IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA. Criminal Appeal (S.J.) No. 3 0f 1997 (Appeal against the Judgment and Order dated 7.11.1996 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Kishanganj, in Sessions Trial No. 18 of 1996/Trial No. 2 of 1996) ------------ MD. ZAHIR, SON OF LATE ZAINUL, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE – BARHATTA, P.S. KOCHADHAMAN, DISTT. KISHANGANJ. ------ APPELLANT. Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR ------- RESPONDENT. -------- For the Appellant : Mr. K.A. Siddique, Adv. For the State : Mr. R.B. Roy ‘Raman’, A.P.P. -------- P R E S E N T THE HON’BLE JUSTICE SMT. ANJANA PRAKASH Anjana Prakash, J: The Appellant has been convicted under Section 366A, 368 and 373 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to five years rigorous imprisonment under each count by the Additional Sessions Judge, Kishanganj, in Sessions Trial No. 18 of 1996/Trial No. 2 of 1996 by a judgment dated 7.11.1996. 2. The Fard-beyan according to one Jahana Khatoon, daughter of one Abdul Gaira is that she has worked as a maid servant in the house of Md. Jaira and she had been taken by one Bibi Taimun wife of Md. Gaira at Barhatta to see her ailing mother. The Informant alleged that accused Momina Begum attempted to make her go to bed with another man but she foiled the attempt and raised hulla. The people of the locality came and assaulted Zahir and thereafter, Police came and rescued her. 3. During Trial, the prosecution examined eight witnesses out of whom PW-3 is the Prosecutrix herself and stated that she was the wife of the present Appellant and the case was completely false and she had been coerced into giving thumb impression by the local Police. She was declared hostile. PW-1, PW-2, PW-4 and PW-5 were also declared hostile. PW-7 is the Investigating Officer. 4. On going through the evidence, I find that PW-8 is the Magistrate who recorded the statement of PW-3 under Section 464 of the Indian Penal Code. On assessment of the evidence adduced on behalf of the prosecution, I find that there is no primary evidence against the Appellant with regard to the occurrence and the only evidence that has remained unshaken is that of PW-7 the Investigating Officer and PW-8 is a Magistrate who recorded the statement of the victim under Section 164 Cr. P.C. but in absence of corroboration by the Informant and such other witnesses, then evidence is of no value. 5. In the result, the Appeal is allowed. The order of conviction and sentence passed against the Appellant in Sessions Trial No. 18 of 1996/Trial No. 2 of 1996 by the Additional Sessions Judge, Kishanganj, is hereby set aside. 6. The Appellant is discharged from the liability of his bail bond. (Anjana Prakash, J.) Patna High Court, Patna Dated, the 6th July, 2011. NAFR/S.ALI.