I.A. ANSARI & V.N. SINHA, JJ.:–Instant appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction and the order of sentence, dated 14th of September, 2006, passed by 5th Additional District & Sessions Judge, West Champaran, Bettiah in Sessions Trial No. 335 of 2006, arising out of Nautan P.S. Case No. 379/04, whereunder the sole appellant has been convicted for the offence under Section 364A of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo life imprisonment with further direction to pay fine of Rs. 5,000/-. 2. Prosecution’s case, as set out in the written report of Bishwanath Sahni (P.W. 4), addressed to Officer-in-Charge, Nautan Police Station, West Champaran, is that he is resident of village Khap Tola, Nautan, P.S. Nautan, District West Champaran, his son, Rajesh Sahni, aged 30 years, had gone to Muzaffarpur, on 20th November, 2004, to purchase clothes and, having purchased clothes at Muzaffarpur, he returned to Bettiah railway station by train at 2 A.M. and went to Fancy Mela ground, Raj Dyorhi, to see theatre, but he disappeared from Mela ground inasmuch as he did not return to his shop, at Nautan, until submission of the report and that his mobile No. is 9835471735. The informant also mentioned, in his written report, that ransom calls were being made from the mobile of his said son asking for payment of Rs. 10 lacs. The informant further alleged, in his written report, that his said son, Rajesh Sahni had, thus, been abducted. Aforesaid written report was submitted on 25.11.2004 and on this basis, Nautan P.S. Case No. 379/04 was registered by the Officer-in-Charge, Nautan Police Station, on 24.11.2004, as would appear from the endorsement made by the Officer-in-Charge on the written report itself. The written report has been admitted in evidence as Ext. 1. 3. From perusal of written report, it appears that the same was perused by C.J.M., Bettiah, on 29.11.2004. The written report has been admitted in evidence as Ext. 1. 3. From perusal of written report, it appears that the same was perused by C.J.M., Bettiah, on 29.11.2004. From the written report itself, it further appears that investigation of the case was taken up by the Officer-in-Charge, Nautan Police Station, and during investigation, I.O. recorded the statements of P.W. 1 (Iftekhar Ahmad), P.W. 2 (Ashok Kumar), P.W. 3 (Sanjay Prasad Chaurasiya), P.W. 4 (Bishwanath Sahni), informant and father of victim, P.W. 5 (Vijay Sahni), brother of the victim, P.W. 6 (Rajesh Sahni), the victim himself, P.W. 7 (Dilip Kumar), P.W. 8 (Bachchu Mahto), P.W. 10 (Munna Miya) and handed over charge of the investigation to Shri J. Ram on 25.12.2004; but Shri Ram also did not submit charge sheet and handed over the case diary to Shri Randhir Kumar Singh, who submitted charge sheet No. 197/05, dated 13.12.2005, against the present appellant. 4. In the light of the charge sheet, cognizance was taken and the case was committed to the Court of Sessions for trial. 5. During trial, the witnesses, who had been examined during investigation, were examined to support the charge together with the Ist Investigating Officer i.e. Sanjeet Kumar Sinha (P.W. 11), and P.W. 9 (Randhir Kumar Singh), the second I.O., who had submitted charge sheet, on the basis of the materials collected, in the case diary, by Sanjeet Kumar Sinha. After closure of the prosecution evidence, defence examined one witness Tunna Sah. 6. To consider the merit of the prosecution case of abduction set out against the sole appellant, we have to examine the merit of the prosecution evidence and for such purpose, we proceed to consider the evidence of the prosecution witnesses in seriatim. 7. P.W. 1 (Iftekhar Ahmad) has stated, in his examination-in-chief, that the occurrence took place on 20.11.2004 and he learnt about the abduction of the victim, Rajesh Sahni, from his brother, Vijay Sahni, and ransom call was received from unknown accused person asking for payment of ransom of Rs. 10 lacs and that he informed the ransom caller that it would be difficult for him to arrange Rs. 10 lacs to meet the demand for payment of ransom. In paragraph 4 of his cross-examination, the witness has clarified that he could know about the abduction of victim, Rajesh, from Vijay Sahni only. 8. P.W. 2 is Ashok Kumar. 