Criminal Appeal (SJ) No.200 OF 1995 (Appeal against the Judgment and Order dated 14.9.1995 passed by the 4th Additional Sessions Judge, Aurangabad, in Sessions Trial No. 42 of 1995/1 of 1995) 1. BHAIRO SINGH, SON OF LATE RAM CHANDRA SINGH, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE – PIRU, P.S. HASPURA, DISTT. AURANGABAD. 2. SATYADEO SINGH SON OF SRI KISHUN SINGH RESIDENT OF VILLAGE – TAL, P.S. HASPURA, DISTT. AURANGABAD. ------APPELLANTS. Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR --------------RESPONDENT For the Appellants : Mr. Krishna Pd. Singh, Sr. Advocate Mr. Manish Kumar No. 3, Advocate For the State : Mr. Choubey Jawahar, A.P.P. P R E S E N T THE HON'BLE JUSTICE SMT. ANJANA PRAKASH Anjana Prakash, J: Heard. The Appellants have been convicted under Section 363 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for two years by the 4th Additional Sessions Judge, Aurangabad, passed in Sessions Trial No. 42 of 1995/1 of 1995 by a Judgment dated 14.9. 1995. The case of the prosecution is that on 6.11.1994 the Informant (PW-5) received information from PW-2, PW-6 and PW-7 that his daughter (PW-9) had been kidnapped by the two accused persons and had been kept in Studio from where she was subsequently recovered. During trial, the prosecution in all examined 12 2 witnesses out of whom PW-1, PW-2, PW-4, PW-6, PW-7, PW- 8, PW-9, PW-10 and PW-11 have been declared hostile. PW-3 is a formal witness whereas PW-5 is the Informant and PW-12 is the Investigating Officer. Admittedly, the Informant is not an eye witness to the occurrence and he had received information from PW-2, PW-6 and PW-7 about the occurrence but they did not support this fact during trial and, therefore, the evidence of PW-5 is a nullity in the eye of law. Further, the victim who was examined as PW- 4 has also not supported the factum of kidnapping. Under the circumstances, evidently, the prosecution has measarably failed in its primary duty of proving the charge of Section 363 against the accused persons. In the result, the Appeal is allowed. The order of conviction and sentence passed against the Appellants in Sessions Trial No. 42 of 1995/1 of 1995 by the 4th Additional Sessions Judge, Aurangabad, is hereby set aside. The Appellants are discharged from the liability of their bail bonds. Patna High Court, Patna Dated the 22nd April, 2011. NAFR/S.ALI ( Anjana Prakash, J.)