JUDGMENT Hon’ble Vijay Kumar Verma,, J.—By means of this appeal preferred under Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (in short, ‘the Cr. P.C.’), judgment and order dated 27.7.2007 passed by Sri Shiv Sharma, the then Addl. Sessions Judge, Court No. 2, Bijnor in S.T. No. 383 of 2005 (State v. Balbir Singh and another) has been challenged, whereby the appellant-accused Balbir Singh has been convicted and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 30,000/- under Section 364-A of Indian Penal Code (in short, ‘the IPC’). Out of the amount of fine, Rs. 10,000/- have been paid as compensation to the complainant. By the same judgment, the co-accused Sardar Harjit Singh has been acquitted. 2. An FIR was lodged at P.S. Najibabad by the complainant Chet Ram Singh s/o Late Sri Bishamber Singh, resident of Village Bhogpur, P.S. Najibabad, District Bijnor. The case of the prosecution as appearing from the First Information Report Ext. Ka-4, in brief, is that on 14.12.2004, Rahul aged about 2 year, 4 month, son of the complainant, disappeared at about 1.00 p.m. while he was playing in his gher. Search for him was made, but in vain. In the evening Guddu S/o Prakash and Safique s/o Ganni told that they had seen Rahul going with a boy aged about 21-22 year and when they asked that boy as to where he is carrying the child, he told that mother of the child is coming behind. At about 4.00 p.m. a telephone call was made on the telephone of Bhupendra, maternal brother (mausera bhai) of the complainant, that Rahul s/o Chet Ram has been kidnapped by them. It was also informed on telephone that you come with rupees one lakh and carry the child. A warning was also given that if information was given to the police, they would kill the child. Information of the said telephone call was given to the complainant by Smt. Yogesh w/o Bhupendra Singh, who had heard the telephone. At about 7.00 p.m. a telephone call was made again on the said telephone and demand of rupees one lakh was repeated, on which the kidnapper was told that it is not possible to make arrangement of rupees one lakh. At about 7.00 p.m. a telephone call was made again on the said telephone and demand of rupees one lakh was repeated, on which the kidnapper was told that it is not possible to make arrangement of rupees one lakh. On 15.12.2004 at about 10.30 a.m., again a telephone call was made and it was informed that you come to Shakti Chauraha, Bijnor with rupees twenty thousand. It was also told by the kidnapper that Dr. Rajpal and Chet Ram should come, so that he may recognize them. After making arrangement of rupees ten thousand, the complainant went to P.S. Najibabad and lodged the FIR there. Further case of the prosecution is that after lodging the FIR at P.S. Najibabad, SHO Gauri Shankar Yadav, S.l. K.K. Yadav and some other police personnel along with the complainant Chet Ram and witnesses Dr. Rajpal s/o Jagdish as well as Smt. Yogesh Devi w/o Bhupendra went to Bijnor by Govt. Jeep No. UP 20/HO 507 and after leaving the jeep near Bardhman College, Bijnor, they reached Shakti Chauraha on 15.12.2004 and arrested the accused Balbir Singh at about 7.45 p.m. with a packet containing ransom amount of rupees ten thousand, which was handed over to him by Smt. Yogesh. Thereafter, on the pointing out of the accused Balbir Singh, the kidnapped child Rahul was recovered from a vacant kothi, where he was standing in the supervision of Sardar Harjit Singh, who was arrested at about 7.55 p.m. 3. On the basis of the written report, Ext. Ka-1, the then constable clerk Ram Dev Tyagi (PW-3) prepared chik FIR Ext. Ka-4 and registered a case under Section 364-A, IPC at crime No. 1627 of 2004 on 15.12.2004 at 6.10 p.m. against one unknown person, entry of which was made in G.D. No. 46 Ext. Ka-5. 4. The investigation of the case was entrusted to S.l. Kaushal Kishore Yadav (P.W. 5), who prepared fard Ext. Ka-2 of ransom money of rupees ten thousand, which were arranged by the complainant for giving to the kidnapper. As mentioned above, on the same day i.e. 15.12.2004 the appellant-accused Balbir Singh and co-accused Harjit Singh were arrested and kidnapped child Rahul was recovered. The Investigating Officer recorded the statements of the witnesses, prepared site plan Ext. Ka-7 and Ka-8 and after completion of the investigation submitted charge-sheet Ext. Ka-9 against both the accused. 5. As mentioned above, on the same day i.e. 15.12.2004 the appellant-accused Balbir Singh and co-accused Harjit Singh were arrested and kidnapped child Rahul was recovered. The Investigating Officer recorded the statements of the witnesses, prepared site plan Ext. Ka-7 and Ka-8 and after completion of the investigation submitted charge-sheet Ext. Ka-9 against both the accused. 