JUDGMENT : Alok Singh, J. None is appearing for the appellant. Therefore, Mr. Swapnil Bisht, Advocate present in the Court was requested to appear as Amicus Curiae in the present case. Copy of the paper book was handed over to him in pre lunch session. Mr. Swapnil Bisht, Advocate agreed to argue this appeal in post lunch session. Appeal was taken up for hearing in post lunch session. Present appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 09.10.2009, passed by learned Addl. Sessions Judge/1st F.T.C., Roorkee, District Haridwar, in Session Trial No. 107 of 2008, whereby appellant was held guilty for the offence punishable under Section 364 I.P.C. and was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of ten years and to pay fine of Rs. 5,000/- and in default of making payment of fine to undergo additional imprisonment for a period of six months. Brief facts of the present case, inter alia, are that on 24.08.2007, PW1 Liyakat Ali, lodged an F.I.R. with Police Station Manglaur, District Haridwar, inter alia, stating therein that on 19.08.2007 at about 8:00 A.M. his younger son Adil aged about seven years left the house to play; however, he did not come back; we searched for him in the village; few children disclosed us that in the morning at about 9:10 A.M., appellant was seen taking Adil with him towards the Harijan Basti; we went to search him there and inquired from the appellant, however, he could not give satisfactory answer and thereafter absconded from the village; informant had every suspicion on the appellant that his son Adil was kidnapped by the appellant. Investigation of the case was handed over to S.I. PW6 Sharan Singh Verma. Appellant and his father Yamin were arrested by the Investigating Officer PW6 Sharan Singh Verma. Investigation of the case was handed over to S.I. PW6 Sharan Singh Verma. Appellant and his father Yamin were arrested by the Investigating Officer PW6 Sharan Singh Verma. Appellant confessed before the police that mother of the Adil, namely PW2 Shamina did some witchcraft on him, therefore, appellant started feeling abnormal; appellant was angry with PW2 Shamina, mother of Adil; appellant was searching occasion to teach lesson to PW2 Shamina for playing witchcraft on him; he has disclosed his plan to his father Yamin as well; Yamin also agreed with the appellant to take revenge from the mother of Adil; Adil was friendly with him, therefore, he took Adil with him at about 9:30 a.m. to Rajbahe [water course] and killed Adil by drowning him in the Rajbahe; his dead body was concealed in the sugarcane field of Suresh Pal. Appellant was taken to sugar cane field of Suresh Pal by the police and entire sugar cane field of Suresh Pal was searched but dead body of Adil was not found. On the basis of confessional statement made by appellant as well as on the basis of material collected, charge-sheet was submitted against the appellant and his father Yamin for the offences punishable under Sections 364, 120-B and 201 I.P.C. After committal of the trial to the Court of Sessions, learned Trial Court was pleased to frame charges against the appellant and his father Yamin for the offences punishable under Sections 364, 120-B and 201 I.P.C. Accused denied the charges and claimed trial. To prove the prosecution story informant PW1 Liyakat Ali, PW2 Smt. Shamina, mother of Adil, PW3 Km. Aayasha, PW4 Mubarak Ali, PW5 Noor Hasan, PW6 Investigating Officer S.I. Sharan Singh, and PW7 Constable Pratap Singh were examined and statements of the appellant were also recorded under Section 313 Cr. P.C. Learned Trial Court, vide impugned judgment and order, was pleased to acquit the co-accused Yamin for the offences punishable under Sections 364, 120-B and 201 I.P.C. and was further pleased to acquit the appellant Mobin for the offence punishable under Sections 120-B and 201 I.P.C. However, appellant Mobin was held guilty for the offence punishable under Section 364 I.P.C. and was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of ten years and to pay a fine of Rs. 5,000/- and in default of making payment of fine to undergo additional imprisonment for a period of six months. Feeling aggrieved by the said judgment and order, appellant preferred present appeal. I have heard Mr. Swapnil Bisht, learned Amicus Curiae for the appellant as well as Mr. S.K. Chaudhary, learned Addl. G.A. for the State and have carefully perused the record. PW1 Liyakat Ali as well as PW2 Smt. Shamina, father and mother of master Adil stated that Adil left the house in the morning at about 8:00 A.M. to play outside, however, he did not come back. On search being made for Adil, few children including PW3 Km. Aayasha disclosed them that appellant and Adil were seen going towards the harijan basti. PW3 Km. Aayasha stated that she saw Adil going behind the appellant Mobin in the lane of harijan basti; at that time she was standing in the grocery kiosk nearby harijan basti; she had disclosed the same