{"id":71350,"date":"2010-01-21T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2010-01-20T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/niranjan-rai-vs-state-of-bihar-on-21-january-2010"},"modified":"2014-08-01T07:51:51","modified_gmt":"2014-08-01T02:21:51","slug":"niranjan-rai-vs-state-of-bihar-on-21-january-2010","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/niranjan-rai-vs-state-of-bihar-on-21-january-2010","title":{"rendered":"Niranjan Rai vs State Of Bihar on 21 January, 2010"},"content":{"rendered":"
Patna High Court<\/div>\n
Niranjan Rai vs State Of Bihar on 21 January, 2010<\/div>\n
Author: Dharnidhar Jha<\/div>\n
                                    CRIMINAL APPEAL No.272 OF 2007\n\n                     Against the judgement dated 6.2.2007 and order of sentence dated\n                     13.2.2007 passed by the Ist Additional Sessions Judge, Muzaffarpur\n                     in S.Tr. No. 226 of 2000.\n                                                 ----------------\n<\/pre>\n
                     1.DEVENDRA RAI\n<\/p>\n
                     2.MAHESH RAI—————————–           ————–(Appellant)
\n                                        Versus
\n                     STATE OF BIHAR———————————————(Respondents)<\/p>\n
                                         with
\n                                 CR. APP (DB) No.328 oF 2007
\n                     NIRANJAN RAI————————————————-(Appellant)
\n                                        Versus
\n                     STATE OF BIHAR———————————————(Respondents)<\/p>\n
                                        with
\n                                 CR. APP (DB) No.471 oF 2007
\n                     SATRUGHAN RAI————————————————(Appellant)
\n                                       Versus
\n                     STATE OF BIHAR———————————————(Respondents)<\/p>\n
                                          with
\n                                 CR. APP (DB) No.371 oF 2007\n<\/p>\n
                     1.MOHAN RAI\n<\/p>\n
                     2.BINOD RAI ——————————-       —————(Appellant)
\n                                         Versus
\n                      STATE OF BIHAR———————————————(Respondents)\n<\/p>\n
                                                      ————–\n<\/p>\n
                     For the appellants (in Cr. Appeal No. 272\/07 ) Sarva Sri Pramod Mishra
\n                                                                              Advocate
\n                                                                   Vijay Kr. “Mukul”\n<\/p>\n
                                                                    P.C. Thakur
\n                                  (in Cr. Appeal No. 471\/07)    Shri Diwakar Prasad, Advocate.
\n                                 (in Cr. Appeal No. 371\/07)     Shri Niraj Kumar Amicus curiae
\n                                  (in Cr. Appeal No. 328\/07)    Shri Bashishtha Narayan Miyara
\n                                                                Shri S.N. Rai
\n                                                                Shri B.K. Mishra
\n                      For the Respondent (in all the appeals)   Shri Ashwini Kumar Sinha, Addl.\n<\/p>\n
                                                                Public Prosecutor.\n<\/p>\n
                                                        ———–\n<\/p>\n
                                                      PRESENT<\/p>\n
                                THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE DHARNIDHAR JHA
\n                                 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR<\/p>\n
Dharnidhar Jha
\n     &
\nRakesh Kumar, JJ :                 These four appeals arise out        of the judgment and order of<\/p>\n
                     conviction passed by the learned Ist Additional Sessions Judge, Muzaffarpur on<\/p>\n
                     6.2.200 in Session Trial No. 226 of 2000 by which he held the appellants guilty
\n                             -2-<\/span><\/p>\n
of committing offence under section 302 read with section 149 of the Indian<\/p>\n
