Judgment V.K. Bist, J. By the judgment under appeal, the appellants and one co-accused, namely, Soni @ Sohan Singh have been convicted for the offence punishable under Section 364-A of the Indian Penal Code (for short IPC) and each one of them have been sentenced for life imprisonment with fine of Rs. 50,000/- and in default of payment of fine, further imprisonment for one year has been awarded. 2. On 14.02.2005, complainant, Pooran Chandra (PW-2) lodged a report with the Chowki In-charge, Sultanpur Patti, police station-Bazpur, District Udham Singh Nagar with the assertion that he was employed as Driver in Bus No. UP-25-6977, which was carrying school children from Kashipur to Riverdale International School, Bazpur. On the fateful day i.e. on 14.02.2005, the bus was going through Surkara Road. When it reached about 100 yards before railway crossing, at 7:35 a.m., four persons riding on two motorcycles, stopped the bus, and forcefully took Master Gurvinder Singh S/o Lakhvinder Singh resident of Cheema Factory, Kashipur. They took Gurvinder Singh with them by pointing country made pistol on the temple of the complainant. Besides the complainant, teacher, Mohd. Nafeesh (PW1) and the conductor Bhagwan Singh (PW-6) witnessed the incident. On the basis of said complaint, an FIR (Ext.-A4) was registered on 14.02.2005 at 8:15 a.m., and entry was made in General Diary. 3. The police received information about the kidnapping of Gurvinder Singh. The police was also informed that the kidnappers took Gurvinder Singh on motorcycle. On receiving information, the police reached at Garappu police chowki barrier and started checking. At about 11:35 a.m., two motorcycles, coming towards Bazpur, were seen. At the barrier, they were asked to stop, but the pillion rider of the first motorcycle, fired at the police party but same missed. The police party apprehended both of them. The second motorcyclist, coming behind, fled towards the jungle, leaving his motorcycle and could not be apprehended. In between the apprehended persons riding in the motorcycle, one boy, covered and wrapped in a blanket was found. On unwrapping the blanket, the same kidnapped boy, namely, Gurvinder Singh-aged 12 years was recovered from the possession of the accused persons, namely, Gurubaz Singh and Jasvinder Singh (one of the appellant herein). In between the apprehended persons riding in the motorcycle, one boy, covered and wrapped in a blanket was found. On unwrapping the blanket, the same kidnapped boy, namely, Gurvinder Singh-aged 12 years was recovered from the possession of the accused persons, namely, Gurubaz Singh and Jasvinder Singh (one of the appellant herein). On making further search, one 12 bore country made pistol, one 12 bore live cartridge in the chamber, one 12 bore live cartridge inside the pocket of the trouser, and one mobile phone was recovered from the possession of the accused Gurubaz Singh and one 315 bore country made pistol, one 315 bore empty cartridge in the chamber, one 315 bore live cartridge inside the pocket of the trouser and one mobile phone was recovered from the possession of the accused Jasvinder Singh. The motorcycle-YAMAHA CRAX bearing no. UP 21 D 1632, on which the accused took the child, was also recovered. On making inquiry from the apprehended persons, the name of the co-accused, who fled, leaving his motorcycle, was told as Soni @ Sohan S/o Pooran Singh, resident of Noorpur, police station Swar, District Rampur. The motorcycle-YAMAHA CRAX without bearing any number plate, left by the accused Soni, was also recovered by the police party at the police outpost. On being asked, the accused, so apprehended, disclosed that they have kidnapped Gurvinder Singh at 7:35 a.m. from bus no. UP25-6977 and took him on the said motorcycles. The accused also disclosed that the abduction was done for ransom of rupees four lacs from the General Manager of Cheema Factory i.e. father of the kidnapped boy. It was also disclosed that Jasvinder Singh demanded ransom from the father of the victim by calling from his own mobile set. Memo of recovery of victim (Ext. A-3) was prepared at the spot. 4. Sub-Inspector S.P. Singh (PW-9) In-charge Police Outpost took investigation in hand. He during investigation, recorded the statement of the complainant, prepared site-plan after making spot inspection. Thereafter, the investigation was transferred to Station House Officer Uttam Singh Gimiwal, who during investigation, conducted test identification parade of the accused and after satisfying other formalities, it culminated into the filing of charge sheet against four accused persons. Trial of other co-accused Gurbaz Singh was separated, having been found as juvenile. 