Judgment S. M. M. Alam, J. 1. All the six appeals were heard analogous the same arise from one and same judgment dated 31.8.2001 passed in Sessions trial No.195 of 2000 by Sri Vijay Prasad poddar, 1st Additional Sessions Judge, khagaria, as such, all the appeals are being disposed of by common judgment which is being passed in Cr. Appeal No.516 of 2001. 2. The above named appellants have preferred these appeals against the judgment dated 31/8/2001 and order dated 3/9/2001 passed in Sessions Trial no.195 of 2000 by the 1st Additional sessions Judge, Khagaria, whereby he has been pleased to convict all the appellants under Sections 364-A and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter to be referred as IPC) and sentenced them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life under Sec.364-A IPC but he did not pass any substantive sentence under sec. 120-B of the IPC. He has further been pleased to convict appellant Md. Zahid Ali and Mukesh Kumar under sec. 379 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years under the said, section. He has further been pleased to order that all the sentences will run concurrently. 3. The prosecution case as per the written report filed by informant Sanjay kumar PW 2 before the Officer Incharge of Chautham P. S. on 14/4/1999, in brief, is that on 14/4/1999 at about 4.00 p. m. his elder brother Vijay Kumar Bhagat, as usual, had gone to his brick kiln on his red colour Rajdoot motor cycle bearing registration No. BRI 7524. The said brick kiln lies towards south of the village at a distance of about one kilo meter. At about 6.00 p. m. , when the informant was sitting at his Darwaja his co-villager Bucho singh PW 4 and Satan Paswan of village sarraiya came there and informed him that half an hour before about 7-8 criminals had forcibly stopped the motor cycle of his brother Vijay Babu near the culvert and thereafter they took him away towards Sonbarsa by his own motor cycle. They also told the informant that out of 7-8 criminals two persons occupied the seats on the motor cycle of Vijay Kumar and rest moved on foot towards west in the field. They also told the informant that out of 7-8 criminals two persons occupied the seats on the motor cycle of Vijay Kumar and rest moved on foot towards west in the field. On getting this information, the informant along with some villagers went towards Sonbarsa and on reaching near a "barrier" he was told that few minutes before three persons riding on a motor cycle and two persons riding on another motor cycle had gone towards north in fast speed 4. On the basis of the above written report of the informant, Chautham ps case No 21 of 1999 dated 14 4 1999 under Sections 364/34 of the IPC was instituted and investigation was taken up by PW 12 Naredara Sharma During the course of investigation, he visited the place of occurrence which lies in "bahiyar" about one kilo meter south from Deoka village He also recorded the statement of the witnesses, took possession of the letter given by the criminals for ransom, recovered the motor cycle from the house of Angad Kumar, got the seizure list of the said recovery prepared by A S I Ashique Imam of Maheshpur p S and after completing the investigation submitted charge-sheet in the case 5. After submission of the charge-sheet, cognizance of the offence was taken and thereafter the appellants along with others were committed to the Court of Sessions vide order dated 23 6 2000 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Khagalia 6. Before the trial Court, altogether ten accused persons were put on trial but eight accused persons were convicted and two accused, namely, Gaini singh and Sunil Singh were acquitted by the trial Court It appears that out of eight convicts, one convict, namely, Angad kumar Singh did not prefer appeal 7. Before the trial Court, altogether ten accused persons were put on trial but eight accused persons were convicted and two accused, namely, Gaini singh and Sunil Singh were acquitted by the trial Court It appears that out of eight convicts, one convict, namely, Angad kumar Singh did not prefer appeal 7. The contention of the learned defence counsel is that the conviction and sentence passed against the appellants are bad in law as well as on facts the trial Court has failed to properly scrutinise the evidence on record which has resulted in miscarriage of justice Further contention is that except PW5 (victim) there is no other eye-witness of the actual occurrence and the evidence of pw 5 is not corroborated by any independent source Further contention is that the evidence on record shows that PW 5 after his release from the captivity of his abductors did not disclose the name of his kidnappers, as such, naming of the accused by pw 5 at later stage is afterthought and, so, the trial Court should not have relied upon the testimony of PW 5 On the basis of the above arguments, the learned defence counsel prayed to acquit the appellants 8. On the other hand, the contention of the learned State counsel is that the judgment and order of conviction and sentence are based on the materials available on record and, so, the trial Court has not committed any illegality in convicting the appellants and, so, the judgment should be upheld 9. In support of the prosecution case, the prosecution has examined altogether twelve witnesses, namely, kailash Singh PW 1, Sanjay Kumar PW 2, Ambika Sharan Singh PW 3, Bocho singh PW 4, Vijay Kumar