JUDGMENT N.N. Sharma, J. 1. This appeal is directed against order dated 12-9-1978 by Sri G. L. Tandon, learned IVth Additional Sessions Judge, Moradabad in S. T. No. 255 of 1978 by which appellant was acquitted of the charge of rape but was convicted under Section 363 of Indian Penal Code and sentenced to four years rigorous imprisonment. 2. This appeal was listed for hearing today. List has been revised. No Advocate on behalf of appellant came forward to press this appeal. Sri Viresh Misra learned Advocate for appellant: arrived subsequently and argued the appeal at length. I have perused the entire record and heard learned Advocates for the parties. 3. Km. Baby daughter of PW 4 Shahabuddin resident of Mohalla Asalatpur within the limits of Police Station Kotwali, Moradabad is alleged to have been kidnapped by appellant who resides in the same locality on 13-4-1978 at about 7.30 P. M. and rabished her; while carrying the child in his lap, he was seen by Mohammad Iqram (PW 1) and was being chased by some persons; when hotly chased, he threw the child on the: road in presence of Mohammad Iqram (PW 1), Aqeel (PW 2) and Mohammad Naushey (PW 3); the child was picked up and was found bleeding from her vagina; appellant decamped; Mohammad Iqram (PW 1) dictated FIR Eat. ka-1 to Constable Jagdamba Prasad (PW 6) in the same night at 8.30 P. M. at Police Station Kotwali which is at a distance of about five furlongs from the place of occurrence; appellant was nominated in the report; blood stained garment (Frock) and ribbon were also taken in possession and subsequently these were sent to the Chemical Examiner who detected blood on it vide report Ext. Ka-12. 4. Km. Baby was examined on 13-4-1978 at 8.30 P. M. by lady doctor who detected blood on both thighs and legs of the child. Smear was taken for examination. Injuries were found fresh on private parts of the child but the doctor was not definite about the rape vide injury report Ext. Ka-2. Genuineness of this report and injury report of appellant Ext. Ka-3 was admitted by the learned Advocate for appellant at the stage of trial. Babu appellant had following injuries on his person on 13-4-78 at 9.30 P. M. 1. Ka-2. Genuineness of this report and injury report of appellant Ext. Ka-3 was admitted by the learned Advocate for appellant at the stage of trial. Babu appellant had following injuries on his person on 13-4-78 at 9.30 P. M. 1. Abrasion 3/4 cm x 3/4 cm on the inner part of right knee joint from where fresh blood was oozing. 2. Abrasion 1.5 cm x 1 cm on the front of right knee and fresh blood was oozing from there. There were blood stains on lower half of front of right leg. 5. Smell of alcohol was coming from the mouth of Babu. No definite opinion about the commission of rape could be given vide report Ext. Ka-3. 6. On completion of investigation, appellant was sent up. He denied the allegations of rape and kidnapping although he conceded that injuries detected on his person, as detailed in injury report Ext. Ka-3, were present at the time of his medical examination. He offered no explanation for the aforesaid injuries. He conceded to have been arrested in the same night on 13-4-1978. He alleged his implication to ill will with Shahabuddin. No evidence was led in defense. Prosecution examined six witnesses. PW 5 is Sardool Singh Uppal investigator who is a formal witness. 7. Shahabuddin (PW 4) is the father of the child who testified that on that evening his child Baby aged about four years was kidnapped while she was playing in the lane in his absence. He learnt about the kidnapping in the same night at 8.30 or 9.00 P. M. by Babu appellant. He went to Kotwali and thereafter proceeded to hospital where the child was being examined. He also identified frock Ext. 1 as Belonging to the child which was seized and sealed up by investigator. He conceded that child was not kidnapped in his presence. No suggestion of enmity was drawn to Shahabuddin in his cross examination on behalf of appellant. 8. On the point of kipnapping, prosecution examined informant Mohammad Iqram (PW 1) who made a consistent statement about the kidnapping of the child by Babu appellant. He conceded that child was not kidnapped in his presence. No suggestion of enmity was drawn to Shahabuddin in his cross examination on behalf of appellant. 8. On the point of kipnapping, prosecution examined informant Mohammad Iqram (PW 1) who made a consistent statement about the kidnapping of the child by Babu appellant. He gave the time as 7.30 P. M. when he saw Babu and identified in court also Baby as the daughter of Shahabuddin in the lap of appellant; he further testified that about 15 minutes after, he saw three persons who arrived in pursuit of appellant, shouting to apprehend him. Appellaat decamped towards Har Pal Nagar street. The child was left behind at a distance of about two hundred steps from his shop. Child was weeping and bleeding from her private parts. He picked up the child. As he did not know the paternity of the child so he carried her to Police Station Kotwali, Moradabad where he lodged FIR Ext. Ka-1. He admitted the genuineness of this report. His statement remained unshaken in cross-examination and learned judge was impressed by his testimony. Aqeel (PW 2) was working at his workshop and on that evening he saw appellant Babu carrying Km. Baby in his lap. However, he did not go the whole hog. He did not testify that the child was bleeding from her private parts and so he was cross examined] by the prosecution and confronted with his earlier statement before investigator which he could not successfully reconcile. 9. Mohammad Naushey (PW 3) corroborates the same story. He is a betel seller. In electric light which was on at his shop and in street light, he claimed to have seen Babu appellant carrying Km. Baby in his lap. He further testified that appellant purchased cigarette! from his shop and the child was eating biscuit; appellant carried the child towards station road. It was after about 15 minutes that he saw pursuers Sudhir, Wahid and Aqeel chasing him. The child was thrown by appellant near trivium. He decamped towards Harpal Nagar. He corroborated the story of bleeding of the child by her private parts. He also identified frock Ext. I. 10. On the aforesaid evidence, after a critical appraisal, learned trial Judge has believed the prosecution case relating to kidnapping and recorded the conviction and sentence aforesaid. The child was thrown by appellant near trivium. He decamped towards Harpal Nagar. He corroborated the story of bleeding of the child by her private parts. He also identified frock Ext. I. 10. On the aforesaid evidence, after a critical appraisal, learned trial Judge has believed the prosecution case relating to kidnapping and recorded the conviction and sentence aforesaid. Sri Viresh Misra, learned Advocate for appellant, argued that appellant was next door neighbour of Shahabuddin and has been involved on account of ill-will. There is nothing in the statement of Shahabuddin to show that he had any ill-will with appellant and nor such suggestion was made to him in cross-examination. So this contention is repelled. 11. The next contention put forward on behalf of appellant was that the conviction is not sustainable on the solitary testimony of PW 1 Shahabuddin when he did not receive a firm corroboration from the testimony of PWs. 2 and 3. I do not agree with this contention. There is nothing in evidence of PW 1 to show any ill will with appellant and learned trial judge was favourably impressed by his demeanour. His testimony received a firm corroboration from the prompt FIR as well as the testimony of Mohammad Naushey (PW 3). He was supported on this point by PW 2 Aqeel. Also, even though he did not support the prosecution case about condition of Baby at that time. Even the testimony of a hostile witness does not completely efface itself and can be looked into. The medical report again corroborates the statement of PW 1 on the point that the child was found bleeding from her private parts at that time. 12. So learned trial Judge rightly believed the testimony of the aforesaid witnesses. Moreover, Section 34 of Indian Evidence Act does not prescribe number of witnesses to prove the fact. Even in FIR it was mentioned that the child told the name of appellant as kidnapper to PW 1. This is admissible in evidence also as res gestae. Learned counsel for the appellant again argued that it appears from the said report that appellant was present ;at the police station when the FIR was drawn at 8.30 P. M. No such suggestion was thrown in cross-examination to PW 1 nor such fact is recorded in general diary etc. This is admissible in evidence also as res gestae. Learned counsel for the appellant again argued that it appears from the said report that appellant was present ;at the police station when the FIR was drawn at 8.30 P. M. No such suggestion was thrown in cross-examination to PW 1 nor such fact is recorded in general diary etc. This argument is negatived by the admission of appellant himself who alleged that he was arrested on that night subsequently and he was not present at the police station when the FIR was lodged nor sustained the injuries on his person at that time. Injuries on his person again connect him with the crime. 13. The last contention was that appellant had no motive to kidnap the child when the basic structure of the case, i.e., the story of rape was disbelieved the entire case should have been thrown out. Learned trial Judge has given reasons to give benefit of doubt to appellant about the offence of rape. However, the case against the appellant about kidnapping is proved by cogent evidence. Motive of kidnapping could not have been established by the prosecution through evidence because the motive lay buried in bosom of appellant. Moreover, medical examination of the child is clearly indicative the attempt as rape etc. which was not believed by learned judge for the reasons best known to him. It is not for a court of law to speculate about the motive which actuated the appellant to kidnap the child. 14. Thus, there is ample oral and substantial evidence on record to connect the appellant with the crime. The testimony of PW 1 remained unshaken throughout and impressed the learned trial Judge. Appellant himself admitted the injuries which were detected on his person on that night and did not offer any explanation about it. He could not show any enmity with Shahabuddin father and lawful guardian of the child. The: age of the child was less than 16 years and only four years at that time. I believed the ocular testimony on the point that the minor was taken away by appellant without the consent of her guardian. So all the ingredients of offence under Section 363 of Indian Penal Code have been fully made out on the evidence on record. I believed the ocular testimony on the point that the minor was taken away by appellant without the consent of her guardian. So all the ingredients of offence under Section 363 of Indian Penal Code have been fully made out on the evidence on record. Learned Advocate for appellant also prayed for reduction of sentence or for extending the benefit of First Offender's Probation Act who lost his employment in the railway. I have carefully considered over the matter. In such heinous offences, it is not possible to extend the benefit of First Offender's Probation Act to a next door grown up neighbour. So the sentence cannot be regarded as excessive and must operate. 15. In the result, the appeal is dismissed. Conviction and sentence recorded by learned trial Judge are affirmed. Appellant is on bail. Let him surrender to his bonis forthwith and be taken into custody to serve out the sentence aforesaid. --- Appeal dismissed.