Ashutosh Kumar, J.—Both the appeals have been heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment.

2. We have heard Mr. Ganesh Prasad Yadav and Mr. Harsh Singh, the learned Advocates for the two appellants.

3. Both the appellants have been convicted under Section 364(A)/34 of the Indian Penal Code vide judgment dated 27.09.2018 passed by the Fast Track Court No.1, Samastipur in Sessions Trial No 466 of 2017/ 45/2018 arising out of Mohiuddinnagar P.S. Case No. 12 of 2017. By order dated 28.09.2018, they have been sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life along with a fine of Rs.10,000/- and in default of payment of such fine, to suffer further rigorous imprisonment for one year for the offence under Section 364(A)/34 of the Indian Penal Code.

4. Naresh Kumar Choudhary (PW-1) was abducted for a while on 24.01.2017. He was recovered at the instance of police on the same day by around 6:00 P.M. The appellants were arrested o the spot.

5. There were two others also who were named in the F.I.R. but they have been acquitted for paucity of evidence. We have no idea about two others suspects viz., Raja Kumar and Hareram Chaudhary. The learned Advocates appearing for the appellants have also not informed us anything about the aforenoted two other suspects of the crime.

6. The F.I.R. was registered on the basis of fardbeyan of Naresh Kumar Chaudhary as noted above, who has been examined as PW-1 at the Trial. He claims to be an employee of Sahara India and on 24.01.2017, while he was coming on his motorcycle to his home from his office, a Bolero vehicle overtook the motorcycle and forcibly made him sit in the vehicle. The motorcycle of PW-1 was left behind. The four abductors including the driver of the Bolero vehicle were talking amongst themselves about one Raja having helped in the kidnapping of PW-1 and he also noticed that the driver was being referred to by his name, whereas the other accused person was being referred to as Sonu by the accused persons.

7. The vehicle was apprehended by police at a point where the two other accused persons viz, Hareram Choudahry and the driver of the vehicle could manage to escape. The two others namely, the appellants were arrested on the spot. From the possession of appellant/Sonu, a syringe with needle was also recovered.

8. On the basis of the afore-noted written report lodged on 24.01.2017 at 9:00 P.M. at Sarairanjan, District - Samastipur, a case vide Mohiuddinnagar P.S. Case No. 12 of 2017 dated 25.01.2017 was registered for investigation against the appellants and three others for the offence under Section 364(A)/34 of the Indian Penal Code.

9. The police after investigation submitted charge-sheet against the two appellants and they were put to trial. At the Trial, eight witnesses including the two Investigators were examined on the basis of which the judgment and order of conviction and sentence has been passed by the Trial Court.

10. Mr. Harsh Singh, the learned Advocate for the appellant/Sonu Singh @ Sonu Kumar Singh (Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 1406 of2018) has submitted that the case is absolutely false. The police has tried to conclude the case in a great haste without verifying whether the appellants were the persons who had abducted PW-1. It has further been submitted that the prosecution case totters at the seams for the very reason that the victim (PW-1) did not identify both the appellants at the Trial. This is the basic evidence, in the absence of which the conviction and sentence of the appellants is highly unwarranted. With respect to the deposition of other witnesses, Mr. Singh has submitted that if seen in totality, their statements would appear to be absolutely discrepant and not at all in sync with the accusation against the appellants. Lastly, it has been submitted that the offence of kidnapping for ransom could not be proved by any standard and, therefore, the conviction of the appellants under Section 364(A)/34 of the Indian Penal Code by the Trial Court is unjustified.

11. S