very curiously the learned trial Judge<\/p>\n
having found them guilty under Section 302<\/a> I.P.C. read with Section 149<\/a> I.P.C.<\/p>\n
has convicted them under Section 304<\/a> I.P.C. read with Section 149<\/a> I.P.C. The
\n                                5<\/span><\/p>\n
reason therefor is to be found in paragraph-12 of the impugned judgment which<\/p>\n
reads as follows:\n<\/p>\n
           “…………..Therefore, where it is proved beyond doubt               by the<\/p>\n
           evidence of the eye witnesses that murder was committed by the<\/p>\n
           accused persons the same cannot be disbelieved merely on the<\/p>\n
           ground that the doctor who held post mortem examination could not<\/p>\n
           be examined. The evidence of P.W.6 coupled with the evidence of<\/p>\n
           the other witnesses will leave no room for doubt that Jawala Prasad<\/p>\n
           died as a result of the injuries sustained by him in course of the<\/p>\n
           occurrence. The only benefit which the defence can get for the non<\/p>\n
           examination of the doctor is that the charge under Section 302<\/a> I.P.C.<\/p>\n
           cannot stand as there is no evidence to show that the injuries caused<\/p>\n
           on the person of the deceased was sufficient in the ordinary course to<\/p>\n
           cause his death. The death took place on 26.4. after three days of the<\/p>\n
           occurrence. Under the circumstances of the case the charge under<\/p>\n
           Section 302<\/a> I.P.C. will have to be altered under Section 304<\/a> I.P.C.”<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
12.                 However, as it appears from the records of the case charge<\/p>\n
was not altered and without modifying or altering the charge the appellants were<\/p>\n
convicted under Section 304<\/a> I.P.C. read with Section 149<\/a> I.P.C. It cannot be<\/p>\n
claimed that Section 304<\/a> I.P.C. is a lesser offence of an offence under Section<\/p>\n
302<\/a> I.P.C. and, therefore, without altering or modifying the charge, a conviction<\/p>\n
under Section 304<\/a> read with Section 149<\/a> I.P.C. was maintainable being a lesser<\/p>\n
offence of Section 302<\/a> read with Section 149<\/a> I.P.C.\n<\/p>\n
13.                 There is another aspect of the matter. Murder is an aggravated<\/p>\n
form of culpable homicide.         Even without bringing into the radius of the<\/p>\n
Exceptions enumerated under Section 300<\/a> I.P.C. an offence may still be culpable<\/p>\n
homicide if it does not possess the attributes of murder. The range of probability
\n                                 6<\/span><\/p>\n
in the two clauses relates to causing death but in one it is comparatively so not<\/p>\n
strange as in the other. Although one may know that the act of illegal omission<\/p>\n
is also dangerous that it is likely to cause death still it is not murder even if the<\/p>\n
death was caused thereby, if the doer had no knowledge that in all probabilities<\/p>\n
it would cause death. Section 304<\/a> I.P.C. contains two parts: the first part deals<\/p>\n
with cases where there is intention to cause death or such bodily injury which is<\/p>\n
likely to cause death and the second part deals with cases where there is no<\/p>\n
intention to cause death but unfortunately the learned trial court while convicting<\/p>\n
the accused has not specified under which part of Section 304<\/a> I.P.C. the<\/p>\n
conviction was being made.          Had the charge been modified or altered the<\/p>\n
defence definitely would have had the opportunity of rebutting the modified or<\/p>\n
altered charges but they have been deprived of this opportunity of rebutting. It<\/p>\n
also appears from perusal of the statement recorded under Section 313<\/a> Cr.P.C.<\/p>\n
that circumstances appearing in the evidence against them in respect of offences<\/p>\n
under Section 304<\/a> I.P.C. whether part I or part II was never put to them and they<\/p>\n
did not have an opportunity to deny the same. Apparently, this is an illegality<\/p>\n
which cannot be cured and can damage the prosecution case.<\/p>\n
14.                Admittedly, the alleged occurrence took place at village<\/p>\n
Chandwa in the twilight hours of 23rd April, 1989, and for the injuries sustained<\/p>\n
by Jwala Singh, he was advised to be removed to the P.M.C.H. by the doctor<\/p>\n
who initially attended to his injuries at the Ara Sadar Hospital that very night.<\/p>\n
Though noticing the injuries in the injury report he reserved his opinion<\/p>\n
regarding the nature of injuries sustained by Jwala Thakur. At the P.M.C.H.<\/p>\n
