IMPORTANT POINT
The prosecution must establish charges beyond reasonable doubt, and procedural requirements, including substantial compliance with Section 313 of the Cr.P.C., must be adhered to.

JUDGMENT :

CHAKRADHARI SHARAN SINGH, J.

This appeal has been preferred by the sole appellant under Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C. for short), putting to challenge the impugned judgment of conviction dated 12.10.2018 and the order of sentence dated 25.10.2018, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-X, Patna, in Sessions Trial No.469 of 2016, arising out of Ramkrishna Nagar P.S. Case No.61 of 2015, whereby the appellant has been convicted and sentenced as under:

2. We have heard Mr. Rajesh Kumar Singh, learned Senior Counsel for the appellant and Mr. Dilip Kumar Sinha, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State as also Mr. Arvind Kumar Mouar, learned counsel for the informant.

3. The criminal case was set in motion with the informant (PW.4) furnishing a written report to the Officer-in-Charge, Ramkrishna Nagar Police Station, Patna on 28.03.2015 stating therein that his younger brother, Laxmi Kumar, a minor, who had left the house at 6 am had not returned and despite all efforts having been made to find his whereabouts, he remained traceless. The written report was apparently in the nature of missing report with a request to the Officer-in-charge to take appropriate action for searching out the informant's brother.

Based on the said written report, an FIR was registered giving rise to Ramkrishna Nagar P.S. Case No.61 of 2015.

4. From the formal FIR, it can be discerned that the information was received at the police station at 08:00 PM. The FIR levelled offences punishable under Sections 363 and 365 of the Indian Penal Code against unknown. It is further case of the prosecution that after registration of FIR on 02-04-2015, the informant’s father received a call on his mobile phone, the caller claiming to be making the call from Chennai. The caller is said to have demanded ransom amount of Rupees seven lacs, else the victim would be killed.

5. It is the deposition of the Investigating Officer (PW-7), at the trial, that the said phone call was made from the number 9973864195 which was received by the informant on his mobile number 8084946006. It is the prosecution’s case that the informant presumed the voice of the caller making demand of ransom to be that of this appellant and further that during the course of investigation a mobile phone was recovered from the possession of this appellant which was used for making the call with SIM No. 9973864195 to 8084946006.

6. Recovery of a mobile phone from the appellant, with the help of the IMEI number of the said mobile phone set led to his arrest. As the victim could not be found, the Investigating Officer submitted his charge sheet for commission of the offence punishable under Section 364A of the IPC against the appellant. Cognizance was taken of the offences punishable under Section 363, 365 and 364A of the Indian Penal Code. Charges were subsequently framed for the aforesaid offences. The appellant pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

7. At the trial, seven prosecution’s witnesses came to be examined including the informant (PW.4), the informant’s wife (PW.2), the informant’s father Ramanuj Mahto (PW.3) and his brother-in-law (PW.5). PW 6 an independent witness came to be declared hostile at the instance of the prosecution. The Investigating Officer was examined as PW.7. The prosecution got exhibited the documentary evidence to substantiate the charges at the trial, namely signature on the seizure list (Ext.1), and signature of the informant on the written report (Ext.2), Seizure list (Ext.3), Charge sheet (Ext.4). Certain documents were exhibited at the trial for the defence as Exhibit-A, Ext.A/1 and Ext.B.

8. Aft