JUDGMENT C.R. Sarma, J. 1. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order, dated 12.05.2004, passed by the learned Sessions Judge, South Tripura, Udaipur in Case No. S.T. 109 (ST/U) of 2002. By the impugned judgment and order aforesaid, the learned Sessions Judge convicted Sri Padma Sadhan Jamatia (hereinafter called 'the Appellant') and Sri Tripura Ranjan Jamatia @ Thuluksa, under Sections 364A, 302 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter called 'IPC') and sentenced them to suffer rigorous imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 5,000/- each, in default, to suffer rigorous imprisonment for another period of six months for the offence under Section 364A of IPC. Both the convicts were also sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 5,000/- each, in default, to suffer rigorous imprisonment for another period of six months for the offence under Section 302 of IPC and to suffer rigorous imprisonment for three years and to pay a fine of Rs. 2,000/- each, in default, to suffer rigorous imprisonment for a further period of two months each for the offence under Section 201 of IPC. It was also directed that both the sentences shall run concurrently. The convicts were also given the benefit of set off under Section 428 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter called Code of Criminal Procedure). Being aggrieved by the said judgment and order of conviction and sentence, the present Appellant has come up with this appeal challenging the legality and correctness of the impugned judgment and order aforesaid. 2. We have heard Mr. N. Majumder, learned Counsel appearing for the Appellant and Mr. D. Sarkar, learned Public Prosecutor for the State-Respondent. 3. The prosecution case, as unfolded at the trial, in brief may be stated as follows: On 18.05.2000, at about 6.00 a.m. in the morning some miscreants, namely, Shri Thuluksa @ Tripura Ranjan Jamatia, Shri Tipu Mohan Jamatia and Shri Padma Sadhan Jamatia (present Appellant), had entered into the premises of Shri Nanigopal Saha, situated in the Killa Market, while the latter was plucking jackfruits in his courtyard and forcefully abducted him therefrom. Subsequently, the abductors demanded ransom amounting to Rs. 3,00,000/- from the family members of the said abducted person and, accordingly, after about 8/9 days from the date of abduction of Sri Nanigopal Saha, his wife (PW No. 5) paid an amount of Rs. Subsequently, the abductors demanded ransom amounting to Rs. 3,00,000/- from the family members of the said abducted person and, accordingly, after about 8/9 days from the date of abduction of Sri Nanigopal Saha, his wife (PW No. 5) paid an amount of Rs. 80,000/- to Shri Sadhan Jamatia @ Padma Sadhan Jamatia (Appellant). Though, after receiving the said amount, the Appellant had assured the wife of the abducted person that her husband would be released on the same night at a place called Noabari but, Shri Nanigopal Saha was not released. On 18.05.2000 itself Shri Amar Chandra Saha (P.W. No. 1), cousin of Shri Nanigopal Saha lodged an FIR with the O/C Killa Police Station, informing the police about the said incident. On receipt of the FIR aforesaid, police initially registered a case under Sections 364A, 34 of IPC read with Section 27 of the Arms Act and launched investigation into the n latter. During the investigation, police arrested Shri Tripura Ranjan Jamatia @ Thuluksa Jamatia and on the basis of his confessional statement, recovered some skeletons, a shirt and a nylon rope, which was used to tie the hands of the person concerned. The autopsy was done at the place of recovery of the said skeleton and it was identified that the same was the skeleton of the abducted person, namely, Nanigopal Saha. During the course of investigation, police recorded the statement of he witnesses, prepared sketch map, collected the postmortem examination report and arrested as many as 11 persons including the present Appellant. At the close of investigation, police submitted charge-sheet against the arrested persons, including the Appellant for the offences under Sections 364A, 302, 09, 201 and 34 of IPC read with Section 27 of the Arms Act and forwarded then to the Court to stand the trial. The offence being exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions, the learned Sessions Judge framed charges against the accused persons, namely, Sri Padma Sadhan Jamatia (Appellant), Sri Tripura Ranjan Jamatia @ Thuluksa and Sri Bhadi amani Jamatia @ Naira, for the offence under Sections 364A, 302 and 201 of IPC, to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. Separate charges were also framed against the other accused persons. 