Case Facts:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Criminal Revision No.1293 of 2008 ====================================================== Md. Akhtar son of Abdul Zalil, resident of village- Saharghat, Tola- Bara, P.S. Sahar Ghat, District- Madhubani. .... .... Petitioner/s Versus 1. The State Of Bihar 2. Shekikh Nasir @ Sheikh Nasir @ Sk. Nasir 3. Sheikh Basir @ Sk. Basir son of Abdul Gani 4. Noor Mohammad son of Md. Muzibul 5. Dr. Abdul Ghafoor @ Dr. Abdul Gafoor son of Md. Ishuf. .... .... Opp. Party/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Manohar Pd. Singh, with Mr. Bhim Sen Prasad, Advocates. For the State : Mr. Dasarath Mehta, APP For the O.P. No. 2 to 5 : Mr. Shailendra Kr. Singh, with Mr. Ratnakar Jha, Advocates. ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BIRENDRA PRASAD VERMA ORAL ORDER 3 07-09-2012 The petitioner, being the informant of the criminal case, by filing the present revision application under Sections 397 and 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (For short ‘Cr. P.C.) has assailed the validity , correctness and propriety of the impugned judgment and order dated 3rd September 2008 passed in Sessions Trial No. 152 of 1987 by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No. 1, Madhubani, whereby accused opposite party no. 2 to 5 have been acquitted for charges under [STATUTE] . With respect to murder of one Jamaluddin, the minor son of the informant, a criminal prosecution was started in the year 1986. After submission of charge sheet, cognizance was taken and case was committed to the court of Sessions in the year 1987. Apart from accused opposite party no. 2 to 5, accusation against accused Jubaisa Khatoon was found to be true by the investigating officer, but she could not traced out and as such she was declared Patna High Court CR. REV. No.1293 of 2008 (3) dt.07-09-2012 2 / 3 2 absconder. It has been submitted at the Bar that till date, she is absconding. It is true that in support of the prosecution case, altogether ten witnesses were examined during the course of trial. In addition to that one Abida Khatoon @ Jhunia was examined as court witness no.1 and one Shri N.N.Choudhary, learned Judicial Magistrate, who recorded the statement of aforesaid Abida Khatoon under Section 164 Cr. P. C., was examined as court witness no.2. Learned trial court has scrutinized the entire evidence of the witnesses in full details. In paragraphs 20 and 21 of the impugned judgment he has summarized the materials available on record in support of the prosecution case. From the findings recorded by the learned trial court, and not disputed by the learned counsel for the petitioner, it appears that one Abida Khatoon @ Jhunia is the only eye witness of alleged occurrence of murder. Her statement under Section 164 Cr. P.C. was also recorded, where she claimed to be eye witness of occurrence of murder and she clearly stated that it was co-accused Jubaisha Khatoon (still absconding), who is responsible and committed offence of murder. Even in her statement under Section 164 Cr. P.C. aforesaid C.W.1- Abida Khatoon @ Jhunia has not attributed any role against accused opposite party no.2 to 5. However, during the course of trial aforesaid Abida Khatoon @ Jhunia has turned hostile. The other witnesses produced on behalf of the prosecution have not claimed to be the eye witness, but have tried to support the prosecution case that co-accused Jubaisha Khatoon was the concubine of accused opposite party no.2 and, therefore, they are also responsible for commission of the crime in question. Patna High Court CR. REV. No.1293 of 2008 (3) dt.07-09-2012 3 / 3 3 After having heard learned counsels for the parties at great length and considering the fact that entire prosecution version is based on a testimony of one Abida Khatoon @ Jhunia claiming to be eye witness, and she having been declared hostile during the course of trial, as has not supported the prosecution case against accused opposite party no.2 to 5 during the course of trial, this Court is of the opinion that the learned trial court was fully justified in giving them the benefits of doubts and acquitting them of all the charges. In the given facts of the case, this Court is not inclined to exercise revisional jurisdiction for setting aside and reversing the impugned judgment of acquittal. Consequently, the application fails and is, accordingly, dismissed. BTiwary/- (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.