Research › Search › Judgment

Tripura High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 325 (TRI)

Sanjoy Kumar Singha v. State of Tripura

2014-08-21

S.C.DAS

body2014
JUDGMENT S.C. Das, J. 1. The appellants named above, presenting a petition under Section 374 of Cr PC, challenged judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 24.02.2012 passed by learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Dharmanagar, North Tripura, in Case No. S.T.37(NT/D)/2010, whereunder they have been convicted under Section 365read with Section 34 of IPC and sentenced them to suffer RI for five years and to pay a fine of ` 5,000/-(rupees five thousand) each, in default of payment of fine to suffer further RI for three months. 2. Heard learned counsel, Mr. H.K. Bhowmik for the appellants and learned Addl. P.P., Mr. R.C. Debnath for the State respondent. 3. Let us first have a glimpse to the prosecution case:- Smt. Suman Jain, W/O. Nirmal Kumar Jain set the law in motion lodging an FIR in writing before the O/C Dharmanagar P.S., North Tripura on 18.04.2009 at about 0935 hrs. alleging that her son Anurag Jain(aged about 10 years), a student of Class-V of Holy Cross Convent School, Dharmanagar went to his school as usual on 17.04.2009. The school was dissolved at about 1.40/1.45 pm but he did not return from the school and that unknown miscreants kidnapped him from the school. Local people searched for Anurag in all probable places but could not trace where about of him and hence she lodged the FIR for recovery of her son. She also enclosed a photograph of her son. 3.1. Police accordingly registered Dharmanagar P.S. Case No. 48 of 2009 under Sections 447 and 364 of IPC and an investigation was taken up. S.I. S.C. Dey was entrusted with the charge of investigation by the O/C of the P.S. In course of investigation police officer visited different places based on secret information through source and ultimately recovered the kidnapped minor boy Anurag Jain from the house of Jatindra Das of Gopalpur, P.S. Patharkandi, Assam and handed over him to his parents. 3.2. S.I. S.C. Dey was entrusted with the charge of investigation by the O/C of the P.S. In course of investigation police officer visited different places based on secret information through source and ultimately recovered the kidnapped minor boy Anurag Jain from the house of Jatindra Das of Gopalpur, P.S. Patharkandi, Assam and handed over him to his parents. 3.2. On his recovery Anurag Jain told that when his school was dissolved, two young persons arrived at his school and informed him that his father Nirmal Kumar Jain met a very serious accident and has been hospitalized and that they have been asked by his mother to take him to the hospital and so he was to accompany them and on receipt of that information Anurag informed the fact to his senior school mate Neha Parakh, a student of Class IX(PW 16) and told her that his father met an accident and therefore he was leaving school with those two persons by a separate auto-rickshaw and that his regular auto-rickshaw should be informed that he has already left. Those two persons took him to different places through an auto-rickshaw and ultimately took him to Mukunda Hospital where one of those two persons entered in the hospital and after sometime came out of the hospital and informed him that his father was already shifted to Silchar, Assam and thereafter by change of vehicle they took him to a house at some place and thereafter shifted him from one house to other house and kept him there for the night. One of those two persons stayed with him and another person left. On the following day in the afternoon police arrived and recovered him from that house. 3.3. After recovery, the boy was handed over to his parents and he was produced before learned SDJM for recording his statement under Section 164 of Cr PC. The accused Sanjoy Kr. Sinha was arrested on 26.04.2009 and accused Raju Debnath was arrested on 30.04.2009 and thereafter a T.I. Parade was held on 20.05.2009 and in the T.I. Parade the kidnapped boy Anurag identified both the accused appellants, Sanjoy Kr. Sinha and Raju Debnath as his kidnappers. Police arrested Jatindra Das and Nirendra Das from Gopalpur, Patharkandi where the accused persons Sanjoy and Raju took the victim kidnapped boy Anurag and detained him for one night and also arrested other accused persons. Sinha and Raju Debnath as his kidnappers. Police arrested Jatindra Das and Nirendra Das from Gopalpur, Patharkandi where the accused persons Sanjoy and Raju took the victim kidnapped boy Anurag and detained him for one night and also arrested other accused persons. Ultimately, on completion of investigation I.O. submitted charge sheet against accused Sanjoy Kr. Sinha and Raju Debnath for commission of offence punishable under Sections 447 and 364A read with