JUDGMENT D.K. Sinha, J.- The instant Criminal Appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction dated 13.2.2010 (sic-2002) and order of sentence dated 16.2.2002 recorded by Shri William Minj, 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Bokaro in S.T. No. 409 of 1998 by which the appellant was convicted under Section 364 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a term of 10 years with the set off. The offence was related to kidnapping of a minor boy for ransom, who was later on recovered. 2. The prosecution story, as it stands narrated in the written report of the informant P.W. 6 Ajay Kedia, was that on 20.8.1997 his son Shivam Kedia, aged about 9 years, a student of Class-II at St. Xaviers School, Sector-I, Bokaro returned, as usual, at about 1.30 p.m. from the school and alighted from the school bus alongwith the other students at the bus stop situated at Biada Colony. The house of the informant was situated at Quarter No. 55, Lohanchal Colony at some distance from the said bus stop. He further narrated that his son Shivam Kedia had hardly covered 30/40 steps from the bus stop on his way back to home in the meantime a white Ambassador car came and stopped near him. One of the occupants of the Ambassador car came out and kidnapped his son and the car proceeded on the way towards the police line. The registration number plate of the Ambassador car was not visible a\ the same was covered with dung. The occurrence was informed to the informant by the children, who had alighted from the bus with Shivam. The informant was stunned having been come to know about the occurrence and from the circumstances he had reason to believe that the culprits kidnapped his son either to blackmail him or that his son would be killed. The informant mentioned an instance implicating the appellant Sheojee Jha that he was the driver of his car in his employment some five months prior to the alleged occurrence. The appellant used to live in Sector-12B at Quarter No. 2016. The informant mentioned an instance implicating the appellant Sheojee Jha that he was the driver of his car in his employment some five months prior to the alleged occurrence. The appellant used to live in Sector-12B at Quarter No. 2016. The informant further narrated that in spite of his strict instruction the driver Sheojee Jha (appellant) used to come drunk on duty and that having been fade up of his incorrigible conduct, he removed him from his job only 3/4 months prior to the alleged occurrence, of course, after making full payment. The informant alleged that consequently, Sheojee Jha (appellant) threatened him of dire consequences. The informant several times spotted him roaming around his house for the last few days sitting in an Ambassador car and for such reason he suspected that Sheojee Jha (appellant) kidnapped his son with the aid of other culprits either with mala fide intention or for ransom. On the basis of the written report, the police registered B.S. City P.S. Case No. 269 of 1997 on 20.8.1997 for the alleged offence under Sections 364/364A134 of the Indian Penal Code against the appellant Sheojee Jha and others and proceeded with the investigation. During course of investigation, the Ambassador car which was used in the alleged kidnapping was seized from Tatanagar whereas the kidnapped child was recovered from Purulia (West Bengal) by the Investigating Agency and the accused were arrested, who confessed their guilt that they had kidnapped the boy for ransom and charge-sheet was submitted against 5 accused persons namely Sheojee Jha (appellant) (2) Atul Kumar Akhouri (3) Prem Sagar Ram (4) Mausam Chatterjee and (5) Santosh Tewari for the offence under Sections 364/364A134 of the Indian Penal Code. Accordingly, charges were framed against them after commitment of case in two counts viz. 364/34 and 364A134 of the Indian Penal Code by the 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Bokaro. The accused pleaded not guilty and claimed their trial. Altogether eight witnesses were produced and examined on behalf of the prosecution. Besides, the prosecution proved the signature of the witness S.K. Rastogi on the seizure list Ext.-1, seizure list Ext.-2, Fardbayan of the informant Ext.-3, formal F.I.R. Ext.-4 and another seizure list Ext.-2/A. 3. P.W. 1 Ajit Kumar claimed to be the eye-witness of the occurrence. Altogether eight witnesses were produced and examined on behalf of the prosecution. Besides, the prosecution proved the signature of the witness S.K. Rastogi on the seizure list Ext.-1, seizure list Ext.-2, Fardbayan of the informant Ext.-3, formal F.I.R. Ext.-4 and another seizure list Ext.