Dismissed¶104

Pramod Mahto and Ors. v. State of Bihar

Patna HC20 Sept 2025CR. APP (SJ)/465/2007

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Credibility of injured witnesses; rioting (S.147 IPC) and voluntarily causing hurt (S.323 IPC); SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act charges ending in acquittal below; 1996 lathi assault over paddy land dispute, Pupri, Sitamarhi; 18-year-old Patna HC appeal dismissed in 2025, conviction affirmed; only two of four injured persons examined; amicus curiae appointed for unrepresented appellants and paid Rs. 5,000 legal assistance fee; cited: Brahm Swaroop AIR 2011 SC 280; Mano Dutt (2012) 4 SCC 79; State of U.P. v. Kishan Chand (2004) 7 SCC 629.

What did the court decide?

No relief to the appellants; their conviction under sections 147 and 323 IPC and the sentence imposed by the trial court stand. Patna High Court Legal Services Committee directed to pay Rs. 5,000/- as legal assistance fee to the amicus curiae within four weeks. ¶104

Pramod Mahto and Ors. Vs State of Bihar — Patna HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶104

Issue for consideration

Whether offence under section 147 and 323 I.P.C. is made out in the light of given facts and circumstances of the case or not?

¶52

Court's answer

Evidence of PW-2 Bindeshwar Ram, the informant and an injured witness, is trustworthy; his presence at the place of occurrence cannot be denied and cross-examination made no dent in his evidence.

¶66

Ratio / Principle

Evidence of PW-5 Indu Devi, wife of the informant and an injured witness, corroborates the prosecution story in toto regarding the time, place and manner of occurrence and is trustworthy.

¶72

Key takeaways

The statement of the doctor (PW-7) establishes that PW-2 and PW-5 were injured witnesses, corroborating their testimony on the assault.ratio¶90
Inconsistencies bound to arise from the time gap between statements taken during investigation and deposition in court cannot throw away the prosecution story when the crux of the story is intact and the injured witnesses support it.ratio¶90
The judgment of conviction and order of sentence was passed by the trial court with due appreciation of the material on record; this Court finds no reason to differ from the trial court's finding of guilt under sections 147 and 323 IPC.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Patna High Court (Alok Kumar Pandey, J.), by oral judgment dated 20-09-2025, dismissed Criminal Appeal (SJ) No. 465 of 2007, pending since 2007, and affirmed the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 13.03.2007 passed by the 1st Additional Sessions Judge-cum-Special Judge, Sitamarhi (G.R. No. 326 of 1996 / Tr. No. 9 of 2006, arising out of Pupri P.S. Case No. 88 of 1996), convicting five appellants under sections 147 and 323 IPC for the 25.08.1996 lathi assault on the informant's family over a disputed paddy crop; the trial court had acquitted them of charges under section 379 IPC and sections 3(1)(X) and 3(1)(XI) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, and directed them to furnish a bond of Rs. 3,000 with two like sureties to keep the peace for one year. The court found the testimony of the injured witnesses PW-2 Bindeshwar Ram (informant) and PW-5 Indu Devi consistent on time, place and manner of occurrence, corroborated by PW-7 Dr. Gopal Jha's injury reports recording simple injuries caused by hard blunt substance such as lathi, and relied on Brahm Swaroop v. State of U.P. (AIR 2011 SC 280), Mano Dutt v. State of U.P. ((2012) 4 SCC 79) and State of U.P. v. Kishan Chand ((2004) 7 SCC 629) on the built-in reliability of injured witnesses. Amicus curiae Mr. Mukund Kumar, appointed as the appellants were unrepresented, was directed to be paid Rs. 5,000 as legal assistance fee by the Patna High Court Legal Services Committee within four weeks.

