Patna High Court Acquits Accused in 1999 Kidnapping Case | Cites FIR Delay, Witness Contradictions and Lapses in Investigation
Safiya Malik
The High Court of Judicature at Patna, Single Bench of Justice Alok Kumar Pandey set aside the conviction and ten-year sentence of Ram Prasad Yadav and Ajay Kumar Yadav, who had been found guilty under Section 364 of the Indian Penal Code for allegedly kidnapping Rakesh Kumar Yadav in 1999. The Court held that the prosecution failed to prove the charge beyond reasonable doubt due to inconsistencies in witness testimonies, unexplained delay in lodging the FIR, and non-examination of the investigating officer. Allowing the appeals, the Court acquitted both appellants and discharged them from their bail bonds.
The case arose from an incident on 4 June 1999 in the village of Ramni, District Madhepura. According to the prosecution, Shiv Nandan Yadav, the informant, was sitting at his house with his son Rakesh Kumar Yadav when Ram Prasad Yadav came and took the boy away on the pretext of urgent work. Later, Ajay Kumar Yadav, son of Ram Prasad Yadav, was allegedly seen proceeding towards Pratapnagar with the boy. The informant claimed that in a garden at Pratapnagar, co-accused Sukal Yadav threatened the boy with a “three-nut” weapon, forced him onto a motorcycle, and departed with Ajay Kumar Yadav seated behind him, accompanied by others on another motorcycle. When the boy did not return, the informant made inquiries and later alleged that he learned on 8 June 1999 that his son had been killed by the kidnappers.
On 21 June 1999, the informant lodged a written report at Murliganj Police Station. The case was registered under Sections 364 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code for kidnapping with the intent to murder. After investigation, a charge sheet was submitted against Ram Prasad Yadav and Ajay Kumar Yadav. The trial court convicted them under Section 364 and sentenced each to ten years’ rigorous imprisonment.
The defence denied the allegations, questioning the credibility of the prosecution witnesses, who were mostly related to the informant, and emphasized the 17-day delay in lodging the FIR. It argued that the prosecution failed to prove the place of occurrence as the investigating officer was not examined, and highlighted inconsistencies in witness testimonies. The prosecution relied primarily on the testimonies of five witnesses, including the informant, who claimed to have seen the incident, and documentary evidence such as the informant’s signatures on the report and his recorded statement.
Justice Pandey examined the evidentiary inconsistencies and procedural lapses in detail. The Court noted that “the Investigating Officer of this case has not been examined which caused serious prejudice to the defence as due to non-examination of I.O., the place of occurrence could not be proved.” The Court found that almost all witnesses were related to the informant and their testimonies were inconsistent and contradictory.
The Court recorded that PW-2, the informant, had given conflicting statements regarding the Panchayati, stating before the Magistrate that no such Panchayati took place, contrary to his FIR. It further noted that PW-1 admitted during cross-examination that he merely received information about the kidnapping and conveyed it to the informant, indicating that “his knowledge is purely derivative and second-hand.” The Court found that PW-3’s evidence was unreliable, as he contradicted himself about whether he was working in the field at the time and whether the police examined him. PW-4 admitted he did not see the kidnapping directly but heard about it later, while PW-5 denied any knowledge of the incident.
Justice Pandey held that “when the source of information received by PW-1 is based on hearsay evidence, then the information shared by PW-1 to PW-2 is totally based on hearsay evidence. In this way, both are not the eye witnesses of the alleged occurrence.” The Court observed that non-examination of the Investigating Officer deprived the defence of its right to challenge inconsistencies and verify the site of occurrence. Citing Behari Prasad v. State of Bihar (1996) 2 SCC 317, the Court reiterated that non-examination of the Investigating Officer could be fatal when it causes prejudice to the accused.
The judgment also referenced Syed Ibrahim v. State of Andhra Pradesh (2008) 10 SCC 601, stating that “when place of occurrence itself has not been established, it would not be proper to accept the prosecution side.” Addressing the delay in FIR, the Court relied on several precedents including Dilawar Singh v. State of Delhi (AIR 2007 SC 3234), Thulia Kali v. State of Tamil Nadu (1972) 3 SCC 393, and Satpal Singh v. State of Haryana (2010) 8 SCC 174, holding that unexplained delay in lodging FIRs “creates a doubt if the said delay is not properly explained.” It observed that the 17-day delay “remains wholly unexplained either in the FIR itself or in any material available on record.”
The Court also found procedural lapses under Section 313 CrPC, noting that incriminating circumstances were not properly put to the accused. Quoting Raj Kumar alias Suman v. State (NCT of Delhi) (AIR 2023 SC 3113), the Court recorded that “the failure to put material circumstances to the accused amounts to a serious irregularity. It will vitiate the trial if it is shown to have prejudiced the accused.”
Summarizing its findings, the Court stated that “the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt” and that “the learned trial court fell in error of law as well as appreciation of facts of the case in view of settled criminal jurisprudence.”
Justice Pandey ordered that “the impugned judgment of conviction dated 26.03.2004 and order of sentence dated 29.03.2004 are hereby set aside.” Consequently, both Criminal Appeal (SJ) No. 229 of 2004 and Criminal Appeal (SJ) No. 240 of 2004 were allowed. The Court further directed that “both the appellants are on bail. They are discharged from the liability of their bail bonds.” The interlocutory applications, if any, stood disposed of.
Advocates Representing the Parties:
For the Appellants: Mr. Sanjay Kumar, Advocate
For the Respondent (State of Bihar): Mrs. Anita Kumari Singh, Additional Public Prosecutor
Case Title: Ram Prasad Yadav & Anr. v. State of Bihar
Case Number: Criminal Appeal (SJ) No. 229 of 2004 with Criminal Appeal (SJ) No. 240 of 2004
Bench: Justice Alok Kumar Pandey
