JUDGMENT Per: Hon’ble Servesh Kumar Gupta, J. As both the above-titled appeals have arisen out of the common judgment rendered by learned Additional Sessions Judge/First F.T.C., Haridwar on 16.7.2003 in Sessions Trial No.129 of 1995, State v. Mukesh and others, hence are being adjudicated by this single judgment. 2. Accused Mukesh (A1), Vinod (A2), Gulab (A3) and Net Ram (A4) were tried for the offence of Section 364-A IPC and they were found guilty for the same. Learned Trial Judge has sentenced them for five years’ rigorous imprisonment nay Rs1.000/- fine. 3. The other accused persons, Chandra Pal (A5), Bijendra @ Jani (A6), Telu (A7) and Dr. Zakir (A8) were tried for the offences of Section 364-A/120-B IPC. They were found guilty for the same and were sentenced to three years’ rigorous imprisonment nay Rs.1,000/- fine against each of them. 4. Since the Trial Judge has sentenced A1 to A4 less than the minimum, as contemplated by the provision of Section 364-A IPC, so the State Government has preferred the above-titled appeal praying to enhance their sentence. 5. In the same manner, A5 to A8 have also been sentenced less than as envisaged by the provision of Sections 364-A/120-B IPC, hence the Government, by way of the selfsame appeal, has prayed for enhancement of these convicts also. 6. Victim Brahm Dutt, aged about 20 years, used to do the medical dressing work in village Dumanpuri, District Haridwar and after his job, he was returning to his home in his village Akoda Khurd by a bicycle on 14.12.1994 after 4 PM of the day. While on way, he came across to other boys Biram and Sunil of his village, who asked him to accompany them to the village but Brahm Dutt asked those two boys not to wait for him and he will follow them after a while. Having covered some more distance crossing the nearby bridge on a local river, he met A1 to A4. These accused persons carried him at the strength of country made pistol in their hand. His mouth was gagged and also tied with a Mufflar. Accused persons directed him not to make any noise otherwise he will be shooted. So, he being scared, was bound to follow every direction of the accused persons. They snatched cycle from Brahm Dutt and threw it in the nearby fairly deep water of the river. His mouth was gagged and also tied with a Mufflar. Accused persons directed him not to make any noise otherwise he will be shooted. So, he being scared, was bound to follow every direction of the accused persons. They snatched cycle from Brahm Dutt and threw it in the nearby fairly deep water of the river. Out of these four accused persons, A4 belonged to the village of kidnapped. Thus, he was carried and kept to a big sugarcane field at a remote place in the map shown by the Investigating Officer. By that time, it was quite dark, so the accused persons forced Brahm Dutt to write a letter to his father informing the incident with a demand of Rs.2.00 lakh as ransom in order to save his life from the hands of the culprits. It appears that this letter was got written on 15.12.1994 and somehow, managed to deliver to the victim’s father Shyam Lal (PW1). The letter entailed meeting of demand latest by 17.12.1994, otherwise in all probabilities, there was a risk to the life of kidnapped. 7. When PW1 got the letter late in the evening of 16.12.1994, he rushed to the police station along with PW2 Ghanshyam Dass belonging to his village. PW1 informed the police station where he was asked to report the incident in writing. So, he was provided a blank paper and PW2 wrote the report, whereon PW1 put his signature. Thus, the report could be lodged, the Chick report whereof is Ex.Ka-8. 8. Police came into motion and recovered the kidnapped Brahm Dutt on 21.12.1994 from the same sugarcane field where he was kept. Memo of recovery is Ex.Ka-4. At the instance of A1, the bicycle which was merged in the flowing river, was also got recovered. Its memo is Ex.Ka-6. 9. On 21.12.1994 at 5 PM, PW7 Dr. C.K. Singh examined Brahm Dutt and found the following injuries on his body: - “1. Contusion on both wrists which was having the length of 10.5 cm. It was reddish in colour. 2. Complaint of pain in chest. 3. Contusion on left ankle to the size of 2 x 1 cm. 4. Abrasion on upper part of right leg to the size of 1 cm x 0.3 cm.” 10. Investigation culminated into submission of chargesheet against all the eight accused persons for the offences of section 364; 364/120-B IPC. 2. Complaint of pain in chest. 3. Contusion on left ankle to the size of 2 x 1 cm. 4. Abrasion on upper part of right leg to the size of 1 cm x 0.3 cm.” 10. Investigation culminated into submission of chargesheet against all the eight accused persons for the offences of section 364; 364/120-B IPC. Charges were levelled accordingly and the accused persons were put to trial. 11. Prosecution has examined PW1 Shyam Lal who has ratified that his son Brahm Dutt used to go daily for doing medical dressing work in another village Duman Puri. Leaving home in the morning, he used to return in the evening. When on 14.12.1994 his son did not come back, as usual, he remained worried and next day, he got the letter Ex.Ka-2 which was in the handwriting of his son. So, he believed that his son had been kidnapped and then he went to the police station to lodge the report. This letter Ex.Ka-2 also had the writing of some other person which he could not recognize and the language used in the same depicts the kidnapping and demand of money otherwise his son was threatened to be killed. The manner was also disclosed in the letter as regards the delivery of the money. After receiving the letter Ex.Ka-2, on 16.12.1994, he received another letter Ex.Ka-3. This letter too bears the signature of his son Brahm Dutt. 12. Learned counsel for the accused persons has argued some discrepancies in the cross-examination of PW1 regarding the exact date and time of receiving the letter. PW1 has stated in cross-examination that the letter was received by him after reporting the matter to the police station, and thus, he could not submit the same along with the report. This contention of learned counsel does not have any substance for the reason that the contents of the report, given to the police by PW1, itself make it abundantly clear that he had received the letter in the late evening of 16.12.1994. But this admission of PW1 in the first information report has not been confronted with the contradictory statement made by him (PW1) in his cross-examination. In absence thereof, no benefit can be extended for the argument put forth on behalf of the counsel for the accused persons. 