Judgment Tapash Mookherjee, J. 1. The present Criminal Appeal is directed against the judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 28.06.2002 and 29.06.2002 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court – 1, Krishnanagar, Nadia in Sessions Trial No. III of June, 2002 (Sessions Case No. 13 (5) 2002) convicting the Appellant of the offence under Section 364 A of I. P. C. and sentencing the Appellant to suffer imprisonment for life and to pay fine of Rs.2,000.00 (rupees two thousand only) I. D. to suffer R. I. for 6 months more. 2. The facts of the case briefly stated, are as follows:- 3. On 05.04.2002 at about 8 p. m. the Appellant Amerul Sheikh along with others went to the house of Rahim Baksh Mondal and called Rahim Baksh and his son Najrul Mondal out of the house and asked Rahim Baksh and Najrul to follow them. After crossing over a little distance the Appellant and his gang released Rahim Baksh and took away by force Rahim Baksh’s son Najrul towards some unknown destination and while thus taking away Najrul, the Appellant and his gang demanded a huge amount of money as the ransom for the release of Najrul. After being released Rahim Baksh returned to his village, reported the incident to his family members, co-villagers and to the local Police Camp and subsequently on advice by the local Police Camp, Rahim Baksh submitted a written complaint narrating the aforesaid incidents on the following day to the Thanapara Police Station, Nadia on the basis of which Thanapara P. S. Case No. 19/02 dated 06.04.2002 under Section 364 A/ 34 I. P. C. had been started against the Appellant. The victim Nazrul had been subsequently recovered from a different village 4. Investigation started on the basis of the aforesaid F.I.R. and after completion of investigation charge sheet under Section 364 A/ 34 of I. P. C. had been submitted against the Appellant. After commitment, the case had been transferred to the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court-1, Krishnanagar, Nadia, for trial. 5. Considering the evidence collected during investigation charge under Section 364 A read with Section 34 of I. P. C. had been framed against the Appellant Amerul Sheikh alias Mondal. The Appellant denied the charge and claimed trial. Plea of innocence was the defence plea. 5. Considering the evidence collected during investigation charge under Section 364 A read with Section 34 of I. P. C. had been framed against the Appellant Amerul Sheikh alias Mondal. The Appellant denied the charge and claimed trial. Plea of innocence was the defence plea. It was also a defence case that the present case had been started against the Appellant falsely to cover up a case of murder committed by the local Police men. 6. Prosecution examined 11 witnesses in total and proved some documents as well. No evidence had been adduced on behalf of the Appellant. 7. Considering the evidence on record learned Trial Court found the Appellant guilty of the charge under Section 364 A read with Section 34 of I. P. C. and sentenced the Appellant to suffer life imprisonment and to pay fine of Rs.2,000.00 (rupees two thousand only) I. D. to suffer R. I. for 6 months more. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with such judgment and order of sentence the Appellant filed the present appeal. 8. Rahim Baksh Mondal (P.W.- 1) is the defacto complainant in the case and his son Najrul Mondal (P.W.- 2) is the victim of the alleged abduction. Nasiruddin Mondal (P.W.- 3), Rijia Sultan Bibi (P.W.- 4), Arjia Bibi (P.W.- 5) are the family members of the complainant. Maulat Mondal (P.W.- 6) and Moula Bux Mondal (P.W.- 10) were the close relations of the complainant, A. S. I. Ananta Kumar Bhowmick (P.W.- 7) registered the case at the Police Station and filled in the formal F.I.R. Malati Karmakar (P.W.- 8) was a Judicial Magistrate who recorded the statement of the alleged victim under Section 164 of Cr. P. C. Lagena Bibi (P.W. - 9) was a resident of the house from where the victim had been allegedly rescued from confinement. S. I. Santanu Basu (P.W.- 11) investigated and submitted charge sheet in the case. 9. Learned Advocate for the Appellant argued that all the witnesses relied on by the prosecution were ‘related’ and as such ‘interested witnesses’ and in absence of corroboration from any neutral source those witnesses should not have been treated as dependable witnesses. He further argued that the facts narrated by the complainant, victim and other witnesses are not found reflected in the F.I.R. and the witnesses also deviated from their earlier statements under Section 161 Cr. He further argued that the facts narrated by the complainant, victim and other witnesses are not found reflected in the F.I.R. and the witnesses also deviated from their earlier statements under Section 161 Cr. P. C. and as such the charge against the Appellant is not proved beyond all doubts in the case. He raised some other points as well which would be discussed latter. 