JUDGMENT P. V. HARDAS, J. :- The appellants/original accused nos. 1 , 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6, who stand convicted for offence punishable under Sections 364-A read with Section 34, 395 and 397, 387 read with Section 34, 342 read with Section 34 of the IPC and 3(1)(ii), 3(2), 3(4) of the MCOC Act and sentenced to imprisonment for life and to each pay fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default of which to undergo imprisonment for three months, RI for seven years and each to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default of which to undergo RI for three months on each count, imprisonment for five years and to each pay fine of Rs.1,000/- in default of which to undergo imprisonment for three months, imprisonment for one year and imprisonment for ten years and to each pay a fine of Rs.5,00,000/-, in default to undergo further imprisonment for three years, by the Special Judge (M.C.O.C. Act), Thane, by judgment dated 20/10/2005 in M.C.O.C. Special Case No.3 of 2002, by these appeals question the correctness of their conviction and sentence. 2. Facts in brief as are necessary for the decision of these appeals may briefly be stated thus: PW 48 - PI Ashok Survade, who, on 24/5/2001, was attached to the Murbad Police Station, was informed at about 2 a.m. that PW 1 - Yatin Shah had left for Kalyan in his car along with his mother and driver after closing his shop, but had not reached home at Kalyan. He accordingly instructed the station diary incharge Head Constable to record an entry in the station diary and, therefore, an entry was recorded at Serial No.2 on 25/5/2001. PW 48 - PI Survade gave message to the nearby police station and the control room about missing of Yatin Shah. He deputed a police team to search for Yatin at Kalyan. In the morning, PW 2 Sudhir Shah came to the police station at about 6.10 a.m. and informed PW 48 - PI Survade that the missing person had not returned home and that the driver of the car and the mother of the missing person were taken by some unknown persons to a unknown destinations. Accordingly, another entry was taken in the station diary at Serial No.9. Sudhir Shah asked if he want to lodge report, but he declined. Accordingly, another entry was taken in the station diary at Serial No.9. Sudhir Shah asked if he want to lodge report, but he declined. On 31/5/2001 when PW 48 - PI Survade was in the police station, PW 1 - Yatin came to the police station, along with his relatives. Yastin Shah had sustained an injury to his right leg and was walking with difficulty. His complaint was accordingly recorded at Exh. 60. On the basis of the said complaint at Exh. 60, an offence vide Crime No. 87 of 2001 was registered under Sections 397 and 341 of the IPC. The investigation was undertaken by PW 48 – P1 Survade. Thereafter, statements of Dinesh, Dhanesh, Shailesh and driver of the car - Mohd. Pathan were recorded. Statements of Naresh Shah and Sudhir Shah and Dinesh Shah were also recorded. Mother of PW 1 Yatin was not in a position to give her statement and, therefore, her statement could not be recorded. On the same day, PW 48 – PI Survade visited the spot at Murbad bridge, which was pointed out by PW 5 - Mohd. Pathan, the driver. PW 5 - Mohd. Pathan then took the police towards Karjat via MIDC area and Mhasa and pointed the other places. Accordingly the panchanama was drawn in the presence of panchas at Exh. 72. Naresh Shah had also pointed out certain places and the description of those places was also included in the panchanama at Exh. 72. The police party was sent in search of the accused and on 30/6/2001 PW 5 - Mohd. Pathan, the driver of the car of PW 1 - Yatin was arrested. Statements of witnesses were recorded. Further investigation was thereafter handed over to PSI Tambe of the L.C.B. Crime. 3. PW 43 - PSI Dayaneshwar Baburao Tambe, who, in May 2001, was attached to the L.C.S., Thane, Rural, was entrusted with the investigation of Crime No.87 of 2001 registered at the Murbad Police Station. On 30/7/2001, the investigation was entrusted to him. The printout of the mobile phone numbers mentioned in the report of PW 1 - Yatin was obtained. Statement of one Nilesh Shelar was recorded. Printout of the call details of the mobile phone of Nilesh was obtained. ON 2/8/2001, accused no.2 - Sudesh Nair was arrested at Airoli under arrest panchanama at Exh. 84. On 3/8/2001 at about 1.30 a.m. accused no. Statement of one Nilesh Shelar was recorded. Printout of the call details of the mobile phone of Nilesh was obtained. ON 2/8/2001, accused no.2 - Sudesh Nair was arrested at Airoli under arrest panchanama at Exh. 84. On 3/8/2001 at about 1.30 a.m. accused no. 3 - Pramod Jadhav was arrested at Kapurbavdi under arrest panchanama at Exh.85. During custodial interrogation, on 4/8/2001, accused- Sudesh Nair expressed his willingness to point out the place where the currency notes and other articles like fan, television were kept. He had also expressed his willingness to point out the place where a gold chain had been concealed. Accordingly, a memorandum was drawn in the presence of panchas at Exh. 80A. The accused led the police and the panchas to his room in a village and produced cash of Rs.25,000/- and a gold chain from a bag. The accused also pointed out the television set and a fan which were seized under seizure memo at Exh. 80B. On the same day, during custodial interrogation, accused - Pramod expressed his willingness to point out the place where a television set, gold chain and earrings which had been concealed as well as currency notes of Rs.14000/-. The accused also expressed his willingness to point out the place where a bracelet and a gold ring had been concealed. Accordingly, memorandum at Exh. 81 A was drawn in the presence of panchas. Accused led the police and the pancahs to his room and pointed out the television set and produced the gold ornaments and the currency notes, which had been kept in a utensil in the house. He had also produced receipts of purchase of the gold ornaments and the television set, which were seized under seizure memo at Exh. 81 B. On 51 8/2001, accused no. 4 - Santosh was arrested at Badlapur under arrest panchanama at Exh.86. During custodial interrogation, he expressed his willingness to produce the gold ornaments and accordingly a memorandum was drawn in the presence of panchas at Exh. 90A. The accused led the police and the panchas and produced the gold ornaments, which were seized under seizure memo at Exh. 90B. On 7/8/2001 cash of Rs.30,000/- was seized from one Kanakraj Nadar of Shivshakti Garage as it was revealed in the investigation that accused no. 2 - Sudesh Nair had paid the aforesaid charges as a deposit. 90A. The accused led the police and the panchas and produced the gold ornaments, which were seized under seizure memo at Exh. 90B. On 7/8/2001 cash of Rs.30,000/- was seized from one Kanakraj Nadar of Shivshakti Garage as it was revealed in the investigation that accused no. 2 - Sudesh Nair had paid the aforesaid charges as a deposit. The said amount of Rs.30,000/- was seized under seizure memo at Exh. 82. On 8/8/2001 accused no. 4 Samtosh, during the custodial interrogation, expressed his willingness to point out certain articles like cooker, mixer and tape recorder from his house. The said statement was accordingly recorded in the presence of panchas at Exh. 83A. The accused led the police and the panchas to Goulwadi, Taluka Karjat and produced the articles from his house, which were seized under seizure memo at Exh.83 B. On 9/8/2001 accused no. 3 - Pramod expressed his willingness to point out the place where the car used in the crime was parked. Accordingly a memorandum was drawn in the presence of panch as and thereafter the accused led the police and the panchas and a blue Maruti - 800 car was seized under seizure panchanama at Exh. 89. The documents of the car were also seized. On the same day, accused no. 2 Sudesh led the police to one Madhav Hotel, Pune. An employee of the hotel produced a register and the extracts of the relevant pages of the register were seized under panchanama at Exh. 77. In the night on 15/8/2001, accused no.5 - Chandrakant was brought by API Pawar in the police station along with an arrest panchanama and a revolver and five live cartridges. During custodial interrogation, accused no. 5 - Chandrakant expressed his willingness to point out the place where a Hero Honda motorcycle, gold ornaments and cash of Rs.61,000/- had been concealed. Accordingly, a memorandum was drawn in the presence of pancahs at Exh. 91 A. The accused led the police and the panch as to his house and produced cash of Rs.61 ,000/-, gold ornaments and the motorcycle bearing Registration No.MH-04-AZ-8126, which were seized under seizure memo at Exh. 91 B. Statement of a girl working in the Mayuri Bar was recorded and during interrogation, she had produced cash of Rs. 40,000/-, gold chain and earrings, which were seized under seizure memo at Exh. 92. On 17/8/2001, accused-Avinash Dugad was arrested. 