Judgment D.N. Patel, J.—Criminal Appeal Nos. 99, 227, 244, 313, 610 and 762 of the year 2000 arise out of judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 11.01.2000 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Bharuch in Sessions Case No. 99 of 1998 and Criminal Appeal No. 1326 of 2006 arises out of judgment and order of acquittal and sentence dated 31.01.2006 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No. 5, Bharuch in Sessions Case No. 99 of 2002. Criminal Appeal No. 99 of 2000 is preferred by the original accused No. 5; Criminal Appeal No. 244 of 2000 is preferred by original accused No. 2; Criminal Appeal No. 313 of 2000 is preferred by original accused No. 3; Criminal Appeal No. 610 of 2000 is preferred by original accused No. 11 and Criminal Appeal No. 762 of 2000 is preferred by original accused No. 4, who have been convicted for the offence punishable under Section 364-A read with Section 120-B of the Indian Penal Code and are ordered to undergo life imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/-, in default, simple imprisonment of two months has been awarded. They are also convicted for the offence punishable under Section 364 read with 120-B of the Indian Penal Code. No separate sentence has been awarded for this offence. They are also convicted for the offence punishable under Section 346 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code read with Section 364-A and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code and are ordered to undergo for two years’ rigorous imprisonment. They are also convicted for the offence punishable under Section 341 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and are ordered to undergo simple imprisonment of one month and to pay a fine of Rs. 100/-, in default, simple imprisonment of 7 days has been awarded. They are also convicted for an offence punishable under Section 342 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and ordered to undergo rigorous imprisonment of one year. They are also convicted for an offence punishable under Section 343 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and ordered to undergo rigorous imprisonment of one year. These sentences are ordered to run concurrently. They are also convicted for an offence punishable under Section 343 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and ordered to undergo rigorous imprisonment of one year. These sentences are ordered to run concurrently. Accused No. 4, who has committed an offence while he was absconding in another offence, for him, sentence could not run concurrently with his earlier conviction. As accused No. 6 is absconding, an order was passed that his case shall be tried as and when charge-sheet is filed. Against this judgment and order of conviction and sentence, original accused Nos. 2, 3, 4, 5 and 11 have preferred aforesaid Criminal Appeals. Criminal Appeal No. 227 of 2000 has been preferred by the State against the order of acquittal passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Bharuch for original accused Nos. 7 to 10. Criminal Appeal No. 1326 of 2006 has been preferred by the State against an order of acquittal for original accused No. 6, passed by the Trial Court. 2. 2. If the case of the prosecution is unfolded, the brief facts of the case, are as under: 2.1. It is the case of the prosecution that an offence of abduction with a view to get ransom has taken place on 15.07.1997 at about 7:30 p.m. Abduction of Manish Bhupendrabhai Shah had taken place from Ankleshwar, near railway overbridge, Nr. ONGC, when he was returning from his office situated at GIDC, Ankleshwar to his residence at Ankleshwar. While he was travelling in maruti car, one cielo car has over take his vehicle and accused came out of cielo car and abducted Manish with the help of fire arm. Thereafter, he was taken at difference places. Initially, telephone call was received at the house of Bhupendrabhai Shah to the effect that Manish will not come for dinner, but, father was not available on phone and thereafter again, telephone call was received after 1 ½ hours. Thereafter, accused compelled Manish to talk to his father and he was asked that he was kidnapped. Ransom was demanded, otherwise Manish was threatened to cause death. It is case of the prosecution that upon receiving this message from accused, Bhupendrabhai immediately called his brothers namely Mahendrabhai Prabhulal Shah (P.W. No. 11) and Pravinchandra Prabhulal Shah (P.W. No. 12). Thereafter, they informed District Superintendent of Police. Ransom was demanded, otherwise Manish was threatened to cause death. It is case of the prosecution that upon receiving this message from accused, Bhupendrabhai immediately called his brothers namely Mahendrabhai Prabhulal Shah (P.W. No. 11) and Pravinchandra Prabhulal Shah (P.W. No. 12). Thereafter, they informed District Superintendent of Police. Necessary messages were sent to various police officers, who have been examined as witnesses and D.S.P. has also arranged for installation of tap recording machine at the house of victim Manish and he also informed concerned Police Inspector to keep under surveillance telephones of residence of victim Manish. Immediately, Bharatsingh Kanchanlal Shah (P.W. No. 35), P.S.I. wireless, Bharuch was informed at 1:15 p.m. on 16.07.1997 for installation of tap recording machine. 