Sl.
No.",Exhibits,Description
1.,1,"Written report by the informant to
the Incharge of Mohanpur out-post.
2.,1/1,"Signature of the SHO Patori Police
Station on the FIR.
3.,2,"Forwarding of the written report by
the Incharge of Mohanpur out-post
to the SHO Patori Police Station
for institution of the case.
4.,3,"Registration of Patori (Mohanpur)
P.S. Case No.94 of 2017 dated
05.03.2017 on the basis of the
written report.
5.,4,"Memo of arrest of the accused
Jaiki Kumar Rai.
6.,4/1 to 4/4,"Memo of arrest of Anil Kumar Rai
@ Birbal, Pappu Kumar Sah,
Chandan Jha and Pinki Devi
respectively.
7.,5,"Seizure list of a motorcycle of
black colour bearing Registration
No.33X0758
8.,5/1,"Seizure list of a white Alto vehicle
bearing Registration
No.BR07V9012.
9.,6,"Statement of the victim Tribhuwan
Prasad Sah @ Tuntun Sah under
Section 164 of the CrPC recorded
by a Magistrate.
10.,7,"Signature of Pappu Kumar Rai on
the seizure list.
11.,7/1,"Signature of the witness Pappu
Kumar Rai on the seizure list of
Alto car.
12.,7/2,"Signature of the witness Saroj
Kumar Rai on the seizure list.
13.,7/3,"Signature of Saroj Kumar Rai on
the seizure list of Alto car.
was recovered at Jamui on 09.03.2017. He disclosed her that he was abducted by the miscreants who came in a vehicle. He disclosed her that the,,
kidnappers took him to Jamui. He also disclosed her that it was Roshan, Vikram, Pampam and Amitabh, who had kidnapped him. She failed to",,
recognize the appellants in the dock.,,
24. Pappu Kumar Rai (P.W.8) stated in his evidence that the seizure list was not prepared by the Investigating Officer of the case in his presence. He,,
further stated that he had not stated anything about the occurrence to the police. At this stage, he was declared hostile by the Court at the request of",,
the prosecution. In cross-examination, he identified his signature on the two seizure lists, which were marked as Exhibits 7 and 7/1, which relate to the",,
seizure of a motorcycle and an Alto car. In cross-examination made by the defence, he stated that the police had obtained his signature on blank",,
sheets of paper and in his presence, nothing was recovered.",,
25. Saroj Kumar Rai (P.W.9) identified his signature on the two seizure lists, which were marked as Exhibits 7/2 and 7/3 respectively. In cross-",,
examination, he also stated that his signature was forcibly obtained by the police on blank sheets of paper and, in his presence, nothing was recovered.",,
26. Thus, the testimonies of P.Ws.1 to 5, 8 and 9 do not incriminate the appellants in any manner.",,
27. Tribhuwan Prasad Sah @ Tuntun Sah (P.W.7) is the victim of the case. According to him, the occurrence took place on 04.03.2017 at 9:00 p.m.",,
while he was going to his house after closing the shop of hardware situated at Mohanpur Pathalghat Chowk. When he covered half of the distance on,,
his way to his home, a white Scorpio SUV stopped near him. The occupants of the vehicle inquired from him about the house of one Upendra Rai, a",,
Pramukh. He answered them that he does not know Upendra Rai. Then 2-3 persons came out of the said vehicle and stood behind him. Though, he",,
tried to run away, they caught hold of the collar of his shirt from behind. They assaulted with some instrument on the back of his head. Thereafter,",,
they pushed him inside the vehicle and snatched Rs.700-800 from his pocket and a mobile phone, ring, chain etc. worth Rs.57,000/-. Thereafter, they",,
administered an injection as a result of which, he became unconscious. When he regained his consciousness at about 4:00 a.m. on 05.03.2017, he",,
found himself on a bed in a hospital. His legs and hands were tied and mouth was taped. In that room, two persons with arms were sleeping on the",,
two chowkis. He opened the door and tried to run away, but he was intercepted again by the aforesaid miscreants after he had covered some",,
distance. They took him to the same hospital. However, the doctor told them to take him to some other destination, as the villagers had woken up.",,
Thereafter, they again put him in the Scorpio SUV and drove for nearly two hours. He was taken out of the vehicle near the bank of a river.",,
Thereafter, he was taken on foot for an hour. He was kept for full day on sand on the bank of river and three persons were keeping watch over him.",,
In the evening, he was taken to a house in a white Alto car. The inmates of the house were not ready to keep him there. Thereafter, he was again put",,
in that car, which kept on moving for the whole night on the road. In the morning, he was shifted to a three-storey building near a railway station.",,
From there, he was again shifted to the aforesaid hospital and was assaulted there. In the night, once again, he was put in the Scorpio SUV, which",,
kept on moving for almost one and a half hour on the road. He was asked to talk to his brother for demanding Rs. 30 Lakhs failing which, he would be",,
killed. Thereafter, he was taken to Jamui in the same Scorpio SUV and was placed in a room. Three persons were keeping watch over him. He came",,
to know their names as Roshan, Sonu and Vikram. They were talking among themselves that the police are raiding various places and three persons,",,
namely, Birbal, Pintu Kumar and Amitabh Rai have already been apprehended. They were also talking that the wife of Pampam Choudhary had been",,
