JUDGMENT : R. Mukhopadhyay, J. 1. Heard Mr. Arwind Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the appellant and Mr. Bhola Nath Ojha, learned Spl.P.P. 2. This Appeal is directed against the judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 08.05.2014 (sentence passed on 9. 05.2014) passed by Shri Ambuj Nath, Learned Sessions Judge, Dhanbad in Sessions Trial No.256 of 2013 whereby and whereunder the appellant has been convicted for the offences punishable under Sections 364A/34 of the I.P.C. and 307/34 of I.P.C. and has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life along with a fine of Rs.10,000/- and in case of default in payment of fine, to undergo simple imprisonment for six months for the offence under Section 364A/34 of I.P.C. and rigorous imprisonment for life with a fine of Rs.10,000/- and in default in payment of fine to undergo simple imprisonment for six months for the offence under Section 307/34 of I.P.C. Both the sentences are to run concurrently. 3. The Fardbeyan of Ravindra Kumar Sinha was recorded on 28.10.2012 in which it has been stated that the informant works as a security guard in a private agency and apart from it for the last 3-4 years he is engaged as a land broker. A few days back he had brokered a deal in Golamara village of 8 acres in which his partner Naresh Prasad Sao was given the responsibility to bring the purchasers. Naresh Prasad Sao was assisted by Yogendra Kumar Rajbhar and Akhtar Ansari @ Feku. The talk with the landlord revolved around Rs.22,000/- per decimal but the informant wanted to fix the rate at Rs.17,000/- per decimals. The informant had asked Naresh Prasad Sao and his colleagues to get the land sold at the rate of Rs.22,000/- per decimal. An agreement to that effect was also to be entered on 29.10.2012. It has been alleged that on 28. 10.2012 at around 10 A.M. Naresh Sao and his friends Yogendra Rajbhar and Akhtar Ansari had taken him in an ambassador car and dropped him at Karmatand and asked him to bring the land related documents. After sometime the wife of the informant asked him as to whether their son Shubham is with him to which he replied in the negative but at the same time became worried and left for home. After reaching home he searched for his son but he could not be traced out. After sometime the wife of the informant asked him as to whether their son Shubham is with him to which he replied in the negative but at the same time became worried and left for home. After reaching home he searched for his son but he could not be traced out. In course of sale and purchase of land Naresh Prasad Sao, Yogendra Rajbhar and Akhtar Ansari used to frequent his house and his son had a close acquaintance with Naresh Prasad Sao. It has been alleged that these persons had come to know that the informant will earn a handsome amount out of the said land dealing. It has also been alleged that a phone call was received from Phone No.03263245966 wherein a ransom of Rs.5 Lacs was demanded. 4. Based on the aforesaid allegations Dhanbad (Saraidhela) P.S. Case No.1103 of 2012 was instituted for the offence punishable under Sections 364A/34 I.P.C. against Naresh Prasad Sao, Yogendra Rajbhar and Akhtar Ansari @ Feku. On completion of investigation, charge sheet was submitted and after cognizance was taken the case was committed to the court of sessions where it was registered as Sessions Trial No.256 of 2013. Charge was framed under Sections 364A/34, 307/34 and 325/34 I.P.C. which were read over and explained to the accused in Hindi to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 5. The prosecution has examined as many as 14 witnesses in support of its case. 6. P.W. 1 Vibha Devi is the mother of the victim who has stated that on 28.10.2012 at about 10 A.M. she was in her house and her son was playing inside the boundary near a mango tree. When her mother-in-law asked about Shubham she went in search of her son but could not find him at which she called her husband Ravindra Kumar Sinha over phone who stated that Shubham is not with him. Her husband came back home and a search was made but Shubham could not be traced out. Her husband works in a private agency and for 2-3 years he is involved in land dealings with Naresh Kumar Sao, Yogendra Kumar Rajbhar and Akhtar Ansari @ Feku. Due to this business, all these persons used to frequent his house. Her husband came back home and a search was made but Shubham could not be traced out. Her husband works in a private agency and for 2-3 years he is involved in land dealings with Naresh Kumar Sao, Yogendra Kumar Rajbhar and Akhtar Ansari @ Feku. Due to this business, all these persons used to frequent his house. When she and her husband were reporting about their missing son to Saraidhela Police Station a phone call was received by her husband and the caller informed that his son is with them and a demand of Rs.5 Lacs as ransom was made. She has stated that when she and the others were searching for her son Naresh Sao had come to her house at 11.30 A.M. There was a compromise in the offing on 29.10.2012 with respect to sale of a plot of land and this was the reason for spelling out the name of the accused. She has proved her signature in the seizure list of her son’s wearing apparels as well as the seizure list which have been marked as Ext.1/1 and Ext.1 respectively. In cross-examination she has deposed that the case was lodged on the basis of suspicion. Yogendra Kumar Rajbhar used to frequent her house with Naresh Sao and that was the reason for knowing them. 7. P.W.2 Binda Devi has stated that the incident is of 28. 