) ---------- State of Jharkhand through Dhiraj Prakash, s/o B.L. Agrawal aged about 46 v. 1. Annu Singh @ Annu Kr. Singh, aged about 25 years, son of Moh
Case Details
1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Acquittal Appeal (DB) No. 40 of 2023 --------- (Against the judgment dated 30.06.2022 passed by the learned A.D.J., Ist, Godda in Sessions Trial No. 56 of 2021 & S.T. No.57A/21 and S.T. No. 167 of 2022) ---------- State of Jharkhand through Dhiraj Prakash, s/o B.L. Agrawal aged about 46 years, Boarijor, P.O. and P.S. Boarijor, District-Godda, Jharkhand. (Authorized for filing Acquittal Appeal by the Deputy Commissioner, Godda vide letter no.381/Legal dated 06.03.2023. .…… Appellant Versus 1. Annu Singh @ Annu Kr. Singh, aged about 25 years, son of Mohan Singh of vill-Punsiya, P.O. Godda College, P.S. Godda (T) Dist. Godda, Jharkhand. 2. Sonu Jha aged about 38 years, son of Sidhinath Jha r/o at Village- Gulzarbag Godda, P.O. Godda, P.S. Godda (T) Dist.-Godda, Jharkhand. 3. Saurav Kr. Choudhary @ Chiku Choudhary aged about 34 years son of Late Pursottam Choudhary r/o of at village-Motiya, P.O. Motiya, P.S. Motiya (O.P.) Dist. Godda, Jharkhand. 4. Amit Kumar Tiwari @ Babloo Tiwari aged about 34 years, son of Sri Bhagwan Prasad Tiwari resident of at village-Sardar Patel Nagar, P.O. Godda, P.S. Godda (T), Dist. Godda. 5. Abhay Kumar aged about 37 years, son of Late Chandra Shekhar Mishra of Village-Bharatkhand, P.O. Bishunpur, P.S. Parbatta Dist.-Khagariya (Bihar). 6. Pappu Jha @ Rajiv Ranjan Jha, aged about 48 years, son of Late Udaykant Jha of village-Pasohona, P.O. Dhoraiya, P.S. Dhoraiya, Dist. Banka (Bihar). ……. Respondents --------- CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE NAVNEET KUMAR ---------- For the Appellant For the Respondents : Mr. Priya Shrestha, Spl. P.P. : Mr. Purnendu Kumar Jha, Advocate 10/Dated: 19th December, 2023 I.A. No.4220 of 2023: ----------- 1. I.A No. 4220 of 2023 has been filed by the State of Jharkhand for grant of leave against the judgment of acquittal dated 30.06.2022 passed by the learned District & Addl. Sessions Judge No.-I, Godda in S.T. Case No.56 of 2021 & S.T. Case No.57A of 2021 and S.T. Case No. 167 of 2022 (the trial of S.T. Case No.57A of 2021 and S.T. Case No. 167 of 2022 amalgamated). 2 2. In view thereof, I.A No.4220 of 2023 stands allowed. Acquittal Appeal (DB) No. 40 of 2023: 3. The instant acquittal appeal has been filed by the State under Section 378(4) of the Code of Criminal Procedure directed against the judgment of acquittal dated 30.06.2022 passed by the learned District & Additional Session Judge (1st), Godda in S.T. Case No.56 of 2021 & S.T. Case No.57A of 2021 and S.T. Case No. 167 of 2022 (the trial of S.T. Case No.57A of 2021 and S.T. Case No. 167 of 2022 amalgamated) whereby and whereunder the charge framed against the respondents have been found to be not proved beyond all shadow of doubt and as such the accused persons, the respondents herein have been acquitted. 4. The brief facts of the case, as per the written statement, reads as under: The informant- Dinesh Singh, works with Ashok Tiwari @ Munna Tiwari, on partnership basis, in Road projects. On 06.08.2019, Ashok Tiwari @ Munna Tiwari by his mobile no. 7004872800, called him to his house, at Vikramshila, at around12 noon, whereupon the informant went to the house of Ashok Tiwari where the informant reached at around 1.00 p.m immediately upon arrival of the informant in the house of Ashok Tiwari @ Munna Tiwari, then he asked from the informant, as to where he had kept Rs.2 crores and when the informant told him that he has not got the said money with him, then Ashok Tiwari@ Munna Tiwari, threatened to commit his murder. Thereafter Ashok Tiwari @ Munna Tiwari started assaulting the informant with butt of the pistol. The other accused persons namely, Chiku Choudhary, Sonu Choudhary, Annu Singh, Rahul Sah and Amit Tiwari @ Babloo Tiwari, who were present there and they also started strangulating the informant with a towel, with a