IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CR. REV. No.1434 of 2007 RAMDEO PRASAD SINGH @ RAMDEO SINGH S/O LATE FEKAN SINGH, R/O MOHALLA-DURGA ASTHAN, P.S. KATIHAR, DIST. KATIHAR ---- PETITIONER. Versus 1. STATE OF BIHAR 2. AZAD SINGH S/O ABHAY KUMAR SINGH R/O MOHALLA DURGA ASTHAN, P.S. KATIHAR, DIST. KATIHAR -- OPP. PARTIES. For the Petitioner : Mr. Krishna Prasad Singh, Sr. Advocate. Mr. Manish Kumar no.3, Advocate. For the State : Mr. Jitendra Kumar Singh no.1, APP. ----------- 03 01.07.2010 Heard both sides. Petitioner is the igniter of the present criminal proceedings arising out of Katihar P.S. case no. 568 of 1989, levied against the opposite party no.2, which ultimately gave rise to Sessions Trial no. 157 of 1991 of the Court of learned Assistant Sessions Judge-I, Katihar. It appears that the opposite party no.2 herein was found and held guilty for having kidnapped Nitu Kumari daughter of the informant, and accordingly sentenced to undergo R.I. for 05 years under Section 366 of the Penal Code. Aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment and order of conviction opposite party no.2 preferred Criminal appeal no. 55 of 1998. The said appeal was considered and disposed of by the learned Additional District & Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court no. II, Katihar. Learned lower appellate Court reappraised the evidence available on record and came to the conclusion that the very foundation of the case made out in the F.I.R. was oscillating. It has found that accused is the nephew of the informant. On 2 evaluation of Exhibit-A, it has been found that rancour was fuming in the mind of informant since before on account of reasons set out by the defence evidence which in fact culminated into lodging of the present case. Referring to the deposition of P.W.6 Ramesh Singh, (‘Mama’ of the victim) it is noted that he has gone on record stating that after second marriage of the informant, Nitu Kumari sometimes used to live at the house of her ‘Mama’, and sometimes at the house of Abhay Singh. Abhay Singh is non else than the father of opposite party no.2. On a consideration of the entire evidence brought on record, it has been found that the evidence adduced on behalf of the prosecution was not trustworthy and that the same failed grossly short of proving the prosecution case beyond shadow of all reasonable doubts. In what I have observed above, consideration of the matter by the learned trial Court cannot be faulted. There is no perversity and/or illegality in the approach of learned trial Court in appreciating the evidence adduced on behalf of the parties. There is no merit in this application, which is, accordingly dismissed. Sym ( Kishore K. Mandal, J.)