JUDGMENT : Biswajit Mohanty, J. - The above Criminal Appeals arise out of a common judgment dated 13.9.2007 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Sundergarh in S.T. Case No. 169 of 2004 in which the learned Sessions Judge has held the appellants of the above mentioned Criminal Appeals along with one Atul Pandey guilty of offences under Sections 364A/34; 342/34 & 120B, IPC and accordingly, convicted them thereunder. Consequently, the learned Sessions Judge, Sundergarh sentenced all four appellants along with Atul Pandey to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 10,000/- each in default to undergo R.I. for two years each under Sections 364A/34, IPC, R.I. for ten years each and to pay a fine of Rs. 5,000/- each in default to undergo R.I. for one year each under Section 120B, IPC and to undergo R.I. for six months each under Sections 342/34, IPC. He further directed that all the substantive sentences to run concurrently and the U.T.P period be set off under Section 428 of the Cr.P.C. However, the learned Sessions Judge, Sundergarh acquitted the above mentioned four appellants along with one Atul Pandey of the charges under Section 395, IPC and Sections 25/27 of the Arms Act. Further, the learned Sessions Judge acquitted the other accused persons, namely, Pradeep Srivastava, Rajendra Prasad and Santosh Jha of all the charges. Against such acquittal of Pradeep Srivastava, Rajendra Prasad and Santosh Jha, Criminal Revision No. 1426 of 2007 has been filed by Rajesh Gadodia, who is the informant. While hearing Criminal Revision No. 1426 of 2007, analogously it was brought to our notice that in the meantime Rajendra Prasad has died. Though Atul Pandey has filed CRLA No. 523 of 2007, however, the same has been segregated as he is presently absconding. 2. The case of the prosecution is that on 24.1.2004 at about 3.30 P.M., Sawarmal Gadodia (P.W.8), an industrialist of Rajgangpur left his residence for Sundergarh in his Maruti Zen Car bearing registration No. OR-16-A-5921 driven by his driver Fransis Minz (P.W.7). P.W.8 also took one Amin, namely, Biranchi Bag of Rajgangpur Tahasil with him. P.W.8 first went to his factory at Budhakata. After that P.W.8 visited his factory at Bai-Bai. At Bai-Bai P.W.8 left Biranchi Bag for demarcation of a land. Thereafter, he proceeded to Sundagarh. P.W.8 also took one Amin, namely, Biranchi Bag of Rajgangpur Tahasil with him. P.W.8 first went to his factory at Budhakata. After that P.W.8 visited his factory at Bai-Bai. At Bai-Bai P.W.8 left Biranchi Bag for demarcation of a land. Thereafter, he proceeded to Sundagarh. As P.W.8 did not return home by 10 P.M., the informant (P.W.1), who is the son of P.W.8, sent his staff, namely, Deepak Sharma and Prabin Patra to Sundergarh. On the way near Karamdihi, Deepak Sharma and Prabin Patra found the Maruti Zen Car of P.W.8 by the road side. They also informed P.W.1 (informant) that unknown culprits had followed the Maruti Zen Car in a Bolero vehicle and stopped the said Zen Car on the point of pistol and took P.Ws.7 and 8 in their Bolero vehicle. As P.W.8 is an Industrialist, his son (P.W.1) suspected that the unknown culprits have abducted P.W.8 with a motive to demand money. Accordingly, P.W.1 lodged F.I.R. (Ext.1) at 11 P.M. before the IIC, Sadar Police Station, Sundergarh on 24.1.2004. Basing on this, the case was registered and investigation commenced. During course of investigation, witnesses were examined, spot was visited, a number of persons including present appellants and three opposite parties of Criminal Revision No. 1426 of 2007 were arrested, some weapon of offences were recovered and the victims - P.Ws.7 and 8 were rescued from the farm house of the appellant-Virendra Jaiswal situated at Hartoli in the State of Chhattisgarh. Three appellants, namely, Roshan Ali, Rajan Mishra and Shamim Sidique along with one Atul Pandey were put to Test Identification Parade. Voices of appellants-Rosan Ali and Rajan Mishra were recorded by the Magistrate for comparison. The Bolero vehicle in which the victims (P.Ws.7 & 8) were abducted and the Maruti Zen Car in which P.Ws.7 and 8 proceeded to Sundergarh were seized. Sanction order of the Additional District Magistrate for prosecution under the Arms Act was obtained and after completion of investigation, charge sheet was submitted against the accused persons which included four appellants and three private opposite parties arrayed as such in Criminal Revision No.1426 of 2007. Sanction order of the Additional District Magistrate for prosecution under the Arms Act was obtained and after completion of investigation, charge sheet was submitted against the accused persons which included four appellants and three private opposite parties arrayed as such in Criminal Revision No.1426 of 2007. Later the matter was duly committed to the Court of Sessions and the appellants and three private opposite parties arrayed in the Criminal Revision No.1426 of 2007 along with others stood their trial under Sections 364A/34, IPC, 342/34, IPC, 395, IPC, 120B, IPC and Sections 25/27 of the Arms Act. 3. The plea of the convicted appellants as well as the three persons arrayed as opposite parties to Criminal Revision No.1426 of 2007 was one of complete denial. In order to establish the charges against the convicted appellants and others which included three persons arrayed as opposite parties in the Criminal Revision, the prosecution examined as many as 33 witnesses. So far as the prosecution witnesses are concerned, P.W.1 is the informant, who happens to be the son of P.W.8 (victim), P.W.2 is an eye-witness to the abduction, P.W.3 is the S.I. of Police then attached to Sundergarh Town Police Station to whom P.W.2 is said to have informed about the incident over mobile phone. P.Ws.4 and 5 are the villagers of Karamdihi of whom P.W.4 is a witness to the seizure of Maruti Zen Car and its documents. P.W.6 is the Peon of the victim P.W.8, who is a witness to the seizure of fax message and cassettes vide seizure list Ext.5. P.Ws.7 and 8 are the victims, who were abducted. P.Ws.9 & 10 are two Gram Rakhis, who are witnesses to the seizure. P.W.11 is the Accountant of Hotel Bishnu Palace, Jharsuguda where some culprits stayed and is a witness to the seizure of the documents of the said Hotel. P.W.12 is a witness, who turned hostile. P.W.13 is the S.I. of Police attached to Sadar Police Station, Sundergarh who proceeded to Nagpur to bring the appellants-Roshan Ali, Rajan Mishra and Pradeep Srivastav (opposite party no.4 in Criminal Revision No.1426 of 2007) and certain documents. P.W.14 is the Police Constable of Sadar Police Station, Sundergarh, who is a witness to the seizure of mobile phone of the appellant-Shamim Sidique as well as a witness to the voice recording and seizure of Cassettes. P.W.14 is the Police Constable of Sadar Police Station, Sundergarh, who is a witness to the seizure of mobile phone of the appellant-Shamim Sidique as well as a witness to the voice recording and seizure of Cassettes. P.W.15 is another Police Constable of Sadar Police Station, Sundagarh, who is a witness to the seizure of mobile phone of the appellant-Shamim Sidique along with other seizures. P.W.16 is Kedarnath Kedia, who was earlier abducted by some of the culprits. He has stated about receiving repeated phone calls over his mobile from the appellant-Rosan Ali. He is also a witness to the seizure of his mobile phone. P.W.17 is the A.S.I. of Police of Shankargarh Police Station in the State of Chhattisgarh, who rescued P.Ws.7 & 8 from the farm house of the appellant-Virendra Jaiswal, also arrested the appellant-Virendra Jaiswal and lodged plain paper F.I.R. (Ext.36) and did some investigation. P.W.18 is a co-villager of the appellant-Virendra Jaiswal, who is a witness to the Panchnama for the raid and seizure of the fire arms and other materials. P.W.19 is the Attendant of the S.T.D. Booth of Munjer Chowk from where the appellants-Roshan Ali and Rajan Mishra were arrested. He is also a witness to the seizure of the telephone bills as well as telephone set of the S.T.D. Booth. P.W.20 is the Receptionist of Hotel Kamal at Sitawardi in the State of Maharashtra and is a witness to the seizure of the documents relating to the said Hotel. P.W.21 is the Police Constable of Sitawardi Police Station, who is a witness to the seizure of the S.T.D. Booth Telephone of Munjer Chowk and documents of Hotel Kamal. P.W.22 is the A.S.I. of Police of Sitawardi Police Station, who apprehended the appellants-Rajan Mishra & Roshan Ali from the S.T.D. Booth at Munjer Chowk. He is also a witness to the seizure of the telephone bills. P.W.23 is the Station Officer of Civil Line Police Station. P.W.24 is a water pipe fitter, who used to fit pipes in police station. While he was in police station, P.W.23 came there with Bolero vehicle. P.W.25 is a witness to the arrest of the appellants Rajan Mishra and Rosan Ali. P.W.26 is the S.I. of Police attached to the Sadar Police Station, Sundergarh, who proceeded to Ambikapur to submit the remand report in respect of the appellant-Virendra Jaiswal and absconding accused-Abdul Kayum. While he was in police station, P.W.23 came there with Bolero vehicle. P.W.25 is a witness to the arrest of the appellants Rajan Mishra and Rosan Ali. P.W.26 is the S.I. of Police attached to the Sadar Police Station, Sundergarh, who proceeded to Ambikapur to submit the remand report in respect of the appellant-Virendra Jaiswal and absconding accused-Abdul Kayum. He also arrested Atul Pandey in course of investigation. P.W.27 is the S.I. of Sadar Police Station, Sundergarh, who had accompanied P.W.26. P.W.28 is the Medical Officer, who examined P.Ws.7 & 8 and the appellant-Virendra Jaiswal and submitted his reports. P.W.29 is the then S.D.J.M., Sundergarh, who conducted T.I. Parades inside the Sundergarh Jail on different dates in respect of the appellants-Rajan Mishra, Roshan Ali, Shamim Sidique and Atul Pandey and also recorded the voices of the appellants-Rajan Mishra and Rosan Ali. P.W.30 is the Divisional Engineer, BSNL, who submitted the phone/call chart. P.W.31 is the S.I. of Police of Crime Cell, Sitawardi Police Station, who is a witness to the arrest of the appellants - Rajan Mishra & Rosan Ali and Pradeep Srivastava (opposite party no.4 in Criminal Revision No.1426 of 2007). P.W.32 is the Station Officer of Sitawardi Police Station, who is a witness to the seizure of certain documents. P.W.33 is the main Investigating Officer, who submitted the charge sheet against the 9 culprits. One such culprit Abdul Qayum is absconding and has not stood the trial. The prosecution exhibited several documents covered by Exts.1 to 71. After closure of the prosecution of evidence, all the four appellants in the present appeal were examined under Section 313, Cr.P.C. These four appellants answered most of the questions in negatives and with regard to the Test Identification Parade, they took the plea that identifying witnesses had seen them earlier and also seen their photographs earlier. On behalf of defence, the appellant, Roshan Ali examined one defence witness, namely, Khalid Parbeen taking a plea of alibi. On behalf of other three appellants, no defence witnesses were examined. 4. Upon completion of trial and on examining materials available on record, the learned Sessions Judge, Sundergarh came to the conclusion that the prosecution had failed to prove its case against Santosh Jha, late-Rejendra Prasad and Pradeep Srivastava, who have been arrayed as opposite party nos.2 to 4 in Criminal Revision No.1426 of 2007 under any of the charges. 4. Upon completion of trial and on examining materials available on record, the learned Sessions Judge, Sundergarh came to the conclusion that the prosecution had failed to prove its case against Santosh Jha, late-Rejendra Prasad and Pradeep Srivastava, who have been arrayed as opposite party nos.2 to 4 in Criminal Revision No.1426 of 2007 under any of the charges. Accordingly, they were fully acquitted of all the charges. So far as the appellants-Rajan Mishra, Roshan Ali, Shamim Sidique and Virendra Jaiswal along with one Atul Pandey are concerned, the learned Sessions Judge held that the prosecution has successfully proved its case against these persons for having committed offences under Sections 364A/34, IPC, 342/34, IPC and 120B, IPC beyond reasonable doubt and accordingly convicted them thereunder. However, with regard to the charges under Section 395, IPC and Sections 25/27 of the Arms Act, the learned Sessions Judge came to a finding that the prosecution had failed to prove these charges against the appellants Rajan Mishra, Roshan Ali, Shamim Sidique, Virendra Jaiswal and Atul Pandey. Accordingly, he acquitted them of the said charges. As indicated earlier, the appellants Rajan Mishra, Rosan Ali, Shamim Sidique, Virendra Jaiswal and Atul Pandey were sentenced to undergo various punishments. 5. Mr. Devashis Panda, learned counsel for the appellant-Rajan Mishra, in assailing the judgment dated 13.09.2007 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Sundergarh in S.T. No.169 of 2004, submitted that the circumstances of lodging of the F.I.R. (Ext.1) was doubtful and the time of lodging F.I.R. ought to have been disbelieved since the formal F.I.R. showed that it was registered at 11 P.M. of 24.01.2004. The distance between Rajgangpur to Sundergarh is about 62 Kms and P.W.1 could not have covered the distance from his house at Rajgangpur after receiving information about the Maruti Zen Car being found abandoned from his staff at 10.30 P.M. to Sadar Police Station, Sundergarh with a halt at the spot where the Maruti Zen Car had been abandoned and dictating the contents of Ext.1 to a scribe and handing it over to P.W.33 for registration at 11.00 P.M. as has been recorded. Besides, according to Mr. Besides, according to Mr. Panda, scribe of the F.I.R. as well as the staff who had gone on inquiry to the spot had not been examined to corroborate P.W.1 and though the court of jurisdictional Magistrate was at a distance of only 6 kms from Sadar Police Station, Sundergarh, however, as stated by P.W.33 the F.I.R. was sent to the court by messenger on 25.01.2004 and it was received only on 27.01.2004 as endorsed by the learned S.D.J.M. and there existed no explanation for such delay in receipt of the F.I.R. at Court. Secondly, Mr. Panda contended that the charge of criminal conspiracy has not been established from the evidence on record and accordingly, the trial court erred in recording a conviction thereunder mainly relying on the evidence of P.Ws.11 & 20. According to Mr. Panda, the evidence of P.Ws.11 & 20 were not sufficient to record a conviction under Section 120-B, IPC. No credible evidence has been led either direct or circumstantial to show that on or before 24.01.2004, the appellant-Rajan Mishra along with others convicted with him had been together where they had agreed to abduct P.W.8 for ransom and to confine him till ransom was paid. According to Mr. Panda, the evidence of P.W.11 was not based on personal knowledge but on certain entries in the hotel register showing that some persons having the same names as some of the appellants were hotel guests in between 18.01.2004 to 19.01.2004. Further P.W.11 had neither made the entries in the register nor had identified the names found in the register with any of the persons facing trial. So far as the evidence of P.W.20 is concerned, according to Mr. Panda, the said evidence related to a period after the conspiracy was over and was not admissible under Section 10 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. Thirdly, with regard to offence under Section 342, I.P.C., he submitted that nothing was there to show complicity of the appellant-Rajan Mishra in committing the above offence. In fact neither P.W.7 nor P.W.8 in their evidence had indicated about presence of Rajan Mishra in the farm house of appellant-Virendra Jaiswal. Fourthly, with regard to identification of the appellant-Rajan Mishra in the Test Identification Parade