JUDGMENT 1. - The appellants Raju, Rajendra, Madan Lal, Hansraj, Rama @ Ramlal and Govind filed this appeal against the judgment dated January 28, 2006 of Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track) Jhalawar in Sessions Case No. 81 of 2005 whereby the accused appellants were convicted for offence under Sections 364/368 to suffer 10 years Rl and fine of Rs. 5000 in default of payment of fine to further undergo three months RI, under Section 323 IPC to suffer 6 months SI and fine of Rs. 100 and in default to further undergo 10 days SI, under section 4/25 Arms Act to suffer one year Rl and fine of Rs. 200 in default of payment of fine to further suffer 15 days R.l. 2. Brief facts of the case are that on March 24, 2005 Mahaveer Prasad (PW. 10) lodged a report (Ex.R 9) at Police Station Jhalrapatan that his son Rahul Kumar aged 11 years gone on a Mini Cycle at 6.30 p.m. did not return house and, therefore, he lodged the report for searching his son. This report was lodged at 9.30 p.m. on March 24, 2005. Again at 11.15 p.m. on March 24, 2005 Mahaveer Prasad lodged another report (Ex.P. 11) that his relatives also searched his son but they did not search him and they have come to know that some unknown persons taken away his son Rahul and concealed him to an unknown place. Again request was made for searching him. On this report the police registered a case under Section 365 IPC and started investigation. After completion of investigation, the police filed challan before the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate Jhalawar who committed the case to the Court of Sessions Judge Jhalawar. Sessions Judge Jhalawar transferred the case to the court of Additional Sessions Judge Fast Track Jhalawar. The trial court after hearing the accused appellants framed charge under Sections 364, 365, 368, 323 IPC and 4/25 of the Arms Act. The accused appellants denied the charge and claimed to be tried. In support of its case the prosecution examined 20 witnesses and exhibited 27 documents. The accused appellants were examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. and in defence they produced two witnesses. After hearing both the parties, the trial court vide judgment and order dated January 28, 2006 convicted and sentenced the accused appellants as indicated above. 3. Mr. In support of its case the prosecution examined 20 witnesses and exhibited 27 documents. The accused appellants were examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. and in defence they produced two witnesses. After hearing both the parties, the trial court vide judgment and order dated January 28, 2006 convicted and sentenced the accused appellants as indicated above. 3. Mr. S.S. Hasan learned counsel appearing for the appellant Madan Lal, Mr. Chetan Jain learned counsel appearing for the appellant Raju and Mr. Ajay Singh, learned counsel appearing for the appellants Rajendra, Hansraj, Rama @ Ramlal and Govind argued that the accused appellants have been falsely implicated in this case and they deserve acquittal. According to the statement of Rahul Soni (PW. 20) no case is made out against the accused appellants. The appellants have not committed any offence relating to kidnapping or abduction. Rahul was not kidnapped or confined by them. No test identification parade was conducted by the police even after request application by the accused appellant Ram Lal but his application was rejected by the trial court. Against this order of the trial court rejecting the application for identification parade, a revision petition was filed by the accused Ram Lal and during pendency of the revision petition the trial court completed the trial and convicted and sentenced the accused appellants. The learned counsel