JUDGMENT Brij Kishore Dube, J. 1. Feeling aggrieved by the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 15th August,2008, passed in Special Case No. 24 of 2007 by the Special Judge, Datia convicting Appellants under Section 364A, IPC read with Section 13 of the Madhya Pradesh Dakaiti Aur Vyapharan Prabhavit Kshetra Adhiniyam, 1981 and thereby sentencing each of them to suffer rigorous imprisonment for life and fine of Rs.50,000/, in default, further rigorous imprisonment for three years, the Appellants have filed this appeal under Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. 2. Prosecution story, in brief, may be narrated as under: (i) That, on 10th November, 2006 at about 9.00 A.M., Lakhan Singh (P.W.3) and Puran Singh (P.W.4) went to forest of Maunda (Bharkuan) for grazing their goats but they had not returned back till the evening, therefore, their family members went to the forest in search of them but they were untraceable. Therefore, P.W.2, Ratiram father of Lakhan Singh went to the Police Chowki Mangarol (Police Station, D. Paar) on 11th November,2006 at 11.30 A.M., and lodged a Gumshudgi report (Exhibit P/6). The criminal law was triggered and set in motion; (ii) That, on 27th November,2006, the missing persons, Lakhan Singh and Puran Singh escaped from the custody of the accused persons and reached the Police Station, D. Paar and stated that the accused persons have abducted them for ransom, therefore, Sub Inspector, Devlal Dhanole (P.W.6) has prepared recovery panchnama (Exhibit P/3) and recorded their statements. They were sent to Government Hospital, Seonda for medical examination; and (iii) That, the Investigation Officer after recording the statements of the witnesses who were acquainted with the facts of the offence, arrested the accused persons including the Appellants. On completion of the investigation, a charge sheet was filed against six accused persons including the Appellants before the Special Court. 3. The learned Special Judge on the basis of the material placed on record framed charge punishable under Section Section 364A, IPC read with Section 13 of the Madhya Pradesh Dakaiti Aur Vyapharan Prabhavit Kshetra Adhiniyam, 1981 and under Section 323 read with Section 149 of IPC against all the accused persons including the Appellants. The Appellants denied the charge and claimed to be tried. The Appellants denied the charge and claimed to be tried. The defence of the Appellants is of false implication and the same defence set forth in her statement recorded under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. 4. To bring home the charge, the prosecution has examined as many as 6 witnesses and placed Exhibits P/1 to P/16, the documents on record. The accused/Appellants have not examined any witness in their defence. 5. The learned Trial Judge on the basis of evidence placed on record came to hold that charge under Section Section 364A, IPC read with Section 13 of the Madhya Pradesh Dakaiti Aur Vyapharan Prabhavit Kshetra Adhiniyam, 1981 has been proved against the accused/Appellants as a result of which they have been convicted and passed the sentence as mentioned hereinabove, however, they have been acquitted from the charge under Section 323/149 of the IPC. The learned Trial Court after close scrutiny of the evidence came to hold that the charge under Section 364A, IPC read with Section 13 of the Madhya Pradesh Dakaiti Aur Vyapharan Prabhavit Kshetra Adhiniyam, 1981 and under Section 323/149 of the IPC are not proved against the coaccused, Kallu, Balveer Singh and Nandu alias Nandkishore and, eventually, acquitted all of them from the aforesaid charges. 6. In this manner, this appeal has been preferred by the Appellants assailing their judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the learned Trial Court. The State of Madhya Pradesh did not file any appeal against the acquittal of the coaccused persons as well as the acquittal of the Appellants, hence the case has attained finality in respect of the acquittal of the coaccused persons as well as under Section 323/149 of the IPC against the Appellants. 7. Legality and propriety of the impugned judgment of conviction has been challenged by the Appellants on the ground of misappreciation of the evidence on record. Learned senior counsel for the Appellants has submitted that there was no cogent evidence to establish the ingredients of offence under Section 364A, IPC read with Section 13 of the Madhya Pradesh Dakaiti Aur Vyapharan Prabhavit Kshetra Adhiniyam, 1981, two abductees, namely; Lakhan Singh and Puran Singh are saying that demand of ransom was made but this fact did not find place in their case diary statements. No test identification has been conducted by the Investigating Officer. No test identification has been conducted by the Investigating Officer. Identification of the accused made for the first time in Court by abudctees after 15 months from the date of the incident, therefore, conviction cannot be based upon such identification. Learned senior counsel has placed reliance on the case of Dana Yadav alias Dahu and Ors. v. State of Bihar, AIR 2002 SC 3325 and Babloo v. State of Madhya Pradesh 2009 CriL.J. 652 MP, Gwalior Bench. 