10 lacs and that he informed the ransom caller that it would be difficult for him to arrange Rs. 10 lacs to meet the demand for payment of ransom. In paragraph 4 of his cross-examination, the witness has clarified that he could know about the abduction of victim, Rajesh, from Vijay Sahni only. 8. P.W. 2 is Ashok Kumar. He has stated, in his examination-in-chief, that the occurrence took place about 1½ - 2 years ago, when he had gone to Bettiah to see theatre. After having seen theatre, the witness came out of the theatre at about 3.30-4 A.M., met the victim, Rajesh, and asked him whether he would come back to the village along with him. In presence of P.W. 2, the victim went along with the appellant on his motorcycle. After waiting for sometime, the witness came back to his house in the village after two days, this witness learnt about the abduction of Rajesh Sahni by the appellant, Manoj Paswan. In paragraph 3 of his cross-examination, P.W. 2 has admitted that he came to Bettiah in a vehicle, which was powered by pumping set, along with P.W. 3, Sanjay Prasad Chaurasiya, and clarified that the vehicle was a public transport by which 15-20 persons had also come to Bettiah around 11.30 A.M. In paragraph 5, the witness has clarified that after his arrival at Bettiah, he got his stove repaired and, then, purchased coal and kept his stove and the coal at a shop and sent the commodities to his village home at around 3 P.M. through Tonga Cart of Tuna Sah. In paragraph 9 and 10, the witness has stated that at around 3 P.M., he came to Bara Ramna to see circus show, which began at 6 P.M., and that Sanjay Prasad Chaurasiya also accompanied him to the circus show. In paragraph 10, P.W. 2 has clarified that he had not come to Bettiah along with Sanjay Prasad Chaurasiya, because Sanjay Prasad Chaurasiya had gone to Bettiah to purchase commodities for his betel shop. This witness has also informed that Sanjay Prasad Chaurasiya, too, wanted to see circus and both of them came to Mina Bazar together and the circus show continued until 8.15 P.M., whereafter the two, i.e. P.Ws. 2 and 3, came to Kaveri Restaurant for dinner. Having taken dinner, they came to see theatre and took tickets of Rs. 50/- each. This witness has also informed that Sanjay Prasad Chaurasiya, too, wanted to see circus and both of them came to Mina Bazar together and the circus show continued until 8.15 P.M., whereafter the two, i.e. P.Ws. 2 and 3, came to Kaveri Restaurant for dinner. Having taken dinner, they came to see theatre and took tickets of Rs. 50/- each. The theatre show continued until 3.30 – 3.45 A.M. and after the show was over, these witnesses came out of the theatre. It is in the evidence of P.W. 2 that the exit of the theatre was crowded, where he met the victim (P.W. 6), who was standing holding a briefcase in his hand, and that from the theatre’s exit, he (P.W. 2) along with P.W. 3 reached the police out post, which is at a distance of 10-12 yards, and that both these witnesses had spoken to the victim near theatre’s exit. In paragraph 31, P.W. 2 has clarified that the maternal home of the appellant is in his village and he can identify the victim. 9. P.W. 3 has stated, in his evidence, that the occurrence took place about 1½ - 2 years ago, when he had gone to Bettiah to purchase commodities for his shop and that he sent his materials on a Tonga (Cart) and, then, went along with Ashok Kumar (P.W. 2) to see circus and, thereafter, to see theatre. After having seen the theatre, on theatre’s exit, the witness met victim, P.W. 6, who told that he was waiting for conveyance and asked the witness to wait at the same place and, then, said that he would be coming in a short while. Having waited for the victim until morning, the witness came back to his village and learnt after two days that victim, Rajesh, has been abducted. In paragraph 4, the witness has clarified that on the date of occurrence, he met only Rajesh and none of his other known person(s). In paragraph 5, he has further clarified that he does not remember the name of any other person from whom he learnt that appellant had abducted Rajesh. In paragraph 6, the witness (P.W. 3) has stated that he learnt about the abduction of victim, Rajesh, from his brother, Vijay Sahni (P.W. 5). 10. P.W. 4 (Bishwanath Sahni) is the father of the victim, Rajesh Sahni. In paragraph 6, the witness (P.W. 3) has stated that he learnt about the abduction of victim, Rajesh, from his brother, Vijay Sahni (P.W. 5). 