submitted that there are material contradictions and inconsistencies in the testimony of the prosecution witnesses, but the trial court wrongly convicted the accused appellants. No weapon was recovered from any accused appellants and, therefore, no case under Section 4/25 Arms Act is made out. As per the statement of PW. 17 Narpat Singh SHO the appellants Raju, Rajendra and Madan were found on river to protect their vegetables. Thus their presence is natural. The other accused appellants Hansraj, Rama @ Ream Lal and Govind were not present at the river and they were arrested from their own house lateron. Thus the appellants are entitled to be acquitted in the instant matter. 4. The learned Public Prosecutor on the other hand supported the judgment of conviction and argued that Rahul was recovered from the possession of the accused appellants in an unconscious condition. The trial court rightly convicted and sentenced the accused appellants. The findings arrived at by the trial court are just and proper. 4. The learned Public Prosecutor on the other hand supported the judgment of conviction and argued that Rahul was recovered from the possession of the accused appellants in an unconscious condition. The trial court rightly convicted and sentenced the accused appellants. The findings arrived at by the trial court are just and proper. The trial court critically examined the material available on record and judgment of conviction is based on evidence and the accused appellants have been rightly convicted and sentenced. 5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the entire record. It is necessary to have a look at the evidence adduced before the trial court by the prosecution. PW. 1 Deepak in his statement proved Ex. P. 1, which is memo of map and site Map, Ex. P. 2 recovery memo of cycle and Ex.P. 3 place of recovery memo. On all these exhibits he put his signature A to B. PW. 2 Mahid Kumar in his statement proved Ex. P 1, which is Memo of map and site Map, Ex. P. 2 recovery memo of cycle and Ex.P. 3 place of recovery memo. On all these exhibits he put his signature C to D. PW. 3 Sunil Porwal, supported the prosecution case, who is neighbour of the complainant. He along with other persons went in search of Rahul and found Rahul in Kali Sindh. P. 2 recovery memo of cycle and Ex.P. 3 place of recovery memo. On all these exhibits he put his signature C to D. PW. 3 Sunil Porwal, supported the prosecution case, who is neighbour of the complainant. He along with other persons went in search of Rahul and found Rahul in Kali Sindh. In his statement before the court he stated thus : " og QksVks fn[kkdj ge iwNrkN dj jgs FksA eksVj xSjkt pkSjkgs ds ikl dqN yksx cSBs gq, Fks] ogka pkj&ikap cSBs mUgksaus QksVks ns[kdj crk;k fd rhu O;fDr bl rjg ds cPps dks ftlds lkFk yky jax dh lkbZfdy Fkh] ftldks eqMsjh dh rjQ tkrs gq, ns[kuk crk;kA geus mudks ;g Hkh iwNk fd tks O;fDr cPps dks ys tk jgs Fks mudks vki tkurs gSa D;k\ rks mUgksaus crk;k fd ;g yksx etnwjh djus vkrs jgrs gSa] rks mUgksaus mu O;fDr dk uke o gqfy;k Hkh crk;kA mUgkssaus ,d jkek] ,d galjkt o ,d xksfoUn rhu uke crk;sA fQj ge mu O;fDr;ksa ds crk;s vuqlkj [kkuiqj jksM ij eqaMsjh lkbZM x;s ge tSls gh jkr dks iqfy;k ij ls fudy jgs Fks va/ksjk gks jgk Fkk] unh dh rjQ gekjh fuxkg iM+h] tgka >ksaiM+h esa cYo yx jgk FkkA rks ge yksxksa us lkspk fd ;gka iwNrss gSaA ge yksxksa ds ikl Vw Oghyj Fks] tks unh esa mrkjdj ogka rd igqapsA tSls gh ge yksx ikl igqaps rc gekjh xkM+h dh ykbZVsa ns[kdj] >kSaiMh ds vUnj tks yksx cSBs Fks] og Hkkxus yxsA ge yksx xkfM+;ka ogha iVddj Hkkxus yxsA rks rhu yksx rks ogka ls Hkkx x;s Fks] rhu dks geus ogka ls idM+kA geus cPps dks >kSaiM+h esa vpsr voLFkk esa lks;k gqvk ns[kkA geus mu yksxksa dk uke iwNkA mUgksaus vius uke jktw] jktsUnz