-2/A. 3. P.W. 1 Ajit Kumar claimed to be the eye-witness of the occurrence. He testified that on 20.8.1997 at about 1.15/1.30 p.m. he was getting some repair work done at the roof of his house and from there he witnessed the school bus of St. Xaviers School stopped at the 'bus stop of Sector-12. Consequently, some children alighted from the bus and amongst them he spotted Shivam, who was the son of Ajay Kedia. A white Ambassador car, which was parked there from before with a person standing outside the car, lifted the boy Shivam who was returning home and kidnapped him by putting in the car. He gathered from the other children that the person who kidnapped the boy was, the driver Sheojee Jha of Ajay Kedia. In the meantime, Ajay Kedia and his brother Anand Kedia arrived at the bus stop. The informant apprised him that a few days prior to the alleged occurrence he had removed the driver Sheojee Jha from his employment and that Sheojee Jha was pressurizing him to take him back in the job and he had extended threat to him in this conneCtion. He further testified that on witnessing that his son was kidnapped by his old driver Sheojee Jha, Ajay Kedia raised alarm whereupon he came out from his roof to the place of occurrence. The registration number plate of the vehicle was not visible as it was found covered with the dung mixed with mud. He learnt that the boy Shivam was recovered after 2/3 days of the occurrence from West Bengal side. The witness stated in his cross-examination that the house of Ajay Kedia was situated at the distance of about 200 yards from his house with the intervening 3/4 houses of S.D. Singh, K.P. Singh and S.K. Vishwakarma and the bus stop of Sector-12 was situated in the north at the distance of 400-500 yards. He could not say the names of the boys from whom he could gather that the culprit, who had lifted Shivam was Sheojee Jha. His statement was recorded by the police after about a day or two of the occurrence. He could not say the names of the boys from whom he could gather that the culprit, who had lifted Shivam was Sheojee Jha. His statement was recorded by the police after about a day or two of the occurrence. He further admitted having seen Sheojee Jha prior to the alleged date of occurrence and Ajay Kedia had apprised him immediately after alleged occurrence about the conduct of Sheojee Jha and threat extended by him some 4/5 days ago. The witness stated that Sheojee Jha used to drive the Ambassador car with its registration number B.R.20B8595 of Ajay Kedia and now another driver Devanand used to drive the said car of Ajay Kedia and he had occasion to travel by said car when its driver was Sheojee Jha. He denied the suggestion that Sheojee Jha was falsely implicated on account of altercation which , took place when Sheojee Jha had come to raise fund for the celebration of 'Durga Puja'. He identified the accused Sheojee Jha in the dock. " 4. P.W. 2 Deo Kumar Poddar is a witness on circumstances who testified that on 20.8.1997 at about 1.15/1.30 p.m. he witnessed, while coming to home for lunch, an Ambassador car of white colour running across Police Line, Bokaro which negotiated the curve of the road in a very high speed. He could not identify the registration number of the car. When he arrived at his house, his "daughter Snehal Poddar approached him weeping and narrated that Shivam was kidnapped by some one in the vehicle and she further apprised that it was the driver of Shivam who lifted and took him away but she could not identify the other culprits. He visited the house of Ajay Kedia who narrated that he had remo,ved his driver Sheojee' Jha earlier from the job of driver and the latter was pressurizing him to take him back, in the job and had extended threat otherwise also. The witness identified the culprit Sheojee Jha in the dock. In the cross-examination the witness testified that Ajay Kedia was known to him for the last 20 years, who was also an industrialist and they were living in the same colony for the last 3 years in the neighbour hood. He admitted having narrated before the police that he was apprised by his daughter about the kidnapping of Shivam by his driver. 5. He admitted having narrated before the police that he was apprised by his daughter about the kidnapping of Shivam by his driver. 5. P.W. 3 Santosh Kumar Singh was discharged by the .Court after having been found him not fit to be examined on account of his mental instability. 6. P.W. 4 Shailesh Kumar Rastogi is a seizur9 witness who testified that on 23.8.97 the S.1. of Police seized computer chart and telephone call registers maintained in the telephone booth having its No. 41084 in Sector II/A shopping centre. He proved his signature on the seizure' list as Ext.-1 and the entire seizure list Ext.