- (1.) THIS revision is at the instance of the de facto complainant, Tulsi Nayak who was examined before the trial Court as PW 17 and is against the acquittal of respondent -opp. party Nos. 2 -7.
(2.) THE respondent -opp. party Nos. 2 - 7 were tried under Section 364, 302, 201 read with Section 34 IPC and under Section 120B IPC. The case against the opp. party Nos. 2 -7 is that they kidnaped Ajay Kumar Rai @ Ajay Nayak, son of the petitioner, at 1.00 p.m. on 17.3.2001 and thereafter murdered him. The prosecution before the trial Court examined 21 witnesses, including the petitioner to prove the charges. The trial Court, on the evidence adduced, came to the conclusion that the prosecution did not succeed in establishing the charges the opp. party Nos. 2 -7 and therefore, acquitted all of them and aggrieved by the said judgment of acquittal, the present revision is filed.
(3.) ACCORDING to the prosecution, at about 1.00 p.m. on 17.3.2001, when the deceased, Ajay Kumar Rai @ Ajay Nayak, was in his house, one Bisheshwar Lohar werit there and the deceased went along with him. When the deceased did not return home till evening, his father, P.W. 17, who is the petitioner herein, searched for his son and he was informed by the mother of Bisheshwar Lohar that Bisheshwar Lohar had left for Calcutta. While matters stood thus, a lady belonging to the village found a dead body on 21.3.01 near a Garha drain on Dipratali Hill of Sirnidumar Jungle and the petitioner was informed, who (petitioner), on reaching the place and finding the body, identified it to be the body of his son. He also came to know from the villagers that his son was seen siting near the shop of Karim Mian till 3.30 p.m. on 17.3.2001. Thereafter he went and gave a complaint to P.W. 19, Assistant Sub -Inspector, mentioning the names of opp. party Nos. 3, 4, 5 and 7 saying that he suspected that his son must have been murdered by the above persons on account of prior enmity. Investigation was taken up and the body was sent for post mortem. Post mortem was conducted by PW 13, who issued Ext. 5, post mortem certificate. He (PW 13) was of the opinion that injury No. 4 was ante mortem in nature and it should have been caused by sharp cutting instrument. According to him, the cause of death might have been on account of injury No. 4. During the course of investigation, op. party Nos. 2 and 6 were arrested. The police Officer, PW 19, questioned them and accused - opp. party No. 2, Ravindra Rai, gave a statement, Ext. 2. His statement was recorded in the presence of witnesses. Later, a pair of chapped (MO 9) and one shirt (M.O. 10) were recovered from Daboiya Bandh and MO 2 to 8 were also recovered under the seizure list attested by PW 5 and PW 17. After completion of investigation, the final report was filed.;