section 34 of IPC and against Nirendra Das and Jatindra Das under Sections 212, 447, 364A read with Section 34 of IPC. 3.4. Cognizance was taken on the basis of the police report and on commitment of the case to the Court of Addl. Sessions Judge, Dharmanagar, charges were framed against accused Sanjoy Kr. Sinha, Rinku Debnath, Pankaj Chakraborty and Raju Debnath under Section 364A read with Section 34 of IPC and against Nirendra Das and Jatindra Das under Section 212 read with Section 34 of IPC to which the accused persons pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 3.5. In course of trial, prosecution examined 19 (nineteen) witnesses, namely-- PW 1 Smt. Suman Jain, PW 2, Sri Joyram Gour, PW 3 Sri Anurag Jain, PW 4 Sri Manik Dutta, PW 5 Sri Basu Goon, PW 6 Sri Amit Paul, PW 7 Sri Pintu Debnath, PW 8 Smt. Rina Das, PW 9 Sri Sudip Nath, PW 10 Sri Chandradev Yadav, PW 11 Sister Resia, PW 12 Sri Manabendra Debbarma, PW 13 Sri Sibu Chandra De, PW 14 Sri Ratindra Ch. Dey, PW 15 Sri Abul Basit Khan, PW 16 Smt. Neha Parek, PW 17 Sri Ujjal Paul, PW 18 Sri Biswajit Deb, PW 19 Sri Rana Chatterjee. 3.6. Prosecution also proved the FIR marked Exbt. 1, a call list of Bharati Airtel Ltd. marked Exbt. 2, a C.D. cassette marked Exbt. 3, statement of victim Anurag Jain recorded under Section 164 of Cr PC marked Exbt. 4, statement of Ujjal Paul recorded under Section 164 of Cr PC marked Exbt. 5, the memorandum of T.I. Parade of the accused persons by the kidnapped boy marked Exbt. 6, hand-sketch map marked Exbt. 8 and 8/1 and Bharati Airtel Ltd. call details marked Exbt. 9. 3.7. After closure of the prosecution evidence the accused persons were examined under Section 313 of Cr PC and in their turn they declined to adduce any defence evidence. 6, hand-sketch map marked Exbt. 8 and 8/1 and Bharati Airtel Ltd. call details marked Exbt. 9. 3.7. After closure of the prosecution evidence the accused persons were examined under Section 313 of Cr PC and in their turn they declined to adduce any defence evidence. Defence case is nothing but denial of the prosecution case. 3.8. At the conclusion of trial learned Addl. Sessions Judge found the accused appellants guilty of committing offence punishable under Sections 365 read with Section 34 of IPC and sentenced them as aforesaid. The other accused persons were acquitted from the charges. 4. Learned counsel, Mr. Bhowmik appearing for the appellants has submitted that the minor boy Anurag Jain was alleged to have kidnapped on 17.04.2009 in the afternoon but no FIR was lodged on that day though according to the allegation it was known to the informant that her son Anurag was kidnapped. Such delay in lodging the FIR raises a serious doubt about the fact of alleged kidnapping. He has also submitted that according to the prosecution Nirmal Kr. Jain, father of the boy was at Chandigarh at the relevant time of occurrence and so it was not natural for the minor boy to accompany two unknown persons on the information that his father met an accident since he knew the fact that his father was away at Chandigarh. It is also submitted by Mr. Bhowmik, learned counsel that the accused persons approached Anurag in the presence of PW 16, Neha Parakh but PW 16 did not say anything that she found those two persons who approached Anurag to accompany them. The next point argued by learned counsel, Mr. Bhowmik is that police recovered Anurag from Gopalpur under Patharkandi P.S. of Assam but no assistance from Patharkandi P.S. was taken by the O/C of Dharmanagar P.S. though the alleged recovery was within Patharkandi P.S. in the State of Assam and so the allegation of alleged recovery of the victim boy from the house of accused Jatindra Das is extremely doubtful. Learned counsel also referred some other discrepancies in the evidence on record and has submitted that minor discrepancies here and there if together taken to consideration is fatal for the prosecution case and the accused persons are entitled to get the benefit of doubt and accordingly he prayed for an order of acquittal of benefit of doubt. 5. Learned Addl. Learned counsel also referred some other discrepancies in the evidence on record and has submitted that minor discrepancies here and there if together taken to consideration is fatal for the prosecution case and the accused persons are entitled to get the benefit of doubt and accordingly he prayed for an order of acquittal of benefit of doubt. 