4. Separate charges were also framed against the other accused persons. 4. In order to bring home the guilt of the accused persons, prosecution examined as many as 11 witnesses including the Medical Officer, who conducted the autopsy and the Investigating; Police Officer. At the close of evidence for the prosecution, the accused persons were examined under Section 313 of Code of Criminal Procedure. The accused persons denied the allegation and declined to adduce defence evidence. Considering the evidence on record, the learned Sessions Judge, while acquitting the other accused persons, convicted the Appellant - Sri Padma Sadhan Jamatia and Sri Tripura Ranjan Jamatia @ Thuluksa and sentenced them as indicated above Hence. Sri Padrna Sadhan Jamatia @ Sadhan Jamatia has approached this Court, challenging the conviction and the sentences recorded against him. 5. Mr. N. Majumder, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Appellant, referring to the evidence on record, has argued that there is no substantive evidence against the Appellant, warranting his conviction and sentence as aforesaid and as such the learned trial judge committed illegality by recording the conviction and sentence against the Appellant. The learned Counsel for the Appellant strenuously argued that none of the witnesses could conclusively identify that the skeleton bones recovered by the police was the skeletons of the abducted person and as such it was not correct to hold that the dead body of Nanigopal Saha was recovered. Therefore, it is argued that the learned trial Judge committed illegality by holding the Appellant guilty of the offence under Section302 of IPC. It is also contended, on behalf of the Appellant, that there is nothing on record to show that the Appellant had either abducted or demanded ransom, threatening to cause death or hurt to the abducted person. It is also contended that there is nothing on record to find that the Appellant had conducted in such a manner, giving rise to a reasonable apprehension that the abducted person may be put to death or hurt in order to compel the family members of the kidnapped person to pay any ransom. According to the learned Counsel, the learned trial Judge committed illegality by convicting the Appellant for the offence under Section 364A of IPC. The learned Counsel further submitted that there are contradictions regarding the place of occurrence, which raises doubt about the prosecution version itself. According to the learned Counsel, the learned trial Judge committed illegality by convicting the Appellant for the offence under Section 364A of IPC. The learned Counsel further submitted that there are contradictions regarding the place of occurrence, which raises doubt about the prosecution version itself. It is submitted that, according to the FIR, Sri Nanigopal Saha was taken away from his residence, while according to the sketch map the place of occurrence was the road. The learned defence counsel further submitted that the learned trial Judge committed illegality by recording the conviction and sentence without sufficient, cogent, reliable evidence against the Appellant and as such the said order of conviction and sentence is liable to be set aside and quashed. 6. Refuting the argument advanced by the learned Counsel appearing for the Appellant, Mr. D. Sarkar, learned Public Prosecutor, appearing for the State-Respondent submitted that there was sufficient evidence on record in support of the conviction and that the learned trial Judge committed no illegality by recording the conviction as indicated above. 7. In order to appreciate the counter arguments, advanced by the learned Counsels appearing for the parties, and to examine the correctness of the impugned judgment and order, we deem it appropriate to briefly recapitulate the evidence on record as follows: Sri Amar Chandra Saha, who was the informant in this case, deposed as PW No. 1. This witness stated that, on 18.05.2000 at about 6.00 a.m., Sri Nanigopal Saha was plucking jackfruit in his courtyard and at that time 3/4 persons including Sri Thuluksa Jamatia and Sri Tipu Mohan Jamatia forcefully took him away towards the jungle. This witness identified Sri Thuluksa Jamatia and Sri Tipu Mohan Jamatia at the trial in the Court. This witness was duly cross-examined on behalf of the defence; he denied the suggestion that Sri Nanigopal Saha was not abducted in his presence. His evidence remained unshakened. From the evidence of the said witness, it appears that 3/4 persons including Sri Thuluksa Jamatia and Sri Tipu Mohan Jamatia had abducted Sri Nanigopal Saha. 8. This witness was duly cross-examined