Judgment LOKNATH PARSAD, J. 1. This appeal is directed against the order of con-viction dated 24th Aueust 1994 passed by Sri Sheo Murat Ram, Assistant Sessions Judge, Ranchi in Sessions Trial No. 408/92 through which all these three appellant were convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for ten year under Section 364 read with Section 120-B, IPC. 2. The prosecution case, in short, is that one Ajay Mahto was living in the house of the informant Sita Devi in village Nayasarai P. S. Jagar-nathpur District Ranchi. It has been alleged by the informant that on 22-12-1991 at about 10 p.m. two unknown persons entered in his house and on the point of revolver, they took Ajay Mahto and forced him to sit on their motors cycle and they escaped towards pundag and at that time they also threatened the informant not to raise any alarm otherwise she will be killed. The informant has further claimed that she can identify these two unknown persons who had kidnapped Ajay Mahto and has further claimed that he got apprehension and suspicion that those two criminals were set up by these three appellants for kidnapping of Ajay Mahto. 3. On the next day when Ajay Mahto could not be traced, a written report, that is, Ext. 2 was submitted before the Jagaranath Police. On that basis, this case was instituted under Section 364, IPC and police after investigation submitted chargesheet as against these three appellants only. 4. After commitment, the trial was taken up before the Assistant Sessions Judge where all these three appellants had claimed themselves innocent and it is their defence that they had been falsely implicated in this case only out of previous enmity. The trial Court believed the prosecution story and convicted and sentenced these appellants in the manner indicated above. Being aggrieved by this order of conviction, this appeal has been preferred by all these appellants. 5. So far the allegation of kidnapping or taking away of Ajay Mahto from the house of PW 4, the informant, of this case on 22-12-1991 at about 10 p.m. has not been specifically challenged by the appellants and it is only their defence that they had not participated in this occurrence nor they set up any criminals for kidnapping Ajay Mahto. It appears from the evidence of the witnesses examined on behalf of the prosecution that two unknown persons came in the night of 22-12-1991 and forcibly took away Ajay Mahto from the house of PW 4 on the point of revolver in a motor cycle and after that Ajay Mahto could not be traced. 6. The only allegation against these appellants is that there was enmity and so they might have set up these two criminals for kidnapping Ajay Mahto. 7. On the point of occurrence, PW 4 Sita Devi who is the informant is the most important witness and she has claim that on the relevant night Ajay was in her house and two unknown persons came in a motor cycle and forcibly took Ajay Mahto and then she raised alarm when the villagers assembled but Ajay Mahto could not be traced. It is also her evidence that the sister of Ajay Mahto, namely, Lalita Devi who has figured as PW 5 was kept by the appellant Santosh Mahto as his wife but subsequently he deserted her and for that there was quarrel between Ajay and this appellant. So she suspected the hands of these appellants in this kidnapping. 8. PW 5 is Lalita Kumari and she had not seen the occurrence and she learnt about the same from the PW 4, but she had supported that she was kept as wife by the appellant Mahtosh and after that she was dessrted by him and so there was ill-relation between his brother Ajay and these appellants. The evidence of PW 3 Mina Devi is not of help to the prosecution in any way. Similarly PW 2 Bhuja Munda has simply claimed that on the next date he was informed about the kidnapping of Ajay. But this witness has not stated anything to show that there was ill-relation between Ajay and these appellants. PW 1 is Karma Mahto, the father of Ajay, the victim boy and he too learnt about the occurrence from PW 4 only. No doubt this witness has claimed that her daughter Lalita was kept as wife by appellant Mantosh and subsequently she was deserted by Mantosh. 9. PW 1 is Karma Mahto, the father of Ajay, the victim boy and he too learnt about the occurrence from PW 4 only. No doubt this witness has claimed that her daughter Lalita was kept as wife by appellant Mantosh and subsequently she was deserted by Mantosh. 9. So from the evidence of the witnesses, this much can be said that there was some ill-relation between the appellants and Ajay, but practically there is nothing on the record to show that these appellants had some hand in kidnapping of Ajay Mahto or they set up two unknown criminals for kidnapping Ajay. So from the entire evidence on the record this much can be said that a vague suspicion was cast as against the appellants and on the basis of only suspicion, conviction for substantive offence under Sections 364/120-B of the IPC cannot be recorded as against the appellants. 10. In the result, this appeal is allowed and the order of conviction and sentence as recorded by the Assistant Sessions Judge, Ranchi by his judgment datd 20th August, 1994 ia sessions trial No. 408/92 is hereby set aside and all the appellants are guilty of the charges levelled against them and as they are in custody they are to be released from the jail custody forthwith if not required in any other case.