Penal Code and directed each of them to suffer S.I. for life as also to pay a fine<\/p>\n
of Rs. 5000\/- each, else, to suffer S.I. for three years. The appellants were further<\/p>\n
held guilty of committing offence under section 307\/149 of the Penal Code and<\/p>\n
the same order of imprisonment, ie, S.I. for life was passed on each of them.<\/p>\n
              The appellants were charged and tried for the above offences on the<\/p>\n
basis of the fardbeyan (Ext.5) of P.W.6 Manoj Kumar Rai in which he stated that<\/p>\n
his parents used to sleep in the hut which existed near the tube well of the<\/p>\n
informant. At about 1.30 A.M. in the night intervening the 13\/14 August 1998<\/p>\n
the informant and his brother P.W.4 Subodh Kr. Rai heard the cries of their<\/p>\n
parents and rushed to that place when they found the appellants and accused<\/p>\n
Umila Devi there with various arms. Urmila Devi does not appear put on trial. It<\/p>\n
is alleged that appellant Mohan Rai assaulted Nageshwar Rai the deceased with<\/p>\n
Bhala , Binod Rai gave grasa blow to the deceased whereas appellant Niranjan<\/p>\n
Rai assaulted the deceased with sword. The deceased become injured and fell<\/p>\n
down in a small ditch there. The mother of P.W.6, namely, Sumitra Devi (P.W.5)<\/p>\n
came to save the deceased Nageshwar Rai. It is alleged that appellant Devendra<\/p>\n
Rai assaulted Sumitra Devi (P.W.5) with Bhala whereas appellant Niranjan Rai<\/p>\n
gave a sword blow to her whereas Urmila Devi ( not put on trial) assaulted<\/p>\n
Sumitra Devi P.W.5 with a sickle. It is further alleged that appellant Mahesh Rai<\/p>\n
dealt a danda blow to P.W.5 Sumitra Devi. As a result of the above assaults,<\/p>\n
P.W.5 became seriously injured and she also fell down there unconscious.<\/p>\n
              The informant further stated that the accused persons ran to assault<\/p>\n
P.Ws 6 and 4 and they fled from there raising a cry that their parents had been<\/p>\n
killed which attracted many villagers to the scene of occurrence. P.W 5 stated<\/p>\n
that he and P.W.4 Subodh Kumar         came back to the village and from there to<\/p>\n
the scene of occurrence and found that their father had died and their mother<\/p>\n
was laying unconscious on account of being seriously injured.<\/p>\n
              The motive for the alleged occurrence was that the father of the
\n                              -3-<\/span><\/p>\n
informant had purchased a piece of land from one Ranglal Rai (not examined) and<\/p>\n
the accused persons were nursing grudge on that account against the deceased.<\/p>\n
              On the basis of Ext.5 the first information report of the case Ext.6<\/p>\n
was drawn up and the investigation was started by S.I. Ajay Kumar (not<\/p>\n
examined) and on submission of the charge sheet sending the appellants up for<\/p>\n
trial, the same was held     which ultimately ended in the judgment of conviction<\/p>\n
and sentence as pointed out at the very out set of the present judgment.<\/p>\n
              The defence of the appellant appears a complete denial of their<\/p>\n
participation and also of false implication on account of any reason which might<\/p>\n
be known only to the witnesses.\n<\/p>\n
              In support of the charges the prosecution examined as many as ten<\/p>\n
witnesses out of whom P.W.4 Subodh Kumar, P.W.5 Sumitra Devi and P.W.6<\/p>\n
Manoj Kumar Rai have given eye witness account of the occurrence. Sumitra<\/p>\n
Devi is also an injured witness. As regards the other witnesses, P.W.7 Dr.<\/p>\n
Binod Kumar Mehta          held the postmortem examination on the dead body of<\/p>\n
deceased Shri Nageshwar Rai and had issued Ext.3 the postmortem examination<\/p>\n
report. P.W.1 Suresh Rai is a co-villager and has not stated any thing on the<\/p>\n
manner of occurrence and has simply stated that he saw the accused persons<\/p>\n
running away from the scene of occurrence.         He further stated as to which<\/p>\n
accused was having what weapon in his hand. P.W.2 Shambu Rai is a witness<\/p>\n
to seizure of the Garasi and Hasua from the place of occurrence whereas P.W.3<\/p>\n