view to commit his murder. As a result of strangulation, the informant started bleeding from his nose and mouth and consequently he fainted. It is further alleged that, he was assaulted mercilessly, even when he was unconscious and upon his gaining sense, he was again assaulted, as a result of which, his left eye was injured. Thereafter, accused persons tied him and repeatedly asked him to hand over Rs.2 crores, said to be kept with him. In the meanwhile, Abhay Kumar, the Branch Manager, Bank of India, Sahebganj was called over 3 by the phone saying that, the informant has been caught. After two hour, the Manager, came to the house of Ashok Tiwari @ Munna Tiwari and all the persons tortured him throughout the night and asked him as to where the money was kept and the accused persons threatened him that if he will not disclose, as to where the money was kept, then he will be killed mercilessly. Further that, after torturing him for the whole night, the Branch Manager, Abhay Kumar, at the time of leaving for Sahebganj, threatened him that, he will be cut to pieces and thrown away. The said Branch Manager took away all the cheque books of United Bank of India, kept in his car, after getting the signature forcibly of the informant. He has further alleged that, said Branch Manager took away the entire bills of machines with him and in the morning, Ashok Tiwari @ Munna Tiwari, after tying towel on his face, took him to Pasana, to the house of Pappu Jha, on his Bolero. It is further alleged that at the house of Pappu Jha, Ashok Tiwari @ Munna Tiwari made call to the daughter of the informant, namely, Ankita. Thereafter, the wife of the informant, Juli was called by Ashok Tiwari @ Munna Tiwari and demanded Rs. 50 lakh by way of ransom. The recording of the said conversation is available with the informant. The informant further alleged that the accused threatened that, in case, if the money will not be given, the informant will be murdered and thereafter, the informant was made free at Godda on 07.08.2019 at around 8.00 p.m. in the night. He has further alleged that, Ashok Tiwari @ Munna Tiwari has also kept his Bolero bearing registration no. JH-01- BG-8201 with him. He has further stated that, he has issued last cheque on 05.08.2019 of Rs.7,000/- to his driver, Santosh Kumar and thereafter, he has not issued any cheque to anyone. He has further alleged that, due to threat of Ashok Tiwari @ Munna Tiwari, he did not move outside for the last one month and the associates of Ashok Tiwari @ Munna Tiwari are continuously keeping vigil over him and he could be murdered any time. He has further alleged that, from 05.09.19 to 09.09.2019, Ashok Tiwari @ Munna Tiwari came near his house, along with his 5-6 men, due to which, the informant hid in his house by fear and did not come out from his house for the last one month. Thereafter, he came to know from his staff that all his machines have been taken away forcibly by 4 Ashok Tiwari @ Munna Tiwari, in the night at 12 hours, then he filed the written report before the police. 5. On the basis of the said written report, the F.I.R. being Godda (T) P.S. Case No.235 of 2019 was instituted for commission of offence under Sections 364A, 365, 386, 379 and 307 read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. 6. After investigation the police submitted charge sheet against accused persons and the case was committed to the Court of Sessions in which the accused persons having pleaded not guilty and claim for trial and accordingly the trial has commenced. 7. The learned trial court, on appreciation of the rival submissions
Facts
advanced on behalf of the parties as also by taking into consideration the oral and documentary evidence adduced on behalf of the parties, has found that the prosecution has not been able to prove any of the charge beyond reasonable doubt and has held the accused persons (respondents herein) not guilty of the charges and, as such, acquitted them from the said charges, which is the subject matter of the instant appeal.