vkSj enu uke crk;sA geus ml cPps dks laHkkykA og cPpk egkohj izlkn th dk gh yM+dk FkkA fQj geus bu idM+s gq, yksxksa dks gh iwNk tks yksx Hkkxs Fks og dkSu gSa bUgksasus buds galjkt] jkek] xksfoUn mu rhuksa ds uke crk;sA fQj geus eksckbZy ls Fkkus okyksa dks Qksu fd;k rc Fkkus ls 15&20 feuV esa xkM+h vk x;hA jkgqy vkSj mldh lkbZfdy Hkh ogha] fQj rhuksa O;fDr;ksa dks xkM+h esa cSBkdj Fkkus ys vk;s FksA ogka ij eqxsZ dk ekal] ,d Nqjk Hkh j[kk FkkA cPps ds flUnwj dk fryd Hkh yx jgk FkkA cPps ds flUnwj dk fryd Hkh yx jgk FkkA cPps ds dkys fu'kku ls yxk;s gq, FksA gesa ,slk yxk tSls cPpk ogka ujcfy ds fy;s yk;k x;k gksA ml le; ge djhc 12&15 yksx >ksaiM+h ij cPps dks <+aw<+us gq, igqaps FksA " This witness, specifically implicated the accused appellants Raju, Rajendra and Madan and further taken the names of other accused, who were identified by the accused appellants to be Hansraj, Rama and Govind. PW. 4 Shailendra Gupta, who is also neighbour of the complainant supported the prosecution case. He also along with other persons went in search of Rahul and found Rahul in Kali Sindh. In his statement before the court be stated thus : " ge yksxksa us muls jkgqy dk QksVks fn[kkdj iwNk rks mu yksxksa us crk;k Fkk fd geus ,d cPps dks rhu vkneh ds lkFk tkrs gq, ns[kk] cPps dks lkbZfdy ij vkxs fcBk j[kk FkkA muesa ls ,d us crk;k fd ge mudks tkurs gSa] ;gka vkrs jgrs gSa vkSj muds uke xksfoUn] jkek vkSj galjkt crk;sA ge yksx ?kcjk;s gq, FksA cPps dh ryk'k djuh Fkh] mUgksus crk;k Fkk fd [kkuiqj jksM+ dh rjQ tkrs gq, ns[kk gSA tc ge unh ij ls tk jgs Fks] rks yQV lkbZM esa Vkijh ij ,d cYo tyrs gq, ns[kkA tc ge ogka ns[kus ds fy;s o iwNus ds fy;s x;sA gekjh xkfM+;ksa dh ykbZV dks ns[kdj ogka Vkijh ij ikap&N% yksx cSBs Fks Hkkxus yxsA tc og Hkkxus yxs ge viuh eksVjlkbZfdy ogha NksM+dj muds ihNs HkkxsA rc muesa ls rhu yksx gekjh idM+ esa vk x;s ckdh rhu tus Hkkx x;s tks rhu tus idM+ esa vk;s muds uke iwNs rks ,d dk uke jktsUnz] ,d dk jktw vkSj ,d dk enu uke crk;sA ogka cPpk vpsr voLFkk esa FkkA ogka risyh esa ehV iM+k gqvk Fkk ,d Nqjk Hkh iM+k FkkA ogka ls FkksM+h nwj ij HkS:th dk pcwrjk FkkA cPps dks geus ns[kk Fkk] rks mlds flUnwj dk fryd yx jgk FkkA gks ldrk gS fd og cPps dks ekjuk pkgrs gksA geus rqjUr iqfyl dks lwpuk nh fQj nl&chl feuV essa gh iqfyl vk x;hA iqfyl us ogka dksbZ dkxt rS;kj fd;s tks /;ku ughaA iqfyl us ogka Vkijh ds ikl lkbZfdy cjken dh Fkh] QnZ cjkenxh izn'kZ ih- 4 ij , l ch ekSds ls vxjcRrh nk: dh cksry oxSjg cjken fd;s Fks] QnZ izn'kZ ih- 5 ij , ls ch] QnZ lqiqnZxh ckyd izn'kZ ih- 6 ij , ls ch esjs gLrk{kj gSaA " PW. 5 Banti, he was one of the person who accompanied persons went in search of Rahul Soni and found him in Kali Sindh River in unconscious condition. 5 Banti, he was one of the person who accompanied persons went in search of Rahul Soni and found him in Kali Sindh River in unconscious condition. He stated in his court statement as under: eksVj xSjkt pkSjgs ij pkj ikap vkneh cSBs Fks] tgka cPps dk QksVks mu yksxksa dks fn[kk;k rks mu yksxksa us crk;k fd rhu vkneh dks eqaMsj dh rjQ bl cPps dks ys tkrs ns[kk gS ftuds lkFk cPps dh lkbZfdy Hkh Fkh fQj ge yksx eqaMsjh iqfy;k ij x;s eqaMsjh iqfy;k ij igqaps rks geus ns[kk fd ogka cRrh ty jgh Fkh cRrh ds ikl tk dj ns[kk rks cPpk ogha Fkk] tgka HkS:th dk LFkku FkkA Vkijh esa cPpk feykA ftl oDr cPpk feyk mldks gks'k gokl ugha FkkA vpsr FkkA cPps ds vykok ogka rhu vkneh feys ftuds jktw] jktsUnz] enuyky Fks uksV&xokg us gkftj vnkyr eqyfteku esa ls ,d tus ds gkFk yxkkdj crk;k fd dqy rhu tuksa esa ls ,d ;g Fkk ftldk uke enuyky gS] xokg us eqyfte dks lgh igpkukA ckdh nks dks ugha igpku ldrkA PW. 6 Gajendra Kumar Jain, also supported the prosecution case, he was one of the person who accompanied persons went in search of Rahul Soni. He stated in his