Ashutosh Kumar, J.—Heard Mr. Uma Shankar Prasad, learned senior Advocate assisted by Mr. Kamla Kant Tiwary, learned Advocate for the sole appellant and Ms. Shashi Bala Verma, for the State.

2. The appellant has been charged with kidnapping Uma Kant Kumar, the victim who has been examined as PW 4 in this case. PW 4 remained in confinement for about ten days and was recovered by Nepali Police and handed over to the father of PW 4 namely Daya Nand Mahto (PW 3) before the Court.

3. The appellant was charge-sheeted along with another person who never faced trial. The charge-sheet also named other persons who were shown as absconders and who have not yet surrendered to the process of law leaving the appellant only to be tried.

4. It may be relevant here to be noted that the appellant also did not surrender himself to the process of law even though he was named in the FIR. He surrendered much later after the submission of chargesheet and he having been declared an absconder.

5. Be that as it may, the Trial Court, after examining eight witnesses on behalf of the prosecution and none on behalf of the defense, convicted the appellant under Section 364 (A) of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life, to pay a fine of Rs. 20,000/- and in default of payment of fine, to further suffer rigorous imprisonment for six months.

6. The FIR was lodged by the father of the victim namely Daya Nand Mahto on 17.01.2010 alleging that the appellant had come to his house on 14.01.2010 and had conversed with his son (victim) and had gone out of the house. He came back again on 15.01.2010 and took away his son on some pretext or the other whereafter the son of the Informant was not to be traced. Two days later, after having waited for his son to arrive, the subject FIR was registered under Section 365 of the Indian Penal Code.

7. In the aforenoted FIR, the factum of the appellant having come to the house of the informant and having talked to the victim on 14.01.2010 has been specifically stated. That the appellant came on 15.01.2010 to take away the son of the Informant has also been specifically mentioned in the aforesaid FIR. The Informant has further stated that he called the appellant on his mobile telephone number but, the same was always found to be switched off. Thus, a request was made to the police authorities to recover his missing son.

8. On the basis of the aforenoted written report, Sitamarhi P.S. Case No. 28 of 2010 dated 17.01.2010 was registered for investigation for offence under Section 365 of the IPC.

9. The police, during the course of investigation could not get any clue and the appellant could not be arrested.

10. The appellant all this while was found missing from his house.

11. After about ten days i.e. on 25.01.2010, the victim was recovered from a village in Nepal at the instance of Nepali Police and four other persons were also arrested who were heavily armed and were keeping a vigil on the victim. None of those persons have been extradited for facing trial in India. The victim as noted above was brought to India by the Nepali Police and handed over to PW-3.

12. The mother of the victim namely Ram Kumari Devi (PW 1) has deposed before the trial court that the appellant had visited her house on 14.01.2010 and thereafter, on 15.01.2010 along with another when he took away her son. She learnt from her husband (PW 3) that there was a ransom call for Rs. 50 lakhs and a threatening that if such amount is not paid up, the victim would be killed. She however has narrated before the trial court that the victim was taken away while he was playing in the campus, which statement is substantially different from the First Information Report where her husband had stated that the victim was taken away by the appellant from his house.

13. Similar statement has been made by the elder brother of the victim namely Mahakant Kumar (PW 2). He had also testified to the fact of the visit of the appellant to his house on two da