Legal Reasoning
45. The position of law is well settled that there cannot be any conviction of a person snatching away the liberty to life if the prosecution is not able to prove the charge beyond all shadow of doubt as has been held by Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Rang Bahadur Singh and Ors. v. State of U.P., (2000) 3 SCC 454 wherein at paragraph 22 it has been held which reads hereunder as:- “22. The amount of doubt which the Court would entertain regarding the complicity of the appellants in this case is much more than the level of reasonable doubt. We are aware that acquitting the accused in a case of this nature is not a matter of satisfaction for all concerned. At the same time we remind ourselves of the time-tested rule that acquittal of a guilty 16 person should be preferred to conviction of an innocent person. Unless the prosecution establishes the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt a conviction cannot be passed on the accused. A criminal court cannot afford to deprive liberty of the appellants, lifelong liberty, without having at least a reasonable level of certainty that the appellants were the real culprits. We really entertain doubt about the involvement of the appellants in the crime.” Further, in the case of Sheila Sebastian v. R. Jawaharaj and Anr. reported in (2018) 7 SCC 581 the Hon’ble Apex Court has held at paragraph 28 which reads hereunder as :- “28. In this case at hand, the imposter has not been found or investigated into by the officer concerned. Nothing has been spilled on the relationship between the imposter and Respondent 1. Law is well settled with regard to the fact that however strong the suspicion may be, it cannot take the place of proof. Strong suspicion, coincidence, grave doubt cannot take the place of proof. Always a duty is cast upon the courts to ensure that suspicion does not take place of the legal proof. In this case, the trial court as well as the appellate court got carried away by the fact that accused is the beneficiary or the executant of the mortgage deed, where the prosecution miserably failed to prove the first transaction i.e. PoA as a fraudulent and forged transaction. The standard of proof in a criminal trial is proof beyond reasonable doubt because the right to personal liberty of a citizen can never be taken away by the standard of preponderance of probability.” 46. It is relevant to mention here that Acq. Appeal No. 18 of 2022 which was filed against the acquittal of Ashok Tiwary @ Munna Tiwary who was alleged as the main culprit of the occurrence, has already been dismissed by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court. 47. On the perusal of material available on record we find that the Court below has meticulously discussed the materials on record and the reasons assigned by the Trial Court are cogent reasons and in accordance with law. 48. Accordingly, on the basis of discussion made herein above and in the light of settled proposition of law as mentioned above, we do not find any such patent or inherent illegality and/or irregularity in the impugned Judgment passed by the Trial Court below, acquitting the accused respondents for the offences under Sections 364A, 365, 386, 379 and 307 read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, worth interference by this Court. 49. Consequently, the acquittal appeal is hereby dismissed, being bereft of any merit. 17 50. Let the Lower Court Record be sent back forthwith along with copy of this order to the court concerned. 51. Since this Court after passing the final order of dismissal has found no infirmity in the judgment of acquittal and as such now proceeding to examine the observation so made by the learned trial court as available in the impugned order which is being referred here under as: “From perusal of record, it is transpire that I.O. P.W.6 Upendra Singh accepted in para-21 and 22 of his cross examination that they did not himself written the supplementary case diary on 15.12.2020, 06.12.2020, 08.02.2021, 20.02.2021 and 25.02.2020, which is written by a public persons, whose name , they do not know, who written the case diary but the then Senior police officer did not pay attention on the proper investigation and ordered to submit the charge sheet against all nominated accused in the F.I.R., the then Senior Police Officer S.D.P.O.,Godda and S.P.,Godda issued Supervisory note to submit charge sheet in spite of no any relevant oral or documentary evidence in the case diary, so it is necessary to take legal action against such type police officers, who harass and exploit to the innocent persons of the society. It is also clear from perusal of the record that senior police officer involved in the illegal activities and cooperate to some criminal as informant Dinesh Singh S/o Puneshwar Pd. Singh R/o mouza- Shantinagar, P.S. Godda Town, Distt.Godda of this case. These above Senior officers presently posted in many important post, who never deserve to assign any important work in future. O/C is directed to send a copy of order to D.G.P., Jharkhand and chief Secretary of Jharkhand Government to take proper action against liable officers, who did not properly investigate the case and submitted the charge sheet against the innocent accused , who remained in judicial custody without any fault.” 52. This Court has put a query as to whether any action has been taken as per the direction passed by the learned trial court upon the erring officials who were assigned with the duty to conduct investigation pertaining to the instant case. 53. Learned counsel appearing for the State has assured that since the judgment impugned has been affirmed, now the State will act upon the direction passed by the learned trial court regarding the action which has been directed to be taken against the erring police personnel. 54. Accordingly, let the State proceed in view of the direction passed by the learned trial court against the erring police personnel. Saurabh/- A.F.R. (Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.) (Navneet Kumar, J.)