Brajesh Kumar Yadav is a witness to inquest, Ext.1, as is the status of P.W.8<\/p>\n
Tuna Rai P.W.9 Shashi Nath Sharma proved the writing of Dr. Shatish Verma<\/p>\n
on the injury report of P.W.5 Sumitra Devi which has been marked Ext.4 for the<\/p>\n
prosecution. P.W.10 Ram Anek Singh is a formal witness who has proved the<\/p>\n
writings of a couple of police officers who wrote fardbeyan Ext.5 and first<\/p>\n
information report Ext.6. The Doctor who examined P.W.5 Sumitra Devi has not<\/p>\n
been examined likewise the I.O. of the case has also not been examined.<\/p>\n
              We were taken through the        evidence of the witnesses by the
\n                              -4-<\/span><\/p>\n
learned counsel appearing for the appellants in the four connected appeals and it<\/p>\n
was contended that the manner of occurrence as narrated in the basic prosecution<\/p>\n
document Ext.5 appears a bit changed by P.Ws, 4, 5, and 6. It was contended<\/p>\n
that the story of assault is specifically been made against five accused persons, ie.,<\/p>\n
Mohan Rai, Binod Rai, Niranjan Rai, Urmila Devi and Mahesh Rai out of whom<\/p>\n
appellants Mohan Rai , Binod Rai and Niranjan Rai are alleged to have given<\/p>\n
blows respectively with Bhala, Garasa and sword on the deceased nageshwar Rai<\/p>\n
whereas P.W.5 Urmila Devi is said to be assaulted by appellant Devendra Rai<\/p>\n
with Bhala , Niranjan Rai with sword, Urmila Devi by sickle and by appellant<\/p>\n
Mahesh Rai with Danda but in their evidence they have stated that the deceased<\/p>\n
was assaulted by all the accused persons by weapons which they were having in<\/p>\n
their possession. It was contended that this was a factual departure from the<\/p>\n
initial prosecution version. It was further contended that P.W.4 does not appear<\/p>\n
an eye-witness who could have seen the occurrence really and he has introduced<\/p>\n
a third story in the prosecution version by stating in evidence that when the<\/p>\n
accused persons reached at the scene of occurrence, initially, there was a scuffle<\/p>\n
between them on the one hand and the deceased Nageshwar Rai on the other and<\/p>\n
that the accused persons also assaulted the deceased and P.W.5 Sumitra Devi as a<\/p>\n
result of which the deceased fell down in the ditch unconscious and died there.<\/p>\n
It was contended that P.W.5 does not name the accused who had dealt garasi<\/p>\n
blow on the head of P.W.5 and as regards the assault on her the evidence of<\/p>\n
P.W.6 the informant also appears a bit awry in as much as he was stating that his<\/p>\n
father was assaulted by all the accused persons and also by the three appellants<\/p>\n
whom he named in the first information report initially as the assailants of his<\/p>\n
father. The next contention was that the motive as alleged was not proved, rather<\/p>\n
there was evidence on record which indicated as if the relationship between the<\/p>\n
families of the deceased and the accused persons were good and cordial. It was<\/p>\n
contended that attempt was made from very inception of the prosecution to make<\/p>\n
out a case of sufficiency of light at the place of occurrence when the witnesses
\n                              -5-<\/span><\/p>\n
stated that it was a moon lit night but     it remains doubtful in absence of the<\/p>\n
examination of the I.O        that there was sufficient source for identifying the<\/p>\n
accused. The last contention was that the place of occurrence was surrounded by<\/p>\n
the houses of different independent persons and it was located in the very heart of<\/p>\n
the village but none of the co-villagers who are admitted to be attracted to the<\/p>\n
scene of occurrence due to the cries raised by the informant came to support the<\/p>\n
prosecution against the appellants.\n<\/p>\n
              The learned Additional Public prosecutor called upon us to reject<\/p>\n
the evidence of P.Ws. 4 and 6 as not eye witnesses and to act upon the evidence<\/p>\n
of P.W.5 as she was injured during the course of occurrence and to        hold the<\/p>\n
appellants guilty. When we confronted, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor<\/p>\n
