Judgment Braj Nandan Prasad Singh, J. 1. The salient features of the prosecution case are that on 29th July, 1981 Saheshwar Sah (P. W. 3) and Bhola Sah (P. W. 1) allegedly purchased 70 bags of paddy in village Parsanwa which they despatched to Lakhisarai on bullock-carts, pursuant to which they boarded an auto and came at Ramgarh Chowk where auto was intercepted by the appellant and his associates. The appellant allegedly dragged Saheshwar Sah from auto and did not permit either victim or his companion to raise alarm. The appellant thereafter took him to village Lohanda where he was confined in a room and got executed stampd paper, for security of Rs. 60,000.00 . Bhola Sah who had accompanied the victim informed his brother Ram Balak Sah (P.W. 2) who took recourse to public authority and it is how that police case had been registered on strength of a Sanha entry recorded by the police at Halsi police station. As usual, investigation commenced, in course of which the Investigating Officer recorded statement of witnesses and on conclusion of investigation laid charge-sheet before the Court. 2. After the case was committed to the Court of Sessions, the trial commenced, in course of which the State examined three witnesses including the victim, his companion who had witnessed the incident and also brother who set the police in motion on being informed about the incident. 3. The defence of the appellant both before the Court below and this Court had been denial of accusations attributed to him and it was pleaded that as Saheshwar Sah had not making payment of price of paddy purchased by him on credit, and for which he was putting pressure on him, he was falsely implicated. The defence too had chosen to examine two witnesses ostensibly to counter allegations attributed to the appellant. However, from the narrations given by defence witnesses, the impression which is gathered is that the transaction was made with Ram Balak Sah and not with the victim Saheshwar Sah. The defence too had chosen to examine two witnesses ostensibly to counter allegations attributed to the appellant. However, from the narrations given by defence witnesses, the impression which is gathered is that the transaction was made with Ram Balak Sah and not with the victim Saheshwar Sah. The trial Court, however, negatived plea of innocence of the appellant, and believing the prosecution witnesses, recorded finding of guilt against the appellant under Sections 364 and 348 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced him to suffer rigorous imprisonment for a term of ten years, on the first count, and for a term of three years on the second count with a direction that both the sentences shall run concurrently. 4. Though narrations made by the prosecution witnesses and defence witnesses have been fairly spelt out in the judgment by the Court below, a brief resume of them shall be placed on the record to appreciate the contention raised on behalf of the appellant. Saheshwar Sah (P.W. 3) who happens to be the victim of the episode states that on 28th July, 1981 he had purchased 70 bags of paddy in village Parsama in the company of Bhola Sao, P.W. 1, which was despatched to Lakhisarai on bullock-carts and from there he came to Ramgarh chowk on an auto in the company of Bhola Sah, where appellant having dragged him from the auto, took him in custody and eventually had taken him to village Lohanda where he was confined in the night. As appellant did not realise prospect of realisation of money from him, got executed a bond of Rs. 60,000.00 on stamped paper, pursuant to which he was released by him. More or less, narration in similar terms and veins about abduction of Saheshwar Sah from Ramgarh was made also by Bhola P.W. 1 who too had been to the village Parsama in his company for purchase of paddy. Though Ram Balak Sah, P.W. 2, was not ocular witness to abduction of his brother, he states to have been informed by Bhola Sah who too corroborated his version about informing his brother shortly after the incident. This witness, as has been noticed, also happens to be the person on whose behest the police case was registered. 5. Though Ram Balak Sah, P.W. 2, was not ocular witness to abduction of his brother, he states to have been informed by Bhola Sah who too corroborated his version about informing his brother shortly after the incident. This witness, as has been noticed, also happens to be the person on whose behest the police case was registered. 5. The finding recorded by the trial Court is sought to be assailed by the learned counsel for the appellant primarily on two premises and it is contended that though the victim was taken to Lohanda through public places which was quite busy, it was unlikely that on alarms being raised by the victim, no one came for his rescue, and that apart, though a number of persons and occupants of the auto witnessed alleged abduction, neither of them was cited as witness to the incident. Other argument was that though it appears from narration made by the victim that the object of abduction and getting executed bond was for realisation of money, there was no evidence on the record that any step was taken by the appellant for realisation of money from the victim. My attention has also been drawn to other mitigating circumstances, and with all stress it is urged that since alleged occurrence took place on 28th July, 1981 and since then more than two decades have elapsed and appellant has faced trauma of protracted prosecution for such a long period, while considering sentence, this mitigating circumstance too deserves consideration, in case finding of guilt recorded by the Court below is upheld by this Court. 6. As has been noticed, there has been evidence of the victim and also that of Bhola Sah, P.W. 1, who had accompanied him while he was abducted by the appellant. Though Ram Balak Sah, P.W. 2, was not an eye witness to the abduction, his evidence lends corroboration to the testimony of Bhola Sah, who shortly after incident had informed him. Though Ram Balak Sah, P.W. 2, was not an eye witness to the abduction, his evidence lends corroboration to the testimony of Bhola Sah, who shortly after incident had informed him. Since the Police Officer who carried out investigation of the case has not been examined, some questions had remained unanswered but for that reason too I find no good reason to discredit witnesses, who are victim and his companion and in that circumstances, regard being had to the nature of accusations attributed to the appellant and also evidences which have come on the record, while finding of guilt and sentence recorded by the Court below u/s. 348 of the Indian Penal Code is set aside, his conviction u/s. 364 of the Indian Penal Code is altered to sec. 365 of the Indian Penal Code and for which he is sentenced to the period already undergone by him in custody and in addition to that he is sentenced to pay fine of Rs. 1,000.00 (one thousand), in default of which he would suffer further rigorous imprisonment for a term of five months. 7. In the result, this appeal is dismissed with modification as mentioned above.