IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CRIMINAL APPEAL (DB) No.587 of 2023 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-53 Year-2014 Thana- CHENARI District- Rohtas ====================================================== MUNDRIKA RAM SON OF MEHILAL RAM RESIDENT OF VILLAGE- KAUWADIH SAMHOTA, PS- KARGAHAR, DISTRICT- ROHTAS AT SASARAM ... ... Appellant/s Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. RAKESH KUMAR SON OF RAMAYAN RAN RESIDENT OF VILLAGE- KAUWADIH SAMHOTA, PS- KARGAHAR, DISTRICT- ROHTAS AT SASARAM 3. DASHRATH RAM SON OF KESHWAR RAM RESIDENT OF VILLAGE- KAUWADIH SAMHOTA, PS- KARGAHAR, DISTRICT- ROHTAS AT SASARAM 4. CHANDRA VANSH RAM @ TAPPU SON OF RAJENDRA RAM RESIDENT OF VILLAGE- KAUWADIH SAMHOTA, PS- KARGAHAR, DISTRICT- ROHTAS AT SASARAM ... ... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Appellant/s : Mr. Babu Nandan Prasad, Adv. For the Respondent/s : Mr. Satya Narayan Prasad, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJEEV RANJAN PRASAD and HONOURABLE MR. ORAL JUDGMENT (Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE JUSTICE AJIT KUMAR) 4. 07-08-2025 Heard Mr. Babu Nandan Prasad, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. Satya Narayan Prasad, learned Additional Public Prosecutor. 2. The instant Appeal is directed against the Judgment and order of acquittal dated 12.05.2023 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-XVIII, Rohtas at Sasaram (hereinafter called ‘the trial court’) in Session Trial No. 142/2015 arising out of Chenari P.S. Case No. 53/2014 and C.I.S. No. 142/2015 whereby and whereunder the learned Trial Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.587 of 2023 dt.07-08-2025 2/41 Court has acquitted the Respondents No. 2 Rakesh Kumar, Respondent no. 3 Dashrath Ram and Respondent no. 4 Chandravansh Ram @ Tappu from the charge leveled against them under sections-364, 302, 120(B) of Indian Penal Code (for short ‘IPC’). 3. At the outset, it is relevant to mention that the date of occurrence as per the case record is 04.04.2014 and the date of registration of FIR is also 04.04.2014 and as such there is no delay in registration of FIR. The police, after investigation, submitted the charge-sheet against the four accused persons, namely, 1. Rakesh Kumar son of Ramayan Ram, 2. Dashrath Ram son of Keshwar Ram, 3. Mantu Kumar son of Dwarika Ram and 4. Chandra Vansh Ram @ Tappu son of Rajendra Ram and all of them faced the trial. The learned Additional Sessions Judge-XVIII, Rohtas at Sasaram acquitted Respondents No.2 to 4, whereas Mantu Kumar was convicted for the offence punishable under sections 364, 302, 120(B) of the IPC. 4. Before delving into the merits of the case, it is apt to give a brief of the prosecution story. The prosecution case is based on the Fardbeyan of Basant Singh aged about 55 years son of Late Harbansh Singh, present Dafardar Circle-1, Chenari PS case no. 53 of 2014 recorded by S.I. Dhananjay Kumar Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.587 of 2023 dt.07-08-2025 3/41 Sharma of Chenari PS at Hatta-Canal Road side area at Hatta village at 7:45 hours on 04.04.2014. As per the Fardbeyan, the Informant, received an information through local villagers that one dead body was thrown in a chat of a canal and upon visiting the said place, the informant found that a dead body of a person aged about 25-26 years was thrown in the said canal and besides that the informant noticed that the deceased was wearing full shirt, jeans pant of blue colour and black leather slipper in his legs. The neck of the dead body was tied with rubber and one thin piece of cotton wear. On query being made from the local persons, they were not in a position to provide any information regarding the deceased and even passers-by were also unable to tell anything about the said deceased. No injury was found over the dead body. It was apparent by mere look at the dead body that the death was caused at some other place but in order to hide the dead body, it was thrown in the canal. 5. On the basis of the aforesaid written Fardbeyan of Basant Singh, Dafadar, First Information Report bearing Chenari PS Case No. 53 of 2014 dated 04.04.2014 was drawn and upon its investigation, police submitted charge-sheet against Respondents No. 2, 3 and 4 respectively along with convicted accused, Mantu Kumar under sections 364, 302, 120(B) of the Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.587 of 2023 dt.07-08-2025 4/41 IPC. The other co-accused, who were arrayed in the category of accused, namely, Rajendra Ram, Dwarika Ram, Raj Vansh Ram, Suryavansh Ram and Vinod Ram were not sent up for trial in this case. It is further submitted that after submission of the charge-sheet, cognizance and commitment of records to the court of sessions, all the charge-sheet accused were explained the charges, they denied the charges and claimed to be tried. Thereafter, charges were framed under sections 364, 302, 120(B) of the IPC. Altogether 14 prosecution witnesses were examined besides three Exhibits were placed on record for adjudication. 6. List of prosecution witnesses and exhibits are as under:- P.W. 1 Keshnath Ram P.W. 2 Dharmendra Kumar P.W. 3 Ram Pravesh Ram P.W. 4 Ambedkar Kumar Raushan P.W. 5 Madhurendra Kumar P.W. 6 Mundrika Ram (Appellant) P.W. 7 Nand Lal Chauhan (Doctor) P.W. 8 Birendra Paswan P.W. 9 Madan Mahto P.W.10 Savita Kumari, Sister of deceased P.W.11 Basant Singh (Informant) P.W.12 Sheo Murat Yadav P.W.13 Sudarshan Paswan P.W.14 Vinod Kumar (I.Ο.) Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.587 of 2023 dt.07-08-2025 5/41 Documents Exhibited by prosecution:- Ext. 1 Postmortem Report. Ext. 2 signature of Informant on formal F.I.R. Ext. 3 Charge Sheet. 7. Thereafter, statements of the accused under section 313 CrPC (Now section 351 of BNSS) were recorded. They pleaded innocence. The defence did not adduce any oral or documentary evidence. Findings of the trial court. 8. The trial court in its judgment has recorded that there is no direct evidence or witnesses to the occurrence save and except only PW-1, Keshnath Ram, who while going to his sister’s home is said to have seen Mukesh Kumar talking with Mantu Kumar and Chandra Vansh @ Tappu near over-bridge. Rest of the witnesses who have been examined in the instant case has not seen the deceased with the accused persons at the time of incident or before. The trial court has further recorded in its judgment that from the materials produced by the prosecution and the argument advanced by them, it is not clear that the said incident is committed by whom and at what time and at which place and by what mode. There is no direct evidence produced by the prosecution and as such, the entire case is based on circumstantial evidence. Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.587 of 2023 dt.07-08-2025 6/41 9. The trial court has relied upon a judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Sharad Birdhi Chand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra reported in AIR 1984 SC 1622 wherein it has been discussed that in absence of direct evidence, the conviction can be recorded on the basis of circumstantial evidence provided the conditions stipulated thereunder are fully established. 10. Relying upon the aforesaid judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court, the trial court recorded a finding that from the materials produced by the prosecution, it is evident that on 03.04.2014, the accused, Mantu Kumar and Chandra Vansh @ Tappu was seen talking with Mukesh Kumar (deceased). As per the PW-10, Savita Kumari, Mukesh telephoned her and informed that he is at Sasaram station along with the accused persons. The said statement has also been supported by the prosecution witnesses no. 2, 4 and 5 but by seeing someone at some place is not in itself self sufficient because the place at which the accused is said to have been seen, was 25 to 30 Kilometers away from where the dead body of the deceased was found. There is no material on record that the accused persons were all along in between with the deceased. And even no supporting materials with regard to such statement has been Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.587 of 2023 dt.07-08-2025 7/41 produced. It means, the place from where the dead body is said to have been recovered, there is no proof of presence of accused persons or the prosecution to this effect has either brought any materials on record. 11. In the present case, the last seen theory can only be made applicable in a situation, where the accused and the deceased were lastly seen while the deceased was alive but when the victim is found dead and the period between both the time is so excessive that the possibility of such incident being committed is ruled out, in that case, the last seen theory cannot be accepted and is not sufficient to make it applicable in such matter. 12. The trial court after making threadbare scrutiny of evidences led by the prosecution as well as giving minute hearing to the grounds raised by the defense has arrived to a conclusion that the prosecution has not been able to show or bring any cogent material, does not meet the ingredients of section 346 of the IPC because the PW-1 had seen two accused persons, namely, Mantu Kumar and Chandra Vansh @ Tappu talking with the deceased whereas, as per PW-10, the deceased had informed that he is coming along with both the accused persons and from such statements, it is clear that the deceased, Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.587 of 2023 dt.07-08-2025 8/41 Mukesh was not under any pressure or any obstruction was being provided to him. Besides this, there is no material produced on record to conclude that the deceased was kidnapped by these accused persons. 13. Insofar as the charges framed under sections 302 and 120(B) of the IPC, the trial court has arrived to a conclusion that from the evidence produced with respect to Rakesh Kumar and Dashrath Ram that they used to provoke Mantu and Tappu for killing the deceased, no cogent material or any material inspiring confidence has been produced by the prosecution and even the manner through which such provocations were made by them including the person in whose presence and from which place the said activities were being carried out by these accused persons, even are found absent. Not only that, even conspiracy angle has not been proved by the prosecution. 14. Insofar, the evidences produced by the prosecution is not very clear, some witnesses say, they have complete faith or they have belief or they assumed or presumed that by hatching conspiracy, the murder of Mukesh Kumar has been committed. But all such statements are mere statements and there is no clear, straight or direct evidence, which could find the complicity of the aforesaid accused persons in the Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.587 of 2023 dt.07-08-2025 9/41 commission of crime. 15. Insofar, as the accused, namely, Chandravansh Ram @ Tappu is concerned, there is only one evidence of lastly being seen and further the PW-10 also supporting that Chandravansh Ram @ Tappu was coming with the deceased, besides there being no material cogent and inspiring confidence over such materials, has ever been produced with respect to these accused persons. Since, last seen theory is a very weak nature of evidence and it must be proved with other materials which in the present case, the prosecution has miserably failed and as such, the prosecution witnesses having been brought for recording their evidences does not show that there was any meeting of mind with Mantu and Tappu before the murder being committed. From the prosecution evidence, the reason behind the murder by the accused, Chandravansh Ram @ Tappu or ever any threatening was given by this accused is also not very clear. Merely, Chandravansh Ram @ Tappu being seen with deceased and other accused is not sufficient in itself unless his complicity in the commission of crime is found and the material so produced inspires confidence, which the prosecution has not been able to bring on record. Having related with someone in itself is not sufficient to hold the said person guilty or being Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.587 of 2023 dt.07-08-2025 10/41 connected with any commission of crime. The further conduct of this accused can be found out that when the police arrived at the house of Chandravansh Ram @ Tappu , he was found present in his house. 16. Insofar, as the allegation levelled against Mantu Kumar is concerned, the prosecution has created a chain of evidence. The accused, Mantu Kumar was seen with the deceased. The incident which took place on the eve of Holi and further the PWs No. 2 and 3 having stated with regard to murder having been committed by Mantu Kumar completes the chain and confirms that the prosecution has been able to provide sufficient material which can hold him guilty by providing a motive for committing murder of Mukesh Kumar. 