to the mother of Adil Smt. Shamina PW2. During cross examination, PW3 Km. Aayasha stated that appellant was on foot and he was carrying nothing with him. PW4 Mubarak Ali stated that he saw Adil going alongwith appellant Mobin near the house of Shera. Both of them were going towards harijan basti. During cross examination, PW4 Mubarak Ali stated that he saw appellant and Adil going towards the harijan basti and PW4 Mubarak Ali was alone and there was no other person nearby. He further stated that appellant was not holding hand of Adil and Adil was going himself behind the appellant. PW4 Mubarak Ali is resident of Khera Mugal, Police Station Deoband, District Shaharanpur. He seems to be a chance witness. PW5 Noor Hasan stated that he was told by PW3 Km. Aayasha as to why search was being made of Adil and Adil was seen going with the appellant towards harijan basti. He further stated that he himself did not witness appellant going alongwith Adil. Therefore, statements of PW5 Noor Hasan are useless for the purpose of present case. It is settled principle of law that any confession made before the Police cannot be read in evidence as per Section 25 of the Indian Evidence Act. However, part of the statement leading to the discovery shall be read in evidence in view of Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act. It is settled principle of law that any confession made before the Police cannot be read in evidence as per Section 25 of the Indian Evidence Act. However, part of the statement leading to the discovery shall be read in evidence in view of Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act. Since there was no recovery or discovery of dead body of Master Adil from the sugarcane field of Suresh Pal pursuant to the discloser made before the police, so confessional statement allegedly made by the appellant before the Police, cannot be read against him. Section 364 I.P.C. reads as under:- “364. Kidnapping or abducting in order to murder – Whoever kidnaps or abducts any person in order that such person may be murdered or may be so disposed of as to be put in danger of being murdered, shall be punished with imprisonment for life or rigorous imprisonment for term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine.” To establish an offence punishable under Section 364 I.P.C., it must be proved that accused had the intention, at the time of abduction that person abducted would be killed or would be so disposed of as to put in danger of being murdered. Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of State of W.B. Vs. Mir Mohammad Omar and others, reported in (2000) 8 SCC 382 in para 13 has held as under :- “Section 364 IPC says, whoever abducts any person "in order that such person may be murdered or disposed of as to be put in danger of being murdered" he commits the offence punishable under the Section. So the important task of the prosecution was to demonstrate that abduction of Mahesh was for murdering him. Even if the murder did not take place, the offence would be complete if the abduction was completed with the said objective. So the important task of the prosecution was to demonstrate that abduction of Mahesh was for murdering him. Even if the murder did not take place, the offence would be complete if the abduction was completed with the said objective. Conversely, if there was no such objective when the abduction was perpetrated, but later the abductors murdered the victim, Section 364 IPC would not be attracted, though in such a case the court may have to consider whether the offence of culpable homicide (amounting to or not amounting to murder) was committed.” There is no such evidence on the record that appellant was having any intention that Adil would be killed after his abduction or would be put in a position of being murdered except the alleged confession of appellant before the police. Confession cannot be read to convict the appellant. In my considered opinion, evidence that Adil was seen going behind the appellant towards harijan basti, more particularly, when appellant was not seen holding the hand of Adil, shall not lead to the conclusion that appellant had kidnapped Adil for the purpose of murder. Consequently, no offence punishable under Section 364 I.P.C. is made out. Therefore, impugned judgment and order does not sustain in the eyes of law. Consequently, appeal is allowed. Impugned judgment and order passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge / 1st F.T.C., Roorkee holding the appellant guilty for the offence punishable under Section 364 I.P.C. and sentencing him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of ten years is hereby set aside. Appellant stands acquitted from the charges leveled against him. Appellant is on bail. He need not to surrender. His personal bonds are cancelled and sureties stand discharged. Let copy of the judgment alongwith L.C.R. be sent back to the lower court for information and compliance.