ORDER Mahesh Chandra, J. - This appeal arises out of conviction of Doongar Singh u/s 365 IPG by II Additional Civil and Sessions Judge, Etah. One Angad Ram was also prosecuted along with the Appellant, but has been acquitted. We are consequently not concerned with him in this appeal. 2. Briefly stated the prosecution case was this. On 27.12.1962, Suresh Chandra was going to school in morning from Khilora to Bahora. When he had crossed village Narethi at about 9A.M. the Appellant Doongar Singh and two others suddenly came out of an Arhar field and kidnapped Suresh Chandra. This was witnessed by Athar Mohammad (P.W. 3) and Brij Raj Singh (C.W. 1). Two other boys Hari Singh (P.W. 5) and Dhara Singh who were going ahead at a distance of about 40 yards from Suresh Chandra. Suresh Chandra was kept by the Appellant and his companions in the field during the day. He was blind-folded and his hands were tied. After sunset he was taken to the house of Angad Ram in village Nidhauli and was confined in a Kotha locking it from outside. He remained there throughout the night of 27.12.1962. He managed to free his hands at about 5 A.M. on 28 December, removed the fold on his eyes, dug a hole in the wall of the Kotha under a window and escaped returning home at 7 A.M. on 28.12.1962. Meanwhile Suresh Chandra's father had told Inam Hussain (P.W. 1) the Head Master of Junior High School, Bahora, about the abduction. Inam Hussain dictated a report (Ex Ka 4) to another teacher and signed before Sri Yadav, a Sub Deputy Inspector of Schools, and took it to police station Patiali and handed it over to Bashir Mohammad Head Constable at about 11.30 A.M. 3. Doongar Singh Appellant pleaded not guilty and alleged that he had been falsely implicated in the case out of enmity. 4. Three witnesses (P.Ws. 3 to 5) were examined on behalf of the prosecution. They deposed about the abouction of Suresh Chandra. Brij Raj Singh (P.W. 1) and Hira Singh (P.W. 5) stated that they could not recognise any of the abductors. 4. Three witnesses (P.Ws. 3 to 5) were examined on behalf of the prosecution. They deposed about the abouction of Suresh Chandra. Brij Raj Singh (P.W. 1) and Hira Singh (P.W. 5) stated that they could not recognise any of the abductors. Athar Mohammad (P.W. 3) who stated that he knew Doongar Singh from before and saw him among the abductors has not been relied upon by the learned Sessions Judge himself who has convicted the Appellant on the sole testimony of Suresh Chandra (P.W. 4). So far as Athar Mohammad (P.W. 3) is concerned he admitted that he had not named Doongar Singh Appellant as one of the abductors in his statement betore the Investigating Officer u/s 161 Code of Criminal Procedure out of fear. He could not also identify Doongar Singh in the identi-fication parade when the Magistrate was there and there was no reason to fear Doongar Singh. In view of this the learned Sessions Judge rightly refused to place anv reliance on the statement of Athar Mohammad. Suresh Chandra stands in no better position. He also failed to identify Doongar Singh as one of the abductors. Nor did he name Doongar Singh to his father to whom he related the incident of abduction soon after his return at 7 A.M. on 28.12.1962. It is consequently not possible to agree with the learned Sessions Judge when he places reliance on the statement of Suresh Chandra for the conviction of the Appellant. 5. The court below has dealt with the statement of Suresh Chandra and has explained his failure to identify Doongar Singh in the identification parade on the ground that the boy was bewildered and that because the face of Doongar Singh who had chips pasted on it Suresh Chandra became confused. This explanation is not at all satisfactory There were not more than five chips pasted on the face of Doongar Singh Appellant. Moreover it is admitted by Suresh Chandra himself and also by the Investigating Officer that Doongar Singh was known to Suresh Chandra from before. That being so it would not have been difficult for Suresh Chandra to identify Doongar Singh Appellant in identification parade if he had been one of the abductors. 6. Moreover it is admitted by Suresh Chandra himself and also by the Investigating Officer that Doongar Singh was known to Suresh Chandra from before. That being so it would not have been difficult for Suresh Chandra to identify Doongar Singh Appellant in identification parade if he had been one of the abductors. 6. It has also been mentioned in the judgment of the court below that Doongar Singh should not have been but up for identification test when he was known to Suresh Chandra. This is true. There was no necessity for the adentification test. But once he was but up for identification test and Suresh Chandra and Athar Mohammad, who had together failed to identify Doongar Singh as one of the abductors, it is clear that Doongar Singh was not there at all. 7. The court below has mentioned he explanation of Suresh Chandra for not naming Doongar Singh to his father. What Suresh Chandra actually (sic)ated was that "MERI MAK KAT (sic)AI THI. MUJHE HOSH HI NAHI RAHA THA.'' But if that was so there has certainly no reason for his failure identify Doongar Singh at the time of identification test which was held on 30.1.1963, ie, more than a month after the incident. The explanation offered bv learned Sessions Judge himself is that Suresh Chandra might not have thought it sale to tell the name of Doongar Singh as one of the abductors to his father or mother This explanation of being frightened was not offered by Suresh Chandra himself and has been put forward by the court below. If he was frightened after the police officer had arrived, there was no reason to be frightened at the time of the identification test which was held long after his statement to the police officer. 8. The court below has also referred to the tendency on the part of the accused persons especially in that district who win over the witnesses under threat or allurement. There is no allegation that Suresh Chandra had been whenever and was making his statement under any threat or allurement or had failed to identify Doongar Singh in the identification test because of any threat or allurement. In these circumstances it is not possible to, rely even on the statement of Suresh Chandra regarding the participation of the Appellant in the alleged abduction. In these circumstances it is not possible to, rely even on the statement of Suresh Chandra regarding the participation of the Appellant in the alleged abduction. Doongar Singh himself states that he is a wrestler and was well known to Suresh Chandra and Athar Mohd. from before. In fact this prior knowledge is not denied by either of them. In these circumstances there was no reason for their failure to identify Doongar Singh if he had been one of the abductors. The result is that Doongar Singh cannot be said to have been proved guilty beyond reasonable doubt. Giving him the benefit of doubt I acquit him, set aside his conviction and sentence u/s 365 of IPC. The Appellant is on bail. His bail bonds are discharged. He need not surrender to his bail.