JUDGMENT U.C. Dhyani, J.(Oral) Since aforementioned criminal appeals have arisen out of the same incident and common judgment and order passed by the court below, therefore, they are being decided together for the sake of brevity and convenience. 2. PW1 filed a criminal complaint (Ext. Ka-1) to S.H.O., police station, Jhabreda, District Haridwar, enumerating the facts contained therein, that on 16.10.2001, his son Jeevesh Kumar (victim) left his house for college at 10:00 A.M. Victim was studying in Jhabreda Inter College. When the victim did not return home till evening, PW1 enquired about him. PW4 Sewa Ram revealed to PW1 that he saw victim at Jhabreda bus stand at 11:00 A.M. alongwith Jogendra s/o Palla. PW1 suspected that his son was kidnapped by Jogendra alongwith his associates. On the basis of said complaint, a chik FIR (Ext. Ka-5) was registered as case crime no. 87 of 2001, on 16.10.2001, at 11:30 P.M. against Jogendra and others under Section 364 IPC. The distance between the place of incident and police station concerned was 10 Kms. and considering the background of the case, there appears to be no delay in lodging the FIR. 3. On 17.10.2001, at 11:35 P.M., the victim was recovered from the possession of accused persons. Recovery memos of the same were prepared. Some miscreants were arrested while others succeeded in fleeing away. When the victim was recovered, second FIR (Ext. Ka-7) was lodged against accused Jogendra, Ajay @ Tinu, Aneesh, Shakeel and Nisar in respect of offences punishable under Sections 147, 148, 149, 307 IPC, which was registered as case crime no. 88 of 2001. Third FIR (Ext. Ka-16) was lodged against accused Anees in respect of offence punishable under Section 25 of Arms Act, which was registered as case crime no. 89 of 2001. After investigation of the case, separate chargesheets were submitted against these very accused persons for the offences punishable under Sections 364, 368, 216 IPC and under Sections 147, 148, 149, 307 IPC. Another chargesheet under Section 25 of Arms Act was submitted against accused Anees. The case was committed to the Court of Sessions. When the trial began and prosecution opened it’s case, charge for the offences punishable under Sections 364, 368, 147, 148, 307/149 IPC was framed against the accused persons. Separate charge under Section 25 of Arms Act was framed against accused Anees. The case was committed to the Court of Sessions. When the trial began and prosecution opened it’s case, charge for the offences punishable under Sections 364, 368, 147, 148, 307/149 IPC was framed against the accused persons. Separate charge under Section 25 of Arms Act was framed against accused Anees. All the accused persons pleaded not guilty to the charges framed against them and claimed trial. 4. PW1 Kiranpal, PW2 Jeevesh Kumar, PW3 Rajnesh, PW4 Sewa Ram, PW5 S.I. Govind Singh, PW6 Constable Hitler Singh, PW7 S.I. Suraj Bhan, PW8 S.I. Rajveer Singh, PW9 S.I. Dinesh Kumar Tyagi and PW10 S.O. Vimal Chandra Tamta were examined on behalf of the prosecution. Incriminating evidence was put to the accused persons under Section 313 of Cr.P.C., in reply to which they said that they were falsely implicated in the case. No evidence was given in defence. After considering the evidence on record, learned Addl. Sessions Judge/IV F.T.C., Haridwar, vide judgment and order dated 31.10.2003, exonerated the accused-appellants, namely, Ajay alias Tinu, Nisar, Shakeel and Anees of the charge of offences punishable under Sections 147, 148, 307/149, 368 IPC. Accused-appellant Anees was also exonerated of the charge of offence punishable under Section 25 of Arms Act. All the accused-appellants were, however, convicted for the offence punishable under Section 363 IPC and each one of them was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of seven years. Aggrieved against the same, accused-appellants preferred aforesaid criminal appeals before this Court. 5.PW1 is the informant (father of victim), who stated in his examination-in-chief that on 16.10.2001, his son (victim) left for Jhabreda Inter College at around 10:00 A.M., but did not return till evening. At around 08-09 P.M., PW4 met PW1 who stated that he saw the victim at bus stand Jhabreda at 11:00 A.M. with Jogendra (since deceased). PW1 went to Jogendra’s house at 10:00 P.M. to find that he was not present at his house. PW1 then wrote a complaint and handed over the same to police station, Jhabreda at 11:30 P.M. on the selfsame day. PW1 proved his complaint (Ext. Ka-1). On the next day, police took the statements of PW1 and PW4. They made frantic search for the victim. Next day, i.e. on 17.10.2001, at around 08:30 P.M., police accompanied PW1. Police was informed by an informer that he saw the victim in the company of five miscreants on Iqbalpur-Manglore