IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA GOVT. APPEAL (DB) No.26 of 2007 Government of Bihar ...Appellant Versus 1. Ram Singhasan Pandey son of Late Jadu Pandey, resident of village Ganoli, P.S. Lohariya, P.O. Dumara, Dist.: West Champaran. 2. Asalam Khan son of Rahman Khan, resident of village Piparpanti, P.S. Shivrajpur, P.S. Jogapatti, Dist. :West Champaran 3. Salaullah Mian son of Bahadur Khan resident of village Kateya, P.O. :Sahadurpur Bhaya Jogapatti, P.S. Ganoriya, Dist.: West Champaran ...Respondents ----------- 6/ 22.10.2008 Heard learned counsel for the State as well as respondents. Lower court records have been received. This Govt. Appeal has been filed against the judgment and order dated 20.10.2006 passed by Sri Birendra Kumar Singh, Additional Sessions Judge, FTC 5th, Bettiah, West Champaran, in Sessions Trial No.24/06 /84/2006. By the impugned judgment and order the respondents, who were also facing trial for the offence under sections 364 and 379 of the Indian Penal Code, have been acquitted of the charges. Jitendra Pandey (PW 6) is the informant of Jogapatti P.S. case no.82 of 1994. Informant himself is the victim, who has alleged that 2 while he was returning from the school situated at Piparpanti to his home along with his colleague Paras Nath Pathak, four culprits surrounded him in between Piparpanti Pond and Ojhwalia village. Out of the four persons, the informant identified two, who are Mantun Tiwary and Shambhu Gaur. So far other two persons are concerned; the informant gave their physical description. One of the culprits assaulted him on his head and he sustained injury. After kidnapping he was kept by the accused persons in the sugarcane field at the southern field of Siswa Bhumihaar. The accused persons also took away rupees three hundred from his pocket, HMT watch as well as key of the school. It is further said that Mantun Tiwary was saying that after waiting for such a long time he has been caught and only after getting rupees two lakhs as ransom he will be released. The motive for kidnapping, as disclosed by Mantun Tiwary, was the informant’s ill treatment with the relatives of Mantun Tiwary. The informant has further said that he was kept in sugarcane field and in the meantime the police reached and there was firing and cross-firing between the police and the accused persons and thereafter the informant was 3 recovered by the police. After investigation charge sheet was submitted by the police against the FIR named as well as unnamed accused under sections 364, 379 and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code. So far the respondents are concerned, they were not named in the FIR. In course of trial, the prosecution examined nine witnesses. P.W.1 Bara Babu Thakur is a hear say witness. He has not identified the respondents. P.Ws.2, 3, 4, 7 and 8 have also not identified the respondents. They only claimed to have identified Mantun Tiwary, Harish Chandra Turha and Shambhu Gaur. Trial of accused Harish Chandra Turha was separated while accused Shambhu Gaur has been convicted by the impugned judgment. So far Mantun Tiwary is concerned, he is said to have died in police encounter. Counsel for the State while assailing the judgment of the trial court has placed reliance on the evidence of PW 9, who claimed to have identified the respondents at the time of occurrence. We find that this PW 9 is not named as eye witness in the FIR. His name is also not mentioned as eye witness in the charge sheet and for the first time he appeared in the trial and claimed to have identified the respondents at 4 the time of occurrence. From the perusal of the impugned judgment as well as records it appears that these respondents were never put on TIP and they were not identified by any of the witness. We do not find that the finding recorded by the trial court suffers from any infirmity and error, considering the evidence on record. Thus, the present Govt. Appeal against the acquittal is dismissed. JA/- (Mridula Mishra, J.) (Syed Md. Mahfooz Alam, J.)