5. Learned Addl. P.P. on the other hand has submitted that there is practically no delay in lodging the FIR. The boy was kidnapped in the afternoon on 17.04.2009. The accused persons made a phone call to the informant that the accused is the father of a friend of Anurag and so he was taking Anurag with him and asked his mother not to be worried and for this reason it might happen that on that day itself no FIR was lodged. But in the afternoon the informant and her relatives made a search for the boy but he was not available and they could learn that two miscreants kidnapped the boy. There was no delay in lodging the FIR and after the FIR was lodged police was very active and recovered the kidnapped boy on the date of lodging the FIR itself from Assam. I.O. of the case has stated that they informed Patharkandi P.S. orally and took initiative themselves without wasting of time. So there is no infirmity in the investigation and recovery though no assistance of Patharkandi P.S. was taken. Regarding the inconsistencies and discrepancies noticed by the learned defence counsel, learned Addl. P.P. has submitted that those are all insignificant and minor contradictions which should be ignored and should not be attached with undue importance. 6. To consider the submission of learned counsel of both side let us first have a glimpse to the evidence on record. 6.1. PW 3 is the kidnapped boy and is the star witness of the prosecution case. He stated that on 17.04.2009 he went to his Holy Cross Convent School and at about 1.30/2.00 pm while he was in his school one person called him and told him that his father met an accident and his condition was serious. At that time Neha Parakh (PW 16), a student of class IX was present and he told Neha to tell his auto-rickshaw that his father met an accident and that he left the school earlier. At that time Neha Parakh (PW 16), a student of class IX was present and he told Neha to tell his auto-rickshaw that his father met an accident and that he left the school earlier. That person was accompanied with another person and both of them took him to an auto-rickshaw and took him near a children park and thereafter with another auto-rickshaw took him to another place wherefrom by a car they took him to somewhere else and then with an auto-rickshaw they took him to Mukunda Hospital telling him that his father was undergoing treatment there. Thereafter, one of them went inside the hospital and after sometime that person came out and told him that his father had been shifted to Silchar and they by the same auto-rickshaw took him to a house and thereafter shifted to another house. They kept him in that house in the night and one of those two persons stayed with him. On the next day a woman came and informed that police has arrived and thereafter those persons fled away. Police recovered and handed over him to his parents. He was produced before the Judicial Magistrate and he narrated the incident which was recorded by the Magistrate. He was also taken to Dharmanagar Sub-Jail to identify the accused persons and he identified accused Sanjoy Kr. Sinha and Raju Debnath in the T.I. Parade held in Dharmanagar Sub-Jail. He identified both the accused persons in the dock. He also stated that he was wearing school dress and had school bag with him when he was taken away by those two persons. The evidence of PW 3, the alleged victim boy, has not been shaken in cross-examination. His statement is quite cogent, consistent and inspires confidence. Except denial and suggestion there is nothing material in his cross-examination to discredit the material aspect of his evidence. 6.2. PW 11, the In-charge of Holy Cross Convent School, Dharmanagar stated that Anurag Jain is a student of her school and he attended the school on the date of occurrence. She got a phone call from the mother of Anurag that her son did not return home and subsequently she learnt that Anurag was missing. Later on she heard from other children that two persons came to the school and took Anurag saying him that his father met an accident and thereafter Anurag went with them. She got a phone call from the mother of Anurag that her son did not return home and subsequently she learnt that Anurag was missing. Later on she heard from other children that two persons came to the school and took Anurag saying him that his father met an accident and thereafter Anurag went with them. In cross-examination she stated that she went to the P.S. with the relatives of Anurag and gave a missing information to the police on the date of occurrence. 6.3. PW 16 Neha Parakh, a student of class IX of the school stated that on 17.04.2009 at about 1.30 pm classes were over and she came out to the school ground and at that time Anurag hold her that his father met an accident and so he was going by another auto-rickshaw and asked her to tell the regular auto-rickshaw about his departure from the school. Anurag also told her that one boy informed him about the accident and subsequently she learnt that Anuag was kidnapped. 