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

¶2

CRIMINAL APPEAL (SJ) No.465 of 2007

¶3

======================================================

¶4

Pramod Mahto son of Dhaneshwar Mahto

¶5

Dhaneshwar Mahto son of Late Asharfee Mahto

¶6

Binod Mahto

¶7

Bipin Mahto, both sons of Late Nantun Mahto, all resident of village

¶8

Balaha, Maksudanpur, tola- Munharba, P.S. Pupri, District- Sitamarhi

¶9

Yogendra Mahto son of Late Dhanushdhari Mahto, resident of village Majhaupa, P.S. Sursand, Dist- Sitamarhi

... ... Appellant/s

Versus

The State of Bihar

... ... Respondent/s

======================================================

¶15

Appearance : For the Appellant/s : Mr. Mukund Kumar, Amicus Curiae For the Respondent/s : Mr.Anita Kumari Singh, APP

¶16

====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK KUMAR PANDEY ORAL JUDGMENT Date : 20-09-2025

¶17

The present appeal is pending consideration since the year 2007 and more than 18 years have elapsed. On last two occasions when the matter was taken up, no one appeared on behalf of the appellants. Today also, no one has appeared for the appellant. Hence, I asked the learned advocates present in the Court who is willing to assist the Court as amicus curiae. On this Mr. Mukund Kumar, learned counsel expressed his desire to assist the Court as Amicus curiae. Accordingly, Mr. Mukund

¶18

Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.465 of 2007 dt.20-09-2025 2/19

¶19

Kumar, Advocate is appointed as amicus curiae to assist the Court in this matter.

¶20

The present appeal has been directed against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 13.03.2007, passed by learned 1^st Additional Sessions Judge-cum-Special Judge, Sitamarhi in connection with G.R. No. 326 of 1996/ Tr. No. 9 of 2006 arising out of Pupri P.S. Case No. 88 of 1996, whereby and whereunder the trial Court has hold the appellants guilty and convicted for the charges punishable under section 147 & 323 of the Indian Penal Code and directed to furnish a bond of Rs. 3000/- with two sureties of the like amount each to appear and receive sentence when called upon during a period of one year and in the meantime the appellants have been directed that they shall keep the peace and maintain good behaviour.

¶21

The prosecution story, in brief, is that on 25.08.1996 at 08.00 AM the appellants armed with lathi came and Yogendra Mahto (appellant no. 5) told to uproot the paddy crops. When informant protested, Pramod Mahto (appellant no. 1) ordered to assault by saying abusive words and caste remarks and Pramod Mahto and Dhaneshwar Mahto (appellant no. 2) began to assault the informant by means of lathi, as a result of

¶22

Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.465 of 2007 dt.20-09-2025 3/19

¶23

which informant sustained injuries on his left ear-pit and waist. It is further alleged that when informant’s wife came she was assaulted by Yogendra Mahto, as a result of which she sustained injury upon her cheek. It is further alleged that when mother and father of the informant came for rescue, they were also assaulted by accused Nanteen Mahto (dead), Bipin Mahto (appellant no. 4), Binod Mahto (appellant no. 3) and Yogendra Mahto by means of lathi. It is further alleged that Yogendra Mahto snatched away a Hansuli weighing 250 grams and Dhaneshar Mahto snatched gold Khontla of 2 anna bhar. On raising alarm, villagers Poshan Ram, Srichand Ram arrived there and rescued them.

¶24

On the basis of fardbeyan of the informant, Pupri P.S. Case No. 88 of 1996 dated 25.08.96 was registered under Sections 147, 148, 323, 379, 504 of the IPC. and 3/4 of the SC/ST Act against the appellants and one Nantun Mahto (since deceased). Statement of witnesses came to be recorded and on the completion of investigation, charge sheet has been submitted against the appellants under Sections 147, 149, 323, 504 of the IPC. Thereafter, on 06.02.97 the learned trial court took cognizance against the appellants under sections 147, 149, 323, 504 of the IPC. And 3/4 of the SC/ST (POA) Act and thereafter,

¶25

Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.465 of 2007 dt.20-09-2025 4/19

¶26

the case was committed to the court of sessions. Thereafter charges have been framed against the appellants under sections 3(1)(X) and 3(1)(XI) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act and sections 147, 323 of the IPC. Appellant no. 5, Yogendra Mahto was separately charged under section 379 of the I.P.C. Charges were read over and explained to the appellants to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

¶27

In order to bring home guilt of accused persons, prosecution has examined altogether seven witnesses. PW-1 Poshan Ram, PW-2 Bindeshwar Ram (informant of the case), PW-3 Sri Chand Ram, PW-4 Sita Saran Rai, PW-5 Indu Devi, wife of the informant, and PW-6 Ram Ekbal Sah and PW-7 Dr. Gopal Jha who has examined the injured persons of this case.