Jwala Thakur is said to have succumbed to his injuries in course of under going<\/p>\n
treatment four days later on 27th April, 1989. Unfortunately, none of the doctors<\/p>\n
attending upon Jwala Thakur at the P.M.C.H. have been examined and even his<\/p>\n
bed head ticket has not been brought on record as an exhibit to indicate the
\n                               7<\/span><\/p>\n
nature of treatment meted out to him and the nature and gravity of the injuries.<\/p>\n
Unfortunately, even the doctor conducting the autopsy on the dead body has not<\/p>\n
been examined and the post-mortem report has been proved by an Advocate’s<\/p>\n
Clerk. Since the post-mortem report has not been validly proved the opinion of<\/p>\n
the doctor conducting the autopsy as to the cause of death cannot be looked into.<\/p>\n
However, the post-mortem discloses several ante mortem wounds, namely, (1)<\/p>\n
stitched wound 7″ long extending from forehead to the scalp on the right side of<\/p>\n
scalp and on removing the stitches the underlying bone was found absent; (2)<\/p>\n
stitched wound 1″ on the left side of the scalp 1 \u00bd” above left eyebrow which<\/p>\n
was found muscle deep ; (3) lacerated wound 1\/2″ X 1\/4″ X muscle deep on the<\/p>\n
dorsum of right palm near the root of the thumb; (4) abrasion 4″ X 1″ in the left<\/p>\n
side of the face ; (5) Abrasion 1 \u00bd” X 1\/2″ in the back of the left elbow; (6)<\/p>\n
right eye was found blackened ; (7) abrasion 1\/2″ X 1\/2 ” in the back of left leg<\/p>\n
2 \u00bd” in the back of left leg 2 \u00bd” below knee.\n<\/p>\n
15.               The post mortem report makes interesting reading. Whereas<\/p>\n
as many as 7 ante mortem injuries were detected by the doctor conducting the<\/p>\n
post mortem, the doctor at the Ara Sadar Hospital had detected only two injuries<\/p>\n
which correspond to injury nos.1 and 2 of the post mortem. Then again it<\/p>\n
appears that injury nos.1 and 2 had faced surgical intervention. The doctor at<\/p>\n
Ara does not state anything about stitching those wounds. Then where and by<\/p>\n
whom was the stitching act done. The prosecution has not come forward to<\/p>\n
explain these shortcomings regarding the injuries detected by the Ara doctor and<\/p>\n
the doctor performing the post mortem as also where and by whom was the<\/p>\n
stitching of the wounds done. In these circumstances and the missing links of<\/p>\n
the chain it cannot be said with certainty that the cause of death of Jwala Thakur<\/p>\n
four days later was exclusively and definitely by reason of the injuries sustained<\/p>\n
by him at the alleged occurrence.      True it is that the ocular evidence has
\n                                8<\/span><\/p>\n
supported the fact of Jwala Thakur having sustained injuries at the alleged<\/p>\n
occurrence but in the absence of the examination of the doctors attending upon<\/p>\n
him at Patna, it would be too far fetched to correlate the death with the injuries<\/p>\n
especially in view of the missing links of the chain as pointed above. In that<\/p>\n
view of the matter to fasten the guilt of an offence under Section 304<\/a> read with<\/p>\n
Section 149<\/a> I.P.C. on the appellants would be too far fetched in view of the<\/p>\n
paucity of evidence to connect them directly or remotely with the causing of the<\/p>\n
death of Jwala Thakur.\n<\/p>\n
16.                Due regard being had to the situation at hand and the<\/p>\n
discussions made above, the conviction of the appellants, Kallu Thakur, Shiv<\/p>\n
Shankar Thakur, Daddan Thakur and Ram Nath Tiwary, under Section 304<\/a> read<\/p>\n
with Section 149<\/a> I.P.C. cannot be sustained and their sentences thereunder of<\/p>\n
life imprisonment has to be set aside not being tenable in law.<\/p>\n
17.                The impugned judgment and order was also sought to be<\/p>\n
assailed by the learned counsel for the appellants by stating that the prosecution<\/p>\n
had examined 7 witnesses in its support of whom P.W.7 was a formal one and<\/p>\n
the other six witnesses apart from being partisan and interested witnesses had<\/p>\n
failed to prove the time, place and manner of occurrence. P.W.1, Bacha Thakur,<\/p>\n
a Barber, and the brother of the informant, in paragraph 6 of his deposition in<\/p>\n
court has submitted that earlier in the morning he had submitted a written report<\/p>\n
signed by his father to the police regarding the occurrence and he was made to<\/p>\n
sit at the police station from 5.30 morning for the whole day and was released at<\/p>\n
around 6 in the evening. Then again P.W.2, Sushila Devi, , the wife of P.W.4<\/p>\n
