Criminal Appeal (SJ) No. 23 OF 1996 Against the judgment and order dated 11.01.1996 passed by Sri R.J. Prasad, 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Vaishali in S.Tr. No. 83 of 1994/92 of 1994. ************ 1. Umesh Paswan, S/o Mhendra Paswan. 2. Prem Paswan Hajra, S/o Kriat Paswan. 3. Krishnandan Singh, S/o Asheswar Singh. 4. Bishwanath Sahni, S/o Laxami Sahni. All resident of Village-Hasanpur, Puranotola, Police Sation-Mahnar, District-Vaishali. ……(Appellants) Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR-------(Respondent) ************* For the Appellant : Mr. Rudal Singh. For the State : Mr. Kumar Uday Pratap, APP. ************** P R E S E N T THE HON'BLE JUSTICE SMT. ANJANA PRAKASH Anjana Prakash, J. 1. The appellants have been convicted under Section 364/34 IPC and sentenced to RI for seven years by the 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Vaishali in S.Tr. No. 83 of 1994/92 of 1994 by a judgment dated 11.01.1996. 2. The case of the prosecution is that on 21.12.1991 the informant was informed by Kauleshwar Bhagat that his father had been kidnapped by the present appellants. 3. During trial the prosecution in all examined ten witnesses out of whom P.W. 4, P.W. 5, P.W. 6, P.W. 7 and P.W. 8 have been declared hostile. The said Kauleshwar Bhagat has not been examined by 2 the prosecution. P.W. 2 is the victim of the case whereas P.W. 3 is the informant. P.W. 1 has failed to identify any of the accused persons. 4. As per the evidence of P.W. 2, the victim on the date of occurrence the appellants had forcibly taken him away and locked him up in a house and demanded Rs. 3 Lakhs from him as ransom. His evidence appears to be most trustworthy and remained unchallenged during cross-examination. Since he is the most competent witness to depose about the manner of occurrence as well as the participants, I am not inclined to interfere with the conviction of the appellants. 6. However, in the facts of the case, in my opinion no offence under Section 364/34 IPC is made out and in fact an offence u/s 347/34 IPC is made out and hence the appellants are convicted under Section 347/34 IPC and sentenced to the period already undergone by them during trial since it appears that the appellants have remained in custody for about 4-5 years. 7. In the result, the appeal is dismissed with the aforesaid modifications. (Anjana Prakash, J.) Patna High Court, Patna, Dated, the 27th June, 2011. NAFR/Vikash/-