JUDGMENT : 1. This Cr. Appeal has been directed against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 12.02.2007 & 15.02.2007 respectively passed by the Addl. Sessions Judge, F.T.C.-I, Bokaro in connection with S.T. No. 58/2004, corresponding to G.R. No. 1189/2002, arising out of Bokaro (Sadar) Chandankiyari (Bhojudih) P.S. Case No. 136/2002 whereby the appellant has been held guilty for the offence punishable under Section 364A read with Section 120B of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo R.I. for life and also to pay fine of Rs. 5,000/-. 2. The prosecution case, in brief, is that on 03.12.2002 at about 6:30 p.m. Rahul Kumar, aged 4 years, (son of the informant) had gone to play outside the house. In the meantime, electric supply was unfeedered whereafter mother of Rahul Kumar came out of the house to search Rahul but he was not found. When the informant and his family members failed to find out Rahul Kumar, the matter was informed to Police Out Post. Lastly on 08.12.2002 a written report by Ashok Kumar Agrawal (father of Rahul) was lodged and on the basis of written report, Bhojudih P.S. Case No. 136/2002 dated 08.12.2002, under Section 364(A) of the Indian Penal Code against unknown accused was registered. In course of investigation, complicity of appellant was detected and then he was arrested and forwarded to jail custody. The Investigating Officer after due investigation submitted charge-sheet and accordingly cognizance was taken and the case was committed to the court of sessions and registered as S.T. No. 58/2004. Charge under Sections 364A/120B/34 of the Indian Penal Code against the appellant was framed to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. The prosecution in order to substantiate charge, examined altogether 10 witnesses including the I.O. The learned Addl. Sessions Judge considering the evidence and documents available on record held the appellant guilty for the offence punishable under Sections 364A/120B of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced him as indicated above. 3. The appellant has assailed the impugned judgment on the ground that there was no eye-witness to the occurrence. Anuj Saw @ Amarjit Saw (P.W.7) has been projected as an eye-witness after one and half months of the occurrence. The Statement of P.W. 7 is neither reliable nor convincing. 3. The appellant has assailed the impugned judgment on the ground that there was no eye-witness to the occurrence. Anuj Saw @ Amarjit Saw (P.W.7) has been projected as an eye-witness after one and half months of the occurrence. The Statement of P.W. 7 is neither reliable nor convincing. He says that he had seen the appellant picking up Rahul Kumar from the place of occurrence and also going in a 'Maruti' van. He has said that before boarding 'Maruti' van, the appellant had threatened him not to disclose the incident otherwise he would be killed. The conduct of P.W. 7 does not appear to be natural because he did not disclose about the occurrence to anyone. After 2-3 days he had disclosed the incident to his mother but his mother did not inform anyone. Under what circumstances the Investigating Officer knew about this witness, has not been explained by the I.O. The informant has not been examined and, therefore, contention made in the written report has not been proved. Specific defence by the appellant has been taken that he has been implicated in this case with false allegation because he was in visiting term to the house of second wife of the informant. This fact has also been brought on record by the supervising authority in the supervision note but the I.O. had not conducted investigation in that line. Amar Rajgariya (P.W.1) and Prakash Sharma (P.W.6) are the persons of informant and they have deposed what was dictated to them. Their testimony is not reliable. The Investigating Officer has not done the investigation properly and did not take effort to find out the truth. I.O. has stated that he had gone to Puri in connection with investigation of present case and he had seen certain articles and he could learn that the appellant had purchased a boat which was given on lease to a boat sailor but he did not examine the person to whom the boat was given on lease. I.O. has stated that appellant had purchased T.V., Washing Machine etc. from ransom amount realized by him but no investigation has been done to find out as to from where and on which date those articles were purchased. I.O. has stated that appellant had purchased T.V., Washing Machine etc. from ransom amount realized by him but no investigation has been done to find out as to from where and on which date those articles were purchased. The admitted fact is that the appellant was an employee of Indian Railway and he was receiving handsome salary and that was sufficient for him or his family members to live satisfactorily. There was no reason for the appellant to commit such offence. Learned Addl. Sessions Judge has wrongly held the appellant guilty by placing reliance on the statement of prosecution witnesses. The impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence are liable to be set aside. 