JUDGMENT P.K. Musahary, J. 1. Heard Mr. P. K. Biswas, learned Counsel for the Appellant and also heard Mr. D. Sarkar, learned P.P. appearing on behalf of the State of Tripura. 2. Convicted under Section 364A, IPC and sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for life and also to pay fine of Rs. 1,000/- in default, to suffer simple imprisonment for 3 (three) months vide judgment and order dated 18-03-2005 passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, West Tripura, Khowal, in Case No. STS 5(WT/K) of 2002, the Appellant has filed the present appeal under Section374 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. 3. The prosecution case, in brief, is that on 28-10-2001, one,-Shri Amrit Lal Deb of Village Icharbil under Kalyanpur Police Station, lodged a written FIR with the O.C., i/c of Kalyanpur Police Station, alleging inter alia that on 25-10-2001, in the afternoon, his son Rupak Deb left the house along with the co-villagers namely, namely, Nirmal Das and Rakesh Debnath to witness 'Durgapuja Festival' at Kalyanpur. His son did not return home till night and so he started searching for his missing son. In the course of searching, he learnt from some persons that at around 8.00 p.m. they had seen them proceeding towards Tatabari from Moharcherra. Inspite of thorough searching, the whereabout of his son could not be traced. In the early morning of 27-10-2001, he found an envelope lying on the ground in front of his Thakurgarh'. On opening the envelope, he found a letter dated 24-10-2001 written in Kokbarak language in the letter head of National Liberation Front of Twipra ('NLFT' in short). According to the said letter, his son has been kidnapped and if a sum of Rs. 1 lakh was not paid as ransom, his son would be put to death. As the said letter written in Kokbarak language demanding ransom of Rs. 1 lakh for release of his son appeared to have been written on 24-10-2001 and his son was kidnapped on the following day of 25-10-2001, a reasonable suspicion arose in the mind of the informant that kidnapping of his son was done in a pre-planned manner and the accused persons namely, Nirmal Das, Rakesh Debnath and others might be involved in the kidnapping of his son. On the basis of the FIR, a crime being Kalyanpur P.S. case No. 44/2001 under Section 364A read with Section 34, IPO was registered and investigation was launched. 4. During the course of investigation, the investigating officer seized one letter written in Kokbarak language in the letter head of NLFT as produced by the informant at Kalyanpur Police Station, prepared a seizure list and arrested one of the FIR named accused, Shri Nirmal Das from his house. During interrogation, the said arrested accused Nirmal Das admitted that he along with accused Appellant Rakesh Debnath kidnapped Rupak Deb and kept him in confinement in the jungle of Maize Bhander. Based on this disclosure, the I.O. rushed to the jungle of Maize Bhander along with accused Nirmal Das. As led by accused Nirmal Das, the I.O. recovered the kidnapped person from the said jungle. The I.O. also arrested the accused Appellant Rakesh Debnath therefrom. He seized 4 pieces of black clothes, a pair of red coloured shoes and a drum containing drinking water and one scissor from the place of occurrence in presence of witnesses by drawing two separate seizure lists. The I.O., thereafter, prepared a site plan with index of both the two places of occurrence; first one being the house from where victim Rupak Deb was kidnapped and the second one being the place from where victim Rupak Deb was recovered. The I.O. examined available witnesses and recorded their statements under Section 161 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. He also re-examined the informant and recorded his statement under Section 161 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The kidnapped boy was produced before the learned SDJM, Khowai, who recorded his statement under Section 164(5) of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. On completion of investigation, a prima facie case under Section 364-A read with Section 34, IPC having been found, the I.O. submitted charge-sheet on 15-11-2001 against the accused persons Sri Nirmal Das and Sri Rakesh Debnath. On receipt of the charge-sheet, the learned SDJM, Khowai, took cognizance of the offence under Section 364-A/34, IPC and committed the case to the Court of Session for trial. 