5. On the case being committed to the Court of Session for trial, both the accused were charged under Section 364-A, IPC, to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 6. The prosecution in order to prove its case examined five witnesses in all. P.W. 1 Chet Ram is the complainant and eye-witness of the incident of recovery of his kidnapped son Rahul and arrest of the accused persons. P.W. 2, Smt. Yogesh Devi is also an eye-witness of the aforesaid incident. PW-3, Ram Dev Tyagi is the scribe of chik FIR Ext. Ka-4 and G.D. of registration of FIR Ext. Ka-5, which have been proved by him. He has also proved copy of G.D. No. 60 dated 15.12.2004 time 21.45 Ext. Ka-6, in which the entry about the recovery of kidnapped child Rahul and arrest of accused persons was made. P.W. 4 Gauri Shankar Yadav was posted as SHO at P.S. Najibabad on the date of occurrence. He along with Investigating Officer Kaushal Kishore Yadav and other police personnel had arrested the accused persons and recovered the kidnapped child on the pointing out of the appellant-accused Balbir Singh on 15.12.2004 at about 7.45 p.m. P.W 5 S.l. Kaushal Kishore Yadav is the Investigating Officer. He has proved various papers as mentioned herein­above. 7. In their statements recorded under Section 313, Cr.P.C., the accused persons denying their participation in the alleged incident, have stated that they have been falsely implicated in this case. 8. The learned trial Court having taken the entire evidence into consideration acquitted the co-accused Sardar Harjit Singh extending him benefit of doubt, but convicted and sentenced the appellant-accused Balbir Singh as mentioned in para 1 above. Hence, this appeal. 9. We have heard learned amicus curiae Ms. Nishi Mehrotra appearing for the appellant, and Shri A.K. Shukla learned AGA for the State and also perused the impugned judgment and entire evidence on record carefully. 10. Hence, this appeal. 9. We have heard learned amicus curiae Ms. Nishi Mehrotra appearing for the appellant, and Shri A.K. Shukla learned AGA for the State and also perused the impugned judgment and entire evidence on record carefully. 10. The complicity of the accused Balbir Singh in the incident of kidnapping of complainant’s son Rahul is sought to be established on the basis of the arrest of the accused Balbir Singh with a packet containing ransom money of Rs.10,000 and thereafter, recovery of the child on his pointing out from a vacant kothi situated in Bijnore City. Although the names of Guddu s/o Prakash and Shafique s/o Ganni are mentioned as eye-witness of the incident of carrying the kidnapped child Rahul by a boy aged about 21-22 year, but those witnesses have not been examined by the prosecution during trial. To prove the incident of arrest of the accused Balbir Singh and recovery of kidnapped child on his pointing out on the alleged date, time and place, the prosecution has examined four witnesses namely Chet Ram (PW-1), Smt. Yogesh Devi (PW-2), Gauri Shanker Yadav (PW-4) and Kaushal Kishore Yadav (PW-5). On the basis of the testimony of these four witnesses, the learned trial Court has convicted the appellant for the offence punishable under Section 364-A, IPC. After carefully going through the statements of these witnesses, we find that the learned trial Court has drawn right conclusion after properly appreciating the evidence. 11. PW-1 Chet Ram is the father of kidnapped child. He has fully supported the FIR version. It is stated by him in his statement that he had lodged an FIR at P.S. Najibabad on 15.12.2004 about the kidnapping of his son Rahul and making demand of ransom by the kidnapper. It is further stated by the witness that after registration of the FIR, he, his Bhabhi Smt. Yogesh and Dr. Rajpal reached near Shakti Cinema, Bijnor with the police of P.S. Najibabad carrying ransom money of Rs.10,000/- for giving to the kidnapper and at about 7.45 p.m. on that very day, the accused Balbir Singh was arrested by the police at the time when a packet containing the ransom money was handed over to him by Smt. Yogesh. It is also stated by the witness that Rahul was recovered on the pointing out of accused Balbir Singh immediately after his arrest from a vacant kothi. 12. It is also stated by the witness that Rahul was recovered on the pointing out of accused Balbir Singh immediately after his arrest from a vacant kothi. 12. The statement of PW-l has been corroborated by Smt. Yogesh Devi (PW-2), who had received telephone calls also regarding demand of ransom by the kidnapper on his telephone No. 255248. It is stated by P.W. 2 that after registration of the FIR, she also had gone to Bijnore with Chet Ram Singh, Dr. Rajpal and police of P.S. Najibabad and when near Shakti Cinema, she handed over a packet containing ransom money of Rs. 10,000/- to the accused Balbir, he was arrested by the police and thereafter Rahul was recovered on the pointing out from a vacant kothi situated at some distance from Civil Court, Bijnor. Ext. Ka-3 is the recovery memo about the recovery of Rahul’ which bears the signature of Smt. Yogesh Devi, Chet Ram and Dr. Rjpal in addition to the police personnel. The appellant-accused Balbir was present in the Court at the time of examination of this witness. Identifying the accused Balbir Singh in Court, Smt. Yogesh Devi has stated that she had given the packet of ransom amount to this accused and Rahul was recovered thereafter on his pointing out. 13. PW-4 Gaurishanker Yadav was posted as SHO in P.S. Najibabad. It is stated by this witness in his statement that after registration of the FIR, he along with the complainant Chet Ram, Dr. Raj Pal, Smt. Yogesh Devi and other police personnel including investigating officer S.l. K.K. Yadav had gone to Bijnor by Govt. Jeep on 15.12.2004 and after leaving the jeep near Bardhman College, Bijnor, they all reached Shakti Chauraha and when at about 7.45 p.m., a packet containing ransom amount of Rs.10,000/- was handed over by Smt. Yogesh Devi to the accused Balbir Singh near Shakti Cinema, he was arrested by them and thereafter at about 7.55 p.m. the kidnapped child Rahul was recovered on his pointing out from a vacant kothi and co-accused Sardar Harjit Singh was also arrested from that place. Recovery memo Ext. Ka-3 has been proved by this witness. 