JUDGMENT P.V. HARDAS, J.:- The appellant, who stands convicted for an offence punishable under Section 363 read with Section 34 of the IPC and Section 364-A read with Section 34 of the IPC and sentenced to RI for seven years and to pay a fine of Rs.500/-, in default of which to under further SI for one month and imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- in default of which to undergo further SI for one month by the Ad-hoc District Judge-3 and Additional Sessions Judge, Pune, by judgment dated 16/08/2012, in Sessions Cast: No. 171 of 2012, by this appeal questions the correctness of his conviction and sentence. 2. Facts in brief as are necessary for the decision of this appeal may briefly be stated thus:- PW 9 - API Dnyandeo Bhalsing, who, on 15/12/2011 was attached to the Phadgate Police Chowky under the jurisdiction of the Khadak Police Station, recorded the report of PW 1 -Anna Ranjane at Exh. 29. He forwarded the said report/complaint to the Khadak Police Station, where an offence vide Crime No. 309 of 2011 was registered. The investigation was entrusted initially to PW 9 - API Bhalsing. He accordingly instructed the police to search for the accused. The victim was thereafter referred to the Sassoon Hospital but the father of the victim had taken him to Chinmaya Hospital, Sadashiv Peth, Pune. The clothes of the victim were seized under seizure panchanama at Exh.49. The victim - PW 2 was examined by PW 5 - Dr. Mukund Sangamnerkar, who noticed that the victim, a boy, aged about 13 years, appeared to be confused and frightened with nasal bleeding. He noticed sub conjunct rival, suffusion present, faint reddish strangulation marks over the neck left side and bruising around the right eye. He accordingly issued the injury certificate, which is at Exh.36. On 16/12/2011 PW 9 - API Bhalsing went to the scene of the incident along with the victim - PW 2. The victim had pointed out the spot and accordingly the panchanama of the scene of the incident was drawn. From the scene of the incident, a black coloured bag, containing note-books, books of Bhave High School, fountain-pen etc. were seized. On the books the name of the victim was written. The victim had pointed out the spot and accordingly the panchanama of the scene of the incident was drawn. From the scene of the incident, a black coloured bag, containing note-books, books of Bhave High School, fountain-pen etc. were seized. On the books the name of the victim was written. One sandal was found near the scene of the incident, while the other was found at a distance of 160 ft. from the road. The aforesaid articles were seized under the scene of the incident panchanama at Exh. 50. On 17/12/2011 one PI Temghare attached to the Anti Organized Crime Cell, Crime Branch, Pune City apprehended original accused - Tejas and the appellant. A motorcycle was also seized, which was sent to the police station along with the report at Exh. 51. The appellant was arrested in the presence of panchas under arrest panchanama at Exh. 52. The motorcycle was seized under seizure memo at Exh. 53. On 17/12/2011 statement of one Ambawale who had produced the victim to the Shindewadi Police Chowky was recorded. On 19/12/2011, during custodial interrogation, the appellant expressed his willingness to point out the place, where a handkerchief had been concealed. Accordingly, a memorandum was recorded in the presence of panchas at Exh.33. The appellant led the police and the panchas to the hilly area and pointed out the place where the handkerchief had been concealed. Accordingly, at a distance of about 50 ft. from the road, a handkerchief has been discovered by the appellant concealed beneath the stone. The said handkerchief was seized in the presence of panchas under seizure memo at Exh. 34. Thereafter, statement of witnesses were recorded. Statement of PW 7 - Ajay was recorded on 8/1/2012. Call details of the telephone calls alleged to have been made from the mobile of the victim to the accused as well as to PW 7 - Ajay were obtained. Unfortunately, the said call details were not produced by the prosecution during the trial. Further to the completion of the investigation, a charge-sheet against the appellant was submitted. Since original accused - Tejas was a juvenile in conflict with law, his case was separated and he was referred to the juvenile board. 3. Unfortunately, the said call details were not produced by the prosecution during the trial. Further to the completion of the investigation, a charge-sheet against the appellant was submitted. Since original accused - Tejas was a juvenile in conflict with law, his case was separated and he was referred to the juvenile board. 