Patna High Court
Rakesh Kumar @ Pappu Singh vs The State Of Bihar on 21 May, 2010
Author: Dharnidhar Jha
Bench: Dharnidhar Jha, Akhilesh Chandra
CRIMINAL APPEAL (DB) No. 231 OF 2006
CRIMINAL APPEAL(DB) NO. 147 OF 2006
CRIMINAL APPEAL (DB) NO. 209 OF 2006
CRIMINAL APPEAL (DB) NO. 252 OF 2006
CRIMINAL APPEAL (DB) NO. 259 OF 2006
CRIMINAL APPEAL (DB) NO. 663 OF 2006
CRIMINAL APPEAL (DB) NO. 454 OF 2007
----------
Against the judgment and order of conviction and sentence passed
by Sri Mohan Prasad, Additional District & Sessions Judge -cum-
P.O., Fast Track Court No. 1, Nalanda in S.T. No. 669/2003,
286/2004 and 392/2004 as also against the judgment and order of
conviction and sentence dated 31.1.2007 and 5.2.2007 in S.T. No.
669A/2003.
------------
Chandan Singh, son of Sri Shayam Baran Singh, resident of village
Gaudiha, P.S. Noorsarai, District - Nalanda
.......Appellant in Cr. Appeal No.231/2006
Kamlesh Singh alias Kamlesh Kumar Singh, son of Shri Sidhnath
Singh, resident of village - Lakshan Bigha, Police station - Silao,
District - Nalanda
........Appellant in Cr. Appeal No. 147/2006
Anil Malakar alias Malia, son of Late Jugeshwar Malakar, resident
of village - Shyam Nagar, P.S. - Deepnagar, District - Nalanda
.........Appellant in Cr. Appeal No. 209/2006
Dilkeshwar Singh alias Tuntun Singh, son of Sri Binda Singh,
resident of village - Chanda, P.S. - Athmalgola, District - Patna
..........Appellant in Cr. Appeal No.252/2006
Rakesh Kumar alias Pappu Singh, son of Sri Ram Pravesh Singh,
resident of village - Godiha, P.O. Kokalchak, P.S. - Nursarai,
District - Nalanda (Biharsharif)
...........Appellant in Cr. Appeal No.259/2006
Babloo Singh, son of Sri Rambrikh Singh, resident of village -
Mora Talab, P.S. - Rahui, District - Nalanda
.........Appellant in Cr. Appeal No. 663/2006
Ajit Singh, son of Late Yadunandan Singh, resident of village -
Shyam Nagar, P.S. - Deep Nagar, District - Nalanda
..........Appellant in Cr. Appeal No.454/2007
Versus
2
The State of Bihar ..........Respondent (in all the appeals)
--------
For the Appellants : Sarvashri Shakeel Ahmad Khan,
Rajendra Prasad,
Shravan Kumar &
Rana Pratap Sigh, Sr. Advocates
Pramod Kumar, Ritesh Kumar,
Satish Kumar Singh, Aruni
Singh,
Advocates
For the State : Sushri Shashi Bala Verma, APP
For the Informant: Sarvashri Ashwini Kumar Singh,
Senior Advocate
Satya Prakash & Pankaj
Kumar Singh, Advocates
----------
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE DHARNIDHAR JHA
THE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE AKHILESH CHANDRA
----------
Dharnidhar Jha, J.The present batch of seven appeals have been preferred by one accused each who was put along with others on trial together by framing charges under sections 364A/34 and 364/149 of the IPC. The trial was held in Sessions Trial Nos. 669 of 2003, 835 of 2003, 286 of 2004 and 392 of 2004, besides, Sessions Trial No. 669A of 2003 which was in respect of appellant Ajit Singh. The judgment in the batch of first four cases was delivered by the Presiding Officer of Fast Track Court - I, Nalanda at Biharsharif on 17th January, 2006 whereas that in the last Sessions Trial bearing number 669A of 2003 while it was also delivered by the same learned court, but on 31st January, 2007. The verdict was of guilt of all the accused 3 persons in commission of the offence under sections 364A/34 of the IPC and each of the seven appellants was directed to suffer rigorous imprisonment for life. The appellants have preferred the batch of appeals to challenge the above finding of guilt as recorded by the learned trial judge.
2. The case related to the abduction, for the purpose of extorting ransom, of P.W. 9 Brijnandan Prasad. He appears having a hump- pipe- factory at a place known as village Mora Talab, which was located by the side of NH 31. On 25.3.2003, P.W. 9 had gone to his factory for taking stock of developments there and was coming back home by his scooter bearing number BPZ 6466 and when he had reached south of a bridge known as Baburbanna bridge at about 5.30 P.M., two maruti vehicles overtook his scooter and in that process, dashed against his two wheeler. P.W. 9 fell down and wanted to run away but four persons came out of the vehicle and captured Brijnandan Prasad and forced him to sit into the vehicle.
3. Persons who were working in the surrounding fields, ran towards the road seeing the occurrence. But, the criminals fired shots as a result of which the villagers were scared away. The criminals who were four - five in number, went away by the vehicles towards north and thereafter in the south direction of the by-pass road.
4. The son of P.W. 9, namely, Pradyumn Kumar (P.W.11) was telephonically informed about the incident at his house. He reached 4 the place of occurrence and gathered the details of the occurrence from persons who were working in the fields around the place. The informant Pradyumn Kumar (P.W. 11) stated that he was told that one of the two maruti vehicles was of chocolate colour and that was a van. The other vehicle was a maruti car of white colour which was bearing registration number DL- 2C - 3833. The informant, P.W. 11, stated that his father had been abducted for the purpose of extorting ransom.
5. It appears from the evidence of P.W. 12 Dr. Bindeshwar Pd. Ram who, on 25.3.2003, was deputed as Officer Incharge of Bhagan Bigaha outpost under Rahui police station, that he picked up some rumours at about 17.45 hours about the incident and after making an entry in the station diary vide entry no. 425 dated 25.3.2003, he proceeded towards the place of occurrence along with ASI Dayasagar Sah and a contingent of armed force. He reached NH 31 near Baburbanna and started gathering information about the occurrence when he was told by some of the persons that some unknown persons had abducted Brijnandan Prasad. He recorded the Fardbeyan (Ext. 2) of P.W. 11 Pradyumn Kumar. He, thereafter, sent the same to the police station for registering a case and, accordingly, the FIR of the case (Ext.3) was drawn up against unknown accused persons. He inspected the place of occurrence and from there came to Rajgir in search of the victim. He continued investigating the case and recorded the statements of Nilambar 5 Mahto (P.W.2), Bijay Kumar (P.W.6), Robin Mahto (P.W. 1), Gautam Sah (P.W. 5), Shiv Rajak (P.W. 3), Mahadeo Mahto (P.W.