14. The fourth witness of the incident of arrest of accused Balbir Singh and recovery of kidnapped child on his pointing out is S.l. Kaushal Kishore Yadav. Recovery memo Ext. Ka-3 has been proved by this witness. 14. The fourth witness of the incident of arrest of accused Balbir Singh and recovery of kidnapped child on his pointing out is S.l. Kaushal Kishore Yadav. He also has fully corroborated the testimony of Gauri Shanker Yadav in his statement recorded in trial Court as P.W. 5. He is also the investigating officer of this case. 15. All the four witnesses named above were subjected to lengthy cross-examination, but nothing could be elicited from their mouth so as to discard the creditworthiness of their statements. The testimony of these witnesses is worthy of credence and there is no material contradiction in their statements. On the basis of their testimony, it is fully proved beyond reasonable doubt that a packet containing ransom amount of Rs. 10,000/- was given by Smt. Yogesh Devi to the accused Balbir Singh and he was arrested by the police immediately thereafter on 15.12.2004 at about 7.45 p.m. near Shakti Cinema, Bijnor and thereafter, the kidnapped child Rahul was recovered on his pointing out at about 7.55 p.m. from a vacant kothi situated at some distance from Civil Court, Bijnor. It has come in the statement of the complainant Chet Ram that the accused Balbir Singh was known to him since prior to the incident, because he used to come with his brother to his house. It has also come in the statement of Chet Ram that when they were standing near Shakti Cinema Bijnore on 15.12.2004, the accused Balbir came there and putting a hand on his shoulder, he asked about the ransom money and when a packet containing Rs. 10,000/- was given to him by Smt. Yogesh Devi, the police came there on getting hint from Dr. Rajpal and arrested him. It is mentioned in the FIR itself that the kidnapper had informed that Chet Ram and Dr. Raj Pal should come with ransom money so that he may recognise them. From the statement of P.W. 1, this fact is borne out that the accused Balbir Singh himself had recognized him and when on demanding ransom money, it was given to him by Smt. Yogesh Devi, he was arrested by the police. As such, the case of the prosecution is fully proved beyond reasonable doubt on the basis of the testimony of the witnesses mentioned herein-above. 16. As such, the case of the prosecution is fully proved beyond reasonable doubt on the basis of the testimony of the witnesses mentioned herein-above. 16. The accused Balbir Singh has not given any explanation about his arrest in his statement recorded under Section 313, Cr.P.C. A specific question was put to him at the time of his examination under Section 313, Cr. P.C. that he was arrested taking ransom money of Rs.10,000/- from Smt. Yogesh Devi on 15.12.2004 and thereafter he got the son of the complainant recovered. It is only stated by the accused in answer to this question that he has been falsely implicated, but he has not stated as to from which place he was arrested by the police. Last question put to the accused Balbir Singh in his examination under Section 313, Cr.P.C. is, ‘whether he has to say anything more’. He has given answer in the negative. The accused could furnish explanation about his arrest by the police in answer to the question, but for the reasons best known to him he did not offer any explanation about his arrest by the police. He has only stated that a dispute had taken place from Chet Ram about the labour money and he has been falsely implicated, but it is nowhere stated by the accused as to from which place, he was arrested by the police. On the contrary, on the basis of the cogent, consistent and reliable testimony of the witnesses mentioned herein-above, this fact is established beyond reasonable doubt that the accused Balbir Singh was arrested by the police on 15.12.2004 after he received a packet containing ransom money of Rs. 10,000/- from Smt. Yogesh and thereafter the kidnapped child Rahul was recovered on his pointing out from a vacant kothi. 17. It was contended by the learned amicus curiae that according to the FIR, the witnesses Guddu and Shafique had seen a boy aged about 21-22 year carrying Rahul with him on 14.12.2004, but for the reasons best known to the prosecution, these independent witnesses of last seen have not been examined and hence, adverse inference should be drawn against the prosecution. It was further submitted in this regard that Dr. It was further submitted in this regard that Dr. Rajpal is said to have accompanied the police party at the time of arrest of the accused Balbir Singh, but he also has not been examined during the trial and hence on this ground also, adverse inference should be drawn against the prosecution. We are not impressed with this contention. It is no doubt true that as per FIR version a boy aged about 21-22 year was seen by Guddu and Shafique carrying Rahul with him, but due to their non-examination by the prosecution in trial Court, no adverse inference can be drawn against the prosecution, because the complicity of the accused Balbir Singh in the incident of kidnapping Rahul and his recovery on his pointing out after receiving ransom money has been fully proved beyond reasonable doubt on the basis of the statements of the witnesses, which we have mentioned above. 18. Next submission made by the learned amicus curiae was that no independent witness has been examined by the prosecution, although at the time of alleged arrest of the accused and recovery of Rahul on his pointing out, many persons might have assembled at both the places. The contention of the learned amicus curiae was that for want of independent witnesses, the story of the prosecution about the arrest of the accused and recovery of Rahul cannot be said to be proved beyond reasonable doubt. We find no force in this contention. We have already stated that the testimony of the witnesses Chet Ram, Smt. Yogesh Devi, Gauri Shanker Yadav and K.K. Yadav is wholly reliable and there is no infirmity in their testimony. Therefore, the case of the prosecution cannot be brushed aside due to non-examination of any person, who might have reached the place of incident at the time of arrest of the accused and recovery of the kidnapped child on his pointing out. 19. It was also submitted by the learned amicus curiae that only one recovery memo was prepared and its copy was not given to the accused and on this ground the prosecution case becomes doubtful. This contention has got no force, because the recovery memo Ext. Ka-3 bears the thumb impression of accused Balbir Singh and signature of co-accused Harjit Singh. 20. This contention has got no force, because the recovery memo Ext. Ka-3 bears the thumb impression of accused Balbir Singh and signature of co-accused Harjit Singh. 20. It was further submitted by the learned amicus curiae that even after the arrest of accused persons and recovery of the child, further investigation was not entrusted to some other police officer and hence on this ground, further investigation carried out by S.l. K.K. Yadav is illegal and charge-sheet submitted by him is vitiated, because he was the eye-witness of the incident of arrest of accused and recovery of child. We do not agree with this’ contention also. The arrest of the accused persons and recovery of kidnapped child was made during investigation. No authority or any provision of law has been brought to our notice by the learned amicus curiae to show that further investigation carried out by S.l. K.K. Yadav and charge-sheet submitted by him would be vitiated in such situation. 21. Next submission made by the learned amicus curiae was that there are contradictions in the statements of witnesses regarding the place of handing over ransom money to the accused Balbir Singh and his arrest. We have carefully gone through the statements of the witnesses examined by the prosecution. There is no material contradiction regarding the place of handing over ransom money to the accused and his arrest and on the basis of the minor contradictions, the reliable testimony of prosecution witnesses cannot be discarded. 22. On the basis of the foregoing discussion, we come to the conclusion that the prosecution has successfully proved beyond reasonable doubt that on 15.12.2004 at about 7.45 p.m. near Shakti Cinema, Bijnor, the accused Balbir Singh received ransom money of Rs.10,000/- from Smt. Yogesh Devi and thereafter kidnapped child Rahul was recovered on his pointing out from a vacant kothi situated at some distance from Civil Court, Bijnor. There is no scope to make any interference in the impugned judgment, as I the learned trial Court has not committed any illegality in convicting the appellant-accused Balbir Singh on the charge of kidnapping complainant’s son Rahul for ransom. 23. So far as the question of sentence is concerned, the offence under Section 364-A, IPC is punishable with death or imprisonment for life and imposition of fine is also mandatory. No discretion has been given to the Courts to reduce the sentence of imprisonment. 23. So far as the question of sentence is concerned, the offence under Section 364-A, IPC is punishable with death or imprisonment for life and imposition of fine is also mandatory. No discretion has been given to the Courts to reduce the sentence of imprisonment. Therefore, this Court also cannot reduce the sentence of imprisonment awarded by the trial Court. 24. Consequently, the appeal is dismissed. The conviction and sentence awarded by the trial Court vide impugned judgment are affirmed. 25. The appellant-accused Balbir Singh is undergoing sentence in jail. He shall be kept there to serve out the remaining sentence. 26. The office is directed to return trial Court record expeditiously along with a copy of this judgment for necessary action. ————