10. P.W. 4 (Bishwanath Sahni) is the father of the victim, Rajesh Sahni. He has stated, in his evidence, that the occurrence took place about two years ago on a day, when his son, Rajesh Sahni, had gone to Muzaffarpur to purchase clothes and came to Bettiah in the night and, then, went to see theatre and, thereafter, disappeared. Search about his whereabout was made from the relatives, but on the next day of the occurrence, ransom call was received informing the witness about the abduction of his son with a demand to pay ransom of Rs. 10 lacs. Ransom caller did not inform the witness the place, where the ransom amount was to be paid. In the examination-in-chief itself, P.W. 4 has stated that 5-6 days after the occurrence, his son himself returned and informed the witness that he was abducted by the appellant and his other accomplice as they had taken him to Nepal. In paragraph 2 of his examination-in-chief, P.W. 4 has stated that on abduction of his said son, he submitted written report about the abduction to the Officer-in-Charge after getting the same written by some other person. This witness has proved his signature as Ext. 1. 11. P.W. 5 (Vijay Sahni) is the brother of the victim. He has stated, in his evidence, that the occurrence had taken place, on 20.11.2004, as on that day, his brother, Rajesh, had gone to Muzaffarpur, at 7 A.M., for purchasing clothes, but did not return and that on 23.11.2004, telephone call was received inquiring about the whereabouts of his brother and the witness replied that his brother had gone to his in-laws’ house, but the caller informed the witness that his brother had been abducted and asked for ransom of Rs. 10 lacs. This witness pleaded with the ransom caller that he was a poor man and it would be difficult for him to arrange such a large amount, whereupon the call was disconnected. Again, on 24.11.2004, a call was received asking him (P.W. 5) as to whether the ransom amount had been arranged. 10 lacs. This witness pleaded with the ransom caller that he was a poor man and it would be difficult for him to arrange such a large amount, whereupon the call was disconnected. Again, on 24.11.2004, a call was received asking him (P.W. 5) as to whether the ransom amount had been arranged. It is in the evidence of P.W. 5 that the victim re-appeared, on his own, on 26.11.2004 and informed this witness (P.W. 5) that the appellant had abducted him from Bettiah and took him to Nepal and confined him there. 12. P.W. 6 (Rajesh Sahni) is the victim himself. He has stated, in his evidence, that the occurrence took place, on 20.11.2004, around 2 A.M., when he returned after purchasing clothes from Muzaffarpur. After arriving at Bettiah Railway Station, at 2 A.M., he came to the fair ground to see theatre. At the exit of the theatre premises, victim met the appellant, who was in the company of three other persons. The appellant also informed the victim that he had two motorcycles and both can return to the village together on a motorcycle. Meanwhile, the victim also met two of his other villagers, Ashok Kumar (P.W. 2) and Sanjay Prasad Chaurasiya (P.W.3). They also asked the victim whether he would come along with them. The witness replied that he is waiting for vehicle. In the meantime, appellant took the victim on his motorcycle and said that after filling petrol, they would return to the village. For filling petrol, the appellant, along with the victim, went to check post, woke up the owner of a tea-stall and asked him to brew tea and, while the tea was being brewed, the appellant, along with the victim, kept taking stroll on the road. After taking tea, the victim became unconscious and regained consciousness, in a hut, in Nepal and found himself being guarded by 3-4 persons, who threatened the victim that he would be shot if he tried to escape. The victim has further stated, in his evidence, that he learnt from the persons, guarding him at the hut, in Nepal, that he had been sold by appellant, Manoj Paswan, for Rs. 80,000/-. It is in the evidence of P.W. 6 that the persons, guarding him, raised demand for payment of ransom of Rs. 10 lacs. The victim has further stated, in his evidence, that he learnt from the persons, guarding him at the hut, in Nepal, that he had been sold by appellant, Manoj Paswan, for Rs. 80,000/-. It is in the evidence of P.W. 6 that the persons, guarding him, raised