6.4. PW 17 is an auto-rickshaw driver of Karimganj, Assam and in his deposition he stated that he was driving auto-rickshaw bearing No. AS-10-4407. About three years ago on a day three persons boarded his auto-rickshaw at Lawairpua at about 2.30 pm and he took them to Mukunda. Out of those three persons two were aged about 20-25 years and the other was a young school student. After reaching Mukunda they left and he was in a standby position. After sometime they came back and asked him to go to Radhapyari and accordingly he took them to Radhapyari near the bridge, near the market and thereafter he came back. Next day he heard that a school student was kidnapped from Dharmanagar. Thereafter police officer approached him. He showed the police officer the place where he took them and thereafter the boy was recovered by police. He cannot say the name of the school boy and the two persons who were accompanied the school boy. He also failed to identify those two persons in the court. 6.5. PW 2 is a resident of Gopalpur, Patharkandi. In his evidence PW 2 stated that about a year ago on a day police went to their locality and recovered a boy from the house of Jatindra Das(accused). The boy was aged about ten years and was wearing school dress. 6.5. PW 2 is a resident of Gopalpur, Patharkandi. In his evidence PW 2 stated that about a year ago on a day police went to their locality and recovered a boy from the house of Jatindra Das(accused). The boy was aged about ten years and was wearing school dress. He does not know who took the boy in the house of Jatindra Das. The boy was recovered from the hut of Jatindra Das. In cross-examination he stated that there was common boundary between his house and the house of Jatindra Das. At the time of recovery of the boy Jatindra Das was not present in the house. He denied the suggestion that the boy was not recovered from the house of Jatindra Das. 6.6. PW 8 is also a resident of Patharkandi, Radhapyari bazar and in her evidence she stated that about two years ago on a day about 4.00 pm she was sitting in her verandah and found a small boy wearing school dress along with two other persons alighted from an auto-rickshaw and entered in the house of Nirendra Das(accused). After sometime the said two persons along with the boy and Nirendra Das and his mother came out from the house and went towards north. She identified Narendra Das in the dock. In cross-examination she stated that she did not know what is school uniform. Name of her husband was Nripendra Das and not Jatindra Das. When she gave statement to I.O. she did not mention the name of Nirendra Das. She also did not say that six persons emerged from the house of Nirendra Das. She has common boundary with Nirendra Das. She denied the suggestion that she had boundary dispute with Nirendra Das and therefore gave false statement. 6.7. PW 13 is the I.O. of the case. In his deposition he stated that he got secret information that the boy was taken towards Assam after kidnapping. Thereafter, along with SDPO, Dharmanagar they went to Radhapyari under Patharkandi P.S. Reaching Radhapyari para they got the information that the victim boy and the accused persons went towards Gopalpur. Thereafter, they went to Gopalpur. After reaching Salgoi they got one driver, namely Ujjal Paul (PW 17) who told them that the accused persons took the boy in his auto-rickshaw up to Radhapyari para. Thereafter, they went to Gopalpur. After reaching Salgoi they got one driver, namely Ujjal Paul (PW 17) who told them that the accused persons took the boy in his auto-rickshaw up to Radhapyari para. At Gopalpur they recovered the victim boy from the house of one Jatindra Das and after recovery took him to Dharmanagar. They picked up Jatindra Das and Nirendra Das for interrogation and recorded their statements. He recorded the statement of the victim boy and his guardian. Thereafter, Jatindra Das and Nirendra Das were arrested since there was prima facie case against them and then forwarded them to the Court. I.O. also stated that he also arrested accused Sanjoy Kr. Sinha on 26.04.2009 and accused Raju Debnath on 30.04.2009. He arranged T.I. Parade of both the accused by the kidnapped boy Anurag Jain. 7. Let us first see whether there was any delay in lodging the FIR which was fatal for the prosecution. It is a settled principle of law that delay in lodging FIR by itself cannot be a ground to doubt the prosecution case at the outset and discard it as a whole. The delay in lodging FIR would put the Court on its guard to search if any plausible explanation has been offered and if offered whether it is satisfactory. It cannot be used as a ritualistic formula for doubting the prosecution case and discarding the same solely on the ground of delay in lodging the FIR. In the light of totality of the evidence, the Court of fact has to consider whether the delay in lodging the report adversely affects the case of the prosecution. It is a matter of appreciation of evidence as a whole. There may be cases where there is direct evidence to explain the delay. Even in the absence