Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 1447 (PAT)

Akhilesh Kumar Singh v. State of Bihar

2013-12-12

ANJANA PRAKASH

body2013
JUDGMENT Smt. Anjana Prakash, J. The appellant has been convicted under Section 412, IPC and sentenced to RI for ten years by the 3rd Additional Sessions Judge, West Champaran at Bettiah in S.Tr. No. 671 of 1998 by judgment and order dated 25.9.2001. 2. The case of one Harun Rashid Khan is that he along with his driver were proceeding on his Ambassador car and had reached near St. Teresa School they saw Udesh Mahto gave a signal to stop his vehicle. He then insisted that he had tea with them. It is stated that accused, Akhilesh Singh, Ram Kumar @ Rama, Pintu Mian, Makshood Mian, Jugnu Mian and three unknown persons came there variously armed with country-made gun they all surrounded them and took them to a house nearby. Accused, Akhilesh Singh thereafter took Rs.2,100/- from his pocket and asked Udesh Mahto to bring wine and edibles as also told Pradeep Kumar Srivastava that he was kidnapped and would be released on payment of ransom and failing which they would be murdered. Accused Jugnu Mian returned with wine and kawabs and they started having the same. In the meantime, Md. Alamgir his driver fled away. A little later the Police came and recovered him. Accused, Akhilesh Singh was caught at the spot on chase and from his possession some money and alleged pistol was recovered. 3. During trial the prosecution examined eight witnesses. PW 1, Indra Narayan Mishra, Sub-Inspector of Police of Bettiah Town P.S. was a member of raiding party. 4. PW 2, Pradeep Kumar Shrivastava was the victim allegedly kidnapped. 5. PW 3, Md. Sikandar was an independent witness in whose presence the appellant was apprehended and from his pocket looted money and arms were recovered. 6. PW 4, Haroon Rashid Khan is the victim and informant whereas PW 5, Md. Alamgir is the Driver of the car. 7. PW 6, Ram Chandra Singh is the Sub-Inspector of Police of Bettiah Town P.S. and also a member of the raiding party. 8. PW 7, Mahadeo Ravidas is another Police Officer and member of raiding party. 9. It appears that PW 2, PW 4 and PW 5 arc material witnesses. PW 2, Pradeep Kumar Srivastava refused to identify the present appellant and, hence, has been declared hostile. 8. PW 7, Mahadeo Ravidas is another Police Officer and member of raiding party. 9. It appears that PW 2, PW 4 and PW 5 arc material witnesses. PW 2, Pradeep Kumar Srivastava refused to identify the present appellant and, hence, has been declared hostile. PW 4, Haroon Rashid Khan also did not support the case of the prosecution so far as identification of the appellant is concerned. PW 5, Md. Alamgir, the driver of the vehicle was also declared hostile. 10. Hence, I find that the three material witnesses have not supported the factum of complicity of the appellant in the present occurrence. Only the members of the raiding party have supported the prosecution case to the extent that the appellant was apprehended at the spot and from his possession some money and arms were recovered. However, there is no positive material that the money is connected with which that had been looted away from the informant. 11. Hence giving benefit of doubt to the appellant, the appeal is allowed and the order of conviction and sentence passed against the appellant on 25.9.2001 by the 3rd Additional Sessions Judge, West Champaran at Bettiah in S.Tr. No. 671 of 1998 is set aside. The appellant is discharged of the liability of his bail bonds. Appeal allowed.