Criminal Appeal (SJ) No. 28 OF 1995 In the matter of an appeal under Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. ************ 1. Mohamad Mustafa. 2. Mohammad Ashique. 3. Md. Chhotu. 4. Mohd. Tahir. All Sons of Mohammad Rafique. 5. Mohammad Jafar, S/o Mohammad Abid. 6. Md. Nasir, S/o Taslim. All R/o Village-Kaziyama, Police Station- Sakri, District-Madhubani. ……(Appellants) Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR-------(Respondent) ************* For the Appellants: Mr. Syed Alamdar Hussain, Adv. : Miss Minu Kumari, Adv. : Md. Ziaul Qunwar, Adv. For the State : Mr. Suraj Pd. Singh, APP. ************** P R E S E N T THE HON'BLE JUSTICE SMT. ANJANA PRAKASH Anjana Prakash, J. 1. The appellants have been convicted under Section 366A IPC and sentenced to RI for seven years by the 4th Additional Sessions Judge, Madhubani in S.Tr. No. 197/1992/230/1993 by a judgment dated 10/13.03.1995. 2. The case of the prosecution is that on 13.02.1992 the married daughter of Khublal Paswan was allegedly kidnapped by one Md. Abid Hussain and kept confined in his house. When they went to the house of Md. Abid Hussain and tried to get her released Md. Abid Hussain declined to do so and thereafter the present case was instituted. The appellants were not named in the First Information Report. 2 3. During trial the prosecution in all examined seven witnesses but the victim could not give her statement. P.W. 3 and P.W. 5 are tendered witnesses whereas P.W. 7 is formal witness. P.W. 1 has been declared hostile. P.W. 6 is part Investigating Officer. P.W. 2, P.W. 3 and P.W. 4 are material witnesses who have stated that the victim had been kidnapped by Md. Abid Hussain and only the fact that these appellants were watching the situation but admittedly the victim was not recovered from the house of the appellants nor from the house of Md. Abid Hussain. 4. In absence of the examination of victim, this Court is unable to appreciate as to how it can place reliance on the evidence of P.W. 2, P.W. 3 and P.W. 4 who have merely stated that the appellants were watching the situation and sustain their conviction: 5. In the result, the appeal is allowed and the judgment dated 10/13.03.1995 passed by the 4th Additional Sessions Judge, Madhubani in Sessions Trial No. 197/1992/230/1993 is set aside. The appellants are discharged of the liability of their bail bonds. (Anjana Prakash, J.) Patna High Court, Patna, Dated, the 12th May, 2011. NAFR/Vikash/-