ONKARESHWAR BHATT, J. ( 1 ) APPELLANTS Paras Nath Mani, Hare Ram Tiwari, Chandra Bhooshan Mani alias Tilaku and Shailesh Pandey have preferred this appeal against their conviction under Section 364, I. P. C. They have been convicted by III Addl. Sessions Judge, Deoria on 30-11-1997 and have been sentenced to undergo ten years Rigorous Imprisonment each. ( 2 ) LEARNED counsel for the parties have been heard at length and in detail. Briefly stated prosecution case is that on 24-5-1984 at about 6. 30 a. m. all the four appellants came to the house of PW 2 Krishna Kumar Mani Tiwari (Informant of this case) in Mohalla Ram Nath, Deoria P. S. Kotwali Deoria, Smt. Sushila PW 1 is the wife of the informant. Appellant Chandra Bhooshan Mani alias Tilaku called the deceased Umesh Mani Tiwari alias Raju for witnessing a match. Umesh Mani Tiwari was the only son of the informant and Smt. Sushila Mani. According to the prosecution case at about 8 a. m. on 24-5-1984 all the four appellants along with Umesh Mani Tiwari alias Raju, the deceased of the case, were seen boarding the train bound for Gorakhpur, PW 3 Purshottam Pandey and PW 4 Sri Prakash Pandey had seen the appellants and the deceased boarding the train at Deoria Railway Station. According to the prosecution case the appellants and the deceased stayed at the house of one Deep Narayan Pandey at Gorakhpur on 24-5-1984. Deep Narayan Pandey is the "mausa of appellant Tilaku. On enquiry by the informant, Deep Narayan Pandey told him that on 25-5-1984 the appellants after taking their meals had left his house after telling that they were going to Basti. On 25-5-1984 all the appellants and the deceased were seen at the railway platform at Gorakhpur at about 10. 30 p. m. in the night and they boarded the train at about 11 p. m. This train was to go towards Basti. The prosecution case further is that on 26 -5-1984 the deceased was found in injured condition near the railway line at Basti. The deceased was brought in injured condition to District Hospital Basti by G. R. P. constable Ghanshyam Pandey. The deceased was medically examined by PW. 9 Dr. V. P. Agrawal. On 26-5-1984 itself at 1. 40 p. m. the deceased died in hospital. The post mortem took place on 27-5-1984 at 5 p. m. by Dr. The deceased was brought in injured condition to District Hospital Basti by G. R. P. constable Ghanshyam Pandey. The deceased was medically examined by PW. 9 Dr. V. P. Agrawal. On 26-5-1984 itself at 1. 40 p. m. the deceased died in hospital. The post mortem took place on 27-5-1984 at 5 p. m. by Dr. U. S. Mishra PW 6 on 7-6-1984 the informant went to Basti where he was shown the photographs of the dead body of the deceased and also the clothes which the deceased was wearing. The informant identified the photographs and the articles to be of his son. ( 3 ) THE appellants stood charges under Section 364, 320/34, I. P. C. They pleaded not guilty to the charges. The appellants were acquitted for the charges under Section 302/34 of I. P. C. ( 4 ) THE informant Krishna Kumar Mani Tripathi PW 2 who is the father of the deceased was working at Padrauna in Head Post Office. Appellant Paras Nath is the younger brother of the informant. The informant and appellant Paras Nath were living in one and the same house although their dining was separate. Appellant Sailesh Pandey is the brother-in-law of appellant Paras Nath. Appellant Hare Ram Tiwari and Chandra Bhoshan Mani alias Tilaku are neighbourer of the informant. This fact has been admitted by the appellants in their statements under Section 313, Cr. P. C. It has come in the evidence that the deceased was closely associated with the appellant Paras Nath. It has also come in the evidence that prior to the occurrence, deceased used to go for playing with appellant Chandra Bhooshan. It has also come in the evidence that the deceased went along with appellants Hare Ram and Shailesh in the market or to fair. The above fact shows that two of the appellants namely Paras Nath and Shailesh Pandey are relatives to the deceased and other two appellants namely Hare Ram and Chandra Bhooshan alias Tilku are close neighbourers of the deceased. ( 5 ) ACCORDING to the prosecution case appellant Paras Nath sold ten decimal land to one Bujhawan. In mutation proceedings the informant filed objection to the effect that since the partition of the land has not taken place appellant Paras had no authority to dispose of the land. ( 5 ) ACCORDING to the