5. On committal, the learned trial Court after consideration of materials on record, framed charge under Section 364-A, IPC against the above mentioned accused persons. On receipt of the charge-sheet, the learned SDJM, Khowai, took cognizance of the offence under Section 364-A/34, IPC and committed the case to the Court of Session for trial. 5. On committal, the learned trial Court after consideration of materials on record, framed charge under Section 364-A, IPC against the above mentioned accused persons. The contents of the charge were read over and explained to the accused persons, to which, they pleaded not guilty and claimed to stand trial. During trial, accused Sri Nirmal Das absconded and so the trial proceeded against the accused Appellant Sri Rakesh Debnath only. The prosecution examined 9 (nine) witnesses in all and exhibited the relevant documents namely FIR, Seizure lists, statements recorded under Section 164(5) of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, sketch maps with index of two places of occurrence and the letter demanding ransom. The accused Appellant Sri Rakesh Debnath, after conclusion of examination of prosecution witnesses, was examined under Section313 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. However, the defence adduced no evidence. The learned trial Court on consideration of the evidence and the materials on record and also after hearing the learned Counsel for the parties rendered the impugned judgment, convicting and sentencing the accused Appellant Sri Rakesh Debnath, as stated earlier. 6. Mr. P. K. Biswas, learned Counsel for the accused Appellant submits that in the First Information Report (FIR), Ext. 1/1, which was filed by the P.W. 1 after recovery of his missing son, contains allegation against the present Appellant Sri Rakesh Debnath. But the victim boy Sri Rupak Deb, in his statements made before the Judicial Magistrate under Section 164(5) of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, made no allegation against the instant Appellant implicating him in his kidnapping. The prosecution in its afterthought improved the story so as to involve the Appellant in the alleged crime without any incriminating material on record against him. The evidence, both documentary and oral, as adduced by the prosecution, is quite inconsistent and too insufficient for recording conviction against the Appellant Sri Rakesh Debnath. The prosecution in its afterthought improved the story so as to involve the Appellant in the alleged crime without any incriminating material on record against him. The evidence, both documentary and oral, as adduced by the prosecution, is quite inconsistent and too insufficient for recording conviction against the Appellant Sri Rakesh Debnath. In order to bring home the lacunae/loopholes in recording the conviction against accused Appellant Sri Rakesh Debnath, the learned' counsel for the Appellant has taken us through the oral evidence of P.W. 1, informant and father of the kidnapped boy, P.W. 6, the kidnapped person, P.W. 7, SDJM who recorded the statements of the victim boy under Section 164, Code of Criminal Procedure and P.W. 8, I.O. of the case. The learned Counsel also referred to the documentary evidence, particularly the FIR, Ext.-1/1, ransom demand letter, Ext.-M.O.l and the statements of the victim boy recorded by the SDJM under Section 164 of Code of Criminal Procedure, Ext. 3/1. The learned Counsel further cited the Apex Court rulings in Javed Masood v. State of Rajasthan, reported in : AIR 2010 SC 979 : AIR 2010 SCW 1656 and Raja Ram v. State of Rajasthan, reported in (2005) 5 SCG 272. In the former case, it is held, amongst others, that when the presence of a witness at the place of occurrence is highly doubtful, conviction of accused cannot be based on his evidence. In the latter case, it is held that if the prosecution witness is not supporting the prosecution case and if such witness is not declared hostile, the defence can rely upon the evidence of such witness and it would be binding on the prosecution. The precise submission of learned Counsel Mr. Biswas, is that, the prosecution has not succeeded in proving its case against the accused Appellant beyond all reasonable doubt and as such, the Appellant Sri Rakesh Debnath should be acquitted on benefit of doubt and set at liberty forthwith. 