Patna High Court (Division Bench: Ashutosh Kumar and Nani Tagia, JJ.; oral judgment delivered per Ashutosh Kumar, J.), 04-01-2024 — common judgment disposing of four connected Criminal Appeals (DB) Nos. 1021, 1120, 1180 and 1246 of 2017, all arising out of Majhaulia P.S. Case No. 84 of 2002 (District West Champaran). The five appellants — Raju Kuswaha, Ashim Chakravarty, Pradip Sarkar, Bachcha Sahni and Police Sahni — had been convicted under Section 364(A) of the Indian Penal Code by judgment dated 01.08.2017 of the Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court-II, Bettiah in Sessions Trial No. 215 of 2003, and by order dated 04.08.2017 sentenced to imprisonment for life, a fine of Rs. 10,000/- each (in default, R.I. six months) for the alleged kidnapping for ransom of Ram Anup Singh (P.W. 2), headmaster of Lalsareya High School, said to have been taken around 17.05.2002 and kept confined for about five days. Finding the trial materials 'so exiguous', the Court observed that apart from the informant Awadhesh Kumar (P.W. 1), who had no idea about the accused, and the victim himself — whose deposition was 'full of inconsistencies' and whose abduction account had 'cavernous wedges' — no other person was examined at trial; the Investigating Officer was not examined and no explanation was offered; the Magistrate who recorded the victim's Section 164 Cr.P.C. statement was not produced; the arrest-memo and the recovery-memo certifying recovery of P.W. 2 were absent; none of the victim's family members testified; and there was no evidence of any effort by the miscreants regarding ransom, leaving the purpose of the kidnapping unexplained. From the police papers the Court gathered that the appellans were suspected for their bad track-record and implicated after arrests in which several persons confessed guilt; the sequence suggested the appellants' names were told to the victim to confirm that the case 'had been solved', which definitely prejudiced the defence. While not doubting the genuineness of the victim's claim of kidnapping and five-day confinement, the Court held there was 'complete absence of cogent evidence for justifying the conviction and sentence'; it set aside the Trial Court's judgment and order of conviction, acquitted all five appellants, allowed all the appeals, directed their forthwith release unless detained in any other case, ordered dispatch of the judgment copy to the concerned Jail Superintendent, return of records to the Trial Court, and disposal of pending interlocutory applications. All five appellants had been on bail from 2002 till the conclusion of trial and in jail since 2017 post-conviction. NAFR; uploaded 05.01.2024.
