Case Facts:
Patna High Court G. APP. (DB) No.16 of 2012 (3) dt.23-08-2012 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Govt. Appeal (DB) No.16 of 2012 ====================================================== The State Of Bihar .... .... Appellant/s Versus Dhananjay Rai son of Late Gorakh Rai, resident of village Semariya,P.S. Ktaiya , District Gopalganj .... .... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Appellant/s : Mr. Dilip Kumar Sinha (APP) For the Respondent/s : Mr. ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHYAM KISHORE SHARMA And HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AMARESH KUMAR LAL ORAL ORDER (Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHYAM KISHORE SHARMA) -------------- 3 23-08-2012 Heard learned counsel for the State of Bihar. The state of Bihar has challenged the judgment dated 24.03.2012 passed by Sri Parshuram Shukla, Ist Additional Sessions Judge, Goaplganj in Sessions Trial No. 538 of 2004 whereby the sole accused Dhananjay Rai (respondent)) has been acquitted of the charge under [STATUTE] . According to prosecution case, the informant knew through Balister Rai (P.W.4) that her husband was going with the accused Dhananjay Rai. When her husband did not return, the informant suspected that the accused has abducted her husband for causing his death. The judgment discusses the entire evidences but Patna High Court G. APP. (DB) No.16 of 2012 (3) dt.23-08-2012 from the judgment it appears that P.W.4 while being examined has not supported the prosecution version and has been declared hostile. Except that there was no evidence to link the accused- respondent with the offence. Non-examination of the Investigating Officer has compounded the prosecution case more and the trial court after considering the evidences passed a reasoned order of acquittal. The judgment of acquittal can be interfered with by this Court if it is either perverse or illegal. There is no such error in the impugned judgment. In the result, the appeal filed by State of Bihar is without merit and it is accordingly dismissed. There is a petition (I.A.No.1405 of 2012) under Section 5 of the Indian Limitation Act in which it is stated that delay has occurred in filing the appeal. In view of the fact that the appeal itself has been considered and dismissed, there is no need to pass a speaking order regarding limitation matter. Accordingly, I.A.No. 1405 of 2012 thus also stands dismissed. Tahir/- (Shyam Kishore Sharma, J) (Amaresh Kumar Lal, 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.