by pointing out that what he meant by making the above submission was to<\/p>\n
accept or to discard the very prosecution document the fardbeyan in the light of<\/p>\n
the development or other defects which may be afflicting the prosecution case<\/p>\n
and to make out a third story. The learned Public prosecutor then submitted    that<\/p>\n
if the defects were incurable then the effect there of must have its result on the<\/p>\n
ultimate finding of guilt of the present set of appellants.<\/p>\n
              There is definite motive alleged by the prosecution that the accused<\/p>\n
persons were having heart-burns on account of the fact that the deceased had<\/p>\n
purchased a piece of land from one Rangalal Rai. . On consideration of the<\/p>\n
evidence of P.W.5 in paragraph 3 of her evidence it is indicated that there was a<\/p>\n
talk for purchase of the land between the accused persons and the land holder too.<\/p>\n
She has stated that her husband enhanced the price of the land and succeeded in<\/p>\n
getting the land purchased as a result of which the accused persons were nursing<\/p>\n
grudge and were planning, probably, to kill her husband but in cross-examination<\/p>\n
part of her evidence in paragraph 5 she has stated that the negotiations for<\/p>\n
purchase of the land has been carried out by the deceased and        ultimately he<\/p>\n
purchased it for Rs. 10,000\/- and that the accused persons had never any talk<\/p>\n
with any one. It is further stated by P.W.5 that there was no hindrance created by
\n                             -6-<\/span><\/p>\n
the accused persons in taking possession of the land after its purchase.        As<\/p>\n
regards P.W.4 he has stated in paragraph 6 of his evidence that he and his family<\/p>\n
had no quarrel with the accused persons after the purchase of the land which has<\/p>\n
been purchased 10\/15 days prior to the occurrence. So far as the evidence of<\/p>\n
informant on the point is concerned, he has made a statement in paragraph 2 of<\/p>\n
his examination in chief and he was cross-examined on the fact in paragraph 5 of<\/p>\n
his evidence wherein he has categorically admitted that there was no dispute of<\/p>\n
his family with those of the accused persons and that the accused persons had<\/p>\n
never had any talk with him in respect of the land (P.W.6 paragraph 6). He has<\/p>\n
also admitted that after the land was purchased he took possession of the land<\/p>\n
peacefully and ten days thereafter the agricultural operations were started there<\/p>\n
on. It may be of some importance to point out that P.W.5 the injured witness in<\/p>\n
paragraph 4 has stated that she did not have any quarrel with the accused persons<\/p>\n
except for the land and that prior to the occurrence the two families visited each<\/p>\n
other. If this could be the relationship which was existing prior to the date of<\/p>\n
occurrence,if it could be an admitted fact that the accused persons did not create<\/p>\n
any hurdle either in purchase or in taking possession of that particular land which<\/p>\n
was purchased by the deceased from one Rangalal Rai then the alleged motive<\/p>\n
appears to us not established. The relationship was good as indicated just now as<\/p>\n
the two families were visiting each other. The relationship had not worsened.<\/p>\n
This could be concluded from the very fact that the prosecution party had no<\/p>\n
talks about the purchase of the land at the time when the negotiations were being<\/p>\n
carried out by the deceased or just thereafter when he had taken possession of the<\/p>\n
land also. The court does not see any reason as to why then, the appellants<\/p>\n
would be so much impelled for committing the murder of a person against whom<\/p>\n
they had no axe to grind and that too at a moment of as early as 1.30 A.M. After<\/p>\n
having gone through the evidence of the witnesses on the point of motive we are<\/p>\n
constrained to hold that the motive which was alleged by the prosecution as a<\/p>\n
fact which impelled the accused to commit the offence has not been established.
