Criminal Appeal (SJ) No. 128 of 1998 ****** Against the judgment of conviction dated 13.02.1998 and order of sentence dated 03.03.1998 respectively, passed by Sri A. K. Verma, learned Additional Sessions Judge-II, Katihar in Sessions Case No. 157 of 1997/43/1997. ****** 1. Dip Narain Yadav, Son of Late Kanti Yadav. 2. Prakash Yadav, Son of Dip Narain Yadav. Both resident of village – Pothia, P. S. – Falka, District – Katihar. .... .... Appellants. Versus The State Of Bihar .... .... Respondent. ****** For the Appellants : Mr. P. K. Jaipuriyar, Advocate. Mr. Anshuman Jaipuriyar, Advocate. For the Respondent : Mr. Parmeshwar Mehta, A. P. P. ****** P R E S E N T THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE GOPAL PRASAD GOPAL PRASAD, J. Heard learned counsel for the appellants and learned counsel for the State. 2. The appellants have been convicted under Section 363 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for five years. 3. The prosecution case was proceeded on the basis of the complaint filed by Nepali Mandal, the father of the victim that his daughter Rani Devi aged about 15 years had married with Prakash Yadav (appellant no. 2), son of Dip Narain Yadav (appellant no. 1). 2 The villagers watch the conduct of the appellant no. 2 and the daughter of the informant and suggested for their marriage that solemnized on 02.11.1996. The marriage was solemnized with the consent of the informant/complainant and it is asserted that at the time of marriage the complainant gave 5 bhar silver (Har), 10 bhars payal 8 annas gold (Bali) in case of Rs.3,000/- and clothes etc. It is further stated that the appellant no. 1 Dip Narain Yadav the father of the appellant no. 2 Prakash Yadav pressed that Prakash Yadav is in good service at Delhi and then the marriage was solemnized. However, on return of the accused no. 2 from Delhi, the complainant asked about her daughter and then the accused replied in negative and hence he filed the complaint that his daughter is traceless. However, the local police was informed but in vain so the complaint was filed. 4. On the said complaint, the FIR was lodged under Section 156(3) of the Cr.P.C for the offence under Sections 363, 368 and 372 of the Indian Penal Code and after investigation the charge-sheet was submitted and case was committed to the court of Sessions. 5. However, during the trial ten witnesses were examined out of them P. Ws. 1, 2, 5, 6 and 7 turned hostile. P. Ws. 3, 4 and 9 have been tendered. However, P. Ws. 8 is the wife of the informant and P. W. 10 is the informant has been deposed. P. Ws. 6 however, stated that the first marriage of Rani Devi was solemnized at Baigna. The second 3 marriage solemnized with Prakash Yadav and she went but she did not return. However, this witness has been declared hostile. 6. P. W. 8 is the mother of the victim and she has stated that Prakash Yadav had taken the victim Rani Devi to Sasural. In answer to a court question that why the case has been lodged, she replied that she had no knowledge. Hence, P. W. 8 is the mother, has not supported the case of the kidnapping of the victim rather accepted about the marriage. 7. P. W. 10 is the informant. He has stated that he filed a case of kidnapping and he has stated that Prakash Yadav and Dip Narain Yadav have kidnapped his girl and the age of the girl is about 14-15 years. The occurrence took place about a year back. However, P. W. 10 is the informant and in his complaint, has stated that he married the victim with Prakash Yadav and has stated that in the marriage he given gold, silver and money and after the marriage the victim went with him. However, in his cross-examination, he has stated that prior to the occurrence, the marriage of the victim was solemnized at Baigna and after lodging the case he learnt the girl is at Sasural. However, the evidence of this witness is fluctuating. His statement in complaint that he has got the marriage of his daughter with the appellant no. 2 and even gave gold, silver and money at the time of marriage and his daughter went along with Prakash Yadav. Subsequently his statement that the victim has been kidnapped and thereafter in cross-examination 4 he says the girl is at Sasural. The I.O. in this case has not been examined and hence except the evidence of P. W. 10 no witness has supported the prosecution case. 8. Hence, taking into consideration the evidence of P. Ws. 6, 8 and 10 although the evidence of P. Ws. 6 and 8 does not support the prosecution case about the kidnapping. The evidence of P. W. 10 is fluctuating and hence is not reliable. Hence, I find and hold that the prosecution has not been able to prove the charges beyond reasonable doubts and hence I acquit the appellants form their bail bonds, if any. The order of conviction and sentence recorded by the learned lower court is hereby set aside. Hence, this appeal is allowed. (Gopal Prasad, J.) Patna High Court, Patna. Dated, the 16th September, 2011. N.A.F.R./Kundan.