7. The above submissions have been countered by Mr. D. Sarkar, learned P.P., State of Tripura, by referring to evidence of P.W. 9(I.O.) who deposed in categorical terms that Appellant Sri Rakesh Debnath was found guarding the kidnapped boy inside the jungle from where he was recovered and the said evidence of the I.O. could not be shaken by the defence. The above submissions have been countered by Mr. D. Sarkar, learned P.P., State of Tripura, by referring to evidence of P.W. 9(I.O.) who deposed in categorical terms that Appellant Sri Rakesh Debnath was found guarding the kidnapped boy inside the jungle from where he was recovered and the said evidence of the I.O. could not be shaken by the defence. Moreover, the fact of kidnapping has been proved and in fact, the defence has not denied the incident of kidnapping. According to the learned P.P., the crux of the matter is the incident of kidnapping and if the said fact is proved and the presence of the Appellant is also proved, he is liable to conviction and there is no valid ground for interference by this Court with the order of conviction and sentence as awarded by the learned trial Court and as such, he submits that the instant appeal is liable to be dismissed summarily. 8. For better appraisal of the evidence adduced by the prosecution, we would, first of all, deal with the FIR (Ext. 1/1), statements of kidnapped person (Ext. 3/1) and the ransom demand letter (Ext. M.O. 1). The FIR, in question, is reproduced, hereinbelow: To, The O/C, Kalyanpur P/S Tripura (W) Subject: Prayer for rescuing my son who had been kidnapped with an ill-motive to realize money. Petitioner: Shri Amfit Lal Deb (age 45 years), S/o Gopal Deb,' Vill.-Icharibil, P.S. Teliamura, occupation-cultivation, Indian citizen, Education upto Class-IV. Sir, My humble submission is as follows: On 25-10-2001 A.D. last, Thursday, at evening at about 5 p.m., my son Rupak Deb along with Nirmal Das, S/o Shri Dhananjoy Das of Vill-Icharbil, P.S. Teliamura and Rakesh Debnath, S/o Shri Swapan Debnath, Vill-do, had gone to Kalyanpur in order to see the Navami Puja but after that he did not return home. Thereafter, on looking for him, I came to learn that on that day, at about 8 o'clock night, some people had seen them going towards Totabari from Moharchherra. Then I started searching for my son. Yesterday, on 27-10-2001 A.D. early in the morning, I found an envelope bearing my address lying in the courtyard of my house in front of my 'Thakur Ghar'(a room meant for worship). Then I started searching for my son. Yesterday, on 27-10-2001 A.D. early in the morning, I found an envelope bearing my address lying in the courtyard of my house in front of my 'Thakur Ghar'(a room meant for worship). On opening it, I found that my son, had been kidnapped on 24-10-2001 A.D. by the National Liberation Front of Twipra and that they shall set my son free on payment of Rs. 1,00,000. And if the said amount be not paid, they shall kill my son. The said amount of money is to be given to Nirmal Das when he comes. The date of missing of my son is 25-10-2001 A.D. but the direction in respect of payment of Rs. 1,00,000/- was in given in the letter dated 24-10-2001 A.D. (sic), it is my firm belief that the said Nirmal Das, Rakesh Debnath and many other people of our village are connected with the matter of kidnapping of my son. Hence, I pray to your goodself of carry out an investigation into the said incident and thus, rescue my son from the hands of the miscreants. Scribe and read over by : Submitted by: Shri Kalipada Debnath Sd/- Amrit Lal Deb S/o Lt. Nibaran Debnath D/- 24-10-2001 Village-Icharbill P.S. Teliamura 9. As per the First Information Report (FIR), the accused Sri Nirmal Das and the Appellant came to the informant's house and with his due permission, they went out with victim Rupak Deb to enjoy Navami Puja. It must be noted that victim Rupak Deb was recovered from the captivity on 27-10-2001 at 2 p.m. and the said FIR was lodged on 28-10-2001 after recovery of the victim from jungle. The informant had already gathered all the details about the incidence in the afternoon of 27-10-2001. He also came to know about the alleged involvement of the accused Appellant Rakesh Debnath from the police as well as the victim boy. 10. As per the evidence of P.W. 8 on 28-10-2001, he was the Duty Officer at Kalyanpur Police Station and on that day, at around 1210 hours, he received an ejahar from P.W. 1. On receipt of the aforesaid FIR, he registered a case under Section 364-A read with Section 34, IPC and entrusted P.W. 9 to investigate the matter. 10. As per the evidence of P.W. 8 on 28-10-2001, he was the Duty Officer at Kalyanpur Police Station and on that day, at around 1210 hours, he received an ejahar from P.W. 1. On receipt of the aforesaid FIR, he registered a case under Section 364-A read with Section 34, IPC and entrusted P.W. 9 to investigate the matter. P.W. 9, during the course of investigation, arrested co-accused Sri Nirmal Das from his house, who, during interrogation, admitted that he along with Appellant Sri Rakesh Debnath kidnapped P.W. 6 (Rupak Deb) and kept him in confinement in a jungle. As led by accused Nirmal Das, the investigating officer, P.W. 9, rushed to Maize Bhander jungle where he found the Appellant Sri Rakesh Debnath guarding the kidnapped boy (P.W. 6). The investigating officer arrested the accused Appellant Sri Rakesh Debnath on 29-10-2001 on the spot. The Appellant was produced before the SDJM, Belonia, (P.W. 7), who testified that he recorded the statement of the Appellant Sri Rakesh Debnath under Section 164(5) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, which is quoted hereunder: The witness voluntarily state on oath as follows: On Thursday last, Nirmal Das gave me the proposal of accompanying him with a view to watching the Durga Puja. Then, at evening I as well as Nirmal Das went towards Kalyanpur. On coming to Mohachhara/We) got down from the vehicle and started walking. After advancing some distance from Moharcharra, (I/We) came to a point where the road was shaping like a 'U'. Then Nirmal Das gave me the proposal of urinating and took me a little inside the jungle. Then he gave me three claps on his palm with a view to preparing 'Khaini' (tobacco). At once, three unknown persons came tied my eyes and mouth and kidnapped me. Last Sunday, the police rescued me from the jungle. While I was kept confined under the custody of the miscreants, they had kept my eyes and face tied up. They spoke in Hindi and Bengali, and created pressure upon me with a view, to realizing money from my father. Nirmal, Das made plan to. realize money. Last Sunday, the police rescued me from the jungle. While I was kept confined under the custody of the miscreants, they had kept my eyes and face tied up. They spoke in Hindi and Bengali, and created pressure upon me with a view, to realizing money from my father. Nirmal, Das made plan to. realize money. On Saturday, he went to my house and stated-- "The miscreants had set him free, (they) would also set Rupak free if the money was taken." On coming home, I came to learn that a letter demanding money had reached my house and that Nirmal had also come for money. I can identify the miscreants on hearing their voice. This is my statement. Sd/-Rupak Deb On being read over to the witness, he admitted it to have been written as per his words and thus, put his signature. 11. P.W. 6, being the victim person, did not say anything, supporting/corroborating the evidence of I.O., P.W. 9. The name of the accused Appellant Sri Rakesh Debnath has not been mentioned in the said statement of P.W. 6 implicating him in any manner, not to speak of being found guarding the victim boy in the jungle as claimed by the investigating officer. P.W. 6 even did not mention in his statement as regards the arrest of the Appellant Sri Rakesh Debnath by police in the jungle. The victim boy mentioned the name of co-accused Sri Nirmal Das only without any reference to the present Appellant. The presence of accused-Appellant Sri Rakesh Debnath in the jungle from where the victim boy was recovered, has neither been proved nor did the police adduce any evidence on the presence of accused Appellant Sri Rakesh Debnath at or around the place from where the victim boy was recovered. The claim of the investigating officer about the presence of the accused-Appellant has become doubtful and the evidence of the I.O., P.W. 9, has been rendering unbelievable and thus, unacceptable. 12. It is noteworthy to mention that P.W. 6 was actually kidnapped from his house on 25-10-2001 at 5 p.m. while co-accused Nirmal Das came to his house and with due permission of P.W. 1',' father of P.W. 6, both of them went out for enjoying Navami Puja. According to P.W. 1, he searched for his son (P.W. 6) but he did not return even on the next day i.e. 26-10-2001. According to P.W. 1, he searched for his son (P.W. 6) but he did not return even on the next day i.e. 26-10-2001. The police recovered the victim boy, on 27-10-2001 at 2 p.m. from the jungle. P.W. 1, father of P.W. 6, was informed about the recovery of his son but he did not file any ejahar before the police about the