13. But this admission of PW1 in the first information report has not been confronted with the contradictory statement made by him (PW1) in his cross-examination. In absence thereof, no benefit can be extended for the argument put forth on behalf of the counsel for the accused persons. 13. It was also argued that the prosecution has not made it clear as to by what means, the letter could be received by PW1. It is again significant to note that the learned cross-examiner on behalf of the accused persons did not put even a single question from PW1 in this regard so as to provide him an opportunity to explain as regards the manner he received both letters Ex.Ka-2 and Ka-3 depicting the demand of ransom in exchange of release of his son. So, no benefit can be rendered in favour of the accused persons for the lapse which their counsel committed in the Trial Court while cross-examining PW1. 14. PW2 is Ghanshyam Dass who is the scribe of the report and has ratified the writing of report, as has been spoken by PW1. 15. PW3 Brahm Dutt is the victim and the star witness of the incident. He has proved the sequence of incident as to how he was kidnapped by A1 to A4 and was kept in the sugarcane field, as stated above. He was provided an old quilt in order to pass his night in the deep sugarcane field with tied hands and feet from the ankles. The version of PW3 corroborates the injuries as afore-stated which were found by the doctor on his medical examination just after his release. There is no enmity of either kidnapped or his father suggesting the false implication of the accused persons. 16. No specific role has been assigned to A5 to A7 so as to explicit their complicity in the crime except that they used to convey the food stuff and other bare requirements to the victim in order to pass days in the sugarcane field. 17. As regards the role of A8 Dr. Jakir, it has been in the evidence of victim that victim used to learn the work in the similar medical shop of A8 in the village. 17. As regards the role of A8 Dr. Jakir, it has been in the evidence of victim that victim used to learn the work in the similar medical shop of A8 in the village. So, asking help by the victim in order to get freed from the clutches of the accused persons, A8, who was present along with other accused persons in the sugarcane field, replied that his father (PW1) has the abundant money, so they have to take money from his father. This statement makes it explicitly clear that A8 also had his involvement in the nefarious plan of A1 to A4. 18. PW4 Charan Singh is the resident of village of victim. He is the witness of recovery of Brahm Dutt from the sugarcane field. He was taken by the police at the time of recovery. And, he has proved the same. 19. PW5 is Biram Singh who has ratified that on 14.12.1994, Brahm Dutt was present at Raisi Railway Station and was indulged in interaction with someone. When PW5 asked Brahm Dutt to accompany him to the village, he was told to go as he (the victim) stated that he would follow him later. 20. PW6 Ram Pal Singh is the witness of recovery of bicycle and he has proved that A1, who was taken by the police, was made to enter in Ganga river and he came out with the merged bicycle of Brahm Dutt. Thus, he has proved the recovery memo of the bicycle which is Ex.Ka-6. 21. PW7 Dr. C.K. Singh has proved the injuries on the body of victim, as stated above. 22. PW8 Allah Baksh Saifi is the Investigating Officer. Nothing has come out from the entire cross-examination of this witness so as to disbelieve the story. 23. We feel that there is no infirmity as regards the finding of conviction of A1 to A4 for the offence of Section 364-A IPC but we do not find the sufficient evidence on record proving the complicity of A5 to A7 for the offences, wherefor they were charged. However, the offence of conspiracy as against A8 Dr. Jakir is completely proved, but he has been reported to have died during pendency of the appeal. 24. However, the offence of conspiracy as against A8 Dr. Jakir is completely proved, but he has been reported to have died during pendency of the appeal. 24. Now, as regards the sentence awarded by the Trial Court to A1 to A4, it is quite contradictory to what has been prescribed by the provisions of Indian Penal Code. So, we modify the sentence of A1 to A4 as under: - Since A1 Mukesh, A2 Vinod, A3 Gulab and A4 Net Ram have been found guilty for the offence of Section 364-A IPC, they are hereby sentenced for a term of life imprisonment and fine of Rs.1,000/- each. In default of fine, they will undergo the imprisonment, as awarded by the Trial Court. 25. At the same time, we do not find any complicity of A5 Chandra Pal, A6 Vijendra @ Jani and A7 Telu in the crime. So, these accused persons are acquitted from all the charges levelled against them. They are already on bail. They need not to surrender. Their bail bonds are cancelled and sureties are discharged. 26. The offences under Section 364-A/120-B IPC are clearly made out against A8 Dr. Jakir, but since he has been reported to have died, hence the appeal, filed on his behalf, stands abated. 27. Resultantly, the criminal appeal no.218 of 2003, preferred by the convicts, is allowed in part and at the same time, the Government Appeal No.61 of 2003 is allowed. 28. Let a copy of this judgment and order along with the lower court record be sent to the court concerned for compliance.