Bhagat PW 5, binod Kumar Singh PW 6, Kusheshwar bhagat PW 7, Anil Kumar Singh PW 8, chandi Sao PW 9, Krishna Kumar Jha PW 10 Medni Paswan PW 11 and Narendra sharma PW 12 Out of the above said witnesses, PW 2 is the informant, PW 5 is the victim and PW 12 is the Investigating Officer 10. Besides the oral evidence following are the exhibits in this case Ex hibit-1 is the written report of PW 2 which is the basis of this case, Exhibit-2 is the letter in the hand writing of victim PW 5 which was alleged to have been written at the instance of his kidnappers for payment of ransom, Exhibit-3 is the seizure list of the motor cycle alleged to have been recovered from the house of accused Angad Kumar, Exhibit-4 is the signature of I Deepak Kumar Sah on the seizure list, Eshibit-5 is formal FIR and exhibit 6 is the certified copy of the judgment in Sessions Trial No 55 of 1994 11. During the course of argument, it has been contended on behalf of the appellants that the entire occurrence of kidnapping is a stage managed show and no such kidnapping as alleged by the prosecution has ever taken place. It has further been argued that the appellants were falsely implicated in this case as pw 5 (victim) had taken loan from them for running buck kiln but he did not return back the loan and on demand he concocted the story of kidnapping and falsely implicated the appellants Thus, from the contention of the defence counsel it appears that the defence counsel has challenged the factum of kidnapping as well as the complicity of the appellants in the alleged kidnapping of PW 5 and, therefore, first of all I will examine as to whether there is reliable evidence on record to hold 1 hat on the alleged date of occurrence PW 5 was kidnapped for ransom 12. According to the written report exhibit-1 submitted by PW 2 Sanjay kumar in Chautham P S , for the first time Bucho Singh PW 4 and Sattan paswan (not exammed) gave him information that lus brother Vijay Kumar bhagat had been kidnapped by 7-8 criminals near culvert and had been taken away towards Sonbarsa The said Bucho singh has been examined as PW 4 Let me see what is his evidence in Court his evidence is as follows - About one year 9 months ago at about 6/6 30 pm , he was returning to his house from bahiyaar When he reached near culvert about 4-5 criminals restrained him and made him to sit and thereafter 5-7 criminals pull down Vijay Kumar Bhagat from the motor cycle and kidnapped him He has further deposed that he informed about the incident to PW 2 Sanjay (informant) and his father Thus, the evidence of PW 4 shows that he has not only supported the witnessing of actual occurrence of kidnapping but has also supported this fact that he had informed the informant PW 2 Corroborating the evidence of PW 4 PW 2 Sanjay Kumar, who is the informant of this case, has deposed that on 14 4 1999, his brother Vijay kumar Bhagat had been kidnapped and about the said incident of kidnapping PW 4 Bucho Singh had given information to him He has further deposed that on getting information about the said kidnapping he went to the house of Kailash munshi PW 1 and thereafter he along with Kailash Munshi and his other co-villagers went to Sonbarsa Barrier where he got information that three persons riding on one motor cycle and two persons riding on another motor cycle had gone towards Asraha village in high speed He has further deposed that thereafter he went to Chautham P. S for instituting the fir where he submitted written petition (Exhibit-1) 13. Pw 1 is Kailash Singh, who works as Munshi in the brick kiln of victim vijay Kumar Bhagat He has deposed that on 14 4 1999 at about 7 30 p m PW 2 Sanjay Bhagat had come to his house and had told him that Vijay Bhagat had been kidnapped by criminals He has further deposed that on 16 4 1999 he along with Sanjay Bhagat PW 2 and Ambika singh PW 3 went to village Baltara to trace out Vijay Bhagat and at the house of jaldhari Babu they met accused Kailash singh, who demanded rupees seventy five thousand for the release of Vijay Bhagat 14. Pw 3 Ambika Sharan Singh has deposed that on 14 4 1999 at about 7 00 p m he was informed that Vijay Bhagat had been kidnapped by criminals He has further deposed that on 16 4 1999 PW 2 sanjay Bhagat paid rupees seventy thousand to accused Kailash Singh at the darwaza of Jaldhari Babu at Baltara village for the release of Vijay Bhagat. 15. Pw 6 Binod Kumar Singh has deposed that the occurrence had taken place about two years ago. At about 7 p. m. he was at his Darwaza when Sanjay bhagat told him that Vijay Bhagat had been kidnapped by some criminals. He has further deposed that on getting the above information he along with others went to Sonbarsa barrier where he was told that some criminals were seen going towards Kusraha on two motor cycles. 16. Pw 7 Kusheshwar Bhagat is the father of Vijay Bhagat. His evidence is that his son had been kidnapped by some criminals about two years ago. He has further deposed that after kidnapping he had received a letter which was in the hand writing of his son Vijay Kumar bhagat. The said letter (Ext.2) was handed over to him by one unknown person. 17. Pw 8 Anil Kumar Singh has deposed that the occurrence had taken place about two years ago. At about 7/7.30 p. m. he was at his house when Sanjay bhagat PW 2 came running and told him that his brother Vijay had been kidnapped with his motor cycle. 18. 