4). During the course of investigation some names appeared as suspects and, accordingly, on 28.3.2003, a search was made of the house of appellant Kamlesh Singh and a country made rifle was recovered from there. The houses of other accused persons were also searched on suspicion but they were found absconding. P.W. 12 learnt on 31.3.2003 that the victim had been released by his captures and, accordingly, he came to the house of Brijnandan Prasad and recorded his statement and further statement of the informant.
6. He arrested appellants Chandan Kumar Singh, Pappu alias Rakesh kumar and questioned him. He also collected the report on the antecedent of the above noted appellants and put it down in the case diary.
7. P.W. 12 stated that some of the accused persons of the case had come to collect the ransom money from P.W. 9 Brijnandan Prasad at his hump-pipe-factory situate at village Mora Talab and there had been encounter between the police and the criminals and two criminals were called, for which Rahui (Bhagan Bigaha) P.S. Case no. 54 of 2003 under various sections of the IPC and those of the Arms Act was registered on the written statement of the Officer Incharge of Biharsharif police station. That written report was marked as Ext. 2/1 and the FIR drawn up on that basis has been marked Ext. 4/1. The witness further stated that a country made 6 pistol with a few cartridges, both empty and live with yellow polythene bag containing rupees fifty thousand was recovered from near the dead body of one of the criminals and those were seized by preparing seizure memo (Ext. 5). Another country made pistol with four empty cartridges and a cellular phone set was recovered from the dead body of another criminal and those were also seized by preparing seizure memo (Ext.5/1). P.W. 12 stated that the seized money belonged to P.W. 9 Brijnandan Prasad and that was handed over to him after obtaining a Jimmanama which has been marked as Ext. 6 in the case. The motorcycle of P.W. 9 bearing registration number BR 21A 5992 was also found there and that was seized by preparing seizure memo and that was also handed over to the said witness P.W. 9 under a Jimmanama (Ext.6/1). He submitted charge sheet against the accused persons and before that, he got remanded appellants Bablu Singh and Ajit Singh who by that time had been remanded by C.J.M. Patna in Kadamkuan P.S. Case no. 329 of 2003 while he handed over the charge of investigation in respect of the remaining part of it to his successor SI Bindeshwar Prasad Rai on account of his transfer.
8. As may appear from the above narration of some of the facts of the case, appellants were not named in the FIR and their names appeared by and by in connection with the offence and the police arrested them or got them remanded in the present case. 7
9. On perusal of the evidence of P.W. 9, we found that several suggestions were thrown at him, like, those in paragraph 85 at page 97, paragraph 87 at page 98, paragraph 95 at page 101 and paragraph 113 at page 106 of the paper book. It appears that the defence was not taking any chance and was suggesting all possible theories to P.W. 9. It was suggested to P.W. 9 as may appear from the above noted paragraph 85 that one Balram Singh, Principal of Pairu Mahto Somari College, was inimically disposed towards the appellants Kamlesh Kumar and as such, had got him implicated falsely. Another suggestion was given by appellant Bablu Singh in paragraph 87 of P.W. 9 that the said appellant had once thrashed P.W. 9 on certain trifle matters which created annoyance in him and, as such, P.W. 9 had falsely implicated appellant Bablu Singh. Further suggestion was that it could be the informant of the case, i.e., Pradyumn Kumar, son of P.W. 9, who had certain dispute and differences with his father, the victim of the offence, on account of certain family and business matters and as such, it might be the artfulness of P.W. 11 that the victim had been kidnapped. In paragraph 113, it was suggested that the sister of the appellant Ajit Singh had filed criminal case against the Officer Incharge of Deep Nagar police station in which the said police officer had been summoned by the court and as such, the said appellant was falsely implicated.
8
10. In support of the charges, the prosecution examined twelve witnesses. P.W. 1 Robin Mahto, P.W. 2 Nilambar Mahto, P.W. 3 Sheo Razak, P.W. 4 Mahadeo Mahto gave one line evidence before the court that they did not know anything about the occurrence and as such they were declared hostile and were subjected to cross examination by suggesting several facts which had been stated by each of them to the police during investigation. P.W. 5 Gautam Sah was also declared hostile but he stated that when he had come from out side to his village, then he learnt that Brijnandan Prasad had been abducted and taken away. He stated as to who abducted him, he cannot say and further that he had come back to his village one day after the occurrence. This witness was also subjected to cross examination to his previous statements made by him during the course of investigation. P.W. 6 Bijay Kumar was also declared hostile as he also gave one line evidence that he did not know anything about the occurrence.
11. As regards P.W. 7 Sanjay Kumar, P.W. 8 Dhananjay Kumar and P.W. 10 Yatindra Kumar, they have not given any statement as eye witnesses to the occurrence but they have stated some facts indicating that P.W. 9 had been abducted and taken away by criminals. P.W. 7 has stated that he was at Soh Sarai Adda and was taking tea when P.W. 11 Pradyumn Kumar rushed out of his house stating that his father had been abducted, which occurrence had taken place near the bridge situated at village Baburbanna. P.W. 7 9 stated that he along with Dhananjay (P.W. 8), Nand Kishore (not examined), Yatindra Kumar (P.W.10) and others came to the bridge at Baburbanna by scooter. Pradyumn Kumar came by motorcycle and Nand Kishore (not examined) and Yatindra Kumar also came by another scooter. P.W. 7 stated that he found about one hundred fifty persons assembled there and further that the scooter of Brijnandan Prasad was lying east of the road. It was bearing registration number BPZ 6466. The persons who had assembled, were speaking out that four/five persons had come by a white colour maruti car as also by a chocolate colour maruti van and after taking Brijnandan Prasad into the maruti vehicle they sped away towards south of Pichasa and disappeared into the by-pass road. The car was bearing registration number DL 2C 3833. P.W. 7 stated that P.W. 12 also reached there and, accordingly recorded the statement of Pradyumn Kumar (P.W.11) over which P.W. 7 signed as a witness. The signature of P.W. 7 has been marked as Ext. 1. P.W. 7 stated that he along with P.W. 11 and others proceeded towards Pichasa mor and further south of it on the by-pass road, but could not get anything except that some persons were seen going in a maruti car and that the car had been seen moving on that road for last two/three days. They further stated that the car was in occupation of appellant Chandan Singh, Ajit Singh, Bablu Singh and Pappu Singh.