3. On committal of the case to the Court of Sessions, the trial court vide Exh.12 framed the charge against the appellant for offence punishable under Sections 363 read with Section 34 and Section 364-A read with Section 34 of the IPC. The appellant denied his guilt and claimed to be tried. Prosecution, in support of its case, examined 9 witnesses. The defence of the appellant was of denial. The entire evidence against the appellant comprises of the testimony of the victim - PW 2 as well as PW 7 - Ajay. 4. PW 1 - Anna Ranjane, father of the victim, deposes about receiving a telephone call demanding ransom of Rs.60,000/- for the release of the victim. PW 1 - Anna further deposes that he was informed that his son had safely reached the police station and had accordingly gone to the police station for obtaining the custody of the victim. PW 2 victim states that on 15/12/2011 he was left at the tuition classes in the morning by his father. Accused - Tejas had come there and when the victim had questioned Tejas as to why he had come, Tejas had replied that he had come to meet his friend. Tejas accordingly told the victim that he would drop him in the school and therefore, he sat on the pillion seat of the vehicle. Tejas and victim proceeded for short distance and Tejas was then joined by his friend who also sat on the motorcycle. When they reached near Hotel Girija, the victim had questioned Tejas as to where they were proceeding and Tejas had informed the victim that since the road was closed, they were required to go by another road. Ultimately, they had gone towards the Sinhagad Road and Tajas stopped the vehicle and took the mobile of the victim. Tejas went near the Dandekar bridge and thereafter had called his friend. Tejas then proceeded further towards the Vadgaon Dhairy bridge and then towards the Katraj bye-pass. They reached near Cheladi road and then came back towards Shivapur. Ultimately, they had gone towards the Sinhagad Road and Tajas stopped the vehicle and took the mobile of the victim. Tejas went near the Dandekar bridge and thereafter had called his friend. Tejas then proceeded further towards the Vadgaon Dhairy bridge and then towards the Katraj bye-pass. They reached near Cheladi road and then came back towards Shivapur. From there they had reached hilly area known as "Mariaai quay". The vehicle was parked there and the accused had walked further, followed by the victim. The victim wanted his mobile phone as he wanted to telephone his father. Accused then pushed him in the grass and pressed his neck by handkerchief. The victim became unconscious and when he regained his consciousness, he noticed that he was alone there. He came near the road and signaled the two wheeler vehicle. He stopped the two wheeler vehicle and informed them about the incident. The drivers of the two wheeler vehicles had asked for the telephone of his father, but the victim was unable to disclose the telephone number. The drivers of the two wheeler vehicles thereafter stopped a car and asked the person to take the victim to the Shindewadi Police Station. The victim had given the telephone number of his father at the police station and accordingly his father was called to the police station. PW 1 Anna, father of the victim, had then taken him to the Chinmaya Hospital at Sadashiv Peth, Pune, where he was admitted. 5. During the course of his examination-in-chief, PW 2 - victim has identified the appellant as the same person who had accompanied Tejas on the motorcycle. In cross-examination, he has admitted that the appellant was not acquainted with him. He has also admitted that he had not given the description of the appellant i.e. the friend of accused - Tejas. He then makes a startling admission that, "it is true police had shown me the friend of Tejasdada in the court on last date". 6. Prosecution has examined PW 7 - Ajay. Ajay deposes that he was acquainted with appellant as well as accused - Tejas. He states that Tejas had once borrowed Rs.800/- from him, but had not returned the said money, despite several requests being made by PW 7 Ajay. 6. Prosecution has examined PW 7 - Ajay. Ajay deposes that he was acquainted with appellant as well as accused - Tejas. He states that Tejas had once borrowed Rs.800/- from him, but had not returned the said money, despite several requests being made by PW 7 Ajay. Once accused - Tejas had asked PW 7 Ajay for accompanying him for lunch and, thereafter he had disclosed that somebody had taken money from him and was not returning his money and, therefore, Tejas had decided to abduct his son for ransom. Tejas had also disclosed to PW 7 - Ajay that the appellant was "along with" him and Tejas, therefore, asked Ajay if he would assist Tejas. Ajay initially did not respond to the request of Tejas and, therefore, Tejas again called him on the next day i.e. 14/12/2011 between 10 to 10.30 a.m. Ajay informed Tejas that he did not want to get involved in it. Ajay further cautioned Tejas that they should not do anything to that child. 