Case Facts:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Criminal Revision No.1543 of 2009 ====================================================== Sujeet Kumar, son of Baleshwar Prasad Sah, resident of Village Malah Chak, Police Station Jehanabad, District Jehanabad .... .... Petitioner/s Versus 1. The State off Bihar 2. Mohan Lal Gupta, son of late Rooplal Sav 3. Om Prakash, son of late Roop Lal Sav 4. Manoj Kumar, son of late Hazari Lal Sav 5. Sanjay Kumar, son of Mohan Lal Sav All residents of village Saho Bigha, Police Station Ghosi, District Jehanabad, at present Main Road, Jehanabad .... .... Opposite party/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Sanjay Kumar @ S.K., Advocate Mr. Girish Chandra Sharma, Advocate For the State of Bihar : Mr.Chandra Sen Prasad Singh, Addl.P.P. ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BIRENDRA PRASAD VERMA ORAL ORDER 3 11-12-2012 Heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the State of Bihar. By the impugned judgment and order dated 25.7.2009 passed in Cr. Appeal No. 54 of 2001/35 of 2009 by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast track Court-I, Jehanabad, the accused- opposite party nos. 2 to 5 have been acquitted of the charges under [STATUTE] , after setting aside the judgment of conviction and order of Patna High Court CR. REV. No.1543 of 2009 (3) dt.11-12-2012 2 / 3 2 sentence dated 17.10.2001 passed in G.R. No. 1600 of 1996, Tr. No. 95 of 2001 by the learned trial court. It appears that one Ranjit Kumar, full brother of the present petitioner, lodged a criminal case with respect to an occurrence dated 7.11.1996. On close of investigation charge sheet was submitted against the accused opposite party nos. 2 to 5 and on 10.3.1998 charges were framed against them for offences under [STATUTE] . According to the prosecution case, the petitioner was abducted by the accused persons, but he was recovered on the same day. The learned trial court, on consideration of the materials available on the record, convicted the accused-opposite parties for offences under [STATUTE] and they were, accordingly, sentenced to undergo R.I. for two years and were imposed a fine of Rs. 200/- each for offence under Section 365 of the Indian penal Code and R.I. for three months for offence under [STATUTE] . Both the sentences were directed to run concurrently. Accused-opposite party nos. 2 to 5, being aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 17.10.2001, preferred Cr.A. No. 54 of 2001/35 of 2009 which has been allowed by the impugned judgment dated 25.7.2009 and the accused-opposite parties 2 to 5 have been acquitted of all the charges. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner has assailed the impugned judgment of acquittal, primarily on the ground that the learned lower appellate court has not appreciated the prosecution evidence in its proper perspective and, therefore, has come to a wrong conclusion for recording the impugned Patna High Court CR. REV. No.1543 of 2009 (3) dt.11-12-2012 3 / 3 3 judgment of acquittal. However, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner has not pointed out any legal infirmity or procedural irregularity with respect to the impugned judgment of acquittal passed by the learned lower appellate court. It is well established that appeal is a continuation of trial. The learned lower appellate court was fully justified and well within its jurisdiction to reappraise the entire evidence available on the record for coming to a different conclusion than that of the learned trial court. The learned lower appellate court has given very sound reasoning for disbelieving the prosecution case and for allowing the criminal appeal filed on behalf of the accused- opposite party nos. 2 to 5. For the reasons recorded above, this Court is not inclined to exercise its revisional jurisdiction for setting aside and reversing the impugned judgment of acquittal recorded by the learned lower appellate court. In the result, the application fails land is, accordingly, dismissed. Kanth/- (Birendra Prasad Verma, J)

Applicable IPC Section: 365

Statute Text:
Section 365 of the Indian Penal Code. Kidnapping or abducting with intent secretly and wrongfully to confine a person. Whoever kidnaps or abducts any person with intent to cause that person to be secretly and wrongfully confined, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine.