than disclosed. His statement as to the identification of the accused persons is unrealistic, unnatural and unacceptable, as in para. 3 of his deposition he stated that after two months of the incident he disclosed the informant of identifying the accused persons that they were seen standing in front of the house of the informant. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that in the present case, the victim was not examined. The mother of the victim was also not examined, as she died during the pendency of the trial. He submits that neither the statement of victim was recorded under Section 164 of the Cr.P.C. nor she was examined in the court and this lacuna goes to the root of the case and in absence of examination of the victim and conclusive evidence as to the fact that the victim was recovered from the possession of the appellant, the conviction of the appellant in the instant case is unsustainable. He further submits that three persons were made accused in the present case, out of three accused persons one Ram Bhagat Das died and as such the trial against Ram Bhagat Das was abated, but similar allegation was levelled by the prosecution against Kapildeo Mahto and Mahendra Mahto and on the same strength of materials and the evidence, the trial court has acquitted Mahendra Mahto extending the benefit of doubt, but the trial court committed error in convicting the appellant against whom the same material was used by the prosecution, which was the material against