91 B. Statement of a girl working in the Mayuri Bar was recorded and during interrogation, she had produced cash of Rs. 40,000/-, gold chain and earrings, which were seized under seizure memo at Exh. 92. On 17/8/2001, accused-Avinash Dugad was arrested. On 26/8/2001 accused no. 6 - Sharad Kolambe was arrested under arrest panchanama. On 29/8/2001 one Pravin Salvi produced cash of Rs.30,000/-, which was seized under panchanama at Exh. 108. During interrogation, it was revealed that the said amount had been paid by accused no. 6 Sharad to his landlord Pravin Salvi. Statement of Pravin Salvi was recorded. During custodial interrogation, on 3/9/2001, accused no. 6 Sharad expressed his willingness to point out the place where a television set, gold chain and gold ring had been concealed. Accordingly, a memorandum was drawn in the presence of panch as at Exh. 78A. The accused led the police and the panchas to his house at Kolambewad, Taluka - Karjat and produced the gold ornaments and pointed out the television set, which were seized under seizure memo. During investigation, it was revealed that the accused had committed several such offences in the past and after collecting their crime record, it was felt that the accused were members of organized crime syndicate and had committed organized crime and were engaged in continuing unlawful activities and accordingly on 9/9/2001 a proposal was prepared for application of the provisions of the MCOC Act. The said proposal was addressed to the Special I.G., Konkan Range, through proper channel. The Special I.G. of Police, by order dated 11/9/2001, accepted the proposal for applying the provisions of the MCOC Act and the investigation was thereafter entrusted to the Sub Divisional Police Officer, Mumbra, by letter at Exh. 153. The sanction, which is granted, is at Exh. 154. The investigation was thereafter handed over to PW 53 - Baburao Gavrane. On 14/12/2001 as per the directions of PW 53 - Shri Gavrane, the mobile phone of witness Nilesh Shelar was seized under panchanama at Exh. 155. On 15/12/2001 certain sticks came to be seized under seizure memo at Exh. 156. 4. PW 53 - SDPO Shri Gavrane, who was entrusted with the investigation of Crime No. 87 of 2001, registered by the Murbad Police Station, on application of the provisions of MCOC Act, received the papers from PSI Tambe regarding the earlier investigation which had been carried out. 156. 4. PW 53 - SDPO Shri Gavrane, who was entrusted with the investigation of Crime No. 87 of 2001, registered by the Murbad Police Station, on application of the provisions of MCOC Act, received the papers from PSI Tambe regarding the earlier investigation which had been carried out. He recorded the supplementary statement of witnesses. On 8/10/2003 accused - Tanaji was arrested. API Pawar was directed to arrest accused - Prakash Goswami, but it was revealed that he had killed in an police encounter. Statements of Pandurang Bhoir and Duda Kini were recorded by PSI Jadhav under his direction. On 9/11/2001 and 16/11/2001 letters were addressed to the Tahsildar, Murbad for conducting the Test Identification Parade of accused no.4 - Santosh, accused no. 5 Chandrakant, accused - Avinash, accused no. 2 - Sudesh, accused no. 3 - Pramod and accused no. 6 - Sharad. The said letters are at Exhs. 163, 166 and 170. The memorandum of T.I. Parade on its receipt from the Executive Magistrate was included in the papers of the investigation. On 31/12/2002 revolver and the cartridges were sent to the Ballistic Expert and the report was received on 24/5/2002. On 11/1/2002 accused no.1 - Sanjay Mohite was arrested. Further to the completion of investigation, the papers were forwarded to the Additional Director General of Police, through the Superintendent of Police and the Special Inspector General of Police for obtaining sanction for prosecution under the MCOC Act. Sanction at Exh. 182 was received and thereafter a charge-sheet was filed in the court on 25/1/2002. Supplementary charge-sheet was filed against accused no. 1 - Sanjay on 24/12/2002. The record of the cases pending against the accused in various courts was collected and the same is at Exh. 216. 5. PW 1 - Yatish Shah, who had sustained injuries, was examined by PW 31 Dr. Prashant Sonavane, who was attached to Shree Hospital and Sushrut Nursing Home. The injured was examined on 26/5/2001 at about 3.30 a.m. as PW 31 - Dr. Sonavane had received a telephone call about admission of PW 1 - Yatin with injuries. He accordingly went to the hospital, examined him and took the X-rays. PW 31 - Dr. Sonavane noticed fracture of tibia (left side). There was soft tissue contusion over back. On inquiry it was disclosed that Yatin had sustained injuries in a vehicular accident. Sonavane had received a telephone call about admission of PW 1 - Yatin with injuries. He accordingly went to the hospital, examined him and took the X-rays. PW 31 - Dr. Sonavane noticed fracture of tibia (left side). There was soft tissue contusion over back. On inquiry it was disclosed that Yatin had sustained injuries in a vehicular accident. He was accordingly admitted and treatment was given. Plaster was put on the left leg. At 7.30 p.m. he was discharged from the hospital on his own request. A certificate was accordingly issued by PW 31 - Dr. Sonavane, at Exh. 123. 6. The Special Judge, vide Exh.11, framed charge against the appellants and other accused for offence punishable under Sections 3(1)(i), 3(1)(ii), 3(4) of MCOC Act, 395 read with 397, 387, 364-A read with 34, 342 read with 34, 325 read with 34 and 120-B of the IPC and under Section 25(A) of the Indian Arms Act. The accused denied their guilt and claimed to be tried. Prosecution, in support of its case, examined 54 witnesses. The defence of the accused was of denial. The trial Judge, upon appreciation of the evidence of the prosecution, convicted and sentenced the appellants as afore-stated. 7. Appellant - Sudesh Nair i.e. Original Accused No.2, after the filing of the appeal, had absconded and accordingly an application was moved before us for separating the case of the absconding accused. This court thereafter passed an order, separating the appeal of the absconding accused and the appeals of the other accused are accordingly heard by us. The appeal filed by Original Accused No.2 Sudesh Nair i.e. Criminal Appeal No. 906 of 2006, so far it relates to the challenge to the conviction and sentence of Original Accused No.2 - Sudesh Nair is separated and the appeal in so far as it relates to the challenge to the conviction and sentence of Original Accused No.4 - Santosh and Original Accused No.6 Sharad is heard. Criminal Appeal No. 906 of 2006 relating to the conviction and sentence of original accused no. 2 - Sudesh Nair would be heard by this court after original accused no. 2 - Sudesh Nair is arrested. 8. In order to effectively deal with the submissions advanced before us by the learned counsel for the appellants and the learned APP, it would be useful to refer to the evidence of the prosecution witnesses. 2 - Sudesh Nair would be heard by this court after original accused no. 2 - Sudesh Nair is arrested. 