4. Learned A.P.P. has opposed the argument and submitted that prosecution has brought clinching evidence on record to prove its case. P.W. 7 is an eye-witness, who had seen the appellant picking up the victim boy and going on a 'Maruti' van with his associates. When P.W. 7 raised objection, he was threatened. P.W. 7 has supported the aforesaid fact in his deposition in Court. Amar Rajgariya (P.W.1) had seen the appellant taking away the ransom amount from the train. P.W. 1 has described the entire detail under which direction was given by the appellant and his associates to carry the ransom amount. As per the direction of kidnappers, P.W. 6 got down at Talgarhia Station and moved towards the direction but he did not get victim boy present over there. P.W.1 remained sitting in the train and he was watching the amount kept on the upper berth of Seat No. 89. At Chandrapura Railway Station when all the passengers got down, the appellant took the ransom amount kept in a bag and got down with his three associates. P.W. 1 had further seen the appellant and his associates boarding on a green coloured 'Maruti' van and thereafter they moved towards their destination. Therefore, prosecution witnesses have clearly stated that how the victim boy was picked up and how the ransom amount was realized by the appellant and his associates. The investigation was done by the Investigating Officer perfectly. Initially, considering safety of kidnapped boy, the family members did not disclose about the demand of ransom amount but the I.O. after taking them in confidence could able to take out a statement that the kidnappers had been making call for ransom. The investigation was done by the Investigating Officer perfectly. Initially, considering safety of kidnapped boy, the family members did not disclose about the demand of ransom amount but the I.O. after taking them in confidence could able to take out a statement that the kidnappers had been making call for ransom. I.O. had gone to the extent of collecting materials against the appellant and had gone to Puri to the house of brother-in-law of the appellant. He could able to find out the boat sailor to whom the appellant had given the boat on lease and that boat was purchased for Rs. 60,000/- just after the occurrence. Copy of lease agreement was also obtained from brother-in-law of the appellant. I.O. had taken statement of that boat sailor Kashi Rao. The learned Addl. Sessions Judge has rightly held the appellant guilty on the basis of evidence and documents available on record, particularly, evidence of P.W. 1, P.W.6, P.W. 7 and P.W. 10. There is no merit in this appeal and the same is liable to be dismissed. 5. After hearing rival submissions, we have perused the record, examined the evidence and documents available and also perused the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence. First of all we would like to make it clear that there was no delay in giving information to the police with regard to missing of Rahul Kumar (son of the informant). The boy was found missing from 03.12.2002 when he had gone to play outside the house in the evening at 6:30 p.m. When the boy could not be traced out, information was given to O.P. for which Station Diary Entry No. 55/2002 was made on 03.12.2002. The informant and his family members had been searching the boy continuously. When they did not get any trace, written report against kidnapping of Rahul Kumar was lodged by Ashok Kumar Agrawal (father of the victim boy) on 08.12.2002. On the basis of written report, Bhojudih P.S. Case No. 136/2002 was registered against unknown. Written report has been proved by P.W.5 (Gopal Agrawal @ Ram Gopal) as Ext.2. He has also proved Station Diary Entry No. 55/2002 as Ext.1. In para 3 of his deposition he has stated that written report was prepared on the statement given by Ashok Kumar Agrawal (Informant) and he has proved written report. Written report has been proved by P.W.5 (Gopal Agrawal @ Ram Gopal) as Ext.2. He has also proved Station Diary Entry No. 55/2002 as Ext.1. In para 3 of his deposition he has stated that written report was prepared on the statement given by Ashok Kumar Agrawal (Informant) and he has proved written report. P.W. 5 has fully supported the prosecution case that Rahul Kumar son of the informant was found missing from 03.12.2002. He has further stated in para 4 that on 13.12.2002 kidnapper made a call to Ashok Kumar Agrawal and told that Rahul is in his custody and he would be released on payment of Rs. 5,00,000/-. Caller has further directed to come to 'Adra' and further direction would be given later. When this witness asked him to make him to talk Rahul, the caller told that Rahul is not with him now. Further directions had been given by the miscreants as to how they will have to come to receive Rahul and how ransom amount would be brought. 6. Amar Rajgariya (P.W.1) has supported the prosecution case and he is the person who accompanied P.W.6 Prakash Sharma while they had gone to hand over the ransom amount to the miscreants. In para 2 of his deposition P.W. 1 has said that miscreants had given direction as to how they would come with ransom amount. The direction for them was to board a train which moves from Bhojudih Station to Chandrapura Station. Direction was given to occupy a seat in second bogie from the engine. It was directed to keep ransom amount for Rs. 4,00,000/- in a bag on the rack above the seat No. 89. Bogie No. 6407 was also given by the miscreants. Further direction was given to get down at Talgarhia station where they would found the boy sitting in a red coloured 'Maruti' car. Prakash Sharma (P.W.6) got down from train at Talgarhia railway station to collect the victim boy but the