¶28

Prosecution has relied upon following documentary

¶29

evidence on record:-

¶30

Ext. 1	Signature of informant on fardbeyan.
Ext. 2	Injury report of the informant.
Ext. 2/1	Injury report of Sonawati Devi.
Ext. 2/2	Injury report of Jugeshwar Ram
Ext. 2/3	Injury report of Indu Devi (wife of the informant)
Ext. 3	Rent receipt of the year 2004- 2005.
Ext. 3/1	Rent receipt of the year 2003- 2004.
Ext. 4	Land Bandobastipurcha
Ext. 5 and 5/1	Certified copy of Khatiyans.

¶31

Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.465 of 2007 dt.20-09-2025 5/19

¶32

Ext.	6 & 6/1	Two certified copy of Case No. 811 of 1996 under section 145 Cr.P.C.
Ext.	7	Formal FIR.
Ext.	8	Original Caste certificate of the informant.

¶33

Defence of the appellants as gathered from the line of cross examination of prosecution witnesses as well as from the statement under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. is that of

¶34

total denial. Defence has produced following documents :

¶35

Ext. A	c.c. of Rent Fixation Case No. 21/1995-96
Ext. B	c.c. of judgment passed in Tr. No. 248 of 2000
Ext. C	c.c. of Jamabandi No. 2001
Ext. D	C.C. order sheet of B.P. No. 836 of 1996

¶36

After hearing the parties, the learned trial court was pleased to convict the appellants and to sentence them as indicated in the opening paragraph of the judgment.

¶37

Heard Mr. Mukund Kumar, learned amicus curiae at sufficient length of time. Following submissions have been made by the learned amicus curiae :-

¶38

Learned counsel has submitted that the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence has been passed without considering the evidence available on the record and the same is fit to be set aside. He further submitted that in the present case I.O. has not been examined and

¶39

Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.465 of 2007 dt.20-09-2025 6/19

¶40

prosecution has been prejudiced thereby. In the present case, the two injured witnesses, who were eye witness of the alleged occurrence, have not been examined. PW-2, who is the informant of the case, has admitted that dispute is going on for possession under Sections 144, 145 Cr.P.C. and on account of such dispute the appellants have been falsely framed in the present case. He has further submitted that while passing the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence, the trial court has not considered the exhibited documents showing title and possession over the disputed land. The trial court has not taken into account that PW-1 has stated that the accused persons were armed with paina and fatha whereas the informant stated that accused persons were armed with lathi. He has further submitted that in the story of prosecution, as per version of FIR, informant has used the word lathi but during course of examination-in-chief the informant has improvised his earlier statement in the FIR and he has added that appellants have used farsa, paina and fatha. These are afterthought device of the P.W. 2, the informant. It has come to fore that there is bona fide land dispute going on between both the parties. It cannot be ruled out that all the charges are framed merely to harass the appellants and the learned trial court in para 19 has recorded

¶41

Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.465 of 2007 dt.20-09-2025 7/19

¶42

that main cause behind the occurrence is that both parties are claiming title over the land in question. In this context both parties have filed series of documents and land dispute is root cause of occurrence. The trial court has passed the order without taking into account all the materials available on record as the prosecution has failed to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt. The trial court has passed the judgment of conviction and order of sentence without applying judicious mind. In the light aforesaid facts and circumstances, learned counsel submits that the judgment of conviction and order of sentence is liable to be set aside.

¶43

Learned counsel for the State submits that the trial court while discussing the material available on record acquitted the appellants under Sections 379 IPC and sections 3(1)(X) and 3(1)(XI) of the SC/ST (POA) Act and there is no need to discuss the charges as the trial court rightly analysed all the materials available on record and acquitted the appellants from the charges under section 379 of IPC and sections 3(1)(X) and 3(1) (XI) of the SC/ST (POA) Act. He further submits that while holding the appellants guilty under Sections 147 and 323 I.P.C., the trial court has passed the judgment of conviction on the basis of material available on record.