2.2. It is also case of the prosecution that thereafter several times, father of the victim has received telephone calls and an amount of Rs. 1 crore was demanded and he was called at Koba circle, Ahmedabad. Tap recorded evidence reveals that he was unable to make arrangement of such a huge amount and ultimately amount was fixed at Rs. 50 Lacs. As police was already informed at late night hours on 15.07.1997, police officers as well as father of the victim came at Koba Circle, Ahmedabad with money. A watch was also kept by police officer at Koba circle, but, for any reason whatsoever accused did not come at Koba circle, Ahmedabad and they informed victim Manish that his father has informed police. Accused persons again called father of the victim with money at village: Kadodara, District: Surat. 2.3. It is the case of the prosecution that it was not possible for the father of the victim to rush from Ahmedabad to Surat within couple of hours, which is at a distance of approximately 350 kms. and, therefore, accused threatened father of the victim on telephone. Tap recording was going on in cassettes, which are presented in the Court as evidence. On 18.07.1997 at the residence of the victim, received phone from accused No. 5 from phone No. 43533 of Bharuch. As telephone of the residence of the victim was under surveillance, immediately police rushed to the place where phone No. 43533 was installed. It was an STD PCO of accused No. 5. At that place, employee of accused No. 5 was available and he informed that this phone call was made by accused No. 5. As telephone of the residence of the victim was under surveillance, immediately police rushed to the place where phone No. 43533 was installed. It was an STD PCO of accused No. 5. At that place, employee of accused No. 5 was available and he informed that this phone call was made by accused No. 5. Immediately accused No. 5 was arrested. This is how detection of offender has been started in this case. 4. Upon interrogation of accused No. 5, he informed that convict Manish has been kept at Divya Flats in the city of Ahmedabad and, therefore, they started travelling from Bharuch, to city of Ahmedabad. Divya Flats were shown by accused No. 5 and the premises was raided from where accused Nos. 1, 2, 3, 8 and 9 were found out. From the said flat, two revolvers were recovered along with cartridges. Still there are other accused. Accused No. 1 informed Investigating Officer that victim was taken by accused Nos. 3 and 4 to village: Dediasan and, therefore, whole team of Investigating Officer along with Deputy Superintendent of Police, Mr. Abhaysinh Chudasama (P.W. No. 27) went to village: Dediasan, wherefrom accused No. 7 was arrested. Accused No. 7 was brought at Divya Flats. At that time, telephone call came at Divya Flats on cellular phone of accused. Police interrogated about the person, who is calling to accused No. 2 and it was informed by accused No. 2 that accused No. 4 was talking to him and, therefore, police compelled accused No. 2 to call accused No. 4. Accused No. 2 called accused No. 4 in the area nearby Judges Bungalow, Vastrapur, Ahmedabad. Police again, had gone to this place and arrested accused No. 4 along with tamancha (country made pistol). After arrest of accused No. 4, upon interrogation, it was informed by accused No. 4 that victim Manish was taken to Village: Naranpura falia, Taluka: Patdi and this place was raided by police, from where, accused No. 11 was found out and was arrested and victim Manish was also found out and by necessary panchnama, custody of Manish was taken and handed over to his father. 5. Meanwhile, it was also informed to the police officer that accused No. 2 is also having carbine machine gun. Upon interrogation, accused No. 2 called accused No. 6 along with cielo car, which was used for abduction of Manish. 5. Meanwhile, it was also informed to the police officer that accused No. 2 is also having carbine machine gun. Upon interrogation, accused No. 2 called accused No. 6 along with cielo car, which was used for abduction of Manish. Accused No. 6 come at Divya Flats situated in the city of Ahmedabad in the same blue/ black colour cielo car. This is how accused No. 6 was arrested with carbine gun, three magazines containing 58 cartridges. According to prosecution, accused No. 6 is the owner of cielo car, which was used from the beginning for abduction of Manish. It is the same cielo car, which was moved from place to place for telephone call from different STD PCO, as per prosecution witnesses. 6. According to prosecution, pager No. 475625 was issued in the name of brother of accused No. 6, which was utilized by accused No. 6 and on this page on 18.07.1997, message was sent “Please contact within 5 minutes on 43533 at Bharuch”. Phone No. 43533 belongs to Accused No. 5. Thus, immediately after telephone call received at the telephone of residence of victim on 18.07.1997 at 8:30 p.m., this message was left for accused No. 6. Thus, as per prosecution, by drawing separate panchnama, carbine gun, 58 cartridges and 1 revolver were also recovered at the beheast of this accused. He was absconding when trial was conducted and, therefore, initially, when charge-sheet was filed against other accused, he was shown as absconding and, thereafter, separate charge-sheet was filed and Sessions Case No. 99 of 2002 was instituted against him and he has been acquitted. Against this order of acquittal, Criminal Appeal No. 1326 of 2006 has been preferred by the State. 