-2. He admitted that" the seizure list was prepared at the time of seizure of call register/call details. . 7. P.W. 5 K.N. Dharmraj in his testimony claimed having seen a white Ambassador car running in excessive speed at some distance ahead of police line heading towards Durgabagh and he was apprehensive that the car might not cause accident. The windows of the car were closed and the registration number on the plate was not visible. He came across Ajay Kedia at Biada Colony, who apprised him that his son Shivam was kidnapped by Sheojee Jha. He accompanied Ajay Kedia to chas bye-pass road where they could gather from the bypassers that a white Ambassador car was seen heading towards Purulia and its number plate was not clear. He identified Sheojee Jha in the dock and narrated that he was the person who had been driving the car of Ajay Kedia. In the cross-examination, he admitted that he was apprised by Ajay Kedia that his son was kidnapped by Sheojee Jha. He had accompanied Ajay Kedia to . the Police Station where the latter presented a written report about the occurrence. His statement was recorded by the police on the subsequent day and he claimed having seen Sheojee Jha in the house of Ajay Kedia earlier. 8. P.W. 6, the informant of the case testified that the nickname of his son Shivam Kedia was Annu and at the time of his deposition, the boy was about 11 years old. On 20.8.1997 when Shivam was returning from St. Xaviers School after alighting from the school bus, whi.ch was stopped at the bus stop of Sector-12, as usual, he went to the bus stop to escort his son Shivam. On 20.8.1997 when Shivam was returning from St. Xaviers School after alighting from the school bus, whi.ch was stopped at the bus stop of Sector-12, as usual, he went to the bus stop to escort his son Shivam. He spotted his son Shivam returning home on foot at about 1.15/1.30 noon, in the meantime, a white coloured Ambassador car came near Shivam and one of the occupants came out from the car and forcibly took his son inside the car and escaped in the direction of the police line. The car was occupied by 3/4 more persons. He claimed having seen the occurrence at some distance while he was approaching the bus stop on foot. The witness further testified that some of the children amongst whom Nisa, Neha and Deven were nervous after having witnessed the occurrence. She narrated that Sheojee Jha, driver had forcibly taken Shivam away in his vehicle. He presented a written report at the police station ascribed in the pen of his brother Anand Kedia and he identified his signature thereon. The written report was proved and marked Ext.-3. He was informed by the police on the next date that a child was spotted near Purulia. Shivam was recovered from a lonely place near Purulia Bakura Road and when called upon, Shivam narrated that he was taken away by Sheojee Jha and his associates by aromatizing some drug and putting him in the vehicle. Some villagers were there at the place of recovery of the boy, who conveyed that some culprits had come in a white Ambassador car from Purulia side and left the boy there. The custody of the boy was given to him by the police later on. The witness further narrated that he had fired Sheojee Jha from his job of driver some 4/5 months ago as his conduct was not good. He claimed having witnessed Sheojee Jha roaming around his house in an Ambassador car with unknown persons since 4/5 days prior to the occurrence who had been extending threat to take him back in the job and had also extended threat of dire consequences. He claimed to identify Sheojee Jha who was represented in the Court through lawyer on that day. The witness was having his works in Biada Industrial Estate and having his own house in Biada Housing Colony. He claimed to identify Sheojee Jha who was represented in the Court through lawyer on that day. The witness was having his works in Biada Industrial Estate and having his own house in Biada Housing Colony. The bus stop where the school children used to alight from the school bus was situated at the distance of 400/ 500 steps towards north-east from his house. It was not a straight road from the bus stop to his house rather the road curved at right angle after covering a distance of 100/125 steps towards north on way to the bus stop yet, the bus stop was visible from the roof of his house.The witness claimed having spotted Sheojee Jha while he had lifted his son Shivam and lodged him in the vehicle. The witness admitted in his testimony that the fact was ascribed in the written report on his dictation that his son was abducted either for blackmailing him or for committing murder of his son. He admitted having not reported the matter to the police about the threat extended by Sheojee Jha. The witness