Arguments
8. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant has assailed the judgment of acquittal and submitted that the learned court below has failed to appreciate the evidence in its true perspective and has also not applied its judicial mind, passed order and made adverse remark on investigating agency only on the basis of wrong appreciation of statement of P.W.-6, the investigating officer, namely, Upendra Singh. 9. Further the learned trial court has also failed to appreciate that the charge which has been framed against the respondents has been seen to be not proved discarding the cardinal principle of proving the charge by taking together the testimony of ocular evidence and the other supportive evidences. 10. It has also been submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that the learned trial court has committed gross error in discarding the testimony of the informant eye witnesses i.e. P.W.-1 wherein specific allegations have been levelled against the respondents and all the other witnesses have consistently substantiated the prosecution story but in 5 complete disregard thereto the judgment of acquittal has been passed and as such the same since suffers from perversity, therefore, is not sustainable in the eyes of law and is fit to be quashed and set aside and the accused persons be convicted for the commission of offence under Sections 364A, 365, 386, 379 and 307 of the Indian Penal Code. 11. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents has submitted by defending the judgment of acquittal on the ground that the learned trial court is correct in coming to the conclusion that the prosecution has failed to establish the charge beyond all shadow of doubt and as such by taking into consideration the cardinal principle to prove a charge and to convict the perpetrator is to depend upon the proving of charge beyond all shadow of doubt and wherein by taking together the evidence of the witnesses, it will transpire that there is wide contradiction, as such, by taking into consideration these aspects of the matter if the learned trial court has come to conclusion that the prosecution has failed to establish the charge beyond all shadow of doubt, the same cannot be said to suffer from an error and as such the impugned judgment of acquittal does not require any interference. 12. The learned counsel appearing for the respondents on this ground has vehemently submitted that there is no error in the impugned judgment and as such the same may not be interfered with. 13. We have heard the rival submissions advanced on behalf of the learned counsel for the parties but before going into the legality and propriety of the impugned judgment of acquittal, deem it fit and proper to discuss about the testimony of the witnesses. 14. The prosecution has examined altogether 06 witnesses, namely, P.W.1 Dinesh Singh (informant), P.W.2 Rajesh Kumar Mandal, P.W.3 Chandrashekhar Singh (1st I.O.), P.W.4 Ankita Pridarsni (daughter of informant), P.W.5 Kumari Juli (wife of informant) and P.W.6 Upendra Singh (2nd I.O.). 15. P.W.1 Dinesh Singh informant of this case had deposed that he was called by Munna Tiwari by phone who asked him to come at his house Vikramsila Garhari Tola at about 12 p.m. and when this witness reached 6 there at about 1 p.m., where five to six persons were already present and he identified Chiku Choudhary, Muna Tiwari, Sonu Jha, Anu Singh and Rahul Sah. He further deposed in para-2 that suddenly Munna Tiwari said that where has he put crores of rupees, then he replied that he has no money, thereafter, all accused stood up and tied gamcha in his neck and pressed the throat due to which he became unconscious and blood started oozing from his mouth. When he got senses, then he found that his hands and legs were tied and all accused assaulted him and demand money. He further deposed that at about 6 a.m., they tide his mouth and brought to him to village-Pasana and by mobile phone Munna Tiwari talked to the wife of this witness and demanded Rs.50,00,000/- as ransom. It has further been deposed by the said witness in para-3 and 4 that on request the accused was brought at Godda and was made free from where he went to his house and thereafter lodged this case. He himself has written the informant petition marked as Exh.1. He identified Chiku Choudhary, Sonu Jha, Anu Singh, Bablu Tiwari. 16. He has stated in para 7 of the cross-examination that Annu Singh lodged case against him as Godda Town P.S. case no. 258/2020 but he does not know that the case is relating to cheque bounce but he took the bail from the court. In para-10 he deposed that he had given the paper of his treatment to the police and he further denied in para-11 that it is not true that he does not get treatment and no any occurrence of beating happened with him and the story of injuries is concocted. In para-13 he deposed that upto one months, he and his family members did not lodge complaint anywhere. 17. P.W.2 Rajesh Kr. Mandal who works as labour in the house of Dinesh Singh(informant). He deposed that on 07.08.2019 about 7 to 8 a.m. he came in Santi Nagar house of Dinesh Singh, the wife of Dinesh Singh was sitting on the roof and when he asked for work, then she asked him to return back and come tomorrow. Again, he came on 08.08.2019 at about 8.30 a.m. and met with Dinesh Singh on the roof, then he saw the injury on the eyes and face of Dinesh Singh and when he asked about the injuries then it was disclosed that Munna Tiwari kidnapped him and beaten him and demanded Rs.50 lakh as ransom. 