S. M. MODAK, J.

1. We are dealing with two appeals filed by two kidnappers convicted by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Khamgaon, in Sessions Trial No. 99 of 2011. They have kidnapped Kalpesh Rajesh Rajore being the minor son of first informant, Rajesh Rajore, on 20th September, 2011 at Khamgaon, Dist. Buldana. There were ransom telephonic calls to the first informant demanding initially Rs. 5 crores for releasing the minor son, Kalpesh. After negotiations, it was reduced to Rs. 3 crores. While returning from a music class, these two appellants forced the kidnapped boy, Kalpesh, to sit on a motorbike. When the appellants realized that they are not going to succeed, they threw him into a well situated near Kanchan Hotel on Khamgaon-Shegaon Road, Khamgaon. The neighbours took out the boy on hearing his screams.

2. Immediately after receiving the ransom calls, the first informant approached the Khamgaon Police Station and police registered the offence. Through Shri Munna Purwar, it was told to first informant that the boy was found in the well. Police recorded his statement.

3. The police have arrested the convicted appellants and they were charge-sheeted and on completion of trial, they were convicted of the offences punishable under Sections 363, 364-A, 387 and 307 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code. They were imposed life imprisonment and a fine and other imprisonments. Now they have come before us.

4. We have heard learned Adv., Shri S.D. Chande and learned Adv. Shri S.P. Bhandarkar for the appellants and learned Additional Public Prosecutor, Shri Uke, argued for the State.

5. The prosecution examined twenty-two witnesses. On going through the record, we find that the police have tried to collect every piece of evidence including recording statements of the persons instrumental in taking out the boy Kalpesh, from the well. It includes recording of statement of the son of owner of the SIM Card which was used by the appellants for ransom calls. It includes seizure of two mobile handsets [out of them, handset of Nokia Company was used]. It includes collecting Call Details Report. It also includes recovery of adhesive tape. It further includes Test Identification Parade of both appellants.

6. On going through the record with the assistance of both the sides, one view, which came to our mind, is that the trial Court is right in convicting both the appellants. At the same time, another view came to our mind and i.e., whether it is probable that a minor boy, aged about eight years could survive when thrown into the well. Both the learned Advs., for the appellants have pointed out to us various lacunaes in the prosecution evidence.

7. It includes non-examination of mother of the kidnapped boy, of one Munna Purwar, of Yash Gandhi, the friend of the kidnapped boy. It also includes absence of major injuries on the person of the kidnapped boy. There is also challenge to the occupation of Rajesh PW-1 being father of the minor Kalpesh. He being the Editor of local newspaper and having closed contacts with the police, there is a suggestion of concocting of the case.

8. However, after going through the record very minutely, we do not find any substance in those objections. We feel that the trial Court was perfectly right in coming to the conclusion about kidnapping of minor Kalpesh and his recovery from a well by the neighbours. We also feel that the trial Court was fully justified in believing the reason of kidnap and that is for extracting the money from the first informant Rajesh. We also feel that the trial Court was perfectly right in holding both the appellants responsible for the act of kidnapping for ransom and for other connected acts. The objections pointed out on behalf of the appellants relating to non-examination of witnesses etc. are not so material, as to disbelieve the prosecution case thereby upsetting the