prosecution case appellant Paras Nath sold ten decimal land to one Bujhawan. In mutation proceedings the informant filed objection to the effect that since the partition of the land has not taken place appellant Paras had no authority to dispose of the land. It has come in the evidence that the appellant Paras Nath was annoyed with the informant and he used to give threats to the informant. The deceased was living with his mother PW 1 Smt. Sushila Mani. On the date and time of occurrence appellant Chandra Bhooshan Mani alias Tilaku called the deceased from his house and at that time the other three appellants were talking amongst themselves. Tilaku asked the deceased that are you willing to witness a match. The deceased was willing. Thereafter he joined the appellants and left the house. Smt. Shushila Mani PW 1 has stated that the deceased was wearing bushirt of cocacola colour, a pant of light brown (BADAMI) colour and under wear of orange colour. He also wore a belt, sacradthread and kardhani of black colour in his waist. ( 6 ) IT has come in the evidence that the deceased did not return to his house on 24-5-1984. The appellants also did not return in that evening. On the following morning also neither the deceased nor the appellants returned back to their houses. On 26-5-1984 Smt. Sushila Mani PW 1 sent a telegram to her husband, the informant PW 2. On 26-5-1984 the informant came to Deoria. His wife PW 1 Smt. Sushila narrated to him the entire incident. The search of the deceased was made by the informant in which connection the informant went to Gorakhpur also. However, the efforts to search the deceased bore no result and the informant returned back to Deoria on 29-5-1984. On 29-5-1984 at 11. 20 p. m. he lodged the F. I. R. at P. S. Kotwali Deoria. The names of all four appellants find place in the F. I. R. ( 7 ) IT is contended by the defence that the F. I. R. has been lodged with delay. On 24-5-1984 the deceased left his house in the company of the appellants. Admittedly the appellant Paras Nath is the uncle of the deceased and the appellant Shailesh Pandey is the brother-in-law of Paras Nath. On 24-5-1984 the deceased left his house in the company of the appellants. Admittedly the appellant Paras Nath is the uncle of the deceased and the appellant Shailesh Pandey is the brother-in-law of Paras Nath. It has come in the evidence that the deceased used to go out in the company of the appellants. In the above circumstances and also in view of the fact that the informant was away at Padrauna and also in view of the fact that the deceased was in the company of his uncle, Smt. Sushila Mani might not have suspected any foul play. When the search was made by mother of the deceased Smt. Sushila Mani yielded no result, she informed her husband by telegram. The informant is said to have received the telegram and thereafter he reached Deoria in the night of 25-5-1984. He also made search for his son who was not traceable. For this purpose he went to Gorakhpur also at the house of Deep Narayan Pandey who is the Mausa of the appellant Tilaku. The informant has stated that he did not mention the fact of meeting Deep Narayan Pandey at Gorakhpur because he was the relative of appellant Tilaku and he would not support his version. In the above background the fact that the informant was told about the taking away of his son by the appellants either on 2 7-5-1984 or on 29-5-1984 is not very material. The explanation given by the informant appears convincing and the omission of the fact of meeting Deep Narayan Pandey at Gorakhpur from the F. I. R. does not damage the prosecution case. Moreover it was only on 7-6-1984 that the informant came to know about the death of his son at Basti. The natural impulse of the parent of the deceased would be to trace out the child at all possible places, instead of rushing to the Police Station for lodging the F. I. R. when the search of the missing child failed and when the informant returned on 29-5-1984 from Gorakhpur he had lodged the F. I. R. In the above circumstances the F. I. R. cannot be said to have been lodged with delay. ( 8 ) IT has been contended by the defence that if the appellant Paras Nath was not on good terms with the informant and he was also threatened by the appellant Paras Nath, the mother of the deceased would not have allowed the deceased to go along with the appellants. It has been mentioned above that appellant Paras Nath is the uncle of the deceased and appellant Shailesh Pandey is the brother-in-law of Paras Nath and other two appellants are close neighbourers of the deceased. It was not unnatural for the mother of the deceased to allow the deceased to go with the appellants. Moreover it has come in the evidence that the deceased used to go out in the company of the appellants from before the occurrence also. ( 9 ) THE prosecution evidence is consistent that on 25-5-1984 at about 6. 