State v. Rama Shankar and

Samrat Chandra Gupt Maurya @ Sushil, the son of first informant.

5. In respect of aforesaid occurrence, first informant Phool Singh, father of Samrat Chandra Gupt Maurya @ Sushil submitted a written report, Ext. Ka.- 1, at police station Kotwali, Districrt-Fatehpur.

6. On the basis of aforementioned written report, a check F.I.R. dated 06.07.2005 was prepared by P.W.-2, Constable Clerk Haridwar Singh, 2 NC413 No. 668 of 2025 Police Station-Kotwali, District-Fatehpur. The same was registered as Case Crime No. 196 of 2005, under Sections 147 and 364 IPC, Police Station- Kotwali District-Fatehpu. In the aforesaid F.I.R., 8 persons namely Ramashankar, Bhola, Puti @ Krishna Kumar, Ram Kishore, Kamlesh, Suneel, Dileep and Sudheer were nominated as the named accused.

7. the prosecution story as unfolded in the F.I.R has been noted by court below in paragraph-2 of the impugned judgement. Accordingly, the same is extracted herein-under:- "2- संक्षेप में अिभयोजन/वादी मुकदमा फू ल िसह के कथनानुसार वादी मुकदमा के 8 वषीर्य पुत्र का गांव के लोगों द्वारा योजनाबद्ध तरीके से अपहरण कराकर मेरे और मेरे पुत्र की हत्या का षडयन्त्र रचा गया है। घटना िदनांक 28.03.2005 को गांव में ही घिटत हुई तथा मेरे पुत्र सम्राट चन्द्र गुप्ता मौयर् उफर् सुशील को गांव के ही रमाशंकर व भोला तथा पूती तीनों लोग िमलकर राम िकशोर के दरवाजे ले जाकर घर के अन्दर बन्द कर िदया। बाद में दो अपरिचत व्यिक्तयों को जो मोटर साइिकलों से कहीं से आये उन्हें सौंप िदया क्योंिक उक्त लोग लांमबंध अपराधी िगरोह के है जो जुबान खोलने से डरते है। वादी मुकदमा ने काफी खोज बीन िकया। दो िदन बाद चौकी राधानगर में िलिखत सूचना दी और बाद में पूरे प्रकरण की जांच कर सूचना पुिलस अधीक्षक सिहत प्रशासन की उच्च अिधकािरयों को िदया। वादी मुकदमा ने स्पष्ट िकया िक उक्त अपहरण का उद्देश्य मेरे सम्पित्त हड़पने व मेरे पिरवार की हत्या के िलये कमलेश पुत्र सीताराम, सुनील व िदलीप के अलावा, राम िकशोर उनकी पत्नी मुन्नी पुत्री मधू व रामशंकर पुत्र वृन्दावन, भोला पुत्र रमाशंकर, अरुणा शंकर पुत्र रामशंकर, सुधीर पुत्र हरीमोहन, कृ ष्ण कु मार उफर् पूती पुत्र राम हषर् आिद लोगों के साथ गांव के ही 6 व 7 लोग और जुडे हैं। इन लोगों की सािजश का पिरणाम है िक इनकी िरश्तेदारी इछावर जनपद बांदा व इन्हीं लोगों के सगे संबंधी इस घटना में शािमल है और इनके बड़े िगरोह से सम्बन्ध हैं तथा वैध अवैध असलहों की भारी टीम है जो अन्तर जनपदीय अपराधों को अनजाम देकर बच िनकलते हैं। वादी मुकदमा ने उक्त अपरािधयों से बड़ी पू ंछतांछ की अपेक्षा की, परन्तु थाना पुिलस व इलाका पुिलस उक्त अपरािधयों से यू बात कर लौट आयी की मानव िकसी ितलक बारात से आयी हो, वादी मुकदमा के पुत्र की तत्काल बरामदगी न हुई तो िनश्चय ही उक्त लोग मेरे पुत्र की हत्या कर देंगे या मेरी हत्या कर देंगे, िजसमें कोतवाली व राधानगर पुिलस की सािजश मानी जाये। िजला पुिलस अधीक्षक को सशक्त िनदेर्श िदये जाने िक गैर थानाध्यक्ष को स्पेशल चाजर् वास्ते बरामदगी दी जाये तथा उक्त लोगों के प्रित दण्डात्मक कायर्वाही की जाये, अन्यथा जनपद पुिलस मुख्य को मुगालते में रखकर इंस्पेक्टर कोतवाली व चौकी राधानगर घटना करा बैठेंगे। अपनी कृ ित कायर्वाही से अवगत कराने की कृ पा करें। "

8. After aforementioned F.I.R. was lodged, Investigating Officer proceeded with statutory investigation of concerned case crime number in terms of Chapter XII Cr.P.C.