8. In order to effectively deal with the submissions advanced before us by the learned counsel for the appellants and the learned APP, it would be useful to refer to the evidence of the prosecution witnesses. PW 2 - Deepak Shah, uncle of PW 1 - Yatin, deposes that in the night of 24/5/2001 he learnt that Yatin had not reached his home at Kalyan from Murbad from Sudhir and PW 4 Naresh. PW 2 - Deepak, along with others, searched for Yatin and his mother, but no trace of the missing persons was found. At about 12 mid-night, PW 2 - Deepak informed the missing of Yatin and his mother to the Murbad Police Station and requested the Murbad Police Station to give information on wireless to the other police stations. PW 2 - Deepak then contacted PW 3 - Dinesh and informed him to launch a search for the missing persons at Titwala Padgha area. They had again gone to the Murbad Police Station at about 1.30 a.m. At 3 a.m. a telephone call was made at the residential house of Yatin to enquire if Yatin and his mother and the driver had returned horn. They learnt that mother of Yatin and the driver had returned home with the car, but Yatin had been detained by some persons. On the next day, at about 8 a.m., he went to the residence of Sudhir at Murbad and was informed that Sudhir had received a telephone call from Yatin informing Sudhir that a ransom of Rs.20 lacs was required to be paid to the criminals for release of Yatin. Yatin had requested that money be collected. Accordingly, PW 2 - Deepak collected about Rs.3 lacs and handed over the same to Sudhir at about 12 noon. At about I p.m. Deepak received a telephone call from Yatin, who asked him the reason as to why Yatin was unable to contact Sudhir on his telephone. Yatin requested Deepak to inform Sudhir to disconnect the call which he was making so that Yatin could call him. Accordingly, Deepak went to the house of Sudhir, but meanwhile, he was received a telephone call from Yatin and Deepak also talked to Yatin. Yatin further instructed them that they should reach "Chowk Phata via Kalyan". Yatin requested Deepak to inform Sudhir to disconnect the call which he was making so that Yatin could call him. Accordingly, Deepak went to the house of Sudhir, but meanwhile, he was received a telephone call from Yatin and Deepak also talked to Yatin. Yatin further instructed them that they should reach "Chowk Phata via Kalyan". Yatin also informed them not to inform the police as his life was in danger. Sudhir arranged for the balance amount and an amount of Rs.20 lacs was placed in a coffee coloured rexin bag containing 36 bundles of currency notes of Rs.500/- denomination and 20 bundles of currency notes of Rs.100/- denomination. Deepak further deposes that he, along with PW 4 - Naresh went by a white Maruti car to the address which was given by Yatin Shah. Deepak and Naresh reached at the Chowk Phata at about 3.30 to 3.45 p.m. and waited there for about 15 to 20 minutes. Thereafter a blue coloured Maruti car came there, which was being driven by accused no. 3 - Pramod. The other occupant of the car was not an accused before the court, who were present. The blue coloured Maruti car signaled the Maruti car of Deepak and Naresh to follow that car. The blue coloured Maruti car of the accused stopped near Khopoli near a STD Booth. One person from the blue Maruti car entered the Booth and returned after five minutes. He took a search of the car of the Deepak and Naresh and also took the mobile phone of Naresh and informed Naresh in Marathi that he would return it afterwards. Both the cars proceeded further. The blue coloured Maruti car stopped near Karla after crossing Lonavala. Accued No.2 - Sudesh boarded the car and after travelling for some distance, the cars again stopped. Accused No.6 - Sharad boarded the car at that place and thereafter the cars proceeded further. They crossed Pune and reached Kondhva by about 7 p.m. Deepak and Naresh requested the accused to let them for a glimpse of Yatin. A silver coloured Indica car came there and Yatin was seen sitting in the car. The car thereafter went towards Sasvad and the car of Deepak and Naresh followed that car. The blue coloured Maruti car was behind their car. It was dark by the time the cars reached near an arch. A silver coloured Indica car came there and Yatin was seen sitting in the car. The car thereafter went towards Sasvad and the car of Deepak and Naresh followed that car. The blue coloured Maruti car was behind their car. It was dark by the time the cars reached near an arch. Accused No. 6 Sharad told Deepak and Naresh to take the car through the arch, but they refused. Accused No.6 - Sharad took out a revolver and threatened at the point of the revolver to take the car through the arch. Accused No. 2 Sudesh intervened and tried to pacify accused no. 6 - Sharad. The other persons from the cars alighted. The headlights of all the cars had been switched on. Naresh alighted from the car carrying the bag containing the money. One accused, who was addressed as "Chiknya" open the bag and informed the other accused that the amount was less. He counted the money. He has identified all the accused i.e. accused nos. 1 to 6 and has also stated that there were three other accused, who were not present. Yatin was unable to walk and Deepak and Naresh helped him to alight from the car and then took him to their car. Yatin informed them that a bag containing the gold "rods" was with the accused. Deepak asked the accused to return the same, but the accused told them that they would send the bag, containing gold rods at a square in Kondhva. The bag containing the ransom amount was kept in the Indica car. Thereafter, Deepak, Naresh and Yatin went towards Sasvad. At Kondhva they waited for about ten minutes, but since Yatin was complaining pain, they went to Kalyan and reached Kalyan by about 3 a.m. They went to Shivam Hospital of Dr. Moghe and narrated the incident to the Medical Officer. The Medical Officer refused to admit Yatin and thereafter they went to Shreedevi Hospital, where also the Medical Officer refused to admit Yatin after learning about the incident. They felt that Yatin may not get proper treatment and, therefore, took him to Shree Hospital and gave a false history of accident. Yatin was admitted in the hospital. PW 31 - Dr. Sonavane gave him first aid and applied plaster on the left leg of Yatin. In the evening of 26th, Yatin was discharged. They felt that Yatin may not get proper treatment and, therefore, took him to Shree Hospital and gave a false history of accident. Yatin was admitted in the hospital. PW 31 - Dr. Sonavane gave him first aid and applied plaster on the left leg of Yatin. In the evening of 26th, Yatin was discharged. Yatin was not in a position to speak as he was mentally disturbed. On 31st, Yatin called Deepak and others to his house at Kalyan and disclosed his intention to lodge a report. Yatin was, therefore, taken to the Murbad Police Station in the night and accordingly report of Yatin was lodged. He further states that on 24/9/2001, a T.I. Parade was held at Kalyan Jail, where he identified accused no. 6 - Sharad. Deepak was again called for T.I. Parade at Kalyan Jail on 29//11/2001, where he identified accused no.3 - Pramod. In the T.I. Parade held on 13/12/ 2001 in Kalyan Jail, Deepak identified accused no. 2 - Sudesh. 9. In cross-examination, an omission has been elicited that he had not stated in his previous statements dated 1/6/2001 and 30/12/2001 that he had collected an amount of Rs.3 lacs. He volunteered that he had taken a hand-loan from others but admitted that he had not returned that amount till that day. He has admitted that Yatin had not also returned the money to Deepak. He has admitted that he had not disclosed this amount in his income tax returns. He further admits that after the arrest of accused nos.1 to 6, Yatin had disclosed their names to him. He was confronted with portion marked "A" from his statement about disclosure of name of accused no.1 - Sanjay Mohite in his supplementary statement dated 30/12/2001. Omission has also been elicited that he had not stated that Yatin was warned him not to inform the police and that the ransom amount of R s.20 lacs was kept in a coffee coloured rexin bag. Omission has also been elicited that he had not stated in his previous statement about all the accused alighting from the cars near the arch and about headlights of the cars being switched on and the accused had counted the money and thereafter Yatin being taken to Shivam Hospital and then to Shreedevi Hospital, where the hospitals refused to admit him. Omission has also been elicited that he had not stated in his previous statement that Yatin was admitted in the Shree Hospital as a false history of accident was given. In further cross-examination, he has denied that the descriptions of the accused who had boarded his car was not disclosed to the police. Omission has also been elicited that he had not stated about receiving the telephone call from Yatin asking him as to why Yatin could not contact Sudhir at his residence. Omission is elicited that he had talked to Yatin at the house of Sudhir. 