IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA SLA No.51 of 2010 MD.MIKAIL ANSARI, S/o. Md. Israfil, r/o. Mohalla- Mumtaj Naugachia, P.S. Naugachia, District- Bhagalpur. Versus 1. The State Of Bihar, 2. Md. Mursalim, S/o. Md. Ekram, 3. Md. Anjar, S/o. Md. Ekram, Both r/o. Champa Nagar, P.S. Nath Nagar, District- Bhagalpur. 4. Md. Mannan Ansari, s/o. Md. Usman Ansari, 5. Md. Farookh, S/o. Md. Usman Ansari, 6. Md. Abbas Ansari, S/o. late Teg Ali Khalifa, 7. Md. Gulab Ansari, S/o. Abbas, All r/o. Mohalla- Mumtaj, Naugachia, P.S. Naugachia, District- Bhagalpur. ----------- 03. 19.07.2010 This is an application for leave to file appeal against the judgment dated 27.04.2010 passed by the Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Naugachia in Complaint Case No. 317 of 2005/190 of 2010, whereby the O.P. Nos. 2 to 7 were tried for the charge under Section 365 of I.P.C. have been acquitted of the charge. The case of the complainant was that while he was at Delhi and his wife Bibi Jaina was at her village home the O.P. Nos. 2 to 7 kidnapped her along with one year child and that they demanded a ransom of Rs.1,00000/- from his (complainant’s) father in the village for releasing the wife and child. The complainant stated that he received the information about the occurrence from his father on 2 telephone and then he returned from Delhi and filed his complaint bearing Complaint Case No.100/2005. The trial-court’s judgment shows that the complaint was sent to police for institution of F.I.R. and investigation under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. After investigation police submitted final form reporting the complaint false and baseless and a report for prosecution of the complainant under Section 182 & 211 of the I.P.C. was also submitted for lodging a false case. It was due to a protest petition having been filed by the petitioner/complainant during investigation that after submission of final form the protest was treated as complaint and on examination of the witnesses under Section 192 cognizance of the offence was taken and the O.Ps. 2 to 7 were put on trial. While recording the order of acquittal learned trial-court has considered that the complainant did not disclose as to when he received information at Delhi and when he came to his native place from Delhi. The complainant was not an 3 eyewitness and he stated to have learnt about the occurrence from his father. Learned trial-court also considered that the complainant’s wife who is said to have been kidnapped had herself filed a case under Section 498A of I.P.C. against the complainant and the complainant had admittedly remained in custody in that case about 4-5 months. The complainant also admitted that he too had filed a case against his wife in the Family Court but the case was latter on compromised. Learned trial-court considered that complainant’s father Md. Israfil, C.W.4 also admitted that he informed the complainant after 20 days of the occurrence and did not inform the police during the period. This witness (C.W.4) stated that a ransom call was made to him but he was unable to disclose the identity of the telephone from which and to which the calls were made. The learned trial-court mentioned that the complainant’s father tried to suppress about the case filed by the complainant’s wife, the victim and thus he was trying to conceal the 4 true and actual state of affairs. Learned trial-court further considered that C.Ws. 1, 2 & 3 gave parrot like statement that the O.Ps. kidnapped complainant’s wife on Sumo vehicle but these witnesses were unable to disclose about the number of the vehicle or the identity of the driver. It was also considered that there was defence suggestion that proceedings under Section 107 Cr.P.C. was going on between the witnesses and the P.Ws., as a result of which they gave evidence in collusion with the complainant. What weighed much with the trial-court for the consideration of the fact that the victim was not examined by the complainant. While arguing the application it was admitted at the Bar that the complainant’s wife had returned to the complainant’s house during the trial. Therefore the non- examination of the victim becomes very important for drawing inference against the prosecution. Thus considering the above infirmities and also that after thorough investigation the police had 5 submitted final form reporting the case false and baseless and a report for prosecution of the complainant under Section 182 & 211 of I.P.C. was also submitted by the police and the trial-court recorded the judgment of acquittal. On consideration of the facts and circumstances, I do not find any perversity and illegality in the impugned judgment. Accordingly, this S.L.A. is dismissed at the admission stage itself. Mkr. (C.M. Prasad, J.)