Judgment Ashutosh Mohunta, J. 1. This judgment will dispose of Criminal Appeal Nos. 559-DB of 1995 and 148-DB of 1996, as both the appeals have arisen out of the order dated October 17, 1995 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Jagadhri, whereby all the appellants have been convicted under Sections 364- A/120-B, 364/120-B, 387/120-B, 363/120-B, 506/120-B and 342/120-B, Indian Penal Code. Under Section 364-A/120-B, I.P.C., all the four accused- appellants have been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 200/- each. In default of payment of fine, the accused have been directed to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for three months. Under Section 364/120-B, I.P.C., all the accused have been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 200/- each. In default of payment of fine, they have been ordered to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for three months. For the offence punishable under Section 387/120-B, I.P.C., all the accused have been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven years and to pay a fine of Rs. 200/-, each. In default of payment of fine, they have been ordered to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for three months. For the conviction under Section 363/120-B, I.P.C., the accused have been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for five years and to pay a fine of Rs. 200/-. In default of payment of fine, they have been directed to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for three months. With regard to the conviction under Section 506/120-B, I.P.C., all the accused have been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years each. Under Section 342/120-B, I.P.C., the accused have been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year. All the sentences of imprisonment have been ordered to run concurrently. 2. The first information report in this case has been lodged on the complaint dated December 26, 1994 addressed to the S.H.O., Police Station City, Yamunanagar, made by Satbir Singh Mittal (P.W.5), whose son Tarun Mittal, aged 12 years, who was a student of 7th Class, was missing from December 25, 1994. According to the complainant, at about 3 P.M. on December 25, 1994, Tarun Kumar had gone to see his friend Arun Kumar, after telling his mother Smt. Saroj that he would come back after 2/3 hours. Tarun did not come back till late night. Search was made. Ultimately, some foul play was suspected. According to the complainant, at about 3 P.M. on December 25, 1994, Tarun Kumar had gone to see his friend Arun Kumar, after telling his mother Smt. Saroj that he would come back after 2/3 hours. Tarun did not come back till late night. Search was made. Ultimately, some foul play was suspected. Description of Tarun was mentioned in the complaint. The case was registered and investigated. The complainant received various telephone calls and ransom was demanded for the release of his son. One of the talks was also tape recorded by the complainant. First of all a demand for a ransom of Rs. 25 lacs was made. After that a sum of Rs. 6 lacs was demanded. Ultimately, when the third call was received in the evening of December 26, 1994, the ransom amount was settled at Rs. 2,00,000/-, which was to be paid at Karan Park in Karnal on December 27, 1994 at 12 noon. A raid was organised by the Police and the complainant reached the Karan Park, Karnal, along with the ransom amount. When the complainant handed over the bag containing the currency notes to Krishan Kumar accused the Police Party, which was in civil dress, immediately rushed to the spot and apprehended the accused. The other accused, namely, Naresh Kumar alias Kapil made good his escape. Tarun Kumar was recovered from near the Bus Stand, Pundri, from the custody of Atul Chaudhry alias Arun Kumar, on the basis of the interrogation of Krishan Kumar accused. The kidnapped boy Tarun Kumar told that he was kept in a house at Kaithal. The said house was raided and on the pointing out of Tarun Kumar, Balwant Singh accused, who was stated to be the ring leader, was arrested therefrom. On the completion of the investigation, challan was presented before the Court. 3. Charges under Sections 364, 387, 342 and 506, Indian Penal Code, were framed on July 1, 1995, to which the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. 4. In order to prove its case, the prosecution examined Vinod Kumar (P.W.1), Pankaj Tyagi (P.W.2), Balbir Singh (P.W.3), A.S.I. Onkar Singh (P.W.4), Satbir Singh (P.W.5), Satyawan (P.W.6), Inspector Om Parkash (P.W.7), Kultar Singh (P.W.8), Inspector Shiv Ram (P.W.9), S.I. Sumer Chand (P.W.10), and Tarun Kumar Mittal (kidnapped boy) appeared as P.W.11. 5. 4. In order to prove its case, the prosecution examined Vinod Kumar (P.W.1), Pankaj Tyagi (P.W.2), Balbir Singh (P.W.3), A.S.I. Onkar Singh (P.W.4), Satbir Singh (P.W.5), Satyawan (P.W.6), Inspector Om Parkash (P.W.7), Kultar Singh (P.W.8), Inspector Shiv Ram (P.W.9), S.I. Sumer Chand (P.W.10), and Tarun Kumar Mittal (kidnapped boy) appeared as P.W.11. 