17. Similarly, with regard to the other accused persons, namely, Rakesh Kumar, Dashrath Ram, the prosecution has not been able to provide any circumstantial or direct evidence which could suggest their complicity in any manner with the commission of the crime and even the evidences led by all the PWs are based on either hearsay or on the basis of presumption and supposition, which cannot be relied upon to fasten guilt with regard to these two accused persons and accordingly, the trial court was right in its view that in the nature Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.587 of 2023 dt.07-08-2025 11/41 of evidence produced by the prosecution, the prosecution has miserably failed to bring on record cogent materials to hold the accused persons, namely, Rakesh Kumar, Dashrath Ram and Chandravansh Ram @ Tappu guilty for the offences punishable under Section 364, 302 and 120(B) of the IPC and owing to such evidences being incomplete, indirect and not inspiring confidence to hold them guilty of the offences, which is said to have been committed by conspiring with the accused, Mantu Kumar. Accordingly, by giving benefit of doubt in absence of sufficient materials, the accused Rakesh Kumar, Dashrath Ram and Chandravansh Ram @ Tappu were acquitted and having found materils inspiring confidence insofar as Mantu Kumar is concerned, the said accused, namely, Mantu Kumar was convicted for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the IPC. Submissions on behalf of the appellant 18. The present appeal is preferred by the father of the deceased and while pressing the present application, learned counsel for the appellant relied upon the evidences of PW-1 and PW-3. Learned counsel for the appellant has stated that PW-1, Keshnath Ram while going to his sister’s house had taken route of railway station to reach the bus stand, when he saw the Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.587 of 2023 dt.07-08-2025 12/41 convict-accused, Mantu Kumar, Chandravansh Ram @ Tappu and the deceased, Mukesh Kumar talking near over-bridge. The other argument advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant is that PW-3, Ram Pravesh Ram has also stated that the said witness was called by the convicted accused, who had called him at Tarbangla, Dihri Mor by making a telephone call on 28.03.2014 and while sitting in car had threatened to kill the deceased, Mukesh Kumar and had further stated while abusing Mukesh that within eight days, he would be teaching a lesson to him, and also asked him to inform him. Thereafter, on 03.04.2014, Mukesh Kumar became traceless and on 04.04.2014, dead body of Mukesh Kumar was found. It has further been stated by the learned counsel that Dashrath Ram used to call Chandravansh Ram @ Tappu and Rakesh Kumar and Mantu Kumar with the sole purpose of provoking them and by provoking the said murder is said to have been committed. 19. Besides above, learned counsel for the appellant has further submitted that PW-1 is the person who had lastly seen the acquitted persons along with the deceased near railway station and therefore, on the basis of last seen theory, it is required that they should also be convicted along with Mantu Kumar, who was being provoked by them for the purpose of Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.587 of 2023 dt.07-08-2025 13/41 committing the offence. Submissions on behalf of the State. 20. On the contrary, learned Additional Public Prosecutor has vehemently opposed the prayer made by the appellant and submitted that since the chain is complete with respect to the convicted persons and the circumstances which led to murder of the deceased, Mukesh Kumar is very much available on record and insofar the materials showing complicity of acquitted persons having not been found, such findings are completely in terms of dictum of Hon’ble the Apex Court passed in the aforesaid case being, (Sharad Birdhi Chand Sarda, Supra). Hence, the trial court was right in acquitting the respondents no. 2 Rakesh Kumar, Respondent no. 3 Dashrath Ram and Respondent no. 4 Chandravansh Ram @ Tappu by not bringing them within the purview of the offence for which they were charged with and as such, the impugned judgment does not require any interference. 21. This Court would once again analyze the evidence on record hereinafter. 22. PW-1 Kesh Nath Ram. This witness in his examination-in-chief has stated that the incident is 02 years 08 months old and the same is said to have been done between 9 to 10 AM. He further states that while going to see his sister and to Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.587 of 2023 dt.07-08-2025 14/41 catch bus at the Bus Stand, the said witness had to go through the railway station and when he reached to the railway station, he could see Mantu, Santu and Mukesh were talking together near over-bridge and thereafter, the said witness took the bus and went home. After two to four days, the said witness heard regarding the murder of Mukesh near Palaundha bridge. He heard that Mukesh has been murdered and his dead body has been thrown near Palaundha bridge. It is again stated that Mukesh was going along with Mantu and Tappu. So, they have committed murder of Mukesh. He further stated that it has come to his knowledge that some persons were saying that the murder has been committed because of painting during Holi. The said witness also stated that he identifies one person. Today, Mantu has come to the court. This witness did not recognize accused, Rakesh Kumar. 23. In his cross-examination, the said witness has not stated anything material save and except the involvement of his family members in some criminal case owing to which, his brother, Ram Ayodhay Ram is said to have been absconding. In para-10 of his cross-examination, it has further been stated that the said witness knows Chandra Vansh Ram @ Tappu since childhood. When he reached home after visiting sister’s place Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.587 of 2023 dt.07-08-2025 15/41 and after 2-3 days, he came to know about the murder of Mukesh. Similarly, in para-11, 12 and 13 of his cross- examination nothing material could be found out save and except that he told the police that only because of painting on the eve of Holi, the said murder is committed by Mantu because he had seen them talking with Mukesh near over at Sasaram. He further noted that Mukesh, Mantu and Chandra Vansh were friends and used to visit their native place from Patna together. 24. PW-2, Dharmendra Kumar in his examination-in- chief stated that the said incident is of 03.04.2014 and Mukesh was going to his sister’s place and while getting down from from the train at Sasaram, he came to know from the sister of Mukesh that Mukesh was coming with Chandra Vansh Kumar @ Tappu and Mantu Kumar. Again he noted that he was informed by the sister, Savita Kumari at 3:00 PM that mobile phone of Mukesh is switched off and she is not in a position to trace him and at that time, he was examining the copies of Intermediate at Biharsharif. Again on 04.04.2014 at 9.00 AM, the said witness came to know that the dead body of Mukesh is found at chat of the canal. On 28.03.2014 at about 9.00 PM, the said witness had received a call from Mantu by a new number, who told the said witness that he has something urgent to talk Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.587 of 2023 dt.07-08-2025 16/41 and during the course of discussion/conversation, it was disclosed by Mantu that Mukesh talks to his sister, Pramila and he had painted her on the eve of Holi and asked this witness to inform Mukesh that he would have to face the consequence. It has next been stated that he tried to convince by saying that if he had not seen the incident with his own eyes then he should keep calm but time and again Mantu was asking that he would not spare Mukesh and thereafter, he cut the phone. Mantu and Chandra Vansh Kumar were being provoked by Dashrath Kumar time and again and accordingly, murder of Mukesh was committed by Chandra Vansh Kumar, Mantu, Rakesh Kumar and Dashrath Ram by hatching conspiracy. In para-2 of his examination in chief, he has stated that all the accused persons are present in the court. 