reason to disbelieve the version given by the victim himself. It is further submitted that telephone call was made to the informant and demand of Rs.10,00,000/- was also made with a threat that they would kill the son of the informant. Thus, the prosecution has proved the ingredients of the offence punishable under Section 364A of the Indian Penal Code and, therefore, the Trial Court has not committed any error while passing the impugned order. It is further submitted that merely because the Investigating Officer has not been examined by the prosecution, the benefit of the same may not be given to the accused. Learned APP has also referred the reasoning recorded by the Trial Court and thereafter submitted that there is ample material in the case diary which is referred by the Trial Court against the appellants/convicts. The Trial Court has also referred CDR which was collected by the Investigating Officer during the course of investigation on the basis of which Suresh Sahni was apprehended and thereafter, on the basis of his confessional statement, the boy was, in fact, recovered from the hut of Tarkeshwar Ram. The boy was taken to the Magistrate for recording his statement where the victim boy has specifically taken the name of Suresh Sahni. Learned APP, therefore, urged that when the prosecution has proved the case against both these