\n                             -7-<\/span><\/p>\n
              The above could be sufficient for us to hold that the prosecution<\/p>\n
case suffers from a grave defect but that is not all. We are of the opinion that the<\/p>\n
value of the first information report may not be as of evidence, it could merely be<\/p>\n
a document contents where of could be utilized either for seeking the<\/p>\n
corroboration or reading the contradictions in the evidence of the person who had<\/p>\n
made it. But one must not lose sight of the importance of the documents. It is the<\/p>\n
most important documents which is the very basis of the prosecution edefice. It is<\/p>\n
the document which, at the same time, is the most potent weapon in the hands of<\/p>\n
the defence to point out the loopholes which might have appeared in the evidence<\/p>\n
of the prosecution witnesses particularly or   jointly. This is how the importance<\/p>\n
of the document could be highlighted.\n<\/p>\n
              The basic prosecution case is of individual assault on the two<\/p>\n
individuals one of whom is the deceased Nageshwar Rai. Nageshwar Rai is said<\/p>\n
to be assaulted by Mohan Rai with Bhala, by Binod Rai with grasa, and Niranjan<\/p>\n
Rai with sword. The specific parts of the body which were hit by the above<\/p>\n
named accused persons by their respective weapons, has not been stated. It<\/p>\n
remains the same when we read the evidence of three witnesses, none says as to<\/p>\n
who assaulted by his weapon at which part of the body of deceased as a result of<\/p>\n
which an injury was caused.       Similar could be the case when we read the<\/p>\n
prosecution   narration in respect of the assault allegedly made by Devedra Rai<\/p>\n
with Bhala, Niranjan with sword, Urmila Devi (not put on trial) with sickle and<\/p>\n
Mahesh Yadav with Danda on P.W.5 Sumitra Devi. But when we read the<\/p>\n
evidence of the three witnesses what we find is that they have at the very<\/p>\n
beginning of their evidence alleged that all accused person who were there, as per<\/p>\n
P.W.5 Sumitra Devi did not commit any overt act till the couple remained in the<\/p>\n
Jhopari, but started assaulting the deceased with their respective weapon as soon<\/p>\n
as the couple had come out of the Jhopari. We could not be able in isolating as to<\/p>\n
what could be reason for the accused persons remaining peaceful there and not<\/p>\n
assaulting the deceased or his wife while they were very much fast asleep. It
\n                            -8-<\/span><\/p>\n
could have been the best situation for them to have wielded blows decisively with<\/p>\n
a definite result that no one could have seen and no one could have remained to<\/p>\n
depose against them. This is one aspect which has created doubt in our minds<\/p>\n
about the manner of assault.\n<\/p>\n
             The other aspect is the introduction of the of the manner of assault<\/p>\n
by all the accused persons simultaneously with their respective weapons         at<\/p>\n
Nageshwar Rai. Evidence of P.W.7 was out read to us by the amicus curiae Sri<\/p>\n
Niraj Kumar appearing on behalf of the appellant in criminal appeal no. 371 of<\/p>\n
2007 and he submitted that P.W.5 in his evidence has not stated as to which part<\/p>\n
of the body of the deceased was hit by appellant Binod Rai who was armed with a<\/p>\n
garasi and likewise Mohan Rai who was alleged rmed with Bhala and who is<\/p>\n
also stated to have given blow with that weapon to the deceased does not appear<\/p>\n
causing any injury to him as per the evidence of P.W.7 as he did not find any<\/p>\n
piercing or any other injury which could be said to be caused by a weapon like<\/p>\n
Bhala. Learned amicus curiae submitted that all the injuries recorded by P.W.7<\/p>\n
were incised wound with clean cut margins and as such the allegation that Mohan<\/p>\n
Rai had dealt a bhala blow appears not corroborated. Similar was the contention<\/p>\n
on behalf of appellant Mahesh Rai who is stated by the witness to have dealt<\/p>\n
lathi blow on P.W.5. But there is no such injury caused by hard blunt substance<\/p>\n
like lathi in as much as Ext.4 which was brought on record without examining<\/p>\n
the doctor issuing the document, records initially two incised injuries which were<\/p>\n
as per the opinion recorded therein was caused by sharp cutting weapon. It was<\/p>\n
as such contended that the manner of occurrence as is narrated by the witness as<\/p>\n
appears not corroborated by the medical evidence.\n<\/p>\n
             The doctor who examined P.W.5, has not been examined. The<\/p>\n
medical report    Ext. 4, was brought on record by examining formal witness<\/p>\n
P.W.9 Shashi Nath Verma who proved the writing and signature to be that of<\/p>\n
doctor Satish Verma. We feel hesitant in     recording that the very admission of<\/p>\n
the record would not replace the substantive evidence of a doctor by examining
\n                             -9-<\/span><\/p>\n
the formal witness in as much as the plea of the defence of being prejudiced goes<\/p>\n
unanswered. The appellants had a right to cross-examine the doctor and to bring<\/p>\n
on record any fact which they could have found relevant for probablising their<\/p>\n