10. Prosecution has examined PW 4 - Naresh, cousin of PW1 - Yatin, who deposes about Sudhir, brother of PW1 - Yatin, informing him in the night of 14/5/2001 about Yatin and his mother and the driver not reaching home. Naresh states that he had also joined others in the search for Yatin and others. He states that they had met PW 2 - Deepak, who had also accompanied them and thereafter they had given information to the Murbad Police Station. He states that at about 1 a.m. they had again gone to the Police Station and again proceeded in search towards Shahpur, when a constable of the Murbad Police Station accompanied them. He further states that at about 3 a.m. they had telephoned Yatin's house and learnt that his mother and the driver had reached home, but Yatin was detained by the criminals. In the morning at about 8 a.m. he had gone to the house of Sudhir and informed him about receipt of telephone from the criminals and Yatin and about ransom demand of Rs. 20 lacs. He further informed Deepak that Yatin had cautioned them not to inform the police or to disclose his abduction to anyone. Naresh states that he approached his cousin Dinesh from whom he had borrowed Rso4 lacs. He handed over the said amount to Sudhir and thereafter he approached one Harpatrao, who was also advanced him Rs.4 lacs. He handed over the said amount to Sudhir and Sudhir collected the remaining amount. At about 1 p.m. currency notes of Rs.20 lacs were kept in a brown coloured bag and as per the instructions of the criminals, Naresh and Deepak had gone towards the Chowk Phata in a Maruti car. They reached the Chowk Phata at about 3045 to 4 p.m. and waited there. At about 1 p.m. currency notes of Rs.20 lacs were kept in a brown coloured bag and as per the instructions of the criminals, Naresh and Deepak had gone towards the Chowk Phata in a Maruti car. They reached the Chowk Phata at about 3045 to 4 p.m. and waited there. After sometime, a blue coloured car reached there and the driver of the car instructed them to follow that car. The car was being driven by accused no. 3 Pramod. They travelled further and stopped near a STD Booth. One of the accused made a call from the STD Booth and thereafter came to the car of Naresh and searched the car. He took the mobile phone of Naresh and informed that he would return it afterwards. The cars then reached near Lonavala. One of the accused had already boarded their car from the STD Booth. Another accused boarded the car, who was accused no.2 - Sudesh Nair. At Ekvira Phata, another accused i.e. accused no.6 Sharad boarded the car. The cars thus reached Kondhva. Naresh requested the accused to let them have a glimpse at Yatin and accordingly a Indica car came near their car. Yatin was seen sitting inside the car. The cars then proceeded towards Sasvad. After travelling about 10 kms., the cars stopped near an arch. Accused asked Naresh that their car be taken to the side of the forest, but Naresh declined. At that time, accused no. 6 pointed a revolver towards Naresh and asked them to take the car towards forest. Accused No.2 - Sudesh Nair intervened and pacified the accused. Naresh told him to accept the money and release Yatin. Naresh accordingly alighted from the car with the bag containing the ransom amount. Since the time was 7.30 p.m. to 7.45 p.m., the headlights of the cars had been switched on. One accused called "Chiknya" said that the ransom amount was less. Naresh informed him that 18 lacs was in the form of currency notes of Rs.500/denomination and the remaining amount was in the form of currency notes of Rs. 100/denomination. Yatin was taken out from the car as he was unable to walk and then was made to sit in the car, in which Deepak and Naresh were travelling. Naresh requested the accused to return the three gold bars and cash of Rs. 12,000/- taken from Yatin. 100/denomination. Yatin was taken out from the car as he was unable to walk and then was made to sit in the car, in which Deepak and Naresh were travelling. Naresh requested the accused to return the three gold bars and cash of Rs. 12,000/- taken from Yatin. Accused assured to give gold ornaments and cash at Kondhva. He has identified accused no.1 - Sanjay, accused no. 2 - Sudesh, accused no. 3 Pramod, accused no. 4 - Santosh, accused no.5 - Chandrakant and accused no. 6 - Sharad as the accused who were amongst the accused present at the scene of the incident. He states that three of the accused were not before the court. Naresh further deposes that they waited at Kondhva for about 10 minutes, but the accused did not turn up and, therefore, they proceeded towards Kalyan. They had gone to the Moghe Hospital, but Deepak informed them that the Medical Officer had refused to admit Yatin as it was a police case. Thereafter, they had gone to the Shreedevi Hospital, where again Deepak informed them that the Medical Officer refused to admit Yatin. They had gone to the Shree Hospital and had disclosed a false history of accident and accordingly Yatin was admitted in the hospital and first aid was administered to him. He further deposes that his statement was recorded and in the TI. Parade, on 24/9/2001, he had identified accused no. 6 - Sharad. In the T.I. Parade, on 29/11/2001, he had identified accused no. 3 - Pramod. In the T.I. Parade, on 12/12/2001, he had identified accused no. 2 - Sudesh. 11. In cross-examination, omission has been elicited that he had not given description of some of the criminals. Omission is also elicited that he had not stated in his previous statement about the headlights of the cars being switched on near the arch and about he requesting the accused to return the gold and cash. Omission has been elicited that he had not stated in his previous statement that he borrowed Rs.4 lacs from Dinesh and Rs.4 lacs from Harpatrao. He has admitted that he has not returned the amount to Harpatrao. He has also admitted that Yatin had not refunded him the said amount. He has admitted that the said amount has not reflected either in his accounts or in his income tax returns. He has admitted that he has not returned the amount to Harpatrao. He has also admitted that Yatin had not refunded him the said amount. He has admitted that the said amount has not reflected either in his accounts or in his income tax returns. In further cross-examination, an omission has been elicited that he had not stated that near the STD Booth, the accused had searched his car. Omission has also been elicited that he had not stated in his previous statement that Yatin was seen sitting in the Indica car and that they were asked by the accused to take their car in the forest. Omission has also been elicited that all the nine accused counted the currency notes. An omission has also been elicited that he had not stated in his previous statement that Yatin had asked him not to disclose the incident to anyone, including the police as the accused had threatened to kill Yatin. Omission has also been elicited that he had not stated in his previous statement that while counting the currency notes, the accused were handing over the bundles to each other for counting. Omission has been elicited that he had not stated that the accused on receiving the bundles after being counted them back in the bag. Omission has also been elicited that he had not stated that he had informed the accused, whose name was Chiknya that 18 lacs was in the form of currency notes of 500 denomination and two lacs were in the form of currency notes of 100 denomination. Omission has been elicited that he had not stated in his previous statement about the attempts to admit Yatin in the hospital, but the Medical Officers declining to admit Yatin and that Yatin was then admitted in the hospital on giving a false history of accident. 12. Prosecution has examined PW 3 - Dinesh Shah, cousin of PW 1 - Yatin. Dinesh also deposes on the lines similar to that of PW 2 - Deepak and PW 4 - Naresh about searching for Yatin. He further states that after taking search of Yatin, he had gone to the house of Yatin at Kalyan at about 2.45 a.m. Within a few minutes, a car reached near Yatin's house, in which mother of Yatin was travelling. The car was being driven by PW 5 - Mohd. Pathan, the driver. He further states that after taking search of Yatin, he had gone to the house of Yatin at Kalyan at about 2.45 a.m. Within a few minutes, a car reached near Yatin's house, in which mother of Yatin was travelling. The car was being driven by PW 5 - Mohd. Pathan, the driver. The driver informed him that the criminals had assaulted PW 1 - Yatin and that his leg was fractured. The driver also disclosed that Yatin had directed that no disclosure of the incident be made to anyone. The driver further disclosed thatYatin would be calling Deepak in the morning. Dinesh then elicited the entire incident from the driver. He further states that in the morning he had gone to the house of Sudhir and informed the incident to Sudhir. He deposes that on the morning of 26th, Sudhir informed him that Yatin had returned to Kalyan and that a ransom of Rs.20 lacs was paid to the abductors. He further states that on 25/5/2001, PW 4 - Naresh had borrowed Rs.4 lacs from him. In cross-examination, an omission has been elicited that he had not stated that he had given Rs.4 lacs to Naresh on 25/6/2001. He has admitted that he had not noticed any injuries or blood stains on the clothes of the driver. 