25. In his cross-examination at para-3, he has stated that Mukesh is his cousin and at the time of incident, he was at Biharsharif and his statement was recorded by the police on 06.04.2014. His elder father had asked him to give such statement to the police at Chenari PS. He met father of Mukesh and informed about the incident. As per the information received from the sister of the deceased, Savita Kumari, the police was informed regarding the call made by Mantu Kumar. Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.587 of 2023 dt.07-08-2025 17/41 In para-5, it has been stated by the said PW that he did not disclose the number by which Mantu had called him on phone. Chandravansh Ram is working as engineer in Police Building Construction Department. At the time of incident, he was staying at Dihri on rent where he was posted at the time of incident, the said PW was not aware about his place of posting during the said period. Similarly, he has further accepted that he had not seen the sister of Mantu being painted on the eve of Holi and further accepted that he is not able to recall that what was the new number by which the said phone call was made to this witness by Mantu. 26. PW-3 Ram Pravesh Ram. This witness has also stated in his examination-in-chief that the incident is of 04.04.2014 and on the eve of Holi, he was not at his home and came after one day of the incident and then came to know that Mukesh had painted Pramila Kumari @ Lalki on the eve of Holi owing to which there was rift between both the families. Thereafter on 28.03.2014, Mantu Kumar had called him and asked him to meet at Tarbangla, Dihri Mor within ten minutes and immediately, thereafter, he sat in his car along with him in the same evening. Mantu was threatening that he would teach Mukesh a lesson withing eight days and thereafter, where he Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.587 of 2023 dt.07-08-2025 18/41 went he was not aware. On 03.04.2014, Mukesh was found missing and on 04.04.2014, the dead body of Mukesh was found. On the provocation of Dashrath Ram by phone, Chandra Vansh Ram @ Tappu, Rakesh and Mantu committed the incident. In para-2, he has stated that accused, Mantu Kumar and Dashrath are present in the court whom he recognizes and other accused can be identified on seeing them. 27. In cross-examination at para-3 he has reiterated by stating that he was called on 28.03.2014 by making a call through Mobile No. 7783860108 and Mantu had threatened but no Sanha was lodged, but the family of Mukesh was informed. In para-6, it has further been stated that the place, from where the dead body of Mukesh was found, was not visited by him. The dead body was seen by him on 04.04.2014 at 10:00 AM when no police officer was there near the dead body. He did not report the said incident to the police rather the statement with respect to the said incident was recorded by the police on 06.04.2014. At para-7 of the cross-examination, it has been stated that he had made statement with regard to abusive language used by Mantu and threatening was given to teach Mukesh a lesson within eight days. He further admitted about having received the information with respect to missing of the Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.587 of 2023 dt.07-08-2025 19/41 deceased, Mukesh on 03.04.2014. It is next stated by him that he had informed regarding Dashrath through telephone was provoking Chandra Vansh Ram @ Tappu, Rakesh and Mantu for committing the offence. 28. PW-4 is Ambedkar Kumar Raushan. This witness is brother-in-law of the deceased, who has stated that the incident is of 03.04.2014. On the same day at 4.30 AM, the deceased had informed this witness that he was going to catch the train by reaching Patna. In para-2 of his examination-in- chief, he has again stated at 9.02 AM, by making call to his wife, Mukesh informed her that he was coming along with Tappu and Mantu and they are at Sasaram station and on finding noise on the phone, the phone was cut by them and they called him (Mukesh Kumar) again. In para-3, it is stated that thereafter, his mobile phone was switched off. After 3.00 PM, it was informed to BDO (father of brother-in-law) that Mukesh has not reached home and on 05.04.2014, he came to know regarding murder of his brother-in-law, Mukesh. In para-4 of his examination-in-chief, it is stated that Dharmendra Kumar, Ram Pravesh Ram of village Samhuta told that Tappu, Mantu, Rakesh, Dashrath and their family members have jointly killed Mukesh. Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.587 of 2023 dt.07-08-2025 20/41 29. In his cross-examination at para-5, he has stated that on 03.04.2014 at 4.30 AM, he could only had talks with Mukesh for 13-14 seconds and he did not go to receive Mukesh at Sasaram station. He had lastly met Mukesh on 23.03.2014 on his son’s birthday. He has further accepted that neither did he make any complaint to the police nor submitted any application before any court. He had informed the father of his deceased brother-in-law, who is BDO, that Mukesh has not reached home. In para-8, it is stated that on 05.04.2014, he came to know regarding murder of Mukesh. It is further stated that Dharmendra Kumar, Ram Pravesh Ram of village Samhuta told that Tappu, Mantu, Rakesh, Dashrath and their family members have jointly killed Mukesh. 30. PW-5 is Madhurendra Kumar, who is elder brother of the deceased. He has not stated anything material except that he was staying at Ambedkar Hostel for pursuing his studies and was going to Semri to see his sister Kavita Kumari by catching Intercity-Express. Sister, Kavita had informed him that Mukesh was coming along with Mantu Kumar and Chandra Vansh @ Tappu but he did not reach at sister’s place. In para-2 of the examination-in-chief, he has stated that he received information that after murdering Mukesh, his dead body has Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.587 of 2023 dt.07-08-2025 21/41 been thrown near Kalaundha bridge. Mantu Kumar, Dashrath Kumar and Rakesh Kumar are involved in his murder. On 16.03.2014, Mukesh had tried to paint Pramila, daughter of Dwarika Ram, for which there was some scuffle between them and owing to such incident, threatening was given by all the accused persons. It has further been stated that he knows all the accused persons. Today, Mantu Kumar and Rakesh Kumar are present in the court. 31. In his cross-examination, the said witness has simply reiterated the statements made in examination-in-chief and nothing material is stated by him which could inspire confidence with respect to the murder having been caused/committed by the accused persons. 