Judgment B.N.P.Singh, J. 1. Though the appellant was tried by Additional Sessions Judge III, Biharsharif in Sessions Trial No. 151 of 1987 under section 364/34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) on accusation of kidnapping Santosh Kumar in furtherance of common intention of two unknown persons, he suffered conviction under section 364 IPC simpliciter, and was sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for a term of ten years. 2. At the outset, I may briefly refer to the salient features of the prosecution case against the appellant centering round the incident in question. The accusation transpiring in the fardbeyan of the father of the victim and also narrations made by the two witnesses at trial are that at about 7 p.m. on 2nd May, 1985, while Usha Kumari, aged about eight years, daughter of Lakhan Sao (P.W. 8) had gone to the temple along with her minor brother aged about 2 years fa Prasad of God, she kept her brother seated on the stair of the temple and proceeded for taking Prasad. However, as ill luck would have it, when she returned, she found her brother missing. The accusation against the appellant was that he along with two persons was noticed sitting there and after her return, they were found absconding. The father of the victim came to know about the incident only when he returned to his house and in the morning, he went to the Police Station to take recourse to public authority and informed the Police Officer about the incident who had also drawn up a sanha. In the following morning, he came to know from Usha Kumari about the complicity of the appellant and again when he visited the Police Station, he was aksed by the Police Officer to make hectic searches for the appellant. It was only after return of the appellant to his house after 11/2 months that he again took recourse to public authority and rendered his fardbeyan before the Police, pursuant to which usual investigation commenced in course of which the Police Officer recorded the statement of the witnesses, visited the place of occurrence and on conclusion of investigation, laid charge sheet before the court. The trial commenced and the State examined altogether nine witnesses including the sister and father of the victim boy. The trial commenced and the State examined altogether nine witnesses including the sister and father of the victim boy. The defence of the appellant was plain innocence and his false implication due to enmity with Lakhan Sao with regard to flow of water through a drain. The Trial Judge having analysed the evidences while negativing the plea of innocence of the appellant, recorded verdict of guilt against the appellant and sentenced him in the manner stated above. 3. Since the findings of Court below are not based on meticulous appreciation of evidences placed on the record, for its proper appreciation, it would be apt to state with brevity the narrations made by the witnesses at trial. At the outset, I have noticed that six number of witnesses, namely, Babu Lal Choudhary (P.W. 1), Nathuni Rajak (P.W. 2), Baldeo Rajak (P.W. 3), Rajendra Prasad (P.W. 4), Bijay Prasad (P.W. 5) and Raj Kumar Choudhary (P.W. 6) have turned volte face to the State lending no assurance to the prosecution allegations even about their knowledge in the matter of abduction of Santosh Kumar. Admittedly, Lakhan Sao (P.W. 8) was not an ocular witness, as he was informed about missing of Santosh Kumar only by his family members who happened to his wife and daughter. The other witness Usha Kumari (P.W. 7) would reiterate the prosecution version about missing of Santosh Kumar when she had been to the temple in his company. The witness states that after she got Santosh Kumar seated at the stair of the temple, the appellant too along with two persons, was sitting there and after she returned from the temple on receipt of Prasad, she found Santosh Kumar missing. Radhey Shyam (P.W. 9) was not a material witness, as she only brought the fardbeyan on the record. This is all the evidence that has been adduced on behalf of the State. 4. Since it was a case of circumstantial evidence and no one claimed to have witnessed abduction of Santosh Kumar by the appellant to make him answerable for the charges, it was quite incumbent on the State to place on the record, the circumstantial evidence of credible nature which may exclude all hypothesis of the innocence of the accused. 4. Since it was a case of circumstantial evidence and no one claimed to have witnessed abduction of Santosh Kumar by the appellant to make him answerable for the charges, it was quite incumbent on the State to place on the record, the circumstantial evidence of credible nature which may exclude all hypothesis of the innocence of the accused. Though there was testimony of Usha Kumari about she having noticed the appellant sitting at the stair of the temple, where she got her brother seated, barring this piece of evidence, no evidence was placed on the record which could complete the chain of evidence suggesting guilt of the appellant, and notwithstanding such infirmity in the prosecution version, the following observation made by the trial Judge was manifestly against the weight of the mass of evidence : "... the chain of circumstances appears to be so closely connected and based on such a natural inference, apprehension and presumption that in the instant case they do not appear to be disbelieveable." There being complete paucity of even circumstantial evidence, these observations made by the trial Judge cannot be endorsed by application of any cannon of legal jurisprudence. The trial Judge appears to have been observed also with the factum of absconsion of the appellant for about 22 days from the date of the incident, and on this score too I wish to reiterate that the only factum of absconsion of the appellant was not a factor of such vital significance which could operate adversely for fastening guilt against him. Though Lakhan Sao states about taking recourse to public authority in the following morning of the incident when sanha was recorded by the Police, no such document was ever placed on the record, and on this score, learned amicus curiae, appearing for the appellant would urge that the prosecution was also guilty for belated prosecution of the appellant. The factum of enmity between the two families had been admitted by Usha Kumari (P.W. 7) with regard to drainage, and hence contentions raised on behalf of the appellant about his false implication without there being good evidence, in these circumstances, cannot be said to be unfounded. The factum of enmity between the two families had been admitted by Usha Kumari (P.W. 7) with regard to drainage, and hence contentions raised on behalf of the appellant about his false implication without there being good evidence, in these circumstances, cannot be said to be unfounded. The finding recorded by the Court below as such is not sustainable in law which is accordingly set aside and the appellant is acquitted of the charges and he is also discharged from the liability of the bail bonds. The appeal is accordingly allowed. Mrs. Nirmala Kumari, Advocate, appointed as amicus curiae shall receive her remuneration from the Patna High Court Legal Services Authority.