Case Facts:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Criminal Appeal (SJ) No.260 of 2000 =========================================================== AGAINST THE JUDGMENT OF CONVICTION DATED 17.7.2000 AND ORDER OF SENTENCE DATED 18.7.2000, PASSED BY THE 6TH ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE, BHAGALPUR IN SESSIONS TRIAL NO. 348 OF 1989. =========================================================== Navin Sharma, Son of Sri Nakul Sharma, Resident of Village Mahadeopur, P.S. Amarpur, District Banka. .... .... Appellant Versus The State of Bihar .... .... Respondent =========================================================== Appearance : For the Appellant : Mr. Ranjan Kumar Jha, Advocate Mr. Ajay Kumar, Advocate For the State : Ms. Abha Singh, A.P.P. =========================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE JUSTICE SMT. SHEEMA ALI KHAN ORAL JUDGMENT Date: 04-10-2012 S.A. Khan, J. The appellant has been found guilty under [STATUTE] and has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for ten years by the 6th Additional Sessions Judge, Bhagalpur in Sessions Trial No. 348 of 1989. 2. The First Information Report has been instituted on 5.3.1988 for an occurrence which took place on 25.12.1988. The informant who is the father of the victim boy has stated that he lives and works in Kolkata. When he came to know about his son being kidnapped, he reached the village on 31.1.1989. He claims to have tried to trace his son, but he could not find him. Later, he came to know that his son had been seen with Navin Sharma and therefore, Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.260 of 2000 dt.04-10-2012 2 / 10 2 requested the Mukhiya for an enquiry from Navin Sharma. On enquiry being made, Navin Sharma is said to have informed the Mukhiya that Pramod Sharma had gone with him to see a picture at Bhagalpur. After watching the movie, the appellant is said to have left him, whereas Pramod Sharma disappeared from Bhagalpur. Navin Sharma claims that he went to Katihar and stayed with Ambika Sharma and, thereafter, he returned to his village on 26.1.1988. Navin Sharma is also said to have disclosed that he had gone to Silliguri for the purposes of seeking employment. On the basis of the aforesaid statement of Navin Sharma the informant claims that he has strong suspicion that Navin is responsible for kidnapping his son. It has also been alleged in the First Information Report that his wife had found some silver ornaments and money missing from her trunk. The informant and his wife lived in the Mahadeopur, which is the matrimonial home of his wife. On the basis of the said allegations, the First Information Report was instituted. 3. The prosecution has examined eight witnesses to support their case. P.W. 8 is the Investigation Officer of this case. The rest of the witnesses allegedly support the case of kidnapping. P.W. 1, Om Prakash Sah claims to have seen Pramod Sharma at Bhagalpur station along with Navin Sharma and some other persons at about 11 P.M. in the night. He had gone to find out about the trains to Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.260 of 2000 dt.04-10-2012 3 / 10 3 Dhanbad at Bhagalpur station and in that process had seen Pramod Sharma. In his cross-examination, he states that he does not remember the day on which he went Dhanbad. Apart from this there is no importance of this witness. He claims to be a chance witness and the only evidence that has come is that he saw Pramod Sharma with Navin Sharma. 4. P.W. 2, Subas Rai claims that he saw Pramod and Navin together at about 9 A.M. in the morning. His evidence is not of much help to the prosecution. He learnt about the said occurrence from the people of the village and the Mukhiya of the village. His evidence does not help the prosecution as it is varies with the prosecution case. It is nobody’s case that Pramod Sharma was missing since the morning rather a case has been made out that he left his house to see a movie with Navin Sharma sometime in the afternoon, which infact as the evidence would reveal in this case, is also a doubtful proposition made out by the prosecution. 5. P.W. 3, Srikant Sharma had met Navin Sharma and Pramod Sharma walking on the road. According to this witness Navin Sharma was carrying a bag. Apart from this fact no fact has been revealed by this witness. 6. P.W. 4, Ram Lakhan Choudhary claims that he was examined by the Investigating Officer after couple of months. It is Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.260 of 2000 dt.04-10-2012 4 / 10 4 said that the informant told him that the Investigating Officer would be coming to examine him in this case. He learnt about the occurrence from the mother of Pramod Sharma. He also claims that Navin Sharma is said to have stated before the Mukhiya that he had gone to Bhagalpur along with Pramod Sharma to see a picture and that Pramod Sharma remained at Bhagalpur while he i.e. Navin Sharma went to Katihar. 7. P.W. 5, Tusa Devi is the mother of the kidnapped boy. She has made out a case that Navin Sharma came to call her son from the house. After a couple of days she found that ½ Kg. of silver and some money was missing from her trunk. According to her she tried to look for her son however, he could not be found. Later one Gurudeo went to Kolkata to give information to her husband regarding the missing boy. She admits that she lives in her father’s house after her marriage along with her husband. She further claims that her father has four daughters and some other family who also live in the village. She denies that Navin Sharma is her father’s “Gotia”. She denies the statement that her son Navin Sharma used to run away from the house and that he left his home on 25.12.1988 without any coercion and infact has not been kidnapped. 8. The informant has been examined as P.W. 6. Rajendra Sharma claims that he was informed regarding his son’s Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.260 of 2000 dt.04-10-2012 5 / 10 5 kidnapping on 30.12.1987 through Gurudeo. He left Kolkata on 31.12.1987. Aft

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.