32. PW-6 is Mundrika Ram, who happens to be the father of the deceased. He in his examination-in-chief has stated that the incident is of 3rd April, 2014 and the accused persons, namely, Mantu Kumar, Chandra Vansh @ Tappu, Rakesh Kumar, Dashrath Ram have killed his son and in order to hide the dead body, it was thrown in the chat of canal falling within the jurisdiction of Chenari Police Station. In para-2, it has been stated that his son-in-law had informed regarding the said murder and further stated that Mukesh was coming to Semri Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.587 of 2023 dt.07-08-2025 22/41 through Patna Bhabhua Intercity along with Mantu Kumar, Chandra Vansh @ Tappu. Thereafter, they found the mobile phone of Mukesh switched off, his location became traceless. On 05.04.2014, he was informed by Ambedkar Kumar that the dead body of Mukesh has been found and the reason behind murder of Mukesh is the incident, which took place on the eve of Holi. 33. In cross-examination, nothing material has been stated save and except, information given by Ambedkar Kumar on telephone stating that murder is committed by the accused persons, namely, Mantu Kumar, Chandra Vansh @ Tappu, Rakesh Kumar and Dashrath Ram. In para-12, the said witness has further stated before the police that he believes that by hatching conspiracy, the said murder was done by Suryavansh Ram, Rajvansh Ram, Dwarika Ram, Rajendra Ram and Vinod Ram. 34. PW-7, Nandlal Chauhan is a Medical Officer who has stated in his examination-in-chief that on 04.04.2014, he was posted at Sadar Hospital, Sasaram as Medical Officer and did postmortem examination of an unknown Hidu Male aged about 25 years and the following ante-mortem injuries were found:- Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.587 of 2023 dt.07-08-2025 23/41 “ External Finding- Rigor mortis present in all the four limbs, A ligature Mark 1" in width encircling the neck horizontally and completely, which is slightly depressed in the middle, which is pale with reddish and echimosed margin. Epidermis are abraded here and there adjacent to the ligature mark. Eyes propped up. Mouth open and face swollen. Blood tinged froth from nose and mouth. Abrasion 1"x1" Right side of maxillary prominence. Abrasion of skin over right elbow and wrist. Bruise and echymosis upper and lateral chest wall. 2. On dissection-Skull-Brain and its meninges congested. Neck-Mucous membrane of trachea oedematous and congested. Wind pipe broken under the ligature mark, subcutaneous haematoma under the ligature mark. Chest-Both lungs congested. Heart-Both chamber contain few clotted blood. Abdomen liver, spleen, both kidney congested. Stomach- contain semi digested food material. Intestine contain gas and faecese. Urinary bladder contain about 100 ML of urine. 3. Cause of Death- asphyxia due strangulation. 4. Time elapsed since death- within 6 to 24 hours. 5. This postmortem is performed by me written by me and signed by me. Postmortem report mark Exibit & 1.” 35. PW-14, Binod Kumar is the Investigating Officer of this case. He in his examination-in-chief has stated that on 04.04.2014, he was posted at Chenari PS and on the statement of Dafadar Basant Singh PS Case No. 53 of 2014 was registered by Daroga, Pankaj Kumar Saini. Formal FIR was drawn and investigation was handed over to him. He immediately made inspection of the place of occurrence at 1:00 PM and recorded Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.587 of 2023 dt.07-08-2025 24/41 the statement of Birendra Paswan, Sudarshan Paswan, Shivmurat Yadav and Madan Mahto. In para-2, it is stated that one unidentified dead body was found on 05.04.2014. Identification was done through news paper. His father had identified the dead body. In para-3, it has further been stated that on 04.04.2014, the inquest report was prepared, which is not written by him. The said report was prepared by Bharat Ram, who is an Inspector of Police. In para-4, it has further been stated that the dead body was handed over to his father. On 06.04.2014, the statement of witnesses, Mundrika Ram, Madhwendra Kumar, Ram Pravesh Ram and Dharmendra Kumar was recorded. The said Investigating Officer has stated that he took all measures to nab the accused persons involved in the commission of crime and accordingly, in course of investigation, requisite permission was obtained from the Higher Officials and supervision report was also obtained. Witnesses were examined and further stated that on 28.10.2014, Charge-sheet was submitted against the accused persons, namely, Chandra Vansh Ram @ Tappu, Dashrath Ram, Mantu Kumar, Rakesh Kumar under Sections 364, 302, 120(B) of the IPC, which is written in his own hand. 36. In para-7 of the cross-examination, it has been Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.587 of 2023 dt.07-08-2025 25/41 stated that it is true that witnesses were examined during course of investigation but the place and the time of their examination is not mentioned in the case diary. It has further been stated that the witness, Sheshnath Ram has stated that Mukesh has been murdered and his dead body was thrown near Palaundha bridge. He has further stated that he had not stated that the said murder was committed owing to the occurrence of painting of sister of Mantu Kumar on the eve of Holi. It has further been stated that witness, Dharmendra Kumar (PW 2) has not given statement that on 04.04.2014 at 9:00 AM, he came to know regarding dead body having been found near the chat of canal. He has further stated that he had not stated that on 28.03.2014, Mantu Kumar had phoned him through new number and had stated that he wants to talk to him on urgent basis. But he had said that Mukesh was talking with his sister, Pramila on telephone. It is true that Dharmendra Kumar had not stated that Mantu Kumar and Chandra Vansh Kumar were being provoked by Dashrath Ram time and again. In para-8, it has been stated that witness Ram Pravesh Ram had not stated that by using abusive language, Mantu had said that he would be doing something within three days. The said witness has further stated that he had not stated that the incident was of 04.04.2014 and the Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.587 of 2023 dt.07-08-2025 26/41 information with regard to Mukesh being missing was received on 03.04.2014. He had not stated that Dashrath Ram was provoking Chandra Vansh @ Tappu, Rakesh Kumar for committing the said crime. The witness, Ambedkar Kumar has not stated in his statement that the incident is of 03.04.2014 and his son reaching Barhi, he was asked to wake him up at 4.30 AM. He had further not stated that on 03.04.2014 on telephone, the said brother-in-law had stated that he had reached station for catching Intercity. It has further been stated by him that he had not stated that the deceased, Mukesh had informed that Chandra Vansh Ram, Mantu are with him at the station. The said witness further denied talking with the deceased on mobile. In para-9, the said I.O. has stated with respect to witness no.5 that it is true that all accused had not threatened to kill and the said witness has not taken the name of Dashrath Ram and Rakesh Kumar. In para-10, the said I.O. has accepted that witness no.6 had not stated that his son, Mukesh was kidnapped under conspiracy hatched by Mantu Kumar, Chandra Vansh @ Tappu, Rakesh Kumar, Dashrath Ram for the purpose of murder and in order to hide the dead body, the said dead body was thrown near chat of canal under Chenari Police Station. 