12. I find from the cross examination of P.W. 7 that it was suggested to him in paragraphs 4 and 5 that he had not made any 10 statement before police, which he made before the Court. What I further find is that the statement of P.W. 7 had been recorded by P.W. 12 as may appear from the evidence of P.W. 12 in paragraph 5 at page 145 of the paper book. What appears curious to me is that in spite of having suggested that the witness had not made any statement to the police, no effort was made by the defence to seek corroboration of those facts which were brought on record under section 145 of the Evidence Act by getting it proved from the I.O. of the case, P.W. 12 under section 157 of the Act. Thus, the only inference which could be raised by the above conduct of the defence is that the witness had stated all the facts before the Investigating officer.
13. In cross examination, P.W. 7 has stated that he was residing in the neighbourhood of the informant and he was unemployed and as such, was imparting tuition to students. He was residing in the rented house of one Singheshwar Prasad and Kisun Sah. On considering the evidence of P.W. 7, what I find is that he was fully acquainted with the surroundings not only of the house of the victim Brijnandan Prasad but, he was also well acquainted with the topography of the place of occurrence as may appear from his evidence in paragraph 6 as he has stated as to what was the name of the place on the by-pass road where he had met some persons. He appears to me a competent witness who was all along with the informant and others at the scene of the occurrence. 11
14. P.W. 8 Dhananjay Kumar has supported P.W. 7 and has stated that he had gone to the Adda chowk to purchase vegetables where the informant came and stated that his father had been abducted near Baburbanna-bridge. Upon that information, P.W. 8 and Sanjay (P.W. 7) started by scooter whereas other persons also started by other vehicles and, accordingly, they came at the place of occurrence where people stated to the witnesses as to how Brijnandan Prasad had been abducted by being taken in a maruti car bearing registration number DL 2C 3833. P.W. 8 has also stated that he and others went in search of the victim but could not find him. This witness has been cross-examined on his callings as may appear from paragraph 5 and I find that his evidence is reliable. He has stated that on reaching the place of occurrence he found the scooter lying east of the road in its earthen part and there was no shop there. He appears an honest person as he has stated that people who had assembled there, were not known to him and they were telling P.W. 8 and others about the occurrence. P.W. 8 was also suggested in his cross examination that he had not made any of the statements before the police which he made in the court. But, again I find the same position as I have recorded in the case of P.W. 7 that P.W. 12, the I.O. of the case was never cross examined, though he was the officer who had recorded the statement of P.W. 8.
12
15. P.W. 9 Brijnandan Prasad is the informant of the case and he has supported the occurrence. I shall discuss his evidence a little later.
16. P.W. 11 Pradyumna Kumar is the informant of the case and son of the victim P.W. 9. He has reproduced the same facts which was stated by him in his fardbeyan (Ext.2) that while he was at his house in the evening of 25.3.2003 he was informed telephonically that his father P.W. 9 Brajnandan Prasad had been abducted from a place south of Baburbanna bridge and, as such, he rushed out of his house shouting that his father had been abducted. He came to Baburbanna bridge by his motorcycle where some persons had already assembled and the scooter of his father bearing registration number BPZ 6466 was lying there east of NH 31. He learnt from persons assembled there that while his father was coming from Mora Talab and had reached south of the bridge a white maruti car bearing registration number DL 2C 3833 came from behind and dashed against the scooter of the victim, as a result of which he fell down with his two wheeler. The criminals forced him to sit in the car. Seeing the incident, the persons who had assembled there and who were, in fact, working in the nearby fields, pointed out to P.W. 11 that they rushed towards the place of occurrence but the criminals fired, as a result of which they had to stay back. They further stated to the informant that the maruti car was followed by a chocolate-colour- maruti-van and both the vehicles sped away south 13 of the by-pass. P.W. 11 stated that P.W. 12, the I.O. of Bhagan Bigaha outpost came there and recorded his statement. Thereafter he got the scooter picked up and sent it through a boy of his mohalla to his house and went in search of his father, but could not get any clue. P.W. 11 has further stated that on 28.3.2003 while he was sleeping in his cloth shop in Soh Sarai he received a call and on picking up the same, the caller wanted to know who he was, upon which, the informant stated that he was the son of P.W. 9 Brajnandan Prasad. P.W. 11 stated that he heard the sound on the phone which was ordering his father to tell him to arrange for rupees ten lacs and hand over the same to his men at a fixed place, else they would kill the victim. He stated that his father asked him to arrange for rupees ten lacs and pay the same to the criminals, else they would kill him, to which P.W. 11 replied that it was beyond his means to arrange that much of money and further, that he had only rupees twenty thousand with him. It was stated by P.W. 11 that the criminal on the other end, told him that he would just see as to how the money could be arranged and thereafter P.W. 11 heard on the telephone line that some one was asking the other criminal by name Bipin to beat up the victim and he further heard that his father was being assaulted and he was weeping and wailing. P.W. 11 was further told by the criminals that if money was not arranged in 2 - 3 days, then his father would be killed, upon which, P.W. 11 replied that he was unable to arrange that amount of money. Another call on 14 the telephone of the informant was received by him in the night of 30.3.2003 and the caller who was one of the criminals, asked him as to whether he had arranged for the money, upon which he replied that he was unable to do so and the phone was disconnected. His father came back to his house on 31.3.2003 at about 10 A.M. and stated to him as to how he was picked up by the criminals for being abducted and how he was taken into the orchard and from there to a secluded room and from there to the forest during nights. His father also stated as to how the criminals made two telephone calls to the informant asking him to arrange for money and how he was beaten up by 2 - 3 criminals on that particular day. The victim stated to P.W. 11 that it was appellant Ajit Singh who used to give telephone calls to the informant and Bipin Singh along with two - three others used to assault him. He has further stated that he was released by the criminals only when he had promised to pay rupees four lacs fifty thousand in two installments to them. The victim stated to his son that a criminal named Malia used to bring food for him and the criminals and he had been promised to get rupees fifty thousand out of ransom money and further that while he was being released, he was given rupees twenty as fare for going to his house. The victim had stated to the informant, his son that among the criminals three persons were already known to him and they were appellants Bablu Singh, Chandan Singh and Balkeshwar Singh and while he was in the captivity of the criminals, he could pick up the name and 15 identities of other criminals like Ajit Singh, Kamlesh Singh, Pappu Singh, Malia, Bipin and Munna Singh. The victim, thereafter, narrated to the informant the incident which took place on 25.3.2003 when some criminals came to collect the ransom which was demanded by them after release of the victim in which two criminals were killed.