defence    and for improbablising the manner of occurrence. That prejudice<\/p>\n
appears caused to the appellants due to non-examination of the doctor. Besides<\/p>\n
the other aspect of the matter is that appellant Niranjan Rai is said to have given a<\/p>\n
sword blow to P.W.5. It has not been stated in the fardbeyan as to what was the<\/p>\n
part hit by the appellant Niranjan Rai, when he assaulted to P.W.5.           P.W.5<\/p>\n
Sumitra Devi in her evidence she has stated that she was assaulted by appellant<\/p>\n
Niranjan Rai with sword on her head. Ext.5 contains an injury which has been<\/p>\n
recorded as 4″ long and      1 x \u00bd” in depth on fore head on outer part of skull<\/p>\n
bone and this injury has not been reported as grievous. There is no other blow<\/p>\n
alleged by any of the witnesses on Sumitra Devi by          appellant Niranjan Rai<\/p>\n
whereas the witness has stated that appellant Devendra Rai dealt a danda blow<\/p>\n
on her arm which is recorded as an injury 3 x \u00bd” x muscle deep and as such<\/p>\n
again a simple injury. It is well known that offence under section 307 of the<\/p>\n
Indian Penal Code could be attracted even without an injury being caused, but<\/p>\n
there are injuries and they have to     looked into to find out as to what was the<\/p>\n
intention or under what sort of knowledge the accused was giving blows to the<\/p>\n
injured. For deriving the intention of the accused the part of the body hit, the<\/p>\n
weapon used in assaulting the injured and the resultant injuries are important to be<\/p>\n
considered. It is true that sword and bhala could be dangerous weapons but the<\/p>\n
injuries in absence of the doctor, if utilized may lead to an inference on account<\/p>\n
of being simple in nature that there must not be an intention or knowledge in the<\/p>\n
appellants to have caused murder of Sumitra Devi.\n<\/p>\n
              Besides the above point, the defect remains on account of non-<\/p>\n
examination of the investigating officer also as the fact remains unchallenged<\/p>\n
when the prosecution was claiming that it was a moon lit night and the attention<\/p>\n
of P.W.5 being drawn that she had not made a such statement.              The other\n<\/p>\n
                               – 10 –\n<\/p>\n
controversy remains on account of non-examination of the persons residing in the<\/p>\n
neighborhood.     The evidence shows that village population had started just 4\/5<\/p>\n
laggas of the place of occurrence. P.W.1 in paragraph 3 has stated that his house<\/p>\n
was situated 10 laggas away from the place of occurrence and that 1 lagga<\/p>\n
measured 6 \u00bc cubits.. Thus the distance from the place of occurrence and the<\/p>\n
population of the village may be       50 to 60ft. It was the dead of night and<\/p>\n
persons were crying or raising cries for help. There is admission in the first<\/p>\n
information report that many of the villagers had been attracted but none had<\/p>\n
come to support the prosecution version or even the fact that when they came just<\/p>\n
after the occurrence any of the injured had narrated to them about the incidence.<\/p>\n
These are the defects which the prosecution suffers from.<\/p>\n
              The post mortem examination report and the evidence of P.W.7<\/p>\n
does not contain any injury which could be said to be caused by Bhala or which<\/p>\n
could be said to be caused also by a sickle in as much as the two injuries which<\/p>\n
has been described at serials number 1 and 2 each measuring 3″ in length out of<\/p>\n
the remaining three two were measured 1 \u00bd” and 1″. Injury no.5 was fracture of<\/p>\n
lower portion of left hunerous bone above elbow which allegation is not attributed<\/p>\n
to any one. It is true that the doctor has not mentioned that the injuries were ante<\/p>\n
mortem but he has mentioned that the death had occurred on account of above<\/p>\n
injuries. On looking to the postmortem examination report we find that there is<\/p>\n
mention in it that the injuries were ante-mortem in nature. There is no opinion as<\/p>\n
to what could be the weapons to cause those injuries.\n<\/p>\n
                These are the defects which we find in the prosecution story<\/p>\n
besides the one that it had failed in establishing the motive. The other defect is<\/p>\n
that the prosecution appears making a departure from its original version by<\/p>\n
introducing a third story of assault by all the accused persons simultaneously by<\/p>\n
all the accused persons. Considering this defect, we find that it was a case in<\/p>\n
which the benefit of doubt would have been extended to the appellants; we extend<\/p>\n
the same to the appellants.\n<\/p>\n
                            – 11 –\n<\/p>\n
             In the result the four appeals are hereby allowed. The appellants are<\/p>\n
acquitted on account of being given benefit of doubt. Except appellant Niranjan<\/p>\n
Rai, appellant in Cr. Appeal no. 328 of 2007, all the appellants are on bail. They<\/p>\n
shall be discharged from the liabilities of their respective bonds.     Appellant<\/p>\n
Niranjan Rai shall be released forthwith if not wanted in any other case.<\/p>\n
                                            (Dharnidhar Jha,J)<\/p>\n