7. Accused No. 1 has expired during the trail and accused No. 7 was expired during the pendency of Criminal Appeal. trial Court has convicted accused Nos. 2, 3, 4, 5 and 11 and, therefore, they have preferred conviction appeal, whereas, trial Court has acquitted accused Nos. 7 to 10 and, therefore, acquittal appeal bearing Criminal Appeal No. 227 of 2000 has been preferred by the State. Likewise, acquittal appeal bearing Criminal Appeal No. 1326 of 2006 has been preferred by the State against acquittal of accused No. 6. We have heard learned Counsels appearing for the accused persons. They have submitted that prosecution has not proved the offence of abduction beyond reasonable doubt. Likewise, acquittal appeal bearing Criminal Appeal No. 1326 of 2006 has been preferred by the State against acquittal of accused No. 6. We have heard learned Counsels appearing for the accused persons. They have submitted that prosecution has not proved the offence of abduction beyond reasonable doubt. There are number of omissions, contradictions and improvements in the deposition of the prosecution witnesses. This aspect of the matter has not been appreciated by the Trial Court, while convicting the accused and, therefore, order of conviction and sentence passed by the trial Court deserves to be quashed and set aside. 3. Learned Counsels for the convicted accused submitted that offence has taken place on 15.07.1997, whereas FIR was filed at belated stage i.e. on 18.07.1997 at about 22-30 hours. It is also submitted that in a tap recording of conversation, it is not clear before the trial Court as to who brought the cassettes? Whether cassettes were prerecorded or not? There is no convincing evidence before the trial Court that the tap recorded cassettes was not tampered with. 4. Learned Counsel for the convicted accused submitted that victim Manish had no opportunity to identify the voices of all the accused and, therefore, his evidence ought not to have been considered, so far as identification of voices are concerned. It is submitted that there are lot of lapses in test identification parade. Panchas are selected panchas. Certain witnesses like Masumali, Mobin Aiyub and Shabbir Altaf could not identify any accused. It is also submitted by learned Counsels for the convicted accused that so far as evidence given by persons, who are in-charge of STD-PCO, they could not remember any person, as several persons are visiting their STD PCO and, therefore, identification by P.W. Nos. 5, 8, 9 and 10 ought not to have been accepted by the Trial Court. In fact, P.W. Nos. 8 and 10 have turned hostile. Likewise, P.W. No. 36, who is owner of STD PCO at Prantij, has not supported the case of the prosecution. It is also vehemently submitted that the whole case has been got up against accused. In fact, there was enough publicity in the newspaper. Several times photos of accused were published in the newspaper and, therefore, identification parade has got no evidenciary value. It is also vehemently submitted that the whole case has been got up against accused. In fact, there was enough publicity in the newspaper. Several times photos of accused were published in the newspaper and, therefore, identification parade has got no evidenciary value. Manish has opportunity to see accused at Divya Flats in the city of Ahmedabad and his identification of the accused is also devoid of any merits and ought not to be given any evidenciary value by the Trial Court. This aspect of the matter has not been appreciated by the trial Court and, hence, the order of conviction and sentence passed by the trial Court against accused Nos. 2, 3, 4, 5 and 11 deserves to be quashed and set aside. 5. It is submitted by learned Counsels for the convicted accused that never any weapons have been used in commissioning of the offence. Even if the case of the prosecution is taken at its highest pitch, no threat was administered by the accused to cause death of the victim and, therefore, alleged offence is not falling under Section 364-A of the Indian Penal Code and it was also submitted that there was enough opportunity with Manish to run away or to shout, but neither he has shouted or has run away and lastly when accused No. 11 was arrested from Naranpura falia, Patdi. Manish was found sitting on a cot. Thus, he had all opportunity to run away. This aspect of the matter has not been appreciated by the Trial Court. Likewise, it is also argued by learned Counsels for the convicted accused that accused No. 5 had never come with police from Bharuch to Ahmedabad. There is nothing on record, which proves that accused No. 5 come with police from Bharuch to Ahmedabad. No logbook is maintained by the police and the same is presented before the trial Court as evidence. Likewise, statement of D.S.P. Mr. Ashish Bhatia and other police officers were never recorded and they have given evidence before the trial Court and, therefore, this evidence ought not to have been considered by the Trial Court, while convicting the appellant-accused and therefore also, the order of conviction and sentence passed by the trial Court deserves to be quashed and set aside. 6. Ashish Bhatia and other police officers were never recorded and they have given evidence before the trial Court and, therefore, this evidence ought not to have been considered by the Trial Court, while convicting the appellant-accused and therefore also, the order of conviction and sentence passed by the trial Court deserves to be quashed and set aside. 6. It is also contended by the learned Counsels for the acquitted accused that appeal has been preferred by the State bearing Criminal Appeal No. 227 of 2000 against acquittal of accused Nos. 7 to 10 and Criminal Appeal No. 1326 of 2006 against acquittal of accused No. 6. The trial Court has correctly acquitted these accused from the charges levelled against them. There is no evidence against these accused, much less prosecution has not proved the offence beyond reasonable doubt against these accused. In fact, accused No. 7 during the pendency of the Criminal Appeal has expired. Accused Nos. 8 and 9 are lady accused, who have nothing to do with the kidnapping of victim Manish. No role have been played by these lady accused, even as per deposition of victim Manish (P.W. No. 13). Likewise against accused No. 10, there are allegation by the prosecution that he has supplied