13. Prosecution has examined PW 5 - Mohd. Pathan, the driver. PW 5 Mohd. Pathan deposes that on 24/5/2001 at about 9 p.m. he had left Murbad for going to Kalyan in the car, in which PW 1 - Yatin and his mother were travelling. After crossing a petrol pump in the outskirts of Murbad, a blue Maruti car overtook their car. They reached near a bridge and noticed one car parked on the bridge. The car being driven by PW 5 Mohd. Path an could not cross the bridge and he, therefore, stopped the car. One car came from behind their car and four persons alighted. Those persons attempted to open the door of the car but they did not succeed and, therefore, broken windowpanes of the car with sticks. One of the accused threatened him at the point of a gun. Yatin was also threatened by the accused. PW 5 - Mohd. Pathan was made to sit on the rear seat of the car, while one of the accused drove the car. One of the accused threatened him at the point of a gun. Yatin was also threatened by the accused. PW 5 - Mohd. Pathan was made to sit on the rear seat of the car, while one of the accused drove the car. The cars then proceeded towards the MIDC area and after half an hour, the cars stopped. PW 5 - Mohd. Pathan was blindfolded and was then taken to another car. The cars then proceeded further and after about one and half hours to two hours journey, the cars stopped again for half an hour at some farmhouse. Those persons conversed amongst themselves. PW 5 - Mohd. Pathan had sustained bleeding injury as he had been dragged. He states that there were blood stains on his shirt and he was taken to the water pump at the farmhouse, where he drank water and washed the blood stains on his shirt. PW 5 Mohd. Pathan was blindfolded again and taken to the Maruti car. Yatin had called him and he had noticed that Yatin was limping. Yatin informed him that Yatin would contact Naresh on telephone and further informed PW 5 Mohd. Pathan not to inform anyone else. Mother of Yatin also was in the Zen car. One of the accused drove the car while another accused sat in the front seat of the car. They had stopped at petrol pump where petrol was filled in the car. After reaching Panvel Cross Road, the accused alighted from the car and blindfold was removed. Mohd. Pathan then took the car to the house of Yatin and reached the house at about 2.30 a.m. to 3 a.m. PW 5 Mohd. Pathan states that he had informed PW 3 - Dinesh about the incident. PW 5 - Mohd. Path an states that thereafter he had gone home. He also deposes that on 1/6/2001 he was called at police station and was interrogated. He had pointed out the places where the car had been obstructed and thereafter a panchanama was drawn. 14. In cross-examination, he has admitted that he was assaulted by the police in this crime and was injail for about one month. He also deposes that on 1/6/2001 he was called at police station and was interrogated. He had pointed out the places where the car had been obstructed and thereafter a panchanama was drawn. 14. In cross-examination, he has admitted that he was assaulted by the police in this crime and was injail for about one month. Certain omissions have been elicited that he had not stated in his previous statement about the signal lights of the car being on while parked on the bridge as well as the headlights and that Dinesh had cautioned him not to disclose the incident to anyone. Omission has also been elicited that he had not disclosed in his previous statement about the car being repaired at a garage in Ulhasnagar. He was confronted with portion marked "A" from his previous statement about second car reaching the bridge after the windowpanes had been broken. He has admitted that he had shown the injuries to the police, but had not been referred for medical examination. 15. Prosecution has examined PW 1 - Yatin, who deposes that he has a jewellery shop at Murbad, which is on the ground floor, while his residence is-on the first floor. He states that he resides at Kalyan and each morning he used to go to Murbad from Kalyan at about 9 a.m. and returned home at about 9 p.m. He has deposed that PW 5 Mohd. Pathan was the driver of his car, who also resides at Murbad. He states that on 24/5/2001 after closing his shop, he had left for Kalyan at about 8.50 p.m. by his car, which was being driven by PW 5 - Mohd. Pathan. His Mother was also travelling in the car. He then deposes about the incident at the bridge as is deposed to by PW 5 - Mohd. Pathan. He states that his briefcase was snatched by the accused and he and his mother was made to sit in Idica car. He states that the accused had pointed the revolver at them. He admits that he and his mother were blindfolded. They were ultimately taken to a farmhouse and then he was taken near a water pump. He states that there was a small hut and a kerosene lamp had been brought from the hut. 2 - 3 accused were standing near the car with their revolvers. He admits that he and his mother were blindfolded. They were ultimately taken to a farmhouse and then he was taken near a water pump. He states that there was a small hut and a kerosene lamp had been brought from the hut. 2 - 3 accused were standing near the car with their revolvers. He states that he was slapped by one of the accused. The accused had demanded Rs.I crore from him and he had informed them that he was not having that much money. Accused had informed Yatin that one of his enemies from Murbad had given them detailed information about his financial condition and, therefore, Yatin could easily pay Rs. 1crore. Yatin expressed his inability to pay the said ransom amount. Accused on hearing the refusal, rushed towards Yatin and assaulted with stick. Yatin shouted for help, but no help was forthcoming. The accused again assaulted him with the sticks and since the assault continued, Yatin informed them that he could arrange to pay Rs.10 lacs. Yatin had requested for water, but that was refused. The accused declined to accept Rs.10 lacs and demanded Rs.50 lacs. Yatin was again assaulted and sustained a fracture on his left leg below knee. Yatin sensing danger to his life agreed to pay Rs.15 lacs and then raised the amount to Rs.20 lacs. The accused ultimately agreed and asked Yatin that the ransom amount be paid within two days. Yatin consented for payment of Rs.20 lacs and thereafter the accused gave him water. He has identified accused nos.1 to 6 as the same accused. He deposes that accused no. 5 - Chandrakant and accused no. 6 - Sharad had travelled in the car with him and his mother on the rear seat of the car and were brandishing revolvers. He has also stated that accused nos. 1, 4, 5 and 6 had taken part in assaulting him at the farmhouse, while accused no. 5 - Chandrakant had hit him with a stick on his left leg, which had caused fracture. He further deposes that he was carrying cash of Rs.12,000/- and gold ring weighing 7 gms. and three gold rods weighing 310 gms. in the briefcase. He admits that the accused, who had snatched the briefcase from him was not present in the court. He further deposes that he was carrying cash of Rs.12,000/- and gold ring weighing 7 gms. and three gold rods weighing 310 gms. in the briefcase. He admits that the accused, who had snatched the briefcase from him was not present in the court. Yatin states that he had learnt that his name was Tony and also deposes that he learnt subsequently that Tony had been killed in a police encounter. One of the accused, who was called as Chiknya had also been killed in police encounter in Uttar Pradesh. 