5. When examined under Section 313, Code of Criminal Procedure, the accused denied all the prosecution allegations and pleaded their false implication in the case. It has been stated by Atul Chaudhry and Krishan Kumar accused that Satbir Mittal (father of the kidnapped boy) wanted to get rid of them from the factory, which he had purchased from Ravinder Garg and in order to expel them from service, he had involved them falsely in this case due to his acquaintance with higher police officers. It has also been stated by them that they had not committed any offence. The other two accused, namely, Naresh Kumar and Balwant Singh, have pleaded their innocence. The accused did not lead any evidence in defence. 6. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and with their assistance have gone through the evidence on record. 7. The first contention raised by the learned counsel for the appellants is that in the first information report, which is dated December 26, 1994, the factum of the demand of ransom has not been mentioned. According to the learned counsel, it has come in the statement of Inspector Om Parkash (P.W.7) that on December 25, 1994, the complainant (Satbir Mittal) had told him about the telephonic call having been received by him from Dehradoon with regard to the ransom of Rs. 2,00,000/-, which was demanded for the release of Tarun Kumar. On this information supplied by Satbir Mittal (P.W.5), a Police Party was sent to Dehradoon. Despite this information having been received by the Police on December 25, 1994, neither any F.I.R. was registered on that day nor the factum of ransom finds mention in the first information report (Ex. PE/1), which was recorded on December 26, 1994. 8. We do not find much force in the argument of the learned counsel for the appellant. It has come in the statement of Satbir Singh Mittal (P.W.5) that he had received the first telephone message on December 26, 1994 and he had been receiving telephone calls upto 7/8 P.M. on that date. 8. We do not find much force in the argument of the learned counsel for the appellant. It has come in the statement of Satbir Singh Mittal (P.W.5) that he had received the first telephone message on December 26, 1994 and he had been receiving telephone calls upto 7/8 P.M. on that date. The caller did not tell his name and the place from where he was calling. Though in the cross- examination this witness has admitted that he had stated to the Police that he had been receiving telephone calls from December 25, 1994 to December 27, 1994, but this admission, either as a fact or by mistake, does not lead us to the conclusion that the ransom amount was not demanded by the accused. There is enough evidence which has come on record to show that ransom was demanded by the accused. It has come in statement of Vinod Kumar (P.W.1), who is an employee on a P.C.O. Booth located at Sarni Chowk, Yamuna Nagar, that on December 28, 1994 Krishan Kumar accused had come and gave a ring to telephone No. 28252 from the P.C.O. He was talking about money. The Police took the register (Ex. P1) containing entry No. 34 dated December 26, 1994 in its possession vide recovery memo. (Ex. PA). It may be mentioned here that the date December 28, 1994, stated by Vinod Kumar (P.W.1) is either due to slip of tongue or due to typing mistake, but certainly the entry in the register (Ex.P1) pertains to December 26, 1994. Similarly, it has been deposed by Pankaj Tyagi (P.W.2) that Krishan Kumar accused had come to the booth and had given a call to telephone No. 28252 on December 26, 1994. It has further been stated by him that telephonic call was given to the said number five times on the said date. Still further, there is ample evidence which has come in the statement of Kultar Singh (P.W.8) in order to prove that ransom amount was demanded by the accused from Satbir Singh Mittal (P.W.5). It has come in his statement that at about 7 A.M. on December 27, 1994, when he had gone to the house of Satbir Singh Mittal, a telephone call was received by him in his presence and the caller had demanded the ransom amount of Rs. 2,00,000/- from Satbir Singh Mittal. It has come in his statement that at about 7 A.M. on December 27, 1994, when he had gone to the house of Satbir Singh Mittal, a telephone call was received by him in his presence and the caller had demanded the ransom amount of Rs. 2,00,000/- from Satbir Singh Mittal. He then accompanied Satbir Singh Mittal to the police Station at about 8.30 A.M. At about 10.30 A.M. he accompanied Satbir Mittal to Karnal with the ransom amount of Rs. 2,00,000/- which was contained in a jute bag. Besides, this, there is the evidence of Inspector Sahib Ram (P.W.9), who proved the factum of giving of the ransom amount of Rs. 2 lacs in a jute bag to accused Krishan Kumar accused by Satbir Singh Mittal (P.W.5). In case there is a minor discrepancy regarding the date mentioned by Inspector Om Parkash (P.W.7) with regard to the information received by him from Satbir Singh Mittal that the latter had received a telephonic call from the accused demanding the ransom amount, that does not mean that the accused had not demanded the ransom amount. 9. Next contention raised by the learned counsel for the appellants is that no identification parade was held by the Police. Thus, according to him, the investigation is defective. Moreover, he contends that Satbir Mittal (P.W.5) had wrongly identified Krishan Kumar accused, and Kultar Singh (P.W.8) had also failed to identify Naresh and Krishan Kumar accused in the Court. On this basis, the counsel submits that the accused deserve to be given the benefit of doubt. 