¶44

Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.465 of 2007 dt.20-09-2025 8/19

¶45

Learned counsel referring the statement of the informant (PW-2), who is the star witness of the said occurrence, has submitted that informant is the injured witness. Informant has been examined by the doctor (PW-7) who has found injury on the body of the injured. In the light of aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, the statement of PW-2 cannot be questioned on the point of his presence at the place of occurrence as he is an injured witness who has suffered injury. The statement of doctor is quite evident in the light of the said fact. The statement of PW-2 on the point of assault, manner of occurrence, place of occurrence cannot be discarded. The doctor has examined four injured witnesses, though, two witnesses have not been produced before the court rather informant(PW-2) and informant’s wife (PW-5) have adduced their evidences before the court and both witnesses have highlighted how they have suffered injuries at the hands of the appellants and version of PWs are not in derogation of the story of prosecution which was initially lodged by the informant himself. While narrating the story of prosecution, the informant has clearly stated that he, his wife and his parents have suffered injury by the act of the appellants. All the appellants have assaulted and how they have executed the plan of assault upon the informant and his family

¶46

Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.465 of 2007 dt.20-09-2025 9/19

¶47

members, all the details have been unfolded in the story of prosecution. It is established fact that injured’s statement cannot be disbelieved in the light of the fact where injured witnesses i.e. informant and his wife adduced the evidence that the appellants have assaulted and they sustained injury which is quite corroborated by evidence of the doctor. In order to attract offence under Section 323 I.P.C., even minor injuries are sufficient to prove the case. In the present case, more than five persons are present to assault the informant and his family members and they are executing their plans in a manner which is stated by the informant while unfolding the story of prosecution. It is further submitted that even if the I.O. has not been examined, the whole prosecution story cannot be discarded. In the present case, injured witnesses are establishing the fact that they were present at the place of occurrence and they have suffered injuries at the hands of the appellants.

¶48

In the light of the aforesaid, learned counsel for the State has submitted that the judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the trial court need not require any interference as prosecution has proved the case on all counts in the light of evidence adduced by the informant and injured witnesses coupled with the statement of doctor and on that point

¶49

Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.465 of 2007 dt.20-09-2025 10/19

¶50

appreciation of evidence by the trial court is in no way inconsistent with story of prosecution.

¶51

The question which arises for consideration is :-

¶52

“Whether offence under section 147 and 323 I.P.C. is made out in the light of given facts and circumstances of the case or not ?”

¶53

It is necessary to reproduce Sections 147 and 323

¶54

of I.P.C., which reads as under :

¶55

“ 147. Punishment for rioting -Whoever is guilty of rioting, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both.”

¶56

“323. Punishment for voluntarily causing

¶57

hurt.— Whoever, except in the case provided for by section 334, voluntarily causes hurt, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to one year, or with fine which may extend to one thousand rupees, or with both.”

¶58

I have perused the impugned judgment, order of

¶59

trial court and trial court records. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the rival contention made on behalf of the parties as noted above.

¶60

Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.465 of 2007 dt.20-09-2025 11/19

¶61

It is necessary to evaluate, analyze and screen out the evidences of witnesses adduced before the trial court.

¶62

P.W-2 Bindeshwar Ram is the informant himself and he is also injured witness of this case. It is necessary to test the veracity of this witness upon the touchstone of manner of occurrence, time of occurrence and place of occurrence.

¶63

According to him, the occurrence took place on 25.08.1996 in the morning at 8:00 hours and at that time, he was at his house then Pramod Mahto, Dhaneshwar Mahto, Bipin Mahto, Binod Mahto, Nantun Mahto, Yogendra Mahto armed with lathi, fatta came at his land and Pramod Mahto told to uproot the paddy and when he protested, accused Pramod Mahto assaulted him by means of lathi on his earpit and waist. On halla, his wife came there who was also assaulted by accused Dhaneshwar Mahto and Yogendra Mahto by means of lathi, fatta. He has also deposed that when his parents came there, they were also assaulted by the Nantun Mahto, Bipin Mahto and Binod Mahto.

¶64

From the analysis of evidence of P.W. 2, it is crystal clear that he has supported the time of occurrence, manner of occurrence, place of occurrence and his version is quite consistent with the initial version of story of prosecution

¶65

Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.465 of 2007 dt.20-09-2025 12/19

¶66

and his evidence throughout cross-examination is quite intact. He is the injured witness and his presence at the place of occurrence cannot be denied. The prosecution has failed to make any dent during cross-examination of this witness. In this way, evidence of P.W. 2 is trustworthy in the light of the facts, as discussed above.

