JUDGEMENT Gopal Prasad, J. 1. Heard the counsel for the appellant and the State. 2. The appellant has been convicted under Section 364/34 of the Penal Code and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven years. 3. The prosecution case as alleged in the fardbeyan by the informant, Brahmdeo Mahto, P.W. 6, that on 08.09.1996 at 12.00 in the noon ten persons armed with pistol and gun came on a boat. They came to the darwaza of the informant and abducted Hardeo Mahto, younger brother of the informant, aged twenty years, at the point of pistol. They threatened to kill if any one comes in the way. They kidnapped his brother on the boat to the south. The informant and others could not speak anything out of fear. The informant identified amongst the miscreants Kamal Rai, Lal Babu Rai, Inder Rai, Deonandan Rai, Sri Krishun Rai, Deo Rai and Jita Rai, four were armed with country made pistol and the informant could not identified three persons who were armed with gun. The, further, case is that co- villagers Paras Mahto (not examined), Chandrika Mahto (P.W. 3), Ramnandan Mahto (P.W. 2), Dhurva Mahto (P.W. 4), and the father of the informant (not examined) saw the occurrence. Informant believed that they have abducted the brother of the informant to kill, reported the matter to police to take steps. 4. On the fardbeyan the first information report lodged and after investigation the charge sheet submitted, cognizance taken and case committed to the Court of sessions and after commitment the charge was framed and trial proceeded. 5. During the trial eight persons were examined as witnesses, who are P.W. 1 Lal Bahadur Mahto, P.W. 2, Ramnandan Mahto, P.W. 3, Chandrika Mahto, P.W. 4 Dhruva Mahto, P.W. 5, Urmila Devi, P.W. 6, Brahmdeo Mahto, P.W. 7, Raj Kumar Mahto and P.W. 8, Shashi Shekhar Sharma, who is the investigating officer. P.W. 6 is the informant. The trial Court after considering the evidence of P.W. 6, the informant, having supported the prosecution case along with evidence of P.Ws. P.W. 6 is the informant. The trial Court after considering the evidence of P.W. 6, the informant, having supported the prosecution case along with evidence of P.Ws. 1, 2, 3 and 5 and further considering the evidence of P.W. 7, who scribed the written report on the basis of which first information report lodged and the evidence of investigating officer, who has given a graphic description of the place of occurrence and confirmed the area surrounded by water of river and, further, taking into consideration the consideration of oral and documentary evidence of the defence and convicted and sentenced the appellant, as stated above. 6. The learned counsel for the appellant, however, contended that five persons have been named by the informant as witness in the fardbeyan out of which Paras Mahto and father of the informant has not been examined as witness. It has, further, been contended that all the persons who examined are members of same cast and no person of other community has come to support the prosecution case and placed reliance upon 1985 P.L.J.R., 341 (Prabhu Rai & Ors. Vrs. The State of Bihar) and also suggested that motive and intention has not been established and has placed reliance on A.I.R. 1940 Cal, 561 (Upendra Nath Ghose Vrs. Emperor). It has, further, been contended that there are contradiction in the evidence of the witnesses. It is, further, contended that P.W. 1 has stated that he has come to depose at the information of the Advocate, P.W. 2 has stated that he come to depose without notice, at the instance of Kailash and, hence, the prosecution has not been able to prove its charge beyond reasonable doubt. 7. The learned counsel for the State, however, contends that motive is relevant with the case is for circumstantial evidence and when the evidence of the witnesses says are clearly inspire confidence and, further, non-examination of the independent witnesses, which is not rule of law that the evidence of interested or inimical witnesses are to be rejected outright. The persons of other group normally does not come to the Court and the contradiction pointed out are minor and not go to the root of prosecution case to disbelieve the prosecution story. 8. Hence, under respective submissions, I perused the records. P.W. 1 has supported the prosecution case and has specifically mentioned that he identified seven persons out of ten. 8. Hence, under respective submissions, I perused the records. P.W. 1 has supported the prosecution case and has specifically mentioned that he identified seven persons out of ten. However, in cross examination he stated that he has come to depose in the case on the intimation send by the Advocate. P.W. 2 has also supported the prosecution case and has named seven persons out of ten, who had came and abducted and also identified Deo Rai. P.Ws. 3 and 4 are the witnesses who were named in the first information report and have also supported the prosecution case and they have also stated that they have identified seven persons. P.W. 4 has also stated that his brother has called him for giving the evidence. P.W. 5 is Urmila Devi, the wife of the victim. He has also supported the prosecution case and stated that out of ten persons seven came and kidnapped her husband and three remained on the boat. P.W. 6 is the informant and he has also supported the prosecution case and has stated that after abduction his brother is traceless. P.Ws. 6 and 7 have also supported the prosecution case. P.W. 8 is the investigating officer and has also supported the prosecution case and stated that the place of occurrence is at a distance of 500 yards from Naka no. 2 and this village Nawitola is the eastern tola and all the area is surrounded by the river, 9. Hence, taking into consideration the entire evidence P.W. 6 has supported the prosecution case and there is allegation that the accused persons came on boat and kidnapped. The investigating officer has also stated that there is river water, hence, there is no road. 10. The defence has also adduced oral and documentary evidence. D.W. 1 is the witness, who has formally proved the fardbeyan and the said fardbeyan is with regard to the murder of Subhash Rai and the witnesses have adduced that the appellant has falsely been implicated. 