IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CR. REV. No.286 of 2008 NIRMALA DEVI W/O SRI BINDESHWARI YADAV -- PETITIONER Versus 1. STATE OF BIHAR 2. SADHO YADAV @ SADANAND YADAV 3. DHABBA YADAV @ DHABO YADAV --- OPP. PARTIES. For the Petitioner : Mr. Dhananjay Kr. Singh, Advocate. For the O.Ps : Mrs. Juhi Kumari,Advocate. For the State : Mr. J.K. Singh no.1,APP ----------- 04 08.09.2010 Heard both sides. Petitioner is mother of the victim, and igniter to the proceeding giving rise to Sessions trial no. 394 of 2001. She is aggrieved by the judgment and order of acquittal dated 30th January, 2008 recorded by learned Court below. As per the prosecution case the accuseds (opposite parties herein) were seen talking with the son of the informant thereafter all of them left the place. It is the prosecution case that the son did not return. Learned trial Court, on a consideration of the materials placed on record, has found as under in paragraph nos. 7 and 8:- “7. Defence has also examined one witness, namely onkar Anand of the same village who has stated that Laloo Yadav is alive and absconding due to fear of police. In cross-examination this witness has stated that he had seen Laloo Yadav for about six month before of his evidence. Section 364 I.P.C. deals with that who even kidnapped or abducts any person in order that such person may be murdered or may be so disposed of as to be put in danger of being murdered.” Their Lordship in 1998 Cr. L.J. 2118 are of view that section 364-Abduction-By itself is no offence- It is an offence when coupled with one of the intentions contemplated by Penal Code.” In this case eye witness i.e. the informant has even not whisper saying about of kidnapping her son for the reason of murder or to be put in danger of being murdered of her son. It has been stated by all witnesses that the accused persons facing trial in this case were good friend of Laloo Yadav who had gone with them for taking Prashad. Informant has made suspicion only in her evidence against Ranjit Yadav not accused in this case and defence has raised the point of non-examination of one of the charge sheet witness Wakil Yadav who has stated before police that Laloo Yadav was seen going with Ranjit and Umesh towards Bahiyar. 8. Going away of Laloo Yadav with accused persons facing trial in this case is not a fact of last seen and there is nothing of any motive of being murdered of Laloo by these persons. Defence has referred 2000 (4) P.L.J.R.-377 that prosecution story doubtful and not inspiring confidence- material facts suppressed and critical omissions palpable in eye witness account-charges not proved beyond all reasonable doubts. Defence has also referred 1979 Cr. L.J.-1126 that Mere finding that accused abducted the victim for any of the purpose- not sufficient for sustaining conviction.” Consequently it has been found that prosecution has not been able to prove the case by cogent evidence. It appears that learned court below was perturbed that there is/was absolutely no motive coming to fore from the record for killing the son of the informant at the hands of these accused persons who were found to be good friends. It is not in dispute that the son of the informant was having murky past. The conclusion arrived at by learned trial Court that the prosecution has not been able to prove the case beyond shadow of all reasonable doubts, in my view , does not require any interference. There is no merit in this application. It is, accordingly, dismissed. Sym ( Kishore K. Mandal, J.)