17. The cross examination of P.W. 11 does not indicate that there can be anything to discredit his evidence in examination in chief rather the evidence in cross examination of P.W. 11 makes his evidence more effective. He was put questions as to the places from where he had received telephone calls at his house as also at his shop and to that question, he replied that he cannot say the place from where the calls were made to him but he was later told by his father as to by whom and from where those calls were made at his house and shop.
18. P.W. 10 Yatindra Kumar and P.W. 8 Dhananjay Kumar have also given the same evidence as was given by P.W. 7 Sanjay Kumar and P.W. 11, the informant of the case that they came to the place of occurrence and learnt about the abduction of the victim Brajnandan Prasad and also learnt about the whole of the incidents from persons assembled there.
19. Thus, I find that the evidence of P.Ws 7, 8, 10 and 11 who are, of course, not eye witnesses to the occurrence, were material witnesses whose evidence was relevant to the facts of the case, to 16 the extent that they all came on hearing the news of abduction of Brijnandan Prasad, P.W. 9. All of them stated that they were attracted by shouts of P.W. 11, the informant that his father had been abducted while they were at the market place and rushed towards the place of occurrence. The villagers who had assembled there, some of whom had seen the occurrence while working in the neighbouring fields, narrated to these witnesses as to how the incident of abduction of P.W. 9 had been accomplished by the criminals and in which direction they had taken the victim away and that they found the scooter of the victim lying on the flank of the road.
20. While considering the evidence of P.W. 11, the informant of the case, I find that he learnt some part of the story from his father, P.W. 9 Brijnandan Prasad when he had come back from the captivity of the criminals. Those parts related to the manner in which the victim was forced to sit in the car and was driven away by the criminals in a particular direction to be taken in an orchard from where he was moved on foot by some of the criminals to a secluded room where the victim was kept confined. From that particular room, the victim was moved to the jungles. There were certain persons who were keeping guard upon him, while, after reaching the orchard, the other accused persons had left into the two vehicles. It is not that P.W. 11 had made the statement on account of hear say. I find from the evidence of P.W. 9 in paragraph 25 at page 59 of the 17 paper book that on reaching his house on 31st March, 2003 at about 10 A.M., he talked to his son about the accused persons. This evidence has come in cross examination of P.W. 9.
21. P.W. 9 was examined in chief again as may appear from paragraph 27 which was recorded on 15.10.2004 and he has stated in that paragraph that when he reached at his house after being released from captivity from Biharsharif he met his son Pradyumn Kumar (P.W. 11), the informant of this case and stated to him the whole facts of the occurrence as also the names of the accused persons with whom he had stayed during the course of his confinement. It is true that the attention of P.W. 9 or P.W. 11 to their previous statements has been drawn by the defence in different paragraphs of their respective evidences suggesting to them that they had not made those statements but as in the case of other witnesses, so in the case of P.Ws 9 and 11, the I.O. of the case (P.W.
12) was not cross-examined to prove those facts and that leaves quite some room for raising an inference that those statements were made by P.W. 9.
22. Thus, from the consideration of the evidence of above witnesses what appears to me is that the witnesses have stated the facts of the case as told to any of them or as perceived by them on account of being informed by the persons who had gathered at the place of occurrence and had thereby supported the incident. P.W. 9's evidence could not be said to be bald inasmuch as his narration 18 to his son appears the most natural conduct of a father when he was narrating to his son as to how he was abducted, confined and how he was tortured and asked to pay up the ransom amount.
23. P.W. 9, the victim of the offence, has stated the same facts that while he was on way back home from his hump-pipe-factory and when he had reached south of that particular bridge at village Baburbanna, his scooter was dashed against by a Maruti car and he tumbled down the scooter along with the vehicle. He attempted to run away but the criminals who were four in number, caught him and forced him to sit in the car and thereafter, at pistol point, he was asked to keep silent, else he would be killed. He has supported the evidence of other witnesses that many persons were working around in the field and they rushed to the scene of occurrence but were scared away by the criminals by firing shots. He stated that he was brought into an unknown orchard at an unknown place and further that the number of criminals was ten who were occupying two vehicles. The criminals made him to sit in the orchard and started telling him that he shall have to pay rupees ten lacs, only then he would be released. They were armed with pistols and he found that three of the criminals were already known to him and they were appellants Bablu, Chandan, Dilkeshwar alias Tuntun. Five out of ten went back by the vehicles and five remained with the victim in the same orchard. When it was quite dark, the victim was moved on foot from that place and was brought into a secluded room at about 19 10 P.M. in the night. One of the criminals unlocked the room and put on a lamp which was already there inside the room. There were two chowkis and one cot spread inside it and the victim remained inside it with criminals who were appellants Bablu, Kamlesh Singh, Pappu Singh and Munna. Appellant Bablu Singh asked others to keep guard on P.W. 9 by remaining inside the room while he and appellant Ajit will be keeping guard from outside. The three remained inside the room with the victim. While it was still dawn, appellant Bablu Singh and Ajit Singh came there to unlock the room and asked the victim to attend to the call of nature and, accordingly, the victim did, whereafter he was served biscuits which was also taken by the criminals. At about 4 P.M. food was brought by appellant Bablu Singh and Ajit Singh and the victim and all the accused persons took the meal together and closed the victim inside the room. In the same night, at about mid night, Bablu Singh and Ajit Singh came there and asked other accused that the victim has to be shifted to other place and, accordingly, the victim was moved through fields and was brought into a jungle near a mountain. It was a lonely place and the victim was kept concealed and the criminals also remained there. On 27.3.2003 five persons who had returned by the vehicles from the orchard, came there in the jungle by the same vehicles and started assaulting the victim by fists and slaps and demanded ransom of rupees ten lacs to be paid by his family members. The victim stated that he was not in a position to do it. 20 After about half an hour on 27.3.2003 a man brought food. He was addressed by the appellant Ajit Singh as Mali who was asked to serve the meal and, accordingly, every one took the meal together. The criminals talked together that they had to give telephone call to the family members of the victim and further that the police was quite active. All the criminals remained in that jungle on 27.3.2003. On 28.3.2003 the same person, namely, Mali brought meals for the victim and the criminals and every one ate together and thereafter appellant Ajit Singh asked for the telephone number of the shop of the victim from him and, accordingly, the number was given. Appellant Ajit Singh made a call by a cell phone on telephone number 223133 which was picked up by his son Pradyumn Kumar and appellant Ajit Singh talked to him and asked the informant to talk to his father. Ajit Singh asked the victim to ask his son to pay rupees ten lacs as ransom and, accordingly, the victim complied but his son replied that that much of money was not possible to be paid by him as he had only rupees twenty thousand with him. Appellant Ajit Singh became furious on it and told the informant on telephone that he would show him as to from where the money could be brought and asked the criminal, namely, Bipin to assault the victim and accordingly, the said Bipin and other criminals started assaulting the victim, as a result of which he wept and cried, which sound was allowed to be heard by his son and Ajit Singh told the son of the victim that he must have heard the cries of his father and 21 switched off the mobile phone. After some times, another call was given by appellant Ajit Sigh at the telephone number of the shop of the informant and he asked the informant to arrange for money in two three days and pay the same to his man, else his father would be killed.