37. PW 8, Birendra Paswan, PW-9, Madan Mahto, Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.587 of 2023 dt.07-08-2025 27/41 PW-12, Shivmurat Yadav and PW-13, Sudarshan Paswan have been declared hostile. 38. PW-11, Basant Singh is the informant, who has stated in his examination-in-chief that the incident is five years old and on that day, he was posted at Chenari PS, where he received the statement that one dead body is lying near chat of canal, where he went and saw the dead body and on enquiry from the local villagers, he could not find anything material regarding the said dead body, which was aged about 25 to 26 years wearing pink full shirt, jeans pant and slippers. Rubber thread was tied around his neck, there was mark also on his neck. He got the Fardbeyan recorded and the signature was made over it, which he recognizes. 39. In his cross-examination, he has stated that the dead body was found one Kilometer away from Chenari Block which was nearer to Chenari Village. 40. In course of statement under section 313 CrPC, the accused Respondent No. 2 to 4 were put the following circumstances:- jkds k dqekj ” iz”u%& D;k vkius xokgksa dh xokgh lquh gS \ mRrj%& th gkaA iz”u%& xokgksa dk dguk gS fd fnukad 3-4-2014 dks eqds”k dqekj firk eqfUnzdk jke lkfdu dkSvkMhg ¼legqrk½ Fkkuk djxgj Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.587 of 2023 dt.07-08-2025 28/41 ftyk&jksgrkl iVuk ls xzke lsejhnso Fkkuk djxgj ftyk&jksgrkl vius cgu lfork dqekjh ds ?kj vk jgk Fkk rks lklkjke jsyos LVs”ku ls lsejh tkus ds dze esa vkius vU; vfHk;qDrksa ds lkFk fey dj mldk vigj.k dj fy;k D;k dguk gS \ mRrj%& ;g xyr ckr gSA esjk eqds”k ds vigj.k ;k gR;k esa dksbZ gkFk ugha gSA iz”u%& xokgksa dk ;g Hkh dguk gS fd o’kZ 2014 dh gksyh esa gh izfeyk dqekjh dks jax yxkus dks ysdj eqds”k dqekj ls vkiyksxks dk fookn gqvk Fkk] ftl dkj.k vkius vU; vfHk;qDrksa ds lkFk fey dj fnukad 3-4-2014 dks gh eqds”k dqekj dk vigj.k djus ds ckn mldh gR;k dj yk”k dks fNikus ds mn~ns”; ls ugj esa Qsad fn;k D;k dguk gS \ mRRkj%& ;g vlR; ckr gS gksyh ds ¼2014½ volj ij esjk eqds”k ls dksbZ >xM+k ugha gqvk FkkA eSaus eqds”k dk vigj.k ;k gR;k ugha fd;k gSA iz”u%& lQkbZ esa D;k dguk gS \ mRRkj%& eSa iwjh rjg funksZ’k gwaA eq>s bl dsl esa >wBk Qalk;k x;k gSA n kjFk jke ” iz”u%& D;k vkius xokgksa dh xokgh lquh gS \ mRrj%& th gka eSa xokgh lquk gwaA iz”u%& xokgksa dk dguk gS fd fnukad 3-4-2014 dks eqds”k dqekj firk eqfUnzdk jke lkfdu dkSvkMhg ¼legqrk½ Fkkuk djxgj ftyk&jksgrkl iVuk ls xzke lsejhnso Fkkuk djxgj ftyk&jksgrkl vius cgu lfork dqekjh ds ?kj vk jgk Fkk rks lklkjke jsyos LVs”ku ls lsejh tkus ds dze esa vkius vU; vfHk;qDrksa ds lkFk fey dj mldk vigj.k dj fy;k D;k dguk gS \ mRrj%& ;g vlR; ckr gSA eSaus eqds”k dk vigj.k ugha fd;k FkkA iz”u%& xokgksa dk ;g Hkh dguk gS fd o’kZ 2014 dh gksyh esa gh izfeyk dqekjh dks jax yxkus dks ysdj eqds”k dqekj ls vkiyksxks Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.587 of 2023 dt.07-08-2025 29/41 dk fookn gqvk Fkk ftl dkj.k vkius vU; vfHk;qDrksa ds lkFk fey dj fnukad 3-4-2014 dks gh eqds”k dqekj dk vigj.k djus ds ckn mldh gR;k dj yk”k dks fNikus ds mn~ns”; ls ugj esa Qsad fn;k D;k dguk gS \ mRRkj%& 2014 esa gksyh ds volj ij eqwds”k ds lkFk esjk dksbZ fookn ugha gqvk FkkA esjk eqds”k ds vigj.k ;k gR;k esa dksbZ gkFk ugha gSA iz”u%& lQkbZ esa D;k dguk gS \ mRRkj%& eSa funksZ’k gwaA eq>s bl dsl esa >wBk Qalk;k x;k gSA pUnzoa k jke mQZ VIiw ” iz”u%& D;k vkius xokgksa dh xokgh lquh gS \ mRrj%& th gkaA iz”u%& xokgksa dk dguk gS fd fnukad 3-4-14 dks eqds”k dqekj firk eqfUnzdk jke lkfdu dkSvkMhg ¼legqrk½ Fkkuk djxgj ftyk&jksgrkl iVuk ls lklkjke jsyos LVs”ku ij lqcg 9 cts vk;s rks vki ,oa eaVw eqds”k dqekj ls feys ,oa mlds lkFk lfork dqekjh ds xkao lsejhnso Fkkuk djxgj tkus yxs D;k dguk gS \ mRrj%& ;g vlR; ckr gSA eSa eqds”k ls 3-4-2014 dks lklkjke LVs”ku ij ugha feyk FkkA iz”u%& xokgksa dk ;g Hkh dguk gS fd fnukad 3-4-2014 dks gh eqds”k dqekj dk vigj.k mudh cgu lfork dqekjh ds xkao tkus ds dze esa vkius vU; vfHk;qDrksa ds lkFk fey dj dj fy;k D;k dguk gS \ mRrj%& eSa eqds”k dk vigj.k ugha fd;k Fkk ;g >wBk ckr gSA iz”u%& xokgksa dk ;g Hkh dguk gS fd o’kZ 2014 dh gksyh esa gh eqds”k dqekj ds }kjk izfeyk dqekjh dks jax yxkus dks ysdj vkiyksxks ls fookn gqvk FkkA ftl dkj.k vkius vU; vfHk;qDrksa ds lkFk fey dj fnukad 3-4-14 dks gh eqds”k dqekj dk vigj.k djus ds ckn mldh gR;k dj mldh yk”k dks fNikus ds mn~ns”; ls ugj esa Qsad fn;k D;k dguk gS \ mRRkj%& th ughaA eSa o’kZ 2009 ls Msgjh “kgj esa jg dj Junior Engineer ds in ij ukSdjh djrk gwaA eqds”k dh gR;k esa esjk dksbZ gkFk ugha gSA Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.587 of 2023 dt.07-08-2025 30/41 iz”u%& lQkbZ esa D;k dguk gS \ mRRkj%& eq>s bl dsl esa >wBk Qalk;k x;k gSA eSa iwjh rjg funksZ’k gwaA 41. From the materials available on the record, it is apparent that the accused persons killed the deceased Mukesh and the motive behind the murder of Mukesh is that on the eve of Holi, Mukesh tried to paint the sister of Mantu Kumar, which infuriated Mantu and consequent to which, threatening was given by him to teach him a lesson and accordingly, the said murder is committed. In support of such submission, the prosecution relied upon the statements made by the prosecution witnesses and has further stated that the prosecution has been able to prove the case beyond all reasonable doubts. 42. The defense also placed their arguments by stating that the witnesses produced by the prosecution are connected with deceased family and no independent witness has been brought for being examined in the instant case. The statement having been recorded by the prosecution has not supported the instant case. It was next submitted that there is no eyewitness to the occurrence, who is said to be present at the place of occurrence to show that the murder has been committed by the accused persons. It is next submitted by the defense that PW-1, Keshnath Ram has stated that on 03.04.2014, the Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.587 of 2023 dt.07-08-2025 31/41 deceased Mukesh was seen with two accused persons near the over-bridge and the statement of this witness was recorded after one month of the occurrence. Other witnesses, who have been examined by the prosecution are brother, uncle, father, sister and brother-in-law who are not independent witnesses. The prosecution witnesses who have been examined during the course of trial, have made such statements, which were never recorded by the Investigating Officer under section 161 of the CrPC, which could be found from the statements made by the Investigating Officer during course of trial. The prosecution has not brought on record any material to support the statements made by the prosecution witnesses. All such statement are made on presumption and supposition and are bald statements without any supportive evidence. The manner in which such statements have been made, they themselves create difference and contradiction with respect to their veracity and falls under the category of suspicion. The place on which the dead body of the deceased has been found, no material or proof has been brought on record by the Investigating Officer, which could suggest that the said dead body was found from the place in question. 