9. Subsequently, during the pendency of investigation of aforementioned 3 NC413 No. 668 of 2025 case crime number, the Superintendent of Police, Fatehpur passed an order whereby investigation of aforementioned case crime number was transferred to C.B.C.I.D. Allahabad Division, Allahabad. Subsequently, Inspector R. D. Singh was appointed as Investigating Officer.

10. After completion of investigation of aforementioned case crime number, the Investigation Officer came to the conclusion that no offence as complained of can be said to have been committed. Accordingly, Investigating Officer opined to submit a police report (final report) in terms of Section 173 (2) Cr.P.C. Resultantaly, Investigating Officer submitted the police report (final report) No. 60 of 2006 dated 25.06.2006.

11. After expiry of a period of more than one year, the first informant, Phool Singh filed a protest petition dated 27.08.2007 duly supported by an affidavit against aforementioned final report.

12. The Jurisdictional Magistrate treated aforementioned protest petition as a complaint. He accordingly, proceeded with the protest petition mentioned above as a complaint case. The statement of first informant/complainant i.e. appellant herein, was recorded under Section 200 Cr.P.C. followed by the statements of his witnesses namely P.W.-1, Chandra Prakash, P.W.-2 Smt. Rama Devi and P.W.-3, Rajkumar under Section 202 Cr.P.C.

13. Having undertaken the aforesaid exercise, the concerned Magistrate thereafter evaluated the allegations made in the protest petition in the light of the statements of the first informant and his witnesses. Having undertaken the aforesaid exercise, the concerned Magistrate, thereafter, recorded his prima-facie satisfaction on the protest petition. Resultantly, vide order dated

23.11.2008, the concerned Magistrate rejected the police report/final report dated 25.06.2006, took cognizance upon protest petition/complaint and summoned the accused Rama Shankar, Bhola and Puti @ Krishna Kumar under Section 364 I.P.C. whereas the accused, Ram Kishore, Kamlesh, Suneel, Dileep and Sudheer were summoned under Section 120B I.P.C.

14. Feeling aggrieved by the Cognizance Taking Order/Summoning Order dated 23.11.2008 passed by concerned Magistrate, the accused filed Criminal Revision No. 714 of 2009 (Kamlesh and others Vs. State of U.P. and others before High Court. The said revision came to be dismissed vide order dated 21.07.2011. For ready reference, the order dated 21.07.2011 is reproduced herein-below:- 4 NC413 No. 668 of 2025 "Rejoinder Affidavit filed today is taken on record. This revision has been filed by five revisionists against the order dated

23.11.2008 passed by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No. 11, Fatehpur summoning the revisionists for the offence under Section 120-B I.P.C. In brief, the facts of the case are that on the basis of First Information Report lodged by Phool Singh Maurya, a case under Sections 147 and 364 I.P.C. was registered at Crime No.196 of 2005. The case was investigated and a final report was submitted by the Investigating Officer in the court concerned. Not being satisfied with the final report, the Magistrate ordered for further investigation. The case was then investigated by the C.B. C.I.D. Thereafter, a final report was again submitted before the court. After submission of the final report, the complainant-Phool Singh Maurya lodged Protest Petition which was registered as a complaint case. The court proceeded to record the evidence of the complainant under Section 200 Cr.P.C. The court further recorded the statements of Chandra Prakash, Smt. Ramadevi and Raj Kumar under Section 202 Cr.P.C. The Magistrate after going through the evidence recorded under the aforesaid two Sections i.e. Section 200 and Section 202 Cr.P.C. found that a case under Section 364 I.P.C. is made out against the non-applicants Rama Shankar, Bhola & Puti alias Krishna Kumar and that a case under Section 120-B I.P.C. was prima-facie, made out against the revisionists i.e. Kamlesh Shukla, Sunil Kumar, Dilip alias Guddu, Ram Kishore and Sudhir. I have heard Shri G.P. Dixit and Shri P. Dixit, learned counsel for the revisionists, Shri S.K. Singh, learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 and the learned A.G.A. The learned counsel for the revisionists vehemently argued that the trial court has committed illegality in passing the impugned order as there is no evidence of conspiracy against the revisionists. His contention is that the statements of the complainant and the witnesses were recorded during investigation which are entirely contrary to the statements which have been given by them in the complaint case and, as such, no reliance could 5 NC413 No. 668 of 2025 be placed on them. It was also argued that in the investigation, no case was found against the revisionists. The trial court did not consider these facts and has summoned the revisionists on the basis of statements recorded under Sections 202 and 200 Cr.P.C. The learned A.G.A. and the learned counsel for the opposite party no.2, on the other hand, argued that the Magistrate has not committed any illegality or irregularity in passing the impugned order as the same is based on the evidence which was recorded by the Magistrate under Section 200 and Section 202 Cr.P.C. It was also argued that the Magistrate could not have gone through the statements which were recorded by the police or by the C.B.C.I.D. during investigation. It was only the evidence recorded under Sections 200 and 202 Cr.P.C. which could be looked into by the Magistrate and since the prima-facie offence was made out against the revisionists, the order of the Magistrate is fully justified and does not warrant any interference by this Revisional Court. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the respective arguments. The copy of the statement of the complainant- Phool Singh Maurya has not been filed along with the revision but there is a reference of that statement in the impugned order. A perusal of the impugned order clearly shows that the complainant-Phool Singh Maurya has categorically stated that on 28.3.2005 at about 10.00 am, the present revisionists as well as Rama Shankar, Bhola, Puti alias Krishna Kumar had come to the house of the complainant and kidnapped his son who was playing out-side the house. There is evidence of Chandra Prakash which is only against Rama Shankar, Bhola and Puti alias Krishna Kumar. The other witness Smt. Ramadevi has named Puti, Rama Shankar and Bhola and has stated that they were talking about the kidnapping of the son of the complainant and were also saying that the accused Ram Kishore was also involved in the kidnapping. Lastly, there is the statement of Raj Kumar who has stated that he had seen the kidnapped boy in the company of Sushil, Kamlesh, Mahendra, Guddu alias Dilip, Shiv Ram Madhu, Shiv Karan, Vijay Mishra, Aruna Shankar and Sudhir. 6 NC413 No. 668 of 2025 Thus, prima-facie, there is sufficient evidence against the revisionists for being summoned in the court. At the time of passing the impugned order, the Magistrate was not required to consider the statements which were recorded during investigation. He was required to consider the evidence what was recorded by him under Sections 200 and 202 Cr.P.C. So far the statements recorded during the investigations are concerned, the accused may take the benefit at the time of examination of witnesses. From the evidence, a case under Section 364 I.P.C. is made out against the revisionists as well but that can be considered by the court below while framing charges against the accused persons, if any. At present, I am satisfied that the Magistrate has not committed any illegality in passing the impugned order as to order is based on evidence which was recorded under sections 200 and 202 Cr.P.C. The revision is accordingly dismissed. Order Date :- 21.7.2011 "

