JUDGMENT : These criminal appeals have been directed against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 27.05.2005 and 31.05.2005, respectively, passed by the Learned Additional Judicial Commissioner, F.T.C, Ranchi, in Sessions Trial No. 225 of 1995, corresponding to G.R. Case No. 1595 of 1994 arising out of Ratu P.S. Case No. 82 of 1994 whereby the appellants have been held guilty for the offences punishable under Sections 364-A and 387/34 of the I.P.C and sentenced to undergo R.I. for life and also to pay a fine of Rs. 5000/-, in default of making payment of fine, further rigorous imprisonment for two years under Section 364-A of the I.P.C. They have further been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven years under Sections 387/34 of the I.P.C. Both sentences so passed were directed to run currently. 2. The facts emerging from the written report lodged by Dr.Suman Sinha, wife of the victim, is that on 31.05.1994 Dr. Kamlesh Prasad Sinha left for his clinic on his scooter bearing No. BR-14A-6989, but did not return home. On 01.06.1994 at about 8.00 a.m., compounder Lakhan Prasad Keshri-P.W.4 handed-over a letter addressed to the informant by which a sum of Rupees four lacks as ransom was demanded. After receiving the letter for ransom, the informant got convinced that her husband has been kidnapped and a written report was lodged with Ratu Police Station. On the basis of the written report lodged by Dr. Suman Sinha, Ratu P.S. Case No. 82 of 1994, under Sections 364/34 of the I.P.C against unknown accused was registered. The investigation was carried out and after securing attendance of the accused, charge-sheet was submitted and accordingly cognizance was taken. 3. Initially appellant Bisheswar Mahto was apprehended, whereas co-convict Narayan Mahto was absconding. Case of Bisheswar Mahto was committed to the Court of Sessions and registered as S.T. No. 225 of 1995.Charges were framed against him on 04.5.1995. 4. Thereafter attendance of Narayan Mahto was secured and he was remanded to jail custody and case of Narayan Mahto was also committed to the Court of Sessions and registered as S.T. No. 388 of 1998. On 25.8.1998, charges were framed against Narayan Mahto and after that, both the cases were amalgamated and adjourned for evidence. To substantiate the charges, the prosecution has examined altogether nine witnesses, whereas no witness on behalf of the appellants in their defence has been examined. On 25.8.1998, charges were framed against Narayan Mahto and after that, both the cases were amalgamated and adjourned for evidence. To substantiate the charges, the prosecution has examined altogether nine witnesses, whereas no witness on behalf of the appellants in their defence has been examined. The learned Trial Judge placing reliance on the evidences and documents available on record held the appellants guilty for the offence punishable under Sections 364-A and under Sections 387/34 of the I.P.C. Since charge under Section 348/34 of the I.P.C. was not substantiated, acquittal for that offence has been recorded. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the appellants has challenged the findings of the trial Court only on the ground that story of kidnapping for ransom brought on record by Dr. Kamlesh Prasad Sinha-P.W.1 does not find support from the evidence of other prosecution witnesses. According to evidence of P.W.1, he along with Suresh Mahto proceeded on a scooter for Ranchi, but they were intercepted near Kolambi More by three persons who were riding on a Rajdoot motorcycle. P.W.-1 identified Chotan Mahto who told him that his brother is lying ill and requested to see him. In the meantime, one person sat on the scooter of P.W.1 and another sat on his back. Sudesh Mahto was asked to get down. The person, who sat on the back of P.W.1, was Narayan Mahto. Thereafter, the scooter moved and after covering some distance, Narayan Mahto took out revolver and pointed it on the head of P.W.1. Chotan was also accompanying them on his motorcycle. P.W.1 was brought by the miscreants in the forest, where he was kept under watch. During night he was asked by them to move in the forest. He was taken to a place, where dried well was located and he was asked to write a letter to his wife requesting her to arrange Rs. 4,000,00/- (four lacks) otherwise he would be done to death. On the point of revolver P.W.1 was compelled to write that letter. He has proved the letter written by him as Ext-1. Again he was asked to write another letter addressing to compounder Lakhan Mahto in which direction was given to Lakhan Mahto that letter addressed to wife of the victim shall not be given to police. The second letter has been proved as Exhibit-1/1. He has proved the letter written by him as Ext-1. Again he was asked to write another letter addressing to compounder Lakhan Mahto in which direction was given to Lakhan Mahto that letter addressed to wife of the victim shall not be given to police. The second letter has been proved as Exhibit-1/1. The kidnapped doctor was kept confined within the forest for five days and he was compelled to move in the forest. To terrorize P.W.