17. Pw 8 Anil Kumar Singh has deposed that the occurrence had taken place about two years ago. At about 7/7.30 p. m. he was at his house when Sanjay bhagat PW 2 came running and told him that his brother Vijay had been kidnapped with his motor cycle. 18. Pw 9 Chandi Sao has also deposed that about two years ago at about 7/7.15 p. m. when he returned back to his house after closing his shop, he was informed that Vijay Bhagat had been kidnapped along with his motor cycle. He has denied that on that date some criminals had come to his shop and on this point he has been declared hostile. 19. Pw 10 Krishna Kumar Sharma has deposed that Vijya Bhagat is his co-villager. About two years ago in the evening at about 7.00 p. m. Sanjay Bhagat had told him that Vijay Bhagat had been kidnapped. He has further deposed that on the dictation of Sanjay Bhagat he had written the application (Exhibit-1 ). 20. From the evidence of above said witnesses it appears that as many as nine witnesses have come out in support of the prosecution story that on the alleged date of occurrence Vijay Bhagat had been kidnapped. Let me see what is the evidence of Vijay Bhagat on the point of kidnapping. Vijay Bhagat is PW 5 in this case. His evidence is as follows : The occurrence had taken place on 14.4.1999 at about 6.30 p. m. while he was returning back from his brick kiln by his Rajdoot red coloured motor cycle bearing No. BRI 7524. When he reached near culvert built on bricks soling road, about 15 armed persons surrounded him from both the sides. They put weapons on his body. Three criminals assaulted him with their weapons. The criminals asked him to get down from the motor cycle and when he did not obey the command, they forcibly pulled him down from the motor cycle and, thereafter, two persons sat on his motor cycle and proceeded further. The remaining persons carried him away towards Baltara Bahiyaar on foot. Thereafter, they kept him confined in a maize field till 16.4.1999 at 1.00 p. m. when kailash Singh came to him in the maize field and asked him to accompany. The remaining persons carried him away towards Baltara Bahiyaar on foot. Thereafter, they kept him confined in a maize field till 16.4.1999 at 1.00 p. m. when kailash Singh came to him in the maize field and asked him to accompany. For some distance Kailash Singh came with him but thereafter he told him to go ahead and when he came some steps forwards he saw PW Kailash Singh, Ambika sharan Singh and his brother Sanjay bhagat standing. Thus, the evidence of pw 5 Vijay Kumar Bhagat, who is the victim, shows that he has fully corroborated the prosecution case that on 14.4.1999 at about 6.30 p. m. he was kidnapped by the criminals. 21. Pw 12 Ram Janam Sharma is the I. O. of this case. His evidence shows that he had received written report of PW 2 on 14.4.1999, on the basis of which he had instituted Chautham P. S. case No.21 of 1999 on 14.4.1999. Thus, the evidence of PW 12 establishes this fact that on 14.4.1999 itself the information about the occurrence of kidnapping had been given to the police immediately after the occurrence. PW 12 has further deposed at para 4 that during the course of investigation he was handed over a letter (Ex-hibit-2) in which demand of ransom was made. At para 19 he has further deposed that he got information that the kidnapped person had been released by the kidnappers and, as such, he proceeded towards the brick kiln of Vijay Kumar bhagat and on reaching there he made interrogation with Vijay Bhagat. He has deposed that at that time as many as 100 persons were present at the brick kiln of vijay Bhagat. Thus, it appears that PW 12, who is the I. O. of this case has also supported this fact that victim Vijay bhagat had been kidnapped by the criminals and on 16.4.1999 he was released. 22. The contention of the defence counsel is that the entire occurrence is a stage managed show and the same was done at the instance of Ex-MLA Satya narain Singh, who had lost the election to Panna Lal His further contention is that the appellants are the supporters of panna Lal, the present MLA, as such, thev have been falsely implicated in this case at the instance of Ex-MLA Satya narain Singh His submission was that no incident of kidnapping ever took place. It is true that on the point of political rivalry between Satya Narain Singh, Ex mla and Panna Lal, the present MLA, questions were put to the prosecution witnesses but only on that basis the entire evidence of the prosecution witnesses on the point of kidnapping can not be disbelieved. Moreover, I find from the trend of cross-examination of the witnesses that the defence has not totally denied that the occurrence of kidnapping had not taken place at all, rather, the defence has suggested to some of the witnesses that the kidnapping was done at the instance of Jaldhari Singh (not accused) and it was suggested to PW 1 that he was the kingpin of alleged kidnapping. Thus, on the basis of the evidence available on record as well as from the suggestion put to the prosecution witnesses by the defence it can be safely held that the prosecution has fully been able to prove that on the alleged date of occurrence pw 5 Vijay Bhagat had been kidnapped by the criminals for the purpose of ransom. 