10.2012 when her grand son Shubham became traceless. After about one and half days her grandson was recovered. Suspicion was cast upon Naresh since Naresh had come to the house on the day Shubham went missing. In cross-examination she has deposed about the number of inmates in her house. 8. P.W.3 Devendra Kumar Sinha has stated that on 28. 10.2012 his brother had called him up and disclosed that Shubham is missing from his house. At this information he started searching for Shubham and after some time his brother also joined in the search. When Shubham could not be traced out they went to the Police Station to lodge a case when a call came on the mobile phone of his brother in which a ransom of Rs.5 Lacs was demanded. The number from which the call had come was given to the Police. On the next day the Police had recovered the boy. They had instituted the case against Naresh Prasad Sao on suspicion. The number from which the call had come was given to the Police. On the next day the Police had recovered the boy. They had instituted the case against Naresh Prasad Sao on suspicion. There was no previous dispute with Naresh Prasad Sao. In cross-examination he has deposed that Naresh Prasad Sao used to frequent his house and he and his family members also used to go to the house of Naresh Prasad Sao. 9. P.W.4 Sangita Sinha has stated that on 28.10.2012 Shubham went missing from the house and on the next date Police had recovered him from a jungle. Naresh Sao used to frequent her house and on the date of occurrence also he had come and after having tea had left. In cross-examination she has deposed that on the date of the incident Naresh Sao had come in an ambassador car. 10. P.W. 5 Ravindra Kumar Sinha is the informant who has stated that on 28.10.2012 at 7 A.M. Naresh Sao had come to his house and thereafter went away. At about 10 A.M. he had left on an ambassador car with Naresh Sao to Karmatand. His wife had called him up and wanted to know the whereabouts of his son which was replied in the negative. Everyone at home started searching for Shubham Kumar but he could not be traced out and he had to go to the Police Station at 3 P.M. at which point of time he received a call on his mobile and the caller disclosed that his son is with him and he further demanded a ransom amount of Rs.5 Lacs. The Police had recorded his Fardbeyan and suspicion was cast upon Naresh Sao. He has proved his Fardbeyan which has been marked as Ext.2. On 29.10.2012 he was asked by the Police to come to Central Hospital as his son was admitted there. He has identified his signature in the seizure list of wearing apparels and slippers of Shubham Kumar which has been marked as Ext.1/2. He has stated that he works as a security guard and is also involved in sale and purchase of land with Naresh Sao. He does not have any dispute with Naresh Sao. When he questioned his son on regaining consciousness, his son disclosed that Naresh Sao was present and he had committed assault upon his son. He has stated that he works as a security guard and is also involved in sale and purchase of land with Naresh Sao. He does not have any dispute with Naresh Sao. When he questioned his son on regaining consciousness, his son disclosed that Naresh Sao was present and he had committed assault upon his son. His son was recovered from Tundi jungle in an injured state by the Police. In cross-examination he has deposed that in the Fardbeyan he had not stated about Naresh calling him over phone and demanding a ransom of Rs.5 lacs. 11. P.W.6 Madhukar Sinha has stated that on 28.10.2012 at 11 A.M. his neighbour Ravindra Kumar Sinha had disclosed that his son is missing, at which a search was conducted for Shubham. He had gone to the Police Station with Ravindra at 3.00 P.M. when Ravindra received a phone call on his mobile demanding ransom. The call was traced through a PCO in front of Central Hospital and after conducting an investigation Naresh Sao was arrested by the Police. Naresh Sao had disclosed that he had thrown the abducted in Tundi jungle after which Police recovered Shubham from Tundi Jungle in an injured state. In cross-examination he has deposed that he had heard that Naresh Sao had taken away Shubham. On 28.10.2012 he had gone to the Central Hospital where he had seen Shubham keeping silent. 12. P.W.7 Sanjay Kumar Vishwakarma has identified his signature in the seizure list which has been marked as Ext.5. The recovery of the boy was made at 4-5 A.M. near Tundi jungle. It was on the disclosure of Naresh Sao the victim was recovered. The boy was recovered in an injured condition and he was taken to Central Hospital for treatment. In cross-examination he has deposed that the seizure list was prepared at the place of occurrence itself. 13. P.W.8 Rukmini Minz has proved her signature upon the seizure list which has been marked as Ext.1/3. 