JUDGEMENT Anjana Prakash, J. 1. The Appellant has been convicted under Section 364 I.PC and sentenced to R.I. for 7 years by a judgment dated, 5th September, 1994 passed by the Eighth Additional Sessions Judge, Purnea in Sessions Trial No. 224 of 1993. 2. The prosecution case is that on 2nd September, 1992 the Informants daughter, namely, Sudha Kumari, aged about 5-6 years became traceless and while they were looking for her, they approached the Appellant, who demanded Rs. 5000 for release of the daughter. The case was instituted on 16th September, 1992 even though the alleged occurrence took place on 2nd September, 1992. 3. During trial, the prosecution has examined nine witnesses in all. Out of whom, PW. 6 is the Informant and PW. 7 is his wife, whereas PW. 1, PW. 3 and PW. 4 are eye witnesses of the alleged occurrence that the Appellant was seen with his girl going on a bicycle. PW. 5 is tendered and PW. 9 is formal. PW. 8 is the Investigating Officer and PW. 2 on the point of demand of money by the Appellant. 4. It has been submitted on behalf of the Appellant that this occurrence was reported after much delay and it does not stand to reason that even though the Appellant was seen going on a bicycle with the alleged victim no report about the same was made at an earlier instance. The further submission is that the entire case is based merely on speculation that the Appellant had kidnapped the victim even though the ingredient of kidnapping was not satisfied. 5. On going through the evidence of PW. 1, PW. 3 and PW. 4, I find that indeed they have deposed that they had seen the Appellant going on the bicycle with the alleged victim but even though the Informant was looking for this girl right from the date of the occurrence, no information about kidnapping was given to the Police Station at that point in time which makes the story of kidnapping doubtful. Further the fact that the Appellant was demanding Rs. 5000 from the Informant for returning the girl also is not trustworthy in view of the fact that despite there being cogent proof of the Appellant having indulged in kidnapping even at that stage no effort was made to inform the police or any Authority for that matter. 6. Further the fact that the Appellant was demanding Rs. 5000 from the Informant for returning the girl also is not trustworthy in view of the fact that despite there being cogent proof of the Appellant having indulged in kidnapping even at that stage no effort was made to inform the police or any Authority for that matter. 6. In view of the discussions above, I am inclined to allow the appeal. Hence, this appeal is allowed and the order of conviction and sentence passed against the Appellant on 5th September, 1994 by the Eighth Additional Sessions Judge, Purnea in Sessions Trial No. 224 of 1993 is set aside.