10. On the contrary, learned Advocate for the Respondent/State argued that each and every fact in every detail is not required to be mentioned in the F.I.R. and there is no hard and fast rule that a witness must confine his or her statements on dock to their statements during investigation under Section 161 Cr. P. C. He further submitted that there is no rule of evidence suggesting that ‘related’ witnesses should be always disbelieved. It was also the submission of the learned Advocate for the Respondent/State that the evidence of the complainant, i. e., P.W.- 1 as well as the evidence of P.W. - 2, i. e., the victim is well supported by the other witnesses. No serious contradiction or anomaly is found in the evidences of those witnesses. So, learned Trial Court was correct in law to find the Appellant guilty of the offence punishable under Section 364 A of I. P. C. learned Advocate for the Respondent/State referred to the following decisions 2003 SCC (Cri) 165 Alamgir Vs. State (NCT, Delhi), 1989 CRI. L. J. 88 (1) SC State of U.P. V.- Anil Singh, AIR 1985 SC 1384 State of U. P. Vs. Ballabh Das and others, AIR 1980 SC 1322 Bhimrao Anna Ingawale and others Vs. State of Maharashtra and AIR 1981 SC 1390 State of Rajhasthan Vs. Smt. Kalki and another. 11. I agree with the learned Advocate for the Respondent/State that F.I.R. in a case need not be exhaustive containing all the facts with all details. But, if any omission and/or any contradiction between the facts stated in the F.I.R. and those stated by the F.I.R. maker during evidence relate to any vital point in the case and no reasonable explanation is offered for it, then the situation becomes otherwise. I also agree with the view of the learned Advocate for the Respondent/State to the point that ‘interested and related’ witnesses are different concepts and ‘related’ witnesses may be considered as trust worthy witnesses. I also agree with the view of the learned Advocate for the Respondent/State to the point that ‘interested and related’ witnesses are different concepts and ‘related’ witnesses may be considered as trust worthy witnesses. The decisions reported in AIR 1985 SC 1384 State of U.P. Vs. Ballabh Das and others and AIR 1981 SC 1390 State of Rajhasthan Vs. Smt. Kalki and another are relied on the point. 12. Let it be now, whether there is any omission or contradiction in between the facts stated in the F .I. R. and the facts narrated by the F.I.R. maker, the alleged victim and other witnesses, during their evidence on oath and whether such omission and/or contradiction is fatal for the prosecution case. 13. In the F.I.R. (Exhibit- 1/3) it is stated that the Appellant and his followers after taking away the complainant and the complainant’s son, i. e., the victim from the house of the complainant to a place at a distance from the complainant’s house, released the complainant and took away the complainant’s son demanding a ‘hefty ransom’ for the release of the complainant’s son from their custody. No specific amount of such ransom is mentioned in the F.I.R. But during their evidence the complainant (P.W.-1) and the complainant’s son (P.W.- 2) who were the main witnesses on the point, stated that the Appellant and his followers demanded a sum of Rs.2,50,000.00 (rupees two lakh fifty thousand only) as the ‘ransom money’. Why no specific amount of the alleged ransom is mentioned in the F.I.R. is a big question. Learned Advocate for the Respondent/State argued that at the time of preparation of the F.I.R. the complainant’s son was in the custody of the abductor and hence the complainant was not in right state of mind to specify the amount of ransom allegedly demanded by the Appellant. Had any specific amount been demanded it would not have been something very difficult to remember and mention it in the F.I.R. itself. So, the aforesaid explanation of the learned Advocate for the Respondent/State is not convincing. It would not be out of context to mention that it was never a prosecution case that the amount of ‘ransom’ had been subsequently negotiated between the complainant and the abductors. 14. In the F.I.R. the place of payment of ransom money and the mode of such payment demanded by the abductors has not been mentioned. It would not be out of context to mention that it was never a prosecution case that the amount of ‘ransom’ had been subsequently negotiated between the complainant and the abductors. 