14. P.W.9 Anand Kumar Singh has stated that about a year back he had heard that the son of Ravindra Kumar Sinha had become traceless and after a few days he came to know that the boy has been admitted in Central Hospital. 15. P.W.10 Dr. Uday Kumar Sinha was posted at Central Hospital, Dhanbad and on 29.10.2012 he had examined Shubham Kumar and had found the following injuries:- 1. 15. P.W.10 Dr. Uday Kumar Sinha was posted at Central Hospital, Dhanbad and on 29.10.2012 he had examined Shubham Kumar and had found the following injuries:- 1. Abrasion with depressed fracture right temporal region size 2"x 2". 2. Lacerated wound approx. 1½"x½" bone deep occipital region. 3. Ecchymosis with swelling approx. 6x"3/1" left chest wall axillary line. He has proved the injury report which has been marked as Ext.6. 16. P.W.11 Pappu Gupta has identified his signature in the seizure list which has been marked as Ext.5/1. He was driving the Police jeep and in the morning reached Lodharia Jungle where Shubham Kumar who was in an unconscious state was recovered. 17. P.W.12 Dr. Nalini Ranjan Mahapatra has stated that on 29.10.2012 at 6.30 A.M. Shubham Kumar was brought by the Police in a critical condition to the hospital. The following injuries were found on his person: 1. Ecchymosis 6” x 4” over left posterior axillary line of chest wall with marked surrounded swelling. 2. Punctured wound of 1 cm x ½ cm over right temporal region of scalp 3” above the middle of zygoma bone. 3. Abrasion 5” x 4” with surrounding swelling over right frontal temporal region of scalp. 4. Stitch wound over occipital region (2) – 1 cm x 0.5 cm in size. 5. Ecchymosis of 3 " x 2" size situated over medical aspect of middle of left arm. 6. Ecchymosis 7 " x 4" over posterior aspect of left arm, elbow and forearm. The nature of injuries was opined to be grievous. He has proved the injury report, which has been marked as Ext. 6. 18. P.W.13 Shankar Kamti was posted as an Officer in-charge at Saraidhela Police Station and on 28.10.2012 he had recorded the Fardbeyan of Ravindra Kumar Sinha based upon which Dhanbad (Saraidhela) P.S. Case No.1103 of 2012 was instituted. He had taken over the investigation of the case and forwarded the Fardbeyan for registering a formal F.I.R. He has identified the handwriting and signature of Vijay Kant Singh over the formal F.I.R. which has been marked as Ext-2/1. In course of investigation he had recorded the re-statement of the informant who had disclosed the involvement of Naresh Prasad Saw, Yogendra Kumar Rajbhar and Akhtar Ansari @ Feku in the incident. He had inspected the place of occurrence which is a one storied house of the informant in Basant Vihar. In course of investigation he had recorded the re-statement of the informant who had disclosed the involvement of Naresh Prasad Saw, Yogendra Kumar Rajbhar and Akhtar Ansari @ Feku in the incident. He had inspected the place of occurrence which is a one storied house of the informant in Basant Vihar. He had recorded the statement of the witnesses. He had arrested Naresh Prasad Sao who had confessed his guilt and his confessional statement has been proved and marked as Ext.7. On 29.10.2012 at 3.30 A.M. the Ambassador car used in the abduction and the mobile of Naresh Prasad Sao were seized and a seizure list prepared which has been marked as Ext.8. He had thereafter arrested Yogendra Kumar Rajbhar and Akhtar Ansari @ Feku who had accepted their involvement after which he had gone to Lodharia jungle where the boy was recovered in an injured condition. He had seized a blood stained stone and a blood stained red colour slipper and the seizure list has been proved and marked as Ext.-9. He has taken photographs of the place of occurrence which have been marked as Ext.X, X/1, X/2, X/3, X/4 and X/5. He has stated that till the submission of the charge sheet Shubham was not in a fit mental condition to record his statement. The sealed materials received from FSL have been marked material exhibit nos. A, B, C and D. On completion of investigation, he had submitted chargesheet. In cross-examination he has deposed that the Ambassador car was recovered from the house of Naresh Sao. 19. P.W. 14 Shubham Kr. Sinha has stated that he does not go to school. 20. The trial court has noted his demeanor of thinking for long and giving a reply with uneasiness. Naresh had taken him to his house and thereafter to the jungle and he was initially assaulted with a Danda and then Naresh Sao had assaulted him with a stone. This witness was unable to identify Naresh Sao. 21. The statement of the accused was recorded under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. in which he has denied his involvement in the offence. 22. It has been submitted by Mr. Arwind Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the appellant and there is no evidence adduced by the prosecution worth consideration. This witness was unable to identify Naresh Sao. 21. The statement of the accused was recorded under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. in which he has denied his involvement in the offence. 