Patna High Court
Sukhdeo Yadav and Ors.versusThe State Of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- ALLOWED
- Bench
- SHAILENDRA SINGH
Holding
The conviction under Section 365 IPC is set aside as the prosecution evidence is unreliable and fails to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
Summary
The appellants Sukhdeo, Bijay and Ajay Yadav were convicted by the Sessions Court for an offence under Section 365 of the IPC based on an abduction allegation arising from a land dispute. The prosecution's case relied primarily on the victim's testimony and the informant's FIR, but the informant's statements were inconsistent and he was not an eyewitness. Multiple witnesses gave contradictory accounts, several turned hostile, and the investigating officer was not examined. The victim's own statements about the abduction and captivity were also found unreliable and lacked medical corroboration. The court noted serious contradictions and the failure to produce credible evidence beyond reasonable doubt. Consequently, the conviction was held unsustainable and set aside. The appeal was allowed, and the appellants were discharged.
Issues considered
- Whether the prosecution evidence establishes the guilt of the appellants beyond reasonable doubt for an offence under Section 365 IPC.
- Whether the informant's FIR can be treated as eyewitness testimony despite inconsistencies.
- Whether the failure to examine the investigating officer and the hostile witnesses defeats the prosecution case.
Legislation cited
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 164, 313
- Indian Penal Code — s. 34, 364, 365
Subjects
- kidnapping
- abduction
- Section 365 IPC
- evidentiary contradictions
- benefit of doubt
- appeal allowed
- criminal trial
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL APPEAL (SJ) No.68 of 2014
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-58 Year-1994 Thana- LAKHISARAI District- Lakhisarai
======================================================
1. Sukhdeo Yadav, S/o Late Dila Yadav,
2. Bijay Yadav
3. Ajay Yadav, Both are sons of Sukhdeo Yadav, All Resident of Village-
Dharhisir, P.S.- Chanan, District- Lakhisarai
... ... Appellant/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Appellant/s : Mr. Sidharth Harsh, Amicus Curiae
For the State : Mr. Abhay Kumar, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHAILENDRA SINGH
ORAL JUDGMENT
Date : 18-02-2026
The instant appeal has been preferred by the
appellants against the judgment of conviction dated 15.01.2014
and the order of sentence dated 16.01.2014 passed by the Court
of the learned Adhoc Additional District & Sessions Judge-V,
Lakhisarai, in Sessions Case. No. 212 of 1996 arising out of
Lakhisarai Chanan P.S. Case No. 58 of 1994, whereby and
whereunder the appellants have been convicted for the offence
punishable under Section 365 of the Indian Penal Code (in
short, “IPC”). The appellants have been sentenced to undergo
simple imprisonment for three years with a fine of Rs. 500/-
(Rupees Five Hundred) to each for the offence punishable under
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.68 of 2014 dt.18-02-2026
2/13
Section 365 of the IPC. In default of payment of fine, they have
been directed to undergo imprisonment for three months
additionally.
Prosecution Story:
2. The substance of the prosecution story, as
appearing from the FIR, is as follows:
The informant, Jagdeo Yadav, gave his fardbeyan at
Chanan Police Station on 02.03.1994, alleging that a she-buffalo
of appellant No. 1, Sukhdeo Yadav, had died due to some
disease, but he suspected that it had been killed by the
appellants. The informant further alleged that on 01.03.1994,
when his brother, Ram Balak Yadav (the victim), was at his
residence (dera) situated on the north-western side of the village
at about 7:00–7:30 PM, all the accused persons/appellants
came, abducted his brother, and handed him over to other
criminals. Upon hearing his brother’s alarm, the informant,
along with his family members and other villagers, reached at
the place of occurrence but did not find his brother there. The
informant alleged that the accused persons/appellants had taken
away his brother due to enmity arising out of a previous land
dispute.
3. The informant recorded his fardbeyan on
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.68 of 2014 dt.18-02-2026
3/13
02.03.1994 at Chanan Police Station and detailed the above-
mentioned incident. Upon that basis, the formal FIR bearing
Chanan P.S. Case No. 58 of 1994 was registered for the offence
punishable under Section 364 read with section 34 of the IPC,
which set the criminal law in motion.
4. After completion of the investigation, the
appellants were charge-sheeted.
5. After cognizance of the alleged offence, the
learned Magistrate committed the case of the appellants to the
Court of Sessions for trial. The appellants namely, Bijay Yadav,
Ajay Yadav and Sukhdeo Yadav, stood charged for the offence
under Section 364 of the IPC. The said charge was read over
and explained in Hindi to the appellants by the trial court, to
which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
6. During the trial, the prosecution examined
altogether nine witnesses who are as under :-
PW-1 Kapurva Devi Mother of the victim
PW-2 Jagdeo Yadav Brother of the victim
PW-3 Sundar Yadav Villager of the informant
PW-4 Ram Balak Yadav The victim
PW-5 Ramdev Yadav Villager of the informant (hostile witness)
PW-6 Mathura Yadav Villager of the informant (hostile witness)
PW-7 Siddheshwar Yadav Villager of the informant (hostile witness)
PW-8 Hardev Yadav Villager of the informant (hostile witness)
PW-9 Chandeshwar Yadav Villager of the informant (hostile witness)
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.68 of 2014 dt.18-02-2026
4/13
7. In addition to the above mentioned ocular
evidence, the prosecution proved and exhibited the following
documents in documentary evidence :-
Ext-1 The signature of the informant on the fardbeyan
Ext-1/1 The signature of the victim on his statement recorded
under section 164 of Cr.P.C.