24. The victim stated that he heard all the facts and also heard his son telling the accused that it was beyond his reach to arrange for as heavy an amount and further that his father could do it if the criminals released him. The meal was again brought by accused Mali and he served the same to the victim and all accused persons, upon which the accused persons stated to the victim that on payment of ransom amount, rupees fifty thousand shall be paid to appellant Mali. The victim remained there up to the 30th March and in between 29th and 30th March, 2003 the accused asked the victim to finalize the ransom money amicably. But, the victim stated that it was not possible for him to arrange for such a huge amount. Lastly, the victim became ready to pay rupees four lacs but appellant Ajit Singh asked to pay rupees fifty thousand more as the same was to be paid to appellant Mali, which amount was accepted to be paid by the victim. The victim P.W. 9 stated that he promised to pay the amount in two equal installments; the first being of rupees two lacs and the other being of rupees two lacs fifty thousand and, accordingly the criminals agreed that the victim be released. On 30th March, 2003 appellant Ajit Singh asked for the residential telephone number of 22 the victim and that was also given, upon which, his son was informed that the victim has become ready to pay up the money in the manner as just stated.
25. In the night intervening 30th and 31st March, 2003, a man came in a highly perplexed state of mind and stated to the accused persons that the victim should be released else the accused persons would be caught, upon which the victim was blind folded and was brought on foot near railway crossing on Rajgir Road and abandoned there. The victim was commanded to sit there and not to move anywhere. The victim remained sitting there frightened and after half an hour, he stopped a trekker and came to Biharsharif and from there, he came to his house.
26. P.W. 9, the victim was cross examined twice. Once, the cross examination had started on 24.2.2004 and that was completed on 22.4.2004. It appears that some of the appellants were put on trial in S.T. No. 286 of 2004 and 392 of 2004 and, accordingly, after framing of charges against them, the witnesses were recalled for further cross examination on their behalf and their cross examination could be completed finally on 6.11.2004 which was also spread over many days. During the cross examination of the witnesses, questions were put to him on his claim of knowing the accused persons after having picked up their identifications during his confinement by the accused persons from 25.3.2003 onwards. On perusal of some of the paragraphs of his evidence in cross 23 examination, like, paragraphs 52, 54, 56, 57 and 78, it appears that the victim had given good reasons for identifying each of the appellants. It is not disputed that the victim was knowing the three appellants, namely, Bablu Singh, Dilkeshwar Singh alias Tuntun Singh and Chandan Singh from before by their names and faces (P.W. 9 paragraph 7 page 66 of the paper book). As regards names of other accused persons and identifying them, he has stated in paragraph 8 at pages 66-67 of the paper book that appellant Bablu Singh called Kamlesh Singh, Pappu Singh and Munna Singh to keep a watch upon the victim and thus, he picked up their identities and names. Besides, the victim stated in his evidence as may appear from paragraph 56 at page 87 of the paper book that he had seen the ten appellants right from the time of his abduction till his confinement in Rajgir forest and also in the orchard where he was taken firstly after being picked up by them. Not only that, the victim stated that they used to come off and on and for the first time when they came, the victim was assaulted and he was asked to give the telephone numbers of his house and business establishment and he was asked to make a call by one or the other appellant as may appear from the evidence of P.W. 9 in paragraph 28 at page 76 of the paper book and, as such, the victim had all the reasons to state that he had identified the appellants.
24
27. Thus, what I find is that the evidence of P.w. 9 is quite reliable and he being the victim of the occurrence, his evidence has to be treated at par with that of an injured witness.
28. What I find further is that the witnesses, other than P.W. 9, stated that after learning about the occurrence of the victim being kidnapped, they reached to the place of occurrence and were told by the persons who were working in the near by fields as to how he had been picked up by the criminals and taken away. Thus, the story of kidnapping, to me, stands corroborated by the evidence of those witnesses also who have been examined in the case. It is true that P.Ws 1 to 6 turned hostile and did not support the occurrence but there might be some real reasons for that. What appears to me is that the appellants were the persons who had their own identities in the world of criminality and they appeared to have applied their influence upon the witnesses, as a result of which, they succumbed to their pressures and did not support the occurrence. Is not it a fact that life is precious to every one and no one wants to risk it, specially when it comes to one's kith and kin. The other reason which appears to me for the above witness going hostile is the inaction of the police in even getting any information about the whereabouts of the victim or the persons who were involved in his kidnapping. But, it is not that the evidence on kidnapping of the victim was scant or not acceptable. Even a hostile witness P.W. 5 Gautam Sah stated in his evidence that when he came back from 25 outside to his house, he learnt that P.W. 9 Brijnandan Prasad had been kidnapped by some criminals. Thus, what I find is that the occurrence of kidnapping was established satisfactorily by the evidence of witnesses.
29. Sarvshri Rana Pratap Singh, Shakeel Ahmad Khan, Shravan Kumar and Rajendra Prasad, all senior counsel appeared in support of the appeals. Shri Ashwani Kumar Singh, another senior counsel appeared on behalf of the informant. Sushri Shashi Bala Verma, learned APP appeared in the batch of appeals for the State.