and bhabhi of the informant, in paragraph 13 of her deposition in court has<\/p>\n
stated that they were assaulted with lathi but she was not in a position to say who<\/p>\n
assaulted whom with lathi. The specific case of the prosecution is that injured,<\/p>\n
Jawala Thakur, was assaulted with farsa and afer falling down was inflicted a
\n                                9<\/span><\/p>\n
blow with bhala by Amawas Thakur. P.W.4, Jawahar Thakur, the brother of the<\/p>\n
informant, in paragraph 11 stated that the occurrence took place outside the<\/p>\n
barbed wire boundary fixed by the accused and that the police had uprooted the<\/p>\n
same and instead of seizing and taking it to the police station had left the same<\/p>\n
there. Then again in paragraph 16 he has stated that no blood had fallen on the<\/p>\n
ground and whatever blood had fallen had fallen on their clothes.<\/p>\n
18.                It would thus appear that there is no consistency amongst the<\/p>\n
witnesses about the time, place and manner of assault, although all of them are<\/p>\n
closely related.\n<\/p>\n
19.                 The doctor (P.W.6) examined injured, Collector Thakur, and<\/p>\n
found three injuries on his person, namely, (i) lacerated wound 1″ X 1\/4″ X skin<\/p>\n
deep over left side over the forehead and bleeding, (ii) lacerated wound 1\/4″ X<\/p>\n
1\/4″ X skin deep over the left foot and (iii) Swelling 1\/2″ X 1″ over the lower<\/p>\n
part of thigh caused by hard blunt substance. All the injuries in the opinion of<\/p>\n
the doctor were simple in nature.\n<\/p>\n
20.                In the absence of any cogent evidence adduced by the<\/p>\n
prosecution regarding the bonafide, claims of the prosecution is difficult to<\/p>\n
uphold the prosecution case.\n<\/p>\n
21.                It is true that   merely because the prosecution witnesses<\/p>\n
happen to be interested or partisan their evidence cannot be thrown out on that<\/p>\n
ground alone but then to believe them there must be some consistency and<\/p>\n
reliability in their depositions which any reasonable man in the ordinary course<\/p>\n
could accept as bonafide. That unfortunately is not the case herein and there are<\/p>\n
discrepancies galore in the deposition of the witnesses specially in respect of the<\/p>\n
place of the occurrence and the manner of assault which have been pointed out<\/p>\n
in the foregoing paragraphs.\n<\/p>\n
                               10<\/span><\/p>\n
\n
22.                P.W.1 in his deposition has stated that he had gone to the<\/p>\n
police station at 5.30 A.M. with a written report signed by his father. This<\/p>\n
would mean that he was in such a condition after the occurrence that he could<\/p>\n
reasonably put his signature.      It would also mean that that was the first<\/p>\n
information of the occurrence given to the police but no action appears to have<\/p>\n
been taken thereupon and there is no explanation forthcoming from the<\/p>\n
prosecution on that account. This by itself would negate the entire prosecution<\/p>\n
story more so when the first information regarding the occurrence has not been<\/p>\n
brought on record and no formal F.I.R. was drawn up on the basis thereof.<\/p>\n
23.                The I.O. of the case has also not been examined although this<\/p>\n
by itself cannot be a ground for throwing out the prosecution case. However, it<\/p>\n
does become relevant if prejudice is caused to the defence.<\/p>\n
24.                In the present case, by non examination of the I.O. the<\/p>\n
defence has not been able to put questions regarding the discrepancies in their<\/p>\n
statement under Section 161<\/a> Cr.P.C. and that given in court. This apparently is a<\/p>\n
major prejudice caused to the defence.       As held in several decisions, even<\/p>\n
though the non examination of the I.O. is not necessarily fatal to a prosecution<\/p>\n
case, it would not be proper to sustain the conviction where prejudice appears to<\/p>\n
have been caused to the defence. In the instant case, by non examination of the<\/p>\n
I.O. the veracity of several statements made by the prosecution witnesses<\/p>\n
remained untested and such non examination has prejudiced the accused so<\/p>\n
much so that no independent objective finding regarding the occurrence could be<\/p>\n
placed before the trial court and in that sense the non examination of the I.O.<\/p>\n
would prove fatal to the prosecution case and in those circumstances it would<\/p>\n
not be safe to sustain conviction as it would become a fit case in which the<\/p>\n
appellants are entitled to the benefit of reasonable doubt.