15. The impugned judgement however surprisingly records that In compliance of above order dated 21.07.2011 passed by this Court, accused were summoned again by the concerned Magistrate. However, as offence complained of is triable exclusively by the Court of Sessions, therefore, the concerned Magistrate vide order dated 04.10.2012 committed the case to the Court of Sessions.

16. As a consequence of above, Sessions Trial No. 260 of 2012 (State Vs. Rama Shankar and 8 others) came to be registered in the court of concerned Sessions Judge. The concerned Sessions Judge proceeded with trial of accused. He, therefore, in compliance of Section 228 Cr.P.C. framed charges against accused vide Framing of Charge Order dated 27.02.2015.

17. The accused denied the charges so framed, further pleaded innocence and not guilty. They further demanded trial. As a result, the trial procedure commenced.

18. Prosecution in discharge of it's burden to bring home the charges so framed, has adduced two prosecution witnesses:- 7 NC413 No. 668 of 2025 (i). PW-1, Phool Singh( complainantt) (ii). PW-2, Haridwar Singh (Constable Clerk)

19. Apart from relying upon the depositions of aforementioned prosecution witnesses, prosecution also relied upon documentary evidence. The same is tabulated herein-below: (i). Ext-Ka-1 Written Report proved by P.W.1, Phool Singh. (ii). Ext-Ka-2 Objection proved by P.W.1, Phool Singh. (iii) Ext. Ka.-3, an affidavit proved by P.W.1, Phool Singh. (iv). Ext-Ka-4, Check F.I.R. proved by P.W.-2, Haridwar Singh (Constable Clerk).

20. After the prosecution evidence was over, all the adverse/incriminating circumstances relied upon by the prosecution were disclosed to the accused in question answer form for their version of the occurrence as per the mandate of Section 313 Cr.P.C. The accused denied all the suggestions put to them by repeatedly saying that it is false or they have been falsely implicated or the prosecution case is false or the deposition of P.W.-1 itself is false.

21. Court below after considering the material on record as well as oral and documentary evidence came to the conclusion that the only question involved in the trial is; Whether the prosecution has been able to establish the charges framed against accused beyond doubt or not?

22. In order to answer the point of determination so framed, court below examined the deposition of P.W.-1 threadbare. Same is explicit from the discussion occurring in paragraphs 9 and 24 of the impugned judgement wherein court below has dealt with the deposition of P.W.-1. Upon evaluation of the statement-in-chief and examination-in-chief of P.W.-1, Phool Singh, court below has deduced that while P.W.-1 in his statement-in- chief has stated that he has witnessed the occurrence i.e. his son being abducted/kidnapped by the accused, however, in his examination-in-chief, this witness has stated that ten minutes before the occurrence, he had left for Head Post-Office, Fatehpur. Court below thus concluded that since the first informant is not an eye witness of the occurrence, therefore, no credence can 8 NC413 No. 668 of 2025 be attached to his deposition as it is based upon hearsay.