30. While placing his submissions, Shri Khan pointed out the absurdities in the evidence and submitting that the evidence was deficient and the kidnapping of P.W. 9 was not proved to the hilt. As regards the absurdities, Shri Khan submitted that P.W. 9 has stated in paragraph 63 at page 90 of the paper book that while appellant Chandan Singh and Dilkeshwar Singh alias Tuntun Singh were sitting on either sides of the victim on the back seat of the car, the driver was concealing his identity by covering his face. It was submitted that Chandan Singh and Dilkeshwar Singh, as may appear from paragraph 7 at page 66 of the paper book of P.W. 9, were already known to him from before. As such, it appears that persons who were already known to the victim, were sitting bare face on either sides of his, but the driver who was at all not known to him, was concealing his face. The accused persons had not concealed their faces, appears stated by P.W. 9 in paragraph 20. Shri 26 Khan stated that it was an absurd story. The other absurdity pointed out by Shri Khan urged that the informant after being released sometimes in the night intervening 30th and 31st March, 2003 came to his house and it appears from his evidence that there were many police stations in between Rajgir and his house, but he did not make any effort to report about the incident at any police station. Hence, the story of kidnapping appears quite suspicious as none of his employees also was coming to support it nor any effort was made by the police to investigate the case by going to places where he was concealed or kept confined and there was no efforts made either to establish the identities and ownership of the vehicles, numbers of which were given and the details of calls which were made for demanding the ransom money. It was further contended that it appears extremely unacceptable that in a case of kidnapping for ransom P.W. 9 was released without payment of any amount.
31. Some of the arguments on the proof of charges were reiterated by Shri Rajendra Prasad, learned senior counsel appearing for appellant Kamlesh Singh in Cr. Appeal No. 147 of 2006. In that connection, Shri Prasad referred to the evidence of P.W. 12, the I.O. of the case and contended that the house of the appellant Kamlesh Singh was searched by him and a rifle was also seized, but neither the rifle nor the seizure memo was produced in court. It was further contended that Kamlesh Singh was identified 27 for the first time in court and there was no evidence on holding Test Identification Parade and putting the said appellant on it.
32. Shri Shravan Kumar, learned senior counsel appearing for the appellants in two Criminal Appeals, i.e., Cr. Appeal No. 209 of 2006 and Cr. Appeal No. 454 of 2007 submitted that it was necessary that the evidence of P.W. 9 was corroborated by some material evidence because the evidence of identification in court was too weak to be accepted. It was further contended that the corroboration would have come from the investigating officer who could have given evidence whether he visited the orchard, the room where P.W.9 was confined and the jangal where he was kept. Evidence ought to have come that the vehicles were really used whose numbers appears in the FIR.
33. Shri Rana Pratap Singh, learned senior counsel submitted that the identification of Kamlesh Singh, Pappu Singh and Munna Singh appears in paragraph 8 of P.W. 9 at pages 66-67 of the paper book in which the victim stated that the three appellants were called by their names by appellant Bablu Singh. But, the above statement does not give sufficient identifying details like the parentage, domicile, etc. of the three appellants. It was merely hear say and it could not be said with certainty that the names which were taken were the real persons who had participated in the occurrence.
34. So far as complicity of appellant Rakesh Kumar alias Pappu Singh is concerned, it was contended that as regards demand of 28 payment of ransom of rupees two lacs after the release of P.W. 9 and the two criminals being killed by the police near the factory of the victim, he does not appear stating anything which could indicate that the appellant Rakesh Kumar alias Pappu Singh or any other appellant had really participated in demand of ransom or in realization of the same. Similarly, there was complete lack of evidence that the two deceased who were shot and killed by the police were also associated with the appellants and, as such, it could not be said that the appellants had committed the offence of kidnapping of P.W. 9. The police has not brought any evidence on record and the most important witness Sanjay Kumar, the constable who was given Rs.50000 on the day as per the plan of the Superintendent of Police, has not been examined. It was contended by the learned senior counsel that why the victim would be released without payment of ransom, when he had been abducted for the purpose, is not available from the evidence on record and as such, the offence under section 364A of IPC may not be constituted.
35. Shri Ashwani Kumar Singh, learned senior counsel appearing for the informant, has submitted that the mounting pressure of the police was what had forced the release of the victim by the appellants and that could be deduced from the evidence of P.W. 12, I.O. in his evidence in paragraph 5 when he stated that he had arrested some of the appellants, had conducted raids in the houses of the suspects and was doing everything possible to nab the accused 29 who were at large. This was the reason that P.W. 9 had stated that a person highly perplexed, came and asked the criminals to release him and the criminals released him before they had taken an assurance from the victim to pay the ransom amount. This was available in paragraphs 52 and 57. It was contended that as regards the participation of Malia, he was also to benefit from payment of ransom, because a separate amount of rupees fifty thousand was demanded by the accused persons for being paid to him and the evidence of P.W. 9 indicates that he was in league with the appellants and used to bring food and feed the criminals and the victim.
36. I have already held in some earlier part of the judgment that the victim is at par with an injured witness as he had been kidnapped while he was on way to his house from his hump-pipe- factory. When he had reached a particular place near Baburbanna bridge, his scooter was dashed against by a car and he was made to fall on the ground and he could comprehend as to what was to happen. He wanted to flee, but was captured and forced to sit in the car and from there he was taken away. He was taken into an orchard, forest and thereafter moved and confined in a deserted room and from there he was moved into the jungle which has been described as Rajgir Jungle. The victim was always confined and was kept under watch. Criminals used to visit him off and on who had initially participated, in addition to those who were keeping watch 30 upon him, in commission of the offence. The evidence of P.W. 9 indicates that he was beaten up, he was threatened of dire consequences if did not ask his son to pay up or himself did not arrange payment of ransom amount of rupees ten lacs. The confinement of the victim was for about five days and these aspects of the case clearly put him at par with the injured witness. He was the person who had undergone the ordeal and had experienced the trauma. He had the occasion of witnessing each and every person who had participated in the commission of offence or who had kept watch over him or who had come with food to feed him and the criminals. It is no where available on record that the victim had any particular motive or reason for making false statement against any of the appellants. I have also held that the evidence of P.W. 9 and that of P.Ws 7, 8, 10 and 11 clearly establish the fact that incident of abduction had occurred in which P.W. 9 had been taken away. Thus, the factum of kidnapping stands proved.
