Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 1225 (JHR)

Bhola Modi v. State of Jharkhand

2012-08-14

D.N.UPADHYAY, R.K.MERATHIA

body2012
Judgment By Court. - All these appeals arise from the judgment of conviction dated 22.5.2007 and order of sentence dated 23.5.2007 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, Koderma in Sessions Trial No. 123 of 2006 convicting the appellants under Section 364-A IPC and sentencing them to undergo R.I. for life. 2. Counsel for the appellants in all the three appeals, submitted that the prosecution has not been able to prove it's case against the appellants beyond all reasonable doubts. 3. On the other hand, counsel for the State supported the impugned judgment. 4. The prosecution case in short is that the informant-Yamuna Rana (PW-1) lodged a written report on 25.2.2006 at about 11.30 AM that on the previous day i.e. on 24.2.2006 at about 8.30 PM when his father-Bhatu Rana (PW-4) was coming on a scooter, he was abducted from near the bridge by miscreants. The informant got this information at about 7.30 AM from the villagers on 25.2.2006. The informant went to the place of occurrence and found the scooter lying in the bush. When the informant contacted his father on his mobile, some unknown person who was on the other side, told him that his father has been abducted. When the informant asked him as to who he is and from where he is speaking, he was told that he has got no business to ask such questions. 5. The prosecution examined six witnesses. PW-1 is the informant. PW-2 is a hearsay witness. PW-3 has been tendered for cross-examination. PW-4 is the victim himself. PW-5 is the Investigating Officer of this case and PW-6 is the witness to the seizure of motorcycle and food packets from the possession of some of the appellants. 6. PWs-1, 4 and 5 have fully supported the case of the prosecution, but the victim (PW-4) has not identified any of the appellants. According to the prosecution case, the appellants-Bhola Modi, Bhola Singh and Bidyanand Singh were carrying food for the abductors. Therefore, they have been convicted on the ground that they have complicity in the crime. Against the appellants-Vijay Yadav and Kaila Singh, it is said that they fled away from where the victim was recovered, but they have also not been identified by the victim. 7. Therefore, they have been convicted on the ground that they have complicity in the crime. Against the appellants-Vijay Yadav and Kaila Singh, it is said that they fled away from where the victim was recovered, but they have also not been identified by the victim. 7. After carefully going through the records and hearing the parties at length, we are inclined to give the benefit of doubt to the appellants, as in our opinion, the prosecution has not been able to prove it's case against the appellants beyond all reasonable doubts. 8. In the result, these appeals are allowed. The judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the trial court against the appellants, is set aside. Appellants Bhola Modi, Vijay Yadav, Kaila Singh, Vidya Nand Singh @ Pinku Singh @ Pinku and Bhola Singh @ Buchcha @ Hotkatwa, are in jail. They are directed to be released forthwith, if not wanted in any other case.