The importance of reliable and corroborative evidence in criminal cases, and the need for substantial material to demonstrate the unreasonableness of the trial court's view before admitting an appeal against acquittal.

CHAKRADHARI SHARAN SINGH, J.

The State of Bihar has preferred this appeal under Section 378(1) (b) read with Section 378(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 against the judgment, dated 11/09/2014, passed by learned Adhoc Additional Sessions Judge-II, Begusarai, in Sessions Trial No. 300 of 2002, whereby he has recorded acquittal of the respondents, who were charged for commission of the offences under Sections 363 and 366 A of the Indian Penal Code.

2. I.A. No. 452 of 2015 has been filed seeking condonation of delay in preferring the appeal.

3. Having considered the statements made in the application, we are satisfied that the appellant has been able to show sufficient cause for not preferring the appeal with the period of limitation prescribed. Delay, in preferring this appeal, is accordingly condoned. I.A. No. 452 of 2015 stands allowed.

4. For an occurrence, said to have been taken place on 18/11/1999 at 11 O’clock, a First Information Report was registered, on 24/11/1999, on the basis of a written report of the informant (P.W.-3), the uncle of a female person, making allegation of kidnapping the victim (P.W.-6) by the accused persons. From the First Information Report, which has been brought on the record by way of Annexure-1 to the present appeal petition, it would transpire that the informant alleged, in his written report, that he learnt from other persons, who were eye-witnesses to the occurrence, that three persons, namely, Pramod Kumar Singh, Amit Kumar (respondent No. 1) and Chandan Kumar (respondent No. 2), had kidnapped the informant’s niece, aged 16 years on 18/11/1999, when she was going to her College at 11.00 A.M. According to the informant, since he was out of the Village, he lodged the First Information Report on 24/11/1999, after he returned back on 21/11/1999, upon having been informed by the persons, who had witnessed the occurrence.

5. Upon completion of investigation, the police submitted chargesheet under Sections 363 and 366 A of the Indian Penal Code against the respondents, while showing the other co-accused, namely, Pramod Kumar Singh, as an absconder. After receipt of the chargesheet, learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Begusarai, took cognizance of the offences under Sections 363 and 366 A of the Indian Penal Code and committed the case to the Court of Sessions on 29/05/2002 for the said offences under Sections 363 and 366 A of the Indian Penal Code. The respondents were, accordingly, charged for the offences under Sections 363 and 366 A of the Indian Penal Code. The trial commenced against them, as the respondents pleaded not guilty.

6. In course of trial, the prosecution examined altogether six witnesses. The defence exhibited one document, as Exhibit-1.

7. Out of total six prosecution witnesses, examined in course of trial, apart from the girl, allegedly kidnapped, three claimed to be the eye-witnesses of the occurrence, which had taken place on 18/11/1999. These three prosecution witnesses are: - P.W.-1, Akhildeo Rai, P.W.-2, Doman Mochi and P.W.-5, Ram Badan Singh. P.W.-4, Kamini Rai, is the doctor, who had examined the girl, on 24/12/1999, alongwith other doctors in a Medical Board. P.W.-6, Rashmi Kumari @ Lalli Kumari, is the victim herself, whereas, P.W.-3, Gunnath Prasad Singh, is the informant of this case.

8. At the outset, it needs to be pointed out that it is not the case of the appellant that there is any misdescription or misreading of evidence by the learned Trial Judge in his judgment under appeal, of the evidence adduced in course of trial.

9. From the judgment under appeal, it is noticed that P.W.-1, Akhildeo Rai, claimed that while he was coming to Begusarai from his Village, on the alleged date of occurrence on 18/11/1999, he saw the accused persons standing in front of a white car on the road and when he proceeded ahead of the car, he heard cries of a girl from inside the car and when he looked back, he saw that the three accused persons, including the respondents, we