23. Having recorded the aforesaid finding, Court below further observed that since no other prosecution witness of fact has been produced to establish the guilt of accused, the prosecution has measurably failed to prove the very story, which is set out to prove. In view of above, court below by means of impugned judgement dated 29.08.2025 acquitted the accused/opposite parties 2 to 9 of the charges framed against them.

24. Thus feeling aggrieved by the impugned judgement dated 29.08.2025, passed by Additional Sessions Judge/ F.T.C. Court No.2, Fatehpur, appellant, who is the first informant, has now approached this Court by means of aforementioned criminal appeal.

25. Mr. Sharad Kumar Srivastava, the learned counsel for appellant in challenge to the impugned judgement passed by court below submits that the impugned judgement passed by court below is manifestly illegal and therefore liable to be set aside by this Court. According to the learned counsel for appellant, since the first informant i.e. P.W.-1, Phool Singh, who is father of the deceased, has fully supported the prosecution case in his deposition before court below and further considering the fact that the young boy of the first informant had been kidnapped/abducted, therefore, court below has erred in law and fact by disbelieving the prosecution case. Since the missing son of the first informant has not yet been recovered, therefore, court below ought to have examined the prosecution case with sensitivity in view of the nature of offence. However, court below upon a mechanical approach has acquitted all the accused of the charges levelled against them. On the above conspectus, the learned counsel for appellant would thus submit that the impugned judgement is illegal, arbitrary and perverse. As such, same is liable to be set aside by this Court.

26. Per contra, Mr. Pankaj Srivastava, the learned A.G.A. Ist assisted by Mr. Vishnu Kumar, the learned A.G.A. representing State -opposite party-1 has vehemently opposed the present appeal. He submits that the impugned judgement passed by court below is perfectly just and legal. No perversity can be attached to the impugned judgement inasmuch as court below has neither ignored any material piece of evidence nor has it misconstrued any vital evidence. The conclusion drawn by court below commensurates with the weight of evidence on record. P.W.-1, Phool Singh, is the solitary 9 NC413 No. 668 of 2025 prosecution witness of fact, produced by the prosecution before court below. This witness is not only the first informant/complainant of the case but also the father of the child, who is alleged to have been kidnapped/abducted namely Samrat Chandra Gupt Maurya @ Sushil. Though this witness in his statement-in-chief has supported the F.I.R. by alleging himself to be an eye witness of the occurrence of kidnapping/abduction of his son, however, upon suggestions being put to him in his examination-in-chief, he very clearly stated that just 10 minutes before the occurrence, he had left for the Head Post-Office, Fatehpur. As such, as per the statement of P.W.-1 himself, he was not present at the time and place of occurrence. Therefore, by reason of above, P.W.-1 is not an eye witness of the occurrence. No conviction of an accused can be passed on the basis of hearsay evidence. As no other prosecution witness of fact was adduced by the prosecution in support of it's case more particularly the three witnesses, who had been adduced by the prosecution for getting their statements recorded under Sections 202 Cr.P.C. were also not produced by the prosecution before court below, no illegality can be attached to the impugned judgement passed by court below. On the above conspectus, the learned A.G.A. has reiterated his submission that court below has neither committed any illegality or perversity in passing the impugned judgement. As such, the present appeal is liable to be dismissed.

27. Having heard the learned counsel for appellant, the learned A.G.A for State-opposite party-1 and upon perusal of the impugned judgement we raised a pointed query to the learned counsel for appellant as to how the impugned judgement is wrong or perverse inasmuch as the solitary witness adduced by the prosecution was not found to be an eye witness of the occurrence. Furthermore, as no conviction can be passed on hearsay evidence, therefore, what illegality had been committed by court below in passing the impugned judgement.

28. In answer to the above query, the learned counsel for appellant only reiterated the rhetoric earlier urged by him as noted in the preceding part of this judgement.

29. Being aware of the fact that a Court of appeal is the last Court of fact and the task of the Appellate Court is not to find out any perversity in the impugned judgement but to decide whether as per evidence on record the conclusion drawn by court below is sustainable or not. 10 NC413 No. 668 of 2025

30. In the light of above, we have examined the deposition of P.W.-1 as dealt with by court below in paragraphs 9 and 24 of the impugned judgement. However, we could not come a cross any such fact on the basis of which, the conclusion drawn by court below that P.W.-1 is not an eye witness of the occurrence can be said to be perverse. In view of above, the conclusion drawn by court below is the only conclusion, which could be drawn in the facts and circumstances of the case. As such, court below has neither committed any illegality or perversity in passing the impugned judgement of acquittal in favour of accused i.e. opposite parties 2 to 9.

31. For all the reasons noted above, the inescapable conclusion is that prosecution has failed to establish the very story, which is set out to prove and therefore, accused i.e opposite parties 2 to 9 have been rightly acquitted by court below.

32. In view of the discussions made above, the present appeal fails and is liable to be dismissed.

33. It is accordingly dismissed.. November 25, 2025 YK (Dr. Ajay Kumar-II,J.) (Rajeev Misra,J.)

Samrat Chandra Gupt Maurya @ Sushil, the son of first informant.

