Case Facts:
Patna High Court CR. APP (U/S) No.8 of 2000 dt19-07-2012 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Criminal Appeal (U/S) No.8 of 2000 IN S.L.A. 8 of 2000 AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER OF ACQUITTAL DATED 05TH JANUARY, 2000 PASSED IN COMPLAINT CASE NO.4(C) OF 1996/TR. NO. 1099 OF 1999 BY SHRI HARINDRA NATH, JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE-1ST CLASS, PATNA =========================================================== BACHI DEVI WIFE OF NAGINA SAO, RESIDENT OF MOHALLA- MUSALLAHPUR HAT, P.S.-KADAMKUAN, POST- MAHENDRU, PATNA-6 .... .... APPELLANT/S VERSUS 1.THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. PAWAN KUMAR NARSARIYA SON OF HARI PRASAD NARSARIYA, RESIDENT OF MOHALLA-BANK COLONY, DARIYAPUR GOLA, AT PRESENT-GEETA TEXTILES MARKET, SUB JEEBAGH, P.S. PIRBAHORE, DISTRICT-PANTA 3.NAND KISHORE BAJAKA S/O SATYA NARAYAN BAJAKA OF GEETA TEXTILES MARKET, SABJIBAGH, P.S.-PIRBAHORE, DISTRICT-PATNA .... .... RESPONDENT/S FOR THE APPELLANT: MR. PARMESHWAR MEHTA, ADV. FOR THE STATE : MRS. ABHA SINHA, A.P.P. FOR THE RESPONDENT NOS. 2 & 3: MR. RAJNI KANT MISHRA, ADV. MR. SURESH MISHRA, ADV. =========================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE JUSTICE SMT. SHEEMA ALI KHAN ORAL JUDGMENT Date: 19-07-2012 Sheema Ali Khan, J. This appeal arises out of judgment and order of acquittal dated 05th January, 2000 passed by the Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Patna in Complaint Case No. 4(C) of 1996/Trial No. 1099 of 1999 acquitting the opposite parties for the offences alleged to have been committed under [STATUTE] . 2. A complaint was lodged by Bachi Devi alleging therein that her son Binod Kumar used to work in the shop of the opposite parties known as Geeta Textile. It is alleged that he went to attend the Patna High Court CR. APP (U/S) No.8 of 2000 dt19-07-2012 duty but did not return home in the night. The complainant alleges that her son used to complain about the behaviour of the opposite parties and thus, they are instrumental in abducting/kidnapping him. 3. In this case, seven witnesses have been examined. P.W.1 and P.W.2 are friends of Vijay Sao and they claimed that they used to work together. They have not been able to say a single word regarding the involvement of the opposite parties in the said kidnapping. 4. P.W.3 Pappu Kumar is the brother of Vijay Sao. In his evidence, he supports the fact that Vijay Sao used to work in Geeta Textiles. He states that when his brother did not return, his parents went to the Police Station to lodge the First Information Report. However, the Police did not record their fardbeyan. This witness is not an eye witness to the kidnapping, nor has he has been able to disclose any fact which would lead this Court to the conclusion that there is some connection in the disappearance of Vinod Kumar and the opposite parties. 5. Similarly P.W.4 Nagina Sao is the father of Vijay Sao. According to him, when his son did not return home, he went Police Station, however, the Officer-in-charge did not record his statement. 6. P.W.5 Bachhi Devi is the mother who supports the statement made in the complaint, however, she has admitted that the Patna High Court CR. APP (U/S) No.8 of 2000 dt19-07-2012 opposite parties had already lodged a case against Vinod Kumar for running away with Rs. 20,000/- which was handed over to him to prepare a draft by the opposite parties. Both the parents have admitted that a case had been instituted against their son regarding the theft of Rs. 20,000/-. P.W.5 Bachhi Devi also admits that she had received notice under Section 107 Cr.P.C. with respect to the case during this very proceeding. 7. P.W.6, Shyam Narayan Singh and P.W.7 Dinesh Ram are formal witnesses. They have proved the complaint and other documents which have been exhibited in this case. 8. Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant submits that the court below has erred in accepting the defence raised on behalf of the opposite parties that Vijay Sao had actually run away with the money entrusted to him to prepare a draft. They had instituted a case which has been exhibited as Exhibit A on 08.08.1995. Exhibit P is the final form in the case. 9. It may be true that the Court has referred the documents but this fact has been accepted by both the father and mother of Vijay Sao in their evidence and, as such, it appears to be an admitted document. This case has been lodged after a great delay and the evidence led in Court does not disclose any chain of circumstances which would lead the Trial Court to conclude that the opposite parties Patna High Court CR. APP (U/S) No.8 of 2000 dt19-07-2012 were responsible for the said occurrence. 10. In the result, I find no merit in the arguments raised on behalf of the appellant. This appeal is accordingly dismissed. Vats/- (Sheema Ali Khan, J.)

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.