Back
2014 Supreme(Pat) 472
PATNA HIGH COURT
ADITYA KUMAR TRIVEDI, J.
Pramod Yadav & other – Appellants
Versus
State of Bihar – Respondent
Criminal Appeal (SJ) No. 767 of 2013
Decided On : 8.5.2014
For the Appellants:Mr. Tilak Sao, Advocate.
For the Respondents: Mr. Z. Hoda, A.P.P.
For the Informant:Mr. Praveen Kumar Agrawal, Advocate.
Headnote:
Section 364/34 - Kidnapping or abduction in order to murder - I.P.C. - [Section 364/34 of the I.P.C.] - The court found the judgment of conviction and sentence recorded by the trial court to be unsafe to rely upon and set it aside, allowing the appeal and directing the release of the appellants.
Fact of the Case:
The appellants were found guilty of an offence punishable under Section 364/34 of the I.P.C. for allegedly kidnapping and demanding money from the informant. The prosecution alleged that the appellants, along with others, forced the informant's vehicle to a secluded place and demanded money, but the villagers assembled and rescued them.
Finding of the Court:
The court found the evidence presented by the prosecution to be inconsistent and unreliable. It noted that the witnesses' testimonies were contradictory and exaggerated, and the objective findings of the Investigation Officer did not confirm the occurrence as alleged. As a result, the court set aside the judgment of conviction and sentence recorded by the trial court and allowed the appeal.
Issues: The issues revolved around the reliability of the prosecution's evidence, the alleged kidnapping and demand for money, and the actions of the appellants. The court also considered the lack of corroboration and inconsistencies in the witnesses' testimonies.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was influenced by the unreliable and inconsistent nature of the prosecution's evidence, the lack of corroboration, and the exaggerated testimonies of the witnesses. The objective findings of the Investigation Officer did not confirm the alleged occurrence, leading the court to set aside the judgment of conviction and sentence.
Final Decision: The court set aside the judgment of conviction and sentence recorded by the trial court, allowing the appeal and directing the release of the appellants.
ADITYA KUMAR TRIVEDI, J.
1. Appellants Naga Yadav @ Nag Yadav, Shyam Babu Yadav @ Shyam Babu and Pramod Yadav have been found guilty for an offence punishable under Section 364/34 of the I.P.C. vide judgment of conviction dated 13.11.2013 and each one has been directed to undergo rigorous imprisonment for ten years as well as fined of Rs. Five thousand in defualt thereof, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months additionally vide order of sentence dated 21.11.2013 by the Ad-hoc Additional Sessions Judge-1st, Patna in Sessions Trial No. 695 of 2006 have challenged the same under instant appeal.
2. PW-6 Ajay Kumar filed a written report on 11.06.2005 alleging inter alia that he happens to be proprietor of Star Bright Musical Group, wherein Pramod Kumar Yadav was also engaged. Few days ago, he had taken away cash from his office and on account thereof, a case was registered against him. Today i.e. 11.06.2005 at evening hour while was going to Hilsa along with group members and as soon as the vehicle reached near Didarganj overbridge, Pramod Yadav, Shyam Babu Yadav, Naga Yadav along with 3-4 companions forced his vehicle bearing registration no. BR-1A-0459 moved towards Sonawan Bandh and began to demand money, whereupon they have raised alarm for safety (Bachao-Bachao) over which the persons of the locality assembled and rescued them. They have also chased and during course thereof, Shyam Babu Yadav was apprehended who was assaulted by the villagers and on account thereof, he has sustained injuries.
3. On the basis of the aforesaid written report, Didarganj P.S. Case No. 63 of 2005 was registered against Pramod Yadav, Shyam Babu Yadav, Naga Yadav along with 3-4 unknown persons including driver of BR-1A-0459. It is evident from the record that first charge sheet bearing no. 93 of 2005 was submitted against Shyam Babu Yadav, Naga Yadav, Somar Bind, Ganauri Yadav keeping the investigation pending against Pramod Yadav. It is evident from the lower court record that on the basis of the aforesaid charge sheet, cognizance was taken and aforesaid persons namely Shyam Babu Yadav, Naga Yadav, Somar Bind, Ganauri Yadav were sent up for trial. On the basis of the commitment Sessions Trial No. 695 of 2006 commenced thereupon (present one).
4. It is also evident that subsequently charge sheet no. 35 of 2006 was filed against Pramod Yadav alone whereupon, he was also sent up for trial under Sessions Trial No. 748 of 2007.
5. After perusal of record of instant Sessions Trial No. 695 of 2006, it is evident that vide order dated 19.09.2006, charge was framed against Shyam Babu Yadav, Ganauri Yadav, Naga Yadav and Somar Bind. However, the record also speaks that after passing through different dates on 04.12.2007, again charge was framed and that was only against Ganauri Yadav, Naga Yadav and Shyam Babu Yadav. That means to say, Somar Bind was left out without having any sort of order passed by superior court rescinding order dated 19.09.2006, whereby and whereunder charge was framed against four persons namely Shyam Babu Yadav, Ganauri Yadav, Naga Yadav, Somar Bind.
6. Now, coming to the status of Pramod Kumar Yadav, it is evident from the lower court record of Sessions Trial No. 748 of 2007 and 36 of 2007 that charge was framed on 25.09.2007 and then thereafter, vide order dated 10.01.2008 the same was amalgamated with the record of Sessions Trial No. 695 of 2006 (present one).
7. It is further evident from the order sheet of Sessions Trial No. 695 of 2006 that Ganauri Yadav jumped out resulting cancellation of bail bond and was subsequently declared absconder on account of which vide order dated 25.04.2008, his trial was separated and is presently being proceeded separately under Sessions Trial No. 695A of 2006.
8. It is further evident from the subsequent order sheet that Somar Bind also became absent on account thereof, his bail bond was cancelled and issuance of non-bailable warrant of arrest against him was ordered. Subs
