JUDGMENT : Heard the parties. 2. This criminal appeal has been directed against the Judgment of conviction and sentence dated 25-5-2005 and 26-5-2005 respectively passed by the 1st Additional Judicial Commissioner, Khunti (Ranchi) in connection with Sessions Trial No. 234/2004 whereby the appellants have been held guilty for the offence punishable under Sections 364A and 120B of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo R. I. for life. No separate sentence has been awarded for the offence under Section 120-B of the Indian Penal Code. 3. The prosecution case as it appears from fardbayan of informant Bharat Lal Sahu (father of the victim) recorded on 18-5-2003 at 11.00 hours at his residence situated within the Police Station - Tamar is that on 16-5-2003 at about 12.30 noon, Roushan Prakash Gupta alias Chhotu (son of the informant) aged about 10 years returned home after attending tution and again he left home in order to play but did not return home. The informant made search of his son but could not succeed to know his whereabouts. On 18-5-2003, at about 10:30 a.m., the informant received a call from unknown who demanded Rs. 10 Lacs, against release of his son. Thereafter, the informant could understand that his son has been kidnapped for ransom and reported the matter to the police. On the basis of statement of Bharat Lal Sahu, Tamar (Khunti) P.S. Case No. 42 of 2003 dated 18-5-2003 under Sections 364-A and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code against unknown miscreants was registered. 4. The investigation was carried out, the miscreants were apprehended, the victim boy also returned home and after concluding the investigation, charge-sheet against the appellants named above was submitted. Accordingly, cognizance was taken and case was committed to the Court of Sessions and registered as S.T. No. 234/2004. 5. The appellants were charged for the offence under Sections 364-A, 120-B of the Indian Penal Code to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. The prosecution in order to substantiate charges examined altogether eleven witnesses and proved documents. The learned Additional Judicial Commissioner, Khunti (Ranchi) at the conclusion of trial placing reliance on the evidence and documents available on record held the appellants guilty for the offence punishable under Sections 364-A and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced them as indicated above. 6. The learned Additional Judicial Commissioner, Khunti (Ranchi) at the conclusion of trial placing reliance on the evidence and documents available on record held the appellants guilty for the offence punishable under Sections 364-A and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced them as indicated above. 6. The learned counsel appearing for the appellants has assailed the impugned Judgment mainly on the ground that the appellants have been falsely implicated due to business rivalry. The appellant Mukesh Kumar Sahu is having his three shops near the shop of informant and he is also dealing in cloth. It is not expected that a known person without concealing his identity shall commit such offence. The learned Trial Judge has relied upon the statement of Sandhya Gupta (P.W.-3), Bharat Lal Sahu (P.W.-5) and Roushan Prakash Gupta (P.W.-6), P Ws.-3 and 5 are parent of P.W.-6. According to evidence of P.W. -5 (informant and father of the victim boy) the boy was missing since 16-5-2003 but the matter was not reported to Police. The informant has alleged that a sum of Rs. 10 Lac. was demanded as ransom against release of Roushan Prakash Gupta alias Chhotu and demand was made by making a telephone call. The Investigating Officer did not find out the call details and, therefore, version of the informant stands uncorroborated from any document. The informant in his deposition in Court has stated that a sum of Rs. 5 Lac. was paid to the appellant - Mukesh Kumar Sahu but no proof of such payment has been brought on record nor it has been explained as to from where the money was collected. It is submitted that the informant himself hatched out a plan and implicated appellant Mukesh Kumar Sahu and his staffs with false allegation due to business rivalry. It is also not expected that an accused shall use his own vehicle for committing offence. The learned Magistrate who has recorded statement of victim Raushan Prakash Gupta has not given any certificate to the effect that the boy was capable of understanding the questions likely to be put to him. The learned counsel has relief on a Judgment reported in AIR 1952 SC 54 . It is submitted that oral question has been put to child witness to get confirmation that he is capable to understanding the questions likely to be put to him in Court. The learned counsel has relief on a Judgment reported in AIR 1952 SC 54 . It is submitted that oral question has been put to child witness to get confirmation that he is capable to understanding the questions likely to be put to him in Court. Furthermore, the deposition of P.W.-6 clearly suggests that he was tutored and he has given statement under influence of his father and brother. The story narrated by the victim boy before the Court is like a recorded statement. It appears that a tape recorder was on and the statements were coming out from the speaker. The boy has given each minute details of the occurrence in his deposition. It is not expected that a boy aged about 10 years would keep all those things in his memory. Sandhya Gupta (P.W.-3) and Pawan Kumar Gupta (P.W.-4) are the mother and brother of the victim boy and they have repeated the same story for which they were asked by the informant. The victim boy has stated that he was kept confined in a room of a house which was in occupation of an old lady and her three sons. During investigation the Investigating Officer has traced out that lady and she has been examined as P.W.