of direct evidence there may be circumstances appearing on record which provide a reasonable explanation for the delay and if such explanation is available, delay in lodging FIR should be ignored in a given facts and circumstances of a case if there is no possibility of embellishment in the prosecution version on account of such delay. In the present case, the minor boy Anurag, aged about ten years, a student of class V went to his Holy Cross Convent School on 17.04.2009, has been established with overwhelming evidence. School was dissolved at about 1.30/2.00 pm. In the present case, the minor boy Anurag, aged about ten years, a student of class V went to his Holy Cross Convent School on 17.04.2009, has been established with overwhelming evidence. School was dissolved at about 1.30/2.00 pm. He was supposed to return home with his regular auto-rickshaw. His father was away from home. His mother, the informant was waiting for the return of her son. In her deposition PW 1, the informant stated that at about 1.30 pm she got a phone call and the caller told her that he is the father of a friend of her son and that her son was with him and she should not be worried for her son. She also stated that thereafter she enquired with the school authority and the school authority stated that her son already left the school in due time. Thereafter she telephoned to one Babulal Ghorawar and they all searched for her son. PW 11 stated that when she was informed by PW 1 about Anurag she went to police station along with the family members of Anurag in the afternoon and lodged a missing information. No G.D. Entry placed on record about any such missing information. But it appears that initially after receipt of a phone call probably from the miscreants who kidnapped the boy she did not initially attach much of importance about her son but when her son did not return after lapse of a reasonable time she started search for her son through her known persons and when her son did not return home she lodged the FIR on 18.04.2009 in the morning. In the facts and circumstances of the case I find nothing to draw an adverse inference for not lodging the FIR on 17.04.2009. FIR was lodged against unknown miscreants. The accused persons are not at all known to the victim boy or his family. There is nothing to implicate the accused persons with a false accusation. So, the point raised by learned counsel, Mr. Bhowmik in my considered opinion has no merit for consideration in the facts and circumstances of the present case. 8. Mr. Bhowmik, learned counsel has submitted that according to PW 3, the alleged kidnapped boy, Neha Parakh(PW 16) was present when the kidnappers approached him about his father's accident but Neha Parakh stated nothing of the sort. So, PW 3 is liable to be disbelieved. 8. Mr. Bhowmik, learned counsel has submitted that according to PW 3, the alleged kidnapped boy, Neha Parakh(PW 16) was present when the kidnappers approached him about his father's accident but Neha Parakh stated nothing of the sort. So, PW 3 is liable to be disbelieved. He has also submitted that according to PW 3 when the miscreants took him to Mukunda hospital one of the miscreants went inside the hospital but according to PW 17, all the three left for the hospital. This discrepancy between PW 3 and PW 17 is also serious and should be considered against the prosecution case. PW 3 is a minor boy. So far it appears his understanding is matured. The incident occurred when he was aged about ten years and when he gave his deposition he was about thirteen years. He stated that he was approached by a person that his father met a serious accident and to accompany him to the hospital. He told that at that time PW 16 Nehadidi, a student of class IX was present. He nowhere stated that the person called him and narrated the occurrence in the presence of Neha. Might be Neha was also present in the school field when the accused approached the boy and Neha was present in the school field. There is nothing in the cross-examination also that Neha was present when the miscreants approached the boy. Neha told that Anurag(PW 3) told her that he was going with another auto since he got the information that his father met an accident. I, therefore, find no material discrepancy in the statement of PW 3 and PW 16 on the issue to attach any importance. Regarding the other discrepancies also I find nothing so important. PW 17 stated that at Mukunda the young boy with those two persons left for the hospital. It was natural that the auto-rickshaw was standing on the road and thereafter all those three went to the hospital. In the hospital as stated by PW 3 one entered into the hospital and after sometime that person came back and told that his father was shifted to Silchar. Whether all persons entered inside the hospital or not was not noticed by PW 