as well as in Court by P.Ws.2, 7 & 8. Mr. In fact neither P.W.7 nor P.W.8 in their evidence had indicated about presence of Rajan Mishra in the farm house of appellant-Virendra Jaiswal. Fourthly, with regard to identification of the appellant-Rajan Mishra in the Test Identification Parade as well as in Court by P.Ws.2, 7 & 8. Mr. Panda submitted that the evidence of P.Ws.2, 7, & 8 should not be relied on as intrinsically they did not corroborate each other. The statement of P.W.2 that the appellant-Rajan Mishra along with two others forcibly pulled and dragged an elderly person from the Maruti Zen Car and took him to the Bolero vehicle at the point of pistol has not been corroborated by the versions of P.Ws.7 & 8 as none of these P.Ws. had stated that it was Rajan Mishra along with other appellants, namely, Shamim Sidique, Rosan Ali forcibly pulled up and dragged P.W.8 from the Maruti Zen Car. Further, P.W.2 has never stated about the identifying features of Rajan Mishra to police. P.W.8 has not stated about the specific roles played by the appellant-Rajan Mishra and other culprits at the time of incident. For all these reasons, according to Mr. Panda, the evidence relating to T.I. Parade as well as identification of the culprits in court should have been disbelieved. In this context, Mr. Panda also submitted that P.W.32, who happened to be the in-charge of Sitawardi Police Station at Nagpur, in his cross-examination, admitted that he had taken the photographs of the appellants - Rajan Mishra and Roshan Ali after their arrest. The learned Sessions Judge, Sundergarh while discussing the same in his judgment at Page-108 of Volume-I of the Paper Book, has erred in brushing aside such evidence by merely stating there was no evidence on record to show that the said photographs were handed over to the Orissa Police by P.W.32 and that P.Ws.2, 7, & 8 had gone there or that the photographs were shown to them at any point of time. In this context, Mr. Panda relied on the deposition of P.W.16 to the effect that in his cross-examination, he had stated to have seen the photographs of all these four persons in the Newspaper. In such background, Mr. In this context, Mr. Panda relied on the deposition of P.W.16 to the effect that in his cross-examination, he had stated to have seen the photographs of all these four persons in the Newspaper. In such background, Mr. Panda contended that the evidence of P.W.32, P.W.2 and P.W.16 clearly established that the T.I. Parade conducted was not trustworthy and the very fact that the photographs of the accused persons were taken and published in the Newspaper defeated the very object of the T.I. Parade, which usually furnished an assurance that the investigation was proceeding on the right lines in addition to furnishing the corroboration of evidence to be given by the witnesses later in the Court during trial. Further, Mr. Panda submitted that P.W.29 did not corroborate the versions of P.Ws.7 & 8 that the accused put to T.I. Parade were asked and then they disclosed their names after the T.I. Parade. Mr. Panda also took exception to not putting Virendra Jaiswal, Pradeep Srivastava and late Rajendra Prasad to T.I. Parade. According to Mr. Panda, this was a glaring defect. In this context, Mr. Panda relied on a decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court as reported in AIR 2010 SC 3000 (Siddanki Ram Reddy v. State of Andhra Pradesh). Fifthly, Mr. Panda submitted that the reasons for which the appellant, Rajan Mishra was acquitted of the charges under Section 395, IPC should have been made use of by the learned trial court to disbelieve the other charges brought against him. Sixthly, Mr. Panda submitted that the evidence of P.Ws.7 & 8 should be discarded with regard to Rajan Mishra's complicity in the alleged abduction and demand of ransom as there existed inherent contradictions in the evidences of P.Ws.7 & 8 with regard to presence of P.W.7, at the time of demand of ransom. Mr. Panda also criticised the trial court in not ignoring Exts.2 & 4 as P.W.8 in his evidence has said that though he could understand in Hindi but he could not speak Hindi correctly and properly. According to Mr. Panda, such a person could not be expected to write letters in Hindi. On this account, the messages under Exts.2 & 4 should have been ignored by the trial court. Seventhly, Mr. According to Mr. Panda, such a person could not be expected to write letters in Hindi. On this account, the messages under Exts.2 & 4 should have been ignored by the trial court. Seventhly, Mr. Panda contended that there existed no evidence to establish that the appellant-Rajan Mishra or for that matter any other accused had demanded ransom as entire prosecution case rested on a series of telephone calls being made to the landline numbers as well as the mobile numbers of P.W.1 and P.W.16 besides the two fax messages received under Exts.2 and 4 without any evidence that the accused persons were sending such messages and were making such calls. Further, the prosecution had miserably failed to ascertain as to from which place and from which number, the alleged calls were made and the fax messages were sent. Except, the solitary evidence in shape of the P.C.O bills dated 9.2.2004 (Ext.58) alleged to have been seized from the appellant-Roshan Ali at the time of his arrest near the S.T.D. booth, there was nothing to show that the accused persons were calling P.W.1 and P.W.16 in connection with the alleged crime. Mr. Panda has also taken exception to the conduct of the prosecution in not calling for call records from the very beginning and for giving requisition to the Telecom Officers to supply the call chart only of date 8/9.2.2004 vis-a-vis Telephone No.071-2563746 and Mobile No.9861027400. Thus, according to Mr. Panda, the prosecution has dealt the entire thing in a very casual manner. Thus, there existed glaring loopholes on the part of the prosecution which spoke volumes about the truthfulness of their case. Further, according to Mr. Panda, no prosecution witness has whispered anywhere that the appellant-Rajan Mishra had ever made any phone call to P.W.1 demanding ransom. Mr. Panda also submitted that the evidence of P.W.16 ought not to be believed as he was a highly interested witness having alleged similar offence of abduction of ransom against the appellant-Rajan Mishra and others. Eighthly, Mr. Panda submitted that the trial court has gone wrong in not appreciating the fact that the appellant-Rajan Mishra in his statement recorded under Section 313, Cr.P.C, made it clear that he had been made a scapegoat in place of Ramesh Agarwal and Dinesh Garg by the police. Mr. Eighthly, Mr. Panda submitted that the trial court has gone wrong in not appreciating the fact that the appellant-Rajan Mishra in his statement recorded under Section 313, Cr.P.C, made it clear that he had been made a scapegoat in place of Ramesh Agarwal and Dinesh Garg by the police. Mr. Panda pointed out that failure by P.W.32 to seize the articles belonging to the appellant-Rajan Mishra like shirts, pants, suitcases found in the room alleged to have been occupied by Rajan Mishra and Roshan Ali also throws a doubt on prosecution case. The I.O. did not bother to ascertain the veracity of the signatures purported to have been made by the appellants-Rajan Mishra and Roshan Ali by sending it to a handwriting expert after having taken their specimen signature. Ninthly, Mr. Panda submitted that P.W.2 was only a chance witness and the learned court below has gone wrong in not ignoring his evidence in to. Lastly, Mr. Panda submitted that the appellant-Rajan Mishra stood on the same footing like Pradeep Srivastava (since acquitted). Accordingly, benefit of doubt extended to Pradeep Srivastava should have been extended to the appellant-Rajan Mishra. Mr. Y. Dash, learned Senior Advocate ably assisted by Ms. Bharati Das & Mr. Rajeet Roy, Advocate represented the case of appellants-Shamim Sidique and Virendra Jaiswal before us. 6. Mr. Y. Dash, learned Senior Advocate submitted that the information given by P.W.1 under Ext.1 is hit by Section 162, Cr.P.C. as the same was clearly not the first information with regard to the occurrence that took place on 24.1.2004. According to Mr. Dash, the first information has been suppressed which was given by P.W.2 to P.W.3 at about 4.00 P.M. and it was communicated by P.W.3 to Sadar Police Station, Sundergarh over V.H.F. According to Mr. Dash in his cross-examination, P.W.33 admitted that he made a Station Diary on 4.50 P.M. on getting V.H.F. message. However, he did not inform P.W.1 prior to the lodging of the F.I.R. that he had already received the information over V.H.F. and had made Station Diary entry. According to Mr. Dash, these series of facts destroy the very edifice of the prosecution case and, therefore, did not instill confidence to hold that prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt. Secondly, according to Mr. According to Mr. Dash, these series of facts destroy the very edifice of the prosecution case and, therefore, did not instill confidence to hold that prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt. Secondly, according to Mr. Dash, there existed material contradictions with regard to the core prosecution story, if one perused the depositions of P.Ws.2, 7 & 8 carefully. He further submitted that the principles of natural justice has been violated by not putting circumstances which appeared against the appellants-Shamim Siddique and Virendra Jaiswal from the depositions of P.Ws.7 and 8 while examining them under Section 313 Cr.P.C. In this context, Mr. Dash relied on a decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court as reported in (2013) 5 SCC 722 (Raj Kumar Singh @ Raju @ Batya v. State of Rajasthan). Since the appellants-Shamim Sidique and Virendra Jaiswal were never given a chance to put up their defence with regard to the statements of P.Ws.7 & 8, the prosecution case suffered from fatal infarmities. Thirdly, Mr. Dash submitted that the learned Sessions Judge in its Judgment categorically held that the allegations of P.Ws.7 & 8 did not inspire confidence and accordingly, he acquitted the appellants-Shamim Siddique and Virendra Jaiswal of the offence under Section 395, IPC. According to Mr. Dash, when the statements made by P.Ws.7 & 8 were very inextricably mixed up and it was not possible to separate the grain from the chaff, on the self-same ground, the appellants-Shamim Siddique and Virendra Jaiswal ought to have been acquitted of all the charges. In this context, Mr. Dash relied on a decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in (2007) 9 SCC 589 (Jakki @ Selvaraj and another v. State Rep. By The IP, Coimbatore) wherein it has been made clear that where it is not feasible to separate truth from falsehood, because grain and chaff are inextricably mixed up, and in the process of separation an absolutely new case has to be reconstructed by divorcing essential details presented by the prosecution completely from the context and the background against which they are made, the only available course to be made was to discard the evidence in to. Like Mr. Panda, learned counsel for the appellant-Rajan Mishra, Mr. Dash submitted that the benefit of doubt extended to the accused Pradeep Srivastava, should have been extended to the appellants-Shamim Sidique and Virendra Jaiswal. Fourthly, Mr. Like Mr. Panda, learned counsel for the appellant-Rajan Mishra, Mr. Dash submitted that the benefit of doubt extended to the accused Pradeep Srivastava, should have been extended to the appellants-Shamim Sidique and Virendra Jaiswal. Fourthly, Mr. Dash raised his doubt relating to writing of letters under Exts.2 & 4 by P.W.8 as he admitted that he could not speak Hindi properly. Mr. Dash also submitted that as prosecution has miserably failed to trace the call records for ascertaining the source and place from where the calls were made or fax messages were sent, according to him, this was a great lacuna in prosecution story. Fifthly, Mr. Dash took exception to non-examination of Rambhagat Agarwal from whose telephone call to P.W.1, the entire genesis of the prosecution case started. According to Mr. Dash such non-examination of Rambhagat Agarwal was fatal to the prosecution case. Similarly, non-examination of Deepak Sharma and Prabin Patra also according to Mr. Das threw a cloud on prosecution story. Sixthly, Mr. Dash reiterated the argument advanced by Mr. Panda, learned counsel for the appellant-Rajan Mishra based on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in AIR 2010 SC 3000 (Siddanki Ram Reddy v. State of Andhra Pradesh) with regard to not putting all the accused to T.I. Parade. He also reiterated the argument advanced by Mr. Panda that photograps of the appellants - Shamim Sidique and Virendra Jaiswal were published in the news paper as stated by P.Ws.2 & 16 and such publication clearly defeated the very object of the T.I. Parade. In such background, the T.I. Parade conducted could not be held to be trustworthy. Lastly, Mr. Dash submitted like Mr. Panda, learned counsel for the appellant-Rajan Mishra that the charges of criminal conspiracy has not been established as there was no evidence on record about meeting of minds of convicts. Mere congregation of some of the convicts at more than one place without any substantive evidence being brought on record that such meeting of minds was to commit the crime, could not be construed to be a meeting of minds to commit crime. Mr. Mohapatra, learned counsel representing appellant-Roshan Ali submitted that the learned Trial Court has committed illegality by considering the hearsay evidence of P.W.1 in Paragraphs 2, 7 & 8 of the judgment and relying on the same has convicted Roshan Ali ought to have rejected such evidence in to. Mr. Mohapatra, learned counsel representing appellant-Roshan Ali submitted that the learned Trial Court has committed illegality by considering the hearsay evidence of P.W.1 in Paragraphs 2, 7 & 8 of the judgment and relying on the same has convicted Roshan Ali ought to have rejected such evidence in to. Secondly, none of the eye-witnesses like P.Ws.2, 7 and 8 had ever named appellant-Roshan Ali during investigation. In this context, he also submitted that identification of Roshan Ali by P.W.8 in the T.I. Parade was a farce because as per evidence of P.W.8, he knew him before having lodged a case against him. In this context, he relied on a decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in 1998 SCC (Cri) 1527 (Ravindra alias Ravi Bansi Gohar v. State of Maharashtra and others). Further, P.W.32 admitted that he had taken photograph of Roshan Ali at Nagpur after his arrest. P.W.16 admitted that he had seen photo of Roshan Ali in newspaper. P.W.2 stated that he knew about apprehension of accused from newspaper. In such background, Mr. Mohapatra submitted that identification of Roshan Ali by P.W.2 was of no value. In this context, Mr. Mohapapatra relied on the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in 1970 Crl.J. 1149 (Budhsen & another v. State of U.P.). All these cast a doubt on effectiveness of T.I. Parade and demolish credibility of identifying witnesses. In this context, he relied on decisions of Hon'ble Supreme Court as reported in 1977 Crl.J. 173 (S.C.) (Rabindra Kumar Dey v. State of Orissa) and AIR 2007 S.C. 1729 (Ravi alias Ravichandran v. State represented by Inspector of Police). Thirdly, according to Mr. Mohapatra, the learned court below totally misread and misappreciated the evidence of P.W.16 as he was examined by I.O. only on 30.5.2004, i.e., much after the incident and rescue of P.Ws.7 and 8. Therefore, he had nothing to do with rescuing of these victims-P.Ws.7 & 8. The version of P.W.16 with regard to the appellant-Roshan Ali ought not to be believed as he admitted in his evidence that earlier he was kidnapped by Roshan Ali himself and it was highly unlikely for Roshan Ali to seek his help to know about financial status of P.W.8. Though, P.W.16 admitted that he knew