5. Thereafter, the investigation was transferred to Station House Officer Uttam Singh Gimiwal, who during investigation, conducted test identification parade of the accused and after satisfying other formalities, it culminated into the filing of charge sheet against four accused persons. Trial of other co-accused Gurbaz Singh was separated, having been found as juvenile. 5. As a result thereof, the trial commenced, the trial Court framed charge of offence punishable under Section 364-A I.P.C. against the accused/appellants, who pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. The prosecution, in order to prove its case, examined as many as eleven witnesses. In their defence, the accused/appellants examined two witnesses. After considering the evidence on record, the trial Court has convicted all the accused for the offence punishable under Section 364-A IPC. During the pendency of appeal co-accused Soni @ Sohan Singh died. 6. We have heard Mrs. Pushpa Joshi, Senior Advocate and Mr. J.S. Virk, Advocate for the appellants and Mr. A.S. Gill, Dy. Advocate General for the State and have gone through the entire material available on record. 7. It is contended, at the outset, that absence of the documents relating to conduction of test identification parade, inasmuch as, absence of testimony of the person, who conducted the test identification parade, casts serious doubt about the identity of the accused persons and upon the prosecution story. The factum of demand of ransom could not be established, because father of the victim did not allege as to who demanded ransom from him. It is also contended that even after recovery of mobile phones from the accused persons, no call details were ascertained by the Investigating Officers, as has been alleged by the victim that he was asked by the kidnappers to talk to his father, therefore, the conviction under the alleged offence is bad in the eyes of law. It is further contended that in the light of contradictions emerging out from the statements of the witnesses, no case is made out against the accused/ appellants. It is also contended that PW-1 Mohd. Nafeesh and PW-2 Pooran Chandra are the eyewitnesses and they have been declared hostile by the prosecution, thus the prosecution story, on which the prosecution has erected its case, is doubtful. 8. It is also contended that PW-1 Mohd. Nafeesh and PW-2 Pooran Chandra are the eyewitnesses and they have been declared hostile by the prosecution, thus the prosecution story, on which the prosecution has erected its case, is doubtful. 8. Baljinder Singh in his statement under section 313 Cr.P.C. stated that there was a civil dispute between appellant Baljinder Singh and father of the victim, as a consequence thereof, Baljinder Singh has also been fastened in this crime. On the basis of this statement, it is contended that appellants have falsely been implicated. It is lastly submitted that sole testimony of the victim (PW-7), being the child witness, cannot be relied upon to convict the appellants. 9. In the backdrop of what has been described in the preceding paragraphs, we have to examine as to whether on the date, time and place the accused/appellants, with the intent to fetch ransom, kidnapped Gurvinder Singh? The ocular evidence of the victim P.W.7 would be crucial. This witness has categorically stated that on the day of incident, when he was proceeding to his school in a bus, the accused persons, namely Baljinder Singh, Gurbaz Singh, Jasvinder and Soni kidnapped him with the object to fetch ransom; accused Baljinder, catching hold of him, alighted from the bus and after wrapping him in a blanket, he was taken to an unknown destination. The motorcycle was driven by the accused Soni and accused Baljinder Singh was catching hold of him. Accused Jasvinder and Gurbaz were on another motorcycle. The accused persons threatened him that incase he makes shrieks, he will be killed, instead, after obtaining ransom, he will be set at large. He submitted that the accused were exchanging their conversations in Punjabi language. On the way, on the asking of the accused, this witness talked to his father from their mobile. Thereafter, Baljinder