on behalf of the defence; he denied the suggestion that Sri Nanigopal Saha was not abducted in his presence. His evidence remained unshakened. From the evidence of the said witness, it appears that 3/4 persons including Sri Thuluksa Jamatia and Sri Tipu Mohan Jamatia had abducted Sri Nanigopal Saha. 8. Sri Samar Majumder @ Samar Choudhury, who deposed as PW No. 2, stated, that on the fateful morning he was in his hotel at Killa Bazar and he could notice Sri Thuluksa Jamatia, Sri Tipu Mohan Jamatia and Sri Sadhan Jamatia dragging Sri Nanigopal Saha through the front of his hotel and that out of fear he had ran away. PW No. 2 further stated that Sri Nanigopal Saha did not return and he could hear from the people that after about one and half months, his dead-body was recovered by the police. According to this witness, Sri Sadhan Jamatia was also one of the abductors. Though this witness was duly cross-examined on behalf of the defence, nothing could be elicited to render his evidence disbelievable. Hence, his evidence regarding abduction of Nanigopal Saha by the Appellant and others remained undemolished. 9. Sri Jahar Saha, who deposed as P.W. No. 3, stated that he had a grocery shop at the Killa Bazar and on the date of the incident, at about 6.00 a.m., while he was sitting in front of his shop he could notice Sri Nanigopal Saha plucking jackfruit in his courtyard and at that time Sri Thuluksa Jamatia, Sri Tipu Mohan Jamatia and 2/3 others visited Killa Bazar. According to this witness, out of fear, he had hidden behind the shop and could see that Sri Nanigopal Saha was dragged by the said accused persons. PW No. 3 further stated that Sri Nanigopal Saha never returned and he could hear that the dead-body of Nanigopal Saha was recovered by the police. This witness was also duly cross-examine d on behalf of the defence, but his evidence regarding the abduction of Sri Nanigopal Sana could not be dislodged. From the above, it appears that PW Nos. 2 and 3 were independent eye witnesses and they saw that he miscreants forcibly taking away Sri Nani gopal Saha from his residence. Therefore, it is found that both the P W Nos. From the above, it appears that PW Nos. 2 and 3 were independent eye witnesses and they saw that he miscreants forcibly taking away Sri Nani gopal Saha from his residence. Therefore, it is found that both the P W Nos. 2 and 3 supported the evidence of PW No. 1 i.e. the informant regarding the abduction of Sri Nanigopal Saha. One Sri Raju Roy was tendered as F.W. No. 4. This witness stated nothing against the accused persons. 10. Smti lutika Rani Saha, W/O Late Nanigopal Saha, who deposed as PW No. 5, stated that s he was informed by her nephew Raju Saha that her husband was kidnapped by Sri Sadhan Jamatia, Sri Thuluksa Jamatia and Sri Krips mohan Jamatia from their residence. According to this witness, after 6/7 days of the said abduction, she through Sri Bhoua Miah and Sri Charu Miah, made contact with the abductors of her husband and came to know that Sri Sadhan Jamatia had demanded Rs. 3,00,000/- for the release of her husband. This witness further stated that on the 13th day of the abduction she along with P W No. 6 Smti Bhanu Rani Saha (sister of Nanigopal Saha), Sri Sudhan Das, Sri Bhuoa Miah, Sri Charu Miah, Sri Prem Sashi and some other persons went to Tairupa and in front of the house of Sri Dipchand Jamatia, handed over Rs. 80,000/- to Sri Sadhan Jam itia, being the ransom for the release of her husband. PW No. 5 stated that Sri Sadhan lamatia had promised that, her husband would be released on the same night at Noabari. P.W. No. 5 further stated that, though they stayed that night at the Killa Bazar waiting for her husband, he was not released and after about one month thirteen days from the date of abduction of her husband, she was informed by the police that a skeleton suspected to be of her husband was recovered from a grave and that the same was kept in the T.S. District Hospital Morgue along with one shirt and a nylon rope. On being so informed, she rushed to the hospital and could identify the shirt to be of her husband. This witness identified the accused Sri Padma Sadhan Jamatia as Sadhan Jamatia in the Court. She also identified the accused Sri Bhuoa Miah and Sri Charu Miah who were present in the dock. On being so informed, she rushed to the hospital and could identify the shirt to be of her husband. This witness identified the accused Sri Padma Sadhan Jamatia as Sadhan Jamatia in the Court. She also identified the accused Sri Bhuoa Miah and Sri Charu Miah who were present in the dock. According to this witness, she made contact with Sri Padma Sadhan Jamatia @ Sadhan Jamatia through Sri Bhuoa Miah and Sri Charu Miah and she was accompanied by the said two persons on the date of handing over the amount of Rs. 80,000/- to Sri Sadhan Jamatia. PW No. 5 also identified the white coloured shirt found along with the said skeleton to be of her husband, which was exhibited as Exbt.