IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CR. APP (SJ) No.275 of 2010 SATYA NARAYAN MANDAL, S/o. Late Dhobi Mandal, r/o. Village- Vijuahi, P.S. Jamui, District- Jamui. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR, 2. Suresh Mandal, S/o. Mathura Mandal, 3. Arbind Mandal, S/o. Suresh Mandal, Both r/o. Village- Vijuahi, P.s. Jamui, District- Jamui. 4. Harilal Rawat, S/o. Deo Narayan Dhanuk 5. Singheshwar Yadav, S/o. Sukkar Yadav, 6. Devendra mandal, S/o. Bhuneshwar Mandal, 7. Potan Yadav, S/o. Saryug Yadav, 8. Asho Yadav, S/o. Jodan Yadav, 9. Raja Ram Yadav, S/o. Gopal Yadav, --------- 06. 01.07.2010 Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned counsel for the respondents. This appeal is against the order dated 15.07.2009, whereby the learned Sessions Judge who was trying the case under Section 364 of I.P.C. and the appellant was the victim therein and who was examined as P.W.4, has ordered for filing complaint for prosecution of the victim (P.W.15) for adducing false evidence. Learned Sessions Judge had mentioned that victim/appellant namely, Satya Narayan Mandal was examined under Section 164 Cr.P.C. before a Magistrate and he had given categorical statement that the respondents 2 & 3 namely, Suresh Mandal and Arvind Mandal kidnapped him. It was further mentioned by the learned Sessions Judge that during 2 trial when the victim/appellant adduced his evidence he did not name any of the respondent Nos. 2 & 3 as kidnapper. Thus finding it a case of giving false evidence as was adduced by the victim in his statement before the Magistrate under Section 164 Cr.P.C. and not giving such statement in Court, the learned Sessions Judge came to find that it was a case of giving false evidence and as such vide impugned order a direction was made for prosecuting the victim/appellant forgiving false evidence. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that during trial some coercion and threat was exercised on the victim/appellant at the hands of the accused/O.Ps. and the villagers also intervened into the matter and thus as a result of reconciliation of the matter the victim/appellant did not support the allegation. The learned Sessions Judge has mentioned that due to the victim/appellant having not supported the prosecution case as stated earlier under Section 164 Cr.P.C. he was declared hostile by the prosecution and he was discharged. 3 Learned counsel for the appellant tried to impress that since the matter was reconciliated at the intervention of the villagers the victim/appellant did not support the allegations in his evidence. Learned counsel for the appellant also filed some papers with a supplementary affidavit and tried to indicate that the papers were created during the reconciliation process at the intervention of the party or the villagers in the village. Learned counsel for the respondents submitted that no such paper was produced before the learned Sessions Judge while passing the impugned order. It was further submitted that even on consideration of the papers it cannot be said that it is not a case of adducing false evidence and that the circumstances show that the offence of giving false evidence is made out but the papers recording reconciliation only go to show the circumstances under which the offence took place. Thus hearing I do not find any illegality in the impugned order dated 15.07.2008. In such view 4 of the matters the appeal is dismissed at the stage of admission. The learned Sessions Judge will proceed further according to law. Mkr. (C.M. Prasad, J.)