7. On the next day, i.e. on 15/12/2011 Tejas had called him from the Dandekar bridge and had informed him that he had picked up a child from his class and had also asked Ajay as to whether he would accompany them or not. There was an acrimonious exchange between accused - Tejas and PW 7 - Ajay. On the same day between 1 to 1.30 p.m. accused - Tejas and the appellant had come to the place where PW 7 - Ajay was. They requested Ajay to accompany them for lunch. At that time Tejas had told him that if Ajay did not accompany them for lunch, the money which was borrowed from Ajay, would not be refunded. Accordingly all three of them proceeded for lunch. After they had reached the Malhar Hotel on the Sinhagad Road, the appellant had called someone. Thereafter Ajay was informed that the call was made to a relation of the child. The said call was made from a telephone booth. Thereafter, they proceeded towards Ketkawale at a small way side hotel. When Ajay had enquired from Tejas, Tejas had disclosed to PW 7 - Ajay that a child of his relative had been kidnapped by him and he had killed the child by pressing his neck. Ajay did not believe what was informed to him by accused Tejas. Thereafter, they proceeded towards Ketkawale at a small way side hotel. When Ajay had enquired from Tejas, Tejas had disclosed to PW 7 - Ajay that a child of his relative had been kidnapped by him and he had killed the child by pressing his neck. Ajay did not believe what was informed to him by accused Tejas. At about 5 p.m. when they were near the Shivapur Toll Booth, Tejas received a call from his sister who had informed that a report had been lodged against the accused - Tejas. At that point of time, Ajay suspected about involvement of the accused. Ajay was left under a over-bridge. He states that 15 days thereafter he had learnt that the police had arrested the accused and his statement was recorded. 8. In cross-examination, he was confronted with portion marked "A" from his statement to the effect that he had learnt on the day on which his statement was recorded i.e. on 8/1/2012 that the accused had kidnapped the child and had strangulated him. The effect of this contradiction at portion marked "A", therefore affects the very credibility of PW 7 Ajay that on the day of the incident accused-Tejas had informed him that Tejas had kidnapped the son of his relative and that accused - Tejas had killed the said kidnapped boy. It also affects the credibility of his evidence about meeting Tejas and the appellant on the day of the incident. The portion marked "A" from his statement is explicit that on the day on which his statement was recorded, he had learnt for the first time about kidnapping and killing of the victim. Thus, the very substratum of the prosecution case is shattered on account of the portion marked "A" from the previous statement of PW 7 -Ajay. 9. Mr. Naik, learned counsel for the appellant, has urged before us that the evidence of PW 2 - victim is insufficient for establishing the identity of the appellant as one of the accused instrumental in kidnapping and demanding ransom. The learned counsel for the appellant has urged before us that in the absence of the evidence of a Test Identification Parade, the identification in the court of the accused for the first time, would be a feeble piece of evidence. The learned APP has supported the findings arrived at by the trial court. 10. The learned counsel for the appellant has urged before us that in the absence of the evidence of a Test Identification Parade, the identification in the court of the accused for the first time, would be a feeble piece of evidence. The learned APP has supported the findings arrived at by the trial court. 10. It is true that in the present case the appellant was not acquainted with the victim - PW 2. In so many words, PW 2 victim has admitted that the appellant was a stranger. The Investigating Officer had not conducted any Test Identification Parade in order to test the ability of the victim - PW 2 to identify the appellant. The identification of the accused for the first time in court by PW 2 victim, according to us, would not be a safe identification in the light of the fact that the appellant was pointed out to the victim - PW 2 a day prior to the recording of the evidence. Normally, the identification of an accused in the court for the first time would not be vitiated for want of Test Identification Parade. It is not a rule of universal application that in the absence of Test Identification Parade, the identification in court, which is the substantive evidence, would be vitiated. The ability of victim to note the features of the assailant, the time available for him to do so as well as the availability of sufficient illumination are factors which aid and assist the ultimate identification in the court. In the present case, the victim was in the company of accused - Tejas for some time and thereafter was joined by the appellant. From about 10 to 12 i.e. for two hours, the victim was in the company of the accused and mostly riding on the motorcycle with the appellant sitting on the pillion seat. The victim was sandwiched in between the appel1ant and accused - Tejas. Apart from that the identification for the first time, in our opinion, would be an identification, which would be infirmed on account of the fact that the appellant was pointed out to the victim a day prior to the recording of the evidence. The victim was sandwiched in between the appel1ant and accused - Tejas. Apart from that the identification for the first time, in our opinion, would be an identification, which would be infirmed on account of the fact that the appellant was pointed out to the victim a day prior to the recording of the evidence. If that be the case and especially since the appellant was pointed out to the victim, the identification in the court would not be a spontaneous identification based on the features which were noted by the victim at the time of the incident. 11. Apart from that, we find that there is absolutely no evidence in respect of the demand for ransom which was made. The prosecution has not been able to collect any evidence which would even remotely indicate that the appellant or accused Tejas had made any demand to PW 1 - Anna for release of the victim. Though the call details were available with the prosecution, no efforts were made to examine the witnesses and tendered the call details on record. A blank statement was made by the Investigation Officer that on the basis of the call record he had proceeded further in the investigation. Thus, we find that there is absolutely no evidence in respect of the demand for ransom. In order to sustain the conviction under Section 364A of the IPC, it is pre-requisite for the prosecution to establish that the kidnapping or the abduction was for ransom. Since the prosecution has failed to prove the demand for ransom, according to us, the conviction of the appellant for an offence punishable under Section 364A read with Section 34 of the IPC is wholly unsustainable. 12. In so far as it relates to the charge under Section 363 read with Section 34 of the IPC, we find that it was accused Tejas who had taken or enticed the minor PW 2 - victim from the custody of his guardian without the consent of the guardian. The offence of kidnapping was thus complete when accused Tejas took PW 2 - victim or enticed him. The evidence of PW 2 - victim clearly indicates that it was accused Tejas who had enticed him to accompany Tejas. The offence of kidnapping was thus complete when accused Tejas took PW 2 - victim or enticed him. The evidence of PW 2 - victim clearly indicates that it was accused Tejas who had enticed him to accompany Tejas. In such circumstances, since the appellant was not present at that point of time and there is nothing on record to even remotely indicate that the appellant shared the intention of accused - Tejas in kidnapping PW 2 - victim, according to us, the conviction of the appellant cannot be sustained. No reliance whatsoever can be placed on the testimony of PW 7 - Ajay, whose statement was recorded after 21 days of the incident. PW 7 - Ajay was aware about the incident, but yet chose to maintain stoic silence and did not communicate with the police. It is really a mystery as to how the police stumbled upon PW 7 - Ajay, whose statement was recorded during the investigation, we find that implicit reliance on the testimony of PW 7 Ajay is wholly unwarranted in the facts of the present case. There is no other evidence on record which would even remotely corroborate the testimony of PW 7 -Ajay. 13. For the aforesaid reasons, therefore, according to us, the appellant is entitled to be given the benefit of doubt. 14. Accordingly, Criminal Appeal is allowed and the conviction and sentence of the appellant is hereby quashed and set aside and the appellant is acquitted of the offence with which he was charged and convicted. Fine, if paid by the appellant, be refunded to him. Since the appellant is in jail, he be released forthwith, if not required in any other case. Appeal allowed.