1.Leave granted. 2. In this case the respondent was charged for the offence under Sections 302, 364 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code. According to the prosecution case the respondent had abducted one Lakshmi Prasad, slo PW 5 on 18-41987 in association with some other persons. The manner in which the respondent had done it, according to the prosecution case is that the respondent went to the house of Lakshmi Prasad, caught him and tied him and led him away. The father, PW 5 lodged an FIR on 19-4-1987. When the respondent was arrested the dead body of the deceased was recovered on the strength of the disclosure statement elicited from the respondent. The postmortem evidence shows that the deceased was murdered. 3. On the basis of the aforesaid allegations and with the help of the evidence adduced the respondent was convicted by the trial court for all the offences charged against him. But the High Court acquitted the respondent under Section 302 while confirming the conviction and sentence passed on him including the offence of abduction. He was sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for five years for the offence under Section 364 IPC. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant State contended that the High Court, a while rendering the impugned judgment, did not follow the correct legal position. This Court in State of iv.B. v. Mir Mohd. Omarl held that if the deceased was proved to have been abducted by the accused and was found murdered soon thereafter it is for the abductors to satisfy the court as to how else the abducted victim was dealt with by them. In the absence of any such explanation it is open to the court to draw the presumption that the abductor is the murderer also. The said view of this Court was reconsidered subsequently in Sucha Singh v. State of Punjab2 and the legal position has been reiterated by this Court. 5. In the light of the legal position so adumbrated by this Court, we deem it necessary, in the interest of justice, that the High Court should consider the appeal filed by the respondent allover again. This is to enable the respondent to canvass regarding the conviction under Section 364 of the Indian Penal Code also. 5. In the light of the legal position so adumbrated by this Court, we deem it necessary, in the interest of justice, that the High Court should consider the appeal filed by the respondent allover again. This is to enable the respondent to canvass regarding the conviction under Section 364 of the Indian Penal Code also. If the conviction is to be maintained the High Court has to consider how far the presumption mentioned above will apply to the situation of this case. For enabling the High Court to reconsider the appeal afresh we set aside the impugned judgment. The appeal filed before the High Court shall stand remitted to the High Court. 6. As the matter is very old we expect that the High Court will expedite the hearing for an early disposal. 7. This appeal is accordingly disposed of.