demand for payment of ransom of Rs. 10 lacs. The victim has also stated that he could know from those, who were guarding him, that a telephone call had been received from the appellant that the miscreants, guarding him, should kill the victim after payment of the ransom amount was received, because the victim had identified the appellant. The victim has also stated that he identified Anil Mahto from amongst the accused persons and claimed that he could identify others by face. The victim has further stated that on 25.11.2004, near the hut, wherein he was kept confined, holy songs (Kirtan) were being sung and he managed to escape and approach local headman (Mukhiya) at the latter’s house and requested him to ensure his safe passage to India. The headman considered the victim’s request, gave the victim Rs. 30/- and arranged for a person, who provided the victim safe passage till border. After reaching Bettiah, the victim claims to have gone to the police station and narrated his version of the occurrence to Bettiah police. In paragraph 4, the victim has clarified that on the date of occurrence, he made payment, at Muzaffarpur, and in token of payment, receipt was given, which was, however, not produced by him before the police authorities. He has also stated that on the date of occurrence, he purchased four bundles of clothe, but did not carry the same along with him in the train. In paragraph 6, the victim has stated that while going to Muzaffarpur and returning to Bettiah railway station, he could not meet any of his acquaintances. In paragraph 10, the victim has further clarified that he does not have any enmity with any of his co-villagers. In paragraph 11, the victim has stated that he is known to appellant, Manoj Paswan, for the last two-three years. In paragraph 16, the victim has stated that he was being guarded by Laxman and Dhrub. In paragraph 10, the victim has further clarified that he does not have any enmity with any of his co-villagers. In paragraph 11, the victim has stated that he is known to appellant, Manoj Paswan, for the last two-three years. In paragraph 16, the victim has stated that he was being guarded by Laxman and Dhrub. In paragraph 17, the victim has stated that he does not know the name of either the local headman, who had helped him in crossing the border, or the man, who had accompanied him and granted him safe passage until Indian border. In paragraph 18, he has stated that after arriving at Bettiah, he neither met Superintendent of Police nor the Deputy Superintendent of Police nor any other officer at the police station. In paragraph 19, he has further clarified that he did not approach any other police station, while returning to his village from Bettiah, but only went to Bettiah police station. In paragraph 21, the victim has stated that two-three days before his return, he learnt that the appellant had made telephonic call to those, who were guarding him, saying that he (victim) should be killed two-three days after receipt of the ransom amount. 13. P.W. 7 (Dilip Kumar) is a betel shop owner, who has been declared hostile as he has stated, in his examination-in-chief, that he is not aware about the occurrence and further stated that he had never made any statement before the Investigating Officer. 14. P.W. 8 (Bachchu Mahto), the tea shop owner, has also been declared hostile as he has also stated that he is not aware about the occurrence and did not make any statement before the Investigating Officer. 15. P.W. 9 (Randhir Kumar Singh) is the third Investigating Officer of the case, who received charge of the investigation from second Investigating Officer, Shri J. Ram, and submitted charge sheet no. 197/05, dated 13.12.2005, in the light of the investigation conducted by the first Investigating Officer i.e. P.W. 11, Sanjeet Kumar Sinha, and confessional statement made by the appellant, on 11.5.2005, before P.W. 9 on the basis of which his remand, in the present case, had been obtained on 16.9.2005. 16. 197/05, dated 13.12.2005, in the light of the investigation conducted by the first Investigating Officer i.e. P.W. 11, Sanjeet Kumar Sinha, and confessional statement made by the appellant, on 11.5.2005, before P.W. 9 on the basis of which his remand, in the present case, had been obtained on 16.9.2005. 