17. There is no such cross-examination to that effect. In the hospital as stated by PW 3 one entered into the hospital and after sometime that person came back and told that his father was shifted to Silchar. Whether all persons entered inside the hospital or not was not noticed by PW 17. There is no such cross-examination to that effect. In the absence of any cross-examination or other evidence on record the statement made by PW 3 cannot be a subject of suspect and I find no reason at all to attach any importance in this submission of learned counsel, Mr. Bhowmik. It is a settled proposition of law that prosecution is not called upon to meet each and every hypothesis put forward by the accused however far-fetched and fanciful it might be. Nor is it required that the prosecution evidence must be rejected on the slightest doubt because the law permits rejection if the doubt is reasonable and not otherwise. Truth always suffers from some infirmity when projected through human processes. Judicial quest for perfect proof often accounts for police presentation of full-proof-concoction. So, while it is necessary that proof beyond reasonable doubt should be adduced, in all criminal cases, it is not necessary that it should be perfect. 9. Learned counsel, Mr. Bhowmik has also submitted referring to various other minor discrepancies in the evidence on record and also drawn attention to the discrepancies and deficiency in the investigation. The Supreme Court in the case of Bharwada Bhoginbhai Hirjibhai vs. State Of Gujarat reported in (1983) 3 SCC 217 has held that discrepancies which do not go to the root of the matter and shake the basic version of the witnesses, therefore, cannot be annexed with undue importance. More so, when all the important 'probabilities factor' echoes in favour of the version narrated by the witnesses. In the case at hand, both the accused appellants took the minor boy Anurag from his school falsely stating that his father met an accident. The minor boy aged ten years believed them since they told about the accident of his father. He informed his school mate, a senior student and left with them. They took him to Mukunda hospital to draw the confidence of the boy that his father was taken to Mukunda hospital and from Mukunda hospital he was shifted to Silchar, so that the boy cannot not raise any suspicion in any manner to their activities. He informed his school mate, a senior student and left with them. They took him to Mukunda hospital to draw the confidence of the boy that his father was taken to Mukunda hospital and from Mukunda hospital he was shifted to Silchar, so that the boy cannot not raise any suspicion in any manner to their activities. They took him to Patharkandi at Gopalpur, at first in the house of Nirendra Das and from the house of Nirendra they took him to the house of Jatindra Das and in the night they kept him in the house of Jatindra Das. Possibly, the boy was scared and got tired and he slept in that house and on the following day in the afternoon he was recovered from the house of Jatindra Das. Evidence of PWs 2 and 8 are very cogent and consistent regarding recovery of the boy from Gopalpur from the house of Jatindra Das. It is evident from the evidence of PW 8 that the boy was first taken to the house of Nirendra Das(accused) and from his house in the afternoon the boy was shifted to the house of Jatindra Das(accused) and from the house of Jatindra Das the boy was recovered. The minor boy passed almost 24 hours with both the accused persons and naturally got acquainted very much with the appearances of both the accused persons. He identified them in the T.I. Parade conducted by PW 12 in Dharmanagar sub-jail. The memorandum of T.I. Parade has been proved as Exbt. 6. So the investigation was correctly directed that the accused Sanjoy Kr. Sinha and Raju Debnath were the culprits who kidnapped the boy. In the witness box the victim PW 3 identified both the accused persons as his kidnappers. That identification of both the accused persons has not been shaken in any manner. No doubt, PW 13 and SDPO, Dharmanagar did not take any assistance from the police of Patharkandi P.S. PW 13 stated that they verbally informed Patharkandi P.S. about the search and recovery. There is no legal requirement that a raid cannot be conducted without the presence of the police personnel from the local P.S. The recovery can be made either by the police of the concerned P.S. or by the police of the P.S. where the recovery was made. I find no reason at all in the submission of learned counsel, Mr. There is no legal requirement that a raid cannot be conducted without the presence of the police personnel from the local P.S. The recovery can be made either by the police of the concerned P.S. or by the police of the P.S. where the recovery was made. I find no reason at all in the submission of learned counsel, Mr. Bhowmik to reject the prosecution case on this score. It is a settled law that prosecution evidence suffers from inconsistencies here and discrepancies there but that is a shortcoming from which no criminal case is free. The main thing to be seen is whether those inconsistencies, etc. go to the root of the case or pertain to insignificant aspects thereof. In the former case, the defence may be justified in seeking an advantage of the incongruities obtaining in the evidence. In the latter, however, no such benefit may be available to the defence. 