- M.O.-1. P.W. No. 5 was duly cross-examined on behalf of the defence. She denied the suggestion that she did not pay Rs. 80,000/- to Sri Sadhan Jamatia in two instalments. She admitted that earlier, she never visited Sri Sadhan Jamatia @ Padma Sadhan Jamatia or Sri Dipchand Jamatia and that they were not known to her. She also denied the suggestion that she deposed falsely. 11. In tune with the evidence of P.W. No. 5. Smti Bhanu Rani Saha who deposed as PW No. 6, stated that she accompanied Smti Jutika Rani Saha (P.W. No. 5) to pay money to Sri Sadhan Jamatia and that the P W No. 5 had paid Rs. 80,000/- in two instalments i.e. Rs. 50,000/- and Rs. 30,000-. This witness also identified Sri Padma Sadhan Jamatia as Sadhan Jamatia in the Court. Though PW No. 5 and P W No. 6, both sister-in-laws, stated that they paid Rs. 80,000/- as ransom out of the total amount of Rs. 3,00,000/- as demanded by Sri Sadhan Jamatia @ Padma Sadhan Jamatia. PW No. 6 contradicted the evidence of PW No. 5 on material points. According to PW No. 5 i.e. the wife of Nanigopal Saha, the first instalment of Rs. 50,000/- was paid at about 2/2.30 p.m. and the second instalment of Rs. 30,000/- was paid within two hours thereafter. But, according to PW No. 6, the first instalment of Rs. 50,000/- was paid in the morning while the second instalment was paid in the evening. 50,000/- was paid at about 2/2.30 p.m. and the second instalment of Rs. 30,000/- was paid within two hours thereafter. But, according to PW No. 6, the first instalment of Rs. 50,000/- was paid in the morning while the second instalment was paid in the evening. Though the time two hours after 2.30 p.m. can be accepted to be evening hours, the morning hours as mentioned by PW No. 6 cannot be accepted to be the time during 2 to 2.30 p.m. If the statement of PW No. 5 is believed, certainly the first instalment was not paid during the morning, rather it was paid after the noon i.e. at about 2 to 2.30 p.m. whereas according to PW No. 6 the first instalment was paid much before the mid-day i.e. in the morning. It cannot be believed that PW No. 6 had any reason to confuse the hours between 2 to 2.30 p.m. as morning hours. In our considered view, the said contradiction is a major one which raises doubt about the veracity of the evidence of the said two witnesses regarding the payment of ransom. Further PW No. 5 was accompanied by Sri Sudhan Das, Sri Bhuoa Miah, Sri Charu Miah, Sri Prem Sashi and others, but, according to PW No. 6 she and PW No. 5 was accompanied by Sri Bhuoa Miah, Sri Charu Miah and some other persons. None of the above mentioned persons were examined by the prosecution. Therefore, in view of the above contradiction regarding the time of payment of ransom, it is quite doubtful whether the PW No. 5 and PW No. 6 had paid the any ransom to Sri Padma Sadhan Jamatia @ Sadhan Jamatia. Except the said evidence of PW Nos. 5 and 6, there is no other evidence on record to find that the Appellant had demanded any ransom towards the release of the abducted person i.e. Sri Nanigopal Saha. 12. PW No. 7 Sri Prangopal Saha, supporting the evidence of PW Nos. 1,2 and 3. stated that he saw Sri Thuluksa Jamatia. Sri Sadhan Jamatia and Sri Tipu Mohan Jamatia coming to the Killa Market that their visit gave rise to a commotion amongst the people in the market and that due to the said commotion, he also ran away from the market. 1,2 and 3. stated that he saw Sri Thuluksa Jamatia. Sri Sadhan Jamatia and Sri Tipu Mohan Jamatia coming to the Killa Market that their visit gave rise to a commotion amongst the people in the market and that due to the said commotion, he also ran away from the market. He stated that he could notice that the said three persons forcefully took away Sri Nanigopal Saha towards the river Gungraicherra. PW No. 7 further stated that after about few months a skeleton with a shirt and a nylon rope was recovered, which he saw in the T.S. District hospital and identified the shirt, which was white in colour having coloured band in both side pockets, to be the shirt of his abducted brother. P W No. 7 identified the said shirt as Exbt. M.O. 1. This witness identified the accused Sri Thuluksa Jamatia and Sri Padma Sadhan Jamatia in the Court. The defence cross-examined the said witness and he denied the suggestion that he did not see the accused person taking