8. On the contrary, Shri C.S. Dixit, learned Public Prosecutor has supported the impugned judgment and finding arrived at by the learned Trial Court and submitted that the conviction in question is well merited. 9. In order to appreciate the merits of the rival contentions in a proper perspective, it would be necessary to advert to the evidence available on record. 10. According to Ratiram (P.W.2) in the morning on the fateful day, his son, Lakhan Singh and his nephew, Puran Singh went to the jungle Maunda for grazing goats. In the evening, the goats were returned back but his son and nephew had not come back then he went to the jungle in search of them but finds that they were untraceable. Thereafter, he went to the Police Chowki, Mangarol with his brother Kunji (P.W.1) and lodged Gumshudgi report (Exhibit P/6). Thereafter after 18 days his son, Lakhan Singh and nephew, Puran Singh came back, they narrated that they were abducted by the dacoits and when the dacoits were sleeping they escaped from their custody but they never stated their names as well as identity of the dacoits who had abducted them. Similar facts were stated by Kunji (P.W.1). Both of them have not supported the prosecution case and, therefore, they were declared hostile. 11. So far as the testimony of abductees, Lakhan Singh (P.W.3) and Puran Singh (P.W.4) is concerned, they have stated that on the fateful day they were grazing the goats in Maunda jungle. At that juncture, 04 miscreants; including the accused, Mohar Singh, Prakash alias Ram Prakash and Pappu alias Ramsiya who were present in the Court armed with weapons (guns) came there and asked to show the pathway of Maunda jungle and Ratangarh Mata. While they went along with them to show pathway, they were abducted by them for ransom. The miscreants/accused persons caused marpeet and demanded Rs. While they went along with them to show pathway, they were abducted by them for ransom. The miscreants/accused persons caused marpeet and demanded Rs. 10.00 lacs for each abductee and they were detained for 1718 days and during that period the miscreants used to beat them and tied. One day in the night when the miscreants were sleeping, they managed to escape from the custody of the accused persons and reached to the Police Station in the morning about 0405 hours where police has prepared their recovery panchnama (Exhibit P/5). On account of nonidentification of the accused, Kallu, Balveer Singh and Nandu alias Nandkishore., these witnesses were declared hostile and were crossexamined by the Public Prosecutor. 12. On going through the testimony of both the abudctees, Lakhan Singh (P.W.3) and Puran Singh (P.W.4), this Court finds that the statements of Lakhan Singh (P.W.3) and Puran Singh (P.W.4) which were recorded firstly on 27th November, 2006 by the Police under Section 161 of the Cr.P.C., did not find place the names of the present Appellants. Another statements of both the abductees were recorded on 07th January, 2007 in which they have stated that they were abducted by Anup Singh Gurjar, Mohar Singh @ Lambu Dayu Dhimar, Jakhad @ Jakhar @ Atmaram Dhimar, Sarpanch @ Ramprakash @ Prakash Dhimar, Pappu @ Pathak Dhimar, Nandu @ Nanda Kishore Dhimar. In this regard, P.W.4, Puran Singh specifically pointed out that the names of the accused were told by the Police as well as his family members then only he stated their names in the police statement. P.W.3 Lakhan Singh and P.W.4, Puran Singh admitted that they did not know the Appellants/ accused by their names. 13. So far as the identification of the accused persons/Appellants by the abductees, P.W.3 Lakhan Singh and P.W.4 Puran Singh in the Court is concerned, they have very specifically stated that the Appellants were not known to them, they even could not identify the Appellants by their names in the Court. Though P.W.3, Lakhan Singh deposed that he identified the Appellants in the test identification parade conducted by the Police in Sub Jail, Seondah but as per the prosecution case, no such test identification parade was conducted. The Investigating Officer, Devlal Dhanole (P.W.6) has specifically stated that no test identification parade was conducted to identify the accused persons by P.W.3, Lakhan Singh and P.W.4, Puran Singh. The Investigating Officer, Devlal Dhanole (P.W.6) has specifically stated that no test identification parade was conducted to identify the accused persons by P.W.3, Lakhan Singh and P.W.4, Puran Singh. Similar statement was given by P.W.4, Puran Singh in paragraph 8 of his crossexamination. It is apposite to mention here that P.W.3, Lakhan Singh and P.W.4, Puran Singh had identified the Appellants for the first time in the Court at the time of their evidence after about 09 months (on 02nd August, 2007) and 15 months (on 06th February,2008) of the incident respectively, therefore, the evidence of P.W.3, Lakhan Singh and P.W.4, Puran Singh in regard to the dock identification of the Appellants cannot be relied upon. In this context, the Apex Court in the case of Kanan and Ors. v. State of Kerala, AIR 1979 SC 1127 has held as under: Where a witness identifies an accused who is not known to him in the Court for the first time, his evidence is absolutely valueless unless there has been a previous T.I parade to test his powers of observations. The idea of holding T.I parade under Section 9 is to test the veracity of the witness on the question of capability to identify an unkown person whom the witness may have seen only once. It no T.I parade is held then it will be wholly unsafe to rely on his bare testimony regarding the identification of an accused or the first time in Court. 