5. In respect of aforesaid occurrence, first informant Phool Singh, father of Samrat Chandra Gupt Maurya @ Sushil submitted a written report, Ext. Ka.- 1, at police station Kotwali, Districrt-Fatehpur.

6. On the basis of aforementioned written report, a check F.I.R. dated 06.07.2005 was prepared by P.W.-2, Constable Clerk Haridwar Singh, 2 NC413 No. 668 of 2025 Police Station-Kotwali, District-Fatehpur. The same was registered as Case Crime No. 196 of 2005, under Sections 147 and 364 IPC, Police Station- Kotwali District-Fatehpu. In the aforesaid F.I.R., 8 persons namely Ramashankar, Bhola, Puti @ Krishna Kumar, Ram Kishore, Kamlesh, Suneel, Dileep and Sudheer were nominated as the named accused.

7. the prosecution story as unfolded in the F.I.R has been noted by court below in paragraph-2 of the impugned judgement. Accordingly, the same is extracted herein-under:- "2- संक्षेप में अिभयोजन/वादी मुकदमा फू ल िसह के कथनानुसार वादी मुकदमा के 8 वषीर्य पुत्र का गांव के लोगों द्वारा योजनाबद्ध तरीके से अपहरण कराकर मेरे और मेरे पुत्र की हत्या का षडयन्त्र रचा गया है। घटना िदनांक 28.03.2005 को गांव में ही घिटत हुई तथा मेरे पुत्र सम्राट चन्द्र गुप्ता मौयर् उफर् सुशील को गांव के ही रमाशंकर व भोला तथा पूती तीनों लोग िमलकर राम िकशोर के दरवाजे ले जाकर घर के अन्दर बन्द कर िदया। बाद में दो अपरिचत व्यिक्तयों को जो मोटर साइिकलों से कहीं से आये उन्हें सौंप िदया क्योंिक उक्त लोग लांमबंध अपराधी िगरोह के है जो जुबान खोलने से डरते है। वादी मुकदमा ने काफी खोज बीन िकया। दो िदन बाद चौकी राधानगर में िलिखत सूचना दी और बाद में पूरे प्रकरण की जांच कर सूचना पुिलस अधीक्षक सिहत प्रशासन की उच्च अिधकािरयों को िदया। वादी मुकदमा ने स्पष्ट िकया िक उक्त अपहरण का उद्देश्य मेरे सम्पित्त हड़पने व मेरे पिरवार की हत्या के िलये कमलेश पुत्र सीताराम, सुनील व िदलीप के अलावा, राम िकशोर उनकी पत्नी मुन्नी पुत्री मधू व रामशंकर पुत्र वृन्दावन, भोला पुत्र रमाशंकर, अरुणा शंकर पुत्र रामशंकर, सुधीर पुत्र हरीमोहन, कृ ष्ण कु मार उफर् पूती पुत्र राम हषर् आिद लोगों के साथ गांव के ही 6 व 7 लोग और जुडे हैं। इन लोगों की सािजश का पिरणाम है िक इनकी िरश्तेदारी इछावर जनपद बांदा व इन्हीं लोगों के सगे संबंधी इस घटना में शािमल है और इनके बड़े िगरोह से सम्बन्ध हैं तथा वैध अवैध असलहों की भारी टीम है जो अन्तर जनपदीय अपराधों को अनजाम देकर बच िनकलते हैं। वादी मुकदमा ने उक्त अपरािधयों से बड़ी पू ंछतांछ की अपेक्षा की, परन्तु थाना पुिलस व इलाका पुिलस उक्त अपरािधयों से यू बात कर लौट आयी की मानव िकसी ितलक बारात से आयी हो, वादी मुकदमा के पुत्र की तत्काल बरामदगी न हुई तो िनश्चय ही उक्त लोग मेरे पुत्र की हत्या कर देंगे या मेरी हत्या कर देंगे, िजसमें कोतवाली व राधानगर पुिलस की सािजश मानी जाये। िजला पुिलस अधीक्षक को सशक्त िनदेर्श िदये जाने िक गैर थानाध्यक्ष को स्पेशल चाजर् वास्ते बरामदगी दी जाये तथा उक्त लोगों के प्रित दण्डात्मक कायर्वाही की जाये, अन्यथा जनपद पुिलस मुख्य को मुगालते में रखकर इंस्पेक्टर कोतवाली व चौकी राधानगर घटना करा बैठेंगे। अपनी कृ ित कायर्वाही से अवगत कराने की कृ पा करें। "

8. After aforementioned F.I.R. was lodged, Investigating Officer proceeded with statutory investigation of concerned case crime number in terms of Chapter XII Cr.P.C.

9. Subsequently, during the pendency of investigation of aforementioned 3 NC413 No. 668 of 2025 case crime number, the Superintendent of Police, Fatehpur passed an order whereby investigation of aforementioned case crime number was transferred to C.B.C.I.D. Allahabad Division, Allahabad. Subsequently, Inspector R. D. Singh was appointed as Investigating Officer.