P.W.8, it sounded strange that he never communicated about alleged phone calls coming from Roshan Ali to his son P.W.1. Fourthly, Mr. Though, P.W.16 admitted that he knew P.W.8, it sounded strange that he never communicated about alleged phone calls coming from Roshan Ali to his son P.W.1. Fourthly, Mr. Mohapatra contended that the version of P.W.2 should not have been believed as he had given a totally contradictory version of abduction. While P.W.2 stated that P.W.8 was dragged from Maruti Zen Car and was taken to Bolero Jeep at Pistol point, P.Ws.7 and 8 pointed out that while P.W.8 was urinating outside, he and P.W.7 were dragged into Bolero at revolver point. Fifthly, though P.W.2 claimed himself to be an eye-witness, it was strange that P.Ws.7 and 8, (the victims) have never whispered about his presence in their evidence. Further, according to Mr. Mohapatra, the evidence of P.W.2 carried no value as he had not identified P.Ws.7 and 8. Sixthly, with regard to conviction under Section 364A, IPC, Mr. Mohapatra submitted that there was no prosecution evidence to connect Roshan Ali with demand of ransom for release of abducted industrialist P.W.8 and P.W.7. P.W.1 had not identified the person/persons, who made the calls. Mr. Mohapatra submitted that P.W.33-I.O. had made no investigation at all as to from which telephone or fax machine those calls/messages had come. He also did not send the xerox of fax messages to any handwriting expert nor did he seize the original letters sent through fax. Thus, he contended that there were a lot of loose ends to the prosecution story. The fax messages also did not reveal any name. He further submitted that while apprehending Roshan Ali from Nagpur, none of the P.Ws. has stated that he had seized any paper from Roshan Ali which contained phone numbers from which it could be ascertained that the STD Booth number tallied with mobile phone number. Similarly, by forcing Roshan Ali to give specimen voice sample in tape recorder, his constitutional right was violated. In this context, he relied on 2005 CrLJ 3151 (Dwijadas Banerjee v. State of West Bengal) and 2004 SCC (Crl.) 126 (State of Haryana v. Jagbir Singh and another). Thus, in nutshell, Mr. Mohapatra, learned counsel for Roshan Ali Submitted that there existed no evidence to link Roshan Ali with the crime of abduction of P.Ws.7 & 8 for ransom. Seventhly, Mr. Thus, in nutshell, Mr. Mohapatra, learned counsel for Roshan Ali Submitted that there existed no evidence to link Roshan Ali with the crime of abduction of P.Ws.7 & 8 for ransom. Seventhly, Mr. Mohapatra, submitted that though from Sri Ram Bhagat Agarwal of Ranchi, P.W.1 came to know about abduction of his father (P.W.8) for ransom and though he supplied his landline number and mobile number to said Ram Bhagat Agarwal in order to have direct contact with culprits; still Ram Bhagat Agarwal had not been examined by prosecution. Similarly, non-examination of Prabin Patra, Deepak Sharma and Sudhir Kumar Das was fatal to the prosecution case. For this adverse inference should have been drawn against the prosecution. In this context, Mr. Mohapatra relied on AIR 1954 S.C. 41 (Purnendu Nath Tagore v. Administrator, General of West Bengal) and (2007) 1 SCC (Crl) 744 (Ritesh Chakravarti v. State of Madhya Pradesh). Eighthly, according to Mr. Mohapatra, Roshan Ali has been convicted under Section 120B, IPC without any iota of evidence against him. He never met and conspired with anybody. In this context, he relied on the decision of the Supreme Court as reported in 2003 SCC (Crl.) 869 (Ram Narayan Popli v. Central Bureau of Investigation). Ninthly, Mr. Mohapatra contended that there existed no evidence to convict Roshan Ali under Sections 342/34 I.P.C. Tenthly, Mr. Mohapatra, learned counsel appearing for Roshan Ali contended that the learned court below has gone wrong in relying on inadmissible evidence pertaining to the alleged confession by Roshan Ali before police officers like P.Ws.22, 31 and 32 to the effect that he along with other culprits abducted P.Ws.8 & 7 and kept them confined in the farm house of appellant Virendra Jaiswal. Further, he contended that placing of such reliance was wrong as I.O. (P.W.33) had deposed that P.Ws.22, 31 and 32 had never stated before him about confession of Roshan Ali about abduction of P.Ws.8 & 7 and keeping them confined at Sankargarh. In this context, he relied on 2002 AIR SCW 3655/ AIR 2002 S.C. 3164 . (Bodhraj @ Bodha and others v. State of Jammu & Kashmir). Eleventhly, Mr. In this context, he relied on 2002 AIR SCW 3655/ AIR 2002 S.C. 3164 . (Bodhraj @ Bodha and others v. State of Jammu & Kashmir). Eleventhly, Mr. Mohapatra contended that his client Roshan Ali has been seriously prejudiced for bringing Exhibits 58/1, 58/2, 58/3 and 59 on record, which were never seized from his possession and no copy of the seizure list was ever prepared by any police officer in respect of those documents. P.Ws.22, 31 and 32 never ever deposed relating to above documents. Further, no questions were put about the said documents to Roshan Ali. However, illegally the learned court below relied heavily on these documents and convicted Roshan Ali. Twelvethly, Mr. Mohapatra, learned counsel for Roshan Ali took serious exception to conviction of Roshan Ali while persons like Santosh Jha, late Rajendra Prasad and Pradeep Kumar Srivastava have been acquitted though P.W.8 had stated in his evidence that "All these 8 (eight) accused persons were very much present and they were talking with me during this period of two hours. The culprits threatened that if ransom is not paid my children and family members will be killed and finished". He also took exception to not carrying out T.I. Parade with regard to Santosh Jha, late Rajendra Prasad and Pradeep Kumar Srivastava. Lastly, Mr. Mohapatra submitted that all the documents exhibited in this case were unauthenticated xerox copies and the learned court below has gone wrong in relying such xerox copies. 7. Mr. J.P. Pattnaik, learned Additional Government Advocate for the State mainly highlighted that this was not a case of circumstantial evidence but the prosecution case was based on evidence of credible eye-witnesses like P.Ws.2,7,8 &17. Besides this, he also relied on the evidence of P.W.16. According to Mr. Pattnaik, P.W.2 was an independent eyewitness and his version with regard to abduction of P.Ws.7 and 8 at the point of Pistol has been well corroborated by the evidence of P.Ws.3, 7 & 8. Further, during T.I. Parade, he clearly identified Rajan Mishra, Roshan Ali & Shamim Sidique, who are the three appellants before us. Similarly, with regard to abduction, confinement and demand of ransom with common intention, Mr. Pattnaik contended that all these have been proved from the evidence rendered by P.Ws.7 and 8, who were the victims, who corroborated each other's version in material particulars, and from the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 16. Similarly, with regard to abduction, confinement and demand of ransom with common intention, Mr. Pattnaik contended that all these have been proved from the evidence rendered by P.Ws.7 and 8, who were the victims, who corroborated each other's version in material particulars, and from the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 16. Further, he submitted that the evidence of P.W.7 was corroborated by P.Ws.2, 5, 8 & 17. Similarly, the eye-witness account of P.W.8 has been corroborated by P.Ws.2, 7 & 17. He further submitted that both P.W.7 and P.W.8 identified the appellants-Rajan Mishra, Roshan Ali and Shamim Sidique in the T.I. Parade as well as in the court. There was nothing to show that P.Ws.2, 7 & 8 as well as P.Ws.3 & 5 have got any enmity with the appellants so as to criminally frame them. Mr. Pattnaik relied on a decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in (2004) 8 SCC 95 : AIR 2004 SC 4865 (Malleshi v. State of Karnakata) in which the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that communication of demand to the victim was sufficient to convict the accused under Section 364A, IPC. With regard to Section 364A, IPC, he also relied on (2008) 15 SCC 418 (Shyam Babu and others v. State of Haryana) and AIR 2015 S.C. 3577 (Vikram Singh alias Vicky and another v. Union of India and others). Mr. Pattnaik also relied on the evidence of P.W.17 which has been duly corroborated by P.Ws.7 & 8 with regard to role of the convict appellant Virendra Jaiswal being a party to the crime. He submitted that the appellant Virendra Jaiswal has not offered any explanation to rescuing of P.Ws.7 & 8 from his farm house. Therefore, on the basis of deposition of P.W.17 alone, the appellant Virendra Jaiswal can be convicted for illegal confinement of P.Ws.7 & 8. With regard to the evidence of P.W.16, Mr. Pattnaik submitted that the telephonic message received by him from the appellant Roshan Ali from Nagpur made it easier for the police to arrest the appellants Roshan Ali and Rajan Mishra from the STD Booth at Nagpur which ultimately led to the unravelling of the case. With regard to serious objections raised by the appellants on the credibility of the evidence of P.W.16, Mr. With regard to serious objections raised by the appellants on the credibility of the evidence of P.W.16, Mr. Pattnaik submitted that even without presence of P.W.16 the trial court would have convicted the appellants on the basis of the eye-witnesses account of P.Ws.2, 7 & 8. He also relied on the deposition of P.W.22, who ultimately apprehended the appellants, Rajan Mishra and Roshan Ali from the STD Booth at Nagpur. With regard to T.I. Parade, he repelled all the attacks made on the T.I. Parade raised by the appellants and submitted that there was no infirmity in the T.I. Parade whereby P.Ws.2, 7 & 8 identified Roshan Ali, Rajan Mishra and Shamim Sidique. He mainly relied on 1976 (3) SCC 454 (State of Andhra Pradesh v. K. Venkata Reddy and others). He further submitted that concept of chance witness has no meaning in India and P.W.2 could not be described as chance witness and his evidence could not be ignored. With regard to status of chance witness, he relied on (1983) 3 SCC 327 (Rana Partap and others v. State of Haryana). With regard to conspiracy part he relied on (2010) 3 SCC 56 (Vikram Singh and others v. State of Punjab) and (2012) 1 SCC 406 (Akram Khan v. State of West Bengal). While winding up his argument, Mr. Pattnaik again made it clear that the learned trial court has committed no error in passing the impugned judgment and he mainly relied on the eyewitnesses versions of P.Ws.2, 7, 8, 17 & 18 along with other witnesses like P.Ws.1, 16, 22, etc. to drive home his point. He also stoutly submitted that a clear case under Sections 364A/34, IPC, 342/34, IPC and Section 120B, IPC had been made out on the basis of the evidence of the above noted prosecution witnesses and other prosecution witnesses in the background of the fax messages under Exts.2 and 4. 8. We have gone through the evidence on record minutely. We have also perused LCR and written submissions filed on behalf of the appellants as well as State. P.W.1 happens to be the informant in this case and the son of the victim (P.W.8). In his examination-in-chief, he stated that the occurrence took place on 24.1.2004 after noon. On the occurrence date at about 3.30 P.M., his father (P.W.8) left his house and proceeded in his Maruti Zen Car bearing Registration No.OR-16-A-5921. P.W.1 happens to be the informant in this case and the son of the victim (P.W.8). In his examination-in-chief, he stated that the occurrence took place on 24.1.2004 after noon. On the occurrence date at about 3.30 P.M., his father (P.W.8) left his house and proceeded in his Maruti Zen Car bearing Registration No.OR-16-A-5921. The said Car was then driven by Fransis Minz (P.W.7). When his father (P.W.8) did not return home by 9.30 P.M., P.W.1 sent two of his office staff, namely, Prabin Patra and Deepak Sharma. In the same night at about 10.30 P.M., P.W.1 got a telephone call from Deepak Sharma that they saw their Maruti Zen Car lying abandoned by the side of the road at Karamdihi on the State Highway and nobody was present in the Car including the driver and the doors of the Car were not locked. On receipt of this telephonic message, P.W.1 proceeded to Karamdihi along with one Sudhir Kumar Das. After reaching Karamdihi, P.W.1 saw the Maruti Zen Car lying there and his staff, Deepak Sharma and Prabin Patra informed him that after they reached the spot they were intimated by some of the villagers that one metallic colour Bolero followed their Car in which P.W.8 was travelling and by obstructing the car, they forcibly abducted P.W.8 on the point of Pistol and took him in their Bolero on a road leading from Karamdihi towards Chhattisgarh. After obtaining such information, P.W.1 proceeded to Sadar Police Station, Sundergarh and the information collected by him was reduced to writing through Sudhir Kumar Das. According to P.W.1, Sudhir Kumar Das scribed the report as per his instruction and dictation. After the report was scribed, the contents thereof were read over and explained to P.W.1. P.W.1 admitted the same and put his signature. That report has been treated as F.I.R. and marked as Ext.1. From the Police Station, he returned to his house. Till 28.1.2004, he had no information regarding the abduction of his father (P.W.8) and the persons involved in it. On 28.1.2004, one Rambhagat Agarwal of Ranchi, who happened to be a friend of his father (P.W.8) telephoned P.W.1 that he got a telephonic message from somebody saying that P.W.8 was with him in safe condition and waiting to receive an amount of 3 million U.S. Dollars as ransom, which would be equivalent to Rs. 15 Crores. On 28.1.2004, one Rambhagat Agarwal of Ranchi, who happened to be a friend of his father (P.W.8) telephoned P.W.1 that he got a telephonic message from somebody saying that P.W.8 was with him in safe condition and waiting to receive an amount of 3 million U.S. Dollars as ransom, which would be equivalent to Rs. 15 Crores. Rambhagat Agarwal further told P.W.1 that the unknown person had asked about phone number of P.W.1 in order to make direct contact for payment of ransom. Accordingly, P.W.1 immediately gave his residential phone numbers to Rambhagat Agarwal. On the same day, P.W.1 got a communication in the handwriting of his father (P.W.8) sent through Fax. Through the Fax message, P.W.8 had written that those persons, who abducted him, were very dangerous and had confined him and asked him to make payment of the amount as demanded, failing which he would be killed. This fax message was marked as Ext.2 with objection. In his examination-in-chief, P.W.1 made it clear that he was acquainted with the handwriting of his father-P.W.8. During investigation, the Police seized the fax letter received as per seizure list Ext.3. On 29.1.2004, P.W.1 received message in his Mobile phone telling him that he might have received the letter of his father (P.W.8) sent through Fax. Accordingly, he should make all necessary arrangements for payment of the amount. It was also threatened over phone by this unknown person that if the matter was reported at the Police Station, the family members of P.W.1 would be finished. After receipt of the said message, P.W.1 frequently received phone calls from time to time and he advised the unknown person to give the calls in the landline phone as it would be audible. Accordingly, he gave is residential landline phone numbers. Thereafter, P.W.1 made all arrangements as per instruction of the Police to tape record the conversation. On the same date in the evening hours, the unknown person made further phone call and the entire conversion of the unknown person received through his landline phone was duly tape recorded by P.W.1. The tape recorder along with its cassettes were seized by the Police vide seizure list Ext.3. On 2.2.2004, the same person telephoned P.W.1 saying that being moved by the appeal of his father (P.W.8), he was inclined to reduce the