Judgment Heard the learned counsels appearing on behalf of the parties. 2. Both the appellants have preferred this appeal against their conviction for the offence punishable under Section 364 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for ten years as awarded by 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Arrah on 09th day of June, 1998 in Sessions Trial No. 128 of 1996 arising out of Grahani/Agiaon P.S. Case No. 52 of 1995. 3. The prosecution case in short as reveals from Exhibit-2, the First Information Report, instituted on 29.08.1995 at 9.00 a.m. on the statement of Gopal Singh (P.W.4) is that on 05.02.1995 i.e. more than six months before his son, namely, Dlip Kumar @ Bintu aged about 20 years in the evening at about 4.00 p.m. left the house not to come and active search was going on. Then on 09.04.1995 a Sanha was said to have been lodged and during such search operation the informant came to know that while the appellants were going with the family members they got some assistance of the victim while boarding in a Bus and due to affinity they also took him with them. He further learnt that the victim had some closeness with a girl, namely, Sunita Kumari, daughter of Vakil Singh (appellant no. 2). The informant subsequently tried to get any information from the appellants, but failed. Subsequently, a day before, on 28.08.1995, two persons (co-accused, but acquitted), namely, Chanderma Yadav and Sataynarain Giri arrived and intimated about the occurrence and further confirmed that the appellants after knowing the relationship with their daughter enticed the victim to go with them with ulterior motive and subsequently he was killed wherein the two informers also assisted, but since they have not been paid their due remuneration they intimated all the facts to the informant. After institution of the case the police submitted charge-sheet against the appellants and two informers, who also faced trial for the offence punishable under Sections 364 and 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code, but ultimately, stand acquitted where as the appellants were acquitted only for the offence under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, but convicted and sentenced in the manner aforesaid. 4. During trial the prosecution has examined altogether five prosecution witnesses besides following documentary list:- (i) Exhibit-1 : Signature of P.W.-4 Gopal Singh (informant) on statement and entire statement. 4. During trial the prosecution has examined altogether five prosecution witnesses besides following documentary list:- (i) Exhibit-1 : Signature of P.W.-4 Gopal Singh (informant) on statement and entire statement. (ii) Exhibit-2 : F.I.R. 5. It is contended on behalf of the appellants that there is absolutely no material to show any role played by them in the entire episode and in abduction and killing or disappearance of the victim, who himself was a man of questionable character carrying criminal cases against. That apart for no reason at any point of time prior to lodging the case any information was given to the police raising finger against the appellants. On the other hand, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor tried to support the conviction etc. on the grounds mentioned in the judgment. 6. This is undisputed that the victim disappeared on 05.02.1995, though, the witnesses examined during trial have come to say that he accompanied the appellants and his family, but they themselves admit that they have not seen from their own eyes rather they came to know about such things only after the information being received through the two informers more than six months after the occurrence (co-accused). 7. P.W.-1 Birendera Singh and P.W.-2 Shri Kirishna Singh are the persons claiming the informers arriving for the first time to them and disclose all such things. They brought them to P.W.-4, the informant and for whole night these two persons were treated like a guest and, thereafter, brought to police station where the statements were recorded. P.W.-3 Shambhu Singh was tendered for cross-examination. P.W.-4 Gopal Singh (informant) contrary to prosecution case has come to say that on 05.02.1995 at 4.00 p.m. he was his son enticed by the appellants and their family members including the girl Sunita and took him to village Dularpur. He (victim) not returned in the night even on the second day. Thereafter, the informant went and inquired about him from the appellants and their associates, who stated ignorance. If his this statement is taken to be true there is no explanation for maintaining silence for over six months and not lodging any case or even giving any information to the competent authorities raising finger against such persons, who before the eyes of the informant took his son, who never returned back. If his this statement is taken to be true there is no explanation for maintaining silence for over six months and not lodging any case or even giving any information to the competent authorities raising finger against such persons, who before the eyes of the informant took his son, who never returned back. Even in cross-examination this witness admits that he has knowledge about the alleged illicit connection with the girl of the family of the appellants with his son. If really it is a fact, it further causes grave doubts against the conduct of the informant for keeping mum and lodging the case only after receiving some vivid information from the two informers, who also allegedly participated in killing of his son, but treated as guest in spite of furnishing such information. P.W.-5 is the Investigating Officer, who never made any attempt to locate the alleged place of killing or anything connected to the informant received by such information. 8. In defence there is one single witness, D.W.-1 Hirdayanand Tiwary besides following documentary evidence:- (i) Exhibit-A : Haziri dt. 14.3.95 of Case No. G.R. 1603/94 / Tr. 1081/94. (ii) Exhibit-B : Petition dt. 28.4.95 of the above G.R. 1603/94 / Tr. 1081/94. (iii) Exhibit-C : C.C. of order dt. 14.3.95 of Case No. G.R. 1603/94 / Tr. 370/97. (iv) Exhibit-C/1 : C.C. of order of Case No. 311/95 dt. 4.1.96 u/s 144 Cr. P.C. (v) Exhibit-D : C.C. of F.I.R. of Agiaon (Garahani) P.S. Case No. 33/94. (vi) Exhibit-D/1 : C.C. of F.I.R. of Agiaon (Garahani) P.S. Case No. 46/86. The solitary defence witness, who proved Exhibit-A and B comes to say that even more than a moth after alleged date of disappearance on 14.03.1995 attendance of the victim is filed in a case, wherein, subsequently on 28.04.1995 only court was intimated about his disappearance by filing petition, Exhibit-B. 9. From all the facts and circumstances and testimony of the witnesses discussed above it is crystal clear that the prosecution has not been able to establish any role of the appellants played in any way in disappearance of the victim i.e. the son of the informant (P.W.-4). Hence, the conviction and sentence respectively dated 09th June, 1998 and 10th June, 1998 of the appellants as recorded by the trial court is not at all sustainable, consequently, it is set-aside. The appeal is hereby allowed. Hence, the conviction and sentence respectively dated 09th June, 1998 and 10th June, 1998 of the appellants as recorded by the trial court is not at all sustainable, consequently, it is set-aside. The appeal is hereby allowed. The appellants above named are set free from the liabilities of bail-bonds furnished on their behalf. Appeal allowed.