court statement as under: eksVj xSjkt pkj ikap vkneh cSBs gq, Fks gekjs vkxs tks xkM+h py jgh Fkh] mu yksxksa us eksVj xSjkt ij cSBs gq, yksxksa dks QksVks crk;kA rks eksVj xSjkt ij cSBs yksxksa us crk;k fd rhu vkneh Fks] cPps ds ikl yky jax dk v|k FkkA mldks e.Mkou dh rjQ ys tk jgs FksA fQj ge yksx Hkh ml rjQ <+a<+us ds fy;s fudysA ge unh dh rjQ iqy dh rjQ ls fudysA unh esa 'ke'kku dh rjQ FkksM+k vkxs ,d cYo tyk gqvk fn[kkA ge yksx ogka x;s] ogka ij HkS:th dk LFkku gSA cPpk gesa >ksaiM+h esa vpsr voLFkk esa feyA >ksaiM+h ds vUnj rhu vkneh FksA muds uke jktsUnz] jktw vkSj enu gSA muesa ls ,d dks rks eSa tkurk gwa ckdh dks ugha tkurkA uksV& xokg us gkftj vnkyr eqyfteku esa ls bZ'kkjk djds crk;k fd ;g enu gSA lgh igpkukA ogka cgqr lkjs yksx bdV~Bk gks x;s FksA budks idM+ fy;kA cPps dh iwtk j[kh Fkh] Vhdk fudky j[kk FkkA PW. 7 Ashok only stated that he has seen two persons carrying the missing boy and he has also stated that he has seen one person giving chocolate to him and another person carrying cycle and thereafter they taken away him in tractor trolley. PW. 8 Ashok Sen also supported the prosecution case, he was one of the person who accompanied persons went in search of Rahul Soni and found Rahul in unconscious condition in Kali Sindh River. He stated in his court statement as under: fQj geus jkgqy jkgqy vokt yxkbZA iqfyl dkaLVscy us Hkh voky yxkbZA gekjh eksVjlkbZfdy dk mtkyk Vkijh ij iM+k] jkr dks djhc Ms<+ nks ct jgs FksA ckyd dks fcBk j[kk FkkA mlds fryd yxk j[kk Fkk] ekyk igus gq, FkkA dPpk ehV] nk: dh cksry iM+h gqbZ FkhA vNk ogh ( NksVh lkbZfdy ) ikl gh iM+h FkhA ykbZV iM+us ls jktw vkSj enu peds] bUgksaus dgk fd rqEgkjk cPpk ;gka gS ;gka vk tkvks gekjs tkrs gh] cPpk jktw lksuh ds fpid x;kA cPps us dgk fd ;g yksx eq>s ekj jgs Fks] nks yksx mij cSBs gSa] cPps ds paefV;ksa ds fu'kku FksA iqfyl okys gekjs lkFk FksA eksckbZy ls ,l0ih0 lkgc dks voxr djk;kA PW. 9 Durgashanker supported the prosecution case and he stated that Site Map of cremation place was prepared by the police in his presence. PW. 10 Mahaveer Prasad, complainant who lodged the report Ex.P 9 immediately after missing of his son Rahul. He admitted his signature on Ex. P. 9 at place A to B. He also admitted his signature on Ex.P 10. After recovery of his son he also signed on Ex.P. 11. He also stated that he has put his signature on Ex.P 12. He also stated that he handed over the photo of his son which is Ex. P. 13. The map of place of incident is Ex. P. 7 which was prepared by the police in his presence and he put his signature E to F on it. He also admitted his signature on Site map Ex. P. 8 at place E to F. PW. 11 Dr. Ashok Sharma, stated about the medical examination done by him of Rahul on 25.3.2005 he found 5 injuries on the person of Rahul. He admitted his signature on Ex. R 14 which is injury report of Rahul at place A to B. PW. P. 8 at place E to F. PW. 11 Dr. Ashok Sharma, stated about the medical examination done by him of Rahul on 25.3.2005 he found 5 injuries on the person of Rahul. He admitted his signature on Ex. R 14 which is injury report of Rahul at place A to B. PW. 12 Jodhalal, Head Constable No. 62 posted at Kanwara Chowki Jhalrapatan stated that on March 24, 2005 Rahul was kidnapped. He was searched at Patan. From Patan they went Jhalawar Motor Garage. At Jhalawar Motor Garage they were told that one boy having red cycle with three persons were going towards Dhanwara Pond. They went to Dhanwara Pond thereafter went to Kalisindh River towards cremation place. At place near Kaharo Ki Tapari they found some light and one Platform of Kal Bheru. In the Tapari Rahul was sitting with three persons. On asking their names, they disclosed their names Rajendra, Madan and Raju. On further interrogation they stated that three