16. P.W. 10 (Muna Miya) is a local shopkeeper, who has stated that the occurrence took place two years earlier and he learnt about the occurrence from Raj Kumar, the brother of the victim, Rajesh, who came with his mobile to his shop and informed him about the occurrence and the ransom call received by Raj Kumar. 17. P.W. 11 (Sanjeet Kumar Sinha) is the first Investigating Officer of the case, who, being the Officer-in-Charge, Nautan Police Station, received on 25.11.2004, the written report submitted by the victim’s father, Bishwanath Sahni (P.W. 4), and registered Nautan P.S. Case No. 379/04. During investigation of the case, he further examined informant (P.W. 4) and inspected the place of occurrence, which is Fancy Mela ground (Raj Dyorhi Campus) in the town of Bettiah. P.W. 11 has deposed that he examined other witnesses, namely, Ashok Kumar, Sanjay Prasad Chaurasiya, the victim, his father, brother and others, but could not submit charge sheet as he was transferred and handed over charge of the investigation of the case to Shri J. Ram on 25.12.2004. Shri J. Ram also could not complete the investigation and submit charge sheet as he was also transferred and, thereafter, charge sheet was submitted by Randhir Kumar Singh as already stated earlier. 18. Besides the examination of prosecution witnesses, defence has also examined D.W. 1 (Tunna Sah), the Tonga owner, who is said to have carried the stove, coal and commodities for the shop of P.W. 2 (Ashok Kumar) and P.W. 3 (Sanjay Prasad Chaurasiya) on his Tonga to the village home of P.W. 2 and 3 after they had decided to see circus and theatre during the night of occurrence. D.W. 1 has stated, in his evidence, that on his Tonga, he only transports human beings and not goods or materials. 19. D.W. 1 has stated, in his evidence, that on his Tonga, he only transports human beings and not goods or materials. 19. Learned counsel for the appellant has questioned the conviction of the sole accused/appellant on the ground that none of the prosecution witnesses, including P.W. 2 and 3 in whose presence the abduction of the victim, P.W. 6, had allegedly taken place, has supported the case of abduction inasmuch as a bare reading of the entire evidence of the two witnesses, P.W. 2 and 3, would indicate that after the theatre show was over, the two witnesses, P.W. 2 and 3, met the victim near the theatre’s exit gate and learnt from him that he was looking for transport to go back to his village. Around the same time, appellant is also said to have approached the victim and asked him whether he would like to go back to his village home on his motorcycle. On such offer being made, the victim, out of his own volition, sat on pillion of the motorcycle of the appellant and the two went to the check post to get petrol filled in the motorcycle. While leaving, the victim informed P.W. 2 and 3 that he would come back in a short while. P.W. 2 and 3 kept waiting for the victim until morning and stayed at the outpost, which is located nearby. From the evidence of the victim, it further appears that the appellant woke up a tea shop owner and asked him to brew tea for them. While tea was being brewed, the appellant and the victim were taking stroll on the road. After taking tea, the victim became unconscious and regained consciousness in a hut, in Nepal, and found himself in the custody of others, whom he identified as Laxman and Dhrub and, then, learnt from those, who were guarding him, in the hut, that he had been sold by the appellant to them with further telephonic instruction that he should be killed no sooner the ransom amount was paid. On 25.11.2004, holy songs (Kirtan) were being sung near the hut in which the victim was detained, the victim, somehow, managed to escape and approached local headman and requested him to arrange for his passage to India and the local headman provided the victim Rs. On 25.11.2004, holy songs (Kirtan) were being sung near the hut in which the victim was detained, the victim, somehow, managed to escape and approached local headman and requested him to arrange for his passage to India and the local headman provided the victim Rs. 30/- and deputed one person to help the victim in safely crossing the border and in coming to Bettiah, where he got his statement recorded before the Officer-in-Charge. 