ransom amount from Rs. 15 Crores to Rs. The tape recorder along with its cassettes were seized by the Police vide seizure list Ext.3. On 2.2.2004, the same person telephoned P.W.1 saying that being moved by the appeal of his father (P.W.8), he was inclined to reduce the ransom amount from Rs. 15 Crores to Rs. 10 Crores and directed to pay the said amount of Rs. 10 Crores at Dubai. On 8.2.2004, the same person again telephoned P.W.1 that since no ransom was paid to them, they were going to kill his father (P.W.8) specifically saying that "JINDA GARDENGA". When P.W.1 wanted to convince the said person describing his incapacity to pay such a huge amount, the unknown culprit told P.W.1 that his father (P.W.8) had already agreed to make a part payment and to that effect, he had already given in writing. The unknown culprit directed P.W.1 to give his Fax number so that the letter of his father (P.W.8) could be sent through Fax. Accordingly, P.W.1 gave his Fax number to that person. Two hours after, he received a letter of his father (P.W.8) written in his own handwriting with his signature. The said Fax message was marked as Ext.4 with objection. Signature of the father (P.W.8) was marked as Ext.4/1. After receiving this letter of his father (P.W.8) through Fax, P.W.1 informed the Police and the police seized the Fax machine along with the Fax message of P.W.8. On 8.2.2004, the police instructed P.W.1 to convey the information to that unknown person to the effect that since his Fax machine was not working properly, the communication received was not properly visible. So, in the circumstances, to send the same again through Fax. In the cross-examination conducted on behalf of the appellant Roshan Ali, P.W.1 stated that there was no endorsement in the F.I.R. (Ext.1) that the said F.I.R. was scribed by Sudhir Ranjan Das. But he stated that his staff Sudhir Ranjan Das was very much present then and there. As per his (P.W.1) instruction, Sudhir Ranjan Das scribed the report. P.W.1 further stated that they were three brothers and all brothers and father (P.W.8) were income tax assessees. They had got three factories, and there existed five sites for these three factories. They all used to look after the affairs of their business jointly. As per his (P.W.1) instruction, Sudhir Ranjan Das scribed the report. P.W.1 further stated that they were three brothers and all brothers and father (P.W.8) were income tax assessees. They had got three factories, and there existed five sites for these three factories. They all used to look after the affairs of their business jointly. P.W.1 also stated that in all the three factories, they deal in sponge iron ingot and rods, which were being supplied all over India. His father (P.W.8) was one of the Directors of the Company. P.W.1 further stated that his father (P.W.8) whenever went in connection with business affairs, definitely returned to his house before 8.00 P.M. P.W.1 further stated that Fransis Minz (P.W.7) was driving the car in which his father (P.W.8) was travelling. P.W.1 also stated that the police did not record his statement on the date of lodging of the F.I.R. Only on the date of seizure of the Fax machine, the police recorded his statement in connection with the case. P.W.1 also stated that he knew about Kedarnath Kedia (P.W.16) of Rourkela, who was an iron merchant. He was no way related to P.W.1 and P.W.1 had personal acquaintance with P.W.16. In the T.V. news on 10.2.2004, P.W.1 came to know that his father (P.W.8) had been rescued by Chhattisgarh Police. On the next day, i.e. 11.2.2004, the police brought his father (P.W.8) to his house. There was no injury mark on the body of P.W.8 and P.W.1 had not paid anything to the culprits. In the letter of his father (P.W.8) received through Fax vide Ext.2, which was a xerox copy, the signature of P.W.8 was not there. P.W.1 also stated that he had stated before the police that some unknown culprits followed his father (P.W.8) in a Bolero (Metallic Colour) stopped the car and took away his father (P.W.8) and driver (P.W.7) in the Bolero vehicle. P.W.1 suspected that the unknown culprits to have kidnapped P.W.8 with a motive to demand money. However, P.W.1 denied the suggestion that he had not stated before the I.O. that he proceeded to the spot and his staff told him that they got information from the villagers that one metallic colour Bolero vehicle followed his father's (P.W.8) car and they forcibly abducted P.W.8 on the point of Pistol and that they took his father in their vehicle on the road leading towards Chhattisgarh. Similarly, P.W.1 denied the suggestion that he has not stated before the I.O. (P.W.33) that Rambhagat Agarwal in course of telephonic conversation told to directly contact with them and make payment. P.W.1 also denied the suggestion that he has not stated before the I.O. (P.W.33) that in the letter (Ext.2) his father (P.W.8) had written that those persons were very dangerous and they asked for payment of the amount demanded failing which they would kill and finish his father (P.W.8). P.W.1 also denied the suggestion that he has not stated before the I.O. (P.W.33) that he was acquainted with the handwriting of his father (P.W.8) and that the culprit over phone asked P.W.1 to told them about the date, time and place of payment of the ransom amount. P.W.1 also denied the suggestion that he had not specifically stated before the I.O. (P.W.33) that in the telephonic talk that they told him that being moved by the appeal made by his father (P.W.8) to consider the amount of the ransom, they minimised the same to Rs. 10 Crores. P.W.1 also denied the suggestion that he had not stated before the I.O. (P.W.33) that the unknown culprit told him to give the Fax number so that they would send the letter of his father (P.W.8). He also denied the suggestion that the two fax messages/letters under Exts.2 and 4 were fabricated and manipulated. He also denied the suggestion of ante dating of F.I.R. In the cross-examination on behalf of the appellant-Shamim Siddique, P.W.1 stated that they had some liabilities towards Banks and Financiers. He also made it clear that he could not say that if there was any information available before the Police regarding this incident prior to lodging of the F.I.R. In the cross-examination on behalf of the appellant-Rajan Mishra and Virendra Jaiswal, P.W.1 stated that it took about 30 minutes to reach Karamdihi on that date. This witness proved F.I.R. and proved Fax messages under Exts.2 and 4. He clearly stated that those fax messages were written by his father-P.W.8. Further, there was also no suggestion to P.W.1 from the side of the defence that Exts.2 and 4 were not written by his father. As we will see later, these Exts.2 and 4 are also proved by P.W.8, who admitted to have written the same as per the dictation of culprits with originals remaining with them. Further, there was also no suggestion to P.W.1 from the side of the defence that Exts.2 and 4 were not written by his father. As we will see later, these Exts.2 and 4 are also proved by P.W.8, who admitted to have written the same as per the dictation of culprits with originals remaining with them. Thus, version of P.W.1 has been corroborated by P.W.8. These Exts.2 and 4 reflect demand of ransom. P.W.1 got those xeroxed as, usually the fax messages disappear with time and get invisible. This was also corroborated by P.W.33. Though there exists some contradictions in the background of denial of suggestions by P.W.1 vis-a-vis the version of P.W.33, however, taking a broad view of the matter, these contradictions do not and cannot demolish the core prosecution story as has come out from the eye-witnesses like the evidence of P.Ws.2,7,8,17 &18 relating to abduction and illegal confinement with common intention, which we would discuss a little later. Moreover, the contradictions may not amount to much as denial of suggestion by P.W.1 is supported by FIR story and evidence of P.W.33 itself at Paragraphs 4 & 5 of his deposition. P.W.2 in his examination-in-chief stated that he knew only three accused persons. Accordingly, he identified the appellants-Rajan Mishra, Shamim Sidique and Roshan Ali. According to P.W.2, occurrence took place on 24.1.2004 at about 4.00 P.M. on the road at a little distance from village Karamdihi towards Sundergarh. On that date, he had been to Subdega in his Scooter. On his way back, he saw the incident at Karamdihi, while he was proceeding towards Sundergarh, he saw one Maruti Zen Car was parking in a slanting manner by the side of the road and another Bolero (Metallic colour) was parking ahead of the Maruti Zen Car. The colour of the Maruti Zen was blue. Seeing those vehicles in such condition, he thought that it might be a case of accident. Seeing these vehicles, he slowed down his scooter and observed that four to five culprits were found standing and the appellants Rajan Mishra, Shamim Sidique and Rosan Ali forcibly pulled and dragged an elderly person from the Maruti Zen Car and took him on the point of Pistol to the Bolero vehicle. That gentleman, who was forcibly taken into the Bolero vehicle, was putting on one Dhoti and one Punjabi of white colour. That gentleman, who was forcibly taken into the Bolero vehicle, was putting on one Dhoti and one Punjabi of white colour. In such situation being apprehensive, P.W.2 rang to the police of Town Police Station, Sundergarh (P.W.3) and informed P.W.3 that some unknown culprits forcibly pulled and dragged a gentleman from Maruti Zen Car on the point of Pistol and took him into a Bolero and in such situation, P.W.2 requested P.W.3 to look into the matter. Thereafter, both the vehicles backed and moved towards Rourkela, which P.W.2 saw at a little distance. Subsequently, the Mobile phone of P.W.2 from which he had telephoned to P.W.3 was seized by the Police on the next date, i.e., 25.1.2004 as per the seizure list under Ext.7. On 17.2.2004, P.W.2 identified the appellants Rajan Mishra and Rosan Ali in the T.I. Parade in the District Jail, Sundergarh conducted by the Magistrate. Again on 21.2.2004, P.W.2 identified another appellant Shamim Sidique in the T.I. Parade, which was held inside the Jail by the Magistrate. Both the T.I. Parades reports were prepared and signed by the Magistrate, which were duly exhibited. In the cross-examination on behalf of Roshan Ali (appellant), P.W.2 admitted that he used to take Ganja and one case under N.D.P.S. Act was filed against him. He was confined in the Jail for a bout 5 0 days in connection with that case. The present Public Prosecutor was his lawyer at that time. Besides that, he was not involved in any other case. P.W.2 further stated that Karamdihi Chhak always remained crowdy. About 20 to 30 persons were found assembled there. About 30 to 40 shops were there. The spot of occurrence was at a distance of 200 to 300 metres away from Karamdihi Chhak leading to Sundergarh. There was no house in the vicinity of the spot of occurrence. P.W.2 denied the suggestion that he had come to the Court on account of threat given by the Police and stated that nobody tutored him to depose in the Court. He witnessed the occurrence while moving in his Scooter. He saw the incident within two minutes. P.W.2 started observing the incident while moving in his Scooter from behind and saw the incident at a distance of 3 feet while crossing both the vehicles. He witnessed the occurrence while moving in his Scooter. He saw the incident within two minutes. P.W.2 started observing the incident while moving in his Scooter from behind and saw the incident at a distance of 3 feet while crossing both the vehicles. P.W.2 further stated that the appellants Rajan Mishra, Roshan Ali and Shamim Sidique held revolvers in their hands and out of fear, he did not shout. He also did not try to call any other person to come there and interfere. The person, who was dragged out of the Maruti Zen by the appellants, did not raise any shout and kept quiet. According to P.W.2, all the culprits were of fair complexion and it was not possible on his part to tell their exact heights. He also made it clear that the three appellants, whom he had identified in the T.I. Parade, were not seen by him prior to the date of occurrence. P.W.2 did not know their names, addresses, etc. From the newspaper, P.W.2 came to know that the culprits have been apprehended and he did not know if such news came up in the T.V. or not. The T.I. Parades were conducted by the Magistrate inside the Jail. Almost 10 U.T.Ps. had been mixed with the suspects and all were made to stand together in a line. In the first T.I. Parade according to P.W.2 altogether 11 persons were standing on a row by the time P.W.2 was taken to that place for identification. On 17.2.2004, P.W.2 identified the appellants Roshan Ali and Rajan Mishra one after another in two separate T.I. Parades. On 21.2.2004, P.W.2 identified the appellant Shamim Sidique. The culprits revealed their names on being asked by the Magistrate after the identification, from which P.W.2 came to know about their names. As far as P.W.2 recollected those suspects identified by him had not raised any objection before the Magistrate. P.W.2 further made it clear that the police never showed the photographs of the three appellants prior to the T.I. Parade. In the cross-examination, P.W.2 denied the suggestion that he had not stated before the Police regarding the height, complexion, stature and mark of identification of each of the three appellants identified by him. P.W.2 further made it clear that the police never showed the photographs of the three appellants prior to the T.I. Parade. In the cross-examination, P.W.2 denied the suggestion that he had not stated before the Police regarding the height, complexion, stature and mark of identification of each of the three appellants identified by him. Though P.W.33 contradicts this statement, but this may not be a serious lacunae considering the fact that the core prosecution story of abduction of P.W.8 at Pistol point by the three appellants remains undemolished in the cross-examination. P.W.2 reiterated that he stated before P.W.33 that the elderly person was wearing Dhoti and Punjabi. He also reiterated that he stated before the I.O. (P.W.33) that the act of abduction by these three appellants, namely, Rajan Mishra, Rosan Ali and Shamim Sidique was clearly seen by him. He denied the suggestion that there had been no such occurrence at such place and that he was deposing falsehood at the instance of the police. In the cross-examination on behalf of Shamim Sidique, at Paragraph-13, P.W.2 made it clear that much prior to the occurrence, he knew P.W.3. Along with P.W.33, he came to the spot of occurrence in Police Jeep. Sometime thereafter, the Superintendent of Police reached at the spot. P.W.2 identified the spot to the police. By then no vehicle was there at the spot but the Maruti Zen Car was there at a distance of 500 metres away from the spot. He did not disclose about the incident to any other person as per the instructions of the Police. In the cross-examination on behalf of Virendra Jaiswal and Rajan Mishra, P.W.2 made it clear that the appellants-Rajan Mishra, Roshan Ali and Shamim Sidique had actively participated in the commission of offence. He denied the suggestion that the police had shown the photographs of the appellants to him at the police station prior to their identification by him in the T.I. Parade. He also denied the suggestion that the police had taken photographs of these appellants and that one Jasbir Singh, a photographer was engaged by the Police to take the photographs of these appellants. P.W.2 is the only independent eye-witness, who proves abduction at the point of Pistol by Rajan Mishra, Rosan Ali and Shamim Sidique. There is not much contradiction with regard to core prosecution story as deposed by him. P.W.2 is the only independent eye-witness, who proves abduction at the point of Pistol by Rajan Mishra, Rosan Ali and Shamim Sidique. There is not much contradiction with regard to core