JUDGMENT : Pradeep Kumar Srivastava, J. 1. Heard, Md. Faruque Ansari, learned counsel for the appellants and Mr. Rajesh Kumar, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the State. 2. The present appeal has been preferred by the appellants challenging the judgment of conviction dated 19th January, 2008 and order of sentence dated 22nd January, 2008 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Tract Court No.I, Palamau, Daltonganj in S.T. No.111 of 2006, whereby and whereunder, the appellants have been held guilty for the offences under sections 147, 323/149, 364/149 and 387/149 of Indian Penal Code and sentenced them to undergo R.I. for 5 years along with fine of Rs.3,000/- for the offences under sections 364/149 of IPC, R.I. for 3 years along with fine of Rs.3,000/- for the offence under sections 387/149 of IPC and R.I. of one year each sections 323 and 147 of IPC. All sentences have been directed to run concurrently. FACTUAL MATRIX 3. Factual matrix giving rise to this appeal is that on 17.09.2004, the informant Prem Nath Bishwakarma lodged an FIR stating inter alia that there is land dispute with the co-villagers namely Ukhamjee Yadav, Lalan Yadav, Yogendra Yadav, Ramlal Yadav and Nakku Yadav, which was settled with the intervention of the police station on 17.08.2004. It is further alleged that the accused persons are not abiding the terms and conditions of the settlement and have called one miscreant Mulayam Singh Yadav and on their instigation Mulayam Singh Yadav along with others abducted the brother of the informant namely Ram Raj Vishwakarma on 06.09.2004 at about 9 AM and took him away towards Lama Pahari while assaulting with lathi with intention to kill him. It is further alleged that Mulayam Singh Yadav and others threatened the informant’s brother to quit the alleged land and remove the trees from the disputed land, otherwise, he will be killed. They also threatened his brother not to lodge any case, otherwise your house will be demolished and also demanded Rs.1 lakh as extortion from the informant through his brother, otherwise, they will also kill the informant along with his son. 4. After registration of FIR for the offence under sections 147, 148, 149, 323, 341, 364 and 387 of IPC, the investigation was conducted and present appellants were charge-sheeted in the case for the aforesaid offences. 4. After registration of FIR for the offence under sections 147, 148, 149, 323, 341, 364 and 387 of IPC, the investigation was conducted and present appellants were charge-sheeted in the case for the aforesaid offences. The case was committed to the court of Sessions, whereby the appellants faced trial and have been held guilty and sentenced as stated above. 5. Learned counsel for the appellants assailing the impugned judgment and order has vehemently argued that none of the offences charged against the appellants are constituted. It is out and out a false case due to previous dispute between the parties regarding land. The occurrence is manipulated to have happened on 06.09.2004 but the FIR was lodged on 17.09.2004 without offering any reasonable cause for such an inordinate delay. The story of demand of extortion money and abduction of the informant’s brother is purportedly false and no such event ever took place. It is further stated that the trial court has miserably failed to properly appreciate the evidence of the informant and his brother allegedly abducted in the case and arrived at wrong conclusion. The investigating Officer of the case was also not examined. The doctor (P.W.5), who has medically examined the injured, has specifically admitted that, he has examined the patient on 08.09.2004 at about 9:20 PM as outdoor patient, wherein the patient had also not disclosed any medico legal case or injury suffered in any criminal activities. It is further submitted that the appellants are extremely old age persons more than 70 years and one of the appellants is of 86 years and this fact was also not considered by the trial court at the time of passing sentence. Therefore, the impugned judgment and order of conviction and sentence of the appellants is absolutely illegal and beyond the weight of evidence available on record, which is fit to be set aside and this appeal may be allowed. 6. On the other hand, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the State controverting the aforesaid arguments and defending the impugned judgment and order of conviction and sentence of the appellants, has submitted that the appellants have abducted the brother of the informant, who has also fully supported the prosecution story. 6. On the other hand, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the State controverting the aforesaid arguments and defending the impugned judgment and order of conviction and sentence of the appellants, has submitted that the appellants have abducted the brother of the informant, who has also fully supported the prosecution story. There is no reason of disbelieve their testimony and learned trial court has very wisely and aptly appreciated the evidence available on record and adequately sentenced the appellants, which requires not to interfere with this appeal. Hence, this appeal is fit to be dismissed. 7. I have gone through to the entire record of the case along with impugned judgment and order of conviction and sentence of the appellants in the light of points of argument raised on behalf of both side. 8. For better appreciation of the case, a brief resume of testimony of witnesses appears to be apposite and to be discussed. 