The central legal point established in the judgment is the requirement to prove the elements of the offense under section 364-A of the Indian Penal Code, the importance of fair trial procedures, and the proper examination of the accused under section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

JUDGMENT

P.K. Mohanty, C.J. (C.A.V.) - The present appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction dated 02.06.2005 and order of sentence dated 06.06.2005 passed by the learned 3rd Additional District & Sessions Judge, (F.T.C.), Dumka, in Sessions Case No. 347 of 2004/15 of 2005, arising out of Dumka (T) P.S. Case No. 153 of 2004, corresponding to G.R. No. 998 of 2004, whereby and where-under the learned 3rd Additional District and Sessions Judge, Fast Tract Court, Dumka, has convicted the appellant under section 364-A of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for life and fine of Rs. 5000/- and in default of payment of fine he shall further undergo R.I. for two years.

2. The case of the prosecution, on the basis of the fardbeyan of Sanjay Kumar (P.W.1) is that on 29.09.2004 he had given information about the missing of his son Ankit Kumar. During the course of search he came to know that one unknown cyclist had taken Ankit Kumar for ransom. On the basis of the information an F.I.R. being Dumka (T) P.S. Case No. 153 of 2004 was registered under section 364(A) of the Indian Penal Code. In the course of investigation, the informant received demand of ransom, which was also reported to the police and then the police tracked the call and came to know that the call was from Kolkata. Thereafter, Dumka Police contacted the Kolkata Police and then Binay Kumar Sinha was arrested with Ankit from Hawrah. The police, after investigation, submitted charge sheet under section 364-A of the Indian Penal Code. Accordingly, cognizance was taken against the appellant and the case was committed to the Court of Sessions which was registered as S.C. No. 347 of 2004.

3. Charges were framed against the appellant on 17.01.2005 under section 364-A of the Indian Penal Code, to which the accused did not plead guilty and claimed to be tried.

4. Altogether 7 witnesses were examined on behalf of the prosecution in order to prove the charges framed against the accused-appellant.

5. After closure of the prosecution witnesses, the accused was examined under section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Thereafter, the learned Court, appreciating the evidence of the prosecution witnesses and the materials available on record, found the appellant guilty for the charge framed against him, recorded the judgment of conviction and order of sentence against the appellant which is under challenge in this appeal.

6. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the recovery of the boy with the appellant is not proved beyond the reasonable doubt. No police official of the Howrah Golabari Police station has been examined in this case to prove the arrest of the appellant along with the victim boy from Binod Lodge, Howrah. She further submitted that the statement of the victim boy that his father had come at 1.00 A.M. in the night on 03.10.2004 at the Golabari Police Station, Howrah stands falsified from the statement of the I.O., who states that he did not meet the victim''s father at Golabari Police Station, Howrah. She further submitted that no evidence has been adduced to prove that the appellant stayed with the victim at Rampur Hat, Mukherjee Lodge and Binod Lodge at Howrah. Further she argues that the prosecution has failed to substantiate the ingredients of section 364(A) of the Indian Penal Code as there is no evidence against the appellant that he had demanded any ransom. It is lastly argued that since the prosecution has miserably failed to establish the charge framed against the appellant, the appellant may be acquitted of the charge framed against him.

7. The learned Add. P.P. has opposed the argument advanced on behalf of the appellant and submitted that the prosecution has proved the charge framed against the appellant beyond all reasonable doubt. He further submitted that victim is the Star witness of the case, who categorically stated in his evidence about the happening of the incident. Although some witnesses have not