10. After completion of investigation of aforementioned case crime number, the Investigation Officer came to the conclusion that no offence as complained of can be said to have been committed. Accordingly, Investigating Officer opined to submit a police report (final report) in terms of Section 173 (2) Cr.P.C. Resultantaly, Investigating Officer submitted the police report (final report) No. 60 of 2006 dated 25.06.2006.

11. After expiry of a period of more than one year, the first informant, Phool Singh filed a protest petition dated 27.08.2007 duly supported by an affidavit against aforementioned final report.

12. The Jurisdictional Magistrate treated aforementioned protest petition as a complaint. He accordingly, proceeded with the protest petition mentioned above as a complaint case. The statement of first informant/complainant i.e. appellant herein, was recorded under Section 200 Cr.P.C. followed by the statements of his witnesses namely P.W.-1, Chandra Prakash, P.W.-2 Smt. Rama Devi and P.W.-3, Rajkumar under Section 202 Cr.P.C.

13. Having undertaken the aforesaid exercise, the concerned Magistrate thereafter evaluated the allegations made in the protest petition in the light of the statements of the first informant and his witnesses. Having undertaken the aforesaid exercise, the concerned Magistrate, thereafter, recorded his prima-facie satisfaction on the protest petition. Resultantly, vide order dated

23.11.2008, the concerned Magistrate rejected the police report/final report dated 25.06.2006, took cognizance upon protest petition/complaint and summoned the accused Rama Shankar, Bhola and Puti @ Krishna Kumar under Section 364 I.P.C. whereas the accused, Ram Kishore, Kamlesh, Suneel, Dileep and Sudheer were summoned under Section 120B I.P.C.

14. Feeling aggrieved by the Cognizance Taking Order/Summoning Order dated 23.11.2008 passed by concerned Magistrate, the accused filed Criminal Revision No. 714 of 2009 (Kamlesh and others Vs. State of U.P. and others before High Court. The said revision came to be dismissed vide order dated 21.07.2011. For ready reference, the order dated 21.07.2011 is reproduced herein-below:- 4 NC413 No. 668 of 2025 "Rejoinder Affidavit filed today is taken on record. This revision has been filed by five revisionists against the order dated

23.11.2008 passed by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No. 11, Fatehpur summoning the revisionists for the offence under Section 120-B I.P.C. In brief, the facts of the case are that on the basis of First Information Report lodged by Phool Singh Maurya, a case under Sections 147 and 364 I.P.C. was registered at Crime No.196 of 2005. The case was investigated and a final report was submitted by the Investigating Officer in the court concerned. Not being satisfied with the final report, the Magistrate ordered for further investigation. The case was then investigated by the C.B. C.I.D. Thereafter, a final report was again submitted before the court. After submission of the final report, the complainant-Phool Singh Maurya lodged Protest Petition which was registered as a complaint case. The court proceeded to record the evidence of the complainant under Section 200 Cr.P.C. The court further recorded the statements of Chandra Prakash, Smt. Ramadevi and Raj Kumar under Section 202 Cr.P.C. The Magistrate after going through the evidence recorded under the aforesaid two Sections i.e. Section 200 and Section 202 Cr.P.C. found that a case under Section 364 I.P.C. is made out against the non-applicants Rama Shankar, Bhola & Puti alias Krishna Kumar and that a case under Section 120-B I.P.C. was prima-facie, made out against the revisionists i.e. Kamlesh Shukla, Sunil Kumar, Dilip alias Guddu, Ram Kishore and Sudhir. I have heard Shri G.P. Dixit and Shri P. Dixit, learned counsel for the revisionists, Shri S.K. Singh, learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 and the learned A.G.A. The learned counsel for the revisionists vehemently argued that the trial court has committed illegality in passing the impugned order as there is no evidence of conspiracy against the revisionists. His contention is that the statements of the complainant and the witnesses were recorded during investigation which are entirely contrary to the statements which have been given by them in the complaint case and, as such, no reliance could 5 NC413 No. 668 of 2025 be placed on them. It was also argued that in the investigation, no case was found against the revisionists. The trial court did not consider these facts and has summoned the revisionists on the basis of statements recorded under Sections 202 and 200 Cr.P.C. The learned A.G.A. and the learned counsel for the opposite party no.2, on the other hand, argued that the Magistrate has not committed any illegality or irregularity in passing the impugned order as the same is based on the evidence which was recorded by the Magistrate under Section 200 and Section 202 Cr.P.C. It was also argued that the Magistrate could not have gone through the statements which were recorded by the police or by the C.B.C.I.D. during investigation. It was only the evidence recorded under Sections 200 and 202 Cr.P.C. which could be looked into by the Magistrate and since the prima-facie offence was made out against the revisionists, the order of the Magistrate is fully justified and does not warrant any interference by this Revisional Court. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the respective arguments. The copy of the statement of the complainant- Phool Singh Maurya has not been filed along with the revision but there is a reference of that statement in the impugned order. A perusal of the impugned order clearly shows that the complainant-Phool Singh Maurya has categorically stated that on 28.3.2005 at about 10.00 am, the present revisionists as well as Rama Shankar, Bhola, Puti alias Krishna Kumar had come to the house of the complainant and kidnapped his son who was playing out-side the house. There is evidence of Chandra Prakash which is only against Rama Shankar, Bhola and Puti alias Krishna Kumar. The other witness Smt. Ramadevi has named Puti, Rama Shankar and Bhola and has stated that they were talking about the kidnapping of the son of the complainant and were also saying that the accused Ram Kishore was also involved in the kidnapping. Lastly, there is the statement of Raj Kumar who has stated that he had seen the kidnapped boy in the company of Sushil, Kamlesh, Mahendra, Guddu alias Dilip, Shiv Ram Madhu, Shiv Karan, Vijay Mishra, Aruna Shankar and Sudhir. 6 NC413 No. 668 of 2025 Thus, prima-facie, there is sufficient evidence against the revisionists for being summoned in the court. At the time of passing the impugned order, the Magistrate was not required to consider the statements which were recorded during investigation. He was required to consider the evidence what was recorded by him under Sections 200 and 202 Cr.P.C. So far the statements recorded during the investigations are concerned, the accused may take the benefit at the time of examination of witnesses. From the evidence, a case under Section 364 I.P.C. is made out against the revisionists as well but that can be considered by the court below while framing charges against the accused persons, if any. At present, I am satisfied that the Magistrate has not committed any illegality in passing the impugned order as to order is based on evidence which was recorded under sections 200 and 202 Cr.P.C. The revision is accordingly dismissed. Order Date :- 21.7.2011 "