16. Yatin states that after the accused had agreed to accept Rs.20 lacs as ransom amount, he requested the accused to return his gold and cash. The accused then placed him in a car and took him towards the place where his mother had been confined. He informed his mother and driver that the accused were releasing them and he cautioned his mother not to disclose about the incident and that he would contact his brother on telephone subsequently. PW 5 - Mohd. Pathan and mother of PW 1 - Yatin then went in their car, while the car of the accused followed them. Yatin states that he was taken to a hut, where an old man and a boy were present at the farmhouse. Yatin states that he was experiencing pain and could not sleep. He was then in the Indica car was blindfolded again and thereafter they reached the highway. The blindfold of his eyes was removed and the car then proceeded towards Pune. Accused No.5 - Chandrakant and accused no. 6 - Sharad were sitting in the car. Accused No.2 - Sudesh was driving the car. The car proceeded towards Sasvad. The cars stopped near a STD Booth on the road at a distance of 20 kms. From Sasvad. He states that he was taken inside the Booth by accused no. 6 - Sharad and was asked him to make a telephone call to his brother. He informed Sudhir about his abduction and about the demand of Rs.20 lacs as ransom amount. He told his brother to make arrangement for paying said amount either in cash or in the form of gold and that in the event the demand was not met, he would be killed. He was taken back to the car again and the cars proceeded further. He told his brother to make arrangement for paying said amount either in cash or in the form of gold and that in the event the demand was not met, he would be killed. He was taken back to the car again and the cars proceeded further. Accused Tony, accused - Chiknya, since deceased, and accused no.3 - Pramod, accused no. 5- Chandrakant were travelling in the car. The car proceeded towards Sasvad. He requested the accused to give him medicines and food and, therefore, the car was stopped near a hotel. He had received painkillers and some eatables were provided to him by accused no. 1 - Sanjay. He was also given tea. Accused No.2 - Sudesh purchased Iodex for him. He states that after travelling 6 to 7 kms., the car stopped near an arch on the road. The car was parked underneath a tree which was at a distance of 400 to 500 ft. from the road. Deceased accused Tony asked him to call his brother on mobile, which the accused was carrying and informed his brother to arrange for the ransom amount. The deceased accused Tony spoke to his brother and threatened to kill Yatin. Yatin informed his brother to make arrangements to pay the ransom amount as per the demand by evening. The mobile phone number of accused - Tony was given to his brother. He states that since his brother did not ring him back, he called his other brother Deepak on his telephone and requested him to contact his brother Sudhir. He was informed that all the arrangements were made by about noon. Tony had instructed Yatin to inform his brother that the person bringing the ransom amount should come near the Chowk Phata and should be alone and should also informed the colour as well as the registration number of the car. Tony had also instructed that the car should reach the Chowk Phata by about 3 p.m. Yatin accordingly informed his brother Sudhir. Yatin was informed by Sudhir that Deepak and Naresh would be bringing the money in a white Maruti car belonging to Naresh. 17. Tony talked to Sudhir on telephone and told him that only one person should come. Tony again reiterated his threat to kill Yatin, if the matter was reported to the police. Yatin was informed by Sudhir that Deepak and Naresh would be bringing the money in a white Maruti car belonging to Naresh. 17. Tony talked to Sudhir on telephone and told him that only one person should come. Tony again reiterated his threat to kill Yatin, if the matter was reported to the police. After persuasion by Sudhir, Tony relented and agreed that two persons may bring the ransom amount. Yatin states that thereafter he was taken to a hotel near Sasvad in the Indica car and they again returned back to same place at about 4 p.m. Tony received the callon his mobile and after receiving the call, he patted Yatin on his shoulder and informed him that "the work was done". Yatin requested him to return his gold which was promised by Tony. He further states that he was made to sit near the window of the Indica car and as told that his brothers would be arriving there within a short while and that he was to show his face to his brothers. Within 15 to 20 minutes, the car driven by his brothers Deepak and Naresh came at that place. He states that his cousin had seen him sitting in the car. The cars then proceeded towards Sasvad. He states that the headlights of the cars had been switched on and Naresh and Deepak alighted from their car. Naresh was carrying a bag in his hand, while the other accused also alighted from the car. Yatin deposes that the car, in which he was travelling was at a distance of 8 ft. from the car of his brother. Naresh then handed over the bag to accused Chiknya which was a bag of coffee coloured. Accused counted the currency notes on the bonnet of the car. After counting the currency notes, the amount was kept in the same bag and the bag was then kept in the Indica car. Yatin states that his brother had brought the Maruti car near his car. His brothers then carried him to their car. He asked the leader of the gang i.e. Tony to return the gold and the cash. Tony promised to return the same near Kondhva square. Yatit deposes that they reached the Kondhva square and waited for the accused. Yatin states that his brother had brought the Maruti car near his car. His brothers then carried him to their car. He asked the leader of the gang i.e. Tony to return the gold and the cash. Tony promised to return the same near Kondhva square. Yatit deposes that they reached the Kondhva square and waited for the accused. Since the accused did not come, Sudhir contacted Tony on telephone and again requested Tony to return the gold and the cash taken from Yatin and Tony assured that the gold and the cash would be reached at their house. Yatin, therefore, states that they left Kondhva by about 9.30 to 10 p.m. They reached Kalyan at about 3 a.m. His brothers then took him to the hospital but was not admitted there. He was taken to another hospital, where also he was not admitted. He learnt from the conversation of his brother that he would not be admitted if the history of assault was disclosed and, therefore, a false history was given and Yatin was admitted in the hospital. He states that his left leg was put in a plaster. He was then discharged in the evening and was taken to his residence in an ambulance. Yatin deposes that he was mentally shaken and was physically weak and therefore, did not talk with anyone and did not meet any visitors. After four days, he felt better and therefore, on 31st called his brothers and disclosed his intention to lodge the report. He then lodged his report at the Murbad Police Station. He also deposes that on 24/9/2001 he was called at the Kalyan Jail for T. I. Parade and had identified accused no. 6 - Sharad. On 13/10/2001 in the T.I. Parade, he had identified accused no. 4 - Santosh, but could not identify accused no. 5 - Chandrakant as accused no. 5 had a beard at that time. Yatin further states that on 29/11/2001 he had identified accused no. 3 - Pramod in the T.I. Parade. In the T.I. Parade held on 13/12/2001 he had identified accused no. 2 - Sudesh. In the T.I.Parade held on 24/9/2002, he had identified accused no. 1 - Sanjay. Thus, PW 1 - Yatin had identified accused no1. Sanjay, accused no. 2 - Sudesh, accused no. 3 Pramod, accused no. 4 - Santosh and accused no. In the T.I. Parade held on 13/12/2001 he had identified accused no. 2 - Sudesh. In the T.I.Parade held on 24/9/2002, he had identified accused no. 1 - Sanjay. Thus, PW 1 - Yatin had identified accused no1. Sanjay, accused no. 2 - Sudesh, accused no. 3 Pramod, accused no. 4 - Santosh and accused no. 6 - Sharad, but had failed to identify accused no. 5 - Chandrakant in the T.I. Parade. 