Table of Content
1. court reviews the trial court's decisions. (Para 1 , 2 , 3)
2. allegations of assault and theft discussed. (Para 4 , 5 , 6 , 16)
3. arguments challenging the evidential basis for conviction. (Para 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14)
4. judicial analysis of fir delays and their implications. (Para 17 , 18 , 20)
5. final judgment leading to acquittal. (Para 21 , 22)

ORAL JUDGMENT

Date : 04-12-2025 Heard learned Amicus Curiae for the appellants and learned APP for the State.

2. The appellants have challenged the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 31.01.2004 passed by the learned 1^st Additional Sessions Judge, Madhepura, in Sessions Trial No.139 of 1992, arising out of Gamaharia P.S. Case No.68 of 1990, whereby the appellants have been convicted under sections 307/149, 379, 148, 447, 323 and 341 of the Indian Penal Code (for short “I.P.C.”). By the impugned judgment, the appellants have been imposed the following sentences:-

Section under the I.P.C	Sentence imposed by the Trial Court
307/149 I.P.C	Rigorous Imprisonment of five years
148 I.P.C	Rigorous Imprisonment of One year
379 I.P.C	Rigorous Imprisonment of Two years
323 I.P.C	Rigorous Imprisonment of Six months
447 I.P.C	Simple Imprisonment of two months
341 I.P.C	Simple Imprisonment of three months

All the sentences were directed to run concurrently and all the appellants were remanded to jail for serving out their sentences.

3. During the pendency of this appeal, a coordinate Bench of this Court, upon receiving the report from the Superintendent of Police, Madhepura, regarding the death of appellants nos. 1 and 2, namely, Baiju Rishideo and Gulten Rishideo, respectively, vide order dated 20.02.2025, had directed for deleting the names of the aforesaid appellants from the cause title. Accordingly, the present appeal stands abated against the aforesaid two appellants. Now, it is restricted only against the appellants nos. 3 and 4.

4. The prosecution case, as stated by the informant, Bindi Pandit, is that on 29.11.1990 at about 02.00 P.M while he was harvesting the paddy crops of one Janardan Prasad Yadav, suddenly all the accused persons armed with lathi and Bhala came there and surrounded him and thereafter, Jamun Rishideo (since deceased) ordered to kill the informant. Upon which, Baiju Rishideo and others surrounded the informant with an intention to kill him and thereafter, assaulted him with lathi and due to which, the tooth of the informant started bleeding. The other accused persons also assaulted the informant indiscriminately by lathi. Thereafter, the accused Jamun Rishideo wrapped a towel on the neck of the informant and started dragging him, due to which the informant suffered suffocation. On raising alarm, the local people came and saved him. It has also been alleged that the accused persons took away eight bundles of paddy. It has further been stated that prior to the present incident, there was a dispute between the parties over cutting of bamboos, for which a case was lodged and the accused persons asked the informant to withdraw the case and when the informant refused to do so, the occurrence took place. Based on the aforesaid statement, the present F.I.R. has been lodged.

5. During the course of trial, altogether eight witnesses were examined in support of the prosecution case, which are as under: -

P.W.-1 Sada Nand Yadav (Formal)

P.W.-2 Shiv Narayan Yadav

P.W.-3	Mahendra Yadav
P.W.-4	Deo Narain Yadav
P.W.-5	Shibu Rishideo
P.W.-6	Bindi Pandit (informant)
P.W.-7	Dr. J.B.Singh (Doctor)
P.W.-8	S. Toppo (A.S.I. and I.O.)

6. Apart from the oral evidences, the documentary evidences were also exhibited on behalf of the prosecution, which are as follows:-

Exhibit- 1 Formal First Information Report Exhibit- 2 Fardbeyan Exhibit- 3 Charge-sheet

7. After completion of prosecution evidence, the statement of the appellants were recorded under section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, in which the appellants denied the a

Click Here to Read the rest of this document