15. The impugned judgement however surprisingly records that In compliance of above order dated 21.07.2011 passed by this Court, accused were summoned again by the concerned Magistrate. However, as offence complained of is triable exclusively by the Court of Sessions, therefore, the concerned Magistrate vide order dated 04.10.2012 committed the case to the Court of Sessions.

16. As a consequence of above, Sessions Trial No. 260 of 2012 (State Vs. Rama Shankar and 8 others) came to be registered in the court of concerned Sessions Judge. The concerned Sessions Judge proceeded with trial of accused. He, therefore, in compliance of Section 228 Cr.P.C. framed charges against accused vide Framing of Charge Order dated 27.02.2015.

17. The accused denied the charges so framed, further pleaded innocence and not guilty. They further demanded trial. As a result, the trial procedure commenced.

18. Prosecution in discharge of it's burden to bring home the charges so framed, has adduced two prosecution witnesses:- 7 NC413 No. 668 of 2025 (i). PW-1, Phool Singh( complainantt) (ii). PW-2, Haridwar Singh (Constable Clerk)

19. Apart from relying upon the depositions of aforementioned prosecution witnesses, prosecution also relied upon documentary evidence. The same is tabulated herein-below: (i). Ext-Ka-1 Written Report proved by P.W.1, Phool Singh. (ii). Ext-Ka-2 Objection proved by P.W.1, Phool Singh. (iii) Ext. Ka.-3, an affidavit proved by P.W.1, Phool Singh. (iv). Ext-Ka-4, Check F.I.R. proved by P.W.-2, Haridwar Singh (Constable Clerk).

20. After the prosecution evidence was over, all the adverse/incriminating circumstances relied upon by the prosecution were disclosed to the accused in question answer form for their version of the occurrence as per the mandate of Section 313 Cr.P.C. The accused denied all the suggestions put to them by repeatedly saying that it is false or they have been falsely implicated or the prosecution case is false or the deposition of P.W.-1 itself is false.

21. Court below after considering the material on record as well as oral and documentary evidence came to the conclusion that the only question involved in the trial is; Whether the prosecution has been able to establish the charges framed against accused beyond doubt or not?

22. In order to answer the point of determination so framed, court below examined the deposition of P.W.-1 threadbare. Same is explicit from the discussion occurring in paragraphs 9 and 24 of the impugned judgement wherein court below has dealt with the deposition of P.W.-1. Upon evaluation of the statement-in-chief and examination-in-chief of P.W.-1, Phool Singh, court below has deduced that while P.W.-1 in his statement-in- chief has stated that he has witnessed the occurrence i.e. his son being abducted/kidnapped by the accused, however, in his examination-in-chief, this witness has stated that ten minutes before the occurrence, he had left for Head Post-Office, Fatehpur. Court below thus concluded that since the first informant is not an eye witness of the occurrence, therefore, no credence can 8 NC413 No. 668 of 2025 be attached to his deposition as it is based upon hearsay.

