Case Facts:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Criminal Appeal (DB) No.1389 of 2007 =================================================== Against the Judgment dated 17.9.2007 passed by Sri Dinesh Kumar Sharma, Additional Sessions Judge, F.T.C. No. V, Samastipur in Sessions Trial No. 502 of 2006 / 497 of 2006 =================================================== Brahmanand Rai Son of Late Bhubneshwar Rai, resident of village- Madhuwan, P.S.- Saroyranjan, District- Samastipur .... .... Appellant/s Versus State Of Bihar .... .... Respondent/s =================================================== Appearance : For the Appellant/s : Mr.Shrinandan Prasad Singh, Advocate Mr. Manoj Kumar No. 1, Advocate Mr. Manish Kumar, Advocate For the Respondent/s:Mr. Ashwini Kumar Sinha, APP =================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHYAM KISHORE SHARMA and HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AMARESH KUMAR LAL ORAL JUDGMENT (Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHYAM KISHORE SHARMA) Date: 08-10-2012 The appellant has impugned the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 17.9.2007 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, F.T.C. No. 5, Samastipur in Sessions Trial No. 502 of 2006 / 497 of 2006 whereby out of ten accused, the appellant was found guilty for the offence under [STATUTE] and he was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life on both counts. He was further Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.1389 of 2007 dt.08-10-2012 2 sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 5,000/- for offence under [STATUTE] and the fine deposited was ordered to be given to the victim Saraswati Chand @ Hariballabh Rai. 2. Informant of the case in his written report (Ext. 2) addressed to the Officer Incharge Dalsinghsarai Police Station, District Samastipur reported that his son Sarswati Chand @ Hariballabh on 23.5.2003 set off from his house at 11.30 AM on his bicycle. He parked his bicycle in the house of Subashchandra Prasad and thereafter, he proceeded with his Development Officer working in L.I.C. through a motorcycle. He remained in the office till 4.00 PM and thereafter, proceeded for Dalsinghsarai Station. Thereafter, he remained traceless. On 27.5.2003 the informant received a call upon his telephone 225274 at 5.30 AM through which demand of rupees six lacs was made. The informant who was working as Head of Department of Hindi in Baliram Bhagat College, Samastipur, reported the matter which resulted into registration of First Information Report vide Dalsinghsarai P.S. Case No. 82 dated 28.5.2003 under [STATUTE] against unknown and investigation was started. In course of investigation the victim was recovered by the Police on 2.6.2003. His statement under section 161 Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.1389 of 2007 dt.08-10-2012 3 Cr.P.C. was recorded and on the next day i.e. on 3.6.2003 his statement under section 164 Cr.P.C. was recorded. After taking the statement of witnesses and after observing all paraphernalia of the investigation, charge sheet was submitted. Accordingly, cognizance was taken and the case was committed to the Court of Sessions where charge was framed against altogether ten accused persons including the appellant. Accused Bikash Kumar Singh @ Bikash Rai was charged under [STATUTE] on 31.8.2006, whereas, accused persons, namely, Shekhar Rai, Baskur Jha @ Gajednra Jha, Tun Tun Rai, Birbal Das, Binod Kumar Rai, Brahmanand Rai, Binod Rai, Bablu Thakur and Saroj Rai were charged under [STATUTE] on 23.8.2006. The accused persons pleaded innocence and trial proceeded. 3. The Trial Court after considering the prosecution version and defence version found the appellant alone to be guilty and acquitted others. This Court is to see whether the prosecution has adduced enough evidence to link the accused with the offence or not. 4. In order to substantiate its case, the prosecution has examined Sanskriti Chandra (PW 1) the brother of the victim, Sheo Shankar Prasad an L.I. C. Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.1389 of 2007 dt.08-10-2012 4 employee (PW 2), Triveni Kumar another employee of L.I.C. (PW 3), Savitri Devi wife of the informant and mother of the victim (PW 4), Poonam Kumari Devi the wife of the victim (PW 5), Ram Narain Rai the father of the victim (PW 6), Vijay Kumar (PW 7) an hear say witness, Saraswati Chandra the victim (PW 8) and Pawan Kumar Choudhary (PW 9). The Investigating Officer who has recovered the victim has not been examined. 5. Statement of victim under section 164 Cr.P.C. recorded on 3.6.2003 has been exhibited as Ext. 3. Some paragraphs of the case diary have been exhibited as Ext.4. Confessional statements of Vikash Kumar Singh and Vijendra Rai before the Police have been exhibited as Exts. 5 and 5/1. 6. PW 1 though has supported the factum of abduction but has not identified anybody. He is not an eye witness. He has deposed as hearsay witness. 7. PW 2 is also not a witness to the occurrence and he has not named anybody. Similar is the evidence of PW 3. The mother of the victim though has supported the factum of abduction but has expressed ignorance about any abductor. 8. PW 5 though has named the accused Brahmanand Rai, the appellant, as the person who has Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.1389 of 2007 dt.08-10-2012 5 demanded money but she has stated that she is deposing as hearsay witness. 9. PW 6, the informant, has supported the factum of abduction but in paragraph 4 of his evidence has stated that he was not knowing about any abductor. He has further clarified in his evidence, in paragraph 5, wherein he has stated that he was not knowing about any of the abductor. PW 7 is not a material witness and he has deposed as hearsay witness. PW 9 is a formal witness. He is an Advocate Clerk and he has exhibited the documents which should have been brought by the Investigating Officer. 10. The only witness of the

Applicable IPC Section: 364A

Statute Text:
Section 364A of the Indian Penal Code. Kidnapping for ransom, etc. Whoever kidnaps or abducts any person or keeps a person in detention after such kidnapping or abduction, and threatens to cause death or hurt to such person, or by his conduct gives rise to a reasonable apprehension that such person may be put to death or hurt, or causes hurt or death to such person in order to compel the Government or any foreign State or international inter-governmental organisation or any other person to do or abstain from doing any act or to pay a ransom, shall be punishable with death or imprisonment for life, and shall also be liable to fine.