Rajeev Ranjan Prasad, J.—Heard Mr. Nagendra Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the appellant, Ms. Anukriti Jaipuriyar, learned Amicus Curiae and Mr. Dilip Kumar Singh, learned Additional PP for the State.

2. The appellant has been convicted vide judgment dated 02.11.2017 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘impugned judgment’) and sentenced vide order dated 06.11.2017 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘impugned order’) by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Rosera, Samastipur in Sessions Trial No. 374 of 2015 arising out of Rosera P.S. Case No. 301 of 2014 (G.R. No. 1030 of 2014) for the offence punishable under Section 364A of the Indian Penal Code (in short ‘IPC’). He has been ordered to undergo life imprisonment with a fine of Rs.10,000/- under Section 364A IPC and in default of payment of fine, he has to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months.

Prosecution Case

3. The prosecution story is based on the written report dated 02.10.2014 (Exhibit ‘1’) submitted by one Sone Lal Mochi (PW-4), resident of village+post- Kariman, P.S.- Rosera, District- Samastipur. In his written report (Exhibit ‘1’), the informant has stated that his grandson Himanshu Ranjan @ Vishal Kumar aged about 11 years was at his Nani’s house in village-Bandiha. On 01.10.2014 at 01:07 pm, Ganesh Ram (this appellant), who is the relative of informant son’s Saddu (co-brother), called on mobile no. 8809860491 from his mobile no. 8678847288 and asked Kunti Kumari sister-in-law of informant’s son where is Himanshu @ Vishal, send him at Tinbatiya so that we can come at your place. Prior to this, he had inquired about Himanshu from the informant to which the informant said that he is at his Nani’s house. On the said call, Kunti Kumari sent the grandson of the informant and from that time, he is missing. The informant and his family members all searched for him all night. The mobile phone of Ganesh Ram was also switched off. On 02.10.2024 at 09:30 when the informant talked on the mobile number of Ganesh Ram, he demanded Rs.5 lakh as ransom. The informant has recorded the said talk of demand of ransom, which he can produce.

4. On the basis of the written report (Exhibit ‘1’), Rosera P.S. Case No. 301 of 2014 was against sole accused Ganesh Ram and police started investigation. After investigation, police submitted charge-sheet bearing Charge-sheet No. 179 of 2014 dated 02.10.2014 under Section 364A IPC against this appellant. On the basis of this charge-sheet, learned A.C.J.M took cognizance on 29.05.2015. Upon finding that the offence of which cognizance was taken by the Magistrate is triable by the court of sessions, the case was committed to the court of Sessions where on 24.11.2015, charges were framed under Section 364A IPC against the sole accused which was explained to the appellant in Hindi to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

5. In course of trial, the prosecution examined altogether nine witnesses and exhibited several documents to prove its case. The name of prosecution witnesses and documents exhibited on behalf of the prosecution are mentioned hereunder in tabular form:—

List of Prosecution Witnesses

List of Exhibits

Findings of Learned Trial Court

6. Learned trial court, after hearing the argument of defence and prosecution as also on perusal of the evidences, found that on the date of occurrence the vic