persons left the boy. The persons who left the boy their names were Hansraj, Govind and Ramlal. The boy was having Sindoor on his forehead. Boy and three persons were taken to the police station. PW. 13 Vijay Rathore stated that when he was coming from Gomati Pond at 7 in the evening he seen one boy riding on red cycle with two persons. They were offering him some food. Thereafter he heard at 9.00 p.m. that Rahul has been kidnapped. PW. 14 Kailash was declared hostile. PW. 15 Jairaj Krishna, SI, started that on March 24, 2005 Mahaveer Soni came to Police Station and lodged the report about kidnapping of his son which is Ex. R 9. He put his signature on Ex. P 9 at place C to D. E to F is proceedings by police. PW. 16 Rajendra Kumar Sharma, Constable No. 374 and doing the works of photography in the police stated that on 28.3.2005 he has taken the snaps of accused persons. PW. 17 Narpat Singh, SHO stated that on March 24, 2005 Mahaveer Soni submitted a written report Ex. P. 1 over which he made endorsement C to D and put his signature A to B. On the basis of this report FIR Ex. R 10 was chalked out where he put his signature C to D. During search by the searching team Rahul Soni was recovered in Kalisindh River. P. 1 over which he made endorsement C to D and put his signature A to B. On the basis of this report FIR Ex. R 10 was chalked out where he put his signature C to D. During search by the searching team Rahul Soni was recovered in Kalisindh River. Immediately after receiving information he reached at the place of recovery and prepare recovery memo Ex.P. 12 of Rahul where he put his signature C to D. At place X Raju, accused put his thumb impression, at place Y Rajendra accused put his thumb impression and at place E to F Ashok Sen put his signature and at place G to H is signature of Madanlai and at place I to J, Shalendra Gupta put his signature. During investigation map of place of recovery was prepared which is Ex. P. 3 where he has put his signature E to F. Recovery memo of recovered cycle of Rahul was prepared which is Ex. R 4, wherein he put his signature A to B and at place X Rajendra, accused put his thumb impression and at place Y Raju, accused put his thumb impression and place G to H Madanlal put his signature. Recovered boy was handed over to Mahaveer Soni vide Ex. P. 6 wherein he has put his signature E to F and at place G to H Mahaveer Soni put his signature. Recovered boy was handed over to Mahaveer Soni vide Ex. P. 6 wherein he has put his signature E to F and at place G to H Mahaveer Soni put his signature. Medical examination of Rahul was done and injury report was received by them. Accused Rama @ Ramlal, Raju, Rajendra, Madan Lal, Hansraj and Govind were respectively arrested and arrest memos Ex.P 16, Ex. R 17, Ex. R 18, Ex. P. 19, Ex. R 20 and Ex. R 21, were prepared over which he has put his signature A to B and at place C to D accused put his signature and at place X accused put their thumb impressions. During investigation accused Rajendra gave information for recovery of sacrificed material vide Ex. P. 22 where at place A to B he put his signature and at place X accused put his thumb impression. Accused Madanlal also gave information for recovery of sacrificed material vide Ex. During investigation accused Rajendra gave information for recovery of sacrificed material vide Ex. P. 22 where at place A to B he put his signature and at place X accused put his thumb impression. Accused Madanlal also gave information for recovery of sacrificed material vide Ex. R 23 over which he put his signature and at place C to D accused put his signature. Accused Raju gave information for recovery of sacrificed material vide Ex. R 24 and he put his signature at place A to B and at place X