prosecution story as deposed by him. The very fact that these three appellants used Pistol to abduct P.W.8 would clearly show that their common intention was to abduct under threat of death. Though, P.W.2 occasionally takes Ganja, there exists no evidence that on the date of occurrence he had taken Ganja. Further, he clearly identified above three persons in the T.I. Parades held on 17.2.2004 & 21.2.2004. He also denied the suggestion relating to seeing the above three appellants or their photographs prior to holding of T.I. Parade. His evidence is also corroborated in material particulars by P.Ws.3,7 and 8, as we would see later. P.W.33 at Para-18 of his deposition stated that P.W.2 was examined by him and he had stated that three to four persons on the point of revolver forcibly took away an aged person wearing Dhoti and made him to sit in Bolero. This also corroborates the version of P.W.2. The minor contradictions in the version of P.W.2 and P.W.33 (I.O.) do not affect the core prosecution story. But a scanning of evidence of P.Ws.1,7 and 8 would make it clear that prosecution has clearly made out a case under Section 364A/34, IPC. There is also no evidence that P.W.2 was inimically disposed towards Roshan Ali, Rajan Mishra and Shamim Sidique so as to depose falsehood against them. Therefore, his versions are to be believed. P.W.3 in his examination-in-chief stated that on the date of occurrence, i.e., 24.1.2004 he was working as S.I. of Police attached to the Town Police Station, Sundergarh. He knew P.W.2, who was running a betel shop. He admitted that he got a mobile message from P.W.2, who intimated him that while he was coming towards Sundergarh on his Scooter, three persons on the point of Revolver forcibly dragged an elderly person from Maruti Zen Car and took him inside a Bolero Jeep (Metallic Colour). P.W.2 told him that it was just near Karamdihi Chhaka. Therefore, on the point of jurisdiction, P.W.2 transmitted the same over V.H.F. to the Sadar Police Station. P.W.2 told him that it was just near Karamdihi Chhaka. Therefore, on the point of jurisdiction, P.W.2 transmitted the same over V.H.F. to the Sadar Police Station. On the same night, P.W.3 got the information from the Sadar Police Station, Sundergarh that the father of P.W.1, i.e., P.W.8 has been abducted, for which information has been lodged at the Sadar Police Station, Sundergarh to that effect. During the course of investigation, the mobile phone of P.W.3 was seized by the police vide seizure list marked as Ext.12. In the cross-examination at the behest of Roshan Ali, P.W.3 stated that P.W.2 was well known to him much prior to the receipt of his mobile message. Whatever information he received from P.W.2, he conveyed the same to the Sadar Police Station over V.H.F. He further stated that the information constituted a cognisable offence and P.W.2 told him that only three persons had done this. There was no cross-examination from the side of Rajan Mishra, Shamim Sidique and Virendra Jaiswal. P.W.3 thus corroborates the version of P.W.2 with regard to abduction of P.W.8 at revolver point. P.W.4 in his examination-in-chief stated that on 24.1.2004, he learnt from the covillager that one Marwari along with his driver had been abducted by some persons. He also saw one Maruti Zen Car bearing registration No.OR-16-A-5961 was parked by the side of the road. On the same night at 10.30 P.M., the police of Sadar Police Station, Sundergarh came to the spot. He described the colour of the Maruti Car as blue coloured one with no occupants. The police seized that Car as per seizure list prepared in presence of P.W.4. P.W.4 signed the said seizure list. In the cross-examination on behalf of Roshan Ali, P.W.4 stated that he was the sitting Samiti Member of Karamdihi Panchayat. He denied the suggestion that he had not stated before the I.O. that after returning to house, he came to know from some persons that P.W.7 & P.W.8 have been abducted. There was no cross-examination on behalf of Rajan Mishra, Shamim Sidique & Virendra Jaiswal. P.W.5 - Like P.W.4, P.W.5 is also one of the villagers of Karamdihi, who in his examination-in-chief stated that he saw one blue coloured Maruti Car was going towards Rourkela and another Marshal like Van followed the Car. Both the vehicles stopped and parked on the road near the house of Patanga. P.W.5 - Like P.W.4, P.W.5 is also one of the villagers of Karamdihi, who in his examination-in-chief stated that he saw one blue coloured Maruti Car was going towards Rourkela and another Marshal like Van followed the Car. Both the vehicles stopped and parked on the road near the house of Patanga. One person came out of the Maruti Car and after sitting in the Marshall like van that van drove towards Karamdihi Chhaka. Nothing much has been elicited in the cross-examination at the behest of Roshan Ali. There was no cross-examination on behalf of Rajan Mishra, Shamim Sidique & Virendra Jaiswal. P.W.6 in his examination-in-chief stated that he was working as a Peon under the victim (P.W.8). On 29.1.2004, he was working as Peon in the residential office of P.W.8. On 29.1.2004 at about 9.00 P.M., the police visited the house of P.W.8 and seized two numbers of telephone instruments of P.W.8 and one Fax message(Ext.2), some cassettes, one telephone set with recording system along with its cassettes as per seizure list under Ext.3. Again on 8.2.2004 according to P.W.6, the police seized one Fax machine, one Fax message (Ext.4) and one cassette and the relevant seizure list, is Ext.5. In the cross-examination, P.W.6 denied the suggestion that he was not present at the time and place of seizure and that the articles seized have been manufactured for the purpose of the case and that the Fax machine was not in order by the time it was seized. P.W.7 is an eye-witness and one of the victims. In his examination-in-chief, he stated that on 24.1.2004, i.e., the date of occurrence, he was carrying his master-P.W.8 in the Maruti Zen Car towards Sundergarh. On the way, P.W.8 directed P.W.7 to stop the vehicle by the side of the road for urination. Accordingly, P.W.7 stopped the vehicle at a little ahead of Karamdihi Chhak. At that time, when P.W.8 was urinating at a little distance by the side of the road, a Bolero Jeep metallic colour came from his behind and parked infront of the Maruti Car. Immediately six number of occupants came out of that Bolero. Three of them proceeded towards P.W.8 and rest three came near him. All of them were armed with revolver. Three of these culprits on the point of revolver forcibly brought P.W.8 to the Bolero. Immediately six number of occupants came out of that Bolero. Three of them proceeded towards P.W.8 and rest three came near him. All of them were armed with revolver. Three of these culprits on the point of revolver forcibly brought P.W.8 to the Bolero. Two of them sat on either side of P.W.8 in the Bolero. Out of the three culprits, who came near P.W.7 brought him from his seat on the Bolero to the backside. Altogether there were 8 occupants in the Bolero. Out of whom, six had came out of that Bolero and rest were in that vehicle. One of the occupants of the Bolero came and started driving the Maruti Zen Car, turned the car to the backside and the Bolero followed the Maruti Zen car. The Bolero on reaching the Karamdihi Chhaka slowed down the speed and the culprit, who was driving the Car, stopped the car, came out of the same and entered inside the Bolero. Thereafter, the culprits drove the Bolero in a high speed on the Subdega road by playing the tape recorder in a high volume. Thereafter, the Bolero after running for about four to five hours, stopped on the road. By then it would be about 9.30 P.M. The place where the Bolero was stopped was an isolated place. There was a tile roofed house, with an enclosure of mud wall. Thereafter, those miscreants took P.W.8 and P.W.7 from the Bolero to that house (tile roofed house). P.W.8 was made to sit on a cot in one of the rooms of the house and P.W.7 was made to sit on the floor of that room. P.W.7 was frightened as the culprits had held revolvers in their hands and while P.W.7 was taken out of the Bolero to that house, they had also snatched away Kohinoor H.M.T. wrist watch which P.W.7 had worn and his purse containing a cash of Rs. 650/-. Subsequently, P.W.7 came to know the name of that place to be Haratoli in the State of Chhattisgarh under Shankargarh Police Station. In the front row of the Bolero two occupants with P.W.8 at the centre were sitting and in the last row three other occupants were sitting besides P.W.7. 650/-. Subsequently, P.W.7 came to know the name of that place to be Haratoli in the State of Chhattisgarh under Shankargarh Police Station. In the front row of the Bolero two occupants with P.W.8 at the centre were sitting and in the last row three other occupants were sitting besides P.W.7. All the culprits, who brought P.W.7 and P.W.8 to that place, came inside the room where P.W.8 was sitting on the cot and all of them talked to P.W.8 for some times. Almost two hours thereafter, they again took P.W.7 to other room of the said house and confined him in that room while locking the door from outside, and P.W.8 remained in that room in which he was talked by the culprits. P.W.7 and P.W.8 both remained there in that tile roofed house for 17 days. During these periods of 17 days, those culprits met P.W.7 several times, interrogated him by asking many questions regarding the number of factories P.W.8 was having, the number of sons & daughters and many others aspect. But P.W.7 told them that he being a man of Scheduled Tribe, he had no knowledge of all these things. They guarded P.Ws.7 & 8 and cautioned P.W.7 not to keep contact with any person. During this period, those miscreants were persuading P.W.8 to write letter to his son P.W.1 to arrange a cash of Rs. 5 crores, so that he could be relieved, failing which, they threatened to kill both P.W.7 & P.W.8. On 17th day of confinement of P.Ws.7 & 8, the police reached there in the morning hours and rescued them. On the date of rescue, one of these appellants, namely, Virendra Jaiswal along with one Abdul Kayum were guarding them. P.W.7 further stated that one of such accused persons namely, Virendra Jaiswal was present in the court and he identified him. He further stated that on that date at about 4 A.M., the police came and called the appellant-Virendra Jaiswal in loud voice to open the door. Although the police was telling in Hindi, but P.W.7 could understand the meaning. One of these culprits, came near P.W.7 with one revolver in his hand, threatened him not to shout as the police had already reached and to keep quiet, failing which P.W.7 would be killed. The police immediately snatched the revolvers from the hands of the miscreants along with cartridges. One of these culprits, came near P.W.7 with one revolver in his hand, threatened him not to shout as the police had already reached and to keep quiet, failing which P.W.7 would be killed. The police immediately snatched the revolvers from the hands of the miscreants along with cartridges. Further P.W.7 stated that he could identify those culprits who committed the crime. Of these eight culprits, P.W.7 identified five of them present in the court and standing in the dock, namely, Shamim Sidique, Atul Pandey, Rajan Mishra, Virendra Jaiswal and Roshan Ali by pointing towards them. Thereafter, the police took P.W.7 and P.W.8 to Shankargarh Police Station with two culprits, who were guarding P.W.7 and P.W.8 in the night. These two culprits revealed their names before the police being asked, from which P.W.7 could know their names. On 17.2.2004 at 10 A.M., P.W.7 came to the District Jail, Sundergarh as per direction of the police and entered inside the jail. P.W.29 asked P.W.7 to identify the suspects telling him if he had seen them participating in the occurrence. Altogether 11 persons were made to stand in a row inside the Jail. On a look at these persons, P.W.7 identified the appellant, Rajan Mishra, who was standing in the dock. After the T.I. Parade was over, P.W.29 prepared the T.I. Parade report which was duly signed by P.W.7. On the same date about one hour after the first T.I. Parade was over, P.W.7 was again called by P.W.29 to identify other suspects. In this T.I. Parade, the suspect was mixed with 10 persons and all were made to stand in a row. P.W.7 identified the suspect, Roshan Ali. After the said T.I. Parade was over, P.W.29 prepared the T.I. Parade report which was signed by P.W.7. Again on 21.2.2004, P.W.7 identified the appellant Shamim Sidique in the T.I. Parade which was held inside the District Jail, Sundergarh by P.W.29. Again in the 1st week of June, 2004, P.W.7 identified Atul Pandey in the T.I. Parade conducted by the Magistrate. In the cross-examination on behalf of Atul Pandey, Rajan Mishra (appellant) and Shamim Sidique (appellant), P.W.7 stated that the incident occurred at a place on the road about 3 kms before Sundergarh Town. For two minutes P.W.7 stopped the Maruti Zen Car and the incident occurred. In the cross-examination on behalf of Atul Pandey, Rajan Mishra (appellant) and Shamim Sidique (appellant), P.W.7 stated that the incident occurred at a place on the road about 3 kms before Sundergarh Town. For two minutes P.W.7 stopped the Maruti Zen Car and the incident occurred. When P.W.8 got down from the car to urinate by the road, P.W.7 was sitting in the car. The Bolero came and the driver parked the Bolero in front of the car. P.W.7 further deposed that he did not raise any shout being afraid of the situation as each of the miscreants was holding revolver in his hand. In forcibly taking P.W.7 and P.W.8 into the Bolero, those miscreants had not tied their mouths, eyes. They had not assaulted P.W.7 or P.W.8 although they had given threats. P.W. 7 and P.W.8 were made to sit inside the Bolero. They restricted the talk of P.W.8 and asked him to keep quiet. None of the culprits had covered their face with cloth in order to conceal their identity. The Bolero had never stopped on the road at any place at any point of time for any break till it reached Hartoli. Initially P.Ws.7 and 8 were both kept in one room for few hours and thereafter P.W.7 was taken to another room and P.W.8 stayed in other room. Ten days after confinement of P.W.7 and P.W.8 in that house, P.W.7 had occasion to talk with P.W.8 for a very short time say about two minutes. One of the miscreants brought P.W.7 from his room to the room where P.W.8 was confined on the point of Pistol. P.W.8 did not tell anything more except that he was giving assurance for release after three days. By then P.W.7 was mentally shocked and started crying on seeing the condition of P.W.8.It was a fact that during confinement in that house in one occasion two of the miscreants asked P.W.8 to give a letter to his son asking him to pay Rs. 5 Crores, so that he would be released. Since P.W.8 was confined in an adjoining room, P.W.7 could only hear the voice but he had not seen those culprits. P.W.7 denied the suggestion that he had not heard such things and that the culprits had not told anything to P.W.8 demanding any amount. The house in question was located at the centre of the compound wall. Since P.W.8 was confined in an adjoining room, P.W.7 could only hear the voice but he had not seen those culprits. P.W.7 denied the suggestion that he had not heard such things and that the culprits had not told anything to P.W.8 demanding any amount. The house in question was located at the centre of the compound wall. Beyond the compound wall, there was a village kacchha road. The Police personnel numbering 10 to 15 came and raided that house. In the cross-examination, P.W.7 further stated that he had never come to the police station at Sundergarh at any point of time prior for the identification of the suspects by him in the Jail. It took no time to identify the suspects standing on the row as P.W.7 had constantly seen those suspects in the scene of crime. P.W.7 denied the suggestion that the police had shown him the photographs of those suspects identified by him much prior to their identification in the T.I. Parade. He further denied the suggestion that the police got the photographs of those suspects taken through a photographer, namely, Jasbir Singh and that the photographs of those culprits came out in the newspaper. P.W.7 also denied the suggestion that P.W.8 has concocted this case with his assistance to falsely implicate the appellants. Since the appellants pointed Pistol on the heads of P.W.7 and P.W.8, it was not possible to raise any shout or alarm. In the cross-examination on behalf of Roshan Ali (appellant), Late Rajendra Prasad and Pradeep Srivastava, P.W.7 stated that he and P.W.8 had not made any effort to run away from the vehicle. Further in the cross-examination, P.W.7 stated that he had clearly seen those miscreants during his stay there for 17 days. He denied the suggestion that he had not stated before the Magistrate regarding specific role played by each of the suspects/appellants at the time of T.I. Parade. After P.W.7 identified the suspects, the Magistrate ascertained the name of suspect, from which he could know their names. In the second phase of T.I. Parade, the persons, who were mixed with the suspects were changed and new persons were mixed with the suspects. After identification of the first suspect was over, P.W.7 was kept in another place for about one hour till he was called to the second T.I. Parade. In the second phase of T.I. Parade, the persons, who were mixed with the suspects were changed and new persons were mixed with the suspects. After identification of the first suspect was over, P.W.7 was kept in another place for about one hour till he was called to the second T.I. Parade. He, however, admitted that he had not stated before the I.O. specifically that three of those miscreants proceeded towards P.W.8 and other three of them proceeded towards him and on the point of revolver took both of them to the Bolero forcibly and that two of those miscreants sat either side of P.W.8, but P.W.7 made it clear that he had stated before the I.O. that six miscreants from the Bolero came out with revolver and forcibly took them into the Bolero. In the further cross-examination, P.W.7 stated he had stated before the I.O. that the miscreants threatened P.W.8 at intervals to give Rs. 4 to 5 Crores and to write a letter to his son P.W.1, which he had heard. Further P.W.7 stated that on the date of rescue, the police seized the revolvers and cartridges from the culprits, Virendra Jaiswal and Tippu in their presence. P.W.7 denied the suggestion that he and P.W.8 were never abducted by the appellants and that he was falsely implicating the appellants at the behest of the police as they were shown to them by the police prior to the T.I. Parade and that the photographs of the accused persons were also shown to P.W.7 by the police prior to the T.I. Parade. In the cross-examination on behalf of the appellant Virendra Jaiswal, P.W.7 stated that at the time of identification of the suspects, the suspects did not submit anything to the Magistrate except disclosing their names being asked by the Magistrate. There was a small window in the room where P.W.7 was confined and there was no window in the room where P.W.8 was confined. Two of the culprits after arrival of the police at the spot opened door of the room of P.W.7 from outside and released him and thereafter he was taken inside the room of P.W.8. P.W.7 denied the suggestion that he deposed falsehood at the instance of P.W.8. Two of the culprits after arrival of the police at the spot opened door of the room of P.W.7 from outside and released him and thereafter he was taken inside the room of P.W.8. P.W.7 denied the suggestion that he deposed falsehood at the instance of P.W.8. In the cross-examination on behalf of Santosh Jha, P.W.7 denied the suggestion that he had never worked as a driver under P.W.8 and that on the date of occurrence, he never drove the car of P.W.8 carrying him and that neither P.W.8 nor P.W.7 were abducted by the culprits. P.W.7 on further cross-examination on 10.1.2007 on behalf of Rajan Mishra, stated that he had not stated before P.W.17 that eight to nine persons being armed with revolver abducted P.W.8 and P.W.8 was made to sit in their vehicle with the eyes covered by a cloth, one of the culprits took away the key of the Maruti Car and remained at the spot and they were telling the names of Virendra Jaiswsal and Abdul Karim. He denied the suggestion that the accused persons did not abduct him and P.W.8 and that he was deposing falsehood. An analysis of evidence of P.W.7 would show that he has clearly proved the factum of abduction, demand of ransom and confinement with common intention. The core prosecution story relating to abduction by the appellants and others at revolver point remains un-demolished. This also reflect common intention of the above appellants. He has clearly deposed about demand of ransom at a number of places in his deposition. His deposition also clearly reflects how he and P.W.8 remained confined at Hartoli and how they were guarded by the culprits there. This also shows common intention of the appellants in confining them. His version relating to forcibly being taken inside the Bolero at revolver point by the appellants is well corroborated by the evidence of P.W.2 and P.W.8. His version relating to demand of ransom has been corroborated by P.W.8 and P.W.1. P.W.8 as we would see little later, corroborates the version of P.W.7 as to wrongful confinement. In the T.I. Parade, he clearly identified the appellants-Roshan Ali, Rajan Mishra and Shamim Sidique. The T.I. Parades were held on 17.2.2004 & 21.2.2004, while the occurrence took place on 24.1.2004. So, within a short time span T.I. Parade has been held. P.W.8 as we would see little later, corroborates the version of P.W.7 as to wrongful confinement. In the T.I. Parade, he clearly identified the appellants-Roshan Ali, Rajan Mishra and Shamim Sidique. The T.I. Parades were held on 17.2.2004 & 21.2.2004, while the occurrence took place on 24.1.2004. So, within a short time span T.I. Parade has been held. He clearly denied the suggestion that prior to holding of T.I. Parade, the culprits/their photographs were shown to him. In the court below he identified the above noted three appellants along with Virendra Jaiswal. It is important to note here that P.W.7 had identified Rajan Mishra, Roshan Ali, Shamim Sidique, Virendra Jaiswal and Atul Pandey in court on 29.9.2005 out of 8 culprits. A perusal of order sheet dated 29.9.2005 of learned Sessions Judge shows, on that day the three acquitted persons were also present in the court. But they were not identified by P.W.7. Though there are some discripancies between the versions of P.W.7 and P.W.17, however, the same does not demolish the core prosecution story. With regard to covering of eyes of P.W.8 by cloth, it can be said that the same does not mean that prior to such covering he could not have seen the culprits. Further, there is nothing on evidence that such eye covering continued after P.Ws.7 & 8 reached Hartoli. Rather P.W.17 in his evidence has disclosed that P.W.8 stated before him that the culprits took P.W.8 to a house in Bolero and opened the cloth from his face and eyes. It may not be out of place to indicate here that there exists nothing in evidence to show that there existed enmity between appellants and P.W.7 so that P.W.7 would depose against appellants. In any case P.W.17 in his re-examination made it clear that P.W.7 was not present when he reduced his statement to writing after four to five hours of questioning him. In other words P.W.17 has recorded the so called statement of P.W.7 from his memory. So nothing much can be read into same. Similarly, the contradiction in evidence of P.W.7 vis-a-vis P.W.33 as pointed out by P.W.33 at Para-38 of his deposition does not appear to be major contradictions. P.W.8, an eye-witness, in his examination-in-chief stated that he knew all the accused persons standing in the dock. He identified the accused persons by telling their names. Similarly, the contradiction in evidence of P.W.7 vis-a-vis P.W.33 as pointed out by P.W.33 at Para-38 of his deposition does not appear to be major contradictions. P.W.8, an eye-witness, in his examination-in-chief stated that he knew all the accused persons standing in the dock. He identified the accused persons by telling their names. He stated that P.W.1 was his son and the occurrence took place on 24.1.2004 at 4.30 P.M. At about 3.00 P.M. he started from his house in his Maruti Zen Car in connection with business work to Sundergarh. The registration number of his car was OR-16-A-5921. P.W.7 was his driver, who drove the car. While coming towards Sundagargh, P.W.8 asked his driver for a brief halt, 3kms before Sundargah to urinate. Accordingly, P.W.7 stopped the car and P.W.8 came out of the car by the side of the road to urinate. While urinating, a metallic colour Bolero came from behind and stopped in front of his car. Immediately some of the occupants of the Bolero numbering six being armed with revolvers in their hands came out of that Bolero. These culprits, who were armed with revolvers in their hands came out of that Bolero and pointing the revolvers on his head forcibly dragged him and P.W.7 and took them into their Bolero. P.W.8 discovered that two other occupants were inside the Bolero. Thereafter, the driver of the Bolero turned the Bolero backward and started moving towards Karamdihi. From Karamdihi the Bolero went towards Subdega. The culprits played the tape recorder of that vehicle in full volume. After the Bolero moved for five hours, it stopped on the road in an isolated place. In the Bolero P.W.8 was sitting in the middle seat in the middle with two culprits on either side of him pointing revolver on his head and in the last row three culprits were sitting and his driver was made to sit on the floor of the Bolero. By then, P.W.8 was wearing a Dhoti and Punjabi. There was a Titan wrist watch in his hand. He had cash of Rs. 49,800/- in the side pocket of his Punjabi. The culprits forcibly snatched the entire cash from his pocket and his wrist watch. At last the Bolero stopped and the culprits took P.W.7 and P.W.8 from the Bolero to a tile roofed house with a mud compound wall. He had cash of Rs. 49,800/- in the side pocket of his Punjabi. The culprits forcibly snatched the entire cash from his pocket and his wrist watch. At last the Bolero stopped and the culprits took P.W.7 and P.W.8 from the Bolero to a tile roofed house with a mud compound wall. The house was a two roomed house having verandha on both sides. P.W.7 and P.W.8 were kept guarded by the culprits in one room for two hours. Thereafter, P.W.7 was separated and taken to another room. During this time of two hours those culprits at the point of revolver threatened P.W.8 saying that they wanted money for which they have been abducted to that place. They demanded Rs. 15 Crores. Both P.W.7 and P.W.8 were confined in two separate rooms of that house for a period of 17 days. Whenever, P.W.8 wanted to attend the call of nature, those culprits were guarding at the point of revolvers and they were taking him to the latrine. During the period of confinement of P.W.7 and P.W.8, these culprits were regularly coming to them and threatening him to give Rs. 15 crores to them to release him from the confinement. In four to five occasions, the culprits had forced P.W.8 to write letters to his son by giving dictation as to what to write for extracting ransom. The culprits threatened to kill him if he failed to write according to their dictation. P.W.8 identified the letters under Exts.2 and 4 being written by him. His signature in Ext.1 was marked as Ext.4/1 but his signature in Ext.2 was not visible as these were the Xerox copies. The original letters were with the culprits. P.W.8 further stated that he remembered the essence of writings of all these letters was to extract ransom. Four to five culprits in turn were guarding P.W.8 for first few days. Thereafter, two culprits came for guarding him. To a question as to how he could identify the culprits with their names, P.W.8 replied that on the date they were rescued by the police and were taken to Shankargarh Police Station, on that date he came to know the names of two accused persons, namely, Virendra Jaiswal and Abdul Kaiyum @ Tippu and the other four accused persons were identified by him in the T.I. Parade in the Jail. He could come to know their names in the Jail and there was no difficulty in identifying them as they were frequently visiting him and talking with him during his confinement. P.W. 8 further stated that on 10.02.2004 in the dawn hours at about 4 to 5 a.m. the police of Chhatishgarh raided the house and rescued him and P.W.7. Police seized three revolvers along with cartridges from the possession of the culprits-Virendra Jaiswal and Abdul Kaium @ Tippo. On 15.02.2004, police released his seized wrist watch in his zima. P.W.8 further clearly stated that the culprits abducted him for ransom. On 17.02.2004, P.W.8 identified appellant-Roshan Ali and Rajan Mishra and on 21.2.2004, he identified Shamim Sidique in the T.I. Parades and signed the T.I. Parade reports. Further P.W.8 clearly identified the appellants-Roshan Ali, Rajan Mishra and Shamim Sidique in the court. On 5.6.2004, he identified appellant-Atul Pandey in the T.I. Parade. He also identified appellant-Atul Pandey in court. In the cross-examination at the behest of appellants-Atul Pandey, Rajan Mishra (appellant) and Md. Sidique (appellant), P.W.8 stated that he could understand Hindi but could not speak correctly or properly although to some extent he could say in Hindi. P.W.8 further stated that the Bolero started plying continuously for five hours without any stoppage. As he was guarded by four culprits inside the Bolero, he was not in a position to see any check gate or toll gate coming on the road. He denied a suggestion that he has not stated before I.O. that two culprits with revolvers sat on his either side. Further in the cross-examination, P.W.8 stated that they reached near the house where they were confined in the night at 9.30 P.M. at Haratoli. He came to know about that place from the police of Shankaragada police station. As he was in a panic sticken condition while travelling in the Bolero, there was no occasion to express his feelings as to whether he wanted to attend the call of nature or to drink. The culprits did not offer any tea, tiffin or anything to him while taking him in the Bolero. The culprits had only threatened him on the point of revolver to keep quiet. After he was taken inside the room of a tile-roofed house, the culprits searched his pockets and took away the cash and wrist watch. The culprits did not offer any tea, tiffin or anything to him while taking him in the Bolero. The culprits had only threatened him on the point of revolver to keep quiet. After he was taken inside the room of a tile-roofed house, the culprits searched his pockets and took away the cash and wrist watch. When he was caught by culprits, he had almost finished urinating there. Out of six occupants of that Bolero, three culprits with revolvers caught him and rest three forcibly pulled P.W.7 from the car. All the three culprits had caught hold of him, two of them on either side and the third from back side. They had further pointed their revolvers on his head and back. He and his driver P.W.7 were forcibly taken inside the Bolero at the same time and the culprits threatened on the point of revolver not to shout. The abduction took place on the main road where there was no 'Basti' nearby. After he and his driver P.W.7 were taken into the house, they both stayed in one room for two hours and thereafter they were separated. During this period of two hours, the culprits persuaded P.W.8 and threatened him to give an amount of Rs. 15 crores and further persuaded to write letters to P.W.1, his son. According to P.W.8, his