Criminal Appeal (SJ) No. 101 OF 1996 In the matter of an appeal under Section 374 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. ************ 1. Nimish Narain Singh, S/o Surendra Singh, Resident of Village-Sigrah, Police Station-Rajpur, District-Buxar. 2. Sudarshan Koiri, S/o Rikhi Koiry, Resident of Village-Bijauli, Police Station-Rapur, District- Buxar. ……(Appellants) Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR-------(Respondent) With Criminal Appeal (SJ) No. 129 of 1996 Ram Bachan Mishra, S/o Late Basu Mishra, R/o Village-Sukh Dehari, P.S.-Bhanwar Ked, District- Ghazipur (Uttar Pradesh). …………(Appellant) Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR ……….(Respondent) With Criminal Appeal (SJ) No. 136 of 1996 Shyamdutta Pandey, S/o Shri Parmeshwar Pandey, resident of village Bijauli, P.S.-Rajpur, District-Buxar. ……(Appellant) Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR. …….Respondent. ************* For the Appellant : Mr. Ajay Kumar Thakur, Adv. : Mr. Ravi Ranjan, Adv. : Mr. Krishna Pd. Singh, Sr. Adv. : Mr. Manish Kumar, Adv. For the State : Dr. Inderwar Kumari, APP. : Mr. J.K. Singh, APP. : Mr. B.B. Singh, APP. ************** P R E S E N T THE HON'BLE JUSTICE SMT. ANJANA PRAKASH Anjana Prakash, J. 1. It appears that in the Cr. Appeal (SJ) No. 101 of 1996 there is no order in the original file recorded for admission of the Appeal. However, in Part- B of the file I find that there is an order on 27.05.1996 2 about the admission of the Appeal and the grant of bail to the Appellant. 2. The appellants have been convicted under Section 364 IPC and sentenced to RI for seven years by the 1st Additional District & Sessions Judge, Buxar in Sessions Trial No. 54/94 by a judgment dated 03.04.1996. 3. The case of the prosecution in brief is that the son of the informant namely Chitranjan Rai @ Bhim Rai aged about 15 years suffering from eye trouble and made visits for his treatment very often to the appellant Ram Bachan Mishra who happened to be the priest of the Shiva Temple nearby. On 31.05.1993 the said boy left from his home with Rs. 10/- saying that he was going to meet appellant Ram Bachan Mishra for his treatment. When the boy did not return the informant filed Sanha on 07.06.1993 stating the fact about his son having gone missing. However, he did not raise any suspicion against any one. On 13.07.1993 i.e. about one and half months later the informant is said to have gone to enquire about his son from the appellant Ram Bachan Mishra along with P.W. 11, P.W. 12 and P.W. 13 who initially evaded the question but later on conceded that he had handed over the boy to the co-appellants for a consideration of Rs. 5,000/- The informant alleged that he had been receiving ransom calls but was unable 3 to meet the same since it was the fifth kidnapping in his house and he therefore suspected that his son had been done to death. 4. During trial the prosecution in all examined fourteen witnesses out of whom P.W. 1, P.W. 4, P.W. 5 are on the point that the appellant Ram Bachan Mishra often used to visit the house of the informant and was giving treatment to his son as also the fact that he had left to meet the appellant Ram Bachan Mishra whereafter he did not return. P.W. 7 is on the point that he had seen the kidnapped boy along with the appellants Shyamdutta Pandey, Sudarshan Koiry and Nimish Narain Singh but he failed to identify any of the appellants during trial. P.W. 12 and P.W. 13 are tendered. P.W. 8 is the informant who along with P.W. 11 are the two witnesses on the point of extra judicial confession having been made by appellant Ram Bachan Mishra. The rest of the witnesses are formal mainly on the point of enmity between the informant and the family of Nimish Narain Singh who was his close relative. 5. On going through the evidence on record, this Court finds that apart from extra judicial confession there is absolutely no evidence against any of the appellants. As per the extra judicial confession which is highly unreliable since admittedly the boy had 4 gone missing on 31.05.1993 and the present First Information Report was instituted on 13.07.1993 i.e. about one and half months later and in this interval it is impossible to believe that the informant would not have enquired from appellant Ram Bachan Mishra about his son’s whereabouts since it was known right from the start that he had gone to meet the appellant Ram Bachan Mishra. Moreover, the point of enmity between the appellant Nimish Narain Singh and the informant is admitted by the parties. It also appears that P.W. 12 and P.W. 13 who were also witnesses on the point of extra judicial confession having been made by the appellant Ram Bachan Mishra were tendered. 6. Under the circumstances, these appeals are allowed and the judgment dated 03.04.1996 passed by the 1st Additional District and Sessions Judge, Buxar in Sessions Trial No. 54/94 is, hereby, set aside. The appellants are discharged of the liability of their bail bonds. (Anjana Prakash, J.) Patna High Court, Patna, Dated, the 24th June, 2011. NAFR/Vikash/-