thumb impression of accused was obtained. During investigation accused Govind gave information vide Ex. P. 25 where he put his signature A to B and at place X accused put his thumb impression. Govind accused gave recovery of Atlas cycle which was used by him for taking the boy to River Kali Sindh which is Ex. R 2 where E to F signature put by him and X place thumb impression by accused Govind. According to the information of accused Raju, Madan and Rajendra sacrificed material (Bans Ki Chhabri, one Nariyal, Agarbati packet, Itra Ki Sisi, one bottle wine, one knife) through recovery memo Ex. R 5, where he has put his signature E to F and at place X seal used, at Y place thumb impression of Raju, at place X thumb impression of Rajendra and at place G to H signature of Madanlai accused. Map of recovery place of Cycle Ex. R 7 was prepared wherein at place E to F he put his signature. Vide Ex. P. 8 recovery place of sacrificed material was prepared wherein he put his signature at place G to H and at place I to J place Shailendra Gupta put his signature and at place X accused Raju and at place Y accused Rajendra put their thumb impressions and at place K to L accused Madanlal put his signature. During investigation statements of witnesses were also recorded. Ex. R 26 is place where Rahul was taken to Kali Sindh River by accused Hansraj and Rama at Kalbhairav Temple which has identified by them. PW. 18 Madan Lal, Constable stated that when Rahul was missing his father Mahaveer Prasad presented himself before the Police Station and submitted written report which was entered in the Rojnamcha which is Ex. R 27 where A to B is his signature. Copy of Rojnamcha is Ex. PW. 18 Madan Lal, Constable stated that when Rahul was missing his father Mahaveer Prasad presented himself before the Police Station and submitted written report which was entered in the Rojnamcha which is Ex. R 27 where A to B is his signature. Copy of Rojnamcha is Ex. R 27 A. PW. 19 Ramesh Chand stated that he was posted at Jhalarapatan and accused Rama @ Ramlal, Raju, Rajendra Kumar, Madan Lal and Hansraj were arrested and on arrest memo Ex. P. 16 to Ex. R 20 he put his signatures at place E to F. On 27.3.2005 map of place of incident Ex. R 26 was prepared over which he put his signature C to D. PW. 20 Rahul gave the graphic picture in his statement how he was abducted by the accused persons and how he was recovered from their clutches. 6. In the statements under Section 313 Cr.RC. accused appellants stated that they are innocent. 7. Documents produced by the prosecution may also be looked into. Ex. P. 1 crime detail (site map of STC School) etc. Ex. R 2 seizure memo of cycle recovered from accused Govind on March 29, 2005 at 5.30 p.m. Ex.P. 3 Crime detail (site map where from Rahul was recovered). Ex. R 4 seizure memo of small cycle of Rahul recovered on 25.3.2005 at 2.30 a.m. Ex.P. 5 seizure memo of sacrificed material recovered from accused Raju, Madan and Rajendra from Madan's Hut in Kalisindh River on 25.3.2005 at 10.30 a.m. Ex, R 6 Supurdagi of Rahul to Mahaveer Prasad Soni on 25.3.2005 at 4.00 a.m. Ex. P. 7 Crime details (Cremation place and Kalisindh River Recovery place of small cycle). Ex. P. 8 Crime details (recovery place of sacrificed material). Ex. R 9 report lodged by Mahaveer on 24.3.2005 at 9.30 p.m. Ex.R 10 FIR lodged on 23.3.2005 at 11.15 p.m. Ex.P 11 Written Report lodged by Mahaveer Soni on 24.3.2005 at 11.15 p.m. Ex.R 12 recovery memo of boy Rahul recovered at Kalisindh River on 25.3.2005 at 2.00 a.m. From the possession of Raju, Madan and Rajendra accused. Ex.P. 13 photograph of Rahul. Ex. R 14 injury report of Rahul, Ex.R 15 statement of Kailash under Section 161 Cr.P.C. Ex.R 16 arrest memo of accused Rama @ Ramlal dated 