JUDGMENT : Heard, learned counsel for the appellants, Mr. D.K. Chakarvorty and Mr. Sanjay Kumar Pandey, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, appearing for the State. 2. The instant Criminal appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence, both dated 01.10.2005, passed by the learned Additional District & Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No. VII, Jamshedpur, in Sessions Trial Case No. 200 of 1987, whereby, the appellants Sunil Parmanik and Sidam Gope have been convicted for the offence committed and punishable under Section 364 of the Indian Penal Code and awarded Rigorous Imprisonment for seven years. During pendency of the appeal, appellant no.2 Sidam Gope has died and criminal appeal preferred by him has already been abated vide order dated 23.08.2018 and as such, the present criminal appeal is only with respect to appellant Sunil Parmanik. 3. The prosecution case, is based upon, fardbeyan of Lal Singh Bhumij (P.W.1) father of the deceased (Ramesh Bhumij) recorded by Sub-Inspector S.P. Singh, Mango Police Station on 10.01.1984 at about 20.30 hrs, at Palash Bani Jungle, wherein, the informant has stated that, he was on his duty and he got an information about the dead body of his son Ramesh Bhumij, is lying at Palash Bani Jungle. The informant went there along with Govind Singh Bhumij and identified the dead body of his son and found injuries on the person of deceased i.e. on abdomen, on the back and on rear side of head and both eyes were also removed. Informant has further alleged that on last Sunday, his son along with co-residents of his locality namely Mangal Singh Bhumij, Sunil Parmanik and Sidam Gope, went out of their house and since then son of the informant did not returned. 4. On the basis of the fardbeyan of the informant, the Police registered First Information Report bearing Mango P.S. Case No. 14 of 1984, dated 10.01.1984, under Sections 302 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code. 5. After investigation, the police submitted charge sheet vide charge sheet no. 56 dated 26.03.1984, under Sections 364, 302 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code against the accused persons namely Sunil Parmanik, Sidam Gope and Mangal Singh Bhumij. 6. The cognizance of the offence has been taken vide order dated 18.04.1984 and the case has been committed to the Court of Sessions vide order dated 10.04.1987. 7. 56 dated 26.03.1984, under Sections 364, 302 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code against the accused persons namely Sunil Parmanik, Sidam Gope and Mangal Singh Bhumij. 6. The cognizance of the offence has been taken vide order dated 18.04.1984 and the case has been committed to the Court of Sessions vide order dated 10.04.1987. 7. The learned trial Court has framed charge against three accused persons including appellant namely, Sunil Parmanik and co-accused Sidam Gope and Mangal Singh Bhumij on 15.12.1987, under Sections 364 and 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code, to which the accused persons including appellant have pleaded their innocence and thus, they were put under trial. 8. The prosecution, in order to prove its case, has examined altogether four witnesses and exhibited three documentary evidence. Lal Singh Bhumij (informant of the case and father of the deceased) has been examined as P.W.1, Shambhu Nath Roy (P.W.2), a police constable, who has identified the handwriting and signature of the then Sub-Inspector, Surendra Prasad Singh on fardbeyan has been proved and marked as exhibit-1, Baliram Mahato (P.W.3), advocate clerk, a formal witness who has proved the handwriting and signature of Police constable, Sita Ram Sharma, on the formal F.I.R., has been proved and marked as exhibit-2, Dr. R.K. Sharma (Principal M.G.M. medical college and hospital, Jamshedpur) has been examined as P.W.4 and proved and marked postmortem report as exhibit-3. Fardbeyan, in the handwriting and signature of the then Sub-Inspector, Surendra Prasad Singh, has been proved and marked as exhibit-1, Formal F.I.R., in the handwriting and signature of the then writer constable, Sita Ram Sharma, has been proved and marked as exhibit-2 and the postmortem report, in the handwriting and signature of, Dr. R.K. Sharma, P.W.4 has been proved and marked as exhibit-3. Trial of Mangal Singh Bhumij has been dropped by the court below vide order dated 23.07.2003 as Mangal Singh Bhumij has died during pendency of trial on 10.07.2003. 9. After closure of the prosecution evidence, the statement of the appellant of the present appeal has been recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C., on 13.09.2005, to which the appellant has stated in reply to the Court question that Ramesh Bhumij has not left the house along with him. 10. 9. After closure of the prosecution evidence, the statement of the appellant of the present appeal has been recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C., on 13.09.2005, to which the appellant has stated in reply to the Court question that Ramesh Bhumij has not left the house along with him. 10. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and on the basis of material available on record, learned trial Court has acquitted the appellant under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, but convicted the appellant along with one Sidam Gope for offence committed and punishable under Section 364 of the Indian Penal Code. Being aggrieved at and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence, appellants Sunil Parmanik and Sidam Gope have preferred appeal jointly before this Hon’ble Court. During pendency of criminal appeal, Sidam Gope died and his appeal has been abated vide order dated 23.08.2018, as no special leave application has been filed by legal heir or relatives of the deceased, Sidam Gope within 30 days of death of the appellant Sidam Gope as contemplated under Section 394 Cr.P.C. 11. Heard, learned counsel for the appellants, Mr. D. K. Chakarvorty. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted, that the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence is bad in law and cannot sustain in the eyes of law. Learned counsel for the appellants has further submitted, that there is neither any evidence on record to suggest, that the deceased went along with Mangal Singh Bhumij, Sidam Gope and Sunil Parmanik, on Sunday nor any information was given to the police regarding missing of Ramesh Bhumij (deceased). The informant has been filed the present case against the appellant and others, only after the dead body of Ramesh Bhumij (deceased) was recovered. Learned counsel for the appellants has further submitted, that for constituting an offence under Section 364 of the Indian Penal Code, the prosecution has to prove that kidnapping or abduction has been done for the purpose for murder, although appellant has been acquitted by the learned trial Court from the charge under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. The State or informant has not filed any appeal against judgment of acquittal. The State or informant has not filed any appeal against judgment of acquittal. The prosecution has not brought any evidence on record to suggest that there was any animosity between deceased and the accused persons, rather deceased was a major, he went out of his house and later on his dead body was found and thereafter, the First Informant Report was lodged. There is no material on record to prove that the deceased has any animosity with the appellant and other accused persons nor there was any apprehension of death of the deceased (Ramesh Bhumij) at the hands of the accused persons nor the prosecution has brought anything on record to suggest that for any specific reason, the deceased has been murdered by the appellant as well as other co-accused persons and as such, without having any sufficient material the appellant has been wrongly convicted by the learned trial Court and as such, the appellant is entitled for benefit of doubt. 12. Heard, Mr. Sanjay Kumar Pandey, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the State. Learned counsel for the State has submitted, that impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence is well founded and learned trial Court has rightly convicted the appellant under Section 364 of the Indian Penal Code. 13. Heard, learned counsel for the appellant, Mr. D.K. Chakarvorty and learned counsel for the State, Mr. Sanjay Kumar Pandey, Additional Public Prosecutor and perused the records, i.e. First Informant Report, framing of the charge, evidence of four prosecution witnesses, three exhibits of the prosecution side and the statement of the appellant recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. as well as the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence. From perusal of the evidence on record, it appears that, Lal Singh Bhumij (father of the deceased-Ramesh Bhumij) has been examined as P.W.1. He is not an eye witness to the occurrence nor he has stated in his deposition or in his fardbeyan that, when his son left the house on Sunday along with boys of the same locality namely, Mangal Singh, Sidam Gope and Sunil Parmanik, who did not returned till Tuesday. He has not informed the police also about the occurrence. He is not an eye witness to the occurrence nor he has stated in his deposition or in his fardbeyan that, when his son left the house on Sunday along with boys of the same locality namely, Mangal Singh, Sidam Gope and Sunil Parmanik, who did not returned till Tuesday. He has not informed the police also about the occurrence. It is only when dead body of his son Ramesh Bhumij was recovered from a lonely place, an allegation has been made that, his son Ramesh Bhumij has left the house along with persons of the same locality namely Mangal Singh, Sidam Gope and Sunil Parmanik, but even then no allegation was levelled against these persons. In absence of any motive, it is not proper to convict a person for kidnapping of a major person when the trial Court has acquitted the appellant under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. There is no evidence on record to suggest that, deceased Ramesh Bhumij has gone along with Sunil Parmanik, Sidam Gope and Mangal Singh Bhumij. P.W.2 is a formal witness, who has proved the Fardbeyan, in the handwriting and signature of the then Sub-Inspector, Surendra Prasad Singh, which has been marked as exhibit-1, P.W.3, Baliram Mahato is an advocate clerk, who has proved Formal F.I.R., in the handwriting and signature of the then writer constable, Sita Ram Sharma, which has been marked as exhibit-2. Dr. R. K. Sharma is the medical officer, who has conducted the postmortem examination of the deceased Ramesh Bhumij and has found that, deceased has died because of multiple stab wounds and the postmortem report has been proved and marked as exhibit-3. After considering the entire evidence brought on record, the prosecution could not prove that, the appellant Sunil Parmanik along with Sidam Gope and Mangal Singh Bhumij are responsible for kidnapping or murder of the deceased Ramesh Bhumij. Under the aforesaid circumstances, the appellant Sunil Parmanik is acquitted of the charge and conviction under Section 364 of the Indian Penal Code, as no evidence has been brought on record to prove and establish that, the appellant is the person, who along with Sidam Gope and Mangal Singh Bhumij have kidnapped the son of the informant and subsequently killed him. Under the aforesaid background, as discussed above, this Court is of the opinion that the impugned Judgment of conviction and order of sentence, cannot sustain in the eyes of law. Accordingly, the judgment of conviction and order of sentence, both dated 01.10.2005, passed by learned Additional District & Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No. VII, Jamshedpur, in Sessions Trial Case No. 200 of 1987, arising out of Mango P.S. Case no. 14 of 1984 corresponding to G. R. case no. 72A of 1984, is hereby set aside. 14. In the result, the instant criminal appeal stands allowed. 15. The appellant, who is on bail, is discharged from the liability of his bail bonds. 16. Let L.C.R. along with a copy of this judgment be sent to the court concerned at once.