driver P.W.7 was very much present in that room and this was within his knowledge what the culprits told him. He denied a suggestion that he did not state before the I.O. that during time of two hours, the culprits on the point of revolver threatened him saying that they wanted money to the tune of Rs. 15 Crores. Further, in the cross-examination, P.W.8 admitted that he has read up to Class-IX and Ext.2 was in his own handwriting, written according to dictation of the culprits. He further stated that though he had signed in the original, but since Ext.2 happened to be a xerox copy, the in-print of his signature was not available in the xerox copy. He denied a suggestion that Ext.2 was manufactured for the purpose of this case. He also denied a suggestion that Ext.4 was also forged document and was manufactured for the purpose of this case. P.W.8 also stated that the culprits threatened him that if the ransom was not paid, his children and family members would be killed and finished. He denied a suggestion that Ext.2 was manufactured for the purpose of this case. He also denied a suggestion that Ext.4 was also forged document and was manufactured for the purpose of this case. P.W.8 also stated that the culprits threatened him that if the ransom was not paid, his children and family members would be killed and finished. He also denied a suggestion that the culprits never abducted him for ransom. He also emphatically stated that two culprits were guarding him inside his room with revolver and such a practise was followed for a period of 15 days. Whenever he used to attend the call of nature, the culprits were guarding him since there was no attached latrine inside the room. He also emphatically denied a suggestion that the accused persons or culprits were shown to him at the Police Station by the Police before the T.I. parade. In the cross-examination on behalf of Roshan Ali (appellant) and Pradeep Srivastava (since acquitted), P.W.8 stated that in one case while identifying the appellant-Roshan Ali in jail, Roshan Ali abused and threatened him. But he could not say about the fate of that case. He reiterated that he identified four culprits inside jail and out of the rest he knew appellant-Virendra Jaiswal, who was there with him when the police rescued him along with P.W.7 from the place of confinement. He further stated that out of 8 accused persons who abducted him, five were present in Court and Pradeep Srivastava, late-Rajendra Prasad and Santosh Jha were not involved in abducting him. Further, he stated that these three persons had no role to play in abducting him and his driver-P.W.7. He also made it clear that he did not see these three acquitted persons, namely, Pradeep Srivastava, late Rajendra Prasad and Santosh Jha in the place of their confinement or anywhere and for the first time he saw these three persons standing in the dock in the court. P.W.8 further made it clear that he had seen five accused persons or culprits present in Court at the time of their act of abduction. He further stated that he had specifically stated before the Sundergarh Police as well as Shankargarh police about the abduction by the culprits. P.W.8 further made it clear that he had seen five accused persons or culprits present in Court at the time of their act of abduction. He further stated that he had specifically stated before the Sundergarh Police as well as Shankargarh police about the abduction by the culprits. He further stated that after reaching the room the culprits kept him and his driver in one room for two hours where the culprits talked with them. He further stated that he has stated before the I.O. that the culprits threatened him demanding Rs. 3 Crores and for that to write letters to his son. He also denied a suggestion that he had not stated before the I.O. that the culprits wanted money to the tune of Rs. 15 crores from him. P.W.8 also submitted that though he had not uttered the word ransom in his statement before I.O. he had stated before I.O. that culprits by confining him demanded Rs. 3 crores by sending letters to his son. He also denied a suggestion that he had not stated before I.O. that culprits had abducted him for ransom. He further stated that the culprits got these letters (Ext. 2 and 4) written from him and after writing of letters they took the letters from him in original and reiterated that Exts.2 and 4 were written by him and they were in his handwriting. He further stated that he could not say whether the photographs of the culprits came out in newspaper or not. He also could not say whether police had taken the photographs of above culprits. He also made it clear that the police had never shown the photographs of the culprits to him. He also made it clear that he did not know that the photographs of culprits were taken by one Jasbir Singh, photographer of Sundergarh. He denied the suggestion that the culprits had not abducted him for ransom and they had not confined him for 17 days in a house at Haratoli. He denied a suggestion that he was deposing falsehood. In the cross-examination at the behest of appellant-Virendra Jaiswal, P.W.8 denied a suggestion that the culprits had not abducted him for ransom and that appellant-Virendra Jiswal was in no way involved in the commission of crime. He denied a suggestion that he was deposing falsehood. In the cross-examination at the behest of appellant-Virendra Jaiswal, P.W.8 denied a suggestion that the culprits had not abducted him for ransom and that appellant-Virendra Jiswal was in no way involved in the commission of crime. In the cross-examination on behalf of Santosh Jha (since acquitted), P.W.8 stated that P.W.7 was engaged to drive his car about one month prior to this incident and he denied a suggestion that he was not abducted by the culprits and was not confined by them. P.W.8 was subjected to further cross-examination on recall on 10.01.2007 by appellant-Rajan Mishra, i.e., around three years from the date of occurrence. There he reiterated that he could understand Hindi but could not properly speak Hindi. However, no question has been put to him on his capacity to write Hindi. He admitted that he was examined by P.W.17. He further stated that he did not say before P.W.17 that the culprits tied his face with cloth when he was pushed inside Bolero but P.W.17 stated in his cross-examination that P.W.8 stated before him that these culprits tied cloth in his face and eyes and pushed him inside vehicle. This contradiction also no way helps the defence as even prior to putting the cloth on his face, P.W.8 would have seen all the culprits. Further there is nothing to show that the cloth on the face continued even after arrival at the house, where P.W.8 was confined for 17 days. Rather as per evidence of P.W.17 after taking to the house, the culprits opened the cloth from his face and eyes. In any case on re-examination, P.W.17 stated that he reduced the statement of P.W.8 in his absence after four to five hours of questioning them. In other words P.W.17 had recorded the so called statement of P.W.8 from his memory. In such background nothing much can be read into same. He also did not state before the A.S.I. that the culprits dealt him slaps and fist blows and took away Rs. 45,000/- from him and that they took away his Titan wrist watch. However, in further cross-examination, P.W.8 made it clear that the culprits did not assault him or pushed him showing revolver. P.W. 8 also stated that eight culprits abducted him but they were unknown to him. 45,000/- from him and that they took away his Titan wrist watch. However, in further cross-examination, P.W.8 made it clear that the culprits did not assault him or pushed him showing revolver. P.W. 8 also stated that eight culprits abducted him but they were unknown to him. However, he denied a suggestion that the accused-culprits did not abduct him and that he was deposing falsehood. It is important to note here that in cross-examination no suggestion of enmity between the four appellants and P.W.8 has been given. An analysis of evidence of P.W.8 would show that he has clearly proved that he was abducted along with P.W.7 by appellants and others at the revolver point. Then he along with P.W.7 were confined by the culprits in a tile-roofed house at Hartoli. There the culprits demanded the ransom and made P.W.8 to write letters under Exts.2 and 4 which were later sent by fax to P.W.1. All these reflect common intention of the appellants to abduct for ransom and to subject the victims to illegal confinement. P.W.8 has clearly stated that reasons for writing these letters under threat was to extract ransom. It is important to note here that though P.W.8 stated that he had written letters under Exts. 2 and 4, the defence never put any question to him on his ability to write in Hindi. He and P.W.7 were confined in that house at Hartoli for 17 days after which Police rescued them. The story relating to he being abducted and pushed into Bolero has been corroborated by P.W.2 and P.W.7. The demand relating to ransom has been corroborated by P.Ws.1 and 7. The factum relating to confinement as stated by P.W.8 has been corroborated by P.W.7 and P.W.17. In the T.I. Parade, he clearly identified appellants-Rajan Mishra, Roshan Ali and Shamim Sidique. Here as indicated earlier the relevant T.I. Parades were held on 17.2.2004 and 21.2.2004, after Roshan Ali and Rajan Mishra were arrested on 10.2.2004 and Shamim Sidique arrested on 13.2.2004. P.W.8 has clearly denied the suggestion of either seeing the above appellants or their photographs prior to T.I. Parade. In the court also he identified the above three appellants along with Virendra Jaiswal and others. It is very important to note here that P.W.8 stated in clear terms that three acquitted persons were not involved in abducting him or P.W.7. P.W.8 has clearly denied the suggestion of either seeing the above appellants or their photographs prior to T.I. Parade. In the court also he identified the above three appellants along with Virendra Jaiswal and others. It is very important to note here that P.W.8 stated in clear terms that three acquitted persons were not involved in abducting him or P.W.7. He made it clear that he never saw the three acquitted persons either at the place of confinement or at anywhere. He stated that he saw the three acquitted persons for the first time in court. Though P.W.17 stated that before him P.W.8 had stated about a cloth being tied over his eyes at the time of abduction, however, there exists no evidence to show that situation was such that prior to putting the cloth before face, P.W.8 could not have seen the culprits abducting him. Same P.W.17 has also made it clear that P.W.8 also stated before him that the culprits took him to the house where he was confined and opened the cloth from his face and eyes. Thus, P.W.8 had seen all the culprits, who abducted him and P.W.7. Further P.W.17 stated that P.W.8 was not present, when he reduced his statement into writing. He made such recording after 4 to 5 hours after questioning P.W.8. This makes it clear that version narrated by P.W.17 vis-a-vis P.W.8 is more from memory and thus, there is bound to be discrepancy in such case. Thus, this contradiction nowhere helps the appellants. In the cross-examination, P.W.33 has stated that P.W.8 never told him about demand of Rs. 15 crores while abducting him or at the time of his confinement. This appears to be contradictory to the evidence of P.W.8 to some extent. In fact in some place P.W.8 in his evidence has stated that the demand was for Rs. 3 crores. Thus, though the evidence relating to quantum may differ, however, evidence relating to demand of ransom remains undemolished. The contradictions between the version of P.W.7 on one side and P.Ws.17 & 33 on the other side are not major affecting the core story of prosecution relating to abduction, demand of ransom and confinement, etc with common intention of appellants. Both P.W.7 and P.W.8 have also stated that police had seized revolvers and cartridges from the possession of Virendra Jaiswal and Abdul Kayum while resucing P.Ws.7 & 8. Both P.W.7 and P.W.8 have also stated that police had seized revolvers and cartridges from the possession of Virendra Jaiswal and Abdul Kayum while resucing P.Ws.7 & 8. This shows all throughout P.Ws.7 & 8 remained under threat to their lives. P.Ws.9 and 10 are two Gramarakhies and witnesses to the seizures. P.W.9 is a witness to the seizure in connection with Titan wrist watch from appellant-Roshan Ali, which was marked as M.O.-II & the relevant seizure list is Ext.19. In the cross-examination, he has also stated that he could identify the seized watch in the Court. P.W.10 is also a witness to the seizure of above watch from Roshan Ali. The mobile handset of P.W.3 was seized by P.W.33 in presence of P.W.10 and the relevant seizure list was marked as Ext.12. P.W.10 is also a witness to the seizure of diary and some papers before the I.I.C. as per the seizure list at Ext.20. He was also a witness to the seizure of two numbers of revolvers (M.O.IV & M.O.V), 11 numbers of cartridges (M.O.VI), cash of Rs. 3,000/-, six number plates of the vehicle with one mobile set phone produced by Shankargada Police before I.I.C. (PW.33) vide seizure list marked as Ext.21. P.W.10 also identified 11 numbers of cartridges and the hand set mobile phone in the court so also the revolvers. In the cross-examination on behalf of appellants-Rajan Mishra, Roshan Ali and Shamim Sidique, P.W.10 stated that he was present at the Police Station when the seizure list was prepared by P.W.33. P.W. 33 seized Titan watch from appellant-Roshan Ali on his production before him. However, P.W.10 stated that such type of wrist watch was commonly available in the market. He denied a suggestion that he was deposing falsehood at the instance of P.W.33. In the cross-examination on behalf of Virendra Jaiswal, P.W.10 stated that all the articles seized by the police have been kept on the table and he signed those seizure lists one after the other after those were explained to him. In the cross-examination at the behest of Santosh Jha, P.W.10 stated that it was not possible on his part to say which witnesses were present on which date of seizures. He denied a suggestion that no such articles were seized in his presence and he was deposing falsehood. P.W.11 happens to be a part-time Accountant at hotel Bishnu Palace, Jharsuguda. In the cross-examination at the behest of Santosh Jha, P.W.10 stated that it was not possible on his part to say which witnesses were present on which date of seizures. He denied a suggestion that no such articles were seized in his presence and he was deposing falsehood. P.W.11 happens to be a part-time Accountant at hotel Bishnu Palace, Jharsuguda. He deposed that in the month of February, 2004 the police had come to the above noted hotel. Being asked by the police, he produced the Entry Register, Guest Registration Card and Duplicate Bills and police seized the same as per the seizure list prepared in his presence which was marked as Ext.22. As per the Entry Register maintained in the hotel, on 17.1.2004 at 1.00 A.M., names of Shamim Sidique (appellant), Virendra Gupta and Atul Pandey have been reflected as per entries vide Sl. Nos. 92, 93 and 94 and they stayed in the hotel in room nos.106, 107 and 103 respectively. Thereafter, they left the hotel at 5.30 P.M on the same day. Again on 11 P.M., Virendra Gupta, S. Sidique and one Tipu Khan returned to the hotel and stayed there till 19.01.2004. After the seizure, the seized entry register was released in his zima as per zimanama marked as Ext.23. Virendra Gupta and Rajan Tripathy occupied room No.107 vide Guest Registration Card No.645 and Virendra Gupta had signed the registration card. Atul Pandey and Tippu Khan vide Sl. No.646 of Guest Registration Number occupied room No.103 and the card was singed by one Tippu Khan vide Ext.25. In the cross-examination on behalf of Atul Pandey, Rajan Mishra (appellant), Md. Sidique (appellant) and Roshan