37. What appear to me during the hearing of the batch of appeals was that most of the senior counsel like, Shri Khan, Shri Rajendra Prasad and Shri Shravan Kumar were mainly harping on the competence of the I.O. in not properly investigating the case and were asking us to pass an order of acquittal on that account. It is true that the investigation of the case was thoroughly inept and dishonest. It appears to me that P.W. 12 who had investigated the case, had taken the investigation as if it did not require any attention 31 to be paid by him. Learned counsel were not wrong in submitting that he did not go to inspect the places where the victim had been confined or kept after being abducted. He did not even try to collect information about the ownership of the vehicles, the registration number of which had been given, least to talk of making any effort on seizure of the two vehicles. It was the most sordid investigation I had ever seen and probably it could be on account of the reason that P.W. 12 S.I. Bindeshwar Prasad Rai was either influenced by the criminals or was at all not competent to understand the ramifications of offence and need to investigate it by use of simple common sense. This was not the end of the matter. The Superintendent of Police who was holding the office in Biharsharif, appears also thoroughly an incompetent officer, least concerned with the kidnapping of P.W. 9 and the evidence of P.W. 12 does not indicate that he ever guided the investigation into any right direction. It is in the above background that this court has to appreciate whether the incompetence of the police officer or their indifferent, dishonest attitude could be sufficient to hold that the occurrence which was reported by PW 11 and which had really occurred in which a citizen of India, P.W. 9 had been abducted and wrongly confined, should be held as not established and be further held as a false story brought before the court. If the courts start taking the above view as was submitted by learned senior counsels for the appellants, for, the investigating officer did not collect material evidence on some of 32 the most important aspects of the case and as such, the court should hold that the evidence of P.W. 9 has not been corroborated, then it shall only result in chaos and illegal acquittal of persons who were involved in such serious offence of kidnapping.
38. P.W. 9 had remained in captivity of the criminals right from 5.30 PM. of 25.3.2003 to the wee hours of 31.3.2003, i.e., for about five days. The story told by him inspires confidence and he has immediately narrated the names of the accused persons as soon as he reached home to P.W. 11. Not only that, he stated the names of the appellants to the police also. It is true that attention of P.W. 9 was drawn in some paragraphs of his cross examination when he was being cross examined the next time in S.T. Nos. 268 of 2004 and 392 of 2004 which started on 12.10.2004 and continued for many days, but those statements were not got proved by cross examining P.W. 12 to the above facts. Thus, not only the evidence of P.W. 9 appears free from any embellishment or improvement, he rather appears a competent witness on account of being the victim of the occurrence and on account of having undergone the trauma of being kidnapped, wrongly confined and some times being tortured as well. As such, his evidence I find highly inspiring and he appears to me a trustworthy witness. His evidence in itself is an unblemished proof of the story as propounded by the prosecution.
39. As regards the submission that some of the appellants except three, i.e., Bablu Singh, Dilkeshwar Singh alias Tuntun Singh and 33 Chandan Singh were not known to the victim and were identified for the first time in court, I find that that evidence of identification cannot also be rejected.
40. The Supreme Court has considered the similar arguments in a line of decisions. One such decision appears rendered in Dana Yadav alias Dahu & ors. Vs. State of Bihar reported in AIR 2002 Supreme Court 3325. In this case also, some of the appellants who were not named in the FIR had been identified by a few witnesses for the first time in court as persons who had attacked the deceased and others and had captured them and had taken them to some place away from the village and had killed some of them and injured other out of them. The discussion on the above point starts from paragraph 6 of the repot and continues to quite some length. During that discussion in Dana Yadav (supra), almost all previous decisions of the Supreme Court and some of the decisions of the High Courts were considered and thereafter, the position of law was clarified. In Dana Yadav the most important decisions in Budh Sen Vs. State of U.P. was also considered in which the Supreme Court had earlier held that there may further be exceptions to the general rule that the evidence of identification without corroboration is a weak evidence and that exception could be that if the court is impressed by a particular witness on whose testimony it could safely rely with or without such other corroboration. Thereafter, the Supreme Court referred to the decision in State of Maharastra Vs. Sukhdeo Singh, 34 reported in AIR 1992 S.C. 2100, which judgment was referred to in another decision of the Supreme Court in Ronny alias Ronald James Alwaris Vs. State of Maharastra reported in AIR 1998 S.C. 1251. It was indicated that if a witness had any particular reason to remember about the identity of an accused, then in that event, the case can be brought under the exception and upon solitary evidence of identification of an accused in court for the first time, conviction can be passed. In Ronny alias Ronald James Alwaris (supra) it had been held that where the witnesses had a chance to interact with the accused or that in a case where the witness had an opportunity to notice the distinctive features of the accused which lends assurance to his testimony in court, the evidence of identification in court for the first time by such a witness cannot be thrown away merely because no Test Identification Parade was held. In that case, the concerned accused had a talk with the identifying witnesses for about seven - eight minutes and the conviction on the testimony of witnesses identifying for the first time in court without the same being corroborated either by the previous identification in Test Identification Parade or any other evidence, was upheld by the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court perused and discussed all previous decisions on the above point in paragraph 8 of the judgment and thereafter held that it was at all not necessary that there should be corroborative evidence of the evidence of identification of an accused by a witness for the first time in court. 35
41. Coming to the facts of the present case, what I find is, and I have already noted it down just in the previous paragraph, that the victim had remained in the company of the appellants for about five days. He had not only interacted with the appellants when they used to talk to him to discuss the payment of ransom but he had also lived with them for quite some considerable time, he was beaten up by them, he was tortured by them mentally and he used to dine with them also. The victim, as such, had the opportunity for fairly a long time during those days to know them quite well. The imprint on the mind of the victim of being picked up, being confined and tortured and also of being pressured to pay up, the ransom must have left a deep and indelible print upon the mind of the victim. Their faces could be flashing in his memory. Their words must be reverberating in his ears and the trauma which he had experienced at the hands of the appellants, must have sent shudders down his aorta even after his release whenever he would sit up to look back upon those five worst days in his life. Each and every appellant would have remained fixed in the frame of his mind. Each and every identifying marks of each of the appellants would have been there imprinted in his mind and as soon as he would have seen them in the court room, the victim had had no difficulty in picking them up correctly. This is an exceptional case under the above exceptional facts that the solitary evidence of P.W. 9 corroborates his own evidence of 36 identification in court for the first time of some of the real culprits. As such, I find the evidence of P.W. 9 quite acceptable.
