IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA SLA No.42 of 2007 BACCHIYA DEVI Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. KERAY PASWAN 3. RAM BARAN PASWAN 4. RAJ NARAIN PASWAN 5. ANIL PASWAN For the appellant : Mr. N.K. Agrawal, Sr. Advocate. Mr. Vijay Anand, Advocate. For the O.Ps : Mr. B.N. Sinha “Suman” For the State : Mrs. Indu Bala Pandey, APP 9 05.02.2009 Heard both sides The complainant-petitioner takes exception to the judgment and order dated 30.3.2007 passed by the learned Addl. District & Sessions Judge, F.T.C.-VI in Complaint case no. 171/98 whereby the accuseds (O.Ps herein) have been acquitted of the charges under sections 364/34 of Indian Penal Code. As per the prosecution case, 7 year’s old girl namely Kavita (P.W. 5) is said to have been kidnapped by the accused persons. This is the admitted case that few years thereafter she returned home and she is presently with the complainant. In order to prove the allegation of kidnapping for the purposes of murder, prosecution got examined altogether 5 (five) witnesses. The learned Trial Court while evaluating the evidence adduced on behalf of the prosecution has taken note of the fact that both the parties are locked in dispute from before. This fact shall be evident from different - 2 - documents which have been brought on record by the defence and considered by the Trial Court at paragraph no. 13 of the judgment. In the background of the aforesaid enmity which existed from before and which has been admitted by the counsels before this Court, the learned Trial Court has assigned cogent reasons for not believing the evidence of P.W. 1, P.W. 2, P.W. 3 and P.W. 4 who are inter se closely related. The Trial Court has also considered the inherent improbability present in the prosecution case. On consideration of the entire evidence on record, it has been found that the prosecution has not been able to prove the charges beyond shadow of all reasonable doubts. This Court does not find any patent illegality in such evaluation of the evidence and arriving at the conclusions that the accused(s) (O.Ps herein) deserve acquittal. The application does not call for any interference. It is, accordingly, dismissed. Let it be recorded that Mr. Suman, learned Counsel on behalf of the opposite parties, stated before this Court that no application in terms of the concluding paragraph of the judgment under scrutiny (paragraph no. 15) shall be filed by them and the matter shall be given a quietus. pkj (Kishore K. Mandal, J)