¶67

P.W.1 Poshan Ram was at his house at the time of the alleged occurrence and after hearing hulla on the field of Bindeshwar Ram, he went there and saw the accused-persons namely Pramod Mahto, Dhaneshwar Mahto, Yogendra Mahto, Nantun Mahto, Bipin Mahto, and Binod Mahto who were uprooting the paddy of Bindeshwar Ram and the informant forbade them, thereafter, Pramod Mahto and Dhaneshwar Mahto assaulted him by means of paina and fatta. He has further deposed that they have also assaulted wife of the informant and on hulla, father and mother of the informant arrived there and they were also assaulted by the accused-persons by means of lathi, paina.

¶68

Though this witness is not the injured witness but his statement is corroborated the evidence of P.W. 2 and his evidence is quite consistent with the initial version of prosecution story and there is no reason to disbelieve the

¶69

Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.465 of 2007 dt.20-09-2025 13/19

¶70

evidence of P.W. 1, who has corroborated the evidence of P.W. 2. In this way, his evidence is also trustworthy in given facts and circumstances of the case.

¶71

P.W.5 Indu Devi is the wife of the informant. She is also injured witness. She has stated that the occurrence took place at 8.00 am in the morning about three and half years back. She has stated that on hulla, she went to the field. She has stated that appellants assaulted her, her husband, her mother-in-law and father-in-law.

¶72

The evidence of P.W. 5 is quite consistent regarding the story of prosecution, time of occurrence, place of occurrence and that appellants assaulted her, her husband, her mother-in-law and father-in-law. In this way, she has corroborated the story of prosecution in toto regarding the time of occurrence, place of occurrence and manner of occurrence and nothing is elucidated during cross-examination to disbelieve the version of P.W. 5. In this way, the evidence of this witness is trustworthy.

¶73

P.Ws. 3 and 4 have been declared hostile by the prosecution. They have stated the similar version that they do not know anything about the occurrence and Darogajee has not taken their statements. P.W.6 Ram Ekbal Sah is a hearsay

¶74

Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.465 of 2007 dt.20-09-2025 14/19

¶75

witness. He has deposed that the occurrence is of 25.8.1996 and he heard about the occurrence while he was returning from the work.

¶76

P.W.7 is Dr. Gopal Jha and on 25.8.1996, he was posted as Medical officer at P.H.C. Pupri and on that day, he has examined Bindeshwar Ram and found the following injury on his person:-

¶77

small scratch on the left temporal region. Injury is simple in nature caused by hard blunt substance such as lathi. This injury has been marked as Ext.2.

¶78

26.1 He has also examined Sonawati Devi wife of Yogeshwar Ram and found the following injuries on her person-

¶79

swelling of 2"x1" on the ulnar boarder of dorsum at right hand. Injury was simple in nature caused by lathi and has been marked as Ext.2/1.

¶80

26.2 On the same day, this witness has also examined Yogeshwar Ram and found the following injuries on his person-

¶81

i. scratch on the left palm, ii. scratch on

¶82

the left side of nose. Both injuries are simple in nature caused by hard and blunt substances such as lathi and it has been marked as Ext.2/2.

¶83

26.3 He has also examined Indu Devi wife of

¶84

Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.465 of 2007 dt.20-09-2025 15/19

¶85

Bindeshwar Ram and found the following injury on her person:-

¶86

swelling of 2"x2" below left orbital margin. This injury was simple in nature caused by hard and blunt substance such as lathi and has been marked as Ext.2/3.

¶87

From perusal of the FIR, it is quite evident that

¶88

there are four injured witnesses who suffered injuries and the appellants have assaulted them and the place of occurrence is the field which is the tussle between the informant’s side and the appellants’ side. After examination of the doctor, it is found that though there are four injured but only two injured witnesses were examined in court; one is informant and another is informant’s wife (PW-5). The informant, who is PW-2, specifically stated that the appellants have assaulted the informant, informant’s wife, informant’s father and informant’s mother and all the appellants have participated in said occurrence. During cross-examination nothing is elucidated which goes against veracity of P.W.2. On the point of assault, manner of occurrence, time of occurrence and place of occurrence, the statement of PW-2 is quite consistent and defence has not made any dent with regard to the manner of assault. The story which has been unfolded by the informant is quite consistent with the evidence adduced during examination-

