IMPORTANT POINT
The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for the prosecution to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt, the importance of conclusive evidence, and the necessity of conducting a test identification parade to establish the identity of the accused.

JUDGMENT :

Ashutosh Kumar, J.

1. We have heard Shri Vivekanand Singh, the learned Advocate for the appellant and Mr. Ajay Mishra, the learned APP for the State.

2. The appellant has been convicted under Section 364 (A) and 323 of the I.P.C. vide Judgment dated 28.02.2019 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge 6th Samastipur in Sessions Trial No. 744 of 2007 and by order dated 07.03.2019, he has been sentenced to undergo R.I. for life, to pay a fine of Rs. 10,000/-and in default of payment of fine to further suffer imprisonment for six months for the offence under Section 364 (A) of the I.P.C. and simple imprisonment for one year for the offence under Section 323 of the I.P.C. He has also been convicted under Section 27 of the Arms Act for which he has been sentenced to undergo R.I. for 3 years. The sentences have been ordered to run concurrently.

3. One Tajendra Verma, a 15 year old boy was kidnapped in the night intervening between 4th and 5th of May 2001 from his house. He is said to have come back to his home on his own after five days. His father/Narendra Verma is the informant of this case who has alleged that in the night intervening between 4th and 5th of May 2001, his neighbour Suresh Verma knocked and told that his mother is calling the informant. Though the informant was reluctant to open the door on the asking of the neighbour/Suresh Verma, but the mother of the victim, who was sleeping in the house, opened the door. It has been alleged in the F.I.R. that about 15 to 20 miscreants entered the house and caught hold of the informant and his brother. The son of the informant, who is the victim of this case, hid himself behind the firewood stacked on the roof of his uncle but two of the miscreants could locate him in the torchlight. No sooner was the son of the informant taken into custody by the miscreants, the informant and his brother were let free. The victim, thereafter, was taken to some distance but the informant did not know where exactly was his son taken.

4. On the basis of the aforenoted fardbeyan statement of Narendra Verma, who has been examined as PW8 during the Trial, Chakmehsi P.S. Case No. 31 of 2001 dated 05.05.2001 was registered for investigation for offences under Sections 364 (A), 323 and 34 of the I.P.C.

5. It appears from the records that the victim came back on his own on 10.05.2001 when he was subjected to medical examination and also made to give his statement before the police. He is said to have taken the police party to the houses where he was kept in captivity. It further appears from the records that the house owners in whose houses the victim was kept for some time, disclosed the name of the appellant as the person behind the kidnapping, which led to his arrest.

6. Surprisingly, no test identification parade was held but the victim Tajendra Verma (PW-6), his mother Chandrakala Devi (PW-4) and his sister Renu Devi (PW-5) have disclosed during their deposition before the trial that they identified the appellant in the torchlight, walking away with the victim along with others.

7. Mr. Vivekanand Singh, the learned Advocate for the appellant on this score asserts that the prosecution has utterly failed to prove the case beyond all reasonable doubts. He adumbrates the point by demonstrating that the victim in his deposition before the Trial Court has not stated as to how he learnt the name of the appellant and identified him as the person who brought food to him and also kept a vigil while he was in captivity. On this basis, Mr. Singh has raised the argument that perhaps the appellant was arrested on suspicion or on some information gathered by the police, the details of which are not known to us and thereafter, as instructed, the victim (PW-6) has identified him for the first time before the Trial Court as a person who kept vigil on him during his captivity and also offered food to him. In the same breath, Mr. Singh has argued that the identification of the appellant by his mother Ch