IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CR. APP (DB) No.1295 of 2010 MD. MUSLIM, SON OF LATE MD. NAZIR RESIDENT OF VILLAGE – VHISABASANTPUR, P.S. DUMARA, DISTRICT – SITAMARHI. ……….. APPELLANT. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. MD. TAHIR HUSSAIN SON OF LATE MD. KHALIL RESIDENT OF VILLAGE MAHSAUL P.S. SITAMARHI (MAHSAUL O.P.), DISTRICT – SITAMARHI. ……….. RESPONDENTS. ----------- 02/ 19.11.2010 Heard counsel for the appellant. The appellant is the complainant of complaint case, on the basis of which Dumara P.S. Case No. 195 of 2000 was instituted against respondent no. 2 alleging offence under Section 364 of the Indian Penal Code. The case of prosecution as disclosed in the complaint is that his 13 years son Md. Mannaur, a student of Class VIII, was kidnapped by the accused- respondent. Initially the complainant was asked by the accused persons to allow his son to go to Bombay, for engagement in Zari embroidery work, for 1,000/- rupees per month as remuneration, but the complainant was not willing to send his son, being apprehensive at this feet that his son’s kidney may be sold by the accused persons or he may be sold to some foreigners. The accused persons, thereafter, without consent of the complainant, took his son in his 2 absence. When the complainant came to know about that fact, he made a search at several places and also at places of some of the relatives. Persons, who had seen taking away of his son by the accused persons, disclosed that Mannaur has been taken by the accused persons for selling his kidney or for his murder or to sell him to some foreigners. The complaint case was filed before the C.J.M., Sitamarhi, who sent the complaint for instituting a police case under Section 156(3) of the Cr.P.C. and Dumara P.S. Case No. 195 of 2000 was registered for offence under Section 363A/34 of the IPC. The charge sheet was submitted under Section 363A/34 of the IPC, cognizance was taken and thereafter the case was committed to the Court of Sessions for trial. The prosecution examined altogether 8 witnesses, who are the complainant himself and the victim boy. Other witnesses were also examined but their evidence is not much of value. So for evidence of victim boy Md. Mannaur as P.W. 5 is concerned, is discussed in para 18 of the judgment. He has given details of his kidnapping by the accused persons, but 3 his evidence discloses that he himself had accompanied the accused persons from Patna to Bombay and subsequently himself came back to his village. There is nothing on record to show that when he came back from Bombay to his village any information was given to the police and he was produced before the Magistrate. The Investigating Officer of this case Murari Sharma has been examined as C.W. 1. He has stated that during investigation he came to know that the kidnapped boy is residing at his home and he recovered the victim boy from Idgah where he was grazing she buffalo. The recovery was made in presence of Iliyas and Awadh Kishsore. He also gave evidence before the Magistrate that the kidnapped boy was recovered while he was grazing she buffalo. The entire evidence as discussed in the impugned judgment indicates that the informant and the accused persons are on inimical terms and several criminal cases had been instituted by them against each other. In the background of this admitted enmity the case regarding kidnapping of his son was filed by 4 the informant for putting pressure on the accused persons, so far previous criminal cases are concerned. In the detailed judgment each and every evidence has been considered and discussed by the trial court and we find that there is no perversity in the judgment. The finding recorded by the trial court is completely in accordance with law, which needs no interference. Accordingly, the appeal against the acquittal is dismissed. DKS/ (Mridula Mishra, J.) (Dharnidhar Jha, J.)