arrested by the police. They asked him not to worry as their work had already been done, they assured that they would set him free. He stated that he",,
was brought to the Barauni Railway Station and was put in a train by the miscreants, who got down from the train. He further stated that at Barauni,",,
he called his brother Pappu Kumar Sah on phone. He deboarded the train and sat nearby the railway station. When his brother came, he went",,
together with him to the house of his sister Rita Devi situated at the village-Murtazapur. Thereafter, he came to the office of the Deputy",,
Superintendent of Police and narrated him about the occurrence. The Deputy Superintendent of Police brought him to the office of the Superintendent,,
of Police, Samastipur, who recorded his statement. Thereafter, he was dropped at his house by the police. He stated that his statement was also",,
recorded in the Court. He identified his signature on his statement made under Section 164 CrPC, which was marked as Exhibit-6. He identified the",,
appellant Pinki Devi in the dock, but he could not tell her name. He stated that he could identify her, as he had stayed in her house for a day. He also",,
identified the appellant Anil Kumar Rai @ Birbal and the accused Pintu, but he could not identify the accused Chandan Jha in the Court.",,
28. In cross-examination made on behalf of the appellant Anil Kumar Rai @ Birbal, he admitted that the appellant Anil Kumar Rai @ Birbal Rai is",,
known to him. His house is situated at a distance of one kilometer from his house. He used to frequently come to his shop. On the date of kidnapping,",,
several persons had come to his shop. He stated that the appellant Anil Kumar Rai @ Birbal Rai had come to his shop for purchasing a motor and had,,
stayed in his shop for about 15 minutes. At that time, he was accompanied by three others, who all were his co-villagers. He had not come in his Alto",,
car. He stated that the appellant Anil Kumar Rai @ Birbal Rai owns an Alto car. According to him, the appellant Anil Kumar Rai @ Birbal was",,
involved in the crime. He admitted in his cross-examination that on 09.03.2017, he was released at the Barauni railway station. He also admitted that",,
in between 05.03.2017 and 09.03.2017, the appellant Anil Kumar Rai @ Birbal had never talked to him. He also admitted that appellant Birbal was not",,
with him on and after 05.03.2017. He denied the defence suggestion that he has given the name of the appellant Anil Kumar Rai @ Birbal due to,,
some dispute with him.,,
29. In the cross-examination conducted on behalf of the appellant Pinki Devi, he stated that the averments made in his statement under Section 164",,
CrPC are true. He further admitted that his uncle was on inimical terms with his father. He may be involved in the incident. He stated that earlier he,,
had threatened him that he would be kidnapped. He denied the defence suggestion that he was never kidnapped and was hiding in the house of his,,
sister in order to implicate the persons with whom he had previous enmity.,,
30. Jageshwar Rai (P.W.6) is the Investigating Officer of the case. In his deposition, he has stated that he was In-charge of Mohanpur police out-post",,
in the year 2017. He received a written report from Pappu Kumar Sah (P.W.3), which was forwarded by him to the SHO of the Patori Police Station",,
for the institution of a case. He identified his writing and signature on the forwarding of the written report which was marked as Exhibit-2. The SHO,",,
Patori instituted Patori P.S. Case No.94 of 2017 under Section 364/34 of the IPC on the basis of the said report. He identified the writing and the,,
signature of the SHO of the Patori Police Station on the formal FIR, which has been marked as Exhibit-3. After being appointed as the Investigating",,
Officer of the case, he inspected the place of occurrence, recorded the subsequent statement of the informant and the statement of witnesses,",,
namely, Monoj Sah (P.W.1) and Akash Kumar (P.W.2), raided the hideouts of the suspects and made efforts for the recovery of the victim. He",,
stated that he seized the Honda motorcycle of the suspect Pintu Kumar Rai and recorded his confessional statement. Thereafter, he seized the Alto",,
car bearing Registration No.BR07V-9012 belonging to the appellant Anil Kumar Rai @ Birbal in the presence of two witnesses and recorded his,,
confessional statement. He arrested the other accused persons during investigation. He stated that on 10.03.2017, he reached at the house of the",,
informant and recorded the statement of the victim Tribhuwan Prasad Sah @ Tuntun Sah and on completion of investigation submitted the charge-,,
sheet in the case against the accused Pintu Rai, Jaiki Kumar Rai, Anil Kumar Rai, Pinki Devi, Chandan Jha and Raushan Kumar under Sections 364-",,
A, 120-B/34 of the IPC vide Charge-sheet No.175 of 2017 dated 31.05.2017 and kept the investigation pending against the accused Amitabh Rai,",,
Mukesh Chaudhary @ Pampam Chaudhary, Kundan Jha, Bikram Kumar, Sonu Kumar and Ranjeet. He identified his writing and signature on the two",,
seizure-lists, which were marked as Exhibits-5 and 5/1 respectively.",,
31. In the cross-examination made on behalf of the appellant Pinki Devi, the Investigating Officer admitted that he could not locate the hospital where",,
