IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CR. APP (DB) No.1295 of 2010
MD. MUSLIM, SON OF LATE MD. NAZIR RESIDENT OF VILLAGE -
VHISABASANTPUR, P.S. DUMARA, DISTRICT - SITAMARHI.
........... APPELLANT.
Versus
1. THE STATE OF BIHAR
2. MD. TAHIR HUSSAIN SON OF LATE MD. KHALIL RESIDENT OF
VILLAGE MAHSAUL P.S. SITAMARHI (MAHSAUL O.P.), DISTRICT
- SITAMARHI. ........... RESPONDENTS.
-----------
02/ 19.11.2010 Heard counsel for the appellant.
The appellant is the complainant of complaint
case, on the basis of which Dumara P.S. Case No.
195 of 2000 was instituted against respondent no. 2
alleging offence under Section 364 of the Indian Penal
Code. The case of prosecution as disclosed in the
complaint is that his 13 years son Md. Mannaur, a
student of Class VIII, was kidnapped by the accused-
respondent. Initially the complainant was asked by the
accused persons to allow his son to go to Bombay, for
engagement in Zari embroidery work, for 1,000/-
rupees per month as remuneration, but the
complainant was not willing to send his son, being
apprehensive at this feet that his son’s kidney may be
sold by the accused persons or he may be sold to
some foreigners. The accused persons, thereafter,
without consent of the complainant, took his son in his
2
absence. When the complainant came to know about
that fact, he made a search at several places and also
at places of some of the relatives. Persons, who had
seen taking away of his son by the accused persons,
disclosed that Mannaur has been taken by the
accused persons for selling his kidney or for his
murder or to sell him to some foreigners. The
complaint case was filed before the C.J.M., Sitamarhi,
who sent the complaint for instituting a police case
under Section 156(3) of the Cr.P.C. and Dumara P.S.
Case No. 195 of 2000 was registered for offence
under Section 363A/34 of the IPC. The charge sheet
was submitted under Section 363A/34 of the IPC,
cognizance was taken and thereafter the case was
committed to the Court of Sessions for trial.
The prosecution examined altogether 8
witnesses, who are the complainant himself and the
victim boy. Other witnesses were also examined but
their evidence is not much of value. So for evidence of
victim boy Md. Mannaur as P.W. 5 is concerned, is
discussed in para 18 of the judgment. He has given
details of his kidnapping by the accused persons, but
3
his evidence discloses that he himself had
accompanied the accused persons from Patna to
Bombay and subsequently himself came back to his
village. There is nothing on record to show that when
he came back from Bombay to his village any
information was given to the police and he was
produced before the Magistrate. The Investigating
Officer of this case Murari Sharma has been examined
as C.W. 1. He has stated that during investigation he
came to know that the kidnapped boy is residing at his
home and he recovered the victim boy from Idgah
where he was grazing she buffalo. The recovery was
made in presence of Iliyas and Awadh Kishsore. He
also gave evidence before the Magistrate that the
kidnapped boy was recovered while he was grazing
she buffalo.
The entire evidence as discussed in the
impugned judgment indicates that the informant and
the accused persons are on inimical terms and several
criminal cases had been instituted by them against
each other. In the background of this admitted enmity
the case regarding kidnapping of his son was filed by
4
the informant for putting pressure on the accused
persons, so far previous criminal cases are concerned.
In the detailed judgment each and every evidence has
been considered and discussed by the trial court and
we find that there is no perversity in the judgment. The
finding recorded by the trial court is completely in
accordance with law, which needs no interference.
Accordingly, the appeal against the acquittal is
dismissed.
(Mridula Mishra, J.)
(Dharnidhar Jha, J.)
DKS/