Case Facts:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Criminal Appeal (DB) No.554 of 1989 (Against the judgment and order dated 8.12.1989 passed in Sessions Trial No.325 of 1982 by Sri Basudeo Sahai, learned Sessions Judge, Gopalganj) =========================================================== 1. Subhag Koeri, son of Ugam Koeri. 2. Shri Ram Koeri, son of Sheopujan Bhagat. 3. Madan Ahir, son of Bishuni Chaudhary. 4. Balister Awadhia, son of Late Rajbanshi Prasad. (All residents of Khem Matihania, P.S.- Kuchaikote, District- Gopalganj) .... .... Appellants Versus The State of Bihar .... .... Respondent =========================================================== Appearance : For the Appellant/s : Mr. Raghav Prasad, Advocate. For the Informant : Mr. Sakil Ahmad Khan, Sr. Advocate : Mr. Arun, Advocate : Mr. Sanjay Kumar, Advocate : Mr. Awadhendra Kumar, Advocate For the State : Ms. Shashi Bala Verma, A.P.P. =========================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHYAM KISHORE SHARMA And HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AMARESH KUMAR LAL ORAL JUDGMENT (Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHYAM KISHORE SHARMA) Date: 20-04-2012 Subhag Keori, Shri Ram Koeri, Madan Ahir and Balister Awadhia have challenged the judgment and order dated 8.12.1989 passed in Sessions Trial No.325 of 1982 by the learned Sessions Judge, Gopalganj convicting all the four appellants under Section 302/34 and sentencing each of them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life and further convicting them under Section Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.554 of 1989 dt.20-04-2012 2 201/34 and 379 of the I.P.C. and sentencing each of them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years under each of the sections and further convicting the appellant Subhag Koeri under [STATUTE] . and sentencing him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for four years and it was ordered that all the sentences of all the appellants to run concurrently. 2. According to the informant (P.W.5), in the night between 15-16.05.1981 while he was sleeping in his Dalan in village Khem Matihania, his daughter Subhasini (deceased) was sleeping inside the house. In the morning, the informant’s wife informed him that Subhasini was missing. The informant tried to locate her, but could not get any trace. When he returned after search, his villager P.W.3 Rajdhari and P.W.2 Barhu Koeri told him that they had seen Subhasin going with appellant Subhag Koeri and Manu Koeri. The written information given by the informant resulted into formal FIR (Ext.2) of Kuchaikote P.S. Case No.43 dated 15.05.1981/ G.R.No.480/81. The written report has not been brought on the record and only signature of the informant has been proved by the prosecution, which has been marked as Ext.1. The case was registered only under [STATUTE] ., but in course of investigation, Manu Koeri was apprehended on third day of the occurrence. The dead body of Subhasini was recovered from the well on the alleged confession Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.554 of 1989 dt.20-04-2012 3 given by Manu Koeri before the police. By order dated 28.05.1981, [STATUTE] . was added. The dead body of Subhasini was identified by the informant. The investigating Officer prepared a seizure list (Ext.3). The post-mortem report (Ext.4) was obtained though inquest report was made, but has not been brought on the record. After completion of the investigation, charge-sheet was submitted. The case was committed to the court of sessions where charge under [STATUTE] . was explained against these appellants and Manu Koeri. Charge under [STATUTE] . was framed against the appellant Subhag Keori and Manu Koeri. Manu Koeri took a plea that he was juvenile and so his case was separated from the court of sessions, which was transferred to the Juvenile Court vide order dated 12.09.1986. As the appellants pleaded innocence, so the trial proceeded. 3. The defence of the appellants was that Manu Koeri was having very intimate relationship with Subhasini (deceased). This was not tolerated by the informant and his persons and so they killed her and implicated others in the false case. 4. The Trial Court after considering the evidence of the prosecution came to the opinion that the prosecution has succeeded in proving the charges against the appellants, so the judgment of conviction and order of sentence has been passed. Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.554 of 1989 dt.20-04-2012 4 5. This Court is required to see as to whether the prosecution has succeeded in giving the reasonable evidence on the record and whether those evidences led to only its conclusion that it was the appellants and appellants alone and non-else, who committed crime. 6. In order to establish its case, the prosecution has examined P.W.1 Jang Bahadur Prasad, P.W.2 Barhu Prasad, P.W.3 Raj Dhari Singh, P.W.4 Feni Prasad, P.W.5 Ram Autar Prasad (informant), P.W.6 Jai Prakash Srivastava (I.O.) and P.W.7 Dr. Lakhichand Prasad. 7. The defence has examined D.W.1 Bharath Prasad on the question of enmity between the informant and Subhag Koeri and D.W.2 Kamla Prasad was a Judicial Magistrate, who had occasioned to record the statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. of Manu Koeri. The death of Subhasini at the alleged time is not disputed. 8. The doctor (P.W.7) was posted on 19.05.1981 at Sadar Hospital, Gopalganj as Medical Officer and on that date at 10.00 A.M. he held post-mortem examination upon the dead body of deceased Subhasini, daughter of the informant, which was identified by Constable No.50, Bibhishan Ram, Chaukidar and the informant. The dead body was in the stage of decomposition. No sign of external injury was found. Death was due to injury on the chest leading to fracture of ribs and injury to right lung, which lead to haemorrhage Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.554 of 1989 dt.20-04-2012 5 and shock, which could have been caused by pressing chest and by putting hard and blunt substance. T

Applicable IPC Section: 363

Statute Text:
Section 363 of the Indian Penal Code. Kidnapping. Whoever kidnaps any person from India or from lawful guardianship, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine.