JUDGMENT 1. 1. Shakuntala Devi PW 1, expounder of the prosecution case, was originally resident of Mathura in the State of Uttar Pradesh and was married to Mahesh Prasad Chaturvedi of that very city when her age was only seven years. Her daughter Lata was the offspring of that marriage. After the death of her first husband Mahesh Prasad Chaturvedi, she soleminzed her second marriage on June 16, 1968 with Pratap Singh PW 2, by caste Rajput (Thakur) resident of Agra and she lived with her second husband at Agra upto the year 1979. Out of this second marriage, a son named Ashok was born to her on November 13, 1976. Sometime in the year 1980, she shifted along with her husband Pratap Singh and her children to Jaipur and first she lived in a rented house situated near Ghat Gate, Jaipur and then in another rented house on Plot No.C-21, near Mochiyon ki Chabeel, Subhash Colony, Jaipur. 2. When she was living with her husband and children near Ghat, Gate, Jaipur, she happened to become acquainted with Sharafat Hussain, appellant in D.B. Criminal Appeal No. 269/84. A lady named Alka Mukherjee was also living outside Ghat Gate, Jaipur and her daughter Koopa alias Mumtaz was married to Sharafat Hussain. 3. Pratap Singh had purchased a four-wheeler tempo and was running it in Jaipur. Sharafat Hussain contacted Pratap Singh and requested him to employ the former as conductor over the tempo and he was accordingly employed by Pratap Singh on a monthly salary of Rs. 300/-. He worked as conductor for about 2 or 21/2 months but as his dealings were not fair and upto the mark, he was removed from his employment. During the period of his employment, he also used to ask Shakuntla Devi to sell the four-wheeler to him. On December 10, 1980 Sharafat Hussain appellant came to the house of Shakuntla Devi at about 8.15 A.M. and told her and her husband to continue his employment as conductor otherwise the results would not be good. Pratap Singh refused to continue him as conductor over the tempo. 4. Ashok, son of Shakuntala Devi and Pratap Singh was aged 9 years and used to study in 4th class in Tagore School, Jaipur. Ashok returned to his house after studying in the school at about 3 P.M. on this day. After leaving his bag in his house. Pratap Singh refused to continue him as conductor over the tempo. 4. Ashok, son of Shakuntala Devi and Pratap Singh was aged 9 years and used to study in 4th class in Tagore School, Jaipur. Ashok returned to his house after studying in the school at about 3 P.M. on this day. After leaving his bag in his house. Ashok went out of the house to play but he never returned to the house. Shakuntala Devi went to Police Station, Shashtri Nagar, Jaipur, and made a report Ex. P-3 on December 10, 1980 about the missing of Ashok and requested the police to make a search for the boy Ashok Shakuntala Devi herself started the search of Ashok. She went to the house of Mst. Hakeeman, former landlady of Sharafat Hussain, at Sanganer. Mst. Hakeeman PW 4 informed Shakuntala Devi that on the day before, Sharafat Hussain had brought the boy Ashok at about 4.15 P.M. The boy was playing with the pegions upto 7.00 P.M. Sharafat Hussain had told her that there was some marriage at the house of Ashok's father's sister and Ashok had come there. Then Sharafat Hussain left the house of Mst. Hakeeman telling her that he was going to leave Ashok. Sharafat Hussain had left the house of Mst. Hakeeman at 9.30 A.M. The search for the boy continued. 5. On December 20, 1980 Shakuntala Devi and her husband Pratap Singh went to Agra in search of Ashok. At agra Lala Ram, younger brother of Pratap Singh informed that a letter was received demanding ransom for Ashok. Rajendra had been sent to Jaipur along with that letter. Pratap Singh returned to Jaipur and both Pratap Singh and Rajendra again came to Agra on December 23, 1980 along with the letter demanding the ransom. Shakuntala Devi read that letter written in three pages and identified that it was in the hand-writing of Sharafat Hussain as she had occasion to see the writing of Sharafat Hussain when the letter used to write accounts of tempo. By that letter a demand of Rs. 20,000/- was made and it was threatened that if this amount was not paid till December 29, 1980, one finger of the boy would be cut daily by way of fine. By that letter a demand of Rs. 20,000/- was made and it was threatened that if this amount was not paid till December 29, 1980, one finger of the boy would be cut daily by way of fine. On the basis of this letter Shakuntala Devi and Pratap Singh went to Sar Mathura station and a person named Har Dayal met them there and told that they may accompany him and he would arrange for their meeting with Sharafat Hussain and Khaleel. Pratap Singh went along with Har Dayal. On his return Pratap Singh informed Shakuntala Devi that he met Sharafat Hussain, Khaleel and their other associates and they had guns and other arms with them. They asked Pratap Singh if he had brought the money and on the latter telling them that the money could not be arranged so far, they asked him to go also and come back with the amount within five days. Pratap Singh was told that Ashok was at a distance of 10 or 12 Kms. from there. Pratap Singh & Shakuntala Devi met Har Dayal again after 5 days, Har Dayal took away Pratap Singh in the jungle where Sharafat Hussain and Khaleel met them. Pratap Singh told them that the amount has been kept with Raghunandan Thakur. Next day Har Dayal repeated the visit. On January 14. 1981 both Shakuntala Devi and Pratap Singh returned to Agra. At Agra Pratap Singh received a letter in which it was written that their man would meet him near Sheela Talkies of Agra. Shakuntala Devi and Pratap Singh went near Sheela Talkies but none contacted them there. When they were returning in a rickshaw, a person stopped the rickshaw and asked them if they had received the letter of Sharafat Hussain and whether they had brought the amount. Shakuntala Devi then hunded over a letter to that man and addressed to Sharafat Hussain. In that letter Shakuntala Devi had told Sharafat Hussain to take the amount and to return the boy. That man went with the letter and asked Shakuntala Devi to wait. After about 15 or 20 minutes, that man came back and informed that Sharafat Hussain had told that he would come to the house of Shakuntala Devi that night. But Sharafat Hussain did not turn up. That man went with the letter and asked Shakuntala Devi to wait. After about 15 or 20 minutes, that man came back and informed that Sharafat Hussain had told that he would come to the house of Shakuntala Devi that night. But Sharafat Hussain did not turn up. One more letter was received by Shakuntala Devi threatening of dire consequences if the amount was not brought upto 25th and it was written that his man would meet her on Mathura Road and the amount should be paid to that man. Then Shakuntala Devi and her husband went at the place indicated in the letter. They paid an amount of Rs 10,000/- to Munna Gujar. Munna Gujar was the person who had met Shakuntala Devi and her husband near Sheela Talkies, Agra. After taking the amount, Munna told them he would himself leave Ashok at their residence on January 27, 1981. However, Ashok was not returned. Thereupon Shakuntala Devi lodged a first information report Ex.P-4 at Police Station Shashtri Nagar, Jaipur on April 17, 1981, Upon this first information report, the Station House Officer, P.S. Shashtri Nagar registered crime No. 97 of 1981 for offences under sections 364, 365 and 368 IPC. The Station House Officer seized the three letter Ex P-6, Ex.P-7 and Ex P-8 which were sent by Sharafat Hussain to Shakuntala Devi and her husband under the seizure Ex. P-6-A. Sharafat Hussain. Mulla alias Munna Lal and Har Dayal were arrested. On November 28, 1981 Sharafat Hussain gave an information Ex.P-12 that he had taken a cycle on hire from the shop of Jahoor and can get the same recovered from a place near Ghat Gate, Jaipur. The register containing entry about the hiring of cycle by Sharafat Hussain was seized under the seizure memo Ex.P-2 from the shop of Jahoor PW I run under the name and style of Jahoor Cycle Works, Ghat Gate Bazar Jaipur. Specimen writing of Sharafat Hussain were got taken through the Judicial Magistrate No. 1, Jaipur City and these specimen writings are S.l to S.26. Specimen writings S.27 to S.46 of Munna alias Munna Lal were also got taken. Exhibits P-6-, P-7 and P-8 along with the specimen writings were sent for comparison and opinion to the Handwriting Expert who gave his opinion Ex. P-13. Dr. D C. Sethi, Asstt. Specimen writings S.27 to S.46 of Munna alias Munna Lal were also got taken. Exhibits P-6-, P-7 and P-8 along with the specimen writings were sent for comparison and opinion to the Handwriting Expert who gave his opinion Ex. P-13. Dr. D C. Sethi, Asstt. Director of Documents slated in his opinion Ex.P-13 that "the blue enclosed writings stamped and marked A-l to A-40, Q-l to Q-10 and Q-16 have been written by one and the same person." He also opined that it had not been possible to express an opinion on rest of the items on the basis of material at hand. After investigation, the Station House Officer, Police Station, Shashtri Nagar submitted a charge-sheet on February 15, 1982 against Sharafat Hussain, Munna Lal and Har Dayal in the court of Judicial Magistrate No. 11, Jaipur City for offences under sections 364, 365, 368, 386 and 120-B PC. In the charge-sheet Khaleel son of Ida was also specified as absconding accused. The Judicial Magistrate No. 11, Jaipur City by his order dated June 2, 1982 committed the case to the court of Sessions Judge, Jaipur City for trial. The Sessions Judge transferred the case for trial to the court of Addl. Sessions Judge, Jaipur City on June 16, 1982. During the course of trial Har Dayal accused had absconded and therefore, trial was completed only as against Sharafat Hussain and Munna Lal, Sharafat Hussain had been charged for offences under sections 364, 365, 368 and 387 IPC Munna Lal and Har Dayal were charged under section 386 and 120-B. 6. The Addl. Sessions Judge No. 2, Jaipur City, Jaipur, by his judgment dated April 11, 1984 found Sharafat Hussain appellant in D.B. Cr. Appeal No. 269/1984 guilty of offences under sections. 364 and 387 IPC, and sentenced him to imprisonment for life and a fine of Rs. 2,000/- for the former offences and to 7 years' rigorous imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 2,000/-, for the later. Both the sentences were to run concurrently. However, the Addl. Sessions Judge acquitted Munna Lal completely. While Sharafat Hussdin has filed D.B. Cr. Appeal No. 269/1984 against his conviction and sentences for the offences under sections. 364 and 387 IPC, the State of Rajasthan has, by leave of this Court S.B. Criminal Appeal No. 54/1985 against the acquittal of Munna Lal respondent in the said appeal. However, the Addl. Sessions Judge acquitted Munna Lal completely. While Sharafat Hussdin has filed D.B. Cr. Appeal No. 269/1984 against his conviction and sentences for the offences under sections. 364 and 387 IPC, the State of Rajasthan has, by leave of this Court S.B. Criminal Appeal No. 54/1985 against the acquittal of Munna Lal respondent in the said appeal. In pursuance of the orders of this Court dated 28th April, 1987 and 19th July, 1988 both these appeals were ordered to be heard together by Division Bench. 7. The Addl. Sessions Judge held that the delay in lodging the First Information Report (Ex. P-4) stood explained by the factual circumstances of the case as Shakuntala Devi was more interested in getting her child back alive and when she lost all hopes of restoration of the child, she lodged the First Information Report on April 17, 1981. The Addl. Sessions Judge believed the story of the prosecution that Sharafat Hussain had been engaged as a Conductor on his tempo by Pratap Singh, husband of Shakuntala Devi; that after some time Sharafat Hussain was relieved from his employment and also that the appellant had threatened to see Pratap Singh, when he refused to re-employ him or to sell tempo to him. It was also believed that Shakuntala Devi had gone to the house of Mst. Hakeeman PW 4 and she was informed that Sharafat Hussain had brought Ashok and then later on taken away. It was further held that the hand-writing of the letters Ex. P-6 and Ex P-7 (except the portion marked `A' to 'B' of Ex. P-7) resembled the specimen hand-writing of Sharafat Hussain. These letters went to show that a ransom of Rs. 20,000/- had been demanded by Sharafat Hussain to restore the child Ashok to Shakuntala Devi and Pratap Singh. He held that Ashok was kidnapped in order that he might be murdered and, therefore, offence under section. 364 IPC was established. In any event, Ashok was put under the danger of being murdered. It was also held to be proved that an amount of Rs. 20,000/- was demanded as ransom for the child, and thus offence under section. 387 IPC was also proved, against Sharafat Hussain. So far as Munna Lal was concerned, the Addl. Sessions Judge held that he was not known to Shakuntala Devi and Pratap Singh from before. It was also held to be proved that an amount of Rs. 20,000/- was demanded as ransom for the child, and thus offence under section. 387 IPC was also proved, against Sharafat Hussain. So far as Munna Lal was concerned, the Addl. Sessions Judge held that he was not known to Shakuntala Devi and Pratap Singh from before. Apart from that, according to Shakuntala Devi and appellant an amount of Rs. 10,000/- had been given to Munna Lal as part demand of the ransom prior to January 27, 1981 and by that time name of Munna Lal had come to their knowledge but her name was not mentioned in the First Information Report Ex. P-4. Shri Jagdish, Advocate, who had disclosed the name of Munna Lal to Shakuntala Devi and Pratap Singh was not examined by the prosecution and identification parade of Munna Lal was also not held. The testimony of Ashok Kumar was not believed. Thus it was held that the prosecution was failed to establish the offence against Munna Lal beyond reasonable doubt. 8. It is clear that both Shakuntala Devi and her husband as well as Sharafat Hussain appellant were residents of Agra. Shakuntala Devi, after the deeth of her former husband, had re-married with Pratap Singh (PW 6). At the relevant time Pratap Singh and Shakuntala Devi were residing on plot No. C-21, near Mochiyon Ki Chabeel, Subhash Colony, Jaipur, Pratap Singh had a four wheeler tempo bearing No. RRL 985 and used to drive it. There is evidence of both the husband and the wife that Sharafat Hussain had been engaged as a conductor on this tempo on a monthly salary of Rs. 300/-. As Sharafat Huisain made irregularities in accounts and off and on demanded money, he was removed from service. There is also evidence of Shakuntala Devi (PW 2) and Pratap Singh (PW 6) that on Dec. 10, 1980, Sharafat Hussain came to their house and urged that he may be re-employed. When re-employed was refused, he told that the result would not be good. Ashok aged 9 years was son of Shakuntala Devi from Pratap Singh. He was a student of class IV in Tagore School, Jaipur. 10, 1980, Sharafat Hussain came to their house and urged that he may be re-employed. When re-employed was refused, he told that the result would not be good. Ashok aged 9 years was son of Shakuntala Devi from Pratap Singh. He was a student of class IV in Tagore School, Jaipur. After studying from the school, he came back to his house on December 10, 1980 at about 3.00 P.M. After placing his school bag at the residence, Ashok went outside the house to play after 3.00 P.M. and thereafter, he never returned. A report Ex. P-3 about the missing of Ashok was loaded by Shakuntala Devi at Police Station, Shashatri Nagar, Jaipur on December 10,1980 itself and this report was recorded in the 'Rojnamacha Aam' by Prabhu Dayal, Head Constable. 9. It has come in evidence that previously Sharafat Hussain used to reside as a tenant in the house of Mst. Hakeeman wife of Abdul Hameed (PW 4). Sharafat Hussain had married daughter of Alka Mukherjee named Roopa alias Mumtaz. The house of Hakeeman was situated at Sanganer which is a town quite near to Jaipur. Mst. Hakeeman has deposed that she knew Shakuntala Devi from before as she used to come to meet Sharafat Hussain alias Rasheed and her son also used to come with her. Sharafat Hussain had come to the house of Mst. Hakeeman along with Ashok. Mst. Hakeeman had asked Sharafat hussain as to how Ashok had come and Sharafat Hussain replied to her that there was some marriage at the house of Pratap Singh's sister. Then Sharafat Hussain left the house of Mst. Hakeeman along with Ashok. This took place at the house of Mst. Hakeeman at a time when Sharafat Hussain was not a tenant in her bouse. We do not find any reason to doubt the testimony of Mst. Hakeeman (PW 4) who is quite an independent witness and from her testimony it is established beyond doubt that the child Ashok was last seen alive in close company of Sharafat Hussain by Mst. Hakeeman at her residence. Sharafat Hussain falsely represented to Mst. Hakeeman that Ashok had come with him because there was some marriage at the house of Pratap Singh's sister. This is an important circumstance as against appellant Sharafat Hussain in the case and is very well established by the prosecution. 10. Hakeeman at her residence. Sharafat Hussain falsely represented to Mst. Hakeeman that Ashok had come with him because there was some marriage at the house of Pratap Singh's sister. This is an important circumstance as against appellant Sharafat Hussain in the case and is very well established by the prosecution. 10. In search of the boy, Shakuntala Devi came to the residence of Mst. Hakeeman and she was informed by Mst. Hakeeman the entire background in which Sharafat Hussain had come to the house of Mst. Hakeeman aloag with Ashok and then left the house not to return. Smt. Shakuntala Devi continued the search for Ashok. Obviously, she went to Agra in search of Ashok because, as already stated, Smt. Shakuntala Devi as well as Sharafat Hussain were residents of Agra. When Shakuntala Devi & her husband Pratap Singh reached Agra they were informed by Lala Ram, younger brother of Pratap Singh, that a letter demanding ransom for Ashok had been received by Lala Ram and that letter has been sent by him to Jaipur to be delivered to Shakuntala Devi and her husband through Rajendra. Pratap Singh immediately came to Jaipur and after getting the letter from Rajendra, he returned to Agra. After reading the letter, Shakuntala Devi identified the hand-writing of Sharafat Hussain as she had seen him writing when he used to write accounts of tempo during his employment as conductor. The contents of the letter Ex.P 6 are very important. This letter was written by Sharafat Hussain to Smt. Shakuntala Devi. In this letter in the first instance vulgar abuses were written to Pratap Singh, Then it was mentioned telling to Shakuntala Devi that she had purchased the tempo for Rs. 15,250/-. Shakuntala Devi was asked to sell tempo for an amount of Rs. 20,000/- and to pay to Sharafat Hussain this amount by 27th Dec., 1980. In case this was not done by 27th Dec., 1980 and the date passed on to 30th, he will cut fingers at the rate of one finger per day. It was also written that from the date beloved son Ashok of Shakuntala Devi was with him, he is suffering from fever and also weeps. It was also written that Sharafat Hussain would return the amount of Rs. 20,000/- with interest after some time. By the amount of Rs. 20,000/-, he would be able to pass h s life. It was also written that from the date beloved son Ashok of Shakuntala Devi was with him, he is suffering from fever and also weeps. It was also written that Sharafat Hussain would return the amount of Rs. 20,000/- with interest after some time. By the amount of Rs. 20,000/-, he would be able to pass h s life. It was also threatened that no over jealous attempts should be made. A direction was given in the letter to Lala Ram to send it to Jaipur. On the basis of letter, Shakuntala Devi and Pratap Singh went to Sar Mathura and at that place on person named Har Dayal met to them. He told that he would arrange a meeting of Pratp Singh with Sharafat Hussain and Khaleel. Pratap Singh was taken for that meeting. On his return Pratap Singh informed that he had met Sharafat Hussain and Khaleel. Shararat Hussain asked Pratap Singh if he had brought the money. Pratap Singh replied that how he could arrange for that much amount. Pratap Singh was told to arrange for the money. He sought for time and returned. Pratap Singh made arrangement of some money after pledging the tempo and ornaments. Har Dayal again met him at Sar Mathura. Another letter written by Sharafat Hussain was received by Shakuntala Devi on January 14, 1981. That letter is Ex.P 7. In this letter it had been written to Shakuntala Devi that there is a proverb that `if one digs a well for someone, the Almighty already keeps prepared a trench dug for him'. He wrote to Shakuntala Devi that she had committed an error by keeping the money with the Thakur. The Thakur had already misappropriated more than a lac rupees of Khaleel. It was also mentioned that Khaleel was going kill Ashok. It was written that if the amount of Rs. 10,000/- was not given by 25th. his wife Roopa would also be killed. It was also written that the amount of Rs. 10,000/- be delivered to his friend who had brought the 'parcha'. 11. There is evidence of Shakuntala Devi and Pratap Singh that as directed in the letter both of them went near Sheela Talkies and when they were returning Munna alis Munna Lal stopped their rickshaw and he asked if the letter of Sharafat Hussain had been received. 10,000/- be delivered to his friend who had brought the 'parcha'. 11. There is evidence of Shakuntala Devi and Pratap Singh that as directed in the letter both of them went near Sheela Talkies and when they were returning Munna alis Munna Lal stopped their rickshaw and he asked if the letter of Sharafat Hussain had been received. Munns Lal was requested to bring Sharafat Hussain but the former replied that Sharafat Hussain did not want to meet them. The man then went stating that he is coming back after meeting Sharafat Hussain. Munna Lal came back and told that Sharafat Hussain would meet during that night. But Sharafat Hussain did not come. Thereafter, it is said that an amount of Rs. 10,000/- was paid to Munna Lal. Munna Lal had promised that he would leave back Ashok by 27th January, 1981 but that did not happen. Thereupon ultimately Shakuntala Devi lodged the First Information Report (Ex P 4) at Police Station, Shashatri Nagar, Jaipur on April 17, 1981. In the First Information Report, Shakuntala Devi mentioned about the missing of 'he boy on Dec., 10 1980 and her making a report in that respect on that very day. She also mentioned about the receipt of the letter demanding Rs. 20,000/- as ransom. That letter was stated to be in the hand writing of Sharafat Hussain. It was mentioned that thtee more letters were received in which threat was given for murdering Ashok. Out of fear, she did not lodge that report earlier. She paid Rs. 10 000/- to the man of Sharafat Hussain at Agra. However, Ashok was not returned. Upon this report, the Station House Officer, Police Station Shashatri Nagar, Jaipur registered a case under sections 364, 365 and 368, IPC. 12. The learned counsel for the appellant Sharafat Hussain and also of Munna Lal urged that the First Information Report (Ex. P-4) was lodged after considerable delay. Ashok had been kidnapped on Dec. 10, 1980 but the First Information Report was lodged after 4 months i.e. on April 17, 1981 Even according to this report and Shakuntala Devi's own statement, Ashok was not returned even upto January 27,1981 as had been promised by Munna Lal and yet the report was lodged after about two months and 20 days on 27th Jan. 1981. 10, 1980 but the First Information Report was lodged after 4 months i.e. on April 17, 1981 Even according to this report and Shakuntala Devi's own statement, Ashok was not returned even upto January 27,1981 as had been promised by Munna Lal and yet the report was lodged after about two months and 20 days on 27th Jan. 1981. It was argued that there was no explanation for this inordinate delay in lodging of this connection that a report about missing of Ashok (Ex. P. 3) was lodged by Shakuntala Devi on the very date on which Ashok was not traceable i e. on Dec. 10, 1980. Shakuntala Devi and Pratap Singh got a clew about the boy being with Sharafat Hussain. They, therefore, went to Agra and there they received a letter Ex. P-6 from Sharafat Hussain demanding ransom of Rs. 20,000/- for the boy Ashok. In that letter, a threat was given that in case payment of this amount of Rs. 20,000/- was not made by 27th. fingers of Ashok would be cut at the rate of one finger per day. Naturally, Shakuntala Devi and her husband were more worried to get back their son Ashok alive from Sharafat Hussain. A threat had also been given that they would not try to raise a hue and cry There is also reference that the boy had passed in the hands of Khaleel and his life was in danger. In such circumstances, Shakuntala Devi and Pratap Singh might have thought that if they would lodge a First Information Report against Sharafat Hussain and others, they would loose their son and the son might be murdered. Such a conduct on behalf of parents was not unnatural. When they lost all hopes of getting back the child, Shakuntala Devi lodged the First Information Report (Ex. P-4). In these special circumstances of the case, the delay in lodging the First Information Report is quite explainable and cannot be held to be fatal to the prosecution case. 13. It may be mentioned that the three letters Ex. P-6, Ex. P-7 and Ex. P-8 were produced by Shakuntala Devi before Shri Ram Kumar SHO (PW 5) and they were seized by him under the Seizure memo Ex. P-6A. After the arrest of Shaiafat Hussain on Nov. 13. It may be mentioned that the three letters Ex. P-6, Ex. P-7 and Ex. P-8 were produced by Shakuntala Devi before Shri Ram Kumar SHO (PW 5) and they were seized by him under the Seizure memo Ex. P-6A. After the arrest of Shaiafat Hussain on Nov. 28, 1981, the specimen hand writings of Sharafat Hussain S. 1 to S. 26 were taken by the Judicial Magistrate No. J, Jaipur. Apart from that, specimen writings of Munna Lal S. 27 to S. 46 were also got taken. These specimen hand writings were sent to the State Forensic Science Laboratory for comparison and were compared by Dr. D.C. Sethi, Assistant Director (Documents). The Asstt. Director marked disputed writings as Q. 1 to Q. 16. Specimen writings of Sharafat Hussain were marked by him as A. 1 to A. 40 and that of Munna Lal from B. 1 to B. 20. The Asstt. Director (Documents) opined that the blue enclosed writings stamped and marked A. 1 to A 40, and the disputed writings Q. 1 to Q. 10 and Q. 16 had been written by one and the same person. For the rest, it was stated that it was not possible to express an opinion on the basis of material. It is thus clear that the two letters in which the demand of the ranson was made found to be in the hand writing of Sharafat Hussain. These two letters leave no room for doubt that he was Sharafat Hussain who had kidnapped Ashok and he demanded ransom of Rs. 20,000/- under threat to Shakuntala Devi and Pratap Singh that if the amount was not paid, Ashok would be murdered by cutting his fingers one daily. 14. There is further corroborative evidence that Sharafat Hussain had on Dec. 7, 1980 taken a cycle from the shop of Jahoor (PW 1). The entry in that regard is Ex. P-l in register article-1. That cycle was not returned by Sharalat Hussain. 15. Before proceeding further, it may be stated that Khaleel, who was shown as absconding accused in the charge sheet filed in this case, was subsequently, arrested in December, 1963 and a chargesheet for offences under sections. 3M, 365, 368, 386 and 120B IPC was filed against him by the police. Khaleel was tried by the Addl. 15. Before proceeding further, it may be stated that Khaleel, who was shown as absconding accused in the charge sheet filed in this case, was subsequently, arrested in December, 1963 and a chargesheet for offences under sections. 3M, 365, 368, 386 and 120B IPC was filed against him by the police. Khaleel was tried by the Addl. Sessions Judge No. 2, Jaipur for the said offences in Sessions case No. 13/1985 By his judgment dated May 15, 1987, the Addl. Sessions Judge acquitted Khaleel for offences under sections. 364 and 368 read with 120B IPC. However, he was convicted for offence under section 386 IPC and was sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for 10 years and also a fine of Rs. 500/-. Against his conviction, Khaleel filed D B. Cr. Appeal No. 183/ 1987 in this Court. That appeal was decided by a Division Bench of this Court on April 27, 1988. The Division Bench upheld the conviction of Khaleel under section, 386 IPC but reduced the sentence to the period of imprisonment already undergone by him and also with a fine of Rs. 1,000/-. A review petition was filed by the complainant Smt. Shakuntala Devi before the Division Bench which was D B. Cr. Misc. Petition No. 278/1988 but the same was dismissed on May 6, 1988. 16. It may also be mentioned that a Habeas Corpus petition No. 2053/1983 had also been filed in this Court and in reply to that petition, it was reported that Ashok was not alive and his whereabouts were not known. The Habeas Corpus petition was dismissed on January 2, 1984. 17. It so happened that one Nabisher had, on Dec. 25, 1980, an occasion to see a dog with a leg of a human being in its mouth near Basti, Banda Road, Sanganer. He got released the last from the mouth of the dog and on search found parts of human body in the water in a Nallah. He reported the matter to the police. An inquest report was prepared. The parts of the body were got examined medically and it is said to have been reported that they could be the bones of a female child. The officer incharge of Police Station. Sanganer had an information from Shashtri Nagar Police Station that Khaleel had informed that abducted Ashok was murdered and after murder he was thrown in the Talai at Sanganer. The officer incharge of Police Station. Sanganer had an information from Shashtri Nagar Police Station that Khaleel had informed that abducted Ashok was murdered and after murder he was thrown in the Talai at Sanganer. There had a;so been a report about Kidnapping of Ashok at Shashtri Nagar Police Station. After knowing this, the Station House Officer, Police Station, Sanganer registered a case under sections. 302 and 201 IPC and Snarafat Hussain was arrested in that case. A charge-sheet was filed against Sharafat Hussain for offences under sections. 302 and 201 IPC. That case against Sharafat Hussain was tried Sessions Case No. 31/1985 by the Addl. Sessions Judge No 2, Jaipur City, Jaipur. In that sessions case, Sharafat Hussain was acquitted on Sept. 21, 1989 by the Addl. Sessions Judge fur offences under sections 302 and 201 IPC. No State appeal was filed against that acquittal of Sharafat Hussain. 18. It was urged by the learned counsel for Sharafat Hussain that this case, even if facts mentioned above are held to be established, does not travel beyond section 365 IPC. It was contended that at best it could be held that Sharafat Hussain kidnapped Ashok with intent to cause him to be secretly and wrongfully confined. The maximum sentence for an offence under section. 365 IPC is 7 years. It was pointed out that Sharafat Hussain has already in jail for 8 years 7 months and 12 days and that he is already undergone more than the maximum sentence for an offence under section. 365 IPC. As against this, the learned Public Prosecutor urged that Sharafat Hussain had kidnapped Ashok in order that he may be murdered on may be so disposed of as to be put in danger of being murdered. Sharafat Hussain has, therefore, committed offence under section. 364 IPC for which he can be punished with imprisonment for life or rigorous imprisonment for a term which may extend to 10 years and also with fine. 19. We have given due consideration to this aspect of the matter. We may refer to the decision of their Lordships of the Supreme Court in Ram Chandra and another v. State of Uttar Pradesh, reported in AIR 1957 SC 381 . The facts of that case were that at the trial, apart from the two appellants Ram Chandra and another, there were five other co-accused in the case under section. We may refer to the decision of their Lordships of the Supreme Court in Ram Chandra and another v. State of Uttar Pradesh, reported in AIR 1957 SC 381 . The facts of that case were that at the trial, apart from the two appellants Ram Chandra and another, there were five other co-accused in the case under section. 302 IPC. The victim of the offence was the boy named Om Prakash aged about 14 years. He was son of one Chauhan, a Civil Officer in Allahabad. The case against the appellants was that they along with five others conspired to extort a sum of Rs. 10,000/- from Chauhan by kidnapping and murdering his son Om Prakash. Appellant Ram Chandra was a clerk working in the office of Accountant General, Uttar Pradesh. The other appellant was a clerk in Municipal Office at Allahabad. The child Om Prakash was in the habit of going to the house of appellant Ram Chandra and mixing with the members of his family. Om Prakash left his bouse on 9th June, 1952 and was missing since then. In spite of strenuous efforts to trace him he had not been found. The prosecution case was that the two appellants and the acquitted accused took the boy Om Prakash too the river Jumna in the evening on 9th June, 1952 and the two appellants took him into the river pretending to teach him swimming and drowned him there forcibly and also stabbed him with a knife. After having thus brought about his death and disappearance on the evening of 9th June, 1952, they sent a series of threatening letters purporting to be from one Zalim Daku on various dates commencing from June 10, upto July 4, 1952 and pretending that the boy was in his possession and that if a sum of Rs. 10,000/- was paid he will be restored or otherwise he will be beheaded. During this period they were constantly moving with Chauhan posing themselves as his friends to help him in tracing the boy but in fact misleading him from the right track and persuading him to agree to pay up the amount in order that he may be able to recover the boy. Chauhan ultimately agreed to pay Rs. 5,000/-and in fact arranged to pay the same in the manner which the letters from Zalim Daku indicated. Chauhan ultimately agreed to pay Rs. 5,000/-and in fact arranged to pay the same in the manner which the letters from Zalim Daku indicated. The letters also undertook that the boy will be restored the next day after the payment. But ultimately the boy was not restored though the money was taken away. Chauhan had lodged a complaint to the police about the disappearance of the boy on June 10, 1952, the very next day. Chauhan was also keeping the police in touch with all the stages and was handing over to them then and there every letter that he was receiving from Zalim Daku. When he paid the ransom, he took the step of previously producing before the Additional District Magistrate the currency notes of Rs. 5,000/- and getting their numbers noted by him. The police traced the possession of some out of these notes to the appellants. Investigation showed that all the letters received by Chauhan purporting to have been sent by Zalim Daku were in the hand-writing of Ram Chandra appellant, according to the opinion of the hand-writing expert. No trace, however, of the boy could be found. Not only was the dead body not found but absolutely no other material had been discovered which would indicate either the factum of murder or the perpetrator thereof. The appellants were tried and convicted in respect of charges under section 120 B, sections 302, 201, 364 and 386 read with section 120-B or in the alternative with section 34 of the Penal Code. These convictions and sentences were confirmed by the High Court. There was retracted confession of Ram Chandra. Their Lordships of the Supreme Court, as regards the retracted confession, held that it was not recorded in accordance with law and properly and did not act upon it in so far as the commission of the murder was concerned. They gave to the appellants benefit of doubt for offences under sections 302 and 201 read with section 120-B and 34, IPC. Then his Lordship Jagannadhadas J. examined the question regarding conviction of the appellants under section 364 and 386, IPC. In this regard his Lordship observed as under:- "We can see no reason to differ from the findings of both the courts below as regards the commission of these offence by both the appellants .............................................................. Then his Lordship Jagannadhadas J. examined the question regarding conviction of the appellants under section 364 and 386, IPC. In this regard his Lordship observed as under:- "We can see no reason to differ from the findings of both the courts below as regards the commission of these offence by both the appellants .............................................................. So far as the appellant Ram Chandra is concerned the circumstantial evidence against him in respect of both the offence is clear. On the finding that the various ransom letters are in his hand-writing and on the finding that a vary large number of the noted currency notes which formed the ransom money was traced to his possession, there can be no doubt as to his conviction under section. 386, Penal Code. It may be that normally it is not safe to treat expert evidence as to hand-writing as sufficient basis for conviction. But in this case the authority of the letters has been held by the courts blow to be that of appellant Ram Chandra, on various items of external and internal evidence already noticed above, in addition to the opinion of the expert. As regards the charge against him under s. 364, Penal Code, for kidnapping, though there is no direct evidence, the various ransom letters categorically state that the missing boy is in the custody or control of the writer there of. It is asserted therein that on payment of the ransom money, the boy will be restored at a particular time and place. We find it hard to believe that this can be more pretence in order to strike terror in the mind of the father of the boy and to obtain money................ ............................................ It appears to us to be extremely improbable that a person can keep up the pretence for so long if he had not the absolute confidence that there was no chance of the boy returning until the time which he had to take for bringing about payment of the ransom. The tone of these letters justifies one of two inferences, viz., either the boy has been already murdered, as the confession suggests, or the boy, having been kidnapped, is kept in effective custody so as not to be able to escape ........................................................................ The tone of these letters justifies one of two inferences, viz., either the boy has been already murdered, as the confession suggests, or the boy, having been kidnapped, is kept in effective custody so as not to be able to escape ........................................................................ It may be recalled that though the boy was not restored on the 5th July as promised, there was a further letter from the same writer promising to restore the boy later on. This promise may not have fructified since before it was received the appellants were arrested. We are of the opinion that the circumstances lead to the conclusion that the appellant Ram Chandra is guilty of the offences under section. 364 and 386 of the Penal Code. It is necessary to add that it is admitted before us by the learned counsel for the appellants, that, notwithstanding that we have acquitted the appellants of the offence of murder, this appellant can still be held to be guilty of the aggravated forms of kidnapping and extortion under these two sections and we are also satisfied about it. The modus operandi disclosed in the ransom letters was clearly by putting his father in fright of the boy being murdered. There was throughout the likelihood of the boy being murdered in case the ranson-money was not paid for one ransom or other." 20. This decision of the Supreme Court provides a clear answer as against the contention of the learned counsel for appellant Sharafat Hussain. As already stated, the expert report has established that the letters Ex. P-6 and Ex. P-7 were written by Sharafat Hussain to Shakuntala Devi and her husband. Shakuntala Devi and Pratap Singh both have stated that they identify the writing of Sharafat Hussain as they had seen him writing the accounts of tempo. The tone of the letters led to one or the two inferences i.e. either the boy Ashok had already been murdered or having been kidnapped was being kept in effective custody so as not to be able to escape. Even that much was written that Khaleel might murder them. The modus operandi disclosed in the ransom was clearly the same was as in Ram Chandra's case (supra) Even if therefore, Sharafat Hussan has been acquitted for the offence under section 302 IPC, he can still be held guilty of the offence under section. 364 IPC. 21. Even that much was written that Khaleel might murder them. The modus operandi disclosed in the ransom was clearly the same was as in Ram Chandra's case (supra) Even if therefore, Sharafat Hussan has been acquitted for the offence under section 302 IPC, he can still be held guilty of the offence under section. 