JUDGMENT :

CHANDRA SHEKHAR JHA, J.

1. As learned counsel appearing for the appellant/accused has failed to appear when this matter was taken on Board for final hearing, therefore, this Court appointed Ms. Kumari Anjali, learned Advocate, present in Court, as an Amicus Curiae to assist the Court in disposal of the appeal.

2. The present appeal has been preferred by the appellant/accused under Section 374(2) read with Section 389(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as ‘Cr.PC’) challenging the impugned judgment of conviction dated 21.09.2004 and order of sentence dated 28.09.2004 passed by learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No. 5, Aurangabad in S.T. No.88 of 1990/16 of 2004, arising out of Daudnagar P.S. Case No. 74/88, whereby the trial court has convicted the above-named appellant/accused under Sections 363 and 364 of the Indian Penal Code (for short ‘IPC’) and sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for seven years and a fine of Rs. 5000/- for the offence under Section 363 of the IPC. In the event of non-payment of fine, the appellant/accused has been directed to undergo further imprisonment for one year. The appellant/accused has further been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for ten years and a fine of Rs. 5000/- for the offence under Section 364 of the IPC and in the event of non-payment of fine, the appellant/accused has been directed to undergo further simple imprisonment for one year. All the sentences have been directed to run concurrently.

3. The case of prosecution, in brief, as it appears from the fardbeyan of the information/P.W.-1 is that on 24.04.1988, at about 7:00-7:30 A.M., the informant’s son Ranjit Kumar had gone outside the house to ease. When he reached near Devi Asthan, which is near to her house, an unknown person, finding him alone, came and caught hold his hands and started taking him towards canal, upon which Ranjit started raising alarm. The informant’s cousin’s daughter Sharda Kumari, aged about 6 years, who was playing there, rushed to her and told that one unknown person is taking Ranjit towards canal. On this, the informant rushed there and caught hold the hand of Ranjit and asked from the unknown person as to why he had caught hold his son. On this, the said person started threatening her. The said person told him to keep quiet otherwise she will be slapped, whereafter the informant raised alarm, on which several people from nearby place gathered and caught hold the accused. On being asked, Ranjit told that the said unknown person told him to go to the canal side on the pretext of giving sweets. On query, the unknown accused person revealed his name to be Lakhan Tiwari of Aurangabad. In the fardbeyan, the informant apprehended that there was possibility of seeking ransom after kidnapping her son, and in the event of non-fulfilment of demand of ransom, there was possibility of killing her son.

4. On the basis of aforesaid fardbeyan of the informant, the police lodged a case as Daudnagar P.S. Case No. 74/88. After completion of investigation, the police submitted charge-sheet against the appellant/accused Lakhan Tiwari under Sections 363 and 364 of the IPC.

5. The learned Jurisdictional Magistrate, on the basis of materials collected during investigation, took cognizance of the offence, and after compliance of Section 207 of the Cr.PC, committed the case to the court of Sessions in view of Section 209 of the Cr.PC for trial and disposal.

6. The learned trial court, on the basis of materials as collected during the course of investigation, framed charge on 15.06.1993 for the offences under Sections 363 and 364 of the IPC. The charges were read over and explained to the appellant/accused, who pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

7. As to substantiate its case, the prosecution has examined altogether six witnesses, namely, P.W.-1 Lalti Devi, who is the informant of this case and mother of victim Ranjit Kumar, P.W-2 Girja Das, P.W.-3 Ranj