Judgment Amar Dutt, J. 1. Rajesh Kumar son of Daya Nand has filed the present appeal to challenge the conviction and sentence recorded against him by the Additional Sessions Judge, Sonepat on 12/14.9.2000. 2. Briefly stated, the facts of the prosecution case as brought out in the testimony of its witnesses are that Shivam son of Sunil Goyal PW-1 was a student of Hindu Vidhya Peeth School, Sonepat. Appellant Rajesh Kumar was stated to be a former employee of Sunil Goyal PW-1, who had been relieved from his service one month prior to the abduction of Shivam PW-6 because his employer had detected some cases of theft being carried out by the appellant. Shobha Goyal wife of Sunil Goyal had been told by Shivam that even after leaving the employment, appellant used to visit to meet him in the school and she had asked the child to stay away from the appellant. On 5.5.1999 at 7.00 a.m. Shivam PW-6 was dropped by his father at Hindu Vidhya Peeth School, Sonepat. The school time was to end at 10.30 a.m. At that time, when Driver Pawan Kumar PW-4 had gone to pick up the child, he found that Shivam PW-6 was not present there. The class teacher Jyoti PW-3 had informed Pawan Kumar PW-4 that Shivam had been taken away from the school by Rajesh appellant about 15 minutes prior. Pawan Kumar PW-4 in turn informed his father Sunil Goyal, who suspecting foul play immediately lodged an FIR Ex. PA at 12.35 p.m. in Police Station City, Sonepat. The special report was delivered to the Illaqa Magistrate at 2.00 p.m. 3. On the following day, at 6.00 p.m. Sunil Goyal PW-1 received a telephonic message from a person, who was identified by Sunil Goyal PW-1 as Rajesh Kumar appellant, to the effect that he was speaking from Kota and an amount of Rs. 10 lacs should be kept in a blue bag and delivered to him at Kota Railway Station. The colour of the bag was fixed for fixing identity of the person desirous of delivering the amount. The message was passed on by Sunil Goyal PW-1 to his brother Mahabir Goyal PW-7 and CID Inspector Mange Ram. Mahabir Goyal PW-7 had deposed that his brother Sunil Goyal had told him that money should reach at Kota by 10.00 a.m. failing which Shivam would lose his life. The message was passed on by Sunil Goyal PW-1 to his brother Mahabir Goyal PW-7 and CID Inspector Mange Ram. Mahabir Goyal PW-7 had deposed that his brother Sunil Goyal had told him that money should reach at Kota by 10.00 a.m. failing which Shivam would lose his life. In view of this threat, on 7.5.1999 Sh. H.S. Doon, Deputy Superintendent of Police, Sonepat, Inspector Nripjit Singh, S.H.P., Police Station City, Sonepat PW-12 and other police officials had accompanied Mahabir Goyal, Anil Kumar, Krishan Kumar, Mange Ram Dahiya and Om Parkash Saroha travelled in cars to Mota for laying trap and recovering Shivam from his abductor. On reaching Kotal, Deputy Superintendent of Police had formed three parties to close in from different directions on the Railway Station. Mahabir Goyal PW-7 had seen a rickshaw man standing near gate of the Railway Station waving a school bag. Mahabir Goyal and Anil Kumar at the first occasion could not pick up the import of waiving of school bag and gone (went ?) into the Railway Station and searched for Rajesh Kumar and when they had not been able to trace the appellant, they came back to the place where the rickshaw man was standing and on being approached they had found that school bag contained note books of Shivam and the rickshaw man handed over a slip Ex. PC to the following effect :- "You want child, I want Money. Money give This Man. Your boy He Resevd." 4. This slip was taken into possession by the police through memo Ex. PC/1. Thereafter, the police made enquiries and in response thereto the rickshaw man had informed them that the slip had been given to him for delivering to a person who would claim the bag of child with instructions to collect the blue bag and deliver the same to him. As per the instructions of the Deputy Superintendent of Police though the blue bag was not handed over to the rickshaw man yet he was asked to take Mahabir Goyal and others to the place where the person, who had given the slip was standing. As per the instructions of the Deputy Superintendent of Police though the blue bag was not handed over to the rickshaw man yet he was asked to take Mahabir Goyal and others to the place where the person, who had given the slip was standing. On reaching the premises of a school which was at a distance of about 1/2 kilometer from the Railway Station, Kota, the witnesses found a small crowd having gathered in front of the school, which was saying that a man called Rajesh had abandoned a school going child in the school premises and on going to the school premises, they had found Shivam sitting in the Principals room on a chair. The child was, thereafter, evidently brought back to Sonepat where after completion of investigation, a challan was presented before the Illaqa Magistrate, who in turn committed the same to the Court of Sessions as the offence was exclusively triable by that Court. 5. On going through the papers sent up with the challan, the Additional Sessions Judge, Sonepat had framed charge against the appellant under Sections 363/364-A IPC. When the appellant pleaded not guilty to the charge, the prosecution was called upon to lead its evidence. 6. To bring home the charge, the prosecution examined Sunil Goyal as PW-1, Shobha Goyal as PW-2, Ms. Jyoti as PW-3, Pawan Kumar as PW-4, Smt. Rajeshwari as PW-5, Shivam Goyal as PW-6, Mahabir Goyal as PW-7, Anil Kumar as PW-8, HC Jagat Singh as PW-9, SI Ram Avtar as PW-10, Constable Inderpal as PW-11 and Inspector Nripjit Singh as PW-12. 7. When incriminating circumstances appearing in the prosecution case against him during recording of statement of accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C. were put to the appellant, he denied all of them and asserted that he was innocent. 8. After hearing the arguments, the trial Court convicted appellant Rajesh Kumar under Sections 363/364-A IPC and sentenced him to undergo five years rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. 2,000/- under Section 363 IPC. In default of payment of fine, he was ordered to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for one year. Appellant was further sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 5,000/- under Section 364-A, IPC. In default of payment of fine, he was ordered to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for three years. Hence, the present appeal. 