the victim was allegedly kept in the captivity. He further admitted that he could not even seize the Scorpio SUV used in the commission of the,,
offence. He stated that in the 164 Statement, the victim had stated that he was kept in the captivity across the river for 7 days. However, he did not",,
go to Jamui. He admitted that the victim had disclosed that he had gone to Barauni to the house of his relative from Jamui, but he did not record the",,
statement of his relative. He also admitted that he did not verify as to how the victim reached to his house from Barauni. He further admitted that the,,
victim had suspected the hand of his uncle, namely, Devendra Sah in the kidnapping, but the investigation against him is still going on. Neither he has",,
been arrested nor his statement has been recorded. He denied the defence suggestion that he has implicated the appellants falsely with an oblique,,
motive.,,
32. It is reiterated that on a careful consideration of the entire evidence, we see nothing in the evidence of P. Ws 1 to 5, 8 and 9 on the basis of which",,
the prosecution could have proved the guilt of the two appellants.,,
33. In so far as the testimony of Tribhuwan Prasad Sah @ Tuntun Sah (P.W.7) is concerned, he has admitted in his cross-examination that the",,
appellant Anil Kumar Rai @ Birbal is known to him. His house is situated at a distance of one kilometer from his house. He used to frequently visit his,,
shop. He admitted that in between 05.03.2017 and 09.03.2017, the appellant Anil Kumar Rai @ Birbal had never talked to him. He further admitted",,
that the appellant Anil Kumar Rai @ Birbal was not with him on or after 05.03.2017. In his evidence, nowhere we find the description of any role of",,
the appellant Anil Kumar Rai in the alleged offence. The only thing which he said in his evidence is that at one point of time, he was taken to a house",,
in a white Alto car and when the inmates of the house refused to keep him, he was again put in that car and in the morning, he was shifted to a three-",,
storey building near a railway station. In the entire evidence of the victim, the registration number of the Alto car has not been mentioned.",,
34. From the deposition of Jageshwar Rai (P.W.6), the Investigating Officer of the case and the seizure list marked as Exhibit-5/1, it would appear",,
that a white Alto car bearing Registration No.BR-07V-9012 was seized on 09.03.2017 at 12:15 p.m. from outside the house of the appellant Anil,,
Kumar Rai @ Birbal. During investigation, neither the victim nor any other witness has stated that it was the same vehicle in which the victim was",,
taken from one place to another while being in captivity. There is no evidence that the aforesaid Alto car was put on test identification parade. There,,
is also no evidence to support the case of the prosecution that the appellant Anil Kumar Rai @ Birbal was the registered owner of the Alto car though,,
the Investigating Officer has stated in his deposition that Anil Kumar Rai @ Birbal was the owner of Alto car seized outside his house. There is no,,
evidence in what manner the appellant Anil Kumar Rai @ Birbal participated or connived with the other accused persons in abducting, confining and",,
demanding ransom from the victim.,,
35. Simply because a white Alto car was used in the kidnapping of the victim and a white Alto car was seized from outside the house of the appellant,,
Anil Kumar Rai @ Birbal, it cannot be inferred that the appellant was the owner of the vehicle and the said vehicle was used in any manner in the",,
commission of the offence. In absence of the proof regarding the ownership of the car as well as in absence of any link between the car seized and,,
the car used in the crime, no inference can be drawn regarding the guilt of the appellant Anil Kumar Rai @ Birbal.",,
36. Similarly, there is complete lack of evidence as against the appellant Pinki Devi. The only material collected against her during trial is that the",,
victim identified her in the dock and stated that he had stayed in her house for a day. It is not known as to whether he had stayed in her house on any,,
previous occasion or while he was in the captivity of the criminals. The victim has not uttered a word regarding the role of the appellant Pinki Devi in,,
his evidence. In the absence of any cogent evidence, she cannot be held guilty on hypothetical presumption and wild suspicion. In a criminal case the",,
duty of the prosecution is to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt.,,
37. In view of the discussions made above, we are of the opinion that the evidence on the record did not support the findings arrived at by the Trial",,
Court. We are of the opinion that the prosecution has miserably failed to bring home the charges levelled against the appellants.,,
38. For the reasons, recorded hereinabove, the appeals are allowed. The impugned judgment of conviction dated 13.12.2017 and the consequent order",,
of sentence dated 14.12.2017 passed by the learned Trial Court in Sessions Trial No.553 of 2017/467 of 2017 arising out of Patori P.S. Case No.94 of,,
2017 are, accordingly, set aside.",,
39. The appellants, namely, Pinki Devi and Anil Kumar Rai @ Birbal @ Anil Kumar @ Anil Ray are acquitted of the charges levelled against them.",,
They shall be released from the jail forthwith unless they are required in any other case.,,