stated that he was apprized by the conduct of Sheojee Jha from his daughter Snigdha and his wife, almost about twice that Sheojee Jha was seen roaming around his house in a white car but they did not note its registration number. He further deposed that by the time he visualized his son first point in time after he got down, the bus had already covered about 150-200 yards and the white car had reached near his son. He identified Sheojee Jha at the first sight though he had covered his chin to whom he spotted at the distance of 50/60 yards. At that time, the school children were on the road and his younger brother arrived there behind him within 3/4 minutes. All the school children approached him and amongst them Neha Poddar narrated that Sheojee Jha, driver had taken away Shivam with him. The police station was situated at the distance of five minutes and he went there walking. He requested the police officer at the police station to chase the culprits but the police proceeded only after lodging the case. He admitted having not accompanied the police in search of the culprits. The police station was situated at the distance of five minutes and he went there walking. He requested the police officer at the police station to chase the culprits but the police proceeded only after lodging the case. He admitted having not accompanied the police in search of the culprits. The witness testified that he could produce the documentary evidence that Sheojee Jha was driver under his employment and that he had produced the pay slip of Sheojee Jha before the police. He denied the suggestion that Sheojee Jha was not under his employment as driver and he was falsely implicated in the instant case on account of certain altercation when he had approached him raising fund on the eve of 'Durga Puja'. 9. P.W. 7 Anand Kedia, the brother 'of the informant testified that on 20.8.1997 while was going to the bus stop situated at Sector-12 to escort his nephew Shivam Kedia @ Annu, a student of St. Xaviers School, his brother Ajay Kedia was seen also proceeding towards bus stop to bring his son back because this witness had no knowledge that his brother had already proceeded to bring his son Shivam Kedia to home. He witnessed the school bus stopped at the bus stop where the children started alighting. He testified the school children proceeding but in the meantime, a white Ambassador car came near them, a person alighted from the car and forcibly took Shivam Kedia inside the car. That person was spotted as Sheojee Jha, his ex-driver. There were other 4/5 occupants in the Ambassador car. The car then speeded in the direction of police line. His neighbour Ajit Kumar came there and claimed having seen the occurrence from the roof of his house where some construction work was going on. Sheojee Jha was removed from the job of driver from his employment about 3/4 months prior to the alleged occurrence and he was insisting to take him back in the service, lest he threatened of dire consequences. The witness further claimed having seen the driver Sheojee Jha roaming around his house in a white car. His brother Ajay Kedia who had arrived at the place of occurrence prior to his arrival presented a written report at the police station. The witness further claimed having seen the driver Sheojee Jha roaming around his house in a white car. His brother Ajay Kedia who had arrived at the place of occurrence prior to his arrival presented a written report at the police station. The police proceeded in search of the vehicle and during search near Blue Diamond Hotel, some witnesses apprised the police that a white Ambassador car was seen, which was occupied by Sheojee Jha, Santosh Tewari, Atul Kumar Akhouri, Mausam Chatterjee and Prem Sagar Ram. Shivam was recovered from Purulia Bakura Road and such recovery was communicated by the local villagers, who stated that the boy was dropped by someone coming by a white Ambassador car. The custody of the boy was later on given by (sic-to ?) the police. Shivam narrated after his recovery that as soon as he alighted from the bus, Sheojee Jha forcibly took him away. He identified Sheojee Jha in the dock. He admitted that his statement was recorded by the police on 20.8.1997 but he had not stated before the ,police that some drivers found near Blue Diamond Hotel apprised the police that Sheojee Jha, Santosh Tewari etc. were found moving in an Ambassador car. He was cross-examined at length wherein he corroborated the statement of his brother Ajay Kediaabout the place of occurrence, location of neighbour hood and surroundings as also the curve of the road which led to the bus stand from his house. He explained that since he had no knowledge that his brother Ajay Kedia had