9. Appellant was further sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 5,000/- under Section 364-A, IPC. In default of payment of fine, he was ordered to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for three years. Hence, the present appeal. 9. We have heard Mr. Vivek K. Thakur, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant and Mr. B.S. Rana, learned Senior Deputy Advocate General, Haryana. 10. On behalf of the appellant, it was submitted that the prosecution had not been able to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt inasmuch as some vital links in the chain of events are missing like : (i) Ms. Jyoti PW-3 had not supported the prosecution case about child Shivam having left the school in the company of Rajesh-appellant; and (ii) Not only the story about the child having been taken to Kota is unbelievable but even the version about child having been recovered from Kota cannot be relied upon because : (a) Sonepat Police has not informed the local police about its presence in Kota in connection with the case of kidnapping of Shivam; (b) Rickshaw man has neither been cited as a witness or co-accused nor had he been examined; (c) The Principal of the School from where the child was recovered had neither been cited as a witness nor examined; (d) The witness of recovery of slip Ex. PC is a resident of Sonepat and not of Kota and, therefore, there is no proof of recovery of slip Ex. PC having been actually effected; and (e) There is no evidence about the complainant having collected a sum of Rs. 10 lacs for being handing over to the appellant. 11. Taking all these factors into consideration, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant states that case against his client is not proved beyond reasonable doubt and, therefore, he should be acquitted of the charge framed against him. 12. On behalf of the State, it was submitted that in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses no dent had been made in cross-examination and, therefore, there is no reason why the prosecution version should not be accepted especially when there is no bar to a SHO carrying out investigation into a cognizable offence outside of his jurisdiction without informing the local police. 13. 13. We have carefully considered the rival submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record with their assistance. 14. According to the prosecution case, Shivam was abducted from Hindu Vidhya Peeth School, Sonepat on 5.5.1999 and on 6.5.1999 his father Sunil Goyal PW-1 received a telephonic call from the appellant for payment of ransom of Rs. 10 lacs in case he wanted his child to be returned. This information was evidently passed on to the police by the aggrieved father and together with Deputy superintendent of Police Sh. H.S. Doon and other police officials his brother Mahabir Goyal had left Sonepat for Kota and on 7.5.1999 the party was accosted by a rickshaw man out side the Railway Station. The said rickshaw man told them that he had been asked by a person to hand over slip Ex. PC and together with rickshaw man, Mahabir Goyal PW-7 and other members of the party had gone to school outside the Railway Station where they found people talking about one Rajesh having left a small child in the school. Shivam was eventually recovered from the room of Principal where he was sitting on a chair. The Investigating Officer had not disclosed before the trial Court identity of the rickshaw man which could easily have been ascertained by them during the course of investigation. He had neither arrayed the rickshaw man as co-accused nor he chose to cite him as a witness. Even in these circumstances, prosecution would have us to believe the version put forth about Shivam having been taken away by appellant Rajesh from the school as seen by Jyoti PW-3. Interestingly, Jyoti had not supported this part of the prosecution case. The Investigating Officer also had not cared to disclose the identity of the Principal in whose room Shivam was found to be sitting let alone citing him as a witness. 15. Interestly, the team of Investigators, which had gone to Kota did not deem it appropriate to join the local police so as to have at its disposal such help as would be made available by it in the investigation of the case especially in relation to the involvement of any bad element from Kota in the abduction of Shivam. 15. Interestly, the team of Investigators, which had gone to Kota did not deem it appropriate to join the local police so as to have at its disposal such help as would be made available by it in the investigation of the case especially in relation to the involvement of any bad element from Kota in the abduction of Shivam. The police officials from Kota might have rendered substantial help in identifying the rickshaw man, who had approached the police officials and as also the Principal in whose presence the boy was recovered. In the present case, as already pointed out by us, neither the rickshaw man nor any person in whose presence the child had been recovered had been cited as a witness. The police officials have maintained studied silence about this aspect of the investigation and withheld from cross-examination and judicial scrutiny the testimony of person who would logically be the most appropriate witnesses about how Mahabir Goyal PW-7 got the clue of where- abouts of his nephew and in whose presence the child was actually recovered. We cannot also lose sight of the fact that no attempt had been made by the Investigating Office to prove the fact that actually 10 lacs of rupees had been collected and taken by the complainant party for making payment to the appellant if such a need ever arose. Evidence regarding the recovery of the child as well as demand of ransam to our mind does not inspire the level of confidence which has to be attained by the prosecution for seeking a conviction in the given case. Even the evidence regarding who abducted the child is not creditworthy once Jyoti PW-3 does not stand by the statement, which was alleged to have been got recorded by her before the Police. The testimony of Smt. Rajeshwari PW-5 is merely that at 10.30 a.m. Shivam had been seen holding hand of Rajesh appellant in front of the canteen, what had happened thereafter there is no admissible evidence available on the record. It would not be possible for us to uphold the conviction and sentence recorded against the appellant. 16. For the reasons above, the present appeal is allowed and the appellant is acquitted of the charges framed against him.