30 a. m. the appellants took the deceased from his house. The evidence of Pursottam Pandey PW 3 and Sri Prakash Pandey PW 4 to the effect that they saw four appellants and deceased boarding the train at Deoria Railway Station is also consistent. They have assigned good reason for their presence at the Railway Station. According to PW 2 Krishna Kumar Mani Tripathi, Deep Narayan Pandey informed him at Gorakhpur that the appellants and the deceased stayed at his house in the night of 24-5-1984 and on 25-5-1984 they left his house for proceeding to Basti. ( 10 ) PW 6 Awadesh stated that he saw the four appellants along with the deceased at Railway Station on 25-5-1984 at 10. 30 p. m. and saw them boarding on Jhansi Mail which was proceeding from Gorakhpur to Basti. On 26-5-1984 the deceased was found in injured condition near Railway Track at Basti. Awadhesh has stated that appellants told him at Railway Station Gorakhpur that they were going to Basti. He has further stated that he has told the Investigating Officer about the above talk with the appellants. He could not assign any reason as to why this fact has not been recorded by the Investigating Officer in his statement. However, the Investigting Officer has not been questioned by the defence about the above statement and the omission has not been proved by the Investigating Officer. Therefore, the defence cannot capitalise on the above omission. He could not assign any reason as to why this fact has not been recorded by the Investigating Officer in his statement. However, the Investigting Officer has not been questioned by the defence about the above statement and the omission has not been proved by the Investigating Officer. Therefore, the defence cannot capitalise on the above omission. Moreover, the statement of Awadhesh that the appellants and the deceased have proceeded towards Basti by train is fortified by the circumstance that the deceased was found in injured condition near the Railway Track at Basti itself. ( 11 ) CONSTABLE Ghan Shyam Pathak of G. R. P. brought the deceased at district hospital Basti. The deceased was examined on the same day i. e. 26-5-1984 at 8. 50 a. m. Dr. V. P. Agrawal, PW 9 has stated that the injuries of the deceased were within 6 to 8 hours. If this period is taken into account the deceased must have sustained injuries at about 12 in the night of 25/ 26/05/1984. The time of injury stated by the doctor connects and corroborates the statement of PW 5 Awadesh that all the four appellants along with the deceased proceeded towards Basti on the train which was bound towards Basti from Railway Station Gorakhpur. ( 12 ) THE fact that the witnesses who saw the appellants and the deceased at Railway Station Deoria and at Railway Station Gorakhpur were known to the family of the informant is not a fact for discrediting their sworn testimony. These witnesses also knew the appellants from before the occurrence. No enmity has been suggested, muchless proved, by the appellants against the above witnesses. ( 13 ) THE evidence adduced in this case is consistent and is also corroborated from the circumstances brought out in this case. The trial Court has rightly placed reliance on the testimony of the witness. He has rightly held that the deceased was kidnapped in order that he may be murdered or may be so disposed of as to be put in the danger of being murdered. The finding and the sentence awarded by the trial Court calls for no interference. ( 14 ) THE appeal is accordingly dismissed. ( 15 ) ALL four appellants are on bail. They shall surrender before C. J. M. Deoria for serving out the sentence awarded to them. The finding and the sentence awarded by the trial Court calls for no interference. ( 14 ) THE appeal is accordingly dismissed. ( 15 ) ALL four appellants are on bail. They shall surrender before C. J. M. Deoria for serving out the sentence awarded to them. After their surrender their bail bonds will stand cancelled and sureties shall stand discharged. Appeal dismissed. .