Criminal Appeal (SJ) No. 191 OF 1997 Against the judgment and order dated 02.07.1997 passed by Sri Raj Narain Prasad Singh, 1st Additional District & Sessions Judge, Gopalganj in S.Tr. No. 84 of 96/10 of 96. ************ Rudra Narain Singh, S/o Late Ram Lal Singh, resident of Village-Chandan Tola, P.S.-Barauli, District-Gopalganj. ……(Appellant) Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR-------(Respondent) With Criminal Appeal (SJ) No. 211 of 1997 Bhutkun Chaudhary, S/o Ramagya Choudhary, resident of Village-Batardy, Police Station- Barauli, District-Gopalganj. ………(Appellant) Versus The State of Bihar. ……….(Opposite Party) ************* For the Appellant : Sri Sumant Singh, Adv. : Ms. Aaruni Singh, Adv. : Mr. Arun, Adv. For the State : Mr. B. B. Singh, APP. : Mr. J.K. 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 Sections 376 and 366/34 IPC and sentenced to RI for ten years under each count by the 1st Additional District and Sessions Judge, Gopalganj in S.Tr. No. 84/96/10/96 by a judgment dated 02.07.1997. 2. The case of the prosecution according to P.W. 5, Ashok Singh is that the appellants were on inimical terms with them since last one year and about two days ago the appellants had come to their house along with sister Pratima Devi whereafter she became traceless. When the informant went to about enquire Pratima Devi the appellant Rudra Narain 2 Singh refused to open the door which had made them suspicious. On a secret information they learnt that appellant Rudra Narain Singh who was a widower and aged person was keeping the kidnapped lady in his house for the purpose of marrying her. 3. During trial the prosecution in all examined ten witnesses out of whom P.W. 6 and P.W. 7 are formal witnesses. P.W. 5 is the eye witness on the point of recovery of Pratima Devi from the house of Rudra Narain Singh by the police. P.W. 1, P.W. 2, P.W. 3 and P.W. 4 who are the family members of Pratima Devi supported the factum of occurrence out of which P.W. 1 and P.W. 2 are said to be the witness on the point of recovery of Pratima Devi from the house of appellant Rudra Narain Singh. P.W. 8 is the Judicial Magistrate who had examined the said Pratima Devi under Section 164 Cr.P.C. whereas P.W. 9 is the Doctor who had medically examined the victim. P.W. 10 is the Investigating Officer. 4. From the evidence of Doctor, P.W. 9, I find that she was of opinion that Pratima Devi was aged more than 20 years ago. The said Pratima Devi has herself not been examined. Even accepting the prosecution evidence that the victim had been recovered from the house of Rudra Narain Singh it is difficult to sustain the conviction of the appellants since there is no corroboration from her about the fact 3 that she not being a minor had been detained by the appellant Rudra Narain Singh against her will. 5. In view of complete paucity of evidence it is difficult to sustain the conviction of the appellants and therefore this Court is inclined to allow the appeals. In the result, the appeals are allowed and the judgment dated 02.07.1997 passed by the 1st Additional District & Sessions Judge, Gopalganj in S.Tr. No. 84/96/10/96 is, hereby, set aside. The appellants are acquitted of the charges and discharged of the liability of their bail bonds. (Anjana Prakash, J.) Patna High Court, Patna, Dated, the 13th July, 2011. NAFR/Vikash/-