23. Now, the next question is as to whether the appellants are the persons who had kidnapped PW 5 Vijay Bhagat. From the perusal of the judgment of learned trial Court it appears that all the seven appellants were convicted for the offence under Sections 364-A and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code but from the deposition of PW 4 Bocho Singh, PW 6 binod Kumar Singh, PW 7 Kusheshwar bhagat , PW 8 Anil Kumar Singh, PW 9 chandi Sao, PW 10 Krishna Kumar Sah, it appears that though they have supported the occurrence of kidnapping but they have not claimed to identify any of the kidnappers. They all are hearsay witnesses except PW 4 Bocho Singh, who is said to be an eye-witness of the occurrence but he has also not claimed to identify any of the kidnappers. It is true that pw 1 Kailash Singh, PW 2 Sanjay Kumar and PW 3 Ambika Sharan Singh have named Kailash Singh as one of the kidnappers of Vijay Kumar Bhagat but they have not claimed to identify him at the time of kidnapping and, as such, the kidnapped person i. e. ; PW 5 Vijay Bhagat becomes the solitary eye-witness who has claimed to identify his kidnappers. In the following para, I would like to scrutinize his evidence in order to come to the conclusion as to whether his evidence is trustworthy. In the following para, I would like to scrutinize his evidence in order to come to the conclusion as to whether his evidence is trustworthy. His evidence is as follows :- On 14.4.1999, at about 6.30 p. m. , he was returning to his house from his brick kiln riding on a red colour Rajdoot motor cycle bearing registration No BRI 7524 when he reached near a culvert built on brick soling, road he was surrounded by 15 persons who were variously armed amongst them he identified (1) Kaushal singh, (2) Sanjay Singh, (3) Ran Vijay singh, (4) Halo Mahto, (5) Kailash Singh, (6) Ram Chandra Singh, (7) Md Zahid, (8)Mukesh Kumar, (9) Md Moquim, (10)Pradeep Singh and (11) Nand Singh (amongst them Md Mobin Ah @ Moquim ah, Ran Vijay Singh, Ram Chandra Singh, md Zanid Ah, Halo Mahto, Mukesh Singh @ Mukesh Kumar and Kailash Singh are the appellants He has further deposed that Sanjav Singh, Kaushal Singh, Ran vijay Singh inflicted injuries on his head and Kailash Singh, Halo Mahto, Ram chandra Singh forcibly dragged him from the motor cycle Thereafter, Zahid and mukesh Kumar fled away riding on his motor cycle and rest persons took him towards Baltara Bahiyaar He has further deposed that his kidnappers kept him confined in a maize field from 14 4 1999 to 16 4 1099 till 1 00 p m and on 154 1999 they forced him to write a letter demanding ransom of Rs 2,05,000.00 The said letter was handed over to appellant Kailash Singh He has further deposed that on 16 4 1999 at 1 00 p m kailash Singh came to the maize field and asked him to accompany but after covering some distance he asked him to go ahead and then he PW 5 proceeded further and thereafter he saw his brother sanjay Bhagat along with Munshi Kailash singh and Ambika Sharan Singh standing thus, from the evidence of PW 5 (victim) it becomes clear that he has named all the appellants besides others amongst his kidnappers The question is whether the above ( vidence of PW 5 finds corroboration from the evidence of the other prosecution witnesses At the very outset i would like to say that there is absolutely no corroboration of the evidence of pw 5 that appellants Md Mobin Ali @ moquim Ah, Ran Vijay Singh, Ram chander Singh, Md Zahid Ah, Halo mahto, Mukesh Singh @ Mukesh Kumar had any hand m his kidnapping However, pws 1, 2 and 3 have corroborated this fact that appellant Kailash Singh had hand in the kidnapping of Vijay Kumar Bhagat in ordinary course, the evidence of the victim PW 5 should have been relied without any corroboration from the other witnesses as he can be termed as most competent witness so far the identification of his kidnappers is concerned but in this case there are some extra ordinary circumstances which makes the entire evidence of PW 5 with regard to the identification of appellants, namely Md Mobin ah @ Moquim, Ran Vijay Singh, Ram chandra Singh, Md Zahid Ah, Halo Mahto and Mukesh @ Mukesh Kumar at the time of his kidnapping very doubtful The first circumstances is that none of the prosecution witnesses has come forward to say that after release of PW 5 from the clutches of his kidnappers he had disclosed the names of his kidnappers although they all had opportunity to meet pw 5 after his release from the clutches of his kidnappers In this regard, reference can be made to paras 3 and 8 of the deposition of PW 1,paras 4, 11, 12 of deposition of the PW 2, paras 6 and 7 of the deposition of PW 3, para 4 (last line) and para 5 of the deposition of PW 6, para 7 of the deposition of PW 8 and para 3 of the deposition of PW 10 In the above mentioned paragraphs the above named witnesses have deposed that after the release of Vijay Bhagat from the captivity of his kidnappers they all met PW 5 Vijay bhagat but not a single witness has deposed that PW 5 had told the names of the above said appellants amongst his kidnappers which creates doubt that the implication of the above named appellants is afterthought Out of the above said witnesses PW 2, is the own brother of PW 5 He is also the informant of this case and according to his evidence after making payment of ransom amounting to rupees seventy five thousand, appellant Kailash Singh took him to the maize field after covering about one kilometer, asked him to stay behind and then he brought his brother Vijay Bhagat and handed him over to him but in his examination-in chief he has not stated that at that time his brother Vijay Bhagat had disclosed the name of any of his kidnappers at para 11 of his cross-examination, pw 2 has admitted that his brother (Vijay bhagat) had told him the names of his kidnappers but even then in his examination-in chief he did not disclose the name of any of the kidnappers of his brother Vijay Bhagat Likewise, PW 7 who is the father of victim Vijay Bhagat has deposed at para 11 of his cross-examination that alter his release his son Vijay bhagat had told him the name of accused zahid amongst his kidnappers which goes to show that PW 7 had the occasion to talk with the victim Vijay Bhagat after his release but curiously enough he has also not whispered the name of any of the accused as the kidnappers of Vijay bhagat in his examination-in-chief All these circumstances establishes that none of the prosecution witnesses including the father and own brother of Vijay bhagat was ready to support the version of Vijay Bhagat that the above named appellants were his kidnappers The second circumstances is that on 16.4.1999 after the release from the clutches of his kidnappers PW 5 Vijay Bhagat immediately went to his brick kiln where I. O. PW 12 along with the Dy S P and others were waiting for his arrival According to para 19 of deposition of PW 12, who is the ic of this case, on 16 4 1999 he made interrogation from Vijay Bhagat but on that date he did not give any statement and only on 17-4-1999 he (Vijay Bhagat)came to the police station and disclosed the names of his kidnappers This circumstances shows that on 16 4 1999 PW 5 Vijay Bhagat was not aware about the names of his kidnappers and that is why on that date he did not make any statement before the police although he met pw 12 along with the Dy S. P and other police personnel at his brick kiln after his release 24 It has been argued on behalf of the State that at that time when PW 5 met the I O at his brick kiln after his release he might have been mentally disturbed and that is why he was not in a position to make any statement. So, the fact that on 16 4 1999 PW 5 had not given any statement to the I O does not affect the prosecution case adversely But, I think that the argument is not based on the materials available on record as PW 5 (victim) has deposed at para 3 of his deposition that on the very day i e , on 16 4 1999 he gave his statement before the Dy S P at his brick kiln and since the I O asked him to come to the police station on the next day, as such, on 17 4 1999 he went to the police station and gave his statement This goes to show that on 16 4 1999, PW 5 was mentally fit but unfortunately that statement of PW 5 which was made before the Dy. S P is not before the Court. I am forced to believe that since that statement does not bear the name of his kidnappers, as such, the same was not brought on record. This circumstance further establishes that the involvement of the above named appellants by PW 5 is very doubtful. 25. S P is not before the Court. I am forced to believe that since that statement does not bear the name of his kidnappers, as such, the same was not brought on record. This circumstance further establishes that the involvement of the above named appellants by PW 5 is very doubtful. 25. The learned advocate of the defence has argued that in the case of bapuli v The State of Orissa the Hon ble supreme Court has doubted the testimony of sole eye-witness who had failed to disclose the name of accused for about 20 hours He has referred para 10 of the said decision which runs as follows "one of the important points in favour of the appellant was that Ghanshyam had not disclosed the name either of the appellant or of the other accused to any one of the scores of people who he had met until the First Information Report was lodged about 20 hours after the occurrence Ghanshyam met Babaji, PW 2 within minutes of the incident but told him not a word about the incident Sometime during the night he went back to the scene of offence where nearly 200 persons had gathered but he did not disclose the name of any of the accused to those persons He went to the police station the next morning but beat a hasty retreat without giving information of the offence But the most important point is that after meeting babaji in a Math he went to a village called Palasa where he met Chakradhar Panda PW 8 chakradhar says in his evidence that Ghanshayam told him that the blow on the head of the deceased dealt immediately after the deceased got down from his bicycle was given by the approver Ratna-ker The High Court has failed to appreciate the significance of this aspect of Ghanshayams evidence It says "that does not affect his testimony as to what he saw at the time of assault" According to chakradhar, Ghanahsyam implicated the approver and some of the other accused but not the appellant We are unable to appreciate as to how this does not affect Ghanshyams testimony it is difficult to agree that this was "an error of inference" committed by the eye-witness as the High court calls it Witnesses are expected to depose to what they have seen and heard and not to draw inferences from what they see The privilege of drawing inference is given to courts not to witnesses " 26. I am of the view that in this case also the very conduct of PW 5 seems to be unnatural and non-disclosure of the names of his kidnappers immediately after his release creates doubt that the implication of above named appellants is afterthought It has further been argued on behalf of the defence that PW 5 is not a wholly reliable witness and, as such, for placing reliance upon his evidence the court has to look for corroboration in material particulars from other independent witnesses which is not done in this case and, as such, the conviction of the above named appellants is bad in law In this regard, the learned advocate of the defence has placed reliance upon the decision Lallu Manjhi and Anr v The State of Jharkhand He has referred para 10 of the said decision which is as follows the law of evidence does not require any particular number of witnesses to be examined in proof of a given fact However, faced with the testimony of a single witness, the Court may classify the oral testimony into three categories, namely, (i) wholly unreliable, (ii) wholly reliable, and (iii) neither wholly reliable nor wholly unreliable In the first two cat-2 (2003) 2 SCC 401 egories there may be no difficulty in accepting or discarding the testimony of the single witness. The difficulty arises in the third category of cases. The Court has to be circumspect and has to look for corroboration in material particulars by reliable testimony, direct or circumstantial, before acting upon the testimony of a single witness. " 27. Relying upon the said decision, I find that in this case also the testimony of pw 6 was not wholly reliable and, as such, i am of the view that the learned trial Court should have looked for corroboration from other independent witnesses and without corroboration from independent witnesses he should have discarded the evidence of pw 5. The learned defence counsel has also placed reliance upon the decision of patna High Court reported in Ram Ekbal prasad and Ors. V/s. The State of Bihar. He referred following lines from para 8 of the said decision which runs as follows : "pw 1, PW 2 and PW 3 claim to have seen the occurrence. The learned defence counsel has also placed reliance upon the decision of patna High Court reported in Ram Ekbal prasad and Ors. V/s. The State of Bihar. He referred following lines from para 8 of the said decision which runs as follows : "pw 1, PW 2 and PW 3 claim to have seen the occurrence. In their evidence they have stated that many people came at the place of occurrence but they did not disclose about the occurrence to any one. The conduct of the witnesses appear to be something unnatural. " Receiving upon the above observation given in the said decision the learned defence counsel argued that admittedly after his release PW 5 immediately went to his brick kiln where scores of people along with I. O. and Dy. S. P. were present but PW 5 did not disclose the names of the appellants to any one at that time which shows that his conduct was unnatural. I fully agree with the argument of defence counsel and hold that the conduct of PW 5 in not disclosing the names of the appellants amongst his kidnappers immediately after his release is unnatural which makes his evidence untrustworthy. Thus, on the basis of the above discussions I find and hold that the involvement of above named appellants with the offence of kidnapping is very doubtful and, so, the conviction of appellants-Md. Mobin All @ Moquim Ali, Ran vijay Singh, Ram Chander Singh, Md. Zahid Ali, Halo Mahto and Mukesh Singh @ Muksesh Kumar under Sec.364-A of the Indian Penal Code can not be upheld. 28 Now, I would like to deal with the complicity of appellant Kailash Singh with the alleged offence of kidnapping of vijay Bhagat as his case stands on different footing. So far his complicity with the alleged offence is concerned, I find that at least four witnesses have come forward to depose that this appellant was involved in the kidnapping of Vijay bhagat. In addition to direct evidence, there are some circumstantial evidence also which supports the complicity of this appellant with the alleged offence of kidnapping. On this point, the evidence of pws 1, 2, 3 and 5 is relevant. First of all, i would like to refer the relevant paragraphs of the deposition of PW 5. In para 2 of his examination-in-chief. On this point, the evidence of pws 1, 2, 3 and 5 is relevant. First of all, i would like to refer the relevant paragraphs of the deposition of PW 5. In para 2 of his examination-in-chief. he has deposed that when he reached near culvert about 15 persons surrounded him from all sides. They put weapons on his body. Amongst them he identified Kailash singh and ten others (named all the ten accused ). At para 4, he has deposed that on 15.4.1999 at about 2.00 p. m. he was forced to write a letter for payment of ransom and after writing the said letter he handed over the same to Kailash Singh. He further deposed that on 16.4.1999 at about 1.00 p. m. Kailash Singh came to the maize field and asked him to accompany and then he asked him to go ahead and when he covered some distance he saw his Munshi Kailash Singh PW 1, Dr ambika Sharan Singh PW 3 and his brother Sanjay Singh PW 2 standing At para 5, PW 5 has deposed that when he further proceeded along with his brother and others appellant Kailash Singh asked him not to go by road The above evidence of PW 5 shows the complicity of this appellant with the alleged offence of kidnapping at different stages 29. It has been argued by the de fence that since the testimony of PW 5 was unreliable and, as such, his evidence should be discarded but I can not agree with the argument of the learned defence counsel and I am supported in my view by the decision referred by the learned defence Lallu Manji and Anr v The State of jharkhand According to para 10 of the said ruling, oral testimony of a witness may be classified in three categories, namely, (i) wholly reliable, (ii) wholly unreliable and (iii) neither wholly reliable nor wholly unreliable The decision further says that in the first two categories there may be no difficulty in accepting or discarding the testimony of the single witness The difficulty arises in the third category of cases i e , neither wholly reliable nor wholly unreliable and in that case the Court has to look for corroboration in material particulars by reliable testimony, direct or circumstantial evidence before acting upon the testimony of a single witness Thus, the decision relied upon by the defence itself shows that the entire testimony of the sole eyewitness can not be discarded if it is not wholly unreliable What the law requires is material corroboration of the evidence of the sole eye-witness from independent and reliable testimony 30. Let me see whether the evidence of pw 5 with regard to the involvement of appellant Kailash Singh with the alleged offence of kidnapping finds corroboration from the evidence of other witness At the very outset, I would like to say that the evidence of PWs 1, 2 and 3 shows that all the three witnesses have fully corroborated this fact that appellant kailash Singh was involved in the alleged kidnapping PW 1 at para 2 has deposed that on 16 4 1999 he along with PWs 2 and 3 went to village Baltara in search of vijay Bhagat and reached at the house of Jaldhari Babu where they met Kailash singh (appellant], who told them that he will hand over Vijay Bhagat on payment of rupees seventy five thousand Almost similar statement was made by PW 2 at para 3 and PW 3 at para 2 PWs 1, 2 and 3 have further deposed that on 16 4 1999 itself they arranged rupees seventy five thousand and again went to the house of jaldhan Babu and PW 2 (Sanjay Kumar)handed over rupees seventy five thousand to this appellant Kailash Singh They have further deposed that after receiving the money appellant Kailash Singh took them to the maize field, brought vijay Bhagat from the maize field and handed him over to them The above evidence of PWs 1, 2 and 3 fully corroborates the evidence of PW 5 that appellant kailash Singh was involved in this case and that is why after receiving ransom he took PWs 1, 2 and 3 to the maize field from where PW 5 was released and handed over to them 31. Much argument has been advanced on behalf of the defence to hammer on the plea that the prosecution has failed to prove that either PW 2 or PW 7 had in their possession enough cash in order to pay the ransom amounting to rupees seventy five thousand and, therefore, the evidence of PWs 1, 2 and 3 should be disbelieved that any such amount was paid to appellant Kailash Singh by way of ransom for the release of Vijay Bhagat I am of the view that this argument has got no weight in view of the own admission of the defence that for opening of the brick kiln Vijay Bhagat had obtained loan from several accused of this case and in order to usurp the loan amount he falsely implicated them in this case This suggestion of the defence establishes that vyay Bhagat PW 5 was the man of means and he was running a brick kiln Besides that the evidence on record shows that in his family there is at least ten bighas of land and the family members have got other business also All these materials which are available on record establishes that Vijay Bhagat and his family members were the men of means and there was no difficulty for them in arranging rupees seventy five thousand for the release of Vijay Bhagat I, therefore, hold that this argument is of no help to the defence and the testimony of PWs 1, 2 and 3 that for the release of Vyay Bhagat rupees seventy five thousand was paid to appellant Kailash Singh towards ransom is trustworthy 32. ). In such view of the matter, I find that there are sufficient materials on record as well as there are reliable evidence to hold that appellant Kailash singh was involved in the kidnapping of vijay Bhagat and, therefore, I hold that he has been rightly convicted under Sec.364 A of the Indian Penal Code 33. ). In such view of the matter, I find that there are sufficient materials on record as well as there are reliable evidence to hold that appellant Kailash singh was involved in the kidnapping of vijay Bhagat and, therefore, I hold that he has been rightly convicted under Sec.364 A of the Indian Penal Code 33. From the perusal of judgment of the trial Court it appears that all the above named appellants were also convicted under Sec.120-B of the Indian penal Code but no separate sentence was awarded to the appellants under that count However, it appears that while discussing the charge under Sec.364-A of the Indian Penal Code I have held that the conviction of appellants Md Mobin Ah (a Moqulin Ali, Ran Vijay Singh, Ram chander Singh, Md Zahid Ah, Halo Mahto and Mukesh Kumar @ Mukesh Singh under Sec.364 A of the Indian Penal code can not be upheld and I have held only appellant Kailash Singh guilty under the said section, as such, I am of the view that the charge under Sec.120-B of the Indian Penal Code automatically fails when out of seven appellants only one is found guilty for the offence under sec. 364-A of the Indian Penal Code moreover, I find that there is absolutely no evidence on record to prove the criminal conspiracy and, as such I hold that, the conviction of the appellants under sec. 120-B of the Indian Panel Code can not be sustained 34. It further transpires that appellant md. 364-A of the Indian Penal Code moreover, I find that there is absolutely no evidence on record to prove the criminal conspiracy and, as such I hold that, the conviction of the appellants under sec. 120-B of the Indian Panel Code can not be sustained 34. It further transpires that appellant md. Zahid All and Mukesh @ Mukesh kumar were also convicted under Section 379 of the Indian Penal Code but in this regard the only evidence available on record is the solitary statement of PW 5 no other independent witness has come forward to depose that PW 5 immediately after his release from the captivity of his kidnappers had disclosed that Md Zahid ah and Mukesh @ Mukesh Kumar were amongst his kidnappers I have already found the evidence of PW 5 regarding the identification of appellant Md Zahid Ah, mukesh alias Mukesh Kumar and others as untrustworthy, so, no reliance can be placed upon this part of his evidence also that Halo Mahto and Ram Chander singh dragged him from the motor cycle and then Md Zahid Ah and Mukesh kumar sat upon the motor cycle, started it and fled away with the motor cycle It is true that PW 12, the I 0 has deposed that on the basis of the confessional statement of Md Zahid Ah, he had recovered the looted motor cycle but that very confessional statement was not brought on record Moreover, the evidence of the i O in this regard is not reliable as according to para 5 of his evidence he had recovered the said motor cycle from the house of one Angad Kumar but according to para 17 of the deposition of PW 12, appellant Zahid had made confessional statement that, he had concealed the said motor cycle in the house of Chotan Singh pw 12 has further deposed that on the basis of confessional statement he raided the house of Chotan Singh and from there he recovered the motor cycle This goes to show that the recovery of motor cycle was not made from the house of angad Kumar and even if it was made it was not on the basis of the confessional statement oi appellant Md Zahid, Moreover, from the evidence of PW11 it appears that the recovery of motor cycle either from the house of Angad Kumar or from the house of Chhotan Singh has not been supported by the independent witness under the circumstances mentioned above I find and hold that the charge under Sec.379 of the Indian penal Code against appellant Md Zahid ah and Mukesh alias Mukesh Kumar has failed and, as such, their conviction un der Sec.579 of the Indian Penal Code can not be upheld 35. On the basis of the discussions made above I find and hold that the conviction of all the seven appellants under sec. 120 B of the IPC is bad in law and must be set aside I further hold that conviction of appellants, namely, Md Mobin ali@moquim Cr Appeal No 516 of 2001, ran Vijay Singh Cr Appeal No 535 of 2001, Ram Chandra Singh Cr Appeal No 542 of 2001, Md Zahid Ah, Halo Mahto cr Appeal No 550 of 2001, Mukesh Singh @ Mukesh Kumar Cr Appeal No 566 of 2001 under Sec.364-A of the IPC is also bad in law and must be set aside likewise, I hold that the conviction of appellant Md Zahid Ah @ Zahid and mukesh @ Mukesh Kumar under Section 379 of the IPC is also bad in law and must be set aside Accordingly, the conviction of all the seven appellants under Section 120 B of the IPC is set aside and they are acquitted ot the charge of Sec.120-B of the Indian Penal Code Likewise, the conviction and sentences passed against appellants Md Mobm Ali @ Moquim Ah of cr Appeal No 516 of 2001, Ran Vijay singh of Cr Appeal No 535 of 2001, Ram chander Singh of Cr Appeal No 542 of 2001, Md Zahid Ah and Halo Mahto of Cr appeal No 550 of 2001, Mukesh Singh @ mukesh Kumar of Cr Appeal No 566 of 2001 under Sec.364-A of the IPC are set aside and they are acquitted of the charge of Sec.364-A of the IPC Similarly, the conviction and sentence passed against appellant, Md Zahid All and mukesh Singh @ Mukesh Kumar under sec. 379 of the IPC are also set aside and they are acquitted of the charge of sec. 379 of the IPC However, from the discussions made above I have come to the conclusion that appellant Kailash singh has rightly been convicted under sec. 364 of the IPC and, as such the conviction and sentence passed against appellant Kailash Singh under Section 364 of the IPC are hereby upheld and confirmed 36. 379 of the IPC However, from the discussions made above I have come to the conclusion that appellant Kailash singh has rightly been convicted under sec. 364 of the IPC and, as such the conviction and sentence passed against appellant Kailash Singh under Section 364 of the IPC are hereby upheld and confirmed 36. In the result, Cr Appeal No 516 of the 2001 filed by Md Mobm All @ moquim Ah, Cr Appeal No 535 of 2001 filed by Ranvijay Singh, Cr Appeal No 542 of 2001 filed by Ram Chander Singh, Cr appeal No 550 of 2001 filed by Md Zahid ali @ Halo Mahto, and Cr Appeal No 566 of 2001 filed by Mukesh Singh @ Mukesh kumar are allowed The above name appellants are in custody as such, they are ordered to be set at liberty at once if not wanted in any other case However, I do not find any merit in Cr Appeal No 572 of 2001 filed by appellant Kailash Singh, as such, the same is hereby dismissed and as appellant Kailash Singh is in custody, he is ordered to serve remaining part of his sentence in jail. Crl Appeal 572/01 dismissed. Rest all appeals allowed.