14. In the F.I.R. the place of payment of ransom money and the mode of such payment demanded by the abductors has not been mentioned. It has been mentioned earlier that there was never negotiation between the complainant and the abductors subsequent to the alleged abduction of the complainant’s son. P.W.-1 or P.W.- 2 has not also stated anything during their evidence regarding the place and manner of payment of ransom money to the abductors by the complainant. On the other hand P.W.- 2 in his statement under Section 164 Cr. P. C. stated that the Appellant asked his father to get him released from Bangladesh after payment of Rs.2,50,000.00 (rupees two lakh fifty thousand only). So a very important point in a case of abduction for ransom, i.e., the place and manner of payment of the ransom money demanded by the abductors has not been proved in the case. 15. A wealthy person is generally a target of abductor for ransom. P.W.- 2 stated that his father is a jute merchant and they have landed properties as well. But in cross examination he admitted that they have no godown and that they have no Bank Account also. In fact, there is no dependable proof on record to show that the complainant is a rich person. On the other hand it is found from the evidence on record that P.W.- 10 is a rich man of the village. In the circumstances it is not understandable as to why complainant was chosen as a target of kidnap for ransom. 16. According to the prosecution case several other persons were with the Appellant and assisted the Appellant in the act of alleged kidnap. Now, who were those other accomplices of the Appellant is not known as none of them has been made an accused in the case and no explanation has been offered for it. This is definitely also a big hole in the case. According to P.W.- 1 and P.W.- 2, in the night of the occurrence they had gone out of their house on call by the Appellant from outside their house. But P.W.- 2 in his statement under Section 164 of Cr. This is definitely also a big hole in the case. According to P.W.- 1 and P.W.- 2, in the night of the occurrence they had gone out of their house on call by the Appellant from outside their house. But P.W.- 2 in his statement under Section 164 of Cr. P. C. stated clearly that in the night of the occurrence six miscreants entered their house and asked them to go out. Be that as it may, P.W.- 1 and P.W.- 2 in their evidence stated further that when they reached a bamboo clumps they found 5 other persons standing there under the cover of darkness and according to P.W. – 1, he was requested to proceed towards the road. Both the P.W.- 1 and P.W.- 2 stated that the Appellant called them to have some talk with them. But neither the P.W.- 1 nor the P.W.- 2 stated about any subject matter of such talk proposed by the Appellant. In the circumstances it is not clear as to why P.W.- 1 and P.W.- 2 agreed to follow the Appellant to the agricultural field in the dark night without knowing of any purpose, especially when there were some unknown persons with the Appellant. 17. In the F.I.R., P.W.- 1 stated that his son, i. e., P.W.- 2 was separated from him and forcibly taken away by the gang of the Appellant from his shallow Tubewel in the Pratappur field. But during the evidence P.W.- 1 stated that after reaching the shallow Tubewel in the field he and his son was requested to proceed towards the road and after reaching the road they along with the Appellant and Appellant’s gang crossed over a considerable distance through a field and thereafter the ransom money was demanded and thereafter his son was compelled to move further. But from the statement of P.W.- 2 under Section 164 of Cr. P. C. it appears that force was used upon him just after he went outside their house. From the description of such journey given by P.W.- 1 and P.W.- 2, it further appears that both the P.W.- 1 and P.W.- 2 had the opportunity to escape if they wanted to do so. P.W.- 1 stated further that while moving in the aforesaid way the abductors scared them by showing a weapon and a bomb. From the description of such journey given by P.W.- 1 and P.W.- 2, it further appears that both the P.W.- 1 and P.W.- 2 had the opportunity to escape if they wanted to do so. P.W.- 1 stated further that while moving in the aforesaid way the abductors scared them by showing a weapon and a bomb. The nature of the weapon is not described and the fact of showing the weapon and bomb not even hinted in the F.I.R. It should be noted here that the P.W.- 2 had not stated also about any weapon being used by the Appellant’s gang. 18. Both the P.W.- 1 and P.W.- 2 have given a detailed account of their movement after they went outside their house on call by the Appellant. From the evidence of P.W.