-10. In her examination-in-chief she has stated the prosecution case but during her cross-examination she has given a go-bye to the statement recorded under the examination-in-chief. She did not admit that the appellants brought a boy and kept in her house for 7-8 days. Learned counsel has submitted that investigation done by the Police is perfunctory and the Investigating Officer has not made efforts to find out the truth. He did not bother to examine as to how and from where the informant had collected said sum of Rs. 5 Lacs, which was allegedly given to the appellants as ransom. The investigation done by the Investigating Officer is silent on the point of defence taken. It is contended by the prosecution that business of the appellant Mukesh Kumar Sahu was running under loss and, therefore, he made out a plan to kidnap son of the informant to realise money from him but the Investigating Officer did not take efforts to examine books of account either of the informant or of the appellants. It is contended by the prosecution that business of the appellant Mukesh Kumar Sahu was running under loss and, therefore, he made out a plan to kidnap son of the informant to realise money from him but the Investigating Officer did not take efforts to examine books of account either of the informant or of the appellants. No case under section 364-A of the Indian Penal Code is made out in view of the fact the victim boy has not stated anywhere that at any point of time he was either hurt or put under fear of death. The object behind kidnapping of the boy may be for many purposes and therefore, conviction recorded under Section 364-A of the Indian Penal Code is not sustainable. 7. Learned counsel appearing for the in-formant as well as learned APP have opposed the arguments and submitted that it is a well proved case. The victim boy has fully supported the prosecution case and he has described each and every details of the occurrence. The informant and other family members i.e. P.Ws.-3 and 4 have corroborated the prosecution case. P.Ws.-1 and 2 are the persons in whose presence the ransom was paid I to appellant Mukesh Kumar Sahu and both the witnesses have supported aforesaid fact in their deposition in Court, P.W.-7 Rajendra Bahadur Pal (S.D.J.M.) has proved the statement of victim and statement of P. W.-10 Soru Bala Devi recorded by him under Section 164, Cr. PC. (Exts.-3 and 3/1). P.W.-10 in her deposition in Court has admitted that her statement was earlier recorded in Court and she has given her L.T.I on that statement. The defence counsel did not refer statement Ext-3/1 to P.W.-10 in order to draw her attention therefore, the statement of Soru Bala Devi recorded under Section 164, Cr P.C. stands intact and the learned Trial Judge has rightly relied upon statement of P.W.-10. P.W.-11 Amar Nath, S.I. of Police who had conducted the investigation and he has described the details of investigation done by him. The appellants were absconding from their respective residence after the F.I.R. was lodged. Some of them were apprehended where as appellant Mukesh Kumar Sahu had surrendered before the Court. The investigating officer after collecting cogent evidence against the appellants had submitted charge-sheet. There is no merit in this appeal and the same is liable to be dismissed. 8. The appellants were absconding from their respective residence after the F.I.R. was lodged. Some of them were apprehended where as appellant Mukesh Kumar Sahu had surrendered before the Court. The investigating officer after collecting cogent evidence against the appellants had submitted charge-sheet. There is no merit in this appeal and the same is liable to be dismissed. 8. After granting hearing to the parties concerned, we have examined case record and gone through the evidence and documents available on record. We have also perused the impugned Judgment. Manish Dev (P. W.-1) has stated that he had seen the victim boy going on a Maruti Van on 16-5-2003. Further he could learn that Roushan Prakash Gupta has been kidnapped for ransom. He had accompanied the informant in course of making search and he had also gone to the police station. He has stated that on 16-5-2003 after Roushan Prakash Gupta became traceless, a sanha was lodged by Bharat Lal Sahu. When ransom call was received, an F.I.R. was lodged on 18-5-2003. In para-5 of his deposition he says that the appellant Mukesh Kumar Sahu had come to the place situated near the clinic of Dr. K.K. Sinha to collect ransom amount and he had come on his Maruti Van bearing registration No. BR 14 F 7751. This witness has deposed that the appellant Mukesh Kumar Sahu after receiving the ransom amount had threatened the informant not to inform the police otherwise the boy will be killed. He further says that on 23-5-2003 victim Roushan Prakash Gupta returned home at about 8-9 a.m. In his cross-examination he said that appellant as well as informant both are cloth merchant and he is also having his cloth shop under the name and style of Manish Vastralaya. We do not find that any material contradiction has been taken from him during his examination. Ram Bihari (P.W.-2) has also supported prosecution case and he is an attesting witness to fardbayan and he has proved his signature appearing on the fardbayan. He has also repeated the same story that Roushan Prakash Gupta was kidnapped for ransom on 16-5-2003, some sort of settlement arrived at between the kidnappers and the informant where after the informant agreed to pay a sum of Rs. 5 Lac. against release of his son Roushan Prakash Gupta. This witness has also supported that ransom amount of Rs. 5 Lac. 5 Lac. against release of his son Roushan Prakash Gupta. This witness has also supported that ransom amount of Rs. 5 Lac. was handed over to appellant Mukesh Kumar Sahu near clinic of Dr. K.K. Sinha situated at Bariatu. Sandhya Gupta (P.W.-3) and Pawan Kumar Gupta (P.W.-4) are the mother and brother of victim Roushan Prakash Gupta and they have corroborated the prosecution story brought on record by the informant. Bharat Lal Sahu (P.W.