Rajeev Ranjan Prasad, J. – All these appeals have been preferred for setting aside the judgment of conviction dated 20.09.2017 and order of sentence dated 22.09.2017 passed by the learned Fast Track Court-I, Rohtas at Sasaram in Sessions Trial No. 482 of 2000 which arose out of Sheosagar (Baddi) P.S. Case No. 0023 of 1997 registered under Section 364A of the Indian Penal Code (in short ‘IPC’).

2. On the basis of the written information (Exhibit ‘1’ of the informant (PW-6)), a case bearing no. 0023 of 1997 was instituted in Sheosagar Police Station against unknown accused persons under Section 364A IPC. The investigation was taken up and after investigation, the I.O. submitted first charge-sheet bearing no. 08 dated 25.06.1997 and investigation was kept pending against some of the accused. After investigation, police submitted a supplementary charge-sheet against the accused persons under Sections 364A and 120B/34 IPC. Cognizance of the offences was taken on 11.08.1997 whereafter the records were committed to the court of sessions where the charges were framed under Section 364A/34 IPC and explained to the accused persons-appellants who pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

3. On behalf of the prosecution, seven witnesses were examined. The written report (Exhibit ‘1’), two letters written by the victim (Exhibits ‘2’ and ‘2/1’) and signature of witnesses on deposition under Section 164 CrPC (Exhibit ‘3’) were marked without objection. Four letters were marked ‘X’ to ‘X/3’ for identification.

4. After closure of prosecution evidence, the statement of accused persons were recorded under Section 313 CrPC. The defence neither examined any witness nor produced any documentary evidence.

5. The learned trial court having analysed the prosecution evidences, held that the victim (PW-7) had not stated regarding the complicity of Kalawati Devi (accused no. 3), Shri Bhagwan Tiwari (accused no. 10) and Dev Raj Tiwari (accused no. 11) in his kidnapping and there is no whisper regarding their participation in this occurrence. Hence, accused nos. 3, 10 and 11 were not found guilty and they have been acquitted of the charges levelled against them. The other accused persons, namely, Shiva Nand Bindh (A1), Ravindra Choubey (A2), Arjun Ram (A4), Lalan Paswan s/o Bali Ram Paswan (A5), Lalan Paswan s/o Late Ram Charitar Paswan (A6), Ramakant Paswan (A7), Lok Nath Paswan (A8) and Suresh Ram (A9) have been held guilty for the offences under Section 364A/34 IPC. Hence, they have been convicted for the said offences and ordered to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life. No fine has been imposed by way of sentence.

Analysis of Prosecution Evidences

6. Manoj Sah (PW-1) and Upendra Sah (PW-2) have been declared hostile as they had not supported the prosecution case. Ranjan Tiwari, son of Rameshwar Tiwari (PW-3) came to know about the kidnapping of Om Prakash Pandey (PW-7) on the next day but he did not suspect anyone and he did not identify any of them.

7. Prabha Devi (PW-4) wife of Harendra Prasad has stated that she was not investigated by police. PW-4 has also been declared hostile.

8. Shiv Kumari Devi (PW-5) is the mother of the victim who has stated that her son Om Prakash had gone to see the drama and at 03:00 A.M. (morning), he was going to sleep with his father at dalan. PW-5 has stated that when her son was knocking the door of dalan, some persons came to him asking about the road on which her son went to show them the road. She claimed that her son was taken away from there. In the morning she started search of her son then her husband told her that perhaps, her son has been taken away. This witness is not an eye witness and she has stated on the basis of what she was told by her husband.

9. Ram Bachan Pandey (PW-6) is the father of the victim (PW-7). He has stated that the occurrence is of the night of 27.03.1997. He was sleeping at his dalan and the villagers were playing a drama in the village. His son Om Prakash @ Mantu had gone to see the drama