IMPORTANT POINT
The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for the prosecution to provide sufficient and credible evidence to establish a case beyond a reasonable doubt.

JUDGMENT :

Ashutosh Kumar, J.

1. Both the appeals have been heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment.

2. Heard Mr. Dilip Kumar Tandon, the learned Advocate for the appellants and Mr. Sujit Kumar, the learned APP for the State.

3. The appellants have been convicted under Sections 363, 364, 364A and 120 (B) of the Indian Penal Code and have been sentenced to undergo R.I. for three years, to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- and in default of payment of fine, further imprisonment for three months under Section 363 of the IPC; R.I for four years, to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- and in default of payment of fine, further imprisonment for three months under Section 364 of the IPC ; and R.I. for life and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/- and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo R.I. for six months under Section 364A of the IPC vide judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 17.04.2018/21.04.2018 passed by the learned 1st Additional Sessions Judge, East Champaran at Motihari in Sessions Trial No. 940/16 arising out of Turkauliya P.S. Case No. 125 of 2016. All the sentences have been directed to run concurrently.

4. Fatima Azad, a minor girl of three years was allegedly kidnapped by the appellants. She was recovered from a private house at Patna from a room which was taken on rent by the appellant / Prakash Kumar. Appellant/ Tabasum Gulnaj @ Shaboo @ Sona Khan is the cousin of victim, who had allegedly manipulated the kidnapping of the victim, perhaps for the purposes of extracting money from her own uncle who was financially well-off.

5. Mr. Tandon, the learned Advocate for the appellants has submitted that the evidence against the appellants is highly deficient and the conviction is based solely on presumption. Perhaps there was an effort of the informant or his other brothers to anyhow eliminate appellant / Tabasum and her father from being part of the family property. In any view of the matter, Mr. Tandon argues, a peculiar story has been weaved by the prosecution and it has falsely been claimed by the police that on the pointing of the appellant / Tabasum, the victim was recovered and the room from which she was recovered, three more persons were arrested including the appellant / Prakash Kumar and two others who have not been put on trial.

6. Mr. Sujit Kumar, the learned APP has submitted that all these discrepancies in the prosecution case vanishes with the victim herself deposing before the Court that she was kidnapped by her cousin (Tabassum). He further submits that the capability of the victim was assessed by the Trial Court by putting to her a few questions which she had answered in very proper way. With her evidence on record and the factum of recovery from a private house at Patna which was taken on rent by appellant/Prakash Kumar, who was having a liaison with the appellant/Tabasum, there could be no other view except for the guilt of the appellants.

7. The F.I.R. was lodged by the father of the victim, namely, Asrar Alam Azad (PW-5), who received an information from his brother/Anwar Alam Ansari (PW-1) on 26.03.2016 that his daughter was not to be found in the house. Aforesaid Anwar Alam Ansari further informed PW-5 that he was proceeding to the police station to lodge a case about Fatima going missing. PW-5 at that moment had been attending a religious congregation at Katihar. On the same day, he also received a ransom call from mobile telephone no. 7739117694, asking him to pay up Rs. One Crore for the release of his daughter. He was also made to hear the sobs of his daughter on telephone. PW-5 immediately informed about this to the superior police officers and proceeded for his hometown at Turkauliya. He came to his home on 27.03.2016 i.e. a day after and then lodged the F.I.R.

8. On the basis of such written report given by him, Turkauliya P.S. Case No. 125/2016 dated 27.03.2016 was registered for investigation against unknown.

9. However, the police during the course of investigation, claims to hav