14. In Mohanlal Gangaram Gehani v. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1982 SC 839 , the Apex Court relying upon the decision in the case of [V.C. Shukla v. State (Delhi Administration) AIR 1980 SC 1382 ] and Sahdeo Gosain v. The King Emperor, AIR 1944 FC 38 has held that if the Appellant was not known to the witness before the incident and was identified for the first time in the Court, in the absence of the test identification parade, the evidence of the witness was valueless and could not be relied upon. 15. The Apex Court in the case of Dana Yadav alias Dahu and Ors. 15. The Apex Court in the case of Dana Yadav alias Dahu and Ors. v. State of Bihar A.I.R. 2002 S.C. 3325 has held as under: Failure to hold test identification parade does not make the evidence of identification in court inadmissible rather the same is very much admissible in law, but ordinarily identification of an accused by a wetness for the first time in court should not form basis of conviction, the same being from its very nature inherently of a weak character unless it is corroborated by his previous identification in the test identification parade or any other evidence. The previous identification in the test identification parade or any other evidence. The previous identification in the test identification parade is a check valve to the evidence of identification in court of an accused by a witness and the same is a rule of prudence and not law. In exceptional circumstance only, evidence of identification for the first time in court, without the same being corroborated by previous identification in the test identification parade or any other evidence, can form the basis of conviction. 16. In the case of Ravi @ Ravichandran v. State Rep. by Inspector of Police, AIR 2007 SC 1729 , the Apex Court has observed in paragraphs 17 and 18 as under: It is no doubt true that the substantive evidence of identification of an accused is the one made in the court, a judgment of conviction can be arrived at even if no test identification parade has been held. But when a First Information Report has been lodged against unknown persons, a test identification parade in terms of Section 9 of the Evidence Act, is held for the purpose of testing the veracity of the witness in regard to his capability of identifying persons who were unknown to him. The witnesses were not very sure as to whether they had seen the Appellant before. Had the accused been known, their identity would have been disclosed in the First Information Report. PW-1 for the first time before the Court stated that he had known the accused from long before, but did not know their names earlier, although he came to know of their names at a later point of time. In a case of this nature, it was incumbent upon the prosecution to arrange a test identification parade. PW-1 for the first time before the Court stated that he had known the accused from long before, but did not know their names earlier, although he came to know of their names at a later point of time. In a case of this nature, it was incumbent upon the prosecution to arrange a test identification parade. Such test identification parade was required to be held as early as possible so as to exclude the possibility of the accused being identified either at the police station or at some other place by the concerned witnesses or with reference to the photographs published in the newspaper. A conviction should not be based on a vague identification. 17. For the reasons stated hereinabove and the decisions of the Apex Court referred to hereinabove, it would be hazardous to place reliance on the evidence of dock identification of P.W.3, Lakhan Singh and P.W.4, Puran Singh. Therefore, we are unable to upheld the finding of the learned Trial Court convicting the Appellants under Section 364A, IPC read with Section 13 of the Madhya Pradesh Dakaiti Aur Vyapharan Prabhavit Kshetra Adhiniyam, 1981 and we set aside the same. 18. Resultantly, this appeal succeeds and is hereby allowed. The judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the learned Trial Court is set aside and the Appellants are acquitted from the charges. The Appellants are in jail, they be set at liberty forthwith, if not required in any other case. The amount of fine if deposited, be refunded to the Appellants.