IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CR. APP (DB) No.1170 of 2010 ARUNA DEVI Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS ----------- 2. 5.10.2010. Appellant Aruna Devi is the informant of Rosera P.S.Case No.107 of 2001. The appeal has been preferred against the judgement dated 17.8.2010 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court-V, Samastipur in Sessions Trial No.426 of 2005, whereby seven accused persons who have been made respondent in this appeal, were acquitted of the charge framed against them under Section 364 of the IPC. The allegation for which the charge was framed against the respondents related to abduction of Krishna Kumar Jha, husband of the complainant/appellant. The facts of the case as revealed in the impugned judgement and the memo of appeal is that initially a complaint case no.505 of 2001 was filed by this appellant in the court of A.C.J.M., Rosera alleging offence under Section 364 of the IPC naming seven persons as an accused. The A.C.J.M., Rosera passed an order under Section 156(3)of the Cr.P.C. for institution of the police case and accordingly Rosera P.S.case No.107 of 2001 was instituted under Section 364 of the IPC. The case of the prosecution was that on 7.6.2001 at 5 A.M. the informant and her husband saw some criminals assembling at the house of respondents 2 to 7. The husband of the complainant subsequently went on 2 his bicycle for calling some labourers but thereafter he never returned. The complaint petition was filed on 5.7.2001. The informant on her own tried to search out her husband, informed her father and brother and they also made an effort to search her husband but they also could not trace him out. Her brother sent a letter to the Superintendent of Police, Samstipur for institution of the FIR but it remained unattended as nothing was done. Finally, the complaint case was filed by her and on that basis police case was instituted vide Rosera P.S.Case No.107 of 2001, which was investigated, chargesheet submitted, cognizance taken and finally the case was committed for conducting trial to the court of Sessions. The prosecution examined altogether 21 witnesses in order to prove the allegations against the accused regarding kidnapping. Before, submission of the chargesheet statement of complainant and some of the witnesses had also been recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. During trial, out of 21 prosecution witnesses P.Ws.1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 8, 9, 10, 11, 14, 15, 16, 18 and 19 were declared hostile as they did not support the case of the prosecution. P.Ws.20 and 21 were investigating officer. The appellant, in this memo of appeal has raised grievance against the trial courts non-consideration of deposition of prosecution witnesses, like, P.Ws.12, 13 and 14. The informant herself 3 has been examined as P.W.7 and she has admitted that this information regarding abduction of her husband was given to her by P.W.12 Ram Ashray Jha, P.W.13 Vineet Kumar Jha and P.W.14 Anjani Kumar Jha. P.W.14 Anjani Kumar Jha has been declared hostile. So far Vineet Kumar Jha is concerned he has examined himself as an eye witness of the occurrence. He has stated that on the day of occurrence he saw three motorcycles, on which all accused persons were going away along with the victim, husband of informant. He called them and tried to stop them, but he could not stop them and thereafter he gave this information to the informant. This witness, i.e., P.W.13 has stated that even though he saw the actual kidnapping of the victim he neither informed the police nor any other person except P.W.7. This witness P.W.13 has also admitted in his deposition that his statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C.(Ext-2)had been recorded, after two and half years of the occurrence. Prior to that he did not made any statement before any one. So far as P.W.12 and 13 are concerned they have not said that they have witnessed the occurrence, and this was the reason for which the P.W.13 was declared hostile. On perusal of the impugned judgement, we find that the trial court has discussed the deposition of P.Ws.12, 13 and 14, on which the specific reliance has been placed by 4 the appellant. The evidence of, none of these witnesses, could brought any material regarding the commission of offence by respondent no.2 to 7. The evidence of P.W.4, 5 and 6 on the other hand indicated, that witnesses have specially made statement before the investigating officer under Section 161 Cr.P.C. that on the day of occurrence the victim Krishna Kumar Jha has left his house voluntarily in the company of some persons. Their evidence show that it was not a case of kidnapping of Krishna Kumar Jha, rather he willingly left his house. Since there was no evidence on the record, placing reliance on which a judgement of conviction could have been passed, the trial court is the background of admitted enmity between the parties, rightly recorded a finding of acquittal against accused/respondents to 2 to 8. We do not find any error in the impugned judgement whereby the respondents have been acquitted. This appeal is accordingly dismissed. B.Kr. ( Mridula Mishra,J. ) ( Dharnidhar Jha, J.)