18. In cross-examination, he has admitted that he had been blindfolded when the car had entered in the MIDC area and the blindfold had been removed after they had reached the farmhouse. He has admitted that there was no electricity at the farmhouse. Certain omissions have been elicited that he had not stated in his previous statement that three of the accused were Maharashtrian and that he had given their descriptions. Omission has also been elicited that he had not stated that at the farmhouse, one of the accused had brought a kerosene lamp and 2 to 3 other accused stood near the car with revolvers, while the other accused were drinking liquor. Omission has also been elicited that he was informed his mother not to disclose the incident. Omission is elicited regarding the presence of one old man and a boy; who were present at the farmhouse. Omission is also elicited in respect of the car being taken through the arch towards the barrel land through a rough way. He has denied the suggestion that he had called to the police station after the accused were arrestee and the accused were shown to him. He was confronted with portion marked "A" in his statement that accused - Santosh, Chandrakant, Sharad, Sudesh and Pramod were shown to him by police and that he had identified them. He has also admitted that on 24/9/2002 when he was present at the Kalyan Jail for T.I. Parade, accused no. I - Sanjay had been brought from the court and that both of them were present for half an hour. 19. I n further cross-examination, he has admitted that accused no.2 - Sudesh did not participate in assaulting him. An omission has also been elicited that he had not stated that the accused were talking in Hindi and Marathi and accused, who had talking in Hindi had slapped him. He has admitted that throughout the incident he was frightened. 19. I n further cross-examination, he has admitted that accused no.2 - Sudesh did not participate in assaulting him. An omission has also been elicited that he had not stated that the accused were talking in Hindi and Marathi and accused, who had talking in Hindi had slapped him. He has admitted that throughout the incident he was frightened. He was confronted with portion marked "B" from his statement that he had filed a written complaint on 1/6/2001. Omission has also been elicited about not having stated the name of the farmhouse, which had been displayed on the entrance gate of the farmhouse. Omissions have also been elicited about not having stated about the accused planning as to who would receive and collect the ransom amount. He has admitted that he had learnt about arrest of the accused on reading the newspaper. Omission regarding the details of the assault have also been elicited. 20. The learned counsel for the appellants have urged before us that the evidence of the prosecution witnesses suffers from innumerable omissions and contradictions and consequently, no reliance can be placed on the evidence, especially that of PW 1 - Yatin. It is further urged before us that there was delay in lodging of the FIR, which would really affect the credibility of the entire prosecution case. It is also urged before us that since the trial court has held that no reliance can be placed on the Test Identification Parade, as it suffered from several infirmities, including the fact that the accused where shown to witnesses before the parade, no reliance can be placed on the substantive identification of the accused in the court for the first time. Additionally, it is urged by Shri A. P. Mundargi, learned Senior Counsel for accused no.5, that accused no. 5 was not identified by PW 1 - Yatin in the Test Identification Parade on the specious plea that accused no. 5 - Chandrakant had a beard at that time, while at the time of the incident, he was cleaned shaven. The learned APP has strongly urged that the evidence of the prosecution proves the offence against the accused beyond reasonable doubt and the conclusions arrived at by the trial court merit acceptance by this court as the same are based on evidence which has been properly appreciated by the trial court. 21. The learned APP has strongly urged that the evidence of the prosecution proves the offence against the accused beyond reasonable doubt and the conclusions arrived at by the trial court merit acceptance by this court as the same are based on evidence which has been properly appreciated by the trial court. 21. We have reproduced the evidence of the prosecution witnesses, who have deposed too in great detail about the sequence of the events. Witnesses, who undergo a traumatic experience like the one undergone by PW 1 - Yatin and the other prosecution witnesses, certainly leaves its impact on the witnesses. Recounting of the incident while deposing in the court and even while recording the statement during investigation would suffer from variations and minor inconsistencies in the evidence of the witnesses. It is extremely harsh to accept that the evidence of the witnesses to be identical to each other. Minor variations and even minor contradictions in the evidence would not entail the rejection of their evidence, as we have pointed out that the omissions are in respect of an extremely minor aspects of the prosecution case. They referred to the details and as such do not affect the credibility of the witnesses nor does it affect the truthfulness of their evidence. It is undisputed that these witnesses gone through a very traumatic experience and that is evident from the fact that PW 1 - Yatin was so badly distorted that he did not dare to lodge a report for about four days. After mustering sufficient courage, he had informed his brothers of his intention to lodge a report and had accordingly lodged his report. Thus, the delay, if any, has been properly explained and according to us the delay would not vitiate, nor would it affect the credibility of the evidence of the prosecution witnesses. So also minor omissions, which have been elicited in the evidence of the witnesses, do not affect the fabric of events oven by the witnesses in their testimony. The substratum of the prosecution case remains intact and is not destroyed in the cross-examination. The learned counsel for the appellants have urged before us that in the absence of proper evidence of the Test Identification Parade, the identification of the accused for the first time in court would be rendered valueless. The substratum of the prosecution case remains intact and is not destroyed in the cross-examination. The learned counsel for the appellants have urged before us that in the absence of proper evidence of the Test Identification Parade, the identification of the accused for the first time in court would be rendered valueless. Reliance is placed on the judgment of the Supreme Court in Mahabir vs. State of Delhi (2008) 16 SCC 481] : (2008 ALL MR(Cri) 1397 (S.C.)j, where the Supreme Court has held that since the accused was shown to PW 4, the Test Identification Parade was really of no consequence, because the accused had been shown to the witness and since this was the only piece of material, which was used for conviction of the accused, the conviction could not be sustained. In the same judgment, the Supreme Court referred to the observations in Matru vs. State of U.P. (1971) 2 SCC 75 ], in which the Supreme Court had held that identification tests do not constitute substantive evidence. They are primarily meant for the purpose of helping the investigating agency with an assurance that their progress with the investigation into the offence is proceeding on the right lines. The identification can only be used as corroborative of the statement in court. 22. The learned counsel for the appellants have relied on the judgment of the Supreme Court in State of U.P. vs. Boota Singh and ors. [ (1979) 1 SCC 31 ], where the Supreme Court, at paragraph 26 has held thus:- "26. In support of its view the High Court relied on a decision of this Court in Budh Sen v. State of U.P. (supra). We feel that the High Court has completely misdirected itself on this point. In the first place the decision of this Court relied upon by the High Court does not at all apply to the facts of the present case. In Budh Sen v. State of U.P. (supra) what was held by this Court was that where an accused is not known to the witness from before and there is no T.I. Parade, but the witness identifies the accused for the first time in court such an identification is valueless. In this connection, this Court has observed as follows :- "As a general rule, the substantive evidence of a witness is a statement made in court. In this connection, this Court has observed as follows :- "As a general rule, the substantive evidence of a witness is a statement made in court. The evidence of mere identifiably of the accused person at the trial for the first time is from its very nature inherently of a weak character. The evidence in order to carry conviction should ordinarily clarify as to how and under what circumstances he came to pick out the particular accused person and the details of the part which the