20. It is submitted that the prosecution has neither examined the local headman nor the person with whose assistance the appellant crossed over the Indian border and come to Bettiah nor any print out of the mobile call having been made from the mobile number of the victim to the landline of the informant has been produced, and, hence, according to learned counsel for the appellant, there is neither evidence to indicate abduction of the victim nor of raising demand for making payment of ransom. 21. Counsel for the State has opposed the submission with reference to not only the evidence of P.W. 2, who saw the victim being taken by the appellant on his motorcycle, but also with reference to the evidence of the victim Rajesh, P.W. 6, who has given a graphic description of the manner in which he was taken, on the motorcycle by the appellant. 22. In view of the rival submissions made on behalf of the parties, we have perused the evidence and it appears to us that victim is claimed to have gone along with the appellant, on 20.11.2004, at around 3.30-3.45 A.M. in presence of P.W. 2 and 3, but information about his disappearance, in the company of appellant, was not given by P.W. 2 and 3 to his father, P.W. 4, who could know about the disappearance of the victim P.W. 6, when ransom call was received on the landline of the informant the next day of the occurrence. However, the written report about disappearance/abduction of victim, Rajesh, was not submitted either on 21st or 22nd , but only on 24/25.11.2004. Even if we ignore the delay of three days in submission of the written report, there does not appear to be any explanation for delayed receipt of the F.I.R., dated 25.11.2004, by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bettiah, on 29.11.2004, that is, three days after the arrival of the victim on 26.11.2004. Even if we ignore the delay of three days in submission of the written report, there does not appear to be any explanation for delayed receipt of the F.I.R., dated 25.11.2004, by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bettiah, on 29.11.2004, that is, three days after the arrival of the victim on 26.11.2004. The two police officers, i.e. P.W. 9 and 11, who have come to support the prosecution, have not even attempted to explain in their evidence the delay of 3/4 days in dispatch/receipt of the F.I.R. to the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bettiah, on 29.11.2004. The prosecution witnesses, i.e. P.W. 2 and 3, in their evidence, have not indicated any element of force being applied by the appellant in asking him to come along with him as a pillion rider on motorcycle for coming to his village in the morning on 20.11.2004. The tea shop owner, P.W. 8 (Bachchu Mahto) has also not supported the prosecution’s case that he ever served tea in the morning of 20.11.2004 to the victim, whereafter the victim became unconscious. 23. From perusal of the evidence of the victim, it appears that after he reached the check post for taking petrol, the appellant woke up a tea shop owner and asked him to brew tea and while tea was being brewed, the two were taking stroll on the road. It is difficult for us to conclude that at the instance of the appellant, the victim (P.W. 6) was drugged, became unconscious and was taken to Nepal. Even if we accept the version of the victim that he regained consciousness in a hut, in Nepal, in the captivity of Laxman and Dhrub, yet there being no further evidence of the local headman, who is claimed to have helped the victim in crossing the border, and there being also no evidence of the man, provided by the headman, with whom victim travelled up to Indian border and, then, came to Bettiah, it would be unsafe for us to rely on the sole testimony of the victim to conclude that he was, first, drugged at the tea shop and, then, taken to Nepal, wherefrom he managed to secure his release. Besides there being no admissible evidence to support receipt of ransom call either by the victim’s father (P.W. 4) or by his brother (P.W. 5) or by the victim himself, it would be difficult for us to maintain the conviction of the appellant. 24. The impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence, dated 14th of September, 2006, passed by 5th Additional District & Sessions Judge, West Champaran, Bettiah in Sessions Trial No. 335 of 2006, arising out of Nautan P.S. Case No. 379/04, are hereby set aside. The appeal is allowed. The appellant, if not wanted in any other case, be released forthwith.