away his brother towards the river. From the above, it appears that this witness also fully corroborated the evidence of PW Nos. 1, 2 and 3 regarding abduction of Sri Nanigopal Saha by the accused Sri Thuluksa Jamatia, Sri Sadhan Jamatia and Sri Tipu Mohan Jamatia. Sri Padma Sadhan Jamatia has been identified at the trial to be one of the abductors. No other person named Sadhan Jamatia r as tried in this case. It was Padma Sadhan Jamatia, who was known as Sadhan Jamatia and the witnesses also identified him to be o le of the abductors. Sri Ratan Bhaitacharjee, the Investigating Police Officer i.e. PW No. 11 also stated that Padma Sadhan Jamatia was known as Sadhan Jamatia. This evidence of the Investigating Officer was not negated during the cross-examination. So, it stood established that Sri Padma Sadhan Jamatia was known as Sadhan JamaLia. That apart, PW No. 7 identified Sri Tuluksa Jamatia and Sri Padma Sadhan Jamatia, who were present in the dock of the Court. The said identification made by PW No. 7, which remained uncontroverted, lead to suggest that there was no other person named Sri Sadhan Jamatia, who was involved in taking away Sri Nanigopal Saha. That apart, PW No. 7 identified Sri Tuluksa Jamatia and Sri Padma Sadhan Jamatia, who were present in the dock of the Court. The said identification made by PW No. 7, which remained uncontroverted, lead to suggest that there was no other person named Sri Sadhan Jamatia, who was involved in taking away Sri Nanigopal Saha. Therefore, the evidence of PW No. 7 and PW No. 11 clearly indicate that Sri Padma Sadhan Jamatia was known as Sadhan Jamatia and as much there is no dispute regarding the involvement of Sri Padma Sadhan Jamatia in the abduction of Sri Nanigopal Saha. Therefore, there is no doubt that Sri Padma Sadhan Jamatia @ Sadhan Jamatia along with Sri T luluksa Jamatia and Sri Tipu Mohan Jamatia lad forcefully taken away Sri Nanigopal Saha from his residence. 13. PW No. 8 Sri Arindam Nath, who was the Addl. Superintendent of Police, stated that Sri Thuluksa Jamatia, on being arrested and interrogated I, admitted that he, under the direction of their Commandant, had killed Nanigopal Sahi t after his abduction and left the dead-body in the sungrass field. Accordingly, on being led by the said accused, the police recovered a skeleton, with a shirt. This witness stated that after the recovery of the skeleton, the inquest report was prepared by Sri Ratan Bhattacharjee (PW No. 11). From the evidence of PW No. 8, it appears that Sri Thuluksa Jamatia admitted that he killed Nanigopal Sana after his abduction and kept the dead-body in the said field. From the evidence of the said witness (PW No. 8), there is nothing to find that the accused Sri Thuluksa Jamatia had indicated the involvement of the present Appellant in the killing and subsequent concealment of the dead-body of Nanigopal Saha. Police came to know about the death/killing of Nanigopal Saha from the disclosure made by the accused Sri Thuluksa Jamatia and the skeleton was believed to be of Nanigopal Saha on the basis of the statements made by the said accused, in the police custody. As prescribed by Section 25 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (hereafter called 'the Evidence Act') no confession made to a police officer can be proved against a person accused of any offence. Section 26 of the Evidence Act provides that confession made by the accused while in custody of police can't be proved against him. As prescribed by Section 25 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (hereafter called 'the Evidence Act') no confession made to a police officer can be proved against a person accused of any offence. Section 26 of the Evidence Act provides that confession made by the accused while in custody of police can't be proved against him. Therefore, the said statutory provision prohibits the use of confession/statement made by an accused during the police custody or before a police officer as evidence. In the present case, as claimed by PW No. 8, the accused Sri Thuluksa Jamatia, during his custody with the police stated that he had killed Nanigopal Saha and kept the dead-body and that the skeleton bones recovered in his presence was the skeleton of Nanigopal Saha. In view of the restriction imposed by Section 25 and Section 26 of the Evidence Act aforesaid, his statements that he had killed Nanigopal Saha, that he kept the dead-body there and that the skeleton bones recovered was the skeleton of Nanigopal Saha can't be used as evidence against the maker of the confession or the present Appellant. Of course, he nowhere indicated the involvement of the Appellant in the killing of the said abducted person and concealment of the dead-body. Section 27 of the Evidence Act, which is an exception to Sections25 and 26 of the Evidence Act, reads as follows: 27. How much of information received from accused may be proved.