JUDGMENT By the Court.—This appeal under Section 374 (2), Cr.P.C. has been filed by Dhan Singh Dheemer, who has been convicted in Session Trial No. 37/96 by Special Judge (Dacoity Affected Area) Jalaun at Orai under Section 364-A, IPC vide his judgment and order dated 3-12-2005 and sentenced to imprisonment for life and a fine of Rs. 5,000/-. 2. We have heard Sri V.B. Rao, learned Counsel for the appellant and Sri Suresh Chandra, learned AGA for the State and also perused the record and evidence adduced before the trial Court and the impugned judgment. 3. On 31-8-1995 Ram Krishna Shakyawar ex-Pradhan of Village Jaganpura, District-Jalaun lodged a report at P.S. Kailiya, which was registered as case crime No. 144/1995, under Section 364, IPC. It was with regard to kidnapping of his brother Jamuna Prasad. In the FIR it has been mentioned that Jamuna Prasad was in his field on 28-8-1995, when at about 5:30 p.m. he was kidnapped by some unknown persons. This kidnapping was witnessed by Govind Das, Matadeen and Muthiram. First informant, who was not witness of the said kidnapping came to know of it on the same day through Govind Das, at about 6:15 p.m. It was mentioned in the FIR that after coming to know of this kidnapping the first informant contacted police Kotwali Konch and also Station House Officer, P.S. Kailiya and the kidnapping was also brought to the notice of Circle Officer of Konch. The informant had been searching his brother but when he could not trace him out he lodged the report at the police station on 31-8-1995. 4. According to the prosecution, Jamuna Prasad was recovered by the police on 21-9-1995. At the time of his recovery, there was no other person accompanying him. After his recovery and on the basis of investigation conducted by the police, names of seven persons Dhan Singh, Prem, Brij Kishore, Chhadami, Ragubir, Babu Lal and Kalla came to light. The police could anyhow arrest only Dhan Singh, Chhadami and Brij Kishore. All the three arrested accused were subjected to test identification in presence of witnesses Matadeen, Muthiram and Govind Das, who were named in the FIR as witnesses of kidnapping, but they failed to identify any of the three accused, who were subjected to test identification. The police could anyhow arrest only Dhan Singh, Chhadami and Brij Kishore. All the three arrested accused were subjected to test identification in presence of witnesses Matadeen, Muthiram and Govind Das, who were named in the FIR as witnesses of kidnapping, but they failed to identify any of the three accused, who were subjected to test identification. The police however submitted charge-sheet against them under Section 364, IPC on the basis of alleged confession of Dhan Singh and some other accused persons before police and disclosure of their names in the statement of kidnappee Jamuna Prasad. Only appellant Dhan Singh faced the trial in S.T. No. 37 of 1996, as one of the co-accused Chhadami had already died and the third co-accused Brij Kishore absconded. 5. The accused appellant took the stand that he is innocent and no kidnapping had taken place at all and a false report was lodged in order to make a ground for procuring arm licence. He also took stand that he has enmity with Thakur Laxman Singh, who has acquaintance and close relationship with the police department. At the instance of Laxman Singh the police has falsely implicated him. 6. In the trial, only three witnesses were examined by the prosecution, namely Jamuna Prasad P.W.-1, who was allegedly kidnapped, Ram Krishna P.W.-2 the first informant and Mewa Lal Kuril first Investigating Officer. Second Investigating Officer has not been examined by the prosecution. In this case no other witness has been examined. The trial Court relied upon the prosecution evidence and held the appellant guilty under Section 364-A, IPC and sentenced him as mentioned earlier. 7. A perusal of the record shows that in his statement P.W.