IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CR. REV. No.200 of 2007 DHURUB NARAYAN PRASAD SON OF DEENA NATH PRASAD, RESIDENT OF MOHALLA RAXAUL WARD NO. 8, P.S.- RAXAUL, DISTRICT- EAST CHAMPARAN. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. UMESH KUMAR SAH SON OF ISHWARI SAH, RESIDENT OF MOHALLA-RAXAUL, P.S.- RAXAUL, DISTRICT- EAST CHAMPARAN. For the petitioner : Mr. Vijay Shankar Srivastava, Advocate. For the O.P. : Mr. Pramod Kumar Pandey, Advocate. For the State :Mr. Jharkhandi Upadhyay, APP. ----------- 6 22.07.2010 Petitioner is the initiator of the criminal proceeding which gave rise to Sessions Trial No. 335 of 200. Two accused persons including the O.P. no. 2 herein were charged under Sections 364A and 224 IPC and put on trial. At the trial, 10 witnesses were examined to bring home the charges. On a consideration of the materials on record, learned trial court convicted one of the accuseds and acquitted the present O.P. no. 2 of all the charges. Informant (P.W. 6) is, therefore, aggrieved by that part of the judgment. It is contended that learned trial court committed serious illegality in not appreciating the evidence available on record which definitely incriminate O.P. no. 2 Umesh Kumar (O.P. no. 2) in the crime. It is thus the submission that the impugned judgment requires interference. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing on behalf of O.P. no. 2 supported the findings of not guilty recorded by the trial court on the strength of materials/evidence available 2 on record. Heard both sides. Perused the impugned judgment. F.I.R. was lodged against unknown. One of the co- accused namely Santosh Kumar was arrested. He made confessional statement leading to recovery of the kidnapped boy. In his confessional statement, he has also named the petitioner as his associate. Learned trial court appraised the evidence of Officer-in-Charge (P.W. 8), I.O. (P.W. 9) and another police personnel constituting the raiding team (P.W. 10) and has come to a conclusion that on the strength of confessional statement of co-accused Santosh Kumar, the boy was recovered. Evaluating the evidence of the informant, the learned trial court has partly disbelieved him so far as time of recovery of the kidnapped boy is concerned. On the strength of exhibits A & A/1 brought by the O.P. no. 2, it has been inferred that the informant and his father were having land dispute from before with the father of O.P. no. 2. On a consideration of the entire materials available on record, learned trial court has come to the conclusion that only on the strength of the alleged confessional statement of co-convict, the accused (O.P. no. 2) cannot be convicted. P.W. 5 is the grandfather of the victim. It is his deposition that it was disclosed to him by one Pawan Kumar (not examined) that co-accused (O.P. no. 2) was seen with convict Santosh Kumar moving around the house before the occurrence. The same story 3 appears to have been narrated by the informant (P.W. 6). I.O. (P.W. 9) has stated before the court that in course of the statement of the informant (P.W. 6) recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C., it was not stated that Pawan had told the informant about seeing the present O.P. no. 2 in the company of Santosh Kumar. On a consideration of these circumstances emanating from the Court, learned trial court has found that the evidence available on record are not sufficient to convict the O.P. no. 2 This Court does not find any patent illegality/infirmity in the order. The application has not merit. It is accordingly dismissed. pkj ( Kishore K. Mandal, J. )