fire arms to the other accused, but, there is no evidence before the Trial Court. In fact, accused No. 10 is ordinarily a resident of city of Nagpur and there is no connection of accused No. 10 with rest of the accused. This aspect of the matter has been correctly appreciated by the Trial Court. Likewise, trial Court has rightly acquitted accused No. 6 as there is no evidence against accused No. 6. As per deposition of victim Manish (P.W. No. 13), no role is played by accused No. 6. This accused has not been identified by victim Manish. This aspect of the matter has been correctly appreciated by the trial Court and, therefore, order of acquittal passed by the trial Court in Sessions Case No. 99 of 1998 and in Sessions Case No. 99 of 2002, so far as accused Nos. 7 to 10 and so far as accused No. 6 respectively is concerned, may not be altered by this Court. 7. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor Mr. H.L. Jani for the State vehemently submitted that prosecution has proved the offence, against accused Nos. 7 to 10 and so far as accused No. 6 respectively is concerned, may not be altered by this Court. 7. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor Mr. H.L. Jani for the State vehemently submitted that prosecution has proved the offence, against accused Nos. 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 and 11, beyond reasonable doubt. Looking to the deposition of victim Manish along with deposition of other prosecution witnesses, offence of abduction has been proved. Father of victim informed on 15.07.1997 to the District Superintendent of Police Mr. Ashish Bhatia (P.W. No. 34) about the offence as father of victim received telephone call from accused as well as from Manish. Immediately necessary instructions were passed by D.S.P. Tap recording machine was installed at the house of the victim so that telephone calls can be recorded and accused can be traced out. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State submitted that accused had demanded Rs. 1 crore as ransom from the father of the victim. Inability was shown by father of the victim and, ultimately amount was reduced at Rs. 50 Lacs. As per evidence of father of the victim (P.W. No. 3), he was called at Koba circle, city of Ahmedabad. They had gone with money with police officer, but, accused had not come with Manish to receive the money. They again called father of the victim at village Kadodara at Surat. Inability was shown by father of the victim that it was not possible to reach Ahmedabad to Surat within couple of hours, which is situated at the distance of 350 kms. One by one, days had passed and as per P.W. No. 26 - Exhibit 177, Kiritsingh Zala’s evidence, on 18.07.1997 telephone call was received at the residence of victim Manish. It was telephone call from Bharuch. Immediately police raided the premises and accused No. 5 was arrested. Upon his interrogation, Divya Flats at city of Ahmedabad was raided, from where, accused Nos. 1, 2, 3, 8 and 9 were arrested along with two revolvers and cartridges. Upon interrogation, it was stated that victim was taken at village: Dediasan. Again police raided this premises, wherefrom accused No. 7 was arrested. He was brought to Divya Flats. At that time, one telephone call received on cellular phone of accused No. 2. Accused No. 4 was talking with accused No. 2 and accused No. 2 was compelled to call accused No. 4. Again police raided this premises, wherefrom accused No. 7 was arrested. He was brought to Divya Flats. At that time, one telephone call received on cellular phone of accused No. 2. Accused No. 4 was talking with accused No. 2 and accused No. 2 was compelled to call accused No. 4. This is how accused No. 4 was arrested from the area nearby Judges Bungalow, Vastrapur, Ahmedabad. Upon interrogation, Accused No. 4 has informed that victim Manish was kept at village Naranpura falia, Patdi. Again this premises was raided and victim Manish was found out and was handed over to his father. Necessary panchnama were drawn. Accused moved from place to place from 15th to 18.07.1997. Owners/ persons in-charge of various STD PCO i.e. P.W. Nos. 5, 8, 9 and P.W. No. 10 have been examined as prosecution witnesses. They have also identified accused Nos. 1, 2 and 3 in test identification parade. Likewise Manish identified accused Nos. 1 to 5 and accused Nos. 7 to 9 and has also identified voices of accused. Thus, there is enough direct allegation as well as circumstantial evidence against the accused, which supports the case of the prosecution. Several fire arms have been recovered along with cartridges. This aspect of the matter has been correctly appreciated by the trial Court and no error has been committed by the trial Court in convicting the accused and, therefore, order of conviction may not be altered by this Court. 8. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor further submitted that there is no irregularity in the investigation. Highest head of police of the District was informed within couple of hours from abduction by the father of the victim on the same day i.e. on 15.07.1997. As there was danger to the life of the victim, the same is reduced in writing later on. Even otherwise also, a ‘janva jog entry’ was already recorded at Exhibit 174 on 16.07.1997 at 13-20 hours by P.S.I., GIDC, Ankleshwar. It is submitted by learned Additional Public Prosecutor that number of registers and telephone bills have been presented as evidence from different STD PCO situated in the different Districts, from where, accused had telephoned at the residence of victim Manish, whereby ransom money was demanded. Even in holding test identification parade, no irregularity has been committed by the prosecution. Executive Magistrate has given clear deposition before the Trial Court. Even in holding test identification parade, no irregularity has been committed by the prosecution. Executive Magistrate has given clear deposition before the Trial Court. So far as victim Manish is concerned, he has identified accused Nos. 1 to 5, 7 to 9 and 11. Likewise, several other witnesses have identified accused Nos. 1, 2 and 3. P.W. Nos. 14 & 15 - Executive Magistrates have given clear deposition at Exhibit 143 and 146 for different test identification parades. Merely because some of the witnesses have turned hostile, their evidence cannot be brushed aside in totality. Their evidence gets corroborated by other oral, documentary and direct evidence. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor also relied upon the decisions rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court and pointed out that there is no illegality in holding Test Identification Parade. Much has been mentioned about case diary. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that there is no illegality in maintaining case diary. Even otherwise also, looking to the case diary, nothing is coming out in favour of the accused. So far as accused No. 6 is concerned, it is submitted that there is cogent and convincing evidence against him. Initially accused No. 6 was absconding and, therefore, a separate charge-sheet was filed and separate Sessions Case No. 99 of 2002 was registered against him. Accused No. 6 is a person, who is owner of cielo car, which was used for kidnapping. It is clear that this blue/black colour cielo car, in which accused came, they overtook Maruti car of victim and compelled the victim to stop the maruti car. Accused came out of cielo car and this is the same cielo car, which carried accused and victim Manish from one place to another place, for phone call at the residence of the victim Manish demanding ransom. Prosecution witnesses of different STD PCO owners have stated before the trial Court i.e. P.W. Nos. 5, 8, 9, 10, 16, 17 and 36 have stated before the trial Court that from cielo car accused came and they telephoned at the residence of victim Manish. Some of the witnesses have turned hostile but they have identified some of the accused in test identification parade. Accused Nos. 1, 2 and 3 were identified in test identification parade by P.W. Nos. 5, 9 and 10. Telephone bills / Registers have also been presented before the trial Court at Exhibit Nos. Some of the witnesses have turned hostile but they have identified some of the accused in test identification parade. Accused Nos. 1, 2 and 3 were identified in test identification parade by P.W. Nos. 5, 9 and 10. Telephone bills / Registers have also been presented before the trial Court at Exhibit Nos. 116, 123, 152 and 155. It is also submitted by Learned Additional Public Prosecutor that this accused No. 6 was arrested with carbine gun, three magazines and several cartridges were found out. It is this accused No. 6 from whom one more revolver and three cartridges were recovered and it is submitted that pager No. 475625 was issued in the name of brother of accused No. 6, but, pager was used by accused No. 6 himself. On 18.07.1997 accused No. 5 telephoned at the residence of victim Manish and immediately accused No. 5 was arrested on the very same day. This accused No. 6 has also received telephone message at about 9:00 a.m. on 18.07.1997 “Please contact within 5 minute on 43533 at Bharuch”. Phone No. 43533 belongs to accused No. 5. This circumstance proves beyond reasonable doubt about live contract between accused No. 5 and accused No. 6. Not only this but victim Manish has given clear deposition before the trial Court in Sessions Case No. 99 of 2002 that there were two persons of same name Gautam. Name of accused No. 6 is Gautam. Accused No. 6 was identified by victim Manish in the Court. There is also charge of conspiracy by this accused. In this set of circumstances, accused No. 6 is directly involved in abduction of Manish and this aspect of the matter has not been appreciated by the trial Court and, therefore, order of acquittal passed by the trial Court for accused No. 6 in Sessions Case No. 99 of 2002 deserves to be quashed and set aside and accused No. 6 may be held guilty mainly for the offence punishable under Section 364-A read with Section 120-B of the Indian Penal Code. 9. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that there was use of fire arm while abduction of victim Manish. Manish has given clear deposition before the trial Court that on point of gun/pistol, he was abducted and threat was given by the accused at different places and there was free fight also at Naranpura falia with accused No. 11. 9. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that there was use of fire arm while abduction of victim Manish. Manish has given clear deposition before the trial Court that on point of gun/pistol, he was abducted and threat was given by the accused at different places and there was free fight also at Naranpura falia with accused No. 11. At that time also, revolver was aimed at him. Firearm which was recovered was also used and constant threat was given to the victim to cause death in order to get ransom and, therefore, accused has committed an offence punishable under Section 364-A of the Indian Penal Code. It is submitted by learned Additional Public Prosecutor that some of accused i.e. accused No. 4 and accused No. 6 were convicted for the offence of murder. Several anticidents previous behaviour of accused involved in this offence has been pointed out by learned Additional Public Prosecutor. 10. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that accused Nos. 8 and 9 are lady accused and they were present at Divya Flats in the city of Ahmedabad. There were no convincing reasons for them to stay at Divya Flats with several accused. Accused No. 10 had supplied fire arms and, therefore, acquittal order passed by the trial Court against accused Nos. 8, 9 and 10 deserves to be quashed and set aside. Evidence as to abduction, information to police investigation and F.I.R. :— 11. Having heard the learned Counsel for both the sides and looking to the evidence which has been read and re-read by learned Counsel for both the sides, it appears that an offence has taken place on 15.07.1997 at about 7:30 pm. Manish was abducted when he was returning from his office situated at GIDC, Ankleshwar to his residence at Ankleshwar. Manish is basically a Master degree holder in computer and he is running his own business as private limited company. His father is a shroff - financer, residing in Ankleshwar. Upon his abduction, he was compelled to make telephone call that he was kidnapped and thereafter, accused had demanded ransom of Rs. 1 crore. Father of the victim called his brothers, who are residing in Bharuch and they informed DSP, Bharuch on the same day. Tap recording machine was installed. Telephone of residence of the victim was kept in surveillance. Several times call have been received and voices has been recorded. 1 crore. Father of the victim called his brothers, who are residing in Bharuch and they informed DSP, Bharuch on the same day. Tap recording machine was installed. Telephone of residence of the victim was kept in surveillance. Several times call have been received and voices has been recorded. Prosecution has examined several witnesses including STD PCO owners/managers. Several premises have been raided. Firstly accused No. 5 was arrested as he telephoned on 18.07.1997 from telephone Nos. 43533 situated at Bharuch. Then, informed that victim was shifted at Divya Flats in the city of Ahmedabad. This premises was raided and accused Nos. 1, 2, 3, 8 and 9 were arrested from Divya Flats, two revolvers were recovered along with several cartridges. Again upon interrogation, it was stated that victim was kept at village Dediasan. This premises was raided and accused No. 7 was arrested. Accused No. 4, telephoned to accused No. 2 and accused No. 2 was compelled to call accused No. 4 and this is how accused No. 4 was arrested nearby Judges Bungalows, Vastrapur, Ahmedabad. Weapon was recovered from Accused No. 4 and necessary panchnama was drawn at Exhibit 228 and upon his interrogation, it is stated that victim was taken to village: Naranpura Falia, Taluka: Patdi. This place was also raided and victim was found out from his place along with accused No. 11. 12. Looking to the evidence given by P.W. No. 1, Umeshbhai Fakirdas at Exhibit 93, which is a serviceman at Medical store. Looking to his deposition, he has stated that accused had come to purchase adhesive tap, which was used while abduction of Manish. 13. Likewise as per deposition of P.W. No. 2 - Mr. Dixitbhai Patel, who is examined at Exhibit 94, who is serving in Viral Opticals, has also identified accused No. 4 in the Court, who had come to purchase black gogals. This gogals was constantly utilised in abduction of Manish. Looking to the deposition of P.W. No. 3, who is complainant and father of victim, it appears that he is financer. He is doing business of landing money (shroff). His son Manish has obtained computer degree of MCA. He is doing business in GIDC, Ankleshwar, he was using his own Maruti car and while returning from his office on 15.07.1997, he was abducted by accused. He is doing business of landing money (shroff). His son Manish has obtained computer degree of MCA. He is doing business in GIDC, Ankleshwar, he was using his own Maruti car and while returning from his office on 15.07.1997, he was abducted by accused. Initially phone was received by Manish that dinner for which they had to go, was cancelled. This talks has taken place between Manish and mother of the Manish. Father of Manish came thereafter and again, he has received telephone call from Manish and looking to deposition of P.W. No. 3, he has called his two brothers namely Mahendrabhai Prabhulal Shah (P.W. No. 11) and Pravinchandra Prabhulal Shah (P.W. No. 12) and they informed Mr. Ashish Bhatia, D.S.P. (P.W. No. 34) immediately. 14. Learned Counsel for the convicted accused submitted that there is late recording of FIR on 18.07.1997 whereas offence has taken place on 15.07.1997. This contention is not accepted by this Court for the reason that it is not fatal to the prosecution. Whenever there is danger to the life of abducted person, especially when offence is committed under Section 364-A of the Indian Penal Code and when police is informed first and immediately there will be instruction to sub-ordinate police officer for finding out accused and victim and the complaint will be reduced in writing later on. In this case also, Mr. Ashish Bhatia D.S.P. was informed immediately within couple of hours from abduction of Manish. Bharatsingh Kanchanlal Shah, wireless P.S.I., Bharuch - P.W. No. 35 examined at Exhibit 209 was called upon by D.S.P. and there was instruction for installation of tap recording machine at the house of the victim. Cassettes were also provided by the police. Accused No. 5 was arrested on 18.07.1997. Looking to the deposition of this witness including cross-examination of this witness, it appears that this witness is trustworthy and reliable witness. He is father of the victim and there is no reason for this witness to give false statement. There is no enimocity between this witness and the accused. Looking to his deposition, it has been proved by the prosecution that abduction of Manish has taken place at 7:30 pm and his son was abducted. So far as