-5) happens to be informant and father of the victim and he has stated that on 16-5-2003 when he returned home from Ranchi he found a crowd near the house. When he inquired from his wife he could learn that his son Roushan Prakash Gupta left home in the afternoon but did not return. On that very date at about 7:00 p.m., Station Diary Entry regarding missing of Roushan Prakash Gupta was entered and on 18-5-2003 in the morning at 10:30 a.m., he received a phone call from an unknown person who had been demanding a sum of Rs. 10 Lc. against release of Roushan Prakash Gupta. Thereafter, fardbayan of informant was recorded and case against unknown miscreants was registered. The informant had been receiving phone call from the kidnappers and after some negotiation the kidnappers agreed to receive Rs. 5 Lac. as ransom and further instructed the informant to come with money near clinic of Dr. K.K. Sinha situated at Bariatu. The informant accompanied by RWs.-l and 2 went to the place on 22-5-2003. At about 7:00 p.m. the appellant Mukesh Kumar Sahu on his Maruti van bearing registration No. BR 14 F 7751 reached to the place and after realising money threatened the appellant not to report the matter to police otherwise the boy will be killed. The informant has been cross-examined in details but we do not find anything material to disbelieve the prosecution story has been obtained from his mouth by the defence. Raushan Prakash Gupta alias Chhotu is the victim boy who has been examined as P.W.-6. The manner in which he has deposed before the Court is really surprising. The informant has been cross-examined in details but we do not find anything material to disbelieve the prosecution story has been obtained from his mouth by the defence. Raushan Prakash Gupta alias Chhotu is the victim boy who has been examined as P.W.-6. The manner in which he has deposed before the Court is really surprising. He has described every minute details with time and place from where he was kidnapped, the manner in which he was kept confined under watch, the place where he was kept for 7-8 days, the vehicle number on which he was kidnapped, he has also stated number of persons who were occupying the house in which he was kept confined. Therefore, this argument was expected from the defence that the victim has given a tutored statement. Since veracity of this witness has been challenged, we have carefully scrutinised evidence of the victim boy - P.W.-6. The wisdom and knowledge of a person always depend on his upbringing, the family in which he is bom and brought up, the education provided to him and mainly the acumen and presence of mind. We find that the victim boy is having extraordinary capacity to capture the thing and the surroundings. When he was asked by appellant Mukesh Kumar Sahu to take a card and give it to his lather, he had taken the card and told that he would go by foot to handover it to his father though he was asked by the appellant Mukesh Kumar Sahu to sit in Maruti Van which was parked nearby. We can say from the statement that he had not made protest but he was compelled somehow to sit in the Maruti Van. He had noticed presence of all the appellants in course of moving; of that Maruti Van. After covering some distance he was able to understand that he has been kidnapped and thereafter he became much more cautious and started observing everything happening around him. He says that he has remembered the vehicle number on which he was being taken and he has also described all the happening which had taken place during his stay with the appellant. He has gone to the extent of saying that he was compelled to sleep on a cot on the floor for which he was not accustomed therefore he was feeling trouble. He has gone to the extent of saying that he was compelled to sleep on a cot on the floor for which he was not accustomed therefore he was feeling trouble. All those assertion of the victim boy goes to show how intelligent he is. At the time of occurrence he was studying in an English Medium School that has also been brought on record. We have reproduced all these things only to discard the submission advanced by the learned counsel for the appellants. The evidence which P.W.-6 has given before the Court cannot be considered a tutored statement. If any witness is tutored it is not expected that he would repeat each and every details. Furthermore, the boy was examined under section 164, Cr.P.C. in which he has stated the same fact. We do not find anything uncommon or material contradiction in his statement to disbelieve him. P.W.-7 Rajendra Bahadur Pal (S.D.J.M.) has proved the statement of witnesses recorded under section 164, Cr.P.C. The investigating officer (P.W.-11) has also described the investigation done by him. Only because he had not examined the books of accounts or did not make investigation as to from where the informant had arranged the ransom amount, other evidence available on record shall not be thrown away. The testimony of reliable witnesses can not be discarded for the latches appearing in the investigation. It is desirable to express that in a case of kidnapping for ransom some known person are always behind the occurrence. Therefore, this argument is not tenable that appellant was known to the victim and his family and without concealing their identity, they have committed the offence. In a case of kidnapping for ransom to book the target easily, if known person will come in front that will always accommodate the miscreants to fulfil their evil desire. We do not agree with the submission advanced by learned counsel for the defence. The prosecution case brought on record is fully intact. The learned Additional Judicial Commissioner has elaborately discussed the evidence and documents in the impugned judgment and the findings need no interference. 9. In the result, this appeal is dismissed. The impugned judgment of conviction and sentence dated 25-5-2005 and 26-5-2005 respectively passed by the 1st Additional Judicial Commissioner, Khunti (Ranchi) in connection with Sessions Trial No. 234/2004 is hereby upheld. Appeal dismissed.