- 1 and P.W.- 2 it is found that they had voluntarily gone outside their house on call by the Appellant and thereafter they followed the Appellant through different tracks. As mentioned earlier it is not clear from the evidence of P.W.- 1 and P.W.- 2 as to why they had blindly followed the Appellant and the Appellant’s gang. It is not clear from the evidence of P.W.- 1 and P.W.- 2 as to from what place force was used and what kind of terror was demonstrated to scare them. All such points are very much important in any case of abduction for ransom. 19. According to the P.W.- 2 after kidnap he was taken to village Narayanpur and kept in confinement in a house where somebody guarded him and continuously threatened him and that subsequently villagers came to that house, assaulted the Appellant and the Appellant’s companion and ultimately he was rescued from there by the Police. 20. According to P.W.- 9 and P.W.- 2 had been confined in her house by the Appellant and others and being attracted by the cries of P.W.- 2 villagers came to her house and assaulted the complainant and her (P.W.-9) husband who was a close associate of the Appellant and ultimately Police rescued P.W.- 2 from her house (P.W.- 9). Learned Advocate for the Respondent/State argued that P.W.- 9 was a neutral witness and her statement alone is sufficient to prove the fact that P.W.- 2 had been abducted and confined by the Appellant. Learned Advocate for the Appellant obviously opposed the view. Learned Advocate for the Respondent/State argued that P.W.- 9 was a neutral witness and her statement alone is sufficient to prove the fact that P.W.- 2 had been abducted and confined by the Appellant. Learned Advocate for the Appellant obviously opposed the view. From the evidence of P.W.- 9 itself, it is clear that she was deserted long ago by her husband who was an accomplice of the Appellant in commission of dacoities. P.W.- 9 had, therefore, hostile animus against the Appellant. That apart, it is not clear from the version of P.W.- 9 as to why her husband suddenly went to her parental house to keep P.W.- 2 in confinement especially when P.W.- 9 had been deserted by her husband since long before the incident. It needs to be mentioned here that according to P.W.- 9 the villagers came to her house after hearing the cries of P.W.- 2. P.W.- 2 was allegedly taken to the house of the P.W.- 9 for confinement in the early hours of the morning. If the facts were so, then P.W.- 2 would have been rescued by the Police long before evening. It needs to be mentioned here that I. O. of the case could not say the name of the house from where P.W.- 2 had been rescued and from his evidence it appears that P.W.- 2 had been rescued by the villagers before the arrival of the I. O. in the village. But no such villager rescuing P.W.- 2 has been examined in the case. So, it is not proved under what situation P.W.- 2 had been freed from the alleged confinement. 21. Defence had taken up a plea that the Appellant had been falsely framed in the case by the Police to hush up a case of murder by the Police. However, no evidence had been adduced by the defence to prove the allegation against the Police. But, such failure of the defence itself does not prove the prosecution case. 22. So, from the facts and circumstances stated above we have no hesitation to hold that there are several loosends, lacunae, inconsistencies, absurdities and untold stories in the prosecution case. Learned Trial Court took the evidence of the witnesses at their face value and ignored the circumstances discussed above. So, prosecution case in our view, cannot be said to have been proved beyond all doubts. Learned Trial Court took the evidence of the witnesses at their face value and ignored the circumstances discussed above. So, prosecution case in our view, cannot be said to have been proved beyond all doubts. Learned Trial Court had, therefore, wrongly convicted the Appellant of the alleged offence. The judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 28.06.2002 and 29.06.2002 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court – 1, Krishnanagar, Nadia in Sessions Trial No. III of June, 2002 (Sessions Case No. 13 (5) 2002) convicting the Appellant of the offence under Section 364 A of I. P. C. are, therefore, set aside. The Appellant is found not guilty of the charge under Section 364 A/ 34 of I. P. C. framed against him. 23. Appellant is acquitted. He be released from the custody if his detention is not required in any other case. 24. Appeal is accordingly allowed. 25. Urgent certified photocopy of this judgment, if applied for, be supplied to the learned Advocates for the parties upon compliance of all formalities.