G. Anupama Chakravarthy, J.—The criminal appeal is filed against the judgment and order dated 08.12.2003, passed by the Adhoc Sessions Judge, Ist Fast Track Court, Siwan, in Sessions Trial No. 116 of 1985/140 of 2001, arising out of Case No. 48 of 1984 of Maharajganj PS, whereby the appellant No. 1 was convicted under Sections 148 and 324 of the Indian Penal Code and was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years. Further, appellants Nos. 2 and 3 were convicted under Sections 147 and 323 of the Indian Penal Code and were sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year each.

2. As there is no assistance from the counsel for the appellants, this Court is constrained to appoint Ms. Rishika Jha as Amicus Curiae to assist the Court and has also called for a report from the Superintendent of Police, Siwan, to verify whether the appellants are alive or not? The Court has received a letter dated 23.12.2024 from the Superintendent of Police, Siwan, informing the Court that appellant No. 1, Haricharan Ram, passed away five years ago. The letter is accompanied with the report from the Mukhiya, confirming the death of the 1st appellant. Therefore, case against appellant No. 1 shall stand abated. The remaining appellants are alive.

3. Heard Ms. Rishika Jha, Amicus Curiae for the appellants and Mrs. Anita Kumari Singh, Learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State. Perused the records.

4. It is contended by the Learned Amicus Curiae that the informant, Motilal Ram, the doctor who is alleged to have examined the informant as well as the injured (his mother, PW-2), and the Investigating Officer were not examined in this case. It is also contended by her that neither the fardbeyan nor the FIR were marked, which are basic documents for the trial court to know the contents and prove the allegations against the appellants. Furthermore, it is contended by the Learned Amicus Curiae that Exhibits 1 and 1/1 were marked under Section 294 of the Cr.P.C., despite the objections raised by the defense, and thus, those documents cannot be considered. It is further contended that other witnesses in this case, namely, PWs 1 and 3, are alleged to be eye-witnesses to the incident, but their presence is not established by the contents of the fardbeyan. Therefore, their evidence cannot be said to be corroborated with the evidence of PW-2, the injured, and thus, except for the sole testimony of PW-2, nothing remains on record to corroborate her version. Consequently, the conviction against the appellants is liable to be set aside.

5. On the other hand, the Learned Additional Public Prosecutor contended that the sole testimony of PW-2 inspires confidence of the Court and, therefore, there is no error or irregularity in the orders passed by the trial court and therefore, prayed for the confirmation of the trial court's judgment.

6. In support of the appellant's contentions, the Learned Amicus Curiae relied on the judgment of the Apex Court in State of Kerala and Anr. vs. C.P. Rao, reported in (2011) 6 SCC 450, wherein their Lordships held as follows:—

“7. In the background of these facts, especially the non-examination of CW 1, was found very crucial by the High Court. The High Court has referred to the decision of this Court in “Panalal Damodar Rathi vs. State of Maharashtra” wherein a three- Judge Bench of this Court held that when there was no corroboration of testimony of the complainant regarding the demand of bribe by the accused, it has to be accepted that the version of the complainant is not corroborated and, therefore, the evidence of the complainant cannot be relied on. In the aforesaid circumstances, the three- Judge Bench in “Panalal Damodar Rathi” case held that there is grave suspicion about the appellant’s complicity and the case has not been proved beyond reasonable doubt.”

7. The Amicus Curiae also relied on the Judgment of this Court in Dhanwant Sharan vs. State of Bihar reported in 2012 SCC OnLine Pat