Credibility of witnesses is critical in criminal cases, and substantial contradictions in testimony can lead to dismissal of the prosecution's case.

JUDGMENT :

NAWNEET KUMAR PANDEY, J.

1. Heard the learned counsel for the appellants as well as the learned APP for the State.

2. This appeal has been preferred by the appellants against the Judgment of conviction dated 11.01.2019 and the order of sentence dated 17.01.2019, passed by Sri Ramesh Chandra Mishra, Fast Track Court-2, Purnea in Sessions Trial No. 537 of 2005 arising out of Banmankhi P.S. Case No. 257/2004, corresponding to G.R. Case No. 2046/2004, whereby and whereunder the appellants have been convicted u/s 364/34 of the I.P.C and Section 27 of the Arms Act, and sentenced to undergo R.I. for 10 years and a fine of Rs. 3000/- each u/s 364 of the IPC, and in default of fine, S.I. for 2 month each, and R.I. for 3 years u/s 27 of the Arms Act. All the sentences were directed to run concurrently.

3. The informant gave his written report dated 11.11.2004 to the SHO, Banmankhi police station, on the basis whereof Banmankhi P.S. Case No. 257 of 2004 dated 11.11.2004 was registered for the offences punishable under Section 364/34 of the IPC and Section 27 of the Arms Act.

4. The prosecution case, in brief, is that on 10-11- 2004, at about 7.00 P.M., the appellants Brahamadeo Mahto, Rajesh Mandal, Ram Pravesh Mandal and Ramdev Mandal, armed with deadly weapons, along with 8-9 unknown miscreants, entered into the premises of the informant (PW-10), and kidnapped his son Jai Kumar, aged about 26 years, at the gunpoint. They also opened fire in order to create fear. The informant averred in his written report that several litigations were running in different courts at Purnea for landed properties between the appellants and the informant. After conclusion of the investigation, the charge-sheet was submitted on the basis whereof the C.J.M, Purnea took cognizance, vide order dated 09-03-2005 against these four appellants.

5. The case was committed to the court of sessions and charges were framed against the appellants on 18-08-2006 for the offences punishable under section 364/34 of the Indian Penal Code and 27 of the Arms Act. The appellants denied the charges, hence the trial commenced.

6. In order to prove the prosecution case, 11 witnesses have been examined on behalf of the prosecution. The following documentary evidences have also been exhibited on behalf of the prosecution:-

7. The defense has also examined five witnesses. Some documentary evidences have also been adduced on behalf of the defense. These documentary evidences are as follows:-

8. PW1 Baijnath @ Bishwanath Mandal, who is co- villager of the informant, has stated in his deposition that the Nand Lal, the informant is his uncle in relation. While this witness was returning after attending the call of nature and reached near Musahri Tola, he saw Jai Kumar (the victim) in captivity of the appellants, who were forcibly taking him away. They were armed with deadly weapons. In his deposition, this witness has admitted that there is land dispute between both the parties. In his cross-examination, he has stated that when he came at the vi