Criminal Appeal No.213 OF 1996 (S.J.) [Appeal against the judgment and order dated 30.8.1996 passed by the 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Bhabhua, Kaimur in Sessions Trial No.204 of 1998/ 1987 of 1996] 1. HARIKESH YADAV, SON OF LATE KALPUR YADAV 2. YUGUL YADAV 3. FEKAN YADAV BOTH SONS OF HARIKESH YADAV 4. SHOBHU NAUNIA ALIAS SHAMBHU CHAUHAN, SON OF SADHU NAUNIA 5. DASU YADAV, SON OF SHIV YADAV, ALL RESIDENT OF VILALGE AMAON, POLICE STATION SHAHEBGANJ, DISTRICT VARANASI, UTTAR PRADESH …….. Appellants Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR ………….. Respondent For the Appellants : Mr. Vikramdeo Singh, Advocate Mr. Rajiv Ranjan, Advocate For the Respondent : Mr. Choubey Jawahar, Addl. P.P. --------- P R E S E N T THE HON'BLE JUSTICE SMT. ANJANA PRAKASH Anjana Prakash, J: It has been submitted that the appellant nos.1, 4 and 5 are dead and, therefore, their appeal abates. The appeal against them is dismissed. 2. So far the appellant nos.2 and 3 are concerned, they have been convicted u/ss.364 and 120B I.P.C. and sentenced to R.I. for ten years under each count by the 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Bhabhua, Kaimur in Sessions Trial No.204 of 1998/ 1987 of 1996 by a judgment dated 30.8.1996. 3. The case of the prosecution is that P.W.3, who is the niece of the informant, was married to appellant Yugul Yadav 5-6 years back but there was some matrimonial dispute between them, on account of which a Panchayati had been held. Thereafter on - 2 - 23.1.1986 appellant Fekan Yadav and Dasu Yadav had gone to the house of the informant and enticed her brother Ram Briksha from his house and taken him to the house of appellant Shobhu Naunia and Yugul Yadav after which he was not seen alive. 4. During trial the prosecution in all examined nine witnesses. Out of whom, P.W.1 is formal in nature. P.W.7 is the informant, whereas P.W.3 is the wife of appellant Yugul Yadav. P.W.4 is the younger sister of the informant. P.W.6 is the wife of the alleged victim whereas P.W.2 is a co-villager. P.W.8 is the Investigating Officer and P.W.9 is also a formal witness. 5. On going through the evidence of the witnesses, I find that the only material that has transpired against the appellants is that they were seen in the company of the alleged victim and from this sole evidence this Court finds it difficult to sustain the conviction of the appellant nos.2 and 3 u/ss.364 and 120B I.P.C. and, therefore, they are acquitted of charges. 6. In the result, the appeal is allowed and the order of conviction and sentence passed against the appellant nos.2 and 3 on 30.8.1996 by the 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Bhabhua, Kaimur in Sessions Trial No.204 of 1998/ 1987 of 1996 is set aside. The appellant nos.2 and 3 are discharged from the liabilities of their bail bonds. Patna High Court Dated, 19th May, 2011. NAFR/ Narendra/ ( Anjana Prakash, J. )