already proceeded to escort his son Silivam back to his home. He was going to the bus stop to bring his nephew Silivam back and had seen the occurrence. He claimed having identified Sheojee Jha while he was kidnapping his nephew Shivam and escaped in a white Ambassador car. The school children had also apprised the witnesses that Shivam was kidnapped by the driver Sheojee Jha. Nothing material could be elicited from his entire evidence to discredit the credibility of his testimony and I find that he has corroborated the prosecution case. The defence which could be evident from the trend of suggestion was false implication of the appellant by giving instance that there held altercation with the witness when Sheojee Jha had approached him in connection with raising fund on the eve of "Durga Puja". 10. The defence which could be evident from the trend of suggestion was false implication of the appellant by giving instance that there held altercation with the witness when Sheojee Jha had approached him in connection with raising fund on the eve of "Durga Puja". 10. P.W. 8 Prem Mohan, the Investigating Officer of the case testified that on 20.8.1997 he was Officer-in-Charge of Sector-XII Police Station, Bokaro. On that day, the informant Ajay Kedia presented a written report. He forwarded the written report to Bokaro Ispatnagar Police Station for lodging the case. He proved the formal F.I.R. in the pen and signature of Police Sub-Inspector K.K. Prasad which was marked Ext.-4. He took up the investigation of the case and recorded the restatement of the informant and visited the place of occurrence which was the bus stop in Sector-XII and also recorded the statements of the witnesses. During course of investigation he went to the telephone booth of Santosh Kumar Singh, situated at Sector-II/A at the shopping centre and seized prints out of the telephone calls and also call register to which a seizure list was prepared. He recorded the statement of the boy who was kidnapped after his recovery and the boy had named Sheojee Jha, driver and his 4/5 accomplice but could not name amongst the accomplices. A white Ambassador car with registration number W.M.B. 6441 with the given chassis and engine number was recovered from within the jurisdiction of Burma Mines Police Station, Jamshedpur which was seized by the A.S.I., Jagdish Rabidas to which a seizure list was prepared in the carbon process and he proved seizure list Ext.-21 1. The kidnapped boy Shivam @ Annu was recovered from Purulia Road within the jurisdiction of Mufassil Police Station by him. The place of recovery, was the left side flank of Purulia Bankura Road and it was a lonely place. The villagers of surrounding villages were scared on finding a boy in white dress and in the morning they communicated the police station. The child was under influence of some sedative drug. The culprits were arrested and remanded to judicial custody. Shivam was recovered within 24 hours of his kidnapping and his statement was recorded on subsequent day of the occurrence who narrated that he was kidnapped by Sheojee Jha, who forcibly took him inside the vehicle, occupied by 4/5 culprits. The child was under influence of some sedative drug. The culprits were arrested and remanded to judicial custody. Shivam was recovered within 24 hours of his kidnapping and his statement was recorded on subsequent day of the occurrence who narrated that he was kidnapped by Sheojee Jha, who forcibly took him inside the vehicle, occupied by 4/5 culprits. He fell asleep after some sedative drug was administered to him by the culprits. He admitted that the child was not sent for medical check up as it was not required. Test Identification Parade of the culprits was conducted but it was not attended by the victim Shivam. The I.O. was cross-examined at length wherein he admitted having not recorded in the case diary about the period of employment of Sheojee Jha under the informant. He did not collect the evidence from the account book of the informant as to whether salary was given to Sheojee Jha and further admitted having not demanded any document regarding his employment from the informant and the latter was admittedly an industrialist.He relied upon the statements of the witnesses, who were consistent that Sheojee Jha was the driver of the informant but without any documentary evidence. The witness admitted having not recorded the registration number of the vehicle of the informant which was driven by Sheojee Jha. The Investigating Officer/witness further admitted that Shivam was not produced for recording his statement under Section 164 Code of Criminal Procedure as he was found nervous. His attention was drawn towards the statement of the witness Dilip