JUDGMENT Anjana Prakash, J. 1. The appellants have been convicted under Sections 364/34, IPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for ten years each by judgment dated 30.11.1999 passed by the 2nd Assistant Sessions Judge, Samastipur, in Sessions Trial No. 284 of 1997. 2. The case of the informant is that in the night of 26.6.1996 at about 11.30 p.m. when he was sleeping in the cowshed with his son Ram Bilash Mahto, the appellants came to the cowshed and asked Ram Bilash Mahto to accompany them. He was hesitant but the appellants forced him on the gun point and took him away. The informant was also threatened by the appellants. Little while later he heard sound of firing. On the next day, he went to look for his son but only found some blood stained near Bandh from which he speculated that the appellants after kidnapping his son had committed his murder. This fardbeyan was given on the next day i.e. 27.6.1999 at 10.50 a.m. 3. During trial, the prosecution examined eleven witnesses, out of whom, PW 1, Parmila Devi, PW 4, Ashok Kumar Choudhary, PW 5, Lal Babu Sahni, PW 6, Hemant Sahni, and PW 10, Wakil Sahni, have been declared hostile. PW 2, Kishore Mahto, PW 3. Pappu Kumar and PW 7, Ramchandra Mahto, arc the sons of the informant, PW 8, Rameshwar Mahto, PW 9, Sidheshwar Ravidas is the Investigating Officer, whereas, PW 11, Udai Bhan Dwivedi is the Judicial Magistrate, who recorded the statement of PW 1 under Section 164. Cr PC. 4. Even though during trial, PW 8 consistently stated that it was on gun point that the appellants had kidnapped his son, but there arc some notable points in his evidence. In paragraph 7, he stated that at the time of occurrence he did not suspect anything about that accused persons which indicates that, in fact, his son had voluntarily left with the appellants. Moreover, from the evidence of PW 2, Kishore Mahto and PW 3, Pappu Kumar Mahto, who are the sons of the informant find that they stated that on 26.6.1996 at about 11.30 p.m. while they were standing at the Betel Shop, they saw his brother accompanying the appellants and after one and half hour they heard firing from the Bandh side. On appreciation of the evidence, it would appear that their brother was accompanying the appellants voluntarily. On appreciation of the evidence, it would appear that their brother was accompanying the appellants voluntarily. Had it not been so, some protest or report would have been made. Moreover, the next suspicious circumstance is, as to why the informant did not report the matter immediately to the police even though he saw that his son was being kidnapped but reported it only on the next day at 10.50 a.m. after having first searched out his son. 5. One can understand a situation of late reporting in cases when the victim is only last seen with the accused persons. But in the present case, as per the prosecution story when the son of the informant was kidnapped on gun point in his presence, one would naturally expect that the matter is immediately reported to the authority so that proper action can be taken from their end. I further find that they did not even take care to search out the victim in the house of the appellants who belonged to the same village. 6. In the above circumstances. I am of the opinion that this Court is not inclined to accept that the prosecution has succeeded in proving its case beyond all reasonable doubts. 7. Hence, giving benefit of doubt to the appellants they are acquitted of the charge under Section 364/34, IPC and are discharged from the liabilities of their respective bail bonds. The judgment and order of conviction dated 30.11.1999 passed by the 2nd Assistant Sessions Judge, Samastipur, in Sessions Trial No. 284 of 1997 is hereby set aside. 8. In the result, the appeal is allowed. Appeal allowed.