364 IPC. 21. In the present case, it is very well established that there had developed strained relation between harafat Hussain on the one hand and Shakuntala Devi and her husband on the other because Sharafat Hussain had been removed from his employment as conductor of the tempo. Sharafat Hussain had threatened Shakuntala Devi and Pratap Singh that the results would not be good if he was not re-employed. Sharafat Hussain was last seen in the company of Ashok by Mst. Hakeeman and Sharafat Hussain had misrepresed to her that Ashok with him as there was a marriage at the house of Pratap Singh's sister. Sharafat Hussain had also taken a cycle on hire from Jahoor which was not returned by him Both Sharafat Hussain and Shakuntala Devi belonged to Agra and Sharafat Hussain sent letters Ea P-6 and Ex.P-7 demanding ransom amount from her and her husband under threat of cutting one finger every day of Ashok in the event of non-payment of ransom money upto certain date. It was also represented by him that Ashok might be murdered by Khaleel. All these circumstances clearly bring home the offence under section 364 IPC as against Sharafat Hussain. Reference may also be made to the decision of their Lordship of the Supreme Court in Henry West Muller Roberts etc. v. State of Assam, reported in AIR 1985 SC 823 . In Henry West Muller's case, following circumstances were found to have been satisfactorily established; (1) presence of the accused along with Sunil in the Pandal at the Shiv Temple in the forenoon and afternoon on 26th March, 1975, his offer of sweets to Sanjiy, his calling Sanjay, with an offer of more sweets, (2) Receipt at the Tinsukhia Police Station of the packet containing pair of shorts and the letter addressed to Chabil Das demanding a ronsom of Rs. 3 lacs for the return or Sanjay, (3) receipt of telegram demanding ransom, (4) receipt of another letter and a telephonic call. 3 lacs for the return or Sanjay, (3) receipt of telegram demanding ransom, (4) receipt of another letter and a telephonic call. It was held that these circumstances completed the chain regarding guilt of Henry West Muller and his conviction was upheld even under section. 364 IPC. Moreover, as Sharafat Hussain, in order to commit extortion, attempted to put Ashok in fear of death or grievous hurt, he has also guilty for the offence under section. 387 IPC. 22. Before parting with this judgment, it may be stated that Mr. S.L. Yadav appearing for the complainant Shakuntala Devi urged that in this case: the child Ashok was murdered and since his kidnapping for the purpose of murder and the murder itself were part of the same transactions there should have been one trial regarding offences under sections. 364 and 302 IPC and despite the application of the complainant that was not done. He urged that this Court under its inherent powers under section. 482 Cr.PC should quash the acquittal of Sharafat Hussain in the separate trial for murder held against him and order retrial of the case by adding the charge under section. 302 IPC as against Sharafat Hussain. It is true that if, in one series of acts so connected together as to form the same transaction, more offences then one are committed an accused can be charged with and tried at one trial for every such offence (vide S. 220 Cr.PC). This is an enabling section. Otherwise, section 218 of the Code of Criminal Procedure provides that when every distinct offence of which any person as accused there shall be a separate charge and every such charge shall be tried separately. This is the general rule but there is no bar for holding single trial for more offences than one if they are committed by the same person as part of the same transaction. Sharafat Hussain has already been separately tried in session case No. 31/1985 by the Additional Sessions Judge No. 2, Jaipur City for offences under sections. 302 and 201 IPC and having already been acquitted by the Additional Sessions Judge for the said offences on Sept. 21, 1981, he cannot now be tried after his acquittal again for the same offences. The State of Rajasthan did not file any appeal against this acquittal and it has attained finality. 23. 302 and 201 IPC and having already been acquitted by the Additional Sessions Judge for the said offences on Sept. 21, 1981, he cannot now be tried after his acquittal again for the same offences. The State of Rajasthan did not file any appeal against this acquittal and it has attained finality. 23. We may next deal with the State appeal against the acquittal of Munna Lal. There is no evidence that Munna Lal had taken any part in the kidnapping of the child. Neither Shakuntala Devi nor Pratap Singh knew Munna Lal from before. According to Shakuntala Devi, she come to know of Munna Lal and his address from Shri Jagdish advocate. Jagdish advocate has not been examined in the case. Shakuntala Devi has also said that she does not know Shri Ashok Kumar Saraswat, advocate. Yet Ashok Kumar Saraswat has been examined by the prosecution. Moreover, if Shakuntala Devi and Pratap Singh had very well known the name of Munna Lal as the person who has demanded ransom on behalf of the Sharafat Hussain and further if an amount of Ps. 10,000/- had been said by Pratap Singh to Munna Lal the name of Munna Lal would have surely found place in the First Information Report (Ex. P-4) which was lodged on April 17, 1981. But in (Ex P-4) there is no mention of the name of Munna Lal and all that his mentioned is that she had paid an amount of Rs. 10,000/- to a person sent by Sharafat Hussain. The name of that person does not find place in the First Information Report. Thus the prosecution has failed to establish the connection of Munna Lal with the crime and he was, therefore rightly acquitted by the Addl. Sessions Judge No. 2, Jaipur City, Jaipur for offences under section. 386 and 120B IPC. 24. As to the sentence imposed upon Sharafat Hussain, it may be mentioned that Sharafat Hussain committed a heinous offence of kidnapping a child of 9 years from the custody of his parents and under the threat of murdering the child, demanded ransom of 20,000/-rupees from poor persons who were earning their likelihood by driving a four wheeler tempo, Painful thereats of cutting one finger a day of the child were given by Sharafat Hussain. In such circumstances, he was rightly sentenced to imprisonment for life for offence under section. In such circumstances, he was rightly sentenced to imprisonment for life for offence under section. 364 IPC and for 7 years' rigorous imprisonment for offence under section. 387 IPC. The fine amounts were also rightly imposed. Thus there is no force in D.B. Criminal Appeal No. 269/1984 filed by Sharafat Hussain. Similarly there is no force in the State appeal filed as against acquittal of Munna Lal. Resultantly, both D.B. Criminal Appeal Nos. 269/1984 and D.B. Criminal Appeal No. 54/1985 are hereby dismissed.Appeal Dismissed. *******