Singh forcefully took him to another motorcycle and had gone to somewhere else. He stated that at the moment, while talking to his father, due to displacement of the blanket, in which he was wrapped, he could recognize the accused Baljinder and Soni. Thereafter, on proceeding ahead, police encountered with the accused persons; one of the miscreants fled from the scene and the police party apprehended two accused Gurbaz & Jasvinder and rescued him, and thereafter, he was handed over in the custody of his father. Thereafter, on proceeding ahead, police encountered with the accused persons; one of the miscreants fled from the scene and the police party apprehended two accused Gurbaz & Jasvinder and rescued him, and thereafter, he was handed over in the custody of his father. This witness has been cross-examined by the defence counsel at length; but nothing has come out in his cross-examination, which may create doubt in his statements. The evidence of this witness, on each and every aspect, is quite cogent, natural, reliable and trustworthy. The ocular evidence tendered by the victim, is amply substantiated by the evidence of PW-4 Lakhvinder Singh (father of the victim), who has stated that, after five minutes of the incident of kidnapping, he received a call on his mobile phone, informing him that his son is in their possession with the further direction to bring four lac rupees and come Bazpur, the venue of which will be informed later. The statement of the victim is also corroborated by PW-3 Sub-Inspector Ganesh Singh Kutiyal, Station House Officer. This witness has reiterated the assertions made in the memo of recovery of the victim (Ext. A-3). The defence did not give any suggestion to this witness, as to what was the reason to implicate the accused/ appellants in the crime. The statement of the victim are further corroborated with the statement of PW-11, who was the member of police party with PW-3 SHO Ganesh Singh Kutiyal, when, at the police chowki barrier of police outpost Garappu, the accused Gurbaz and the appellant Jasvinder Singh were apprehended and the abducted boy was recovered from their possession. The co-accused Baljinder Singh and Soni @ Sohan Singh were apprehended on 15.02.2005. PW-8 Inspector Uttam Singh Gimiwal is the witness, who has been produced in proving the test identification parade conducted in the matter. 10. The co-accused Baljinder Singh and Soni @ Sohan Singh were apprehended on 15.02.2005. PW-8 Inspector Uttam Singh Gimiwal is the witness, who has been produced in proving the test identification parade conducted in the matter. 10. So far the consequential impact of discriminate hostility of P.W.1 and P.W.2 is concerned, the appellants cannot be given benefit of the hostility, because, the ocular statement of the victim is utterly corroborative to the complementary statements rendered by PW-3 as well as PW-11, who have corroborated the fact that within four hours of the incident, while, after kidnapping the victim Gurvinder Singh, in two motorcycles, when they were fleeing towards Kaladhungi, the police party apprehended the appellant Jasvinder @ Santa @ Satnam and the other co-accused Gurbaz Singh at the barrier of police outpost Garappu and the kidnapped boy Gurvinder Singh was recovered from their possession. Furthermore, in the way to their destination, when the accused persons directed the victim to talk to his father through phone, the victim recognized them. 11. So far the dearth on the part of the Investigating Officer e.g. not ascertaining the call details, is concerned, the accused/appellants cannot take any benefit for the lapses on the part of the Investigating Officer, in view of clear statement of P.W.3, P.W.7 and P.W.11. 12. In view of above discussion, we find no infirmity in the judgment and order under appeal. Prosecution has been successful in proving the charge of offence punishable under Section 364-A IPC against the accused/appellants beyond reasonable doubt. The appeals are liable to be dismissed and are accordingly dismissed. The judgment and order passed by the trial Court, as also the conviction and sentence recorded against the accused/appellants is hereby affirmed. 13. The accused/appellants are in jail. Let a copy of this judgment, be sent to the Superintendent of jail concerned, a copy be kept in the connected appeal and a copy, alongwith the Lower Court Records, be sent to the concerned trial Court.