Case Facts:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Criminal Revision No.1199 of 2008 ====================================================== Angad Roy @ Sanjeev Roy, S/o late Umakant roy, R/o village & P.O. Tetari, P.S.- Naugachia, District- Bhagalpur, Informant.... .... Petitioner/s Versus 1. The State Of Bihar through the District Magistrate, Bhagalpur 2. Kaila Sharma @ Kailash S/o Rshik Sharma, R/o village- Shripur, P.S. Naugachia, District- Bhagalpur 3. Lalan Das S/o Kishun Das, R/o village- Tetari, P.S. Naugachia, District- Bhagalpur 4. Brajesh Kumar Singh @ Munna Singh S/o Jidho Singh, R/o village- Shripur, P.S. Nauagachia, District- Bhagalpur 5. Mantun Singh @ Sanjiv Kumar S/o late Nawal Prasad Singh @ Nand Kishore Singh R/o village- Tetari, P.S.- Naugachia, District- Bhagalpur 6. Md. Najir @ Sheikh Nasir S/o Sheikh Wasir, R/o village- Ujani, P.S. Chausa, District- Bhagalpur 7. Dinesh Singh S/o Rasikh Singh 8. Tiwari Singh S/o Mukhlal Singh, R/o village- Shripur, P.S. Naugachia, District- Bhagalpur 9. Naresh Sharma S/o Puran Sharma, R/o village- Tetari, P.S. Naaugachia, District- Bhagalpur .... .... Opposite party/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Binod Kumar Singh, Advocate. For the Opp. Party/s : Mr. S. Ehteshamuddin, A.P.P ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BIRENDRA PRASAD VERMA ORAL ORDER 5 18-07-2012 Heard. The petitioner, being informant of the criminal case, has filed the present revision application questioning the correctness and legality of the judgment and order dated 23rd July, 2008 passed in Sessions Trial No. 1576 of 2004/ Sessions Trial No. 297 of 2007 by learned 3rd Additional Sessions Judge, Naugachia, Bhagalpur, whereby accused opposite party nos. 2 to 9 have been acquitted for the charge under [STATUTE] . by Patna High Court CR. REV. No.1199 of 2008 (5) dt.18-07-2012 2/3 giving them benefits of doubts. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that on 30.1.2003 victim Sanjay Rai @ Pappu Rai, elder brother of the informant, was last seen in the company of the accused persons and since then neither he has returned back to his house nor his dead body could be traced out. It is next submitted that since the accused persons were last seen in the company of the victim and the witnesses produced on behalf of the prosecution have supported the aforesaid factum, therefore, the learned trial court ought to have convicted the opposite party nos. 2 to 9 for the charge under [STATUTE] . On perusal of the impugned judgment, this Court finds that though the prosecution has examined altogether 10 witnesses in support of the prosecution case to show that the alleged victim was seen in the company of the accused persons, but there is no connecting links to show the complicity of the accused persons for committing the crime in question. The petitioner and the witnesses have expressed their strong suspicion about the involvement of the accused persons, but there is no clinching evidence to prove the complicity of the accused opposite party nos. 2 to 9 with respect to crime in question. Learned trial court on the basis of the materials Patna High Court CR. REV. No.1199 of 2008 (5) dt.18-07-2012 3/3 available on record has come to a finding that, save and except strong suspicion, there is no other connecting links to connect the accused persons with the crime in question, as admittedly, till today, neither the alleged victim has returned nor his dead body could be traced out. Taking into consideration the aforesaid facts, the learned trial court has given the benefits of doubt to the accused persons and has acquitted them for the charge. After having heard the parties and on perusals of the materials available on record, this Court does not find any good ground for interference with the impugned judgment and order of acquittal. Consequently, the application fails and is, accordingly, dismissed. RPS/- (Birendra Prasad Verma, J)

Applicable IPC Section: 364

Statute Text:
Section 364 of the Indian Penal Code. Kidnapping or abducting in order to murder. Whoever kidnaps or abducts any person in order that such person may be murdered or may be so disposed of as to be put in danger of being murdered, shall be punished with imprisonment for life or rigorous imprisonment for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine.