Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2007 DIGILAW 1275 (PAT)

Nandlal Prasad v. State Of Bihar

2007-08-03

ANWAR AHMAD, CHANDRAMAULI KR.PRASAD

body2007
Judgment 1. All these appeals arise out of the same judgment and order and as such, they have been heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment. 2. Nand Lai Prasad (appellant in Cr. Appeal No. 246 of 2002), Harendra Mahto (appellant in Cr. Appeal No. 274 of 2002) and Lal Bihari Prasad (appellant in Cr. Appeal No. 296 of 2002), aggrieved by the judgment dated 24.04.2002 and order dated 26.04.2002 passed by the 3rd Additional Sessions Judge, West Champaran, Bettiah in Sessions Trial No. 152 of 1995 holding them guilty u/s. 364A of the Indian Penal Code and inflicting the punishment of imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 5,000.00 each, and in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years, have preferred these appeals. 3. Prosecution started on the basis of a fardbeyan given by P. W. 4 Vishwanath Sah before the Sub-Inspector of Police of Bhairavganj Police Station on 21.01.1995 at 11 a.m. at Kanchhedwa Chowk within Harsidhi Police Station. According to the informant, his nephew Manoj Kumar aged 16 years and Binod Kumar aged 11 years were studying in Alok Bharti School at Bettiah and used to stay as tenant in the house of appellant Nand Lal Prasad at Ganj No. 2 within Bettiah Town Police Station in the district of West Champaran. In the said house, appellant Lal Bihari Prasad, a jeep driver, was also a tenant and living with his wife. His nephew Binod Kumar suddenly disappeared from the said house on 19.08.1994 at 6.45 p.m. about which, his brother Rama Narayan Prasad gave information to the Police on 23.08.1994, which resulted into a Station Diary Entry. The informant and his family members were making efforts to trace the victim Binod Kumar and in this process, it came to their notice that from the day victim Binod Kumar was missing, another tenant of appellant Nand Lal Prasad, namely, appellant Lal Bihari Prasad was also missing along with his wife. 4. According to the informant, on 4.09.1994, a letter was picked up by his another nephew, namely Manoj Kumar (PW 4) from the verandah of the house of Nand Lal Prasad, appellant herein. Letter demanded ransom of Rs. 1 lakh to be delivered on 7.09.1994 at 6.30 p.m. at a bridge, half a kilo meter south to Jagdishpur Chowk. 4. According to the informant, on 4.09.1994, a letter was picked up by his another nephew, namely Manoj Kumar (PW 4) from the verandah of the house of Nand Lal Prasad, appellant herein. Letter demanded ransom of Rs. 1 lakh to be delivered on 7.09.1994 at 6.30 p.m. at a bridge, half a kilo meter south to Jagdishpur Chowk. In the said letter, it was indicated that after the payment of the aforesaid amount, the victim boy Binod Kumar shall reach by 10 p.m. On receipt of the aforesaid letter, the informant, along with his family members, went to the place indicated in the letter with money, but nobody turned up to receive the same. Again on 8.09.1994, another letter was found at the verandah of Nand Lal Prasad, which demanded ransom of Rs. 1 lakh to be delivered on 11.09.1994 in between 6.30 to 7 p.m. at a bridge on Harsidhi road. In the First Information Report, it was further indicated that on 8.09.1994, appellant Lal Bihari Prasad was seen in the vicinity. On receipt of the aforesaid ransom letter, according to the informant, the uncles (mamas) of his nephew, namely, Singhasan Prasad and Brij Lal Prasad went to the place indicated on 11.09.1994, but as the news had spread, nobody turned up on the said date also. According to the informant, third letter was found on the verandah of the appellant Nand Lal Prasad on 13.09.1994, which demanded a ransom money to be delivered on 14.09.1994 at 6 p.m. at Majhoulia Kanta, 1 km. south of Jagdishpur Chowk. The letter further indicated that after the payment is made, the victim boy shall be released within an hour. On receipt of the aforesaid ransom letter, uncles (Mousas) of the victim boy, namely, Kailash Prasad and Jamuna Prasad went to the place indicated in the ransom letter on 14.09.1994 and although on the said date, one person was moving on a by-cycle, but on inquiry, did not respond and as such, the ransom money could not be delivered. Again in the morning of 16.09.1994, another letter was found in the verandah of Nand Lal Prasad demanding ransom of Rs. 1 lakh to be delivered in an orchard, ahead of Jagdishpur Chowk in between 6 p.m. to 7 p.m. on 17.09.1994. Again in the morning of 16.09.1994, another letter was found in the verandah of Nand Lal Prasad demanding ransom of Rs. 1 lakh to be delivered in an orchard, ahead of Jagdishpur Chowk in between 6 p.m. to 7 p.m. on 17.09.1994. On the date and time indicated in the ransom letter, uncles (mama and mousa) of the victim boy, namely Dina Nath Prasad and Jamuna Prasad respectively went there but did not find any person to receive the ransom amount and they returned. 5. According to the prosecution, there was lull thereafter and they became helpless, but suddenly on 18.01.1995, appellant Lai Bihari Prasad went to the village, met the informant and disclosed that he along with his co-villager Harendra Prasad, and another person, namely Dinesh Prasad had kidnapped his nephew for ransom and had kept him at his Sasural at Village Maldahiya within Paharpur Police Station. Said Lal Bihari Prasad told the informant to come on 21.01.1995 at 10 a.m. at a Devi Mandir near Kanchhedwa Chowk, south of Harsidhi along with an amount of Rs. 1 lakh promising to release the victim boy. On getting this information, the informant along with his co-villager Satya Narayan Sah (PW 1) went to the temple at 10 a.m. on 21.01.1995, where he found the appellant Lal Bihari Prasad along with two other accused. The informant handed-over a sum of Rs. 25,000.00 and stated that balance amount shall be paid after the release of the victim boy. After receipt of the said amount, the two accused had gone to bring the victim boy Binod Kumar, but Lal Bihari Prasad stayed there. However, after some time, Lal Bihari Prasad tried to flee away at which P.W. 9 Satya Narayan Sah raised alarm, which attracted the attention of the villagers and after chase, Lai Bihari Prasad was apprehended. He disclosed in presence of the persons apprehending him that he along with his friends, namely, Harendra Prasad (appellant herein) and Dinesh Prasad had kidnapped the victim and as the ransom amount was not paid in time, the victim boy was done to death and his dead body was thrown in a river near orchard south to the house of appellant Harendra Prasad and the clothes belonging to the victim, concealed in the orchard. He disclosed the names of the persons, who had fled away with the ransom amount to be Harendra Prasad and Dinesh Prasad. According to the informant, Lal Bihari Prasad was being taken to the Police Station with the help of the villagers, but the Officer-in-Charge met him in the way, where his statement was recorded. The Officer-in-Charge of Harsidhi Police Station forwarded the said information to Bettiah Town Police Station for necessary action as the place of occurrence fell within the territory of said Police Station. 6. On the basis of the aforesaid information, Bettiah Town P. S. Case No. 13 of 1995 was registered against three persons, namely Lai Bihari Prasad, Harendra Mahto appellants herein and Dinesh Prasad under Ss. 364 and 364A of the Indian Penal Code. 7. The police, after investigation, submitted charge sheet against two named accused, namely, Lal Bihari Prasad and Harendra Mahto, but did not sent up for trial the other accused, namely, Dinesh Prasad. However, appellant Nand Lal Prasad was charge-sheeted. All the three appellants ultimately were committed to the Court of Sessions, where they were charged for kidnapping Binod Kumar to pay ransom of Rs. 1 lakh punishable u/s. 364A of the Indian Penal Code. Appellants pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 8. In order to bring home the charge, prosecution examined four witnesses, namely P. W. 1 Satya Narayan Sah, P. W. 2 Dashrath Prasad, P. W. 3 Manoj Kumar and P. W. 4 Vishvanath Sah. Dukhi Sah and Umesh Prasad had also been examined as court-witnesses. 9. The defence of the appellants is denial simplicitor and no defence witness has been examined. 10. P. W. 1 Satya Narayan Sah is a co-villager and according to him, about one year and seven months ago, two boys of his village, namely Binod Kumar and Manoj Kumar (PW 3) were pursuing their studies at Bettiah and living in the house of Nand Lal Prasad at Ganj No. 2, in the town of Bettiah. Binod Kumar was kidnapped from the house of said Nand Lal Sah. Appellant Lal Bihari Prasad also used to reside in a house adjoining the house of Nand Lal Sah and used to go to their house. In the house of Nand Lal Prasad, according to this witness, ransom letter demanding a sum of Rs. 1 lakh was found some time after kidnapping. Appellant Lal Bihari Prasad also used to reside in a house adjoining the house of Nand Lal Sah and used to go to their house. In the house of Nand Lal Prasad, according to this witness, ransom letter demanding a sum of Rs. 1 lakh was found some time after kidnapping. According to him, he along with Vishwanath Sah and Dashrath Prasad, went to village Kanchhedwa, south of Harsidhi and met appellant Lal Bihari Prasad. After some time, the other two appellants, namely, Harendra Prasad and Nand Lal Prasad, in whose house the victim and his brother used to reside, came. A sum of Rs. 25,000.00 was handed-over to appellant Lal Bihari Prasad and the balance amount was promised to be given after seeing the victim. After receipt of the aforesaid amount, appellant Harendra Prasad and Nand Lal Prasad left the place, but appellant Lal Bihari Prasad stayed there. After some time, Lal Bihari Prasad also attempted to flee away but with the help of the villagers, he was apprehended and on inquiry, confessed that on account of delay in payment of the ransom amount, the kidnapped boy has been killed. After that, according to his evidence, police came and as disclosed by the apprehended appellants, clothes belonging to the victim were recovered. In cross-examination, he had stated that he did not had any talk with the appellant Harendra Prasad and Nand Lal Prasad, but volunteered that Lal Bihari Prasad had given the ransom amount to the aforesaid appellants. In the cross-examination, he has further stated that the place at which appellant Lal Bihari Prasad was living, the ransom letters used to be received by victims brother Manoj Kumar (P. W. 3), which belonged to Nand Lal Prasad. 11. P.W. 2 Dashrath Prasad has stated in his evidence that on 22.01.1995 in the morning, he had gone to Bettiah Town Police Station, where he found appellant Lal Bihari Prasad. According to him, Lal Bihari Prasad confessed that the victim boy, namely, Binod Kumar has been killed by them. His dead body was thrown in the river Chandrawati and his clothes concealed in an orchard near the said river. According to him, police took him to the said place along with P. W. 1 Satya Narayan Sah, and from the place indicated by appellant Lal Bihari Prasad clothes belonging to Binod Kumar were digged out. His dead body was thrown in the river Chandrawati and his clothes concealed in an orchard near the said river. According to him, police took him to the said place along with P. W. 1 Satya Narayan Sah, and from the place indicated by appellant Lal Bihari Prasad clothes belonging to Binod Kumar were digged out. It was identified by him and seizure-list (Ext. 1) was prepared, which contain his signature and that of P. W. 1 Satya Narayan Sah besides the aforesaid appellant and the two Choukidars. However, in cross-examination, he had accepted that the confession of Lal Bihari Prasad, as indicated in his evidence, was not disclosed to the police. He has further stated that the seized clothes were brought to the Police Station and kept in a sealed cover, but that did not contain his signature. 12. P. W. 3 Manoj Kumar happens to be the brother of the victim boy. According to him, about one and half years ago at about 6.45 p.m. while he was returning after tuition from Kalibagh and reached near Raj School, saw appellant Lal Bihari Prasad and his younger brother Binod Kumar proceeding towards Meena Bazar vegetable market. Lal Bihari Prasad was also a tenant in the house of appellant Nand Lal Prasad. According to him, his brother as also appellant Lal Bihari Prasad did not return and on enquiry, wife of Lal Bihari Prasad informed that her husband had also not come. Lal Bihari Prasad returned at 6 a.m. the following day, but did not say anything about the whereabout of his brother. He made effort to search his brother and went to the residence of some people of his village living at Bettiah town but he could not be found out. On the next day, his father came and gave information to the Town Police Station on 23.08.1994. Thereafter, appellant Nand Lal Prasad handed over letters on several dates disclosing that those letters were thrown in his verandah. According to him, in the night before the letter was received, Lal Bihari Prasad had come but had left the place along with his wife, the following day. According to this witness, in all the letters, demand of a sum of Rs. 1 lakh was made which was to be delivered at different places indicated therein. According to him, in the night before the letter was received, Lal Bihari Prasad had come but had left the place along with his wife, the following day. According to this witness, in all the letters, demand of a sum of Rs. 1 lakh was made which was to be delivered at different places indicated therein. It was further assured that on payment of the ransom amount, the victim boy shall be released, failing which he shall be killed. 13. P. W. 4 Vishwanath Sah is the uncle of the victim boy and informant of the case. He has stated in his evidence that his nephews, namely, victim Binod Kumar and Manoj Kumar (P. W. 3) used to pursue their study while living in the house of appellant Nand Lal Sah at Ganj No. 2 in Bettiah town. On 19.08.1994 at about 6.45 p.m., he was kidnapped. On 23.08.1994, his father gave report to the town police station, which was entered in the Station Diary. In the house of appellant Nand Lal Prasad, another appellant, namely Lal Bihari Prasad was also a tenant and used to live with his wife. Following day of the incident, according to this witness, Lal Bihari Prasad shifted his wife to some other place. Despite search, the victim was not traced out, but ransom letter started coming. On 4.09.1994, a letter was received demanding ransom of Rs. 1 lakh in the said house and although they went to the place indicated in the ransom letter, but nobody turned up. Again on 8.09.1994, another letter was received and two persons, namely, Singhasan Prasad and Brij Lal Prasad went there, but did not meet any one. On 13.09.1994, as disclosed in the ransom letter, Kailash Prasad and Jamuna Prasad went there and although came across one person, but he did not disclose anything. Again on 16.09.1994, a letter came and Dina Nath Prasad and Jamuna Prasad went to the location disclosed in the said letter, but did not meet any person. 14. According to this witness, on 18.01.1995, Lal Bihari Prasad came to the village and disclosed that he had kidnapped the victim boy with the help of appellant Harendra Prasad and another person and kept him at village Maldahiya. He asked him to come on 21.01.1995 with a sum of Rs. 14. According to this witness, on 18.01.1995, Lal Bihari Prasad came to the village and disclosed that he had kidnapped the victim boy with the help of appellant Harendra Prasad and another person and kept him at village Maldahiya. He asked him to come on 21.01.1995 with a sum of Rs. 1 lakh at Kanchhedwa Chowk Devi mandir south of Harsidhi and promised that the victim boy shall be released. At this, he along with P. W. 1 Satya Narain Sah went, as directed, on 21.01.1995, met the appellants and gave Rs. 25,000.00 to Lal Bihari Prasad promising that the balance amount shall be paid after the release of the kidnapped boy. On receipt of the amount, appellant Harendra Prasad and Nand Lal Prasad excepting appellant Lal Bihari Prasad, left the place to release the kidnapped boy but after some time, Lal Bihari Prasad attempted to flee away. On hulla being raised, persons living there came at the spot and Lal Bihari Prasad was apprehended. On being apprehended, Lal Bihari Prasad confessed that he along with appellant, namely, Harendra Prasad and Nand La] Prasad had kidnapped the victim boy. Further, as the ransom money was not paid, all of them after killing him threw the dead body in the river Chandrawati and concealed his clothes in a ditch in the orchard. 15. According to this witness, appellant Lal Bihari Prasad was being taken to the Police Station, but at Kanchhedwa Chowk, the Officer-in-Charge of Harsidhi Police Station, met them and the said appellant was handed over to him. There his fardbeyan (Ext. 3) was recorded and P. W. 1 Satya Narain Sah became its witness. He has specifically stated that he did not disclose the receipt of the ransom letters to the police as he apprehended that kidnappers will murder the victim boy. In the cross-examination, he has stated that in his statement, he had disclosed the names of Harendra Prasad and Lal Bihari Prasad, but did not remember as to whether he had disclosed the name of Nand Lal Prasad. He has also stated that the police did not help in apprehending appellant Lal Bihari Prasad, but in fact, they had already apprehended him with the help of P.W. 1 Satya Narain Sah. He denied the suggestion that Nand Lal Prasad has been implicated in the case to avoid payment of rent by his nephews. 16. He has also stated that the police did not help in apprehending appellant Lal Bihari Prasad, but in fact, they had already apprehended him with the help of P.W. 1 Satya Narain Sah. He denied the suggestion that Nand Lal Prasad has been implicated in the case to avoid payment of rent by his nephews. 16. C.W. 1 Dukhi Sah, a court witness in his evidence, has stated that he knew appellants Harendra Prasad and Lal Bihari Prasad as the formers residence is near his house and latter being a jeep driver. He denied are relationship with them. 17. C. W. 2 Umesh Prasad (another court witness) is an Advocate Clerk and has proved the confessional statement (Ext. 4) of appellant Lal Bihari Prasad recorded by Sub-Inspector of Police Md. Ali. He identified his writing and signature thereon. 18. The Court below, on appraisal of evidence, came to the conclusion that the prosecution has been able to prove its case beyond all reasonable doubt and accordingly, convicted the appellants as indicated above. 19. Mr. S. N. P. Sinha, Senior Advocate, appears on behalf of the appellant Nand Lal Prasad (appellant in Cr. Appeal No. 246 of 2002), whereas (appellant of Cr. Appeal No. 274 of 2002) Harendra Mahto is represented by Mr. K. P. Singh, Senior Advocate. Mr. Abhay Kumar Singh appears on behalf of appellant Lal Bihari Prasad (appellant in Cr. Appeal No. 296 of 2002). 20. Learned Counsels appearing on behalf of the appellants submits that there is inordinate delay in lodging the first information report and the explanation put forth by the prosecution, is just an excuse, which is not fit to be accepted. They also point out that Sanha said to have been given by the victims father, has not been brought on record. 21. Mr. Lala Kailash Bihari Prasad, Additional Public Prosecutor, appearing on behalf of the State, however, submits that mere delay in lodging the first information report itself, does not create any doubt and the prosecution story cannot be rejected on this ground alone. He submits that the prosecution has given reason for not lodging the first information report and that being natural conduct of a victims family, in the circumstance, is fit to be accepted. 22. Having appreciated the rival submission, we do not find any substance in the submission of the learned Counsels for the appellants. He submits that the prosecution has given reason for not lodging the first information report and that being natural conduct of a victims family, in the circumstance, is fit to be accepted. 22. Having appreciated the rival submission, we do not find any substance in the submission of the learned Counsels for the appellants. True it is that there is delay in lodging the first information report, but that itself is not enough to discard the case of the prosecution. The victim boy went missing on 19.08.1994 and for few days, the family made efforts to trace him out and when did not succeed, father of the victim boy gave report to the police on 23.08.1994, which has been recorded in the Station Diary. Thereafter, ransom letters started came on 4.09.1994, 8.09.1994, 13.09.1994 and 16.09.1994. The witnesses have stated that they did not inform the police about the receipt of those letters as they apprehended that the victim boy shall be murdered. Thereafter, on 18.01.1995, appellant Lal Bihari Prasad himself came and promised to release the boy on payment of ransom on 21.01.1995. In fact, a part of the ransom amount was paid on 21.05.1995 but thereafter, the victim boy was not released and it was disclosed that he has been murdered. The feeling of the family to get the kidnapped boy back even after payment of ransom amount deserves to be appreciated. The family had lost a young boy aged about 11 years and their distrust on the police to trace the victim out, cannot be brushed aside lightly. The victims family was confronted with the situation in which a young boy was missing and, therefore, they made attempt in their own way to get him released. In such situation, the delay had occurred in lodging the first information report, which has sufficiently been explained and we are of the opinion that mere delay in lodging the first information report itself, do not create any doubt to the case of the prosecution. 23. Learned Counsels for the appellants contend that after the receipt of the first ransom letter on 4.09.1994, information ought to have been given to the police. This inaction on part of the prosecution creates doubt. We do not find any substance in the submission of the learned counsels. How a particular person will react facing this kind of trauma cannot be uninform. This inaction on part of the prosecution creates doubt. We do not find any substance in the submission of the learned counsels. How a particular person will react facing this kind of trauma cannot be uninform. Here, the victim boy belongs to a village and efforts by his family members to trace him out with the help of the police, is absolutely unnatural and we are not inclined to reject the case of the prosecution on this ground. 24. Learned Counsels for the appellants, then contend that there is no eye witness to the kidnapping of the victim boy. This submission has only been noted to be rejected. The crime of kidnapping is not necessarily done in the presence of the witnesses. However, to put the record straight, P. W. 3 Manoj Kumar, the brother of the victim boy, who was living along with him in the rented house of appellant Nand Lal Prasad, has clearly stated in his evidence that he saw his brother Binod Kumar going along with the appellant Lal Bihari Prasad and on enquiry, Lal Bihari Prasad disclosed that they are going to purchase vegetable. 25. Another grievance of the learned Counsels for the appellants is that the first information report has been lodged not by the father of the victim but uncle P. W. 4 Vishwanath Sah, which creates doubt to the case of the prosecution. This P. W. 4 Vishwanath Sah had gone to pay the ransom amount along with P. W. 1 Satya Narain Sah and in fact, he had paid the part of the ransom amount. He is the person to whom, Lal Bihari Prasad disclosed that he along with other appellants have kidnapped the victim boy and for non-payment of the ransom amount, murdered him. In our opinion, he was the most competent person to give the fardbyan and the prosecution story does not deserves to be rejected on the ground that the information was not given by the victims father. 26. Learned Counsel for the appellants further contend that the witnesses of seizure of clothes allegedly belonging to the victim and recovery at the instance of appellant Lal Bihari Prasad, have not been examined, nor it has been proved nor there is any material to show that the clothes recovered belong to the victim. We do not find any substance in this submission of the learned Counsels also. We do not find any substance in this submission of the learned Counsels also. P. W. 2 Dashrath Prasad has clearly stated in his evidence about the recovery and seizure of clothes at the place disclosed by appellant Lal Bihari Prasad. He had also stated that the clothes recovered belonged to the victim boy. There is no cross-examination at all of this witness on this question and in the absence thereof, we have no hesitation in holding that clothes belonging to the victim was recovered from the place disclosed by appellant Lal Bihari Prasad. 27. They further contend that had the appellants involved in the kidnapping, they had occasion to receive the ransom amount on various dates but they did not collect the same, which shows that they have no hand in the crime. We do not have the slightest hesitation in rejecting this submission of the learned Counsels. According to the prosecution, on various dates as disclosed in the ransom letters they went to pay the ransom amount at the disclosed place. The appellants might have thought that they may be apprehended and therefore, did not receive the ransom amount. In our opinion, the case of the prosecution cannot be rejected only on the ground that despite readiness on the part of the prosecution to pay the ransom amount, they did not receive the same. 28. While assailing the conviction of appellant Nand Lal Prasad, Mr. Sinha contends that according to the prosecution, P.W. 1 Satya Narain Sah accompanied P. W. 4 Vishwanath Sah to pay the ransom amount at the place disclosed by appellant Lal Bihari Prasad. He points out that P. W. 4 Vishwanath Sah is the informant of the case, whereas P. W. 1 Satya Narain Sah is a witness thereof, but the name of appellant Nand Lal Prasad has not been disclosed in the first information report. He points out that in fact, the name of one Dinesh Prasad was disclosed and the first information report was registered against the appellants Harendra Mahto and Lal Bihari Prasad and said Dinesh Prasad. 29. Mr. Prasad, however, contends that mere omission of the name of Nand Lal Prasad in the first information report is not sufficient enough to discard the prosecution case, so far as his involvement is concerned. 29. Mr. Prasad, however, contends that mere omission of the name of Nand Lal Prasad in the first information report is not sufficient enough to discard the prosecution case, so far as his involvement is concerned. He points out that the letters demanding ransom amount were found at his verandah and one of the letters was handed over by him to the victims family. He submits that from the evidence of P. W. 1 Satya Narain Sah and P. W. 4 Vishwanath Sah, it is evident that he went along with Lal Bihari Prasad to collect the ransom amount. He also points out that there is extra-judicial confession of Lal Bihari Prasad and from the evidence of the two witnesses, namely, P. W. 1 Satya Narain Sah and P. W. 4 Vishwanath Sah it is evident that Lal Bihari Prasad had not only confessed, but stated about the involvement of other two appellants. He emphasizes that his confession had led to recovery of clothes of the victim and thus, extra-judicial confession is corroborated by the recovery which is sufficient to sustain their conviction. In support of the submission, he has placed reliance on a judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Gagan Kanojia and another V/s. State of Punjab, 2007 1 PLJR 200 and our attention has been drawn to paragraph No. 26 of the judgment, which reads as follows : "26. Extra-judicial confession, as is well known, can form the basis of a conviction. By way of abundant caution, however, the Court may look for some corroboration. Extra-judicial confession cannot ipso facto be termed to be tainted. An extra-judicial confession, if made voluntarily and proved can be relied upon by the Courts." 30. We do not have the slightest hesitation in accepting the broad submission of Mr. Prasad that extra-judicial confession, if held reliable, can form the basis of conviction. It is only by way of abundant caution that the Court looks for some corroboration, but in the facts of the present case, we are of the opinion that extra-judicial confession corroborated by the recovery of the victims clothes, is not sufficient enough to sustain the conviction of appellant Nand Lal Prasad. Appellant Nand Lal Prasad was the landlord of the house in which the victim boy was a tenant. Appellant Nand Lal Prasad was the landlord of the house in which the victim boy was a tenant. In such circumstance, the perpetrators of crime throwing letters at his verandah, do not point out to his guilt. He being the landlord, his conduct of handing over one of the ransom letters to the members of the victim family, also cannot be said to be unnatural. 31. So far as the evidence of P. W. 1 Satya Narain Sah and P. W. 4 Vishwanath Sah regarding the complicity of this appellant, do not inspire confidence. This appellant was known to Vishawanath Sah from before. We do not find any earthly reason as to why his name was not disclosed in the first information report. Satya Narain Sah (P. W. 1) is a witness to the fardbyan and had this appellant accompanied the other two appellants, his name ought to have figured in the first information report. It is worth mentioning that in the first information report, the names of the associates of Lal Bihari Prasad have been disclosed as appellant Harendra Mahto and Dinesh Prasad. All these infirmities lead us to conclude that the prosecution has not been able to prove its case beyond all reasonable doubt so far as appellant Nand Lal Prasad is concerned. 32. So far as other two appellants, namely, Harendra Prasad and Lal Bihari Prasad are concerned, they have been named in the first information report. In the self inculpatory statement given by appellant Lal Bihari Prasad, the name of appellant Harendra Mahto also figured. The confession of appellant Lal Bihari Prasad had led to recovery of clothes of the victim. Not only this, there is direct evidence of P. W. 1 Satya Narain Sah and P. W. 4 Vishwanath Sah showing their involvement in the crime. P. W. 4 Vishwanath Sah had clearly stated in his evidence that appellant Lal Bihari Prasad came to his village and promised to release the victim boy on payment of a sum of Rs. 1 lakh. He along with P. W. 1 Satya Narain Sah went to the place indicated by this appellant, where appellant Harendra Mahto was also seen. There is consistent evidence that a sum of Rs. 25,000.00 was paid as ransom and rest of ransom amount demanded, was to be paid after release of the victim boy. 1 lakh. He along with P. W. 1 Satya Narain Sah went to the place indicated by this appellant, where appellant Harendra Mahto was also seen. There is consistent evidence that a sum of Rs. 25,000.00 was paid as ransom and rest of ransom amount demanded, was to be paid after release of the victim boy. The ransom amount was paid and thereafter Harendra Prasad left the place promising to bring the boy and Lal Bihari Prasad stayed back. However, later on, appellant Lal Bihari Prasad tried to flee away and on being apprehended, disclosed that the victim boy was killed as ransom amount was not paid. Thus, there is not only extra judicial confession corroborated by the recovery so far as these two appellants are concerned, but also direct and consistent evidence showing their complicity. We are of the opinion that the prosecution has been able to bring home the charge, so far as appellants Harendra Prasad and Lal Bihari Prasad are concerned beyond all reasonable doubt. 33. In the result, Criminal Appeal No. 246 of 2002 preferred by appellant Nand Lal Prasad is allowed, judgment dated 24.04.2002 convicting him and order dated 26.04.2002 sentencing him are set aside. He is on bail. He shall be discharged of his bail bonds. 34. Criminal Appeal No. 274 of 2002 and Criminal Appeal No. 296 of 2002 preferred by Harendra Mahto and Lal Bihari Prasad respectively are dismissed.