The prosecution must prove its case beyond reasonable doubt, and failure to examine the Investigating Officer can result in significant prejudice to the accused, as demonstrated in this case.

JUDGMENT

Alok Kumar Pandey, J.

Both the above stated appeals have arisen out of same judgment of conviction dated 26.03.2004 and order of sentence dated 29.03.2004 and accordingly they have been heard together and a common judgment is being passed in both the above stated appeals.

2. Heard learned counsel for the appellants and learned A.P.P. for the State.

3. The above stated appeals have been directed against the judgment of conviction dated 26.03.2004 and order of sentence dated 29.03.2004 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Madhepura in Sessions Trial No. 93 of 2001 corresponding to G.R. Case No. 639 of 1999 arising out of Murliganj P.S. Case No. 74 of 1999 whereby and whereunder the appellants have been convicted for the offence punishable under Section 364 of the I.P.C. and have been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for ten years.

4. According to written report of informant (PW-2), the occurrence is of 04.06.1999 at 4:00 PM whereafter FIR was registered by S.H.O., Murliganj Police Station Madhepura.

5. As per prosecution case, the P.W. 2 who is the informant of the case, narrated the story of prosecution alleging therein that on 04.06.1999 at 4 PM he alongwith his son Rakesh Kumar Yadav @ Baba Ji was sitting on the door, in the meanwhile, Ram Prasad Yadav (appellant in Cr. Appeal SJ No. 229 of 2004) came to his door and on the pretext of some urgent work, took the informant’ son. It is alleged that after some time son of Ram Prasad Yadav, namely, Ajay Kumar Yadav (appellant in Cr. Appeal SJ No. 240 of 2004) was seen proceeding towards Pratapnagar alonwith informant’s son, namely, Rakesh Kumar Yadav. Thereafter, the informant made enquiry from the father of appellant-Ajay Kumar Yadav who disclosed that he sent his son to Pratapnagar for some urgent work and they would be returned back by the evening. It is alleged that when the son of informant did not return in the evening, informant proceeded to Pratapnagar to trace his son and when informant reached Pratapnagar, he saw that in the garden of Maksoodan Singh, co- accused Sukal Yadav had forcibly made informant’s son sit on a Rajdoot motorcycle by showing him a 'three-nut' and threatening him to kill and appellant- Ajay Kumar Yadav was seated behind him on the motorcycle. It is alleged that co-accused Sukal Yadav gave his three-nut to appellant -Ajay Kumar Yadav and told that if victim raises alarm, he would be killed. Thereafter, they proceeded alongiwth the victim towards village Rajni on motorcycle with intention to kidnap. It is further alleged kidnappers were on two motorcycles and three persons were sitting on another motorcycle to whom the informant could not see but claimed to identify after seeing their face. It is alleged that that the occurrence has been witnessed by Badri Yadav (P.W.3), Arbind Yadav (not examined), Vedanand Yadav (P.W.4) and Ramesh Kumar Yadav (P.W.1) and other villagers. It is further alleged that on 04.06.1999 Panchayati had taken place in village Ramni in respect of kidnapping of informant’s son where appellant - Ram Prasad Yadav accepted the factum of kidnapping and assured that he would assist in recovery of his son. On the said assurance, informant waited for three to four days. In the evening of 08.06.1999, informant learnt from some persons tha