22. It has been submitted by Mr. Arwind Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the appellant and there is no evidence adduced by the prosecution worth consideration. It has been submitted that the evidence of P.W.1 who is the mother of the victim reveals that the victim went missing from around 10 A.M. while P.W.5 the father of the victim had stated about the presence of the appellant on 28.10.2012 after 10 A.M as both had gone to Karmatand in an Ambassador car. It has been submitted that the presence of appellant with P.W.5 demolishes the case of the prosecution and dilutes the validity of the confessional statement of the appellant. In fact, the other co-accused persons had also confessed but they have been acquitted by the learned trial court. Mr. Arwind Kumar has also relied upon the evidence of P.W.14, the victim while submitting that P.W.14 had failed to identify the appellant in the dock. There is no motive in existence and in a case of circumstantial evidence motive plays a very important role and absence of motive further erodes the case of the prosecution as the chain of circumstances have not been completed. 23. Mr. Bhola Nath Ojha, learned Spl.P.P. has submitted that the suspicion against the appellant soon turned into belief on account of the boy being recovered from the jungle on the confessional statement of the appellant. The presence of the appellant at about the same time when the victim went missing from the house of the informant was perhaps a ploy to allay any suspicion which might have crept up in the mind of the informant. The entire scenario depicts a pre-planned exercise on the part of the appellant to extract Rs.5 Lacs from the informant. 24. We have heard the learned counsel for the respective sides and have also perused the trial court records. 25. The Fardbeyan of the informant merely casts suspicion upon the present appellant as well as two other persons all of whom were the accomplices of the informant in the dealing of sale and purchase of land. The suspicion upon the appellant cemented itself as the investigation progressed and the victim recovered from the jungle. 25. The Fardbeyan of the informant merely casts suspicion upon the present appellant as well as two other persons all of whom were the accomplices of the informant in the dealing of sale and purchase of land. The suspicion upon the appellant cemented itself as the investigation progressed and the victim recovered from the jungle. Admittedly there are no eye-witnesses to the occurrence with respect to the abduction of the victim. Though there appears to be some contradiction with respect to the appellant being directly involved in the abduction, but at the same time we cannot lose sight of the fact that the victim (PW.14) had disclosed about the appellant taking him to the jungle and also subjecting him to assault with stone and lathi. A stone was recovered from the place of occurrence which was blood stained and the FSL report has established the presence of blood of human origin in the stone. Even if we assume the version of the learned counsel for the appellant regarding P.W. 5 as correct but the other circumstances would overwhelm such evidence and the confessional statement of the appellant would further gain credence regarding the involvement of the appellant in the abduction and assault. The evidence of P.W.13 who is the investigating officer clearly depicts that the appellant on being arrested had confessed and based on such confession the victim was recovered in an injured state from Tundi Jungle. This fact has also been corroborated by P.W.7. Although the other two accused persons had also confessed but their confession was post the confession of the appellant and no benefit can accrue to the appellant on the ground of parity. Motive of abduction and demand of ransom also seems to be manifestly clear as the appellant was eyeing the land brokered by the informant which on execution would have financially benefitted the appellant of a handsome amount. The victim was a boy of tender age and the appellant took advantage of his acquaintance with the boy in his abduction and such act coupled with the assault had traumatized the boy to such a great degree that it affected him mentally which is reflected in the halting manner of his answering the questions put to him during trial. The victim was a boy of tender age and the appellant took advantage of his acquaintance with the boy in his abduction and such act coupled with the assault had traumatized the boy to such a great degree that it affected him mentally which is reflected in the halting manner of his answering the questions put to him during trial. The glass of transparency and trust built up between the appellant and the victim has been shattered by the demeaning act of the appellant and if the Police did not act promptly which is a laudable exercise on the part of the Police there would have been fatal consequences. 26. As we have noted above, the involvement of the appellant in the abduction of the boy is proved beyond any reasonable doubt and as a consequence thereof we affirm the judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 08.05.2014 (sentence passed on 09.05.2014) passed by Shri Ambuj Nath, Learned Sessions Judge, Dhanbad in Sessions Trial No.256 of 2013 and dismiss the appeal. Pending interlocutory application stands closed.