10. Prosecution case might have been placed in a much better manner but the investigating agency as well as the prosecuting agency could not place it in a better manner. For that reason I find no justification to draw any adverse inference against the prosecution. I would like to refer here an observation of Hon'ble Justice B.N. Agrawal in the case of Krishna Mochi & Ors. v. State of Bihar reported in (2002) 6 SCC 81 . His Lordship, Hon'ble Justice Agrawal observed: "It is matter of common experience that in recent times there has been a sharp decline of ethical values in public life even in developed countries much less a developing one, like ours, where the ratio of decline is higher. Even in ordinary cases, witnesses are not inclined to depose or their evidence is not found to be credible by courts for manifold reasons. One of the reasons may be that they do not have courage to depose against an accused because of threats to their life, more so when the offenders are habitual criminals or high-ups in the Government or close to powers, which may be political, economic or other powers including muscle power. A witness may not stand the test of cross-examination, which may be sometimes, because he is a bucolic person and is not able to understand the question put to him by the skilful cross-examiner and at times under the stress of cross-examination, certain answers are snatched from him. A witness may not stand the test of cross-examination, which may be sometimes, because he is a bucolic person and is not able to understand the question put to him by the skilful cross-examiner and at times under the stress of cross-examination, certain answers are snatched from him. When a rustic or illiterate witness faces an astute lawyer, there is bound to be imbalance and, therefore, minor discrepancies have to be ignored. These days it is not difficult to gain over a witness by money power or giving him any other allurence or giving out threats to his life and/or property at the instance of persons, and/or close to powers and muscle men or their associates. Such instances are also not uncommon where a witness is not inclined to depose because in the prevailing social structure he wants to remain indifferent. It is most unfortunate that expert witnesses and the investigating agencies and other agencies which have an important role to play are also not immune form decline of values in public life. Their evidence sometimes becomes doubtful because they do not act sincerely, take everything in a casual manner and are not able to devote proper attention and time. Thus, in criminal trial a prosecutor is faced with so many odds. The court while appreciating the evidence should not lose sight of these realities of life and cannot afford to take an unrealistic approach by sitting in ivory tower. I find that in recent times the tendency to acquit an accused easily is galloping fast. It is very easy to pass an order of acquittal on the basis of minor points raised in the case by a short judgment so as to achieve the yardstick of disposal. Some discrepancy is bound to be there in each and every case which should not weigh with the court so long it does not materially affect the prosecution case. In case discrepancies pointed out are in the realm of pebbles, court should tread upon it, but if the same are boulders, court should not make an attempt to jump over the same." 11. In view of the discussions made above, I find no merit in the appeal. The trial Court has taken a lenient view in respect of punishment. The accused persons being sufficiently grown up people kidnapped a minor school boy. In view of the discussions made above, I find no merit in the appeal. The trial Court has taken a lenient view in respect of punishment. The accused persons being sufficiently grown up people kidnapped a minor school boy. Obviously, with some ulterior purpose but they were not successful in fulfilling the purpose for the early police action in the recovery of the boy. I, therefore find no justification at all to interfere in the matter of punishment. The appeal accordingly stands dismissed. The judgment and order of conviction and sentence passed by the trial Court is upheld. 12. Send back the L.C. Record along with a copy of this judgment.