7 18. During cross-examination in para-6 he denied that he is partner with Dinesh Singh in Unic Construction Company. In para-8 he accepted that Annu Singh lodged case against him and also denied that Annu Singh transferred money in his joint account with Dinesh Singh in United Bank of India, Branch Sahebganj. In para-11, he stated that he does not have any personal knowledge about the kidnapping of Dinesh Singh and he heard it only from Dinesh Singh. 19. P.W.3 Chandra Shekhar Singh, part I.O. of Godda Town P.S. Case No. 235/2019, who deposed in chief examination that the date of occurrence was 06.08.2019 and he had taken charge of investigation on 14.09.2019 and recorded the statement of Dinesh Singh in the concerned P.S. He further deposed that he went with the informant at the place of occurrence Vikramsila Laheri Tola and reached at about 21:45 p.m. Again on 15.09.2019 at about 8:30 in the morning, he proceeded towards the place of occurrence and reached there at about 9:15 a.m. and he found lock on the gate at the place of occurrence, where neighbour disclosed that Ashok Tiwari stayed here in the night with friends and adjacent to this a paternal house is there, in which his brother, father, sister and wife resided. He further deposed in para-4 that later on he went at the house of Dinesh Singh, Shanti Nagar ward no.15, where he recorded the statement of witness Kumari Juli, wife of informant, and Ankita Pradarsni daughter of informant. Later on, he also recorded the statement of Rajendra Mandal and no other independent witness was found there. He further deposed in para-7 that on 20.09.2019 informant Dinesh Singh, his wife Juli and daughter Pridarsni came at the concerned P.S. who were produced in the court for statement u/s 164 Cr.P.C. In para-11 he deposed that on 30.12.2019 he transferred from Godda town, so the charge of investigation was handed over to P.S. Incharge Godda town and he never met with any accused during the investigation, so cannot not identify any of them. 20. During cross-examination he deposed that on 06.08.2019, Dinesh Singh called Munna Tiwari at about 10.19 a.m. and talked for about 59 second. Again, Dinesh Singh called at 12:53 p.m. to Munna Tiwari and talked for about 11 second, and at that time, informant’s location was near the house of Munna Tiwari. On 06.08.2019 at about 13.21 p.m., the location 8 of informant and Munna Tiwari was in pathargama and again about 14:17 p.m., the location of both informant and Munna Tiwari was at Vikramsila. In para-15 he deposed that from seized mobile no any involvement found relating to occurrence and he never requested in the court for warrant and no notice issued to accused persons. In para-18 he disclosed that up to transfer since 20.09.2019, no any relevant evidence was found during investigation. 21. P.W.4 Ankita Pridarshni, is the daughter of the informant who deposed in chief examination that on 06.08.2019 about 2 p.m. she was present in the house at Shantinagar, Godda, when her father received a phone call and her father disclosed that Munna Tiwari called him and her father with one other person left the house in white colour vehicle and when her father did not return till 12 o’ clock in the night, then she called to Munna Tiwari about 12 in the night. Further, she deposed in para-3 that Munna Tiwari replied that he tried to find out and while waiting for his reply she slept in the night. She further deposed that she informed to all family members about her father. She further deposed in para-5 that at about 6:0 a.m. in the morning, Munna Tiwari informed her by phone that your father has been kidnapped and demanded Rs.50 lakh and when she asked about her father, he did not disclose about him. In para-6 she deposed that the contact number of Munna Tiwari was given by her father, when he left the house. She deposed in para-7 that when she heard that her father is kidnapped then she asked to talk with father, then after some time Munna Tiwari made his father available to talk with her, then her father stated that do comply as Munna Tiwari say, then she had given phone to her mother. However in para-8 she deposed that she did not disclose about the occurrence to her uncle, aunty, grandfather, grandmother, maternal grandfather and maternal grandmother but only disclosed to her mother, then mother disclosed to all family members. In para10 she identified the statement u/s 164 Cr.P.C. and her signature. In para-11 she disclosed that who is the accused in this case, she does not know. 22. During cross-examination in para 16 she deposed that she met with Abhay Manager in Xerox shop, when her father introduced her with Abhay Manager. In para-25 she denied the suggestion that her father 9 from the account of Unic Construction Company transferred Rs.25 lakh in her account on 05.09.2018. In para-27 she denied the suggestion that she knows about the Unic Construction Company. In para-31 she accepted that after the kidnapping of her father, Chiku Choudhary remain present near her house, then her father introduced to him. In para- 33 she stated that about the occurrence she deposed as her father disclosed to her and she does not know personally about the occurrence. 