depositions of P.W. Nos. 11 & 12 are concerned, they are brothers of original complainant. There is no enimocity between this witness and the accused. Looking to his deposition, it has been proved by the prosecution that abduction of Manish has taken place at 7:30 pm and his son was abducted. So far as depositions of P.W. Nos. 11 & 12 are concerned, they are brothers of original complainant. Looking to their depositions also, it appears that they were called immediately upon receiving phone from accused as well as victim Manish. All these three witnesses have contacted D.S.P. on the very same day. On cross-examination also, nothing is coming out in favour of the accused. They have stated before the Court that they received telephone from Manish that he has been abducted and they have also identified voices in the tap recorded evidence. There is no reason for these witnesses to falsely implicate these accused. They immediately contacted police and looking to their depositions also, they are trustworthy and reliable witnesses. 15. Prosecution has also examined P.W. No. 13 at Exhibit 136, who has clearly stated before the trial Court that while returning from his office at 7:30 p.m., he was overtaken by blue/black cielo car and pushed him back side and a gun was pointed out at him. He has been abducted. He was compelled to call his father at his residence. Father of Manish was not in the house. Again Manish was compelled to telephone after couple of hours from abduction. Thus, abduction and its purpose is proved by these P.W. No. 3, 11, 12 and 13. Threat to cause death of Manish was given by the accused, in order to get ransom of Rs. 1 Crore. FIR was registered at Exhibit 11 on 18.07.1997, but, as stated by this prosecution witness that immediately on the very same day, District Superintendent of Police, Mr. Ashish Bhatia was informed about offence. As there was danger to the life of victim, D.S.P. informed sub-ordinate police officers and instructions were given for recording of telephone phone calls of the house of the victim and police officer were assigned with their duty to keep watch upon phone-calls from accused and to remain in touch with telephone exchange at Bharuch. Delayed F.I.R. is not fatal to the prosecution. Promptness in such type of cases in recording FIR leads to danger of the life of victim. Delayed F.I.R. is not fatal to the prosecution. Promptness in such type of cases in recording FIR leads to danger of the life of victim. Looking to the case of the prosecution, father had taken all necessary steps to find out Manish. It ought to be kept in mind that jurisprudence about the early recording of the information about commissioning of an offence is only with a view to avoid false implication of accused. If there is no chance of false implication of accused, if there is no possibility of false accusation, if there is no probability of false narration of facts about offence, late FIR is not fatal to the prosecution. 16. Looking to the deposition of P.W. No. 3 Bhupendrabhai Prabhulal Shah and P.W. Nos. 11, 12 and other police witnesses, it appears that father of the victim immediately informed the highest head of the District i.e. D.S.P. Now, it is left at the wisdom of the Investigating Agency when this information is to be reduced in writing and steps were taken by D.S.P. to find out victim and abducted person and FIR was registered on 18.07.1997. The goal to be achieved in recording of late FIR, is to avoid danger of life of innocent abducted person. In this case, as stated by the P.W. 3, P.W. 11 and P.W. 12 whatever information they received from victim Manish was conveyed immediately on the same day within couple of hours, to D.S.P. Telephone of residence of victim was kept under surveillance. Accused persons were constantly telephoning at the residence of the victim so that the ransom can be received by them. From telephonic call at the house of victim, accused called father of the victim at Koba Circle, Ahmedabad with money and they again called at Village: Kadodara. District: Bharuch. It was certain that accused were moving along with Manish from one place to another. Constantly they are demanding huge amount and, therefore, offence was registered on 18.07.1997 at 20:22 hours. In this set of circumstances and evidence, it cannot be said that late recording of FIR is fatal to the prosecution. It is pointed out by the trial Court that already ‘janva jog entry’ No. 42/97 (Exhibit 173) was registered by P.S.I., GIDC, Ankleshwar on 16.07.1997 at 13:20 hours. The same is presented at Exhibit 174. In this set of circumstances and evidence, it cannot be said that late recording of FIR is fatal to the prosecution. It is pointed out by the trial Court that already ‘janva jog entry’ No. 42/97 (Exhibit 173) was registered by P.S.I., GIDC, Ankleshwar on 16.07.1997 at 13:20 hours. The same is presented at Exhibit 174. The kidnapping has been reflected in the ‘janva jog entry’ recorded on 16.07.1997. Looking to the deposition of P.W. No. 24 Lakhandersing Dixit, P.I., Ankleshwar Police Station examined at Exhibit 170, when he was in petrolling on 16.07.1997, he was informed that victim has been abducted from his Maruti Car No. GJ-16-T-9922. There is station entry No. 42/97 to this effect dated 17.07.1997 at 12:30 p.m. (Exhibit 172). Maruti car was recovered by drawing panchnama at Exhibit 272 by P.W. No. 31 Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai (Exhibit 201). Police Station entry No. 12 incorporated (Exhibit 202). Thus, D.S.P. was knowing the offence and already ‘janva jog entry’ (Exhibit 173) was registered on 15.07.1997. In this set of circumstances, later FIR is not fatal to the prosecution. 