11. However, the learned counsel for the appellant has pointed out the various contradictions that though the prosecution case in the fardbeyan that ten persons came on darwaza and kidnapped the victim. However, P.W. 5 has stated that only seven persons got down from the boat armed with pistol, but, three persons armed with gun remained on boat. 11. However, the learned counsel for the appellant has pointed out the various contradictions that though the prosecution case in the fardbeyan that ten persons came on darwaza and kidnapped the victim. However, P.W. 5 has stated that only seven persons got down from the boat armed with pistol, but, three persons armed with gun remained on boat. P.W. 1 has also stated that ten persons came and kidnapped, but, Urmila Devi, P.W. 5, the wife of the victim has not stated and has stated only seven persons came, hence, there is contradiction. It has, further, been pointed out that some of the witnesses have stated that Hardeo was dragged by the persons, some has stated that he was lifted and some has stated that the accused persons caught hold of him and took away and, hence, there is contradiction in the evidence of the witnesses. However, the contradiction pointed out is minor different, persons may describe the same incident in different way, hence, discrepancies pointed out have got no significance as they do not go to the root of prosecution case. It has, further, been pointed out that P.W. 1 has stated that he went to depose at the instance of Advocate, P.W. 2 has stated that he went to depose at the instance of Kailash, P.Ws. 3 and 4 stated that they went to depose on the information of the informants brother. Hence, the main contention is that without issuing notice they come to depose. However, the fact remains that these persons have been named as witnesses and their statement recorded by the investigating officer during the investigating officer and, hence, merely, because they went to the Court to depose on the information given by Advocate or informant or some other has got no significant with to their testimony and deposition in Court. 12. However, the learned counsel for the appellant has placed reliance upon the decision reported in A.I.R. 1940 Cal, 561 (supra) and it has been stated that intention of the abduction has not been proved, however, the case reported in A.I.R. 1940 Cal, 561 (supra) is a case of circumstantial evidence and in case of circumstantial evidence the motive and intention becomes relevant, however, in the facts and circumstances there is clear evidence that ten persons came and abducted and took the victim and not returned till date of the deposition of the informant witness. 13. The learned counsel for the appellant, however, contends that none of the independent witnesses have been examined and the reliance placed on decision reported in 1985 P.L.J.R., 341 (supra), however, the law is well settled and it is not the law that the evidence of the independent or interested witness to be outright rejected, but, the law is well established that the witness are interested and inimical then their evidence requires to be strictly scrutinize and if on strict scrutiny their evidence are found to be reliable and trustworthy then the conviction can be sustained. More over, in a case of kidnapping or serious offence there is tendency that witnesses do not like to depose in the case and, hence, the evidence of the witnesses can not be rejected on this ground alone the witnesses are interested and no independent witness has come to support the case. P.Ws. 2, 3 and 4 have come to support the prosecution case, however, non-examination of one Paras Mahto and father of the informant, the evidence of P.Ws. 2, 3 and 4 can not be rejected, if their evidence found to be reliable and trustworthy. However, the infirmity pointed out is the contradictions that P.W. 1 has stated that ten persons are abducted whereas P.W. 5 has stated that seven persons came and abducted and three remained on boat. P.W. 5 has stated that Kishun Rai is 80-90 years old whereas P.W. 6 has stated that Kishun Rai was 50 years old. However, every one assess the age of a person differently, hence, it is not a mistake of fact, but, it is a mistake of assessment about the age and, hence, the infirmity pointed out that P.W. 5 stated that 10-12 persons of the village came and P.W. 6 stated that 20-25 persons came. It was pointed out that P.W. 6 deposed that person on boat were wearing dhoti kurta and others were in pant whereas P.W. 5 stated that persons who were on boat were wearing ganja, lungi and kurta and not in pyjama kurta. However, the contractions pointed out are of minor in nature 8 and does not go to the root of the prosecution case to state the substratum of the prosecution story to disbelieve the prosecution case. 14. However, the contractions pointed out are of minor in nature 8 and does not go to the root of the prosecution case to state the substratum of the prosecution story to disbelieve the prosecution case. 14. Hence, taking into consideration the entire evidence, I find and hold that prosecution has able to prove the charges beyond reasonable doubt and, hence, I do not find any merit in recording the order of conviction and sentenced and, hence, the appeal is dismissed.