Case Facts:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Criminal Revision No.77 of 2010 =========================================================== 1. Hari Mohan Upadhyay son of Late Sita Ram Upadhyay. 2. Birbal Upadhyay son of Hari Mohal Upadhyay. 3. Satya Narain Upadhyay son of Sidheshwar Upadhyay. All resident of village-Piro, P.S.-Piro, District-Bhojpur. .... .... Petitioners Versus The State of Bihar .... .... Respondent =========================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioners : Mr. Anil Kumar Mishra, Advocate Mr. Rishikesh Ojha, Advocate For the Respondent : Mr. Ramchandra Singh, A.P.P. =========================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE ORAL JUDGMENT Date: 18th July 2012 Feeling aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 14th September 2009 passed by the learned Vth Additional Sessions Judge, Bhojpur, Ara in Cr. Appeal No.13 of 2001 (arising out of Piro P.S. Case No.131 of 1994), the accused-appellants have preferred this Revision Application under Section 397 read with Section 401 Cr.P.C. It was the case of the prosecution that on 10th July 1994, the petitioners abducted a boy named Babudhan Upadhyay, son of the informant Laxman Upadhyay and demanded a ransom in the sum of Rs.25,000.00. Pursuant to the said complaint, the petitioners were tried in Trial No.172 of 2001 by the Judicial Magistrate, Ara. The Patna High Court CR. REV. No.77 of 2010 dt.18-07-2012 2 / 4 2 learned Magistrate by his judgment and order dated 30th January 2001, held the offence to be proved, convicted the petitioners for the offence punishable under [STATUTE] and sentenced the petitioners with two years’ rigorous imprisonment. The said conviction and the sentence have been confirmed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge under the impugned judgment and order dated 14th September 2009. Therefore, this Revision Application. Learned advocate Mr. Anil Kumar Mishra has appeared for the petitioners. He has assailed the judgment of the learned Additional Sessions Judge. He has submitted that there was no evidence on record to hold that any crime was committed or to connect the petitioners to such crime. The demand of ransom in the sum of Rs.25,000.00 has also not been proved nor the Investigating Officer was examined in the prosecution. In absence of the evidence worth the name, the petitioners have wrongly been convicted and sentenced as aforesaid. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor Mr. Ramchandra Singh has appeared for the prosecution. He has submitted that the offence has been proved by the prosecution witnesses particularly by the evidence of P.W.3, P.W.4, and P.W.5. The said witnesses happened to be passing by the bus stop at Ara on the date of the incidence and they had witnessed the petitioners standing at the bus stop with the victim Babudhan Upadhyay. He has also relied upon the statement of the victim Babudhan Upadhyay recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. I have perused the evidence on record. The alleged incidence occurred on 10th July 1994. No complaint for missing person was made until 16th July 1994. For the first time it was only on information given by the informant Laxman Upadhyay the police Patna High Court CR. REV. No.77 of 2010 dt.18-07-2012 3 / 4 3 station entry for missing person was made on 16th July 1994. The names of the petitioners were disclosed in the first information report (Exhibit-1) lodged by the informant Laxman Upadhyay on 5th September 1994 after the victim returned to his home. According to the informant, the victim, on his returning home informed the informant that the petitioners had kidnapped the victim by offering him some sweets and later taken him away under the pretext of taking him to a circus. After reaching an unknown place the victim was handed over to a stranger. The informant also received two letters in the name of Birbal Upadhyay, petitioner no.2; one on a postcard and the other on an inland letter demanding ransom in the sum of Rs.25,000.00. The prosecution case is based entirely on oral evidence. The evidence relied upon by the Courts below was that of P.W. 3 Nand Lal Ram, P.W. 4 Prabhu Sah and P.W.5 Shree Bhagwan Singh. The said witnesses happened to be the villagers known to the informant, the accused and the victim. P.W.3 and P.W.4 were the chance witnesses. According to the said witnesses, they happened to be passing by the bus stop at Ara on the date of incidence and that they had seen the victim as well as the petitioners at the bus stop. As to the letters demanding ransom, the same were not proved. The reliance placed on the said letters was wholly wrong and illegal. On perusal of the evidence on record, I am of the opinion that the prosecution failed to prove the commission of offence. The demand of ransom has also not been proved. Both the Courts have fallen in error in holding that the commission of offence had been proved by circumstantial evidence and that there was a demand for ransom. In absence of any evidence worth noting, I hold that the Patna High Court CR. REV. No.77 of 2010 dt.18-07-2012 4 / 4 4 prosecution has failed to prove the commission of offence. The Revision Application is allowed. Impugned judgment and order dated 14th September 2009 passed by the learned Vth Additional Sessions Judge, Bhojpur, Ara in Cr. Appeal No. 172 of 2001 is quashed and set aside. The petitioners-accused are acquitted of the offence registered as Piro P.S. Case No.131 of 1994. The sentence passed against them is set aside. I am informed that pending the Revision Application the petitioners have been ordered to be released on bail. The bail bonds are cancelled. N.A.F.R. Pawan/- (R.M. Doshit, CJ)

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.