-1, the appellants had dug a grave in the forest and told the doctor, if the amount is not paid he would be buried in that grave. On 3rd June, 1994 he was again directed to write a letter and that letter has been proved as Exhibit 1/2. It is also disclosed by victim Doctor (P.W.1) that he was subjected to assault during his confinement in the forest. Appellant Bisheswar Mahto was present in the forest, when the doctor was taken to that place by kidnappers. The victim Doctor has identified both the appellants in Court and also named them. 6. It is contended that no ransom was paid, no hurt was caused and victim doctor was easily released by the miscreants. Not only that, when he came out from the forest, he found that police jeep was parked to accommodate him and the doctor was taken by those police officers to Nagari O.P. where concerned D.C. and S.P. were present. Thereafter, he was brought at his residence on the vehicle of the S.P., Ranchi. The story cooked up by P.W.1 is neither believable nor acceptable for the reason it is not corroborated by any witness. Dr. Suman Sinha-P.W.2 happens to be wife of victim Dr. Kamlesh Prasad Sinha and she is the informant. It was expected from doctor that after his release, he must have disclosed the names of kidnappers, but P.W.2 did not name the appellants rather she says that her husband, who returned home after 6 to 7 days, disclosed that he was kidnapped by Henchman of Binod Kachap. She did not name any of the appellant in her deposition in Court. Dr. Chandrakant-P.W.3 is one of the friend of Dr. Kamlesh Prasad Sinha and he is hearsay witness. When he could learn about missing of Dr. Kamlesh Prasad Sinha, he had gone to the police station along with Dr. Suman Sinha to report the matter. P.W.3, Dr. She did not name any of the appellant in her deposition in Court. Dr. Chandrakant-P.W.3 is one of the friend of Dr. Kamlesh Prasad Sinha and he is hearsay witness. When he could learn about missing of Dr. Kamlesh Prasad Sinha, he had gone to the police station along with Dr. Suman Sinha to report the matter. P.W.3, Dr. Chandrakant, also did not disclose name of any of the appellants in his deposition. Lakhan Prasad Keshri-P.W.4 is an important witness who is the compounder of Dr. Kamlesh Prasad Sinha. He is a person, who had handed over the letter to P.W.2. He says that the letter was given to him by his younger daughter Sital Kumari. He is also silent on the point that the appellants had kidnapped P.W.1. It is contended that P.W.6-Suresh Mahto is an important witness and he was accompanying the P.W.1 on the date of occurrence on his scooter. He has supported this fact that they were intercepted by some persons near Kolambi More. He was asked to get down from the scooter and go to Ranchi by bus and thereafter P.W.1 proceeded with those persons. On the next day he could learn about kidnapping of Dr. Kamlesh Prasad Sinha. This witness did not identify any of the appellants in Court. He has clearly stated in para 3 that the persons who were standing in the dock, were not the persons who kidnapped the Dr. Kamlesh Prasad Sinha and they were not riding on that motorcycle on that very date. It is contended that non-examination of the I.O. has become fatal to the prosecution. Place of occurrence has not been proved. The story of kidnapping and demand of ransom had been cooked up by P.W.1 for the reasons best known to him. Conduct of P.W.1 is not free from doubt and therefore, benefit of doubt may be given to the appellants. 7. The learned A.P.P. has opposed the arguments and submitted that Dr. Kamlesh Prasad Sinha is the victim and he was kidnapped by the appellants and their associates for ransom. He was kept confined within the forest for five days. He was asked to write a letter addressing to his wife to arrange ransom amount of Rs. 4,00,000/-. Only the appellants were apprehended and they were put on trial. Kamlesh Prasad Sinha is the victim and he was kidnapped by the appellants and their associates for ransom. He was kept confined within the forest for five days. He was asked to write a letter addressing to his wife to arrange ransom amount of Rs. 4,00,000/-. Only the appellants were apprehended and they were put on trial. Out of them, appellant Narayan Mahto was the person who kidnapped P.W.1 on the point of revolver and took him to the forest. In the forest another appellant Bisheshwar Mahto was present and the Doctor was kept confined under their custody for five days. Both appellants were identified by victim Dr.Kamlesh Prasad Sinha P.W.1. The identity of offender is not required to be corroborated by each and every witnesses, if the identity of offender has been established from the evidence of any of the witness that is sufficient. Nothing has been elicited from the mouth of P.W.1 as to why he would implicate these appellants