8. After the completion of the prosecution
evidence, the statements of the appellants were recorded under
Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (in short,
‘Cr.P.C.’) by the trial court. The appellants denied the material
circumstances appearing against them from the prosecution
evidence; however, they did not take any specific defence while
recording their statement.
9. In defence, the appellants produced and
exhibited the following documents.
Ext-A An order passed in Sessions Trial No. 336/2000
Ext-B An order passed by Sub-Divisional Magistrate in the case
No. 954M/1986
10. While convicting the appellants for the offence
under Section 365 of the IPC, the learned trial court mainly
placed reliance upon the testimony of the victim, Ram Balak
Yadav (PW-4).
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.68 of 2014 dt.18-02-2026
5/13
Submissions made by learned Amicus Curiae:–
11. Mr. Siddharth Harsh, learned Amicus Curiae
appearing for the appellants, submits that there are serious
contradictions among the statements made by the informant in
his fardbeyan and the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses,
including the victim, with regard to the manner of occurrence as
well as the place of occurrence. The informant (PW-2) recorded
his fardbeyan after a delay of one day from the commission of
the alleged occurrence, despite the fact that it had come to his
knowledge immediately after the commission of the alleged
offence. From the narration of the prosecution story by the
informant, enmity between the victim’s family and the
appellants was admittedly going on when the FIR was lodged.
The so-called victim, who is the brother of the informant,
himself returned from the clutches of the accused/appellants,
and it is not the case of the prosecution that the victim was
recovered by the police. Further, contradictory statements were
made by the prosecution witnesses regarding the period of
captivity of the victim. During the trial, PW-1 (mother of the
victim) came up with a different story from that of mentioned in
the FIR. The prosecution failed to examine the Investigating
Officer before the trial court. PW-5 to PW-9 turned hostile.
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.68 of 2014 dt.18-02-2026
6/13
Though, as per the prosecution, they did not claim themselves to
be eyewitnesses of the occurrence, their evidence had some
relevance regarding the subsequent part of the occurrence
pertaining to the taking away of the victim by the accused;
however, they did not say anything in support of the
prosecution.
Submissions on behalf of the State:–
12. Learned APP appearing for the State opposes
this appeal but fairly accepts that there was enmity between the
victim’s family and the appellants during the relevant period of
time when the alleged occurrence is stated to have taken place.
The victim himself returned 5–6 days after the commission of
the alleged occurrence. Learned APP has also accepted that
there are contradictions among the testimonies of the
prosecution witnesses; however, he has supported the findings
of the trial court by referring to the evidence of the victim and
the statement recorded by him under Section 164 of the Cr.P.C.,
which are according to him completely corroborative of each
other.
Consideration and Analysis:–
13. I have heard both sides, perused the evidence
available on the trial court’s record, and taken into consideration
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.68 of 2014 dt.18-02-2026
7/13
the statements of the appellants as well as the findings of the
trial court noted in the impugned judgment.
14. The manner in which the informant described
the prosecution story in his fardbeyan shows him as an
eyewitness to the occurrence. In his fardbeyan, the informant
stated that on 01.03.1994 at about 7–7:30 PM, his brother, Ram
Balak Yadav (the victim), was present at his residence (dera)
situated on the north-western side of the village. The
accused/appellants, namely Vijay Yadav, Ajay Yadav, and
Sukhdeo Yadav, caught hold of his brother and thereafter handed
him over to other accused persons. Upon this, his brother started
crying for help while being taken away by the appellants.
Thereafter, he (the informant), along with his family members
and villagers, rushed to the dera (residence) of the victim and
found his brother missing. The said narration of the incident
made by the informant shows that he claimed himself to be an
eyewitness; however, in his cross-examination, he did not
remain consistent with this stand.
15. The informant deposed in his examination-in-
chief that his brother raised an alarm when he was being taken
away by the appellants and thereafter he also raised an alarm
and rushed towards his brother but did not find him. In cross-
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.68 of 2014 dt.18-02-2026
8/13
examination, he stated that the accused persons had taken his
brother away before he reached the place of occurrence and that
he did not meet any of the accused persons there. He further
stated that he heard the cry of his brother from a distance of half
a kilometre. From this statement, it is clear that he was not an
eyewitness to the alleged abduction of the victim.
16. The informant detailed the complete manner of
occurrence and the names of the accused/appellants in his
fardbeyan, which formed the basis of the prosecution case and
was lodged the next day after the alleged occurrence. However,
as per the victim’s own evidence, he returned from the captivity
of the accused persons 5–6 days after the occurrence. As per the
informant, when he reached the place of occurrence, he did not
find either the victim or the accused persons. Therefore, how he
obtained the details of the accused and the manner of occurrence
immediately after the incident, which was reported one day
later, has not been clarified by the prosecution through evidence.