                                            (Rakesh Kumar, J)<\/p>\n
Patna High Court
\nThe 21st Jan. 2010
\nM.Rahman\/ AFR\/\n <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Patna High Court Niranjan Rai vs State Of Bihar on 21 January, 2010 Author: Dharnidhar Jha CRIMINAL APPEAL No.272 OF 2007 Against the judgement dated 6.2.2007 and order of sentence dated 13.2.2007 passed by the Ist Additional Sessions Judge, Muzaffarpur in S.Tr. No. 226 of 2000. —————- 1.DEVENDRA RAI 2.MAHESH RAI—————————– ————–(Appellant) Versus STATE OF […]<\/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-71350","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-patna-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nNiranjan Rai vs State Of Bihar on 21 January, 2010 - 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\/niranjan-rai-vs-state-of-bihar-on-21-january-2010\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Niranjan Rai vs State Of Bihar on 21 January, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/niranjan-rai-vs-state-of-bihar-on-21-january-2010\" \/>\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=\"2010-01-20T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2014-08-01T02:21:51+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=\"19 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/niranjan-rai-vs-state-of-bihar-on-21-january-2010#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/niranjan-rai-vs-state-of-bihar-on-21-january-2010\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Niranjan Rai vs State Of Bihar on 21 January, 2010\",\"datePublished\":\"2010-01-20T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2014-08-01T02:21:51+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/niranjan-rai-vs-state-of-bihar-on-21-january-2010\"},\"wordCount\":3869,\"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\\\/niranjan-rai-vs-state-of-bihar-on-21-january-2010#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/niranjan-rai-vs-state-of-bihar-on-21-january-2010\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/niranjan-rai-vs-state-of-bihar-on-21-january-2010\",\"name\":\"Niranjan Rai vs State Of Bihar on 21 January, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2010-01-20T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2014-08-01T02:21:51+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/niranjan-rai-vs-state-of-bihar-on-21-january-2010#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/niranjan-rai-vs-state-of-bihar-on-21-january-2010\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/niranjan-rai-vs-state-of-bihar-on-21-january-2010#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Niranjan Rai vs State Of Bihar on 21 January, 2010\"}]},{\"@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":"Niranjan Rai vs State Of Bihar on 21 January, 2010 - 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\/niranjan-rai-vs-state-of-bihar-on-21-january-2010","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Niranjan Rai vs State Of Bihar on 21 January, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/niranjan-rai-vs-state-of-bihar-on-21-january-2010","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2010-01-20T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2014-08-01T02:21:51+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":"19 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/niranjan-rai-vs-state-of-bihar-on-21-january-2010#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/niranjan-rai-vs-state-of-bihar-on-21-january-2010"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Niranjan Rai vs State Of Bihar on 21 January, 2010","datePublished":"2010-01-20T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2014-08-01T02:21:51+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/niranjan-rai-vs-state-of-bihar-on-21-january-2010"},"wordCount":3869,"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\/niranjan-rai-vs-state-of-bihar-on-21-january-2010#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/niranjan-rai-vs-state-of-bihar-on-21-january-2010","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/niranjan-rai-vs-state-of-bihar-on-21-january-2010","name":"Niranjan Rai vs State Of Bihar on 21 January, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2010-01-20T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2014-08-01T02:21:51+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/niranjan-rai-vs-state-of-bihar-on-21-january-2010#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/niranjan-rai-vs-state-of-bihar-on-21-january-2010"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/niranjan-rai-vs-state-of-bihar-on-21-january-2010#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Niranjan Rai vs State Of Bihar on 21 January, 2010"}]},{"@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\/71350","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=71350"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/71350\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=71350"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=71350"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=71350"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}