IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CR. REV. No.235 of 2008 MD.GYASUDDIN, SON OF LATE SK. ZIAUDDIN, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE-SEMRA GHAT, P.S.- MAJHWALIA, DISTRICT- WEST CHAMPARAN. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. SK. NEYAZ AHMAD SON OF LATE EKRAM 3. SK. RAJIULLAH @ RAJA SON OF LATE SK. NASURULLAH RESIDENT OF VILLAGE- SEMRA GHAT, P.S.- MAJHWALIA, DISTRICT- WEST CHAMPARAN. 4. SK. NAUSHAD SON OF SK. SHAKEEL 5. SK. OBAIDULLAH SON OF LATE SK. IMAM 6. SK. BADRUDDIN SON OF SK. MAQSOOD. 7. SK. IMRAN SON OF SK. HAROON. 8. SK. FAROOQUE SON OF LATE SK. SALIM. ALL RESIDENT OF VILLAGE-SEMRA GHAT, P.S.- MAJHWALIA, DISTRICT- WEST CHAMPARAN. 9. SK. JOKHU SON OF LATE SK. ABDUL AZIZ. 10. SK. MAJIBULLAH SON OF LATE SK. ABDUL AZIZ. 11. SK. ABULAIS SON OF LATE SK. ABUL AZIZ. 12. SK. TUDDU SON OF SK. ENAMUL, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE SEMRA GHAT, P.S.- MAJHWALIA, DISTRICT- WEST CHAMPARAN. 13. SK. RABUL HASAN, SON OF LATE ABDUL AZIZ, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE-SISWANIA, P.S.- MAJHWALIA, DISTRICT- WEST CHAMPARAN. 14. SK. SAMIULLAH SON OF LATE SK. MD. JAN. RESIDENT OF VILLAGE- SEMRA GHAT, P.S.- MAJHWALIA, DISTRICT- WEST CHAMPARAN. 15. SK. HAFIZULLAH SON OF LATE MD. JAN, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE- BAHUARA, P.S.- MAJHWALIA, DISTRICT- WEST CHAMPARAN. For the petitioner : Mr. Ashok Jang Bahadur, Advocate. For the State : Mr. Jharkhandi Upadhyay, APP ----------- 3 29.07.2010 Heard both sides. P.W. 1 lodged an F.I.R. which gave rise to Sessions Trial No. 596 of 2004 of the Court of Addl. Sessions Judge-cum-F.T.C.- III West Champaran, Bettiah. O.Ps herein were thus tried for offence(s) punishable under Section 302/149 IPC as well as 2 Section 364/149 IPC besides other allied sections of the Penal Code. Allegation as per the F.I.R. is that a host of persons including 15 accused persons named therein arrived at the house of the informant and committed loot and thereafter captivated three persons and took them away. Accordingly, investigation was taken up and on submission of charge-sheet, cognizance was taken and the trial was taken up. At the trial, 7 witnesses were examined to prove the charge(s). P.Ws. 1, 2. 3 and 4 claimed to be the eye- witnesses to the occurrence. On a consideration of the materials placed on record, learned trial court came to the conclusion that the charges framed under Section 302/149 could not be proved and accordingly all the accused persons (including O.Ps herein) were acquitted of the said charge(s). However, having regard to the ocular evidence and supporting materials on record, it was found and held that the prosecution has been able to prove the charge(s) against the accused persons excluding O.P. nos. 14 and 15 punishable under Section 364/149 IPC. Learned counsel for the petitioner while assailing the impugned order fairly states that so far as finding of the learned Trial Court acquitting the accuseds (O.Ps) of the charge(s) punishable under Section 302/149 is/are concerned, the same appears to be justified as there was deficient evidence on record. It is, however, contended that the learned trial court on the basis of the evidence on record and keeping in view the fact that three persons were kidnapped for the purpose of murder by them, ought 3 to have awarded severe sentence. It is to be recorded here that the trial court sentenced the convicted accuseds to undergo R.I. for 10 years. It is next contended that the trial court ought to have convicted O.P. nos. 14 and 15 on the strength of the materials/evidence which were already on record. He, therefore, seriously criticized that part of the finding of learned trial court whereby those two accused persons (O.P. nos. 14 and 15) were acquitted of the charge(s) punishable under Section 364/45 IPC. This Court finds from the impugned order that out of four witnesses, at least one of them did not name O.P. no. 15. So far as O.P. no. 14 is concerned, two of the four eye witnesses have not named him. This weighed with the court and, therefore, benefit of doubt has been given to the aforesaid two accused. In my view, such finding cannot be interfered with as the same cannot be termed to be wholly unjustified and/or perfunctory. So far as the submission of learned counsel for the petitioner with regard to imposition of severe sentence is concerned, this Court on consideration of the materials placed on record is satisfied that the learned trial court acted in its discretion which do not call for any interference. There is no merit in the application. It is accordingly dismissed. pkj ( Kishore K. Mandal, J. )