-- Provided that, when any fact is deposed to as discovered in consequence of information received from a person accused of any offence, in the custody of a police officer, so much of such information, whether it amounts to a confession or not, as relates distinctly to the fact thereby discovered, may be proved. Therefore, if any fact discovered in a search on the basis of an information given by an accused to the police officer, such discovery is guarantee that the information supplied by the accused is true. The fact, discovered on the basis of such information becomes a relevant fact. In view of the above, the discovery of the skeleton bones, on the basis of the statement made by the said accused does not prove that the abducted person was killed by the present Appellant or that he had kept the dead-body thereafter. 14. Dr. The fact, discovered on the basis of such information becomes a relevant fact. In view of the above, the discovery of the skeleton bones, on the basis of the statement made by the said accused does not prove that the abducted person was killed by the present Appellant or that he had kept the dead-body thereafter. 14. Dr. Kanulal Bhowmik, who deposed as PW No. 9, stated that, on being identified by a Constable Sri Gouranga Sarkar, he had examined some human skeleton bones. According to this witness, Constable Sri Gouranga Sarkar had identified the said human skeleton bones to be of Nanigopal Saha. The Medical Officer also stated that he examined a skull and skeleton bones and according to him the cause of death was due to fatal massive ante-mortem sharp cut wound on right facio maxillary region, which was homicidal in nature. PW No. 9 further stated that he could not ascertain the age of death for want of infrastructure. From the evidence of the said Medical Officer, it appears that only the skull and skeleton bones were produced before him and those were identified by the Constable Sri Gouranga Sarkar to be of Nanigopal Saha. But, Sri Gouranga Sarkar, who identified the said skull and skeleton bones was not examined in this case. Therefore, non-examination of the said Constable raises doubt about the identity of the examined skeleton aforesaid. That apart, failure to determine the time/period of the death makes it hard to conclusively hold that the same was the skeleton of Nanigopal Saha. 15. Sri Manash Roy Debbarma, who was the Officer In-charge of the Killa Police Station, deposing as PW No. 10, stated that he after receiving the information about the abduction of Sri Nanigopal Saha, visited the Killa Market and received the FIR, which was exhibited as Exbt.-1. According to the said Police Officer, he handed over the investigation to Sri Ratan Bhattacharjee, CI of Police, Udaipur, South Tripura. Sri Ratan Bhattacharjee, CI and Investigating Officer, deposing as PW No. 11, stated that he arrested the accused persons including Sri Padma Sadhan Jamatia @ Sadhan Jamatia and prepared the inquest report. According to this witness, the accused Sri Thuluksa Jamatia led the police and showed the place where the dead-body of Nanigopal Saha was kept. The said accused also shown them a skeleton stating the same to be the skeleton of Nanigopal Saha. According to this witness, the accused Sri Thuluksa Jamatia led the police and showed the place where the dead-body of Nanigopal Saha was kept. The said accused also shown them a skeleton stating the same to be the skeleton of Nanigopal Saha. The Investigating Officer aforesaid prepared the inquest report and sent the skeleton for autopsy. He stated that the hands of the skeleton was found tied behind with a red colour nylon rope and that there was a shirt covering the said skeleton. He stated that Shri Prangopal Saha (PW No. 7) and Sri Raju Saha (not examined) had identified the said skeleton to be of Nanigopal Saha on the basis of a some missing specific teeth. The Investigator Officer further stated that at the close of this investigation he submitted the charge-sheet against the present Appellant and 10 others for the offences punishable under Sections 364-A/120-B/420/302/201/34 of IPC lead with Section 27of the Arms Act and forwarded them to the Court to stand trial. 