Judgment Shamimul Hoda, J. 1. Surat Lal Yadav and Munu Lal Yadav are the two appellants who have filed this appeal against the judgment, dated 20th day of january, 19s4, passed in Sessions Case No.21/80/83/82 by the 5th Additional sessions Judge, Saharsa. By the aforesaid judgment the appellants have been convicted under Sec.364 of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as the Code) and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years. 2. A Fardbeyan was recorded on 22-1-1979 at Bharrahi Out Post on the statements of Sukhdeo Yadav, the informant, who is P. W.5. In the said fardbeyan it was alleged that one Nikalal Yadav was married with Saraswati devi of village Naraha and he was residing with his family members at the said village. He acquired property about two and half bighas from his earnings at nepal in the name of his minor son, Ganga Yadav, in village Narha. It is said that Sarswati Devi, wife of Nikalal Yadav, developed illicit connection with the appellant No.1, Surat Lal Yadav, due to which she deserted her husband and started living with Surat Lal Yadav at his house. The accused persons did not like Mikalal Yadav to remain in the village and he was tortured by the accused persons for which a Panchayati was held and appellant No.1 Surat Lal Yadav, was held guilty. It has been also alleged that about fifteen days before recording of Fardbeyan, Munu Lal Yadav, appellant No.2. came to Nikalal Yadav and told him that he had been called by appellant No.1, Surat Lal Yadav, as his wife is ready to live with him. Nikalal Yadav went to village Naraha Tola and stayed in the house of appellant No.1. In the night appellant No.1 and other accused persons told Nikalal Yadav to transfer his land in the name of his wife, sarswati Devi and then she will live with him. It is alleged that on Wednesday both the appellants came to village Mathahi and took Nikalal Yadav with them on the inducement that his wife is now ready to live with him and so he should go and bring her. Accordingly, they left village Mathahi but Nikalal Yadav never returned back to his village Mathahi. It is alleged that on Wednesday both the appellants came to village Mathahi and took Nikalal Yadav with them on the inducement that his wife is now ready to live with him and so he should go and bring her. Accordingly, they left village Mathahi but Nikalal Yadav never returned back to his village Mathahi. When Nikalal Yadav did not return, the nformant began to search for him and during that search it was disclosed to the informant by one Ram Narain Yadav, P. W.1, and some others that his brother nikalal Yadav has been murdered by appellant No.1, Surat Lal Yadav, along with Pirthavi Lal Yadav, Narain Lal Yadav, Nunu Lal Yadav and Sarswati Devi after having hatched a conspiracy to kill Nikalal Yadav and that his deadbody has been thrown in Budhma Chhap. It is further stated that Sukhdeo Yadav, p. W.5, when went to Budhma Chhap found an skeleton dead body lying in the budhma Chhap. He then returned back to Bharrahi Out Post and lodged his fardbeyan. The police recovered the deadbody from Budhma Chhap and sent it to hospital for post mortem examination and thereafter the skeleton was sent to Bhagalpur Medical College Forensic Science Laboratory. The report of the forensic Science Laboratory was obtained on 4-4-1979. The Skeleton was identified as the skeleton of Nikalal Yadav by the informant, P. W.5, Ganga Yadav. P. W.4, the son of Nikalal Yadav and Ram Narain Yadav, P. W.1, who is maternal brother-in-law of Nikalal Yadav. The Police, after investigation, submitted charge-sheet against the appellants along with four others under sections 322/201 of the Code. The charges were framed against the appellants and four other accused persons under the aforesaid sections and after commitment they were put on trial and, as stated above, the appellants were convicted under section 364 of the Code. 3. The defence version is that the appellants have been falesly implicated due to political rivalry between Narain Prasad Mukhiya and Subhas Babu mukhiya as in the last election Subhas Babu Mukhiya succeeded and Narain prasad Mukhiya was defeated and that appellant No.1 was the Sipahi of Narain babu. It is also the defence case that the informant, Sukhdeo Yadav, the brother of Nikalal Yadav, wanted to grab the property of Nikalal Yadav and so he has set up this false case and implicated the appellants and others. It is also the defence case that the informant, Sukhdeo Yadav, the brother of Nikalal Yadav, wanted to grab the property of Nikalal Yadav and so he has set up this false case and implicated the appellants and others. The appellants have denied the occurrence of the crime committed by them. 4. The prosecution, in support of its case, examined seven witnesses; out of them P. Ws.2, 3 and 6 were declared hostile. P. W.1 is Ram Narain Yadav, p. W.4. Ganga Yadav minor son of Nikalal Yadav, P. W.5 Sukhdeo Yadav brother of Nikalal Yadav and P. W.7 is the Investigating Officer. 5. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, on considering the evidence on record, has come to the conclusion that the skelton, which was found in Budhma chhap, was not the skeleton of Nikalal Yadav and, accordingly, acquitted all the accused persons under Sections 302/201 of the Code but convicted only the appellants under Sec.364 of the Code. 6. Mr. Ram Chandra Jha, learned counsel appearing for the appellants, has submitted that the learned trial court has erred in convicting the appellants for the offence under Sec.364 of the Code when there was no charge framed against them under that section. He has also submitted that the ingredients of section 201 of the Code are quite different than that of Sec.364 of the Code and as such without framing of charge under Sec.364 of the Code they have been greatly prejudiced. He has further submitted that the case against the appellants and other four accused persons were such that their cases could not have been separated and, in such a situation, in four accused persons have been acquitted then the conviction against the appellants could not be sustained. He has also submitted that the medical report in this case does not tally with the prosecution case and as such the. whole case against the appellants is dimolished. 7. Mr. K. P. Yadav, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State, has submitted that the evidence of P. Ws.1, 4 and 5 are cogent and consistent on the point of abduction and as such the trial court has rightly convicted the appellants for the said offence. 8. In order to appreciate the contention of the learned counsel, it will be relevant to examine the ingredients of Sections 201 and 364 of the Code. 8. In order to appreciate the contention of the learned counsel, it will be relevant to examine the ingredients of Sections 201 and 364 of the Code. Sec.201 requires to be proved that : (i) An offence has been committed; (ii) The accused knew or has reason to believe that such offence has been committed ; (iii) The accused caused evidence thereof to disappear and gave false information respecting such offence knowing or having reason to believe the same to be false ; and (iv) The accused did so with intent to screen the offencer from legal punishment. Whereas for an offence under Sec.364 of the Code it requires to be proved that: (i) The accused compelled a person to go from the place in question; (ii) He so compelled that person by means of force or that he induced that person to do so by deceitful means ; and (iii) That he so abducted a person in question in order that such person might be murdered. From the perusal of the aforesaid provision it is manifest that if an accused is being tried for an offence under Sec.201 of the Code he cannot be convicted for an offence under Sec.364 of the Code without framing a separate and distinct charge with regard to the offence under that section. 9 In this case there was no eye-witness with regard to murder of Nikalal yadav or on the point of disposal of his body. Only circumstantial evidence is there in this case and the conviction against the appellants has been based on the ground that Nikalal Yadav was abducted by the appellants and the learned additional Sessions Judge has come to the conclusion that there are circumstances to show that the appellants might have abducted Nikalal Yadav on giving false assurance and inducement regarding his wife. 10. In support to his contention the learned counsel has relied upon the reported decisions in the case of Mankenand V/s. State of Punjab, AIR 1955 SC 274 and the case of Suraj Pal V/s. State of Uttar Pradesh, AIR 1955 SC 419 . In the former case it was held that a person charged with an offence read with section 149, cannot be convicted of the substantive offence without specific charge being framed as required by Sec.233 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. In the former case it was held that a person charged with an offence read with section 149, cannot be convicted of the substantive offence without specific charge being framed as required by Sec.233 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. And, in the latter case it was held that the framing of specific and distinct charge in respect of every distinct head of criminal liability constituting an offence is the foundation for a conviction and sentence thereof. 11. As I have pointed out above, the ingredients of Sec.344 of the code is completely different from that of Sec.201 of the Code, the appellants could not have convicted for the offence under Sec.364 of the Code without separate and distinct charge being framed for that offence. In the present case there are only three witnesses that is P. Ws.1, 4 and 5 which are worth mentioning. I have gone through their evidence and I have found that none of them have said as to how they came to know that the appellants compelled nikalal Yadav to go and that such compulsion was by means of force or they induced by any deceitful means nor they have said that such abduction was for the purpose of killing. Their only evidence is that they had seen Nikalal Yadav going with the appellants. Thus, even on the evidence on record the ingredients of Sec.364 of the Code are not satisfied. 12. In the result, the appeal is allowed and the conviction and sentence passed against the appellants are set aside and they are discharged from the liabilities of the bail bonds. Appeal allowed.