23. P.W.5 Kumari Juli wife of informant deposed in chief examination in para-1 that occurrence happened on 06.08.2019, she was present in the school and when returned in the evening about 4 p.m., then her daughter Ankita disclosed her that her father had gone with Munna Tiwari. She further deposed in para-2 that she made call to her husband but his phone was switched off. Next day in the morning, her daughter Ankita informed her by phone that Munna Tiwari was making call to her and also disclosed that father was kidnapped and Rs.50 lakh demanded as ransom. Further deposed in para-3 that she received call of Munna Tiwari and asked that where are Dinesh made available to talk, then talked with Dinesh. On 07.08.2019 Munna Tiwari disclosed that Dinesh was kidnapped, when asked, who kidnapped, then do not disclosed the name of kidnapper. Munna Tiwari only informed that Rs.50 lakh have to paid then Dinesh free from kidnapping. Witness further deposed in para- 6 that on 07.08.2019 about 8 p.m. in the night Dinesh found free outside her house and when he came inside the house she saw the swelling on the eye of Dinesh and injury on the hands and legs. When she asked how it happened, Dinesh did not disclose as he was very afraid and he slept. She identified her signature on the statement U/s 164 Cr.P.C. marked as Ext.3. In para-9 witness identified only two accused Amit Kr. Tiwari and Saurav Kr. Choudhary. 24. During cross-examination in para-13 she stated that she knows that Munna Tiwari has already been acquitted in this case. In para-15 she stated that her husband was businessman. 25. P.W.6 Upendra Singh second I.O. of this case deposed in chief examination that he had taken charge of the investigation from P.S. in- charge Ramakant Tiwari on 19.02.2020. In para-4 he deposed that on 10 30.04.2020 he submitted charge sheet no. 70/2020 against accused Annu Singh U/S 364A, 365,386,379,307,34 I.P.C. and continued to supplementary investigation. Further deposed in para-9 that on 08.02.2021 submitted charge sheet no. 27/21 U/S 364A, 365,386,379,307/34 I.P.C. against two named accused Abhay Kumar and Pappu Jha @ Rajiv Ranjan Jha. In para-10, he produced one seizure list regarding seized mobiles, which is exhibited as material Ext.-I, I/1, I/2, I/3. 26. During cross-examination in para-12 he stated that the theft vehicles not found then he given CIG to Superintendent of police for gazette publication which is mentioned in para-24 of Suppl. Case diary. He further stated in para-14 that seizure list in para-40 shows seized articles roller, Escort model no. E.C. 5250, engine no. 4H33281820297, which published in CIG dated 11.05.2021. He further stated in para-20 that he did not prepare the seizure list but only endorse in the diary and in para- 21 he accepted that Suppl. Diary is not in his writing and the suppl. Case diary dated 15.12.2020 para-92,93,94 and dated 06.12.2020 para-1,2, and 3 not in his writing and such paras was written by public person, whose name, he does not know. 27. He further stated in cross-examination para-22 that case diary dt.08.02.2021 para-49,50,51 and on dated 20.02.2021 para-1,2,3,4 are not in his writing and the said paragraphs has been written by whom, he did not remember the name of the said person, he did not remember the name. Again on 25.02.2020 para 119,120,121,122,123,124,125 is not in his writing, this is also written by public person, whose name he did not remember. In para 25 he has stated that he submitted charge sheet against Abhay Kumar, who surrender in the court and posted in Godda Bank at the time of occurrence. He further stated that Abhay Kumar does not involved in the case and no any evidence was found against Pappu Jha. It was further stated in para-29 that he does not record the statement of any witnesses during the investigation and there is no any eye witness in this case. In para-30 he stated that he did not try to know about the rle of other accused Saurav Kr. Choudhary, Chiku Choudhary, Sonu Jha, Pappu Jha, Annu Singh. During inquiry he found that they are living with Munna Tiwari , thereafter, submitted charge against these accused 11 persons but he had never seen those persons with Munna Tiwari. It is also stated in para-36 that it is true that there was no evidence against the accused but in the direction of Senior officer he submitted the false charge sheet against innocent accused and accused remain in judicial custody due to wrong investigation. 28. After taking into consideration the aforesaid deposition of the witnesses and before entering into merit of the case the power and jurisdiction of the appellate court under section 378 is required to referred herein. 