23. Having recorded the aforesaid finding, Court below further observed that since no other prosecution witness of fact has been produced to establish the guilt of accused, the prosecution has measurably failed to prove the very story, which is set out to prove. In view of above, court below by means of impugned judgement dated 29.08.2025 acquitted the accused/opposite parties 2 to 9 of the charges framed against them.

24. Thus feeling aggrieved by the impugned judgement dated 29.08.2025, passed by Additional Sessions Judge/ F.T.C. Court No.2, Fatehpur, appellant, who is the first informant, has now approached this Court by means of aforementioned criminal appeal.

25. Mr. Sharad Kumar Srivastava, the learned counsel for appellant in challenge to the impugned judgement passed by court below submits that the impugned judgement passed by court below is manifestly illegal and therefore liable to be set aside by this Court. According to the learned counsel for appellant, since the first informant i.e. P.W.-1, Phool Singh, who is father of the deceased, has fully supported the prosecution case in his deposition before court below and further considering the fact that the young boy of the first informant had been kidnapped/abducted, therefore, court below has erred in law and fact by disbelieving the prosecution case. Since the missing son of the first informant has not yet been recovered, therefore, court below ought to have examined the prosecution case with sensitivity in view of the nature of offence. However, court below upon a mechanical approach has acquitted all the accused of the charges levelled against them. On the above conspectus, the learned counsel for appellant would thus submit that the impugned judgement is illegal, arbitrary and perverse. As such, same is liable to be set aside by this Court.

26. Per contra, Mr. Pankaj Srivastava, the learned A.G.A. Ist assisted by Mr. Vishnu Kumar, the learned A.G.A. representing State -opposite party-1 has vehemently opposed the present appeal. He submits that the impugned judgement passed by court below is perfectly just and legal. No perversity can be attached to the impugned judgement inasmuch as court below has neither ignored any material piece of evidence nor has it misconstrued any vital evidence. The conclusion drawn by court below commensurates with the weight of evidence on record. P.W.-1, Phool Singh, is the solitary 9 NC413 No. 668 of 2025 prosecution witness of fact, produced by the prosecution before court below. This witness is not only the first informant/complainant of the case but also the father of the child, who is alleged to have been kidnapped/abducted namely Samrat Chandra Gupt Maurya @ Sushil. Though this witness in his statement-in-chief has supported the F.I.R. by alleging himself to be an eye witness of the occurrence of kidnapping/abduction of his son, however, upon suggestions being put to him in his examination-in-chief, he very clearly stated that just 10 minutes before the occurrence, he had left for the Head Post-Office, Fatehpur. As such, as per the statement of P.W.-1 himself, he was not present at the time and place of occurrence. Therefore, by reason of above, P.W.-1 is not an eye witness of the occurrence. No conviction of an accused can be passed on the basis of hearsay evidence. As no other prosecution witness of fact was adduced by the prosecution in support of it's case more particularly the three witnesses, who had been adduced by the prosecution for getting their statements recorded under Sections 202 Cr.P.C. were also not produced by the prosecution before court below, no illegality can be attached to the impugned judgement passed by court below. On the above conspectus, the learned A.G.A. has reiterated his submission that court below has neither committed any illegality or perversity in passing the impugned judgement. As such, the present appeal is liable to be dismissed.

27. Having heard the learned counsel for appellant, the learned A.G.A for State-opposite party-1 and upon perusal of the impugned judgement we raised a pointed query to the learned counsel for appellant as to how the impugned judgement is wrong or perverse inasmuch as the solitary witness adduced by the prosecution was not found to be an eye witness of the occurrence. Furthermore, as no conviction can be passed on hearsay evidence, therefore, what illegality had been committed by court below in passing the impugned judgement.

28. In answer to the above query, the learned counsel for appellant only reiterated the rhetoric earlier urged by him as noted in the preceding part of this judgement.

29. Being aware of the fact that a Court of appeal is the last Court of fact and the task of the Appellate Court is not to find out any perversity in the impugned judgement but to decide whether as per evidence on record the conclusion drawn by court below is sustainable or not. 10 NC413 No. 668 of 2025

30. In the light of above, we have examined the deposition of P.W.-1 as dealt with by court below in paragraphs 9 and 24 of the impugned judgement. However, we could not come a cross any such fact on the basis of which, the conclusion drawn by court below that P.W.-1 is not an eye witness of the occurrence can be said to be perverse. In view of above, the conclusion drawn by court below is the only conclusion, which could be drawn in the facts and circumstances of the case. As such, court below has neither committed any illegality or perversity in passing the impugned judgement of acquittal in favour of accused i.e. opposite parties 2 to 9.

31. For all the reasons noted above, the inescapable conclusion is that prosecution has failed to establish the very story, which is set out to prove and therefore, accused i.e opposite parties 2 to 9 have been rightly acquitted by court below.

32. In view of the discussions made above, the present appeal fails and is liable to be dismissed.

33. It is accordingly dismissed.. November 25, 2025 YK (Dr. Ajay Kumar-II,J.) (Rajeev Misra,J.)