27.3.2005 at 3.15 p.m. Ex. Ex.P. 13 photograph of Rahul. Ex. R 14 injury report of Rahul, Ex.R 15 statement of Kailash under Section 161 Cr.P.C. Ex.R 16 arrest memo of accused Rama @ Ramlal dated 27.3.2005 at 3.15 p.m. Ex. R 17 arrest memo of accused Raju dated 25.3.2005 at 5.50 a.m. Ex.R 18 arrest memo of accused Rajendra dated 25.3.2005 at 5.40 a.m. Ex. R 19 arrest memo of accused Madanlal dated 25.3.2005 at 5.45 a.m. Ex.R 20 Arrest memo of accused Hansraj dated 27.3.2005 at 3.15 p.m. Ex. P. 21 arrest memo of accused Govind dated 29.3.2005 at 3.20 p.m. Ex.R 22 Information given by accused Rajendra under Section 27 of the Evidence Act on 25.3.2005 at 7.50 a.m. Ex. R 23 Information given by accused Madanlal under Section 27 of the Evidence Act on 25.3.2005 at 7.40 a.m. Ex. P 24 Information given by accused Raju on 25.3.2005 at 7.30 a.m. Ex.R 25 information given by accused Govind on 29.3.2005 at 4.00 p.m. Ex. R 26 crime (place of incident). Ex.R 27 A copy of Rojnamcha dated 24.3.2005 at 9.30 p.m. 8. I have critically examined the judgment of the trial court. The prosecution has been able to prove the chain of circumstances in the case. The accused first taken Rahul from STC School and gave him chocolate and thereafter taken him on cycle to the place of incident. Rahul was recovered from the possession of the accused from the place of incident in presence of the witnesses PW. 3 Sunil Porwal, PW. 4 Shailendra Gupta, PW. 5 Bunti, PW. 6 Gajendra Kumar, PW. 7 Ashok, PW. 8 Ashok Sen and PW. 12 Jodhalal and all these witnesses in their statements identified the accused in court. PW. 20 Rahul also identified accused Raju, Madan, Govind and Ramlal. Rahul also stated that Raju accused slapped him. Accused Ramlal taken him on cycle. Accused Hansram put Sindoor Tilak on his forehead. PW. 17 Narpat Singh proved the recoveries made from the accused appellants of the sacrificed material. The recovery memos and recovered material to be used for sacrificing Rahul all have been proved from the statements of the prosecution witnesses.Before proceeding further it would be necessary to have a look at the provisions of sections 364 and 368 IPC, which read as under: "364. The recovery memos and recovered material to be used for sacrificing Rahul all have been proved from the statements of the prosecution witnesses.Before proceeding further it would be necessary to have a look at the provisions of sections 364 and 368 IPC, which read as under: "364. Kidnapping or abducting in order to murder.Whoever kidnaps or abducts any person in order that such person may be murdered or may be so disposed of as to be put in danger of being murdered, shall be punished with 1`[imprisonment for life] or rigorous imprisonment for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine. Illustrations (a) A kidnaps Z from 2\* [India], intending or knowing it to be likely that Z may be sacrificed to an idol. A has committed the offence defined in this section, (b) A forcibly carries or entices B away from his home in order that B may be murdered. A has committed the offence defined in this section. 368. Wrongfully concealing or keeping in confinement, kidnapped or abducted person.Whoever, knowing that any person has been kidnapped or has been abducted, wrongfully conceals or confines such person, shall be punished in the same manner as if he had kidnapped or abducted such person with the same intention or knowledge, or for the same purpose as that with or for which he conceals or detains such person in confinement." The accused appellants as per the evidence produced by the prosecution proved that Rahul was kidnapped by them in order that he be sacrificed before Kalbhairav Idol and before they may do so, people went in search of Rahul searched