accused prayed in the crime in question with reasonable particularity. The purpose of a prior test identification, therefore, seems to be to test and strengthen the trustworthiness of that evidence. It is accordingly considered a safe rule of prudence to generally look for corroboration of the sworn testimony of witnesses in court as to the identity of the accused who are strangers to them, in the form of earlier identification proceeding." When this Court held that evidence of identification for the first time at the trial was of a weak character, it merely meant that where the evidence of a witness in court is not tested by prior identification parade held injail not much reliance can be placed on such an evidence. This is however not the case here, nor can we take the aforesaid decision to lay down a rule of universal application that the identification evidence is a very weak type of evidence. Where the witness correctly identifies the accused at a T.I. Parade held by a Magistrate after observing all the essential formalities and taking the necessary precautions and then identifies the accused also in court the evidence of identification can be believed unless the evidence of witness suffers from some other infirmity. Moreover, the evidence of identification becomes stronger if the witness has an opportunity of seeing the accused not for a few minutes but for some length of time, in broad day light, when he would be able to note the features of the accused more carefully than on seeing the accused in a dark night for a few minutes............." In the said judgment, the Supreme Court, therefore, held that the witnesses were in a position to notice the features of respondent Boota Singh as closely as possible and, therefore, the evidence of the identification by these witnesses not was a weak type of evidence. 23. 23. In support of the submission that even if the Test Identification Parade is held to be not reliable, the accused could be convicted on the basis of the identification in the court, the learned APP has relied on the judgment of the Supreme Court in Deepak Alias Wireless vs. State of Maharashtra [ (2012) 8 SCC 785 ] : [2012 ALL SCR 2933]. The Supreme Court at paragraph 18 has held thus:- 18. In the case on hand, we have elaborately stated as to how PW 9 who was a victim at the hands of the appellant and the other accused and who suffered grievous injuries which disabled her movements for quite a long time and who had the opportunity of witnessing the involvement of the appellant and the other accused in the gruesome act of killing her brother-in-law by beating him severely and after successfully beating him to death also assaulted her so severely which according to PW 1 disabled her movements for quite sometime. In fact, the Presiding Officer of the trial court has observed descriptively as to how PW 9 was placed in a situation where she was able to observe the conduct of the appellant and the other accused so closely giving no scope for any doubt as to her unhesitant identification of the appellant made in his presence at the time of trial. PW 9 also in her evidence gave the description of all the accused and the clothes worn by them as well as their physical features. Therefore, the decision relied upon by the learned counsel for the appellant is of no assistance on this aspect while the decision relied upon by the High Court fully supported the case of the prosecution." It would, thus, be seen that it is not a rule of universal application that in the absence of reliable evidence of identification of the accused by the witnesses in a Test Identification Parade, the substantive identification of the accused in the court would be rendered valueless. In the present case, we find that reliance can certainly be placed on the identification of the accused in the court by the witnesses, particularly PW 1 - Yatin. Though the trial court has declined to place any reliance on the evidence of the Test Identification Parade, we find that Yatin had spent a considerable time in the company of the accused. Though the trial court has declined to place any reliance on the evidence of the Test Identification Parade, we find that Yatin had spent a considerable time in the company of the accused. Yatin had observed the accused from close quarters and had also spoken to them. The accused had assaulted Yatin at the farmhouse. Yatin was, thus, in the company of the accused and certainly had more than adequate opportunity of observing the features of the accused. Thus, the identification by Yatin in the court would not be vitiated because of absence of reliable evidence of identification in the parade. 24. At this juncture, however, we wish to point out that PW 1 - Yatin had not identified accused no. 5 - Chandrakant in the Test Identification Parade. The contradiction which has been proved on record vis-a-vis the previous statement of PW 1 - Yatin clearly indicates that the accused had been shown to Yatin in the police station after the arrest of the accused. Despite that Yatin could not identify accused no. 5 in the Test Identification Parade on the specious ground that accused no. 5 Chandrakant then had a beard, while at the time of the incident, accused no. 5 - Chandrakant was cleaned shaven. Despite having seen accused no. 5 in the police station, PW 1 Yatin Gould not identify accused no. 5 Chandrakant in the Test Identification Parade. There is nothing on record that at the time of test identification parade accused no. 5 had a beard. Even otherwise if PW 1 - Yatin had seen the accused no.5 during the incident, PW 1 Yatin ought to have identified accused no. 5 in the parade. In that background, therefore, according to us, the identification of accused no. 5 - Chandrakant in the court by PW 1 Yatin would be an infirm identification and accused no. 5 - Chandrakant would certainly be entitled to be given the benefit of doubt. Cash and other gold ornaments came to be recovered from the accused. The prosecution• contends that the gold ornaments had been purchased by the accused from out of their share of the ransom amount. The prosecution has made no endeavour to establish by evidence the date of purchase of the gold ornaments and in fact, whether they have been purchased by the accused. The prosecution• contends that the gold ornaments had been purchased by the accused from out of their share of the ransom amount. The prosecution has made no endeavour to establish by evidence the date of purchase of the gold ornaments and in fact, whether they have been purchased by the accused. No attempt has been made by the prosecution to prove that the cash recovered from the accused formed part of the ransom amount. In the absence of such reliable evidence, the recovery of the cash as well as the ornaments and other articles at the behest of the accused would not lead the court to draw an irrefutable inference that the accused had received their share of the ransom money and out of their share of the ransom money, they had purchased these articles. Thus, the recovery of these articles does not, in any manner, establish the offence against the accused, nor does it further the prosecution case. 25. We accordingly dismiss Criminal Appeal No. 157 of 2008, confirming the conviction and sentence of original accused no. 1 - Sanjay Kisan Mohite. We partly dismiss Criminal Appeal No. 906 of 2006, confirming the conviction and sentence of original accused no.4 - Santosh Manohar Deshmukh and original accused no.6 - Sharad Him Kolambe. Since original accused no. 2 - Sudesh Maniken Nair is absconding, this appeal would be decided qua his conviction and sentence, after accused no.2 - Sudesh Maniken Nair is arrested. We also dismiss Criminal Appeal No.1128 of 2005, confirming the conviction and sentence of original accused no 3 - Pramod Shankar Jadhav. We allow Criminal Appeal No. 1071 of 2005 and quash and set aside the conviction and sentence of original accused no. 5 Chandrakant Balkrishna Shedge and acquit him of the offences with which he was charged and convicted. Fine, if paid by original accused no. 5 - Chandrakant Balkrishna Shedge, be refunded to him. Since original accused no. 5 - Chandrakant Balkrishna Shedge is in jail, he be released forthwith, if not required in any other case. The record and the paper books be preserved as the appeal filed by original accused no. 2 - Sudesh Maniken Nair i.e. Criminal Appeal No. 906 of 2006 is kept pending qua original accused no. 2 - Sudesh Maniken Nair. Ordered accordingly.