-1 Jamuna Prasad, who was allegedly kidnapped in this case, has clearly stated that he was not knowing the appellant or other accused persons from before nor had ever seen them earlier. He remained in custody of his kidnappers for 23-24 days. During this period they mostly addressed each other with their pseudo names but at sometime they called each other with their real names as well, and he used to remember their names. If this statement of the witness is true, it was necessary to test his claim by subjecting the accused to test identification parade and requiring Jamuna Prasad victim to identify the real culprit. If this statement of the witness is true, it was necessary to test his claim by subjecting the accused to test identification parade and requiring Jamuna Prasad victim to identify the real culprit. It was also essential taking into consideration this fact that no culprit was accompanying Jamuna Prasad when he was recovered. If any culprit had been arrested at the time of recovery of Jamuna Prasad, there could be no need of his test identification by Jamuna Prasad in the test identification parade. But when no culprit was arrested at the time of recovery of Jamuna Prasad and when the entire case against the accused was based only on their nomination by Jamuna Prasad in his statement, then taking this fact into consideration that Jamuna Prasad had no previous acquaintance with them and that he came to know their names on the basis of use of names during talks amongst them, it was very essential to require Jamuna Prasad to identify the accused in test identification parade. It is also to be seen that according to Jamuna Prasad the accused mostly addressed their companions by pseudo names and only some time by real names. It is not clear as to how Jamuna Prasad came to know as to which name was pseudo name and which name was real name. Under these circumstances, it was very essential to put these accused for test identification before Jamuna Prasad to avoid possibility of false implication, and the explanation offered by the prosecution in this regard cannot be accepted. 8. Jamuna Prasad (P.W.-1) claims that he was recovered by the police in an encounter with the dacoits. In the trial, he named Dhan Singh, Prem, Brij Kishore, Chhadami, Raghubir, Babu Lal and Kalla as his kidnappers. He also identified accused appellant Dhan Singh and co-accused Brijesh Kumar and Chhadami. However no value can be attached to this, because the witness had opportunity to see the accused in course of hearing on dates fixed in the trial. Therefore the argument of learned AGA in support of the prosecution that there was no reason for Jamuna Prasad to falsely implicate Dhan Singh and that the statement of Jamuna Prasad rightly been relied upon by the trial Court, cannot be accepted. 9. When the appellant and other co-accused were arrested by the police, they were subjected to test identification on 20-2-1996. 9. When the appellant and other co-accused were arrested by the police, they were subjected to test identification on 20-2-1996. Three of the witnesses, whose names are mentioned in FIR as witnesses of the incident of abduction participated in test identification but failed to identify the appellant or any other co-accused. The investigating agency did not require Jamuna Prasad to join in the test identification of the accused. No reason has been given by the prosecution for not doing so. Learned AGA argued that since Jamuna Prasad knew the accused appellant, therefore, it was not necessary to call him to participate in the test identification of the accused. This argument does not convince us. There is nothing on record to show that the appellant had any criminal antecedent. The other accused persons and the appellant had been identified in the Court, but prior to this, the appellant had participated in the Court proceedings three or four times before the testimony of Jamuna Prasad was recorded in the trial Court on 21-12-1999. The statement was recorded after four years of the alleged kidnapping. The witness had therefore opportunity to know the appellant by name as well as by face during Court hearing. 10. We are, therefore, of the view that no reliance could be placed on the sole testimony of Jamuna Prasad which remained uncorroborated by ocular as well as circumstantial evidence. 11. In addition to this the P.W.-2 Ram Kuril, before Investigating Officer, had disclosed that the kidnappee Jamuna Prasad had gone to his “sasural”. 12. In view of the discussion made above we are of the opinion that trial Court committed error and illegality in accepting prosecution evidence and holding appellants guilty for committing offence under Section 364-A, IPC. The evidence adduced by the prosecution was wholly unreliable and the appellant is entitled to be acquitted. 13. The appeal is allowed. 14. Conviction of the appellant Dhan Singh under Section 364-A, IPC and sentence of life imprisonment passed therein by the trial Court in S.T. No. 37 of 1996 are hereby set aside. He is acquitted of the charge. The appellant is in jail he shall be released forthwith unless he is wanted in any other case. 15. Let a copy of this judgment be sent to trial Court for compliance. ————