JUDGMENT S. B. Sinha, J. Both these Criminal Revision applications having arisen from a common judgment arising of same incident, were heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment. 2. Both these Criminal Revision applications arise out of the judgment dated 14th July, 1988 passed by Shri Pradhan Uma Kant, Sessions Judge of Singhbhum, Chaibasa, in Cr. Appeal No. 117-C/141 of 1988 (Shambhu Prasad Sah Vs. The State of Bihar) and Cr. Appeal No. 119-C/143 of J988 (Sudhist Paswan & anr. Vs. The State of Bihar) preferred against the judgment dated 13-5-88 passed by Shri B. K. Prasad, Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class, Jamshedpur, in G. R. Case No. 1662A/1987 (T. R. No. 864/88) convicting the petitioners along with one Ram Eqbal Paswan @ Pahalwan and one Krishna Gope to undergo three years rigorous imprisonment each separately for offences under sections 363 and 387 of the Indian Penal Code. 3. The cases have been heard by a Division Bench under the following circumstances. 4. Shambhu Prasad Sah, the petitioner in Cr. Revision No. 255 of 1988, filed the said application being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the aforementioned judgment of the appellate Court. 5. By an order dated 16-12-88 a learned Single Judge, white admitting the said application on the question of sentence only directed issuance of a notice to the petitioner that in the event the said application is dismissed why the sentences imposed upon him by the trial court shall not be enhanced. 6. Similarly, in the Cr. Rev. No. 17 of 1989 (R) filed by Sudhist Paswan, another learned Single Judge by an order dated 16-2-1989 while admitting said application on the question of sentence only directed issuance of notice to show cause to the petitioner to the effect that in the event the said application is dismissed why the sentences imposed upon him by the trial court should not be enhanced. 7. When these two Cr. Revision applications were placed for hearing before a learned Single Judge, he by an order dated 25-3-1989 passed in Cr. Rev. No. 255 of 1988 (R) and order dated 27-3-1989, passed in Cr. Rev. No. 17 of 1989 (R) directed both these applications to be placed before a Division Bench, in view of the fact that notices of enhancement of sentence had been issued in these cases. 8. Rev. No. 255 of 1988 (R) and order dated 27-3-1989, passed in Cr. Rev. No. 17 of 1989 (R) directed both these applications to be placed before a Division Bench, in view of the fact that notices of enhancement of sentence had been issued in these cases. 8. Before proceeding further, it may be noted that in terms of Chapter 2. Rule 1 (XV) of the Patna High Court Rules all matters other than mentioned in the clause therein may be heard and disposed of by a Single Judge; one of the exceptions being a case in which notice has issued under Section 439 to accused to show cause why sentence should not be enhanced. 9. In the aforementioned circumstances, these applications have been placed for hearing before us. 10. Mr. Vijay Pratap Singh, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners, drew our attention to Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and submitted that the Nigh Court in terms thereof may exercise any of the powers which the court of Appeal inter alia under Section 386 of the Cr. P. C. may exercise. 11. In terms of section 386 (c) of the Code of Criminal Procedure an appellate court may in an appeal for enhancement of sentence : (1) reverse the finding and sentence and acquit or discharge the accused or order him to be retried by a court competent to try the offences, or (2) alter the finding maintaining the sentences, or (3) with or without altering the finding, alter the nature or the extent, or the nature and the extent, of the sentence, so as to enhance or reduce the same. It is thus, clear that where a rule of enhancement of sentence bas been issued by this Court in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction, the Court may necessarily have to examine the case on merits which may entitle the accused to obtain an order of acquittal. 12. Thus, in our view, the limited rule issued by this Court with regard to the question of sentence only looses all its importance in view of the issuance of notice to the accused persons directing them to show cause as to why the sentences should not be enhanced. 13. In this situation we had no other option but to permit the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the parties to address us on merits of the case. 13. In this situation we had no other option but to permit the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the parties to address us on merits of the case. 14. Bereft of all unnecessary details, the fact of matter is that one Bhola Nath Sah (P.W.1) submitted a typed report in the police station, Sakchi, on 30.10.1987 at about 11.00 a.m. alleging therein that his minor son Dipak Kumar, who was aged about eight years at the relevant time, had been kidnapped on 27-10-1987 at about 12.00 noon by some persons while playing in front of his house. In the said first information report it was further alleged that on 28-10-1987 a letter was delivered at his house indicating therein that the boy had been taken to Motihari and if a ransom of a sum of Rs. 1,50,000/- is not given at the stated place, time and hour, he would be killed. 15. Allegedly the informant even there after continued to search his son when he came to learn that the appellants had taken away the boy. 16. It appears that at the time of lodging of the first information report, the petitioner, Shambhu Prasad Sah and one Krishna Gope were produced before the Officer Incharge of the Police Station. Thereafter, a police party along with the first informant and one of his friends went to Motihari District and there in a bus the boy was found in the company and/or custody of Sudhist Paswan (the petitioner in Cr. Rev. No. 17 of 1989 (R) and one Ram Eqbal Paswan @ Pahalwan, who were arrested at the spot. 17. In course of investigation the 'victim' boy made a statement under section 164 of the Cr. P.C. on 17-11-87 wherein he allegedly stated that Shambhu Pd. Sah, the petitioner in Cr. Rev. No. 255 of 1988 (R) was the person who first kidnapped him along with the other appellants. 18. Before proceeding further, it may be mentioned that at the time of recovery of the victim boy, the aforementioned Shambhu Prasad Sah and Krishna Gope were not taken to Motihari wherefrom the boy was recovered on 3-11-87. 19. Before the learned court below, 10 witnesses were examined on behalf of the prosecution. P.W. 1, Bhola Nath Sah, is the informant. 20. 19. Before the learned court below, 10 witnesses were examined on behalf of the prosecution. P.W. 1, Bhola Nath Sah, is the informant. 20. He merely stated that his son was kidnapped on 27-10-87 and on the next date he received a letter (which was marked X for identification) in which a demand for ran son of Rs. 1,50,000/- was made under the threat that the boy would be killed. He further stated that Sudhist and Krishna Gope were arrested and on the basis of that letter the informant along with the police party had gone to Motihari wherefrom the boy who was in a bus accompanied by Sudhist Paswan and Ram Eqbal @ Pahalwan was found out. 20. P.W.2 is the victim boy. In his evidence he could not tell the name of his School nor could he tell in which class he was reading. In this view of the matter the learned Magistrate did not record any evidence and made an endorsement that the witness does not appear to be competent to depose. 21. However, the statement, made by him under Section 164 of the Cr, P. C. was treated to be a substantive evidence and the same was allegedly proved by p. w. 10 Sarandhar Singh, J. M. who recorded the said statement, which was marked as Ext. 4. 22. P.W.5 is Mahavir Paswan. He supported the informant by testifying that he had gone with the police party to Motihari and the boy was found in a bus and 2 persons who had accompanied the boy were apprehended at the spot. 23. P.W.8, Surender Singh, had also accompanied the first informant and the police party to Motihari and he proved the recovery of the boy while he was being taken away by the aforementioned Sudhist Paswan and Ram Ekbal Paswan. The said witness identified the aforesaid persons in the court and also disclosed their names. The said witness was a constable being a member of the police party. The defence had merely given a suggestion that an imaginary story was concocted. 24. However, he stood the test of cross-examination very well and he had given out even the number of the bus in which the boy was being taken away. 25. P.W.9, Dayal Sharan Verma, is the I.O. According to his evidence, on the basis of the written report the first information report (Ext. 24. However, he stood the test of cross-examination very well and he had given out even the number of the bus in which the boy was being taken away. 25. P.W.9, Dayal Sharan Verma, is the I.O. According to his evidence, on the basis of the written report the first information report (Ext. 2) was drawn up. The said written report was marked as Ext. 1. The Investigating Officer in his evidence stated that the letter (marked 'X' for identification) was also handed over to him and on that basis Sudhist Paswan and Krishna Gope were arrested during the investigation and further the police party proceeded to Motihari. He further stated that Ram Ekbal Paswan and Sudhist Paswan were found in custody of the boy who were traveling in a bus. At that time the boy was weeping. He further stated that the aforesaid Ram Ekbal Paswan and Sudhist Paswan were arrested at the spot. 26. The other witnesses examined are not very material. P.W.3 and 6 were merely tendered whereas P.Ws. 4 to 7 were declared hostile. 27. Mr. Vijay Pratap Singh, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners in both the cases, submitted that so fat as Shambhu Prasad Sah is concerned, there is no legal evidence on record as against the said, accused. The learned counsel submitted that his complicity in the case has not been proved. Even the letter which was allegedly written by him was not proved. He further drew our attention to the fact that the trial court. while examining him under section 313 of the Criminal Procedure Code, did not put any question with regard to his alleged extra judicial confession or as to whether he was the author of the said letter whereby ransom money was allegedly demanded. 28. In support of the Criminal Revision of Sudhist Paswan, the learned counsel submitted that the statements of the witnesses are not such so as to prove the guilt of the said petitioner beyond all reasonable doubt. 29. In the instant case the prosecution has proved the following facts beyond all reasonable doubt:-(a) Dipak Kumar was kidnapped by some persons on 27-10-87, (b) A letter was received by the first informant alleging therein that the kidnapped boy was at Motihari and unless a ransom of Rs. 1,50,000 was paid, the boy would be killed, (c) The police party along with P. Ws. 1,50,000 was paid, the boy would be killed, (c) The police party along with P. Ws. 1 and 5 went to Motihari and recovered the boy in the company of Sudhist Paswan and Ram Eqbal Paswan. 30. From the analysis of the witnesses, as noticed hereinbefore, there cannot be any doubt whatsoever that the boy was found in the company of Sudhist Paswan and Ram Eqbal Paswan. The first informant had no enmity with said persons nor was it suggested that the Investigating Officer bore any grudge or had any animosity against them. The said accused persons were found to be in custody of the boy while they were traveling in a bus in Motihari and at that time the boy was weeping. 31. The accused Sudhist Paswan and Ram Eqbal Paswan were arrested on the spot. These facts have been proved beyond all shadow of doubt by P.Ws. 1, 5 and 9. 32. Nothing has been pointed out to show that their statement are not trustworthy. 33. In this situation, we are unable to hold that the petitioner Sudhist Paswan is innocent or the prosecution has not been able to prove the case beyond an reasonable doubt as against him. 34. We, therefore, find no merit in Cr. Rev. No. 17 of 1989(R). 35. So far as the rule of enhancement of sentence is concerned, in our opinion, it is not necessary to enhance the sentence inasmuch as the said petitioner was found guilty under Sections 363 and 387 of the Indian Penal Code and was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 3 years on each count and as the said sentences are to run consecutively and not concurrently we are of the opinion that the sentence imposed upon him is just and proper. 36. It is now well known that normally a Revisional Court does not interfere with the quantum of sentence imposed by the courts below unless it is wholly disproportionate to the offence alleged. In this case the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State has also not pointed out before us that the learned courts below in awarding the said sentence did not take into consideration the relevant facts. 37. So far as the case of Shambhu Prasad Sah is concerned it appears that there is no legal evidence against him. His implication in kidnapping P.W.2 could have been proved by P.W.2 only. 38. 37. So far as the case of Shambhu Prasad Sah is concerned it appears that there is no legal evidence against him. His implication in kidnapping P.W.2 could have been proved by P.W.2 only. 38. As noticed hereinbefore, the learned trial court taking into consideration his inability to understand the questions put to him did not examine him as a witness. It is now well known that evidence of a child witness has to be considered with great care and caution. 39. The learned appellate court does not appear to be justified in convicting the petitioner, Shambhu Prasad Sah, inter alia, on the ground that the victim boy was unable to depose in the court below as he might have been terrified on having a look or the appellants in the court who were the kidnappers. There appears to be no legal justification for coming to the aforementioned conclusion particularly in absence of any evidence having been brought on record in this regard. 40. The other evidences adduced against him were also not adequate to convict him. The Supreme Court, times without number, has laid emphasis on placing before the accused evidences adduced by the prosecution against him which require an explanation from him. 41. It is well known that the statements of a witness under Sec. 164 is not evidence by itself but is merely corroborative in nature. 42. Similarly it is well known that an extra judicial confession is an evidence of weak nature and as such it is absolutely necessary to draw the attention of the accused to such extra judicial confession while he is examined under Sec. 313 of the Cr. P. C. 43. Similarly, it was the duty of the learned trial court to bring to the notice to the accused while examining him under Sec. 313 of the Cr. P. C. about the alleged letter demanding ransom from P.W.1. 44. We are surprised as to bow these basic principles were not kept in view by the learned trial court. 45. Undoubtedly, kidnapping of a boy of tender age and holding him for ransom and putting him in the fear or death is a heinous crime. 46. P. C. about the alleged letter demanding ransom from P.W.1. 44. We are surprised as to bow these basic principles were not kept in view by the learned trial court. 45. Undoubtedly, kidnapping of a boy of tender age and holding him for ransom and putting him in the fear or death is a heinous crime. 46. It was the duty of the trial court to see that offenders of such a case are not let off on technical ground arising out of mistakes committed by the trial court and failure on its part to do its duty. 47. In view of the facts and circumstances of this case, however, we have no other option but to hold that the conviction of the petitioner, Shambhu Prasad Sah, was not based on any legal evidence and as such he is entitled to be acquitted. 48. In the result, the Criminal Revision No. 255 of 1989(R) (Shambhu Prasad Sah Vs. State of Bihar) is allowed and the judgment of conviction and sentence passed against him are set aside and he is acquitted of the charges and discharged from the liability of the bail bond. 49. However, so far as the Cr. Revision No. 17 of 1989(R) (Sudhist Paswan and another Vs. State of Bihar) is concerned, the same is dismissed. B. P. Singh, J. I agree. HP Cr. Rev. No. 255/83(R) allowed Cr. Rev. No. 17/89(R) dismissed.