Pramod Kumar v. Kamla Prasad @ Laldhar Mukhiya And ANR

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Appeal (DB) No.588 of 2016 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -175 Year- 2003 Thana -BIHARSHARIF District- NALANDA (BIHARSHARIFF) ====================================================== Pramod Kumar, S/o Sri Bijeshwar Ram, Resident of village and P.S. Dip Nagar, District- Nalanda.

.... .... Appellant

Versus

1. Kamla Prasad @ Laldhar Mukhiya S/o Shri Ramdhani Yadav of village- Mahanandpur, P.S. Dipnagar, District- Nalanda.

2. The State of Bihar.

.... .... Respondents ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Appellant/s : Mr. Pratik Kumar Sinha For the Respondent/s : Mr. Mayanand Jha, A.P.P. ======================================================

CORAM:

HONOURABLE MR.

JUSTICE SAMARENDRA PRATAP SINGH And HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJENDRA KUMAR MISHRA ORAL ORDER (Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SAMARENDRA PRATAP SINGH) 22-08-2016 Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned A.P.P. for the State.

The instant appeal has been filed against the Judgment dated 04.03.2016 and Order of Sentence dated 14.03.2016 in which Md. Chand Miyan has been convicted under Section 364-A of the Indian Penal Code and Opposite Party No.1, namely, Kamla Prasad @ Laldhar Mukhiya was acquitted by the trial Court.

As per the prosecution, informant's son was abducted while he had gone to learn 'Karate' at Kachahari Road, behind fire brigade station, Biharsharif on 06.07.2003 on his Bajaj Scooter bearing No. BPA522. However, the son of the informant did not return, pursuant to which the informant lodged an F.I.R.

Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.588 of 2016 (5) dt.22-08-2016 2/2 giving rise to Bihar P.S. Case No. 175 of 2003, dated 13.07.2003. The trial Court, on consideration of the materials available on record, convicted Md. Chand Miyan and acquitted O.P. No.1 i.e. Kamla Prasad @ Laldhar Mukhiya. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that O.P No.1 was present at the time of handing over of the ransom to accused Md. Chand Miyan. He also submits that P.W.5 and Second I.O of this case, in his evidence, has also found involvement of the O.P. No. 1 Kamla Prasad @ Laldhar Mukhiya in the present crime.

However, we find that P.W.1, P.W.2 and P.W.3 have categorically stated that O.P.No.1, namely, Kamla Prasad @ Laldhar Mukhiya was not involved in this case and not a single witness has stated before the I.O that he was present at the time of giving ransom and none of the Investigating Officers made any specific statement before the Court that any witness has stated before him regarding presence of O.P.No.1.

In view of the aforesaid circumstances, we do not find any error in the Judgment of the trial Court and, accordingly, this appeal is dismissed.

(Samarendra Pratap Singh, J.) (Rajendra Kumar Mishra, J.) manish/- U T