result was nil. The victim boy was not found over there. Amar Rajgariya continued his journey in that very train upto Chandrapura and he was watching the bag in which ransom amount was kept. At Chandrapura railway station when all the passengers got down, the appellant took the bag containing said sum of ransom amount of Rs. The victim boy was not found over there. Amar Rajgariya continued his journey in that very train upto Chandrapura and he was watching the bag in which ransom amount was kept. At Chandrapura railway station when all the passengers got down, the appellant took the bag containing said sum of ransom amount of Rs. 4,00,000/- and got down with his three associates and moved to his destination on a green coloured 'Maruti' van. This fact find full support from statement of P.W. 1 and P.W. 6. This fact also find support from P.W.5 (Gopal Agrawal @ Ram Gopal). Shanti Devi (P.W.3) happens to be the grandmother of Rahul Kumar. She has supported the prosecution case that Rahul found missing from 03.12.2002 and search was made but all in vain. She has stated that after ten days of the occurrence, Anuj Saw @ Amarjit Saw (P.W.7) had told her that the appellant had taken Rahul with him. She also supported this fact that ransom of Rs. 5,00,000/- was demanded by the miscreants and for that phone calls were received by informant, Gopal and Amar. 7. Now coming to the evidence of P.W. 7 (Anuj Saw @ Amarjit Saw, who is the eye-witness. He had seen the appellant taking Rahul with him in a 'Maruti' van and two companion of appellant were also present. 8. Learned Counsel for the appellant, number of times, has repeated the argument that P.W.7 is not a reliable witness and his testimony is liable to be discarded from any consideration. After the occurrence, he did not disclose the occurrence to anyone though his house is situated in the same vicinity where the informant was residing. Missing of Rahul became known to everyone in the locality but the boy kept mum. After few days, he disclosed about the incident to his mother but she, too, did not bother either to inform the police or to the parent of Rahul. One and half months after the occurrence his statement was recorded by the I.O. but the I.O. is also silent as to how he could know about this witness. Anuj Saw @ Amarjit Saw at the time of occurrence was a student of class VII and he was aged hardly 15 years. One and half months after the occurrence his statement was recorded by the I.O. but the I.O. is also silent as to how he could know about this witness. Anuj Saw @ Amarjit Saw at the time of occurrence was a student of class VII and he was aged hardly 15 years. When Rahul was picked up by the appellant, he was threatened by him and asked not to disclose the occurrence to anyone, otherwise he would be killed and bomb would be thrown at his house. We can imagine the mental state of a boy who was threatened by an accused of an offence of kidnapping. Before institution of the case, the appellant was moving in the area and on one occasion this witness P.W. 7 was again threatened by the appellant not to disclose the incident. It is not very important as to how the I.O. could learn about this witness but the important is whether testimony of such witness can be considered reliable and convincing? We have carefully examined the deposition of P.W. 7 and we do not find any exaggeration in his statement. He has clearly stated that he was afraid of threatening hurled. When he was called by the I.O. in his quarter other than the Police Station, he had given his statement about the occurrence. It has also come in evidence that the boy was alone called by the I.O. in that very quarter. A presumption can well be drawn from the evidence and circumstance that P.W. 7 when understood himself to be safe, he had given statement before the police. There is nothing unnatural in his conduct. Furthermore, we do not find that conviction has been recorded only on the statement of P.W. 7 rather prosecution evidence of P.W. 1, P.W.5 and P.W. 6 are also consistent on the point that ransom call were made by kidnappers and direction was given to them as to how ransom amount is to be paid. Statement of P.W. 1 and P.W. 6 is very important because they are the persons who had gone to pay ransom amount. Statement of P.W. 1 and P.W. 6 is very important because they are the persons who had gone to pay ransom amount. P.W. 1 has clearly stated that ransom amount from the train compartment was picked up by the appellant, who was accompanied by his three associates and they all left the place on a 'Maruti' van so the story narrated by P.W. 7 that Rahul Kumar was kidnapped for ransom find support from the statement of P.W. 7 and P.W. 1 and both of them had described the role played by the appellant in the alleged kidnapping and realization of ransom amount. 9. We find that prosecution has proved fardbayan, written report, formal F.I.R., seizure list etc. The fact remained that ransom amount was realized but the boy was not released and it is not known as to what happened to that victim boy Rahul Kumar, aged 4 years. 10. Considering all these aspect and evidence available on record, we do not find any merit in this appeal and the same stands dismissed. The judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 12.02.2007 and 15.02.2007 respectively passed by the Addl. Sessions Judge, F.T.C.-I, Bokaro in connection with S.T. No. 58/2004 is hereby upheld.