road. PW1 proved his complaint (Ext. Ka-1). On the next day, police took the statements of PW1 and PW4. They made frantic search for the victim. Next day, i.e. on 17.10.2001, at around 08:30 P.M., police accompanied PW1. Police was informed by an informer that he saw the victim in the company of five miscreants on Iqbalpur-Manglore road. On said information, police reached near sugarcane field. On seeing the police personnel, one of the accused fired upon the police party. Police also retaliated. Two accused persons, namely, Jogendra and Aneesh were apprehended on the spot. The victim was recovered from their possession. Jogendra was having a knife and Anees was armed with a country made pistol. Recovery memo (Ext. Ka-3) was prepared, which contained the signatures of PW1 and others. Arrest memo (Ext. Ka-4) was also prepared. 6. Initial few paragraphs in the cross-examination of PW1 were devoted to the role of accused Jogendra, who is since dead. It will be of no use discussing the evidence which has been directed against accused Jogendra. PW1 does not say that he disclosed the names of those accused, who fled away from the place of occurrence to the police. Only accused Jogendra and Anees could be apprehended on the spot, the rest succeeded in fleeing away. The others, who fled away from the place of occurrence were the co-villagers of PW1, but PW1 did not disclose their names to the police. In the circumstances, when Jogendra has died, the court will primarily discuss the evidence which has been directed against accused Anees and others. 7. PW2 is the victim, who stated, among other things, that Tinu, Nisar and Shakeel met him. Among these three accused, only Tinu was known to PW2 before this incident, in as much as Tinu was his co-villager. They kidnapped PW2 for ransom. When the police recovered the victim, only Anees and Jogendra could be arrested. Recovery memo contained the signatures of accused Jogendra and Anees among others (police personnel, PW1 and PW2). Cross-examination with PW2 was also largely devoted to the role of accused Jogendra. 8.PW3 stated, among other things, that a country made pistol was recovered from accused Anees and a prohibited knife from accused Jogendra. PW3 also accompanied the police party, when the arrest of Anees and Jogendra was affected. PW3 stated in the cross-examination that he did not see Ajay alias Tinu on the spot. 8.PW3 stated, among other things, that a country made pistol was recovered from accused Anees and a prohibited knife from accused Jogendra. PW3 also accompanied the police party, when the arrest of Anees and Jogendra was affected. PW3 stated in the cross-examination that he did not see Ajay alias Tinu on the spot. Ajay alias Tinu is also a co-villager of PW3 (as well as PW1 and PW2). 9. PW4 saw the victim in the company of Jogendra at 11:00 A.M. near bus stand. The same was disclosed by PW4 to PW1 on the same day at 06:00 P.M. Thereafter, PW1 and PW4 went to the house of Jogendra, but he was not available in his house. 10. PW5 affected arrest of accused Jogendra and Anees. PW5 proved recovery memo (Ext. Ka-3). Whereas PW5 stated that PW1, PW2 and PW3 disclosed the names of Ajay, Shakeel and Nisar, PW1 and PW3 (witnesses of the recovery) did not corroborate the said statement of PW5. 11. PW6 is a formal witness, who proved chik FIR and copies of G.D. PW7 conducted investigation of case crime no. 87 of 2001. He investigated the said case crime no. at some length, prepared site plan and after being satisfied that the accused persons have committed the crime, submitted charge-sheet against them. 12. PW8 was the Investigating Officer of case crime no. 88 of 2001 and case crime no. 89 of 2001, who conducted investigation of said case crime numbers and prepared site plan. PW9 was the In-charge of second party of police team, who apprehended two accused persons and recovered the victim from their possession. Rest of the investigation was conducted by PW10, who after being satisfied that the accused persons have committed the crime, submitted chargesheet against them. 13. It may be noted here that offences complained of against the accused-appellants were registered by way of separate FIRs, which were registered as case crime nos. 87 of 2001, 88 of 2001 and 89 of 2001, the same were tried together, and all the sessions trials were decided by the court below by common judgment and order, which is under challenge before this Court. 