43. The defense next submitted that during trial, the place, where the accused persons are said to have been seen is Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.587 of 2023 dt.07-08-2025 32/41 about 25 to 30 kilometres away from the place, where the dead body is said to have recovered and in between there is no proof with respect to the accused persons being seen at the place of occurrence or the accused persons continuously being found along with the deceased person. In absence of direct evidence, the chain of evidence has to be created in terms of mandate of Hon’ble Apex Court in order to implicate the accused persons in the commission of crime, which is absent in the present case. Insofar, as the theory propounded by the witnesses that the incident which is said to have happened on the eve of Holi, where Mukesh had attempted to paint sister of Mantu, is the cause behind the murder, is not supported by direct evidence and the witnesses, who are said to have stated during course of examination that it is for this reason, murder of Mukesh was committed, has not been able to prove nor any CCTV footage or any material inspiring confidence, with regard to incident having been taken at the behest of these accused persons, either with the aid by providing tower location or call details, the prosecution has miserably failed to prove the guilt against the accused persons beyond all reasonable doubts. 44. It is submitted that from the materials produced by the prosecution, it is not proved that the accused persons had Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.587 of 2023 dt.07-08-2025 33/41 hatched any conspiracy for committing the murder of Mukesh by kidnapping and in the present case, the entire story is self cooked and manipulated for the purpose of settling earlier scores for taking advantage by implicating the accused persons, for which the prosecution has not brought any cogent material. The materials which have been placed by the prosecution is self contradictory and does not fall in the category of direct evidence and further the evidences are, at best, in the nature of circumstantial evidence, in which the prosecution is obliged to prove each circumstance taking cumulatively to form a chain, so complete that there is no escape from the conclusion that within all human probability crime was committed by the accused and none else. Consideration. 45. Having heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State and upon a threadbare analysis of the evidences, we find that the findings of the learned trial court that there is no eyewitness of the occurrence in question and the entire case is based on circumstantial evidence is correct. 46. In the case of Sharad Birdhi Chand Sarda, (Supra) the Hon’ble Supreme Court has laid down the Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.587 of 2023 dt.07-08-2025 34/41 conditions required to be fulfilled to record conviction based on circumstantial evidence, which may be found in paragraph-152 which we reproduce hereunder:- “1. The circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn should be fully established; …………... 2. The facts so established should be consistent with the hypothesis of guilt and the accused, that is to say, they should not be explainable on any other hypothesis except that the accused is guilty; 3. The circumstances should be of a conclusive nature and tendency; 4. They should exclude every possible hypothesis except the one to be proved; and 5. There must be a chain of evidence so complete as not to leave any reasonable ground for the conclusion consistent with the innocence of the accused and must show that in all human probability the act must have been done by the accused.” 47. As per the dictum of Hon’ble Apex Court Sharad Birdhi Chand Sarda, (Supra) that there must be a chain of evidence so complete as not to leave any reasonable ground for the conclusion consistent with the innocence of the accused and must show that in all human probability the act must have been done by the accused. 48. It is apt to consider the principles laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of H.D. Sundra and Others Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.587 of 2023 dt.07-08-2025 35/41 v. State of Karnataka reported in (2023) 9 SCC 581 and the case of Babu Sahebagouda Rudragoudar and Ors. v. State of Karnatara reported in (2024) 8 SCC 149, wherein it has been categorically stated that the acquittal of the accused strengthens the presumption of innocence and while hearing an appeal against acquittal, the appellate court is entitled to re-appreciate the oral and documentary evidence while deciding an appeal against acquittal and upon re-appreciating the evidence, the appellate court is required to consider whether the view taken by the trial court is a possible view, which could have been taken on the basis of evidence on record. In the case, if the view taken by the trial court is a possible view, the appellate court cannot overturn the order of acquittal on the ground that another view was possible and as such, the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of H.D. Sundra (supra) has laid down the principles governing a case of appeal against judgment of acquittal. Paragraph-8 of the said judgment is being reproduced hereunder for ready reference:- “8.1. The acquittal of the accused further strengthens the presumption of innocence; 8.2. The appellate court, while hearing an appeal against acquittal, is entitled to reappreciate the oral and documentary evidence; 8.3. The appellate court, while Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.587 of 2023 dt.07-08-2025 36/41 deciding an appeal against acquittal, after reappreciating the evidence, is required to consider whether the view taken by the trial court is a possible view which could have been taken on the basis of the evidence on record; 8.4. If the view taken is a possible view, the appellate court cannot overturn the order of acquittal on the ground that another view was also possible; and 8.5. The appellate court can interfere with the order of acquittal only if it comes to a finding that the only conclusion which can be recorded on the basis of the evidence on record was that the guilt of the accused was proved beyond a reasonable doubt and no other conclusion was possible.” 