16. Though the Investigating Officer was duly cross-examined on behalf of the defence, no contradiction regarding forceful taking away of Sri Nanigopal Saha, from his residence by the Appellant and others, could be proved. That apart, there is no contradiction, on record to dis believe the evidence of PW No. 1, PW No. 2 and PW No. 7 with regard to their evidence that all of them had seen Sri Padma Sadhan Jamatia @ Sadhan Jamatia and others forcefully taking away Sri Nanigopal Saha from his house in the morning of 18.05.21000. From the record, it appears that after he said forceful taking away, Sri Nanigopal Saha did not return. In view of the above, it stood established beyond doubt that Sri Nanigopal Saha was abducted by the above named Appellant and others and he was secretly and wrong fully confined thereafter. Except the said abduction, there is no direct or substantive evidence to indicate that the Appellant had killed Nanigopal Saha and concealed his dead-body. 17. PW No. 5, the wife of Sri Nanigopal Saha, PW Nos. 6 and 7, who were the sister and brother respectively of Sri Nanigopal Saha, stated that they had seen the skeleton bones with a shirt and a nylon rope in the hospital morgue and that they could identify the said shirt to be of Nanigopal Saha. 17. PW No. 5, the wife of Sri Nanigopal Saha, PW Nos. 6 and 7, who were the sister and brother respectively of Sri Nanigopal Saha, stated that they had seen the skeleton bones with a shirt and a nylon rope in the hospital morgue and that they could identify the said shirt to be of Nanigopal Saha. As per the inquest report (Exbt.-2), which was prepared at the time of recovery of the skeleton, a white coloured printed terricot shirt was found lying near the dead-body. The fact that the said shirt was found lying near the dead-body does not indicate that the shirt was found covering the skeleton aforesaid. Hence, it can't be held that the deceased was wearing the said shirt at the time of his death. The said shirt and the skeleton, so discovered, were sent to the hospital morgue. None of the PW Nos. 5, 6 and 7 stated that at the time of abduction of Sri Nanigopal Saha, he was wearing the said shirt, which was found near the dead-body. The wife of Sri Nanigopal Saha, in her evidence clearly stated that there was no special mark of identification in respect of the said shirt. 18. In view of the above, recovery of the shirt near the skeleton cannot be the conclusive evidence to hold that the same was the shirt of the person whose skeleton was found. That apart, there was no special mark to identify the shirt. According to PW Nos. 5, 6 and 7, they had identified the skeleton on the basis of the said shirt. But, according to the Investigating Officer (PW No. 11), Sri Prangopal Saha (PW No. 7) and Raju Saha had identified the dead-body of Nanigopal Saha on the basis of some missing teeth. PW Nos. 5, 6 and 7, nowhere stated that they had identified the skeleton on the basis of the teeth. Therefore, the identity of the skeleton to be of Nanigopal Saha remained doubtful. Except the statement made by the accused Thuluksa Jamatia before the police, there is nothing on record to show that the said skeleton was the skeleton of the abducted person. In view of the above, it cannot be concluded to the exclusion of any other hypothesis, that the said skeleton bones were the skeleton of Nanigopal Saha. Except the statement made by the accused Thuluksa Jamatia before the police, there is nothing on record to show that the said skeleton was the skeleton of the abducted person. In view of the above, it cannot be concluded to the exclusion of any other hypothesis, that the said skeleton bones were the skeleton of Nanigopal Saha. Therefore, in the light of the above discussion, we do not find it safe to conclude that the dead-body of Nanigopal Saha was discovered after the said abduction. 19. Section 364-A of IPC defines kidnapping for ransom as follows: 364-A. Kidnapping for ransom, etc.-- Whoever kidnaps or abducts any person or keeps a person in detention after such kidnapping or abduction and threatens to cause death or hurt to such person, or by his conduct gives rise to a reasonable apprehension that such person may be put to death or hurt, or causes hurt or death to such person in order to compel the Government or (any foreign State or international inter-governmental organization or any other person) to do or abstain from doing any act or to pay a ransom, shall be punishable with death, or imprisonment for life, and shall also be liable to fine. In order to hold a person guilty under Section 364-A of IPC, the following essential ingredients are to be established: (i) That the accused kidnapped or abducted a person; or (ii) That the accused kept such person under his detention; (iii) That the accused threatened to cause death or hurt to such person or caused death or hurt to him; (iv) That the accused did commit so to compel, (a) the Government; or (b) any Foreign State; or (c) Inter Governmental Organization; or (d) Any other person. (v) That the accused compelled to do or abstain from doing any act or to pay a ransom. 