42. As regards not holding the Test Identification Parade, I do not see that any purpose would have been served by holding the Test Identification Parade and calling the witness to identify any of the culprits because P.W. 9 had stated that as soon as he reached his house, he met his son and narrated the names of the appellants to him. The police also came and he stated the names of the appellants to the I.O. also. The evidence of P.W. 12, the I.O., also indicates that as soon as he learnt about the arrival of the informant on account of being freed, he came to his house and questioned him and his son. Thus, the names of the appellants had already been told by the victim to the I.O. and they had already been identified by the victim. So, it was never necessary or required under law to organize a test identification parade by calling P.W. 9 to attend it.
43. Some of the contentions need to be taken note of. Shri Khan was submitting that persons who were known to P.W. 9 were not attempting to conceal their identities, but the driver was covering his face. The driver was not a professional criminal in my opinion. Probably the vehicles had been hired or borrowed from some known persons for commission of the offence. The driver would have been a professional, regular driver who would have found himself being used by the appellants in driving the vehicle which was used in commission of such a heinous offence. The driver must be knowing 37 the implications of the offence and so as to get away from the sight of the victim and so as to get away from being identified, he could have covered his faces. The other appellants had not covered their faces because they were committing the offence of abduction in broad day light and at any rate they had to come before the victim for negotiating ransom for which he had been abducted. As such, even if they had concealed their identities, it would not have been of any avail considering the nature of the crime.
44. As regards contention of Shri Rana Pratap Singh, that the offence under section 364A of the IPC is not made out as there was no payment of any ransom to the accused either by the victim or by any one on his behalf. It is proper in order to answering the submission to have a glance of the provision:
"364-A. Kidnapping for ransom, etc.--- Whoever kidnaps or abducts any person or keeps a person in detention after such kidnapping or abduction, and threatens to cause death or hurt to such person, or by his conduct gives rise to a reasonable apprehension that such person may be put to death or hurt, or causes hurt or death to such person in order to compel the Government or any foreign State or international inter government organization or any other person to do or abstain from doing any act or to pay a ransom, shall be punishable with death or imprisonment for life, and shall also be liable to fine."
45. A bare perusal of the provision may indicate that mere kidnapping or abducting a person or keeping such a person in detention after such kidnapping or abduction is not an offence under section 364A of the IPC. What it further required to be done is that he should be threatened to be killed or to be hurt or by some 38 conduct that person should have a reasonable apprehension that he may be put to death or hurt or, in fact, some hurt or death had really been caused to such a person. But, the above acts of threatening to cause either death or hurt or in fact causing death or hurt of a person who has been kidnapped or abducted and has been detained may again not complete the offence unless the whole motive, intent and purpose behind doing any of the above acts of kidnapping or abducting, etc. is that a ransom is paid either by the government, any foreign state or international inter governmental organization or any person. If there is no purpose or intent behind the above acts to seek the payment of ransom, then mere kidnapping, etc. as it indicated by the provision of section 364A of IPC shall never constitute an offence. Now, when we consider the language of the above provision, what it speaks of is 'to pay a ransom', which term, to me, connotes an act to be done in future as a consequence of the threat or apprehensions which could be arising out of the acts of the culprits after the kidnapping/abduction had been accomplished and the victim has been detained. The provision, as such, does not envisage that any real instant payment should be made before the person is released. The release of a person even without payment of a ransom may constitute the offence under section 364A of IPC if the evidence brought on record indicated that the acts of kidnapping or abduction, etc. spoken of by the provision were done only with a purpose that any ransom amount was to be paid by any person in 39 future. The person might be a relative of the victim or it may be anyone which is signified by words 'other person'. Not only that, if a person is required to do or abstained from doing any act on account of the acts preceding that condition, then also the acts of kidnapping etc. which are the elements of the sections may constitute an offence under section 364A of IPC.
46. I have considered the above provisions in the light of the facts of the case and as such, I have confined my views on the scope and ambit of the provision keeping in mind the facts of the case. In the present case, P.W. 9 was kidnapped and was detained by the accused persons and thereafter he was tortured by being beaten up and was forced to make calls to his son, P.W. 11 asking him to pay rupees ten lacs to the accused persons as ransom. When P.W. 11 expressed his inability in paying up that huge amount, one of the appellants stated to P.W. 11 that he would instantly show to him as to how the money could be arranged and P.W. 9 was beaten up at the command of appellant Ajit Singh. The cries of the victim were transmitted to P.W. 11 by cellular phone. The evidence on record indicates that even after having been informed by one of his colleagues that the police was creating a pressure situation for getting the victim released, the appellants were not releasing P.W. 9 before he had agreed to pay a sum of rupees four lacs fifty thousand. After he had reached his house, the evidence would indicate, a call was received to pay the first installment of rupees two lacs and some 40 criminals came to the factory of the victim to collect the money and two of them were killed. The facts of the case, in my considered view, constitute an offence under section 364A of the IPC.
47. Sri Khan was submitting that facts were fictitious because after being released and set free, the victim P.W. 9, in spite of knowing that there were many police stations on the way back his house, did not report to the police. The contention, to me, appears ignoring the psychological aspect of the conduct of a victim of such an offence. I do not want to repeat the facts over and again except to note that the victim was abducted for ransom and was confined at alien places under alien conditions. He was asked to pay up ransom or to meet his end. He was freed under an agreement after being blind folded. His abduction was from a public place - a road - his release was at a public place, a railway level crossing. He must have, by the time he set free, understood how dread were his captors. He must have longed to regain the safety of his home and company of his family members. He must have been a deeply frightened person. He must have felt like being followed and guarded by his captors. Such would have been is mental state that he could never ever thought of reporting against such dreaded fellows. These, to me, appear the untold reasons in the above behalf.
48. In view of the discussion of the evidence, I find that the prosecution has successfully brought home the charges against the 41 appellants. They were rightly convicted for committing the offence under section 364A of the IPC.
49. Considering the facts of the case and the circumstances appearing therefrom, I am of the view that the sentence which was passed against each of the appellants was also quite proportionate to their acts and, accordingly, that also does not require to be disturbed.
50. In the result, I find that there is no merit in the seven appeals which all are dismissed.
(Dharnidhar Jha,J.) Akhilesh Chandra, J. -
(Akhilesh Chandra, J.) Patna High Court The ..... May, 2010 N.A.F.R./Anil/