said incident. He filed the written ejahar only on the following day i.e. 28-10-2001. In normal course, the FIR is required to be filed at the earliest opportunity when an incident occurs but in the present case, P.W. 1, being the father of the victim boy, preferred to file the FIR only after a gap of 3 days of the incident although he could learn about the incident of taking away his son by the co-accused Sri Nirmal Das with some other miscreants on 25-10-2001 itself and more particularly on 27-10-2001. The inaction or delay of P.W. 1 in lodging the FIR with police is quite unusual and it casts a serious doubt on truthfulness of the prosecution story. It smacks of an afterthought and improvement in the prosecution story. As per the evidence of P.W. 1, accused Sri Nirmal Das came to his house with the Appellant but it was the accused Sri Nirmal Das who took the active role in taking out his victim son Rupak Deb to Kalyanpur to enjoy Navami Puja. There is no eye-witness to the fact of coming of the Appellant Sri Rakesh Debnath to the house of P.W. 1, In the evidence of P.Ws. 2, 3, 4 and 5 also, there is no mention testifying the fact of coming of Appellant to his house along with accused Sri Nirmal Das. P.W. 1 never mentioned before any witness that the Appellant came to his house with accused Nirmal Das and sought his permission to take out Rupak Deb for enjoying Navami Puja. His evidence has not been corroborated by any witness and in absence of such corroboration, it is unsafe to convict an accused. There is another aspect in this matter. P.W. 1 never mentioned before any witness that the Appellant came to his house with accused Nirmal Das and sought his permission to take out Rupak Deb for enjoying Navami Puja. His evidence has not been corroborated by any witness and in absence of such corroboration, it is unsafe to convict an accused. There is another aspect in this matter. Although in the FTR, the informant P.W. 1 stated that during search of his son, he came to learn that some people has seen his son going towards Totabari but the investigating officer did not examine any' person who furnished the above information nor did he examine any witness during trial to testify that accused Appellant Sri Rakesh Debnath was sent with co-accused Nirmal Das and victim Rupak Deb on 25-10-2001 till recovery of the victim by police on 27-10-2001. There is no evidence to prove that the victim Sri Rupak Deb was kidnapped by accused Nirmal Das with the help of or along with Appellant Sri Rakesh Debnath. The finding of the learned trial Court on the presence of Appellant and his participation in committing the offence with co-accused Nirmal Das, is improbable and unbelievable and as such, the finding of the learned trial Court is not at all acceptable. Further, the investigating officer, during the course of investigation, did not make any attempt to examine any person who happened to see the Appellant Sri Rakesh Debnath along with the kidnapped person and/or with the co-accused Nirmal Das who came to the house of P.W. 1 and took away the victim boy with due permission of P.W. 1 to enjoy Navami Puja. The investigating officer examined only 3 co-villagers namely P.Ws. 2, 3 and 5. The co-villager P.W. 2 is a seizure witness while co-villagers P.Ws. 3 and 5 came to the house of P.W. 1 after the occurrence of the incident and knew nothing about the same. P.W. 4 is the brother-in-law of the informant, who came to know about the incident on 25-10-2001 from P.W. 1. The said P.Ws. have no personal knowledge about the incident. 3 and 5 came to the house of P.W. 1 after the occurrence of the incident and knew nothing about the same. P.W. 4 is the brother-in-law of the informant, who came to know about the incident on 25-10-2001 from P.W. 1. The said P.Ws. have no personal knowledge about the incident. There is absolutely no evidence to show that the accused Appellant Sri Rakesh Debnath made any plan with co-accused Nirmal Das in taking away the victim Rupak Deb from his house or on the way proceeding to enjoy Navami Puja or that he had played any role in taking away victim Rupak Deb to the jungle with the help of accused Sri Nirmal Das from where the police recovered them. 13. There is also no evidence of common intention of the accused Nirmal Das and the Appellant Sri Rakesh Debnath for committing the offence under Section 364-A, IPC. The accused Nirmal Das, the Appellant and the victim belong to the same village. If the story of the prosecution about