10. We do not find any merit in the contention raised by the learned counsel for the appellants. It has come in the statements of both Satbir Mittal (P.W.5) and Kultar Singh (P.W.8) that the person who had received the ransom amount of Rs. 2 lacs was not having hair on his head. That very person was apprehended from the spot. As regards Naresh accused, he did not come near the prosecution witnesses and had fled after seeing the Police apprehending his co-accused Krishan Kumar. Thus, they had no occasion to see his face properly. But that does not mean that the accused had not committed the crime of the demand of ransom by them after kidnapping Tarun Kumar, son of Satbir Singh Mittal (P.W.5). Thus, they had no occasion to see his face properly. But that does not mean that the accused had not committed the crime of the demand of ransom by them after kidnapping Tarun Kumar, son of Satbir Singh Mittal (P.W.5). All the accused have properly been identified by Tarun Kumar (P.W.11), who was kidnapped by them. He has mentioned all the minute details unflinchingly. This boy, who was merely 13 years of age when he appeared before Court, has given a vivid account of the events while in captivity of the accused. He has given the details of the house where he was kept under detention by the accused. From his statement one can immediately jump to the conclusion that he is a very truthful witness and was not tutored by anyone. 11. Learned counsel for the appellants further contended that no independent witness has been joined by the Police at the time when it had apprehended Krishan Kumar accused from Karan Park, Karnal, and also when Tarun Kumar was allegedly recovered from the custody of the accused at Bus Stand Pundri, even though there was no dearth of independent witnesses there. On this basis, he contends that this lapse on the part of the Police casts a shadow of doubt on the veracity of the prosecution witnesses. 12. We do not find any merit in the contention raised by the learned counsel for the appellants. It is not incumbent upon the Police to join an independent witness from the public. It may or may not be possible that the independent witness so joined by the Police will truthfully support the prosecution version. Moreover, there has come the evidence of Kultar Singh (P.W.8) on record. Kultar Singh (P.W.8) is not related to Satbir Singh Mittal (P.W.5) in any manner. He has given a vivid account of the events that had taken place in his presence. He seems to be a quite reliable witness. Furthermore, it is nowhere provided that the statements of the Police officials should be discarded outrightly. The statements of the Police officials and Kultar Singh (P.W.8) are quite trustworthy. Moreover, all these statements find corroboration from the evidence of Tarun Kumar (the kidnapped boy), who has given the details of the events during his captivity by the accused. His statement is quite reliable. No doubt can be cast on his version. 13. The statements of the Police officials and Kultar Singh (P.W.8) are quite trustworthy. Moreover, all these statements find corroboration from the evidence of Tarun Kumar (the kidnapped boy), who has given the details of the events during his captivity by the accused. His statement is quite reliable. No doubt can be cast on his version. 13. After perusing the evidence coming on the record, we are of the considered opinion that the version given by the prosecution witnesses is truthful and consistent. Though there are some contradictions in their versions, but those contradictions are not of material nature. On the basis of those contradictions, the prosecution case against the accused cannot be discarded. 14. Further from the evidence which has come on the file, it can be safely concluded that there was a long hatched conspiracy among all the four accused to kidnap Tarun Kumar (P.W.11). First of all, Atul Chaudhary accused, who is also known as Arun and Sudesh, developed friendship with Tarun Kumar by offering him soft drinks and by meeting him in Nehru Park, Yamunanagar. As Tarun Kumar is a son of a big industrialist, all the accused had hatched a conspiracy to kidnap him and demand ransom from his father Satbir Singh Mittal (P.W.5) by putting his life in danger. It has come in the statement of Tarun Kumar (P.W.11) that on December 25, 1994 at about 3.30 P.M. Krishan Kumar, Atul Chaudhary and Naresh Kumar accused met him in Nehru Park, Yamunanagar. They took him in a rickshaw on the pretext that they would take him for outing and also to show him a fair to Bus Stand, Yamunanagar. After reaching Bus Stand, Yamunanagar, they boarded a bus for some place. Two-three buses were changed on the way. Ultimately, they took Tarun Kumar to some deserted Bus Stand, which was under construction. At that place Tarun Kumar was told by the accused that he had been kidnapped in order to get a ransom amount of Rs. 50,000/- from his father. When Tarun Kumar started weeping on coming to know of his plight, the accused threatened him that they would kill him by putting cyanide in his month in case he wept. After that he was kept in the house of Balwant Singh accused in a village near Kaithal. For two days and two nights Tarun Kumar was kept in the house of Balwant Singh. After that he was kept in the house of Balwant Singh accused in a village near Kaithal. For two days and two nights Tarun Kumar was kept in the house of Balwant Singh. During that period, a number of telephonic calls were given to Satbir Mittal (P.W.5) for paying them the ransom amount, otherwise his son would be killed. Then he was taken to Pundri by Atul Chaudhary, while Krishan Kumar and Naresh Kumar accused were detailed for collecting the ransom amount from Satbir Singh Mittal (P.W.5) at Karan Park, Karnal. Thus, there was a conspiracy which was hatched by all the accused to extract by ransom amount from Satbir Singh Mittal (P.W.5) by putting the life of his son Tarun Kumar (P.W.11) in danger. 