Case Facts:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CRIMINAL APPEAL (SJ) NO.359 OF 2000 =========================================================== AGAINST THE JUDGMENT OF CONVICTION DATED 26TH AUGUST, 2000 AND THE ORDER OF SENTENCE DATED 28TH AUGUST, 2000 PASSED BY SHRI AMITABH KUMAR, 4TH ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE, BHAGALPUR IN SESSIONS TRIAL NO. 281 OF 1999 ARISING OUT OF KOTWALI POLICE STATION CASE NO. 377 OF 1998 =========================================================== MD. MIRAJ KHALID, SON OF SAMID ANJUM, RESIDENT OF MOHALLA ZADBAR CHOWK, POLICE STATION TATARPUR (KOTWALI), DISTRICT BHAGALPUR .... .... APPELLANT VERSUS THE STATE OF BIHAR .... .... RESPONDENT =========================================================== APPEARANCE: FOR THE APPELLANT : MR. RANBIR SINGH, AMICUS CURIAE FOR THE RESPONDENT : MR. SUJIT KUMAR SINGH, A.P.P. =========================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE JUSTICE SMT. SHEEMA ALI KHAN ORAL JUDGMENT Date: 30-08-2012 Sheema Ali Khan, J. Nobody appears on behalf of the appellant to press this appeal. Accordingly, Mr. Ranbir Singh, Advocate is appointed as Amicus Curiae to assist this Court in this appeal on behalf of the appellant. Mr. Sujit Kumar Singh, A.P.P. is representing the State. 2. The appellant has been found guilty for the offences punishable under [STATUTE] and the 4th Additional Sessions Judge, Bhagalpur sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years for offences under [STATUTE] and rigorous imprisonment for five years for offences under [STATUTE] . Both the sentences were to run Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.359 of 2000 dt.30-08-2012 2 / 10 2 concurrently. 3. The fardbayan has been instituted by the victim girl Fauzia Parween in which she has stated that on 18.08.1998 while she was returning home, she was pulled into a van by the appellant near the Sudha Dairy. The appellant is said to have taken her to Ibrahimpur within the Sabour Police Station. She alleges that she tried to escape but he pulled her hand and she suffered injury on her hand. It is said that he took her to the Agricultural College and was misbehaving with her. Munna Yadav @ Deb Narain Yadav, Jairam Das and Deepak Kumar intervened and she was taken home on a tempo. She learnt the name of the appellant after he was caught by the aforesaid three persons. She came to the Police Station with her uncle (mama) Javed Akhtar to institute this case. 4. The defence case is that no such occurrence has taken place and that the three witnesses named in the First Information Report wanted to misbehave with the victim girl, when the appellant protested, he was caught by them and produced before the Police Station. It has also been suggested during the trial that the victim girl was in the habit of blackmailing young boys who belonged to rich families. In the statement under Section 311 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, a defence has been raised on behalf of the appellant that he was in love with Fauzia Parween. It is said Fauzia Parween was trying to blackmail him and when he refused to pay, he was involved in Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.359 of 2000 dt.30-08-2012 3 / 10 3 the case of kidnapping. 5. Nine witnesses have been examined on behalf of the prosecution to prove the case as made out in the First Information Report. At the outset, I may state that the case which has been made out during the trial is quite different to the version as stated in the First Information Report. PW 1 Deb Narain Yadav @ Munna Yadav, one of the boys who had accompanied the victim girl and reached her to her home, has stated that he saw the couple in the garden of the Agricultural College situated at Bhagalpur. He could hear the girl protesting. On reaching the place of occurrence, he learnt from the victim girl that the appellant had forcibly kidnapped her. This witness along with PWs 2 and 3 boarded a tempo and were able to reach Fauzia Parween to her home at about 11:30 PM in the night. It is further stated in his examination-in-chief that the parents were very happy to see their daughter and requested PWs 1, 2 and 3 to reach the appellant to his home. It is further stated that while they were returning on the tempo, the appellant stopped the tempo to relieve himself and thereafter he tried to escape. In the mean time, the patrolling party reached the spot and they apprehended the appellant with the help of the police personnel. The boy was taken to the Police Station. The information was given to the family of Fauzia Parween, who came with her uncle and lodged the First Information Report. This witness was questioned about his criminal antecedents, which he denied. He Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.359 of 2000 dt.30-08-2012 4 / 10 4 also denied the suggestion that they were interested in outraging the modesty of Fauzia Parween and when the appellant protested, they have framed him in the present case. This witness also admits that a number of young couples visit the grounds of the Agricultural College and are found sitting and talking together in the garden. He denies that the parents had misbehaved either with the victim girl or the boy when they reached the house of the victim girl. 6. PW 2 Jairam Das has also stated identical facts regarding the manner of recovery of the victim girl. In the cross- examination, he was tested as to whether he was involved in any other case, which he denied. However, at paragraph 9 of his deposition, he has stated that he had appeared before the Judicial Magistrate on 26.07.1999 to give evidence in a case. 7. PW 3 Deepak Kumar has also given a similar statement as PWs 1 and 2 regarding the manner of recovery and regarding apprehension of the appellant after the victim girl was taken to the parents’ home. He admits that the parents were very happy and asked these boys to reach the appellant to his home. These three witnesses have made identical state

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.