the presence of the Appellant at the house of P.W. 1 is to be believed, it is not improbable that the Appellant, being a co-villager, could be present by chance at or near the house of P.W. 1 at the time when accused Nirmal Das was present. Because, the time of occurrence is 8/8.30 p.m. only. Simply because a person happened to be present at the place of occurrence, it cannot be taken as an accused unless it is proved so. The prosecution could not establish that the Appellant and accused Nirmal Das came to the house of P.W. 1 with a pre-plan to kidnap Rupak Deb. The co-accused Sri Nirmal Das was arrested from the house of P.W. 1 on 26-10-2001, however, there is a contradiction in the evidence of P.Ws. 1 and 9 about his arrest. As per the evidence of P.W. 1, accused Nirmal Das was caught by the local youths when he came to his house on 26-10-2001 in the afternoon to collect the ransom money but according to P.W. 9 (I.O.), he arrested the accused Nirmal Das from his own house. The evidence of P.Ws. 1 and 9 in regard as to how, when and where the accused Nirmal Das was arrested, is not corroborating. The evidence of P.Ws. 1 and 9 in regard as to how, when and where the accused Nirmal Das was arrested, is not corroborating. If the evidence of P.W. 1 is to be accepted, then it appears that the investigating officer arrested co-accused Nirmal Das after he was caughter by the local youths from the house of P.W. 1 but the investigating officer did not examine those local youths. The investigating officer also did not cite any one of those local youths as witness to give evidence before the learned trial Court. 14. It is also noteworthy to mention that the investigating officer, P.W. 9, in his examination-in-chief, deposed that Appellant Sri Rakesh Debnath was found guarding the kidnapped boy inside the jungle and the investigating officer arrested him from the said place where the kidnapped boy was detained but in his cross-examination, the officer stated that in the charge-sheet, he did not specifically mention that the accused Appellant Sri Rakesh Debnath was arrested by him from the said jungle where the kidnapped boy was detained. In the cross-examination, the investigation officer also clearly stated that he did not examine any person from Maize Bhander area as there was no inhabitant in the said area due to extremist problem or otherwise. The evidence of investigating officer makes it clear that while he proceeded to Maize Bhander jungle, the police took no guardian or any independent witness with him. Therefore, except the police personnel, there was no independent witness at the time of alleged recovery of the victim boy and the arrest of accused persons. The investigating officer claimed in his evidence that he seized some articles from the place where the victim boy was recovered and prepared a seizure list (Ext. P-2/3). He seized 4 pieces of black coloured clothes, a pair of red boots, a pair of chappals, 1 drum having a capacity of 2'/2 litres used for storing drinking water and one scissor in presence of witnesses namely Sri Kalipada Debnath and Sri Amrit Lal Deb, P.Ws. 2 and 1 respectively but in the evidence of P.W. 1, informant/father of the victim boy, we do not find any such statement corroborating the evidence of investigating officer. 2 and 1 respectively but in the evidence of P.W. 1, informant/father of the victim boy, we do not find any such statement corroborating the evidence of investigating officer. P.W. 1, informant/father of the victim boy, never stated in his evidence that he was present at the place from where his son was recovered, he rather stated that he was told by the police that at the time of recovery of his son, the accused Appellant Sri Rakesh Debnath was found guarding the spot and his son was handed over by police on 27-10-2001. P.W. 2 Sri Kalipada Debnath also does not corroborate the evidence of the investigating officer. This P.W. 2 never stated that he was present at the place from where the victim boy was recovered. As per the endorsement on Ext. 2/3, the aforesaid articles were recovered from P.O. No. 2 i.e. the place from where the victim was recovered by the investigating officer on 28-10-2001 in presence of witnesses. The recovery and seizure of aforesaid articles on 28-10-2001 is questionable inasmuch as P.W. 1 stated in his evidence that his son was handed over to him by the police after recovery on 27-10-2001. Corroborating the evidence of P.W. 1, independent witness P.W. 2 also stated that on 27-10-2001, the victim boy i.e. son of P.W. 1 was recovered by police from the jungle. The authenticity of Ext. 2/2 is doubtful and there is a scope for taking a view that the said seizure list was manufactured subsequently to suit the afterthought story of the prosecution. 