IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CR. APP (DB) No.1235 of 2010 SURESH PANDIT, SON OF RAMBRIKSH PANDIT, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE – HARUHANI, P.S. DHAKA, DISTRICT – EAST CHAMPARAN. ………….. PETITIONER. Versus 1. RAM EKBAL PANDIT, SON OF JANKI PANDIT. 2. SANTOSH PANDIT, SON OF RAMCHANDRA PANDIT. 3. NAND KISHORE PANDIT, SON OF VIKASH PANDIT. 4. JAHRUDDIN ANSARI, SON OF JAMADAR ANSARI. ALL RESIDENT OF VILLAGE – HARUHANI, P.S. DHAKA, DISTRICT – EAST CHAMPARAN. 5. THE STATE OF BIHAR. …………… RESPONDENTS. ----------- 02/ 26.10.2010 Heard counsel for the appellant and the State. This appeal has been preferred against the judgment of acquittal dated 10.8.2010 passed by 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Motihari, East Champaran in Sessions Trial No. 96 of 2003/49 of 2009. The sessions trial arises out of Chhatauni P.S. Case NO. 117 of 2000 and the appellant of this appeal is the informant of that case. By the impugned judgment the respondents 1, 2, 3 & 4 have been acquitted of the charge framed against them under Sections 364A/34 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code. The case of appellant is that his son was kidnapped on 23.7.2000 from Mathia Mohalla, Motihari. A sanaha was instituted on 27.7.2000. The son of the informant/appellant was recovered on 16.8.2000 but at that time the boy was not in a fit mental condition to describe the true facts of the incident, as 2 such the FIR was finally instituted on 16.10.2000. After investigation charge sheet was submitted against the accused persons. On commitment of the case to the Court of Sessions the prosecution examined 9 witnesses. The trial court in its judgment has discussed in detail the evidence of each and every witness and finally come to conclusion that the prosecution has not been able to prove the charges framed against the accused persons under Sections 364A/34 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code. The reason for passing the judgment of acquittal has been given in detail, which appears in para 20, 21, 22 and 23 of the judgment. The trial court has considered this fact that the son of the informant/appellant is said to be missing from 23.7.2000 and sanaha is said to have been given on 27.7.2000, but that sanaha, the most relevant and important document was not brought on record, it was not exhibited. The boy is said to have been recovered on 16.8.2000 but information was not given to the police regarding recovery of the kidnapped boy. The FIR was instituted after much delay on 16.10.2000. The victim boy examined as PW 8 has also not satisfactorily answered any of the questions, which was put to him in his cross-examination, rather the finding of the trial court is that the evidence of 3 prosecution witnesses are in contradiction of each others evidence. The reason, which has been assigned by the prosecution, regarding delayed institution of the FIR is also not at all convincing. The reason is that on account of being kidnapped the victim PW 8 was not in a mental condition to make any statement or to give any details of his kidnapping. There is nothing to show that for such mental condition he was examined by specialist. Suddenly after two and half months he started making statements giving all details, which as per the trial court is not convincing. We also do not find that the finding, which has been recorded by the trial court, is in any way perverse. The finding has been recorded by the trial court giving reason for it and discussing each and every aspect of the deposition of the witnesses. There is no reason for interfering with the impugned judgment of acquittal, which has been passed on consideration of factual as well as legal aspect. Accordingly, this appeal is dismissed. DKS/ (Mridula Mishra, J.) (Dharnidhar Jha, J.) 4