with false allegations. The appellants were known to the doctor from before either they were being treated or the family member were treated. They were acquainted with the route by which the doctor was going to attend his clinic. On the date of occurrence the doctor was intercepted by Chotan who told that his brother is lying ill. In the meantime, one of the associates of Chotan sat on the scooter of Doctor P.W.1. and P.W.1 was compelled to sit in the middle. Another appellant Narayan Mahto occupied rear portion of the sit of the scooter. After covering some distance the appellant Narayan Mahato put pistol on the head of P.W.1 and on the point of pistol, he was taken to the forest where he was kept confined for five days. In the forest another appellant (Bisheshwar Mahto) was present. The factum of occurrence has well being proved by P.Ws. 2, 3, 4 and 6. Letter for demanding ransom has also been proved, so far as question of proving the place of occurrence is concerned, it is not very important considering the evidence of victim. The victim himself has said that he was unaware about the forest where he was kept confined for five days. The Doctor has further stated that he was not compelled to sit at one place, rather he was asked to move during night from one place to another. The victim himself has said that he was unaware about the forest where he was kept confined for five days. The Doctor has further stated that he was not compelled to sit at one place, rather he was asked to move during night from one place to another. Since the victim has fully supported the prosecution case and has described the occurrence, non-examination of the I.O has not caused any prejudice to the appellants. 8. Heard and perused the case records. In case of kidnapping for ransom, the victim as well as family member used to give priority to the life of victim. As far as practicable the conversation held between the kidnappers and the family members is being kept secret. Often it is seen that ransom amount, if paid by the victim or the family member, they do not disclose it to the police for various reasons. Sometimes the action taken by the police becomes so serious that the kidnappers either surrender themselves or they release the victim to save themselves from prosecution. Sometimes action taken by the police put the life of the victim in danger and they kill the victim. 9. In the case at hand the victim doctor has said that he was released because of pressure created by the administration. What was the reason behind releasing of the victim doctor is not very clear from the evidence available, but the fact remains that Dr. Kamlesh Prasad Sinha was kidnapped for ransom and letter was sent to his wife demanding ransom and for that victim doctor was compelled to write a letter. The evidence on record further suggests involvement of more accused than these two appellants. It is disclosed that Chotan who has known to the doctor, he had intercepted and requested the Doctor to attend a patient. In the meantime, companion accused Narayan Mahto sat on the back of the victim Dr. Kamlesh Prasad Sinha and on the point of pistol he took him to the forest. The involvement of other associates of appellants could not be ruled out. It is not necessary to name each and every accused involved in the crime. Since victim doctor was under custody of these two appellants, he has described the role played by them. Appellant Narayan Mahto was absconding for a long time. The involvement of other associates of appellants could not be ruled out. It is not necessary to name each and every accused involved in the crime. Since victim doctor was under custody of these two appellants, he has described the role played by them. Appellant Narayan Mahto was absconding for a long time. Therefore, it could be imagined that other associates of appellants must have taken a safe place to avoid their appearance in this case. The factum of occurrence finds support from the evidence of P.Ws, 2, 3, 4 and 6. Suresh Mahto-P.W.6 has supported the prosecution case but he did not identify the appellant in Court for the reasons best known to him. Only because Suresh Mahto did not identify the appellants, the evidence of Dr. Kamlesh Prasad Sinha, who is victim of the occurrence, cannot be thrown away. 10. We do not find any material to disbelieve or discard the deposition of P.W.1 who is the victim of the occurrence. No reason for false implication has been assigned. 11. Considering all these aspect and the evidences available on record, mainly relying on the evidence of P.W.1 who is the victim of the occurrence, we find no merit in these appeals and the same are dismissed. Accordingly, judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 27.05.2005 and 31.05.2005, respectively, passed by the Learned Additional Judicial Commissioner, F.T.C, Ranchi, in Sessions Trial No. 225 of 1995, corresponding to G.R. Case No. 1595 of 1994 arising out of Ratu P.S. Case No. 82 of 1994, is hereby upheld.