17. PW-1, the mother of the victim, deposed in her
examination-in-chief that at the time of the alleged occurrence,
she was at her Bathan (cattle shed), her son, the victim, came
there with food and, after giving the food, he started returning
after covering some distance, the accused/appellants surrounded
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.68 of 2014 dt.18-02-2026
9/13
and abducted him. The manner of occurrence as stated by this
witness is completely different from that detailed in the FIR by
the informant (PW-2) and also different from that detailed by
the victim (PW-4) in his court evidence. Further, as per PW-1,
she saw the accused persons from a distance of two Rassi (in
village language, one Rassi is considered equivalent to 25 feet).
Admittedly, it was a dark night at the time of the alleged
occurrence. In such a situation, without any source of light, it
would not have been possible for PW-1 to identify the accused
persons or witness the occurrence as described by her.
18. PW-2, the informant, deposed in his
examination-in-chief that at the time of the alleged occurrence,
he was at his home and that his brother went to the dera of his
father to deliver food, whereas PW-1 stated that the victim went
to the bathan (cattle shed) to give food to her. In paragraph 5 of
his cross-examination, PW-2 stated that his brother returned
four days after the occurrence and did not disclose the names of
the abductors. However, in the same paragraph, he stated that
his brother disclosed the names of the accused. Thus, he did not
remain consistent.
19. PW-3, an independent witness, stated in his
examination-in-chief that on the alleged night at about 7:30 PM,
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.68 of 2014 dt.18-02-2026
10/13
while he was inside his house, he heard the cries of Ram Balak
Yadav (the victim), who was saying that he was being taken
away by the appellants. However, in cross-examination, he
stated that he did not see either of the appellants or the victim at
the place of occurrence. Therefore, his evidence does not
support the prosecution case.
20. PW-4, the victim, deposed that on the alleged
day and time, he was going from his home to the bathan to
deliver food then appellant Sukhdeo Yadav started following
him with a lantern. While returning after delivering the food and
upon reaching near the bridge at Devasthan, appellants namely
Ajay Yadav and Vijay Yadav caught hold of him from both the
sides. When he raised an alarm, five more persons equipped
with guns arrived, tied his hands and mouth, and took him away.
He further stated that the accused demanded money from him
and, upon his inability to fulfill their demand, they freed him,
after which he returned home. This story appears less
believable, as the accused allegedly freed the victim without
receiving any money, and there is no evidence that they
contacted or pressured his family members regarding the said
demand. In the fardbeyan, the informant stated that there was a
land dispute between the appellants and his family; however, in
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.68 of 2014 dt.18-02-2026
11/13
cross-examination, PW-4 stated that there was no such dispute.
This indicates an attempt on his part to conceal the admitted
enmity, and thus he does not appear to have come with clean
hands before trial court.
21. According to PW-4, he was assaulted during
captivity and remained in captivity for 5–6 days. Upon
returning, he showed his injuries to the SHO but was not
medically examined. Neither the police nor the victim himself
or his family members took any steps to get his injuries
medically treated, and no evidence or explanation was adduced
in this regard.
22. The Investigating Officer was not examined,
though he was an important witness to prove regarding the
condition of the victim in which he was, when he returned back.
His non-examination seriously prejudiced the appellants.
23. PW-5 to PW-9 turned hostile. Though they were
cited as witnesses to a relevant portion of the occurrence, they
denied their previous statements recorded before the police
which goes against the prosecution to some extent.
Conclusion:–
24. In view of the facts and circumstances emerging
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.68 of 2014 dt.18-02-2026
12/13
from the prosecution evidence discussed above, the prosecution
story regarding the abduction of PW-4 does not appear reliable.
Serious contradictions exist among the testimonies of the
material witnesses. The informant falsely claimed himself to be
an eyewitness, and the Investigating Officer was not examined,
which proves fatal to the prosecution. Considering the admitted
enmity between the parties at the time of the alleged occurrence,
the conviction of the appellants under Section 365 of the IPC is
not proper and sustainable. The appellants are entitled to the
benefit of doubt, and the learned trial court committed a grave
error in appreciating the prosecution evidence. Accordingly, the
impugned judgment dated 15.01.2014 convicting the appellants
under Section 365 of the IPC and the order dated 16.01.2014
sentencing them are hereby set aside. The appeal stands
allowed.
25. The appellants are on bail; accordingly, they and
their sureties are discharged from the liabilities of their bail
bonds.
26. Let the records of the trial court, along with a
copy of this judgment, be transmitted forthwith to the trial court
for necessary compliance.
27. Mr. Sidharth Harsh, learned Amicus Curiae shall
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.68 of 2014 dt.18-02-2026
13/13
be entitled to remuneration, as per notification dated 18.05.2017
issued by the State Government, to be paid by the Patna High
Court Legal Services Committee for assisting this Court as
Amicus Curiae.
(Shailendra Singh, J)
Annu/BKS-
AFR/NAFR AFR
CAV DATE NA
Uploading Date 20.02.2026
Transmission Date 20.02.2026
Checking your session…