him in a Tapari in Kalisindh River near Platform of Kalbhairav in an unconscious condition having sindoor Tilak on his forehead. Thus the guilt against accused appellants for the offence under Sections 364/368 stands proved from the evidence of prosecution witnesses and the material of sacrificing recovered from the accused appellants. The trial court on the basis of the evidence of the prosecution witnesses and the recovery of sacrificed material from the accused appellants as per their information under Section 27 of the Evidence Act from the place of incident, found charge of offence under sections 364/368 IPC proved against accused appellants beyond reasonable doubt. I am in agreement with the findings recorded by the trial court for the offence under Sections 364/368 IPC. I am in agreement with the findings recorded by the trial court for the offence under Sections 364/368 IPC. The trial court rightly convicted the accused appellants for offence under Sections 364/368 IPC to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 10 years and fine of Rs. 5,000 each and in default of payment of fine to further suffer 3 months Rl.Since the accused appellants have been convicted for the main offence under Sections 364/368 IPC, and for the charge under Section 365 IPC, the trial court acquitted the accused appellants. I am also of the view since the accused appellants have been convicted for the main charge of offence under Sections 364/368 IPC, there is no need to further convict the accused appellants for the charge under Section 365 IPC. The findings of the trial court thus not called for any interference for offence under Section 365 IPC.For section 323 IPC, the trial court convicted the accused appellants on the basis of the injury report of Rahul proved by PW. 11 Dr. Ashok Sharma in his statement. I have looked into the injury report and the statement of PW-11 Dr. Ashok Sharma. The findings arrived at by the triai court for section- 323 IPC are not perverse. The trial court rightly convicted the accused appellants for this section. The sentence awarded for this offence is also not excessive.For Section 4/25 Arms Act, the trial court convicted the accused appellants as knife was recovered which was one of the material for sacrificing child Rahul. I have gone through the statements of the prosecution witnesses and the memo of recoveries proving the weapon recovered from the accused appellants and other connecting material of sacrificing to be used by the accused appellants in sacrificing Rahul and the circumstances surrounding the place of incident, the findings recorded by the trial court for this offence cannot be said to be perverse. The trial court rightly convicted the accused appellants for charge of the offence under Section 4/25 Arms Act and rightly sentenced the accused appellants. The prosecution has been able to prove case beyond reasonable doubt against the accused appellants for this charge also.The trial court rightly convicted and sentenced the accused appellants. The judgment of conviction and sentence of the trial court is confirmed. 9. For the foregoing reasons the appeal being devoid of merit stands rejected. The prosecution has been able to prove case beyond reasonable doubt against the accused appellants for this charge also.The trial court rightly convicted and sentenced the accused appellants. The judgment of conviction and sentence of the trial court is confirmed. 9. For the foregoing reasons the appeal being devoid of merit stands rejected. The appellants who are in jail shall serve out the remaining sentence as ordered by the trial court.Appeal dismissed - Conviction being under sections 364, 368 for Main Offence, not necessary to record conviction under Section 365. *******