15. From the statements of the prosecution witnesses, especially from the statements of Satbir Singh Mittal and Tarun Kumar, it becomes apparent that a sword was hanging on the head of these witnesses till the Police succeeded in recovering Tarun Kumar from the captivity of the accused. So much so, Satbir Singh had to change his residence and he started living in Sarojani Colony by leaving his house in Professor Colony, Yamunanagar, where he was living at that time of occurrence. Tarun Kumar, who was merely 12 years of age at the time, was frightened by the accused by stating that he would be administered cyanide in order to cause his instant death, the moment he raised alarm and disclosed anything to the Police. He remained in constant fear during the period he remained in their captivity. Tarun was told that cyanide was in the pocket of Naresh Kumar accused, who sometimes stated his name as Kapil Bhatia. It is also transpired from the statement of Tarun Kumar (P.W.11) that he was also frightened by Balwant Singh accused, when he was confined in his house. It has also come in the statement of Satbir Mittal (P.W.5) that ultimately the amount of ransom amount was settled at Rs. 2,00,000/- and he was specifically told by the caller that in case the amount of Rs. 2 lacs was not paid, then his son would be killed. Inspector Sahib Ram (P.W.9) in the cross-examination has stated that Satbir Mittal (P.W.5) had contacted the Police and when the raiding party reached Karnal and Satbir Singh Mittal was asked to go to Karan Park, he was fearful. 2 lacs was not paid, then his son would be killed. Inspector Sahib Ram (P.W.9) in the cross-examination has stated that Satbir Mittal (P.W.5) had contacted the Police and when the raiding party reached Karnal and Satbir Singh Mittal was asked to go to Karan Park, he was fearful. Tarun Mittal (P.W.11) has also categorically stated that he did not raise alarm because he was threatened that he would be killed by making him consume cyanide. Similarly, Satbir Singh Mittal (P.W.5) was also put in the fear of his son being murdered in case the ransom amount of Rs. 2,00,000/- was not paid to the accused. 15. The next submission made by the learned counsel for the appellants is that no offence under Section 364-A, Indian Penal Code, is made out, and the accused have been wrongly convicted by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Jagadhri, thereunder. 16. We find merit in the contention raised by the learned counsel for the appellants. Section 364-A I.P.C., reads as under :- "Kidnapping for ransom, etc. - Whoever kidnaps or abducts any person or keeps a person in detention after such kidnapping or abduction and threatens to cause death or hurt to such person, or by his conduct gives rise to a reasonable apprehension that such person may be put to death or hurt, or causes hurt or death to such person in order to compel the Government or any foreign State or international inter-governmental organisation to do or abstain from doing any act or to pay shall be punishable with death, or imprisonment for life, and shall also be liable to fine." Thus, from the language of Section 364-A, Indian Penal Code, it becomes crystal clear that this section is applicable only when the kidnapping for ransom etc. is done in order to compel the "Government or any foreign State or international inter-governmental organisation to do or abstain from doing any act....." In the present case no such compulsion has been caused to the Government etc. Herein an individual person has been compelled to pay the ransom amount. Thus, the offence under Section 364-A, Indian Penal Code, is not made out at all. 17. Moreover, no charge under Section 364-A, Indian Penal Code, had been framed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge. In the absence of the charge having been framed under the said section, the conviction thereunder is not justified. 18. Thus, the offence under Section 364-A, Indian Penal Code, is not made out at all. 17. Moreover, no charge under Section 364-A, Indian Penal Code, had been framed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge. In the absence of the charge having been framed under the said section, the conviction thereunder is not justified. 18. In the light of the above discussion, it is held that the accused are not guilty of the offence punishable under Section 364-A, Indian Penal code. Thus, they are acquitted of the charge thereunder. The conviction and sentence imposed on all the accused under the said section is, therefore, set aside. 19. As regards their convictions and sentence under rest of the Sections, i.e., 364, 387, 363, 506 and 342, read with Section 120-B, Indian Penal Code, the prosecution has been able to prove the allegations against all the accused without any shadow of doubt. Thus, their convictions and sentences under the said sections are maintained. Consequently, both the appeals are partly allowed, as indicated above.