15. In his evidence, P.W. 9 (I.O.), stated that, being led by co-accused Sri Nirmal Das, he rushed to the jungle where the victim was kept in confinement but he did not disclose the names of the policemen or staff who accompanied him. Normally, the investigating officer is expected to move to such hideout in the jungle with armed police staff. If he moved with such police staff why did he not mention any name in his evidence, has remained as a mystery. It was necessary for the prosecution to cite and examine at least one such policeman who moved with him to the said jungle, found that accused Appellant guarding the kidnapped person and seized some articles from the said place to corroborate his evidence. The prosecution is silent why it chose not to do so. It was necessary for the prosecution to cite and examine at least one such policeman who moved with him to the said jungle, found that accused Appellant guarding the kidnapped person and seized some articles from the said place to corroborate his evidence. The prosecution is silent why it chose not to do so. As stated earlier, the articles were seized vide Ext. P 2/3 from P.O. No. 2 i.e. the jungle from where the victim was recovered on 28-1-2001 in presence of P.Ws. 1 and 2. P.W. 1, father of the victim boy, did not say in his evidence that he proceeded himself or accompanied the police or the investigating officer (P.W. 9) to the said second place of occurrence on 28-1-2001. He simply stated that on 27-1-2001, police handed over his victim son to him. How can the victim boy be handed over to P.W. 1 on 27-1-2001 when the police could recover him only on 28-1-2001? P.W. 2 also did not say in his evidence that he moved to the said jungle along with police and was present at the time of recovery of the victim boy. Thus, except the evidence of investigating officer (P.W. 9), there is no other evidence on the fact of presence of Appellant Sri Rakesh Debnath at the place of occurrence. The presence of P.Ws. 1 and 2 at the place where the victim boy was recovered has also not been established by cogent and reliable evidence. This important fact is not found proved by the prosecution. Similarly, the fact of having found the accused Appellant at the place of recovery of the victim boy from the said jungle has not been proved. When these two facts are not proved, it would impel us to infer that there existed a possibility of false implication of the accused Appellant. For the same reason, possibility of improvement of the prosecution case with intention to implicate the accused Appellant cannot be ruled out. 16. Under these circumstances, we find it difficult to accept the evidence of investigating officer (P.W. 9), as correct, true and sufficient for ordering conviction. Here comes the question of application of principle of corroboration. In this case, if we confirm the conviction without corroboration, it may lead to erroneous confirmation and the consequence of an erroneous conviction is serious for the accused person and the society at large. 17. Here comes the question of application of principle of corroboration. In this case, if we confirm the conviction without corroboration, it may lead to erroneous confirmation and the consequence of an erroneous conviction is serious for the accused person and the society at large. 17. In the instant case, we have, as discussed earlier, found marked discrepancies, omissions and contradictions in the stand taken by the prosecution at the initial stage of filing the FIR and recording of statement of the victim boy under Section 164(5), Code of Criminal Procedure during investigation without implicating the accused Appellant Sri Rakesh Debnath and the attempt to implicate him during trial through the evidence of investigating officer (P.W. 9) who claims to have found the said accused Appellant guarding the victim boy at the place of occurrence in the jungle and arresting him on the spot. The prosecution fails to persuade us as to why in such cases, the Court must convict the accused Appellant without corroboration or the Court should dispense with it. The investigating officer (P.W. 9) has projected himself as the solitary eye-witness who could see the accused Appellant