Kailash Chaudhary vs The State of Bihar, Bablu Yadav

Honourable Mr. Justice Amaresh Kumar Lal

The informant-petitioner has preferred this revision application against the judgment and order dated 29.01.2002 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class, Banka in G.R. No.333/1997 by which he has been pleased to acquit the accused opposite party nos. 2 and 3 for the charges under Sections 364 and 365 of the I.P.C.

The prosecution case, in brief, is that on 25.03.1997 at about 5.00 P.M., a letter was found in the bag of the informant demanding Rs.50,000/- failing which his son would be done to death. It was also mentioned in the letter that if the letter is disclosed in that event also his son would be killed. The letter was shown to the co-villagers and when it came to the knowledge of Bablu Yadav, he scolded the informant on 28.03.1997 for disclosing the letter and abused him and threatened to kidnap and to kill the informant and his son. Prior to this occurrence, Bablu Yadav has taken Rs.1000/- from the informant at the shop of the informant as Rangdari tax.

On the basis of the written report of the informant, police instituted Banka P.S. Case No.103/1997 against Bablu Yadav and two unknown persons. After investigation, charge-sheet was submitted against Bablu Yadav and Guddu Singh. Cognizance was taken. The case was transferred to the learned Magistrate for trial. After the trial, both the accused have been acquitted for the offence punishable under Sections 364 and 365 of the I.P.C. by the learned Magistrate vide the impugned judgment and order.

The main contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the learned trial court has not applied his judicial mind. The charges were framed against the accused for the offence punishable under Sections 384 and 386 of the I.P.C. and after trial without altering the charges; the learned Magistrate has acquitted both the accused for the charges punishable under Sections 364 and 365 of the I.P.C. The learned Magistrate has not appreciated the evidence of the witnesses carefully and has acquitted the accused mechanically.

No one appears on behalf of the opposite party nos. 2 and 3 even today.

The learned counsel for the State could not controvert the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner.

After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the State and on perusal of the materials on record, it appears that the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is correct. The accused opposite party nos. 2 and 3 were charged under Sections 384 ad 386 of the I.P.C. Thereafter, evidence was adduced on behalf of the prosecution and even in the statement of the accused u/s 313 Cr.P.C., the questions were put before both the accused regarding the ransom and not regarding the kidnapping.

It further appears that the learned Magistrate has not gone through the record carefully and has passed the impugned order without applying its judicial mind.

Considering the facts and circumstances stated above, in my opinion, the impugned judgment is not fit to be sustained. Accordingly, it is set aside. The matter is remanded to the learned Magistrate for passing the order in accordance with law after hearing both the parties.

In the result, this revision application is allowed.