JUDGMENT R. N. BISWAL, J. : This appeal has been preferred against the judgment and order dated 23.12.1987 passed by the Addl. District & Sessions Judge, Bhawanipatna acquitting the accused-Respondents of the offence under Section 395 I.P.C. read with Section 25(A) of the Arms Act in Sessions Case Nos.43/7 of 1987 and 51/8 of 1987. 2. Bereft of all unnecessary details the case of the prosecution is that on 14.3.1987 at about 7.00 A.M. while P.W.3, a rickshaw puller, was carrying three children including one Rajesh Jain, son of the informant to a Convent school in Bhawani¬patna, on the way, the accused-Respondents directed the rickshaw puller to take it near the jeep bearing No.ORS-5867, stranded nearby. When he refused to do so, accused Jaswanta and two other miscreants forcibly carried Rajesh from the rickshaw and put him in the jeep. In the meantime, accused Jaswanta Naik snatched away a gold chain weighing about one “Tola” from the neck of Rajesh. When they were forcibly carrying away Rajesh in the jeep, the public surrounded it, for which they could not succeed in their attempt. Rajesh was rescued and sent to his house in the same rickshaw. On the very date, Chandrasen Jain (P.W.4), a Tax prac¬titioner at Bhawanipatna (the father of the victim), lodged a written report before P.W.7, S.I. of Police, Town Police Station, Bhawanipatna narrating the aforesaid incident. He further stated in the F.I.R. that in the previous night i.e. 13.3.1987 accused Jaswanta Naik @ Jashu and some other persons numbering five to six came to his office and demanded Rs.1000/- towards subscrip¬tion for observing Holi. Since he refused to comply their demand, they threatened him to kidnap his son, but he did not give much importance to such threatening. On the next day morning the incident took place. 3. After receiving the F.I.R., P.W.7 registered it and investigated into the case. Since he refused to comply their demand, they threatened him to kidnap his son, but he did not give much importance to such threatening. On the next day morning the incident took place. 3. After receiving the F.I.R., P.W.7 registered it and investigated into the case. In course of investigation he examined the witnesses, arrested accused Manoj Naik, Gouri Prasad Sahu, Pankaj Naik and Narayan Behera @ Diba, forwarded them to Court, seized the gold chain, two revolvers, some knives, live cartridges and searched for the remaining accused persons namely, Jaswanta Naik @ Jashu, Sunil Kumar Thakur and Udayabhanu Patra an as they could not be traced out, submitted charge sheet under Section 395 I.P.C. read with Section 25(A) of Arms Act against all the accused persons showing the non-apprehended accused persons as absconders. Subsequently, accused Sunil Kumar Thakur and Udayabhanu Patra, on being arrested were forwarded to the Court. As it appears while on bail accused Narayan Behera ab¬sconded and despite several attempts he cold not be apprehended. So, his case was split up and accused Manoj Naik, Gouri Prasad Sahu, Pankaj Janik, Sunil Kumar Thakur and Udayabhanu Patra were committed to the Court of Session. Subsequently, on being surren¬dered, accused Narayan Behera was committed to the Court of Ses¬sion. The two cases were transferred to the Court of C.J.M.-cum-Assistant Sessions Judge and again on being withdrawn by the Sessions Judge were transferred to the Court of Additional Dis¬trict &Sessions Judge, Bhawanipatna. Accused Sunil Kumar Thakur, Pankaj Kumar Naik, Gouri Prasad Sahu, Udayabhanu Patra and Manoj Kumar Naik were arrayed as accused in Sessions Case No.37/7 of 1987 and accused Narayan Behera in Sessions Case No.51/8 of 1987. Since the two cases arose out of same occurrence and same Police Station case, both the cases were tagged together and the accused persons faced trial for the offence under Section 395 I.P.C. read with Section 25(A) of Arms Act. The plea of the accused-Respondents is complete denial of their involvement in the crime in question. 4. In order to establish its case prosecution examined seven witnesses in all, as against none by the defence. After assessing the evidence on record the trial Court held that the prosecution failed to establish the case against the accused per¬sons beyond all reasonable doubt and as such acquitted them under benefit of doubt. 5. 4. In order to establish its case prosecution examined seven witnesses in all, as against none by the defence. After assessing the evidence on record the trial Court held that the prosecution failed to establish the case against the accused per¬sons beyond all reasonable doubt and as such acquitted them under benefit of doubt. 5. Being aggrieved with this order of acquittal, the present Government Appeal has been preferred. Mr. R. N. Patnaik, learned Addl.Standing counsel submits that even though P.Ws. 3 and 5 stated that accused-Respondents committed the crime in question, the trial Court erroneously held that there was no evidence implicating any of the accused-Respondents in the al¬leged crime. P.W.3 is the rickshaw puller, who was carrying the alleged victim and two other children in his rickshaw to Convent school. In his examination before the trial Court, he stated that on the date of occurrence at about 7.00 A.M. while he was carry¬ing three children, including the alleged victim Rajesh on his rickshaw to the Convent school, he saw a jeep standing on the way. Immediately accused Jashu @ Jaswanta came out of the jeep, stopped his rickshaw from proceeding further and asked him to bring it near the jeep. When he refused to it, two more miscre¬ants emerged out of the jeep and took the rickshaw near the jeep, per force. Accused Jaswanta forcibly snatched away a gold chain from the neck of Rajesh Jain and thereafter all the three miscre¬ants physically lifted Rajesh and put him in the jeep. But as the residents of the locality surrounded the jeep, they could not succeed in their attempt to kidnap the boy. P.W.3 further stated that Sunil Kumar was holding a pistol so also Gouri Sankar. Except these two and Jaswanta he has not named any other accused-Respondents. During cross-examination, it was confronted to him that he had not named either Gouri or Sunil before the I.O., P.W.7 while being examined by him to which he denied. Perusal of evidence of P.W.7 shows that in fact he had not named these two accused-Respondents before him. So the evidence of P.W.3 that he saw accused-Respondents Sunil Kumar and Gouri Sankar each holding a pistol cannot be relied upon. When this part of evidence of P.W.3 is taken out of consideration, then there remains no mate¬rial whatsoever in his deposition implicating any of the accused-Respondents with the alleged crime. So the evidence of P.W.3 that he saw accused-Respondents Sunil Kumar and Gouri Sankar each holding a pistol cannot be relied upon. When this part of evidence of P.W.3 is taken out of consideration, then there remains no mate¬rial whatsoever in his deposition implicating any of the accused-Respondents with the alleged crime. On perusal of evidence of P.W.5 it is seen that while Rajesh and two other children were being carried in a rickshaw, accused Jashu @ Jaswanta being armed with a pistol dragged the rickshaw towards a jeep stranded nearby and snatched away a gold chain from the neck of Rajesh. In the meantime, two miscreants emerged out from the jeep, out of whom one was holding a pistol. Rajesh was forcibly put in the jeep, but as several persons gathered at the spot and surrounded the jeep their attempt to kidnap Rajesh was frustrated. It is found from the evidence of P.W.1, the driver of the informant that during the time of occurrence hearing hullah he rushed to the spot and saw accused Jaswanta and two others standing near the rickshaw. Accused Jaswanta was seen holding a pistol and a gold chain. In the meantime, three miscreants arrived at the spot and all the six, including accused Jaswanta physically lifted Rajesh to the jeep. He did not name any of the accused-Respondents. During cross-examination he stated that he disclosed the incident to his matter (P.W.4) and one Punjabi of a petrol pump. Admitted¬ly, P.W.5 is the manager of M/s. Sachdev Refilling Station, a petrol pump at Bhawanipatna. So, it can be inferred that P.W.5 has not seen the occurrence. He only heard about it from P.W.1. P.W.4 has not named any of the accused-Respondents to be a mis¬creant. Of course, he stated that 20 to 25 persons including the accused-Respondents had gathered at the spot. Even if this part of his evidence is accepted to be true, it cannot be ruled out that accused-Respondents were the onlookers only. On perusal of evidence of P.W.7, the I.O., it is found that getting information about concealment of the accused persons in village Firingiguda, situated near a jungle, he along with some other police personnel including P.W.6 went to that village and found all accused-Re¬spondents, except Narayan Behera in the house of Tulsi Majhi of that village. On perusal of evidence of P.W.7, the I.O., it is found that getting information about concealment of the accused persons in village Firingiguda, situated near a jungle, he along with some other police personnel including P.W.6 went to that village and found all accused-Re¬spondents, except Narayan Behera in the house of Tulsi Majhi of that village. Accused-Respondent Sunil Thakur and the absconding accused Jaswanta Naik seeing the police personnel fired four rounds from their respective pistols S.I., A. Das (P.W.6) retali¬ated by firing two rounds from his revolver. So, all the accused persons, who were there in the house of Tulsi Majhi took to their heels towards the jungle. The police personnel chased them, but could be successful only to apprehend accused Gouri Prasad Sahu. It further transpires from the evidence of P.W.7 that he seized two pistols, ten live cartridges and nine empty cartridges from the house of Tulsi Majhi. According to the evidence of P.W.6, P.W.7 seized two pistols, the empty cartridges, which he had fired from his revolver. His evidence is silent with regard to seizure of any other cartridge either live or empty. As per Ext.10, the report of ballistic expert there was no carbon in one of the seized pistols showing recent firing from it. Moreover, it transpires from the evidence of P.W.6 that some villagers were present when he fired two shots, but none of them has been exam¬ined by the prosecution. None of the members of the house where some of the accused persons were alleged to have been found and there was fire and counter fire has also been examined. No inde¬pendent witness to the seizure of pistols and cartridges has also been examined. So the story of firing by two of the accused persons from their respective pistol and seizure of pistols and cartridges does not inspire confidence. Furthermore, as found from the charge sheet the accused-Respondents, besides being charged under Section 395 I.P.C. were charged under Section 25(a) of Arms Act, while in the impugned judgment they have been shown to have been charged under Section 25 (A) of the said Act. The allegation made against the accused-Respondents do not attract the offence under Section 25(a) of the Arms Act. There is no Section as 25(A) in the Arms Act. Under these circumstances also the accused-Respondents cannot be convicted under the Arms Act. 6. The allegation made against the accused-Respondents do not attract the offence under Section 25(a) of the Arms Act. There is no Section as 25(A) in the Arms Act. Under these circumstances also the accused-Respondents cannot be convicted under the Arms Act. 6. As stated earlier, the trial Court acquitted the ac¬cused-Respondents under benefit of doubt. If the finding of the trial Court is plausible one the appellate Court should not interfere with such finding as has been settled by the Apex Court. In the present case the finding of the trial Court is a plausible one. Therefore, under such facts and circumstances the Government Appeal stands dismissed. Appeal dismissed.