9. It appears that altogether 6 witnesses have been examined in this case by the prosecution. The prime witness of the occurrence is P.W.3 Ram Raj Vishwakarma, who is alleged to have been abducted and assaulted by the appellants. According to his evidence, on 06.09.2004 at about 9 AM, while this witness was present in his house, meanwhile, 5-6 accused persons namely Ukhamjee Yadav, Lalan Yadav, Yogendra Yadav, Ramlal Yadav, Mulayam Singh Yadav and Nakku Yadav came to his house armed with gun and lathis. All the accused started assaulting him, brought towards Lama Pahari and threatened him to compromise in the case in connection with the disputed land with Ukhamjee Yadav and Nakku Yadav. Then, this witness convinced with their demands due to fear and consented for settlement, thereafter the accused persons told him to bring one lakh from his brother, who is residing at Garhwa. This witness further deposed that 08.09.2004, he went to Garhwa and got medical treatment in a hospital. He had sustained injuries on leg, knee, waist and eye. In his cross-examination, this witness specifically admits that on the same day at about 2 PM, he was released by the accused persons and in the next day of morning, he went to meet his brother Prem Nath Vishwakarma at Garhwa, where he got medical treatment and was admitted over night in the hospital. Thereafter, he along with his brother went to Bishrampur Police Station and lodged this case. Thereafter, he along with his brother went to Bishrampur Police Station and lodged this case. According to him, the FIR was lodged at the instance of this witness, which was reduced into writing by his brother but the case was lodged on 17.09.2004. He also admits that a proceeding under section 144 of Cr.P.C has undergone between the parties in respect of land dispute, which is going on since 1996 and this occurrence also took place in respect that disputed land. P.W.1 Shankar Chaudhary and P.W.2 Umesh Choudhary have been declared hostile. P.W.4 is Prem Nath Vishwakarma is brother of the victim-cum-informant. According to his evidence, on 06.09.2004, he was residing at Garhwa and his brother Ram Raj Vishwakarma was residing at Daltanganj. He has further deposed that on 08.09.2004, all the accused Ukhamjee Yadav, Lalan Yadav, Yogendra Yadav, Ramlal Yadav, Mulayam Singh Yadav and Nakku Yadav abducted his brother and brought him to Lama Pahari and threatened to quit the land and also demanded Rs.1 lakh to bring from this witness. Due to fear of the accused persons, he did not lodge any case immediately and on 17.09.2004, on the basis of written report, submitted by this witness, the FIR was lodged, which is marked as (Ext.1). In his cross-examination, he has admitted that no incident has taken place in his presence because he was at Garhwa whereas his brother was at village Bandla at Bisharampur. He has also admitted that his brother was immediately released by the accused persons. He has also admitted that there is land dispute with the accused persons since 4-5 months prior to this occurrence. He did not talk with any of the accused persons in respect of above incident. His brother was treated as outdoor patient at Garhwa hospital and at that time he did not disclose about any incident. P.W.5 Dr. Arun Kumar has medically examined the injured person in M.O. Sadar Hospital, Garhwa on 08.09.2004 at about 9:20 PM and found following injuries:- (i) pain in right knee, (ii) red blue spot on right thigh of back side, (iii) multiple scratches over both hands. The injury report is marked as Ext.2. In his cross-examination, this witness fairly admits that this was not medico legal case and no requisition was received from any police station for medical examination of the injured Ram Raj Vishwakarma. The injury report is marked as Ext.2. In his cross-examination, this witness fairly admits that this was not medico legal case and no requisition was received from any police station for medical examination of the injured Ram Raj Vishwakarma. He has not mentioned the age of injury and the injured was not admitted in the hospital. P.W.6- Ajimuddin Ansari is a formal witness and is an advocate clerk, who has proved formal FIR as Ext.3. 10. From the aforesaid discussion of prosecution evidence, it is crystal clear that the injured himself admits that he was released by the accused person on the same day and there was simple demand of Rs.1 lakh as ransom, but no such ingredients of extortion has been proved in this case and admittedly there was land dispute between the parties. The inordinate delay of lodging FIR has also not been explained. The injury sustained by the injured also does not correspond with the manner of occurrence as stated by the injured and the same is also superficial in nature. Considering the totality of the circumstances, the prosecution story does not appear to be believable and false implication of the accused persons due to land dispute, cannot over ruled. The learned trial court has ignored the aforesaid materials elicited in cross-examination of the witnesses and also failed to consider that even the informant has fully not corroborated the incident as stated by the victim (P.W.3). In view of the above facts and circumstances of the case, I find merits in this appeal, which is hereby allowed and impugned judgment and order of conviction and sentence of appellants is set aside. 11. Appellants are on bail and discharged from liability of bail bond. Sureties shall also be discharged. 12. Pending I.A(s), if any, is also disposed of accordingly. 13. Let the copy of this judgment along with Trial Court Records be sent back to the trial court for information and needful.