\n                                  11<\/span><\/p>\n
25.                    Having given my anxious thoughts to the materials available<\/p>\n
on the record and for the reasons, stated above, I am of the opinion that the<\/p>\n
judgment of conviction and order of sentence cannot be sustained and has to be<\/p>\n
set aside. Accordingly, both the appeals are allowed and the appellants are<\/p>\n
acquitted of the charges framed against them as also the sentence pronounced<\/p>\n
against them.\n<\/p>\n
26.                    The appellants, Kallu Thakur, Shiv Shankar Thakur and<\/p>\n
Daddan Thakur , were directed to be released on bail vide order dated 31.7.2002<\/p>\n
whereas appellant Ram Nath Tiwary was directed to be released on bail vide<\/p>\n
order dated 30.7.2002. Since these appellants are on bail, they are discharged<\/p>\n
from the liabilities of their respective bail bonds. So far as appellant, Babban<\/p>\n
Thakur, is concerned, his prayer for bail was rejected on three occasions and he<\/p>\n
is still languishing in jail. In view of the acquittal he is directed to be released<\/p>\n
from custody forthwith.\n<\/p>\n
\n
                                                            (Abhijit Sinha,J)<\/p>\n
Mridula Mishra,J: I agree.\n<\/p>\n
\n
                                                              (Mridula Mishra,J)<\/p>\n
Patna High Court, Patna.\n<\/p>\n
Dated: The      28th        of August, 2008.\nPradeep Srivastava\/A.F.R.\n <\/pre>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Patna High Court Ram Nath Tiwary vs State Of Bihar on 28 August, 2008 Author: Smt. Mridula Mishra CRIMINAL APPEAL No.453 OF 2002(D.B.) With CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.458 OF 2002(D.B.) (Against the Judgment of Conviction and Order of Sentence dated 26 th of July, 2002, passed by Sri Lakshman Ram, Presiding Judge, Fast Track Court No.III, […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[8,26],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-261952","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-patna-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nRam Nath Tiwary vs State Of Bihar on 28 August, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ram-nath-tiwary-vs-state-of-bihar-on-28-august-2008\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Ram Nath Tiwary vs State Of Bihar on 28 August, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ram-nath-tiwary-vs-state-of-bihar-on-28-august-2008\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2008-08-27T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2015-10-19T10:18:06+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"17 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ram-nath-tiwary-vs-state-of-bihar-on-28-august-2008#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ram-nath-tiwary-vs-state-of-bihar-on-28-august-2008\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Ram Nath Tiwary vs State Of Bihar on 28 August, 2008\",\"datePublished\":\"2008-08-27T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-10-19T10:18:06+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ram-nath-tiwary-vs-state-of-bihar-on-28-august-2008\"},\"wordCount\":3363,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"High Court\",\"Patna High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ram-nath-tiwary-vs-state-of-bihar-on-28-august-2008#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ram-nath-tiwary-vs-state-of-bihar-on-28-august-2008\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ram-nath-tiwary-vs-state-of-bihar-on-28-august-2008\",\"name\":\"Ram Nath Tiwary vs State Of Bihar on 28 August, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2008-08-27T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-10-19T10:18:06+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ram-nath-tiwary-vs-state-of-bihar-on-28-august-2008#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ram-nath-tiwary-vs-state-of-bihar-on-28-august-2008\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ram-nath-tiwary-vs-state-of-bihar-on-28-august-2008#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Ram Nath Tiwary vs State Of Bihar on 28 August, 2008\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Ram Nath Tiwary vs State Of Bihar on 28 August, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ram-nath-tiwary-vs-state-of-bihar-on-28-august-2008","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Ram Nath Tiwary vs State Of Bihar on 28 August, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ram-nath-tiwary-vs-state-of-bihar-on-28-august-2008","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2008-08-27T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2015-10-19T10:18:06+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"17 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ram-nath-tiwary-vs-state-of-bihar-on-28-august-2008#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ram-nath-tiwary-vs-state-of-bihar-on-28-august-2008"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Ram Nath Tiwary vs State Of Bihar on 28 August, 2008","datePublished":"2008-08-27T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-10-19T10:18:06+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ram-nath-tiwary-vs-state-of-bihar-on-28-august-2008"},"wordCount":3363,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["High Court","Patna High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ram-nath-tiwary-vs-state-of-bihar-on-28-august-2008#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ram-nath-tiwary-vs-state-of-bihar-on-28-august-2008","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ram-nath-tiwary-vs-state-of-bihar-on-28-august-2008","name":"Ram Nath Tiwary vs State Of Bihar on 28 August, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2008-08-27T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-10-19T10:18:06+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ram-nath-tiwary-vs-state-of-bihar-on-28-august-2008#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ram-nath-tiwary-vs-state-of-bihar-on-28-august-2008"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ram-nath-tiwary-vs-state-of-bihar-on-28-august-2008#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Ram Nath Tiwary vs State Of Bihar on 28 August, 2008"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/261952","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=261952"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/261952\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=261952"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=261952"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=261952"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}