17. EVIDENCE AS TO TAP RECORDING : Victim Manish P.W. No. 13 (Exhibit 136) is eye-witness and has identified accused and their voices. It has been brought on record by the different prosecution witnesses like P.W. No. 3, P.W. No. 11, P.W. No. 12 and P.W. No. 13 about commissioning of the offence. D.S.P. informed his other sub-ordinate police officers for installation of tap recording machine at the residence of the victim. P.W. No. 35- Bharatsingh Kanchanlal Shah, wireless P.S.I. received message at 1:15 p.m. on 16.07.1997. As per deposition of this witness at Exhibit 209, he was called to control room by D.S.P.. Upon instruction from D.S.P., tap recording machine was installed and blank cassettes were also given by the police for recording of conversation between the parents of victim and the accused. 18. It has also been contended by learned Counsel for the convicted accused that there is discrepancy of the evidence about who brought cassettes. Father of the victim stated that he has purchased the cassettes whereas police witnesses says that cassettes were provided by the police. Looking to the evidence given by P.W. No. 35-Bharatsingh Shan at Exhibit 209, cassettes were provided by the police. Father of the victim stated that he has purchased the cassettes whereas police witnesses says that cassettes were provided by the police. Looking to the evidence given by P.W. No. 35-Bharatsingh Shan at Exhibit 209, cassettes were provided by the police. Looking to the deposition of P.W. No. 11 at Exhibit 130 (uncle of the victim), he has stated in his deposition that police has provided three cassettes. Thus, cassettes were provided by the police for recording conversation. 19. Learned Counsel for the convicted accused submitted that there is no convincing evidence with the trial Court that this tap recording evidence is not tampered with. It is also submitted that several times, witnesses have heard the cassettes and without recording panchnama, the cassettes were recovered and, therefore, there is no authenticity of cassettes. This contention is not accepted by this Court for the reason that looking to the deposition given by the complainant P.W. No. 3 and looking to the evidence given by Mahendrabhai Prabhulal P.W. No. 11 and Pravinchandra Prabhulal Shah P.W. No. 12 and also looking to the deposition of P.W. No. 66-Jayendrasinh Zala, P.I.,- Investigating Officer, examined at Exhibit 286, cassettes were recovered by drawing panchnama at Exhibit 242. Panch witnesses namely Vijaykumar Rajnikant has also been examined at Exhibit 241. Even complainant has stated that the cassettes were recovered by the police. Thus, the cassettes were correctly recovered from the house of victim by drawing necessary panchnama and there is no tampering in these cassettes, after voices of the accused have been recorded. It has been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of R.K. Malkani vs. State of Maharashtra reported in AIR 1973 SC 157 , especially in Para 23, reads as under: “23. Tape recorded conversation is admissible provided first the conversation is relevant to the matters in issue; secondly, there is identification of the voice; and, thirdly, the accuracy of the tape recorded conversation is proved by eliminating the possibility of erasing the tape-record. A contemporaneous tape-record of a relevant conversation is a relevant fact and is admissible under Section 8 of the Evidence Act. It is res gestae. It is also comparable to a photograph of a relevant incident. The tape recorded conversation is therefore a relevant fact and is admissible under Section 7 of the Evidence Act. The conversation between Dr. A contemporaneous tape-record of a relevant conversation is a relevant fact and is admissible under Section 8 of the Evidence Act. It is res gestae. It is also comparable to a photograph of a relevant incident. The tape recorded conversation is therefore a relevant fact and is admissible under Section 7 of the Evidence Act. The conversation between Dr. Motwani and the appellant in the present case is relevant to the matter in issue. There is no dispute about the identification of the voices. There is no controversy about any portion of the conversation being erased or mutilated. The appellant was given full opportunity to test the genuineness of the tape recorded conversation. The tape recorded conversation is admissible in evidence.” (Emphasis supplied) Thus, it has been held that (a) there must be identification of voice (b) what is tap recorded must have been proved so that tampering can be avoided (c) it must be relevant. Similar is the ratio decidendi in the case of Ram Singh and Others vs. Col. A.M. Singh reported in AIR 1986 SC 3 . For proving these necessary ingredients before attaching evidenciary value, prosecution has examined P.W. Nos. 3, 11 and 13 and they have identified their own voices. They have also identified voices of accused Nos. 2, 3, 5 and D.S.P., Bharuch. P.W. Nos. 11 and 12 i.e. Mahendrabhai Prabhulal and Pravinchandra Prabhulal have identified voices of another accused also. Looking to the evidence of victim Manish, there is enough opportunity with Manish to identify the voices of the accused. Looking to expert report at Exhibit 199, voices of the accused have been proved by the prosecution beyond reasonable doubt. The whole conversation has been transcribed into manuscript. Article No. 9 cassette was transcribed in manuscript 302, Article No. 10 cassette was transcribed in manuscript 302/2 and 302/3 and 302/4 and Article 11 cassette was transcribed in manuscript 302/5, 302/6 and 302/7. In details, prosecution witness Nos. 3, 11 and 13 have been examined for identification of voices. This evidence proves beyond reasonable doubt that voices of accused Nos. 2, 3 and 5 have been identified by these witnesses.