¶89

Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.465 of 2007 dt.20-09-2025 16/19

¶90

in-chief as well as throughout during cross-examination. The reliability of the statement of PW-5, who is also injured witness, cannot be questioned in the light that her statement is quite consistent with the statement of another prosecution witness, who is none other than the informant (PW-2) himself. The defence has not shaken the credibility of this witness through out cross-examination on the point of assault. From the statement of doctor (P.W. 7), it is quite evident that P.W. 2 and P.W. 5 were inujured witnesses as they sustained injury. The reliability and credibility of the statement of the doctor cannot be questioned as he is an expert witness. Whenever statement of witnesses are taken during course of investigation and when the statement of witnesses are taken in court, there is a time gap and even if some inconsistencies are found, the same are bound to occur and upon the said inconsistencies, the story of prosecution cannot be thrown away when crux of the prosecution story is quite intact that all the injured witnesses are quite supportive of prosecution story, manner of occurrence, time of occurrence and how the witnesses suffered injuries. PWs 3 and 4 have been declared hostile and PW-6 is hearsay witness. Two injured witnesses are quite supportive of the prosecution story.

¶91

In the light of aforementioned facts and

¶92

Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.465 of 2007 dt.20-09-2025 17/19

¶93

circumstances, the following judicial decisions are pertinent to

¶94

cite:-

¶95

29. In Brahm Swaroop and another v. State of U.P. , reported in AIR 2011 SC 280 , the Hon'ble Supreme Court at para 22 of the judgment held as follows:

¶96

"22. Where a witness to the occurrence has himself been injured in the incident, the testimony of such a witness is generally considered to be very reliable, as he is a witness that comes with a built-in guarantee of his presence at the scene of the crime and is unlikely to spare his actual assailant(s) in order to falsely implicate someone. "Convincing evidence is required to discredit an injured witness."

¶97

30. In Mano Dutt and another v. State of Uttar Pradesh , reported in (2012) 4 SCC 79 , the Hon'ble Supreme Court at para 30 of the judgment observed as follows:-

¶98

"30... Normally, an injured witness would enjoy greater credibility because he is the sufferer himself and thus, there will be no occasion for such a person to state an incorrect version of the occurrence, or to involve anybody falsely and in

¶99

Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.465 of 2007 dt.20-09-2025 18/19

¶100

the bargain, protect the real culprit."

¶101

31. In State of U.P. v. Kishan Chand and others

¶102

reported in (2004) 7 SCC 629 , a similar view has been reiterated observing that the testimony of a stamped witness has its own relevance and efficacy. The fact that the witness sustained injuries at the time and place of occurrence lends support to his testimony that he was present during the occurrence.

¶103

Keeping in view all the facts and circumstances of the case, on the point of assault, the place of occurrence, time of occurrence and the manner of occurrence, the statement of PWs2 and 5 are quite intact and the judgment of conviction and order of sentence has been passed by the trial court with due appreciation of material available on record and there is no reason to differ from the finding of the trial court and the judgement of conviction passed by the trial court.

¶104

Accordingly, the present appeal stands dismissed.

¶105

I acknowledge the valuable assistance rendered to the Court by Mr. Mukund Kumar, learned counsel who has taken pain in assisting in the present petition and addressing the matter as an amicus curiae. Patna High Court Legal Services Committee is directed to pay a sum of Rs. 5,000/- (five

¶106

Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.465 of 2007 dt.20-09-2025 19/19

¶107

thousand) to Mr. Mukund Kumar within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of this order, towards legal assistance

¶108

fees.

¶109

(Alok Kumar Pandey, J)

¶110

mcverma/-

¶111

AFR/NAFR	AFR
CAV DATE	NA
Uploading Date	28.09.2025
Transmission Date	28.09.2025

Pramod Mahto and Ors. v. State of Bihar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pramod Mahto and Ors. v. State of Bihar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Doman Yadav @ Teju Yadav Vs The State of Bihar

Govind Sahani @ Bablu Sahani @ Govind Kumar Vs The State of Bihar

Pankaj Yadav Vs The State of Bihar

Ajay Kumar Yadav Vs The State of Bihar

Ram Prasad Yadav Vs The State of Bihar

Vivekanand Yadav Vs The State of Bihar