Pathak recorded under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure but no contradiction was taken. He further admitted having not mentioned in the case diary about the name and designation of the Police Officer present at the time of recovery of the child but fairly admitted that neither the informant nor his near relation was present at the time of recovery of Shivam. The witness admitted that Sheojee Jha belonged to Sector-XIIIB having no criminal antecedent and his father was an employee of B.S.L. 11. Mr. Jai Prakash Jha, the learned Senior Counsel submitted that the sole appellant Sheojee Jha has been convicted by the Trial Court under Section 364 of the Indian Penal Code without legal evidence and also without appreciating that the required elements for constituting the said offence could not be fulfilled by the prosecution. Mr. Jai Prakash Jha, the learned Senior Counsel submitted that the sole appellant Sheojee Jha has been convicted by the Trial Court under Section 364 of the Indian Penal Code without legal evidence and also without appreciating that the required elements for constituting the said offence could not be fulfilled by the prosecution. The son of the informant P.W. 6 Ajay Kedia was kidnapped and was recovered by the police on the next very day. The informant implicated the appellant in the alleged kidnapping by giving motive that the appellant was in his employment as the driver of his car who was removed from the job only after a few months by the informant on the plea that he used to come on duty in a state of drunk and he did not mend himself in spite of warning. It was the further case that the appellant requested take him back in the service lest he threatened the informant of dire consequences. But prosecution failed to produce any documentary evidence in support of the relevant fact that the appellant was actually in the service of the informant Ajay Kedia as driver of his vehicle by producing salary certificate or payment of wages register. The informant Ajay Kedia was an industrialist and he ought to have maintained salary register for his employees. Advancing his argument Mr. Jha further submitted that though P.W.1 Ajeet Kumar, P.W.6 Ajay Kedia and P.W.7 Anand Kedia claimed having spotted Sheojee Jha taking away Shivam in an Ambassador car but the place from where they claimed having seen the occurrence were at such distance with the intervening buildings and trees and the curve of the road that it was not practically possible for any of them to visualize the occurrence. That apart these witnesses were consistent that they derived information from the school children who alighted from the bus with the boy that Shivam was taken away by Sheojee Jha, therefore, either of the two statements could be logically reliable but not both. 12. Mr. Jha, the learned Senior Counsel pointed out that the boy Shivam at the relevant time was a student of class-II in St. Xavier's School and was nine years old, quite competent to identify a person and deliver his statement. 12. Mr. Jha, the learned Senior Counsel pointed out that the boy Shivam at the relevant time was a student of class-II in St. Xavier's School and was nine years old, quite competent to identify a person and deliver his statement. The Investigating Officer deposed when called upon that after recovery, Shivam disclosed the complicity of Sheojee Jha in his kidnapping but neither the statement of the boy was recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. nor he was asked to appear in the Test Identification Parade of the accused persons. He was not even named in the chargesheet as proposed witness of the prosecution and in that manner the appellant has been highly prejudiced for non-examination of the boy as he has been denied opportunity to cross-examine him. The I.O.tried to mitigate this issue by explaining that the boy was under influence of sedation but he was not sent for medical checkup. The witnesses were highly interested as such their statements should not have been relied upon for basing conviction of the appellant as there held altercation between the appellant and the informant on the issue of raising fund for Puja. 13. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, argument advanced on behalf of the appellant by Mr. Jai Prakash Jha, Senior Advocate and Mr. Hatim, A.P.P. for the RespondentState, I find that the charge under Section 364 of the Indian Penal Code was framed against as many as five accused persons including the appellant Sheojee Jha but since the identity and complicity of other four accused Mausam Chatterjee, Prem Sagar Ram, Atul Kumar Akhouri and Santosh Tewari could not be established, they were acquitted by the Trial Court. I find from the statements of the witnesses P.W.1 Ajeet Kumar, P.W.6 Ajay Kedia and P.W.7 Anand Kedia that they identified the appellant Sheojee Jha kidnapping the boy Shivam on the alleged date and time of occurrence in a white Ambassador car at some distance. All the three witnesses were cross-examined at length but veracity of their testimony could not be discredited. P.W.1, P.W. 6 and P.W.7 were the natural witnesses. P.W. 6 Ajay Kedia as usual was going to the bus stop to bring his son Shivam. All the three witnesses were cross-examined at length but veracity of their testimony could not be discredited. P.W.1, P.W. 6 and P.W.7 were the natural witnesses. P.W. 6 Ajay Kedia as usual was going to the bus stop to bring his son Shivam. P.W.7 admittedly the younger brother of the informant explained that he had no knowledge that Ajay Kedia had already gone to escort Shivam as such he also arrived there at the place of occurrence within minutes. P.W.1 was the neighbour of the informant and hence their testimonies inspires confidence. The Ambassador car, which was used in kidnapping of the boy was later on seized from within the jurisdiction of Burma Mines Police Station, Jamshedpur. The boy Shivam aged about 9 years was recovered on the subsequent day, early morning within 24 hours of his kidnapping from Purulia Bankura Road in his school uniform standing on the flank of the road at a lonely place. The local villagers took him in their safe custody and informed the police. The 1.0. of the case claimed that he with the aid of the other police officer recovered the boy and informed the informant. Admittedly, the boy was neither produced in the Trial Court nor his statement was recorded under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for which the explanation was given by the I.O. as well as his father that he was nervous and was under influence of some sedative drug. The father P.W.6 (informant) stated that the boy narrated that soon after his kidnapping he was aromatized by some drug so he became senseless, could not identify the other accomplice except the appellant Sheojee Jha. The prosecution has presented a strong motive behind such occurrence which was given effect to by the appellant: The appellant Sheojee Jha was in the service of the informant Ajay Kedia as the driver of his car for few months but he was removed on account of his conduct that in spite of the instruction given by his employer Ajay Kedia he did not mend himself and continued coming on his duty in the state of intoxication. The informant Ajay Kedia stated that after paying of the entire dues Sheojee Jha was terminated but even thereafter he insisted to take him back once again in service lest he extended threat of dire consequences. The informant Ajay Kedia stated that after paying of the entire dues Sheojee Jha was terminated but even thereafter he insisted to take him back once again in service lest he extended threat of dire consequences. The witness P.W.6 and P.W.7 were consistent that the appellant Sheojee Jha was seen roaming around their house a few days prior to the occurrence but admittedly no information was given to the nearest police station about his conduct. There is no documentary evidence in support of the fact that the boy was recovered from Purulia Bankura Road except the evidence of the I.O. of the case which appears trustworthy and consistent supported by the evidence of PW. 6 and P.W.7. However, it has been brought on the record in the statement of the I.O. that no criminal antecedent was reported against the appellant prior to the instant occurrence, yet, I find that the boy aged about only 9 years was left abandoned in the dead of night at a lonely place on the Bankura Purulia Road giving rise to inference that the boy was put under danger of life and thereby attracts offence under Section 364 of the Indian Penal Code. 14. In the result, I find that the charge framed under Section 364 of the Indian Penal Code is well proved against the appellant in view of the evidence discussed in the foregoing paragraphs. The learned Sr. Counsel appearing for and on behalf of the appellant failed to show any reasonable ground to call for interference in the judgment of conviction and order of sentence recorded against the appellant. The judgment and order recorded by the Trial Court against the appellant are well discussed. The defence also failed to show any reasonable cause for the false implication of the appellant. The appeal of the appellant is devoid of merit, as such, this appeal is dismissed. Suspension of sentence that was awarded to the appellant by the order dated 18.4.2002 stands vacated and the trial court is directed to ensure that the appellant serves out his sentence.