87 of 2001, 88 of 2001 and 89 of 2001, the same were tried together, and all the sessions trials were decided by the court below by common judgment and order, which is under challenge before this Court. By impugned judgment, as has been stated in one of the foregoing paragraphs of this judgment, accused Ajay @ Tinu, Nisar, Anees and Shakeel have been acquitted by the court below for the offences punishable under Sections 147, 148, 307 / 149, 368 IPC. Accused Anees has also been acquitted for the offence punishable under Section 25 of Arms Act. Another co-accused Mustakeem (non-appellant) has also been acquitted of the charge of offences punishable under Sections 364, 368 IPC. Accused-appellants Ajay @ Tinu, Nisar, Shakeel and Anees were, however, convicted only for the offence punishable under Section 363 IPC and were sentenced accordingly. 14. Learned counsel for the appellants vehemently argued that once the recovery of kidnapped boy, firing upon the police party, recovery of prohibited arms has not been found proved by the trial court, the remaining prosecution story also becomes doubtful. Learned Dy. Advocate General for the State, on the other hand, submitted that if part of prosecution story becomes doubtful, the same does not mean that entire prosecution story cannot be believed. 15. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and after perusing the impugned judgment as well as documents on record, it comes to the fore that in internal page 11 of the impugned judgment, the trial court found that there was no evidence of demanding ransom from the family of the victim. There was no evidence either that the accused-appellants, or any of them, kidnapped the victim for committed his murder (nor is there any charge in respect thereof). Then the question arises – what for the victim was kidnapped by the accused-appellants, or any one of them? The main accused Jogendra against whom there was sufficient evidence has died. Most of the prosecution witnesses saw the victim in the company of Jogendra, who took the victim to an unknown place by bus. If accused Jogendra took the victim alongwith him for viewing a movie, there was no satisfactory evidence on record to show that other accused persons, namely, Anees, Ajay @ Tinu, Shakeel and Nisar kidnapped the victim and detained him for two days and two nights in a sugarcane field. If accused Jogendra took the victim alongwith him for viewing a movie, there was no satisfactory evidence on record to show that other accused persons, namely, Anees, Ajay @ Tinu, Shakeel and Nisar kidnapped the victim and detained him for two days and two nights in a sugarcane field. It may also be noted here that the incident allegedly took place in the month of November. Then, is it possible that the victim might have been kept in detention by the accused-appellants for two days and two nights in an open sugarcane field during winters? According to PW2, he was kept in the house of accused Nisar, but no evidence is offered to show that even if the victim was carried to the house of Nisar, the same was for the purpose of kidnapping. Only PW1 has disclosed the name of Anees, the other prosecution witnesses did not mention his name in their oral testimony. 16. In view of the above discussion, the Court finds substance in the arguments of learned counsel for the appellants, primarily, Mr. Sandeep Tandon, Advocate, who represents accused-appellant Ajay @ Tinu that since major prosecution story has not been believed by the trial court, therefore, on the basis of same evidence, kidnapping of the victim by all the accused-appellants or any one of them also becomes doubtful. It is not necessary to multiply the reasons for agreeing with the contentions of learned counsel for the appellants, for, primarily the trial court itself has not believed the prosecution story on the whole and prosecution has not been able to prove its case beyond a shadow of reasonable doubt that PW2 was kidnapped by appellants or any one of them in the manner as has been indicated by the prosecution. Therefore, all the accused-appellant are entitled to benefit of doubt. 17.All the criminal appeals are, therefore, allowed. The conviction and sentence awarded to the appellants, namely, Ajay @ Tinu, Nisar, Anees and Shakeel by the court below is hereby set aside. They are acquitted of the charge of offence proved against them. Appellants Ajay @ Tinu, Nisar and Anees are on bail. Their bail bonds are cancelled and sureties stand discharged. They need not surrender. Non-bailable warrant was issued against appellant Shakeel during the pendency of present criminal appeals, but as per report of CJM, Haridwar his whereabouts are not known. They are acquitted of the charge of offence proved against them. Appellants Ajay @ Tinu, Nisar and Anees are on bail. Their bail bonds are cancelled and sureties stand discharged. They need not surrender. Non-bailable warrant was issued against appellant Shakeel during the pendency of present criminal appeals, but as per report of CJM, Haridwar his whereabouts are not known. 18.Let a copy of this judgment alongwith the lower court records be sent to the Court below for compliance.