Conviction under Section 364 IPC unsustainable absent proof of specific intent to murder or danger of murder.

The prosecution alleged that on April 1, 1994, the five appellants, armed with firearms, kidnapped Bipin Kumar Yadav (P.W. 4) from a wheat field after firing in the air to scare away his father (P.W. 5) and brother (P.W. 3).

The motive was an existing land dispute.

The victim allegedly returned home after two years, claiming he had been confined in a room across the Ganga River and was told he would be released only upon payment of ransom.

The Trial Court (Addl. District & Sessions Judge, FTC, Munger) convicted all appellants on June 29, 2005, under Section 364 read with Section 34 of the IPC, sentencing them to ten years of rigorous imprisonment.

Appellants 4 and 5 died during the pendency of the appeal, and the proceedings against them were abated.

1. Whether the prosecution proved the guilt of the appellants for the offence of kidnapping in order to murder under Section 364 r/w 34 IPC beyond reasonable doubt.

2. Whether the Trial Court’s reliance on the testimonies of interested and related witnesses (P.W. 3, 4, and 5) was legally sustainable in the absence of corroborating evidence and the non-examination of the Investigating Officer.

The Court applied Section 364 of the IPC, which requires proof that kidnapping was done with the specific intent that the person be murdered or put in danger of being murdered.

Statement identifying the impact of defective investigation and non-examination of the Investigating Officer as held in Munna Lal v. State of Uttar Pradesh.

The court relied on Palanisamy v. State of T.N. and Raju v. State of T.N. to emphasize that while the evidence of "interested witnesses" is admissible, it requires "discerning scrutiny" and a "rule of prudence" for careful examination.

Statement on the doctrine derived from State of W.B. v. Mir Mohammad Omar, holding that Section 364 IPC is not attracted if the objective of murder is not demonstrated at the time of abduction.

The High Court found the prosecution's case riddled with contradictions; while P.W. 5 alleged the presence of five accused, P.W. 3 and P.W. 4 provided conflicting accounts regarding who actually participated.

Crucially, the prosecution failed to prove the essential ingredient of Section 364—the intent to murder; instead, P.W. 4’s testimony suggested a demand for ransom (Section 364-A), which was never charged.

The court noted that the victim's claim of being held for two years was suspicious, as he could not name the location of his confinement and failed to raise an alarm when taken outside.

The informant’s (P.W. 5) claim that the appellants were untraceable for two years was contradicted by trial records showing the appellants were actually in judicial custody or appearing for bail during that period.

The non-examination of the Investigating Officer and the failure to mark the FIR or Section 164 statements as exhibits caused significant prejudice to the defense.

The High Court set aside the judgment of conviction dated June 29, 2005, and the order of sentence dated June 30, 2005.

The surviving appellants (Appellants 1, 2, and 3) were acquitted of all charges, and their bail bonds were cancelled.

The appeal was allowed.