49. From the evidences available on the records of trial court, this Court finds that the prosecution case is based on the Fardbeyan recorded by PW-11, Basant Singh, who has deposed before the trial court that the incident is five years old and on that day, he was posted at Chenari PS, where he received the statement that one dead body is lying near chat of canal and when he went and saw the dead body and tried to enquire from the local villagers, he could not find anything material regarding the said dead body, which was aged about 25 to 26 years wearing pink full shirt, jeans pant and slippers. Rubber thread was tied around his neck, there was mark also on his neck. Admittedly, he was not an eyewitness. 50. Similarly, PW-1, Kesh Nath Ram who claims to Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.587 of 2023 dt.07-08-2025 37/41 have seen the accused persons along with the deceased talking together near over bridge while going to catch bus. Save and except such statement having been made with regard to the accused persons having been lastly seen along with the deceased Mukesh Kumar and has further stated that after two to four days, he heard about the murder of the deceased, Mukesh Kumar near Palundha bridge and therefore, on the basis of last seen theory, the said witness has tried to implicate the accused persons who are said to have been acquitted by the trial court. 51. Similarly, PW-2, Dharmendra Kumar also stated that the incident is of 03.04.2014 when Mukesh was going to his sister’s place and while getting down from the train at Sasaram, he came to know from the sister of Mukesh that Mukesh was coming with Chandra Vansh Kumar @ Tappu and Mantu Kumar and further has stated that the sister of Mukesh had informed her that at 3:00 PM she found the mobile phone of Mukesh is switched off and she was not in a position to trace him. Besides, such statement having been made referring to certain communications held with sister of Mukesh (deceased), namely, Savita Kumari, nothing material has been said by the said witness about the Respondent no 2 to 4. 52. PW-3, Ram Pravesh Ram, this witness has also Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.587 of 2023 dt.07-08-2025 38/41 stated in his examination-in-chief that the incident is of 04.04.2014 and on the eve of Holi, he was not at home and came only after the day of the incident and then came to know that Mukesh had painted sister of Mantu on the eve of Holi owing to which there was a rift between both the families. Besides that he has stated that on 28.03.2014, Mantu Kumar had called him and asked him to meet at Tarbangla, Dihri Mor within ten minutes and immediately, thereafter, he sat in his car along with him in the same evening and according to him, Mantu was threatening that he would teach Mukesh a lesson within eight days and thereafter, where he went, he was not aware. It has further been stated that regular provocation was being given to Mantu by Dashrath Ram on phone and accordingly, Chandra Vansh Ram @ Tappu, Rakesh and Mantu have committed the incident. Besides such statements, nothing material and cogent have been produced by the prosecution, which could be taken as a piece of evidence to connect the complicity of the acquitted persons in the said commission of crime. 53. PW-4, Ambedkar Kumar Raushan, who is said to be the brother-in-law of the deceased has also not stated anything incriminating against the acquitted accused persons Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.587 of 2023 dt.07-08-2025 39/41 and besides certain statements being referable to Savita Kumari, the sister of the deceased, no cogent materials have come out from the records showing complicity of the acquitted accused persons. 54. From the materials available on record, it is quite clear that certain circumstances have been stated by the different witnesses to connect the acquitted accused with the person who is said to have been convicted but on close scrutiny of the materials available on records, the trial court was of the view that the prosecution has miserably failed to show the complicity of the accused persons in the said commission of crime and accordingly, the last seen theory which has been propounded by the counsel for the appellant appears to have not been grounded with substantive and supportive evidence to connect their complicity with the crime in question. The learned trial court has rightly not accepted the contentions of the prosecution witnesses, who have tried to build up a case on the basis of last seen theory, but nothing material has been produced by the prosecution and as such, the materials so produced could not create a chain of evidence and in such background, did not inspire confidence over such materials. 55. The trial court has rightly accepted the fact that Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.587 of 2023 dt.07-08-2025 40/41 the place where accused persons are said to have been seen is about 25-30 Kilometers away from the place, where the dead body is said to have been recovered and in between there is no proof with respect to the acquitted persons being lastly seen at the place of occurrence or the acquitted persons continuously being found along with with deceased person. In absence of direct evidence, the chain of evidence has to be created in terms of the mandate of Hon’ble Apex Court in order to implicate the accused person in the commission of crime, which is factually absent in the present case. Therefore, the theory propounded by the prosecution witnesses that the incident which is said to have taken place on the eve of Holi, is not supported by any direct evidence. Further, the prosecution has failed to bring on record any proof or CCTV footage, which could have inspired confidence with regard to the statements made to hold these acquitted persons to show their complicity in the commission of crime. The trial court has also recorded that even the prosecution has not provided any tower location or call details to connect these acquitted accused persons being in touch with the convicted person in any manner and therefore, the trial court has rightly acquitted the Respondent No. 2 Rakesh Kumar, Respondent no. 3 Dashrath Ram and Respondent no. 4 Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.587 of 2023 dt.07-08-2025 41/41 Chandravansh Ram @ Tappu. 56. Anything which has been observed for the purpose of appreciating the case of the acquitted person would not prejudice the case of convicted accused, in case the appeal against conviction is filed by him or is pending adjudication. 57. Hence, we find no reason to interfere with the judgment of the acquittal in the present case. 58. This appeal has no merit. It is dismissed accordingly. perwez (Rajeev Ranjan Prasad, J) ( Ajit Kumar, J) AFR/NAFR AFR CAV DATE N/A Uploading Date 26.08.2025 Transmission Date 26.08.2025