20. From the record, it appears that there is not an iota of evidence to find that the Appellant, before or after the said abduction had threatened to cause death or hurt to Sri Nanigopal Saha or conducted himself in such a manner so as to raise reasonable apprehension that Sri Nanigopal Saha may be put to death or hurt in order to compel payment of any ransom. 21. 21. As discussed above, there is no evidence on record to find that the Appellant had threatened to cause death or hurt to the abducted person or that the Appellant had compelled any other person including the family members of Sri Nanigopal Saha or that the Appellant had compelled anybody to do or abstain from doing any act or to pay ransom. As such, in the absence of ingredients of Section 364-A of IPC, it will not be safe to hold that the Appellant committed the offence under Section 364-A and, as such, his conviction under Section 364-A is liable to be set aside and quashed. It is found, from the evidence on record, more particularly the evidence of PW Nos. 1, 2 and 3 that, it stood established that the Appellant, along with others forcefully took away Sri Nanigopal Saha from his residence and his whereabouts, thereafter, was not known. Section 365of IPC reads as follows: Section 365. Whoever kidnaps or abducts any person with intent to cause that person to be secretly and wrongfully confined, shall be punished with imprisonment or either description for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine. The offence under Section 365 can be held to have been committed if it is established that the accused kidnapped or abducted a person with an intent to cause that person to be confined secretly or wrongfully. As the whereabouts of the said abducted person was not known, after the said abduction, it stood established that he was secretly and wrongfully confined by the Appellant, who took him away forcefully. As discussed earlier, PW Nos. 1, 2 and 3 corroborated each other's evidence and substantiated the prosecution version that the Appellant along with others had forcefully taken away Sri Nanigopal Saha from his residence. 22. In the light of the above evidence, in our considered view, the prosecution could successfully establish that the Appellant had committed the offence under Section 365 of IPC and as such lie is liable to be convicted and sentenced for committing the said offence. 23. In the Ugh; of what has been discussed above, it will no; be safe to hold that the abducted Nanigopal Saha was killed by the Appellant and that his dead-body was concealed by him. 23. In the Ugh; of what has been discussed above, it will no; be safe to hold that the abducted Nanigopal Saha was killed by the Appellant and that his dead-body was concealed by him. We are constrained to hold that there is no sufficient, reliable, cogent and convincing evidence to hold that the Appellant committed he offences under Sections 364A, 302 and 201 of IPC. Therefore, the conviction and sentence recorded under Section 364A, 302 and 201 of IPC against the Appellant are liable to be set aside and quashed, which we do. 24. Accordingly, the conviction and sentence recorded under Section 364A of IPC is converted to come under Section 365 of IPC. The maximum punishment prescribed for the offence under Section 365 IPC is seven years with fine. It is in formed by the learned Counsel for the Appellant that the Appellant is undergoing imprisonment since 2000. But the record reveals that he is in jail with effect from the date of the impugned conviction i.e. from 12.05.2004, which is more than the punishment prescribed by Section 365 of IPC. Therefore, the Appellant is sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for seven years and to pay a fine of Rs. 5,000/-, in default, to suffer rigorous imprisonment for another period of six months. The impugned judgment and order of connection and sentence dated 12.05.2004 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, South Tripura, Udaipur, in respect of the present Appellant-Sri Padma Sadhan Jamatia, is modified to the extent indicated above. The Appellant-Sri Padma Sadhan Jamatia @ Sadhan Jamatia shall be released in due course, or forthwith, if he has already suffered the sentence imposed under Section 365 of IPC and if he is not wanted in any other case. 25. With the aforesaid modification, the Criminal Appeal is partly allowed. Send down the Lower Court Records. Appeal partly allowed.