29. An appellate court has full power to review, reappreciate and reconsider the evidence upon which the order of acquittal is founded and the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 puts no limitation, restriction or condition on exercise of such power and an appellate court on the evidence before it may reach its own conclusion, both on questions of fact and of law. 30. However, before the Appellate Court decides to interfere with a judgment of acquittal, it is required in law to record a finding that there are compelling reasons arising out of overlooking some vital evidence on the record that warrants interference with the judgment of acquittal. Reference in this regard may be taken from the judgment as rendered by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Chandrappa and Ors. v. State of Karnataka, (2007) 4 SCC 415 wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that even if two reasonable conclusions are possible on the basis of the evidence on record, the appellate court should not disturb the finding of acquittal recorded by the trial court. For ready reference the relevant paragraph of the aforesaid Judgment is being quoted as under: “42. From the above decisions, in our considered view, the following general principles regarding powers of the appellate court while dealing with an appeal against an order of acquittal emerge: (1) An appellate court has full power to review, reappreciate and reconsider the evidence upon which the order of acquittal is founded. (2) The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 puts no limitation, restriction or condition on exercise of such power and an appellate court on the evidence before it may reach its own conclusion, both on questions of fact and of law. (3) Various expressions, such as, “substantial and compelling reasons”, “good and sufficient grounds”, “very strong circumstances”, “distorted conclusions”, “glaring mistakes”, etc. are not intended to curtail extensive powers of an appellate court in an appeal against acquittal. Such phraseologies are more in the nature of “flourishes of language” to emphasise the reluctance of an appellate court to 12 interfere with acquittal than to curtail the power of the court to review the evidence and to come to its own conclusion. (4) An appellate court, however, must bear in mind that in case of acquittal, there is double presumption in favour of the accused. Firstly, the presumption of innocence is available to him under the fundamental principle of criminal jurisprudence that every person shall be presumed to be innocent unless he is proved guilty by a competent court of law. Secondly, the accused having secured his acquittal, the presumption of his innocence is further reinforced, reaffirmed and strengthened by the trial court.” (5) If two reasonable conclusions are possible on the basis of the evidence on record, the appellate court should not disturb the finding of acquittal recorded by the trial court.” 31. Similarly, the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Jaswant Singh v. State of Haryana (2000) 4 SCC 484 has observed that the principle to be followed by the appellate courts considering an appeal against an order of acquittal is to interfere only when there are "compelling and substantial reasons" for doing so. If the order is "clearly unreasonable" it is a compelling reason for interference. For ready reference the relevant paragraph of the aforesaid judgment is being quoted as under: "21. The principle to be followed by appellate courts considering an appeal against an order of acquittal is to interfere only when there are "compelling and substantial reasons" for doing so. If the order is "clearly unreasonable" it is a compelling reason for interference (Shivaji Sahabrao Bobade v. State of Maharashtra). The principle was elucidated in Ramesh Babulal Doshi v. State of Gujarat : (SCC p. 229, para 7) "While sitting in judgment over an acquittal the appellate court is first required to seek an answer to the question whether the findings of the trial court are palpably wrong, manifestly erroneous or demonstrably unsustainable. If the appellate court answers the above question in the negative the order of acquittal is not to be disturbed. Conversely, if the appellate court holds, for reasons to be recorded, that the order of acquittal cannot at all be sustained in view of any of the above infirmities it can then -- and then only-- reappraise the evidence to arrive at its own conclusions." 32. Now coming to the facts of the instant case and material available on the record it is evident that there was delay of more than one month in lodging the FIR of the alleged occurrence. 33. However, it is well settled proposition that the main object of the First Information Report is to set the criminal law in motion and the prosecution cannot be called upon to explain every hour of delay and a mere delay in lodging the First Information Report may not be a ground for rejecting the entire prosecution case, and there may be situations and circumstances which the prosecution may produce to explain delayed information to the police. 13 34. However, wherever a plea is taken by the defense that the delay in lodging a report with the police was on account of some oblique motive or the delay provided ample opportunity for the informant to concoct a false story, the Court is required to seek an explanation for the delay and carefully examine the truthfulness of the prosecution story. In the instant case in the cross-examination, the witnesses admitted such facts which completely demolished the informant’s excuse for lodging a First Information Report after about a month after his alleged abduction for ransom and attempt to murder him. 35. It is evident from the testimony of the informant victim who has been examined as P.W.1 that there is vital contradiction in his testimony which has also been taken into consideration by the learned trial court basing upon which the judgment of acquittal has been passed. 