guarding the victim boy in the jungle but he has not mentioned who were present at that point of time nor has he examined any independent witness, not even a policeman who accompanied him. In such a situation, Court has to be circumspect and has to look for corroboration in material particulars by reliable testimony, direct or circumstantial, before acting upon the testimony of a single witness. This is so mandated in Lallu Manjhi v. State of Jharkhand (2003) 2 SCC 401 : AIR 2003 SC 854 . The law has been settled therein that Court may classify the oral testimony into three categories, namely-- (i) wholly reliable, (ii) wholly unreliable, and (iii) neither wholly reliable nor wholly unreliable. In the first two categories, there may be no difficulty in accepting or discarding the testimony of the single witness. The difficulty arises in the third category and the Court may be circumspect and look for corroboration in material particulars. The oral evidence of investigating officer (P.W. 9), in this case, is of third category. We cannot call his evidence entirely reliable or entirely unreliable so as to place implicit reliance or totally discard his oral testimony. The difficulty arises in the third category and the Court may be circumspect and look for corroboration in material particulars. The oral evidence of investigating officer (P.W. 9), in this case, is of third category. We cannot call his evidence entirely reliable or entirely unreliable so as to place implicit reliance or totally discard his oral testimony. Having closely examined, we are not pre-pared to discard his evidence in its entirety but the part of his evidence to the effect that he found the accused Appellant guarding the victim boy (P.W. 6) at the place of recovery, in our considered view, is not supported by any evidence of the prosecution witness and hence, applying the said settled law, we would, without hesitation, discard the above portion of investigating officer's evidence. This would lead to a conclusion that the accused Appellant Sri Rakesh Debnath was not seen by the investigating officer (P.W. 9) guarding the victim boy at the place of recovery in the jungle. 18. In this context, we remind ourselves of the observation of the Apex Court in State of Punjab v. Jagir Singh Baljit Singh, reported in AIR 1973 SC 2407 , which is noted, hereunder: 23. A criminal trial is not like a fairy tale wherein one is free to give flight to one's imagination and fantasy. It concerns itself with the question as to whether the accused arraigned at the trial is guilty of the crime with which he is charged. Crime is an event in real life and is the produce of interplay of different human emotions. In arriving at the conclusion of a crime, the court has to Judge the evidence by yardstick of probabilities, its intrinsic worth and the animus of witnesses. Every case in the final analysis would have to depend upon its own facts. Although the benefit of every reasonable doubt should be given to the accused, the Court should not at the same time reject evidence which is ex facie trustworthy on grounds which are fanciful or in the nature of conjectures. 19. In the above discussion, we have found the evidence of investigating officer (P.W. 9) far from being trustworthy so much so the evidence on record too insufficient to hold the accused Appellant Sri Rakesh Debnath, liable to conviction. 19. In the above discussion, we have found the evidence of investigating officer (P.W. 9) far from being trustworthy so much so the evidence on record too insufficient to hold the accused Appellant Sri Rakesh Debnath, liable to conviction. We are not convinced that the charge has been proved against the Appellant aforementioned, beyond reasonable doubt, not to speak of all shades of reasonable doubt, as required in criminal trial. The Appellant Sri Rakesh Debnath is entitled to benefit of doubt and get the order of acquittal. We differ from the findings and conclusion arrived at by the learned trial Court and accordingly, set aside and quash the impugned judgment and order dated 18-3-2005 whereby the present Appellant was convicted and sentenced. In the result, the Appellant Sri Rakesh Debnath stands acquitted on benefit of doubt and he shall be set at liberty forthwith if his further detention is not required in connection with any other case. The bail bond stands discharged. 20. Appeal stands allowed. Bail bond stands discharged. Send down the LCRs to the Court below forthwith. Appeal allowed