36. From perusal of testimony of the informant it is evident that there was no eye witness of the occurrence, when he was beaten by the accused persons and during the assault blood oozed out but police did not find any sign of beating and oozing the bloods at the place of occurrence. He had also stated that he has no complaint against Pappu Jha as he provided the food and water to him. 37. Further the appellant only alleged against Munna Tiwari, Chiku Choudhary, Sonu Jha that they assaulted him but no medical injury in support to the statement of this witness is available as such the statement of the informant does not appear as trustworthy in the absence of corroboration by the independent and circumstantial evidences. 38. From going through the testimony of P.W.2 wherein in para-11 he deposed that he does not have any personal knowledge about the kidnapping of the informant and he heard about the occurrence only from the informant himself. Since this witness is not an eyewitness and he had not specifically stated anything incriminating against the accused respondents therefore, the trial court has not placed much reliance on the testimony of this witness. 39. From testimony of P.W.3 who is the first investigating officer of the case, it appears that he had only seized four mobiles and an air gun from 14 the place of occurrence. However, he had deposed that these seized articles were not used in the alleged offence. In his testimony he had deposed that on the day of alleged occurrence i.e. 06.08.2019 Munna Tiwari had not made call to the informant but informant himself spoke to Munna Tiwari about 10 a.m. and 12 noon. Further the location of both the informant and Munna Tiwari found in Pathargama area and later on they returned to Vikramsila house, Godda. From the aforesaid facts the story of prosecution has not been supported by this witness. 40. P.W.4 who is the daughter of the informant had testified that she had informed about the alleged occurrence to the other family members who were present at the house, but from perusal of record it appears that no any other family members, grandfather, grandmother, uncle, aunty had come in the trial court as prosecution witness to substantiate the alleged occurrence. 41. From perusal of chief and cross-examination of P.W.5 (wife of the informant), it appears that informant (P.W.1) did not disclose about kidnapping to this witness but she learnt from her daughter that Munna Tiwari informed that he has kidnapped her father. The day of alleged occurrence was 06.08.2019 and case was lodged on 14.09.2019 and during the said period, she had continuously attended the school, where she was a teacher but she never disclosed the occurrence to the police or other relatives, as such, learned trial court has found the behaviour of this witness abnormal and therefore her testimony has not been relied upon by the trial court. 42. In the context of aforesaid fact, it is pertinent to mention here the settled proposition of law that if a witness professes to know about a gravely incriminating circumstance against the accused and the witness keeps mum for a considerable period regarding the said incriminating circumstance, his statement is bound to lose most of its value. Reference in this regard may be taken from the judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Kali Ram v. State of Himachal Pradesh reported in (1973) 2 SCC 808. Extract of the relevant paragraph, i.e., paragraph-14 is being reproduced as under: 15 “14. … If a witness professes to know about a gravely incriminating circumstance against a person accused of the offence of murder and the witness keeps silent for over two months regarding the said incriminating circumstance against the accused, his statement relating to the incriminating circumstance, in the absence of any cogent reason, is bound to lose most of its value. …” 43. In the instant case the trial court disbelieved the story of abduction of the informant who was examined as PW1. The trial court found that the accusations of abduction and torture for the ransom of Rs.50 lakh and the accused tying the hands, legs and mouth of the informant were not proved by producing cogent evidence. The trial court further found that the Investigating Officer did not seize rope or gamcha which was used in the alleged occurrence. From the perusal of the testimony of the I.O. Upendra Singh who has been examined as P.W.6 that he did not inquire or prepare seizure list of theft vehicles as alleged by the informant in the information petition, therefore it appears that the informant had alleged falsely against accused persons but the investigation has not been carved out in proper manner. 44. This Court, after having discussed the factual aspect with the legal position, has scrutinized the finding recorded by the learned trial court and found therefrom that thoughtful consideration has been given by scrutinizing the testimonies of P.W.1, P.W.4, P.W.5 and P.W.6 and other witnesses also which led the learned trial court not to have found that the prosecution has been able to prove the charges beyond all shadow of doubt and in that view of the matter, the judgment of acquittal has been passed.