Ali (appellant), P.W.11 stated that he did not have any personal acquaintance with the guest staying in the hotel and as per the records, he was deposing. He further stated that it was not possible on his part to identify those persons if he would see them. P.W.12 is an independent witness, who turned hostile. In his examination-in-chief, he stated that as far as he recollected on 11.2.2004 he had signed a piece of paper at the instance of the Inspector of Police where his signature was marked as Ext.30. P.W.12 is an independent witness, who turned hostile. In his examination-in-chief, he stated that as far as he recollected on 11.2.2004 he had signed a piece of paper at the instance of the Inspector of Police where his signature was marked as Ext.30. In the cross-examination by the prosecution, he denied a suggestion that he had stated before the I.O. that on 11.2.2004 at 10 P.M. the I.O. seized one Bajaj Boxer Motor Cycle bearing No.MB-20- AA-0098 where the engine number was found to have been tampered. He also denied a suggestion that he was deposing falsehood. In the cross-examination conducted on behalf of Atul Pandey, Roshan Ali (appellant), late Rajendra Prasad and Pradeep Srivastava, he stated that he did not know these persons who were standing in the dock and he gave his signature being asked by the police in the bus stand of Sundergarh and nothing was written in the paper in which he had signed. In the cross-examination conducted by rest of the culprits, P.W.12 stated that police had not examined him in connection with this case and he had not given his statement before the police. P.W.13 was the then C.I. of Sadar, Sundergarh. In his examination-in-chief, P.W.13 stated that on 10.2.2004 as per the direction of S.P., Sundergrh, he proceeded to Nagpur with S.I. of Police, Sanjib Mohanty. On reaching Nagpur, he reported before the Inspector-incharge of Sitawardi Police Station, P.W.32. Later, he left Nagpur with the culprits, namely Prdeep Srivastava, Roshan Ali and Rajan Mishra. On 12.2.2004 at 8.30 P.M. he reached Sadar P.S. and handed over the aforesaid persons along with the relevant connected papers, viz., seizure lists, statements of witnesses recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. and other documents (consisting 21 pages). Besides, the above, he had also handed over the xerox copy of the register of hotel "Kamal" at Nagpur and a paper containing the names of appellants-Roshan Ali, Virendra Jaiswal, Rajan Mishra and others, which was written in Hindi. He also handed over a piece of paper containing some telephone numbers, one telephone receipt dated 9.2.2004 granted by STD booth with phone No.2563746 of Nagpur. He also produced two papers containing telephone numbers and one bill of hotel Kamal at Nagpur, one pocket book (M.O.III) of Pradeep Srivastava containing some telephone numbers. These documents were made over to the IIC, Sadar, Sundergarh. He also produced two papers containing telephone numbers and one bill of hotel Kamal at Nagpur, one pocket book (M.O.III) of Pradeep Srivastava containing some telephone numbers. These documents were made over to the IIC, Sadar, Sundergarh. In the cross-examination at the behest of Rajan Mishra (appellant), Atul Pandey, Roshan Ali (appellant), late Rajendra Prasad and Pradeep Srivastava, P.W.13 stated that he had gone to Nagpur by train on 9.2.2004 and that he had not recorded the statements of any of the culprits. He further stated that the culprits were there at Nagpur Police Station by the time he reached there. He had not taken the personal search of those culprits, who were brought by him from Nagpur. Those culprits so far he remembered had not submitted anything to the Magistrate of Nagpur at the time of their production. He denied a suggestion that the documents which he referred to during his examination-in-chief, were manufactured documents and were prepared to suit this case and that he was deposing falsehood. Cross-examination by the rest of the accused was declined. P.W.14 is a Police Constable of Sadar Police Station, Sundergarh. He was also a witness to the seizure of mobile phone bearing No.9415258853, which was seized from the custody of appellant-Shamim Sidique at the police station, as well as he was a witness in whose presence the seizure lists of cassettes were prepared by the I.I.C. which were marked as Exts. 31 and 32 respectively. In his examination-in-chief he stated that he knew three of the appellants standing in the dock and accordingly, identified Shamim Sidique, Rajan Mishra and Roshan Ali. He further stated that on 16.02.2004 while he was working as police constable at the Sadar Police Station, Sundergarh, the I.I.C. Sadar P.S. seized one Nokia hand set mobile phone from appellant-Shamim Sidique at the police station in his presence as per the seizure list prepared by the I.I.C. and that mobile set was marked as M.O-VIII. On 8.6.2004, in the court of S.D.J.M., Sundergarh the voice of the appellants-Roshan Ali and Rajan Mishra was recorded in two separate cassettes and two separate envelopes containing two cassettes were made over to the I.I.C., Sadar P.S. by the C.S.I. Balabhadra Pradhan. The I.I.C. on production of these cassettes seized the same as per the seizure list marked as Ext. 32. The I.I.C. on production of these cassettes seized the same as per the seizure list marked as Ext. 32. In the cross-examination on behalf of the Rajan Mishra (appellant), Atul Pandey, Roshan Ali (appellant), late-Rajendra Prasad and Pradeep Srivastava, P.W.14 stated that he was very much present in the court room at the time of recording of the voice of appellants-Roshan Ali and Rajan Mishra. But he could not say exactly what they stated during recording. He further stated that he was not present when the cassettes were sealed in an envelope. He denied a suggestion that he was deposing falsehood at the instance of I.I.C. In the cross-examination at the behest of appellants-Shamim Sidique and Virendra Jaiswal, he stated that on 16.02.2004, he saw the appellant-Shamim Sidique at the police station and he came to know about the number of the seized mobile phone from the I.I.C. He denied a suggestion that as he was working under the I.I.C., he was deposing falsehood at his instance. P.W.15 is another police constable of Sadar P.S., Sundergarh. He was also a witness to seizure of mobile phone along with other seizure. In his examination-in-chief, he stated that on 16.02.2004, he was working as police constable at Sadar Police Station, Sundergarh and on that date a mobile handset was seized by the I.I.C. from appellant-Shamim Sidique at the police station in his presence vide seizure list Ext.31. On 29.03.2004, the I.I.C. Sadar P.S. seized one note book and some papers on production by C.I. Sethi Babu vide seizure list marked as Ext.20. On 2.4.2004, one police constable of Shankaragarh police station in the State of Chhatisgarh produced before the I.I.C., Sadar P.S. two revolvers, 11 numbers of cartridges, cash of Rs. 3,000/-, 15 nos. of "number plates" and some papers containing chasis number and engine number of vehicle and one Nokia Mobile hand set phone, vide seizure list Ext.21. In the cross-examination on behalf of appellants-Shamim Sidique and Virendra Jaiswal, P.W.15 stated that appellant-Shamim Sidique was standing in the dock and accordingly, he identified appellant-Shamim Sidique. He further stated that he had no knowledge about any other culprits. He also stated that he had gone through all the seizure lists. He had seen the Nokia Mobile phone, which was in working condition but he had not tested to ascertain whether it was working or not. He further stated that he had no knowledge about any other culprits. He also stated that he had gone through all the seizure lists. He had seen the Nokia Mobile phone, which was in working condition but he had not tested to ascertain whether it was working or not. The police constable of Shankaragarh police station carried all the articles in an air bag. He denied a suggestion that nothing has been seized in his presence and that he was deposing falsehood. P.W.16 is Kedarnath Kedia, who was abducted by some of the accused persons. It is P.W.16, who stated about receiving repeated phone calls in his mobile phone from appellant-Roshan Ali. In his examination-in-chief, P.W.16 stated that he knew four appellants standing in the dock. He identified the appellants, namely, Roshan Ali, Atul Pandey, Rajan Mishra and Jaiswal. He also stated that he knew P.W.8 and his son, Sanjaya Gododia. He stated that he came to know about these four appellants as they were involved in another case in which he was abducted. On 28.1.2004, he had received a telephonic message from appellant-Roshan Ali telling him to cooperate in the abduction case of P.W.8 and to let him know regarding the financial status of P.W.8. At the outset, appellant-Roshan Ali in order to identity himself recalled his memory explaining that he was that person who was involved in abducting him from Rourkela. Thereafter, he could identify the voice of the appellant-Roshan Ali. This message was received from appellant Roshan Ali in the land line phone of his office. Later, appellant-Roshan Ali rang up his mobile phone bearing No.9861027400. Again appellant-Roshan Ali enquired about financial condition and status of P.W.8. During course of investigation in which P.W.16 was abducted he was taken by the police to the house where P.W.8 was confined after his abduction. From there he could know that he was also confined in the same house for some days where after he was removed from the house to the other place. After receiving the above mentioned message from appellant-Roshan Ali, he immediately informed S.P., Rourkela. The S.P. Rourkela advised him to keep patience and to attend such calls and to create confidence in the minds of miscreants. After receiving the above mentioned message from appellant-Roshan Ali, he immediately informed S.P., Rourkela. The S.P. Rourkela advised him to keep patience and to attend such calls and to create confidence in the minds of miscreants. Three or four days thereafter appellant-Roshan Ali again kept contact with him over telephone and he telephoned him three to four times and the last phone call was received by P.W.16 on 9.2.2004. He further stated that he informed S.P., Rourkela about all the conversation he had with the appellant-Roshan Ali. On 9.2.2004, he received a telephonic call from appellant-Roshan Ali in his office at 2.00 P.M. in his cell phone. On receiving the call, he asked appellant-Roshan Ali to telephone him later. Thereafter, he intimated the said fact to S.P. Rourkela. From his cell phone he could know that this call was made from Nagpur as because the code number shown in the cell phone was 0712. In the evening of 9.2.2004, appellant-Roshan Ali again gave him a phone call in reply to which P.W.16 told him to wait and ring him after one hour as he was otherwise busy. Immediately thereafter, he intimated this fact to S.P. Rourkela. At About 7.30 P.M. on the same date appellant-Roshan Ali again gave him a call and without picking up that call P.W.16 rang up S.P. Rourkela through land line and intimated the fact that appellant-Roshan Ali had given a ring to his cell phone. S.P. Rourkela advised P.W.16 to continue the conversion with appellant-Roshan Ali whenever a call was received from him for a longer time. After a short while, the appellant-Roshan Ali gave a ring to his cell phone and he talked with appellant-Roshan Ali for 15 to 20 minutes and this was the last phone call made by appellant-Roshan Ali. About one and half hours thereafter S.P. Rourkela rang up to his cell phone and informed him that two to three culprits including appellant-Roshan Ali have already been apprehended from one of the P.C.O. of Nagpur. On 30.5.2004, the Sundergarh police came and seized his cell phone as per seizure list, Ext.33. P.W.33 in his cross-examination has made it clear that P.W.16 could not be examined earlier as he was not available. In the cross-examination at the instance of Roshan Ali (appellant), late-Rajendra Prasad, Atul Pandey, Rajan Mishra (appellant), Md. On 30.5.2004, the Sundergarh police came and seized his cell phone as per seizure list, Ext.33. P.W.33 in his cross-examination has made it clear that P.W.16 could not be examined earlier as he was not available. In the cross-examination at the instance of Roshan Ali (appellant), late-Rajendra Prasad, Atul Pandey, Rajan Mishra (appellant), Md. Sidique (appellant) and Pradeep Srivastava, P.W.16 stated that he was abducted from his house at Rourkela on 28/29.10.2002 for which a case has been registered by the police of Raghunath Pali P.S. After he was abducted, he was confined for a period of 22 days. He was also examined by the police in that case. His wife-Kusum Kedia was the informant of that case. His statement was recorded by the police in his abduction case after he was released from the confinement during November, 2002. P.W.16 in the cross-examination further stated that he could not say what happened to that case and whether charge sheet had been filed or not. He further stated that he was examined by the police in connection with his abduction case after he got information from S.P. Rourkela that 3 to 4 culprits including appellant-Roshan Ali have already been apprehended from a S.T.D. call booth of Nagpur. P.W.16 also stated that after apprehension of appellant Roshan Ali at Nagpur as informed by S.P. Rourkela, he was examined by Sundergarh Police. He could not recollect the date of his examination by Sundergarh police and said that he might have been examined by Sundergarh police by 30.5.2004. Though he stated that he could not say the name of that village in which he was confined but he deposed that when he was taken near that house for the second time by the police he could mark some modification in the structure of that house and there was a disk antenna. However, he made it clear that neither P.W.7 nor P.W.8 had come with him to that place. He further stated that he was no way related to P.W.8 though he came to know about him eight years back. He never had any talk with P.W.8 but had talked with his son, Sanjay Gadodia. He stated that he had seen the photos of these four culprits in the newspaper. He further stated that on 28.1.2004, he came to know that P.W.8 had been abducted. He never had any talk with P.W.8 but had talked with his son, Sanjay Gadodia. He stated that he had seen the photos of these four culprits in the newspaper. He further stated that on 28.1.2004, he came to know that P.W.8 had been abducted. He also stated that he could know about the names of four culprits Roshan Ali, Atul Pandey, Rajan Mishra and Virendra Jaiswal whom he identified in court, at the place and time of T.I. parade in connection with his case. He further stated in the cross-examination that he could know the names of the culprits from the police as well as newspaper. It is extremely important to note here that there is no evidence on record to show that newspaper published the photographs prior to holding of T.I. Parades on 17.2.2004 and 21.2.2004. It could be that photographs of the culprits were published much after the three T.I. Parades were over and that names of culprits were made known to him by police after the T.I. Parades were over. Further he stated that he had no occasion to state before I.O of his case that appellant-Roshan Ali of this case had telephoned him on 28.1.2004. However, he denied a suggestion that he has not stated before I.O. (P.W.33) the names of four culprits. He stated that he had not specifically stated the names of appellant-Roshan Ali in his statement before P.W.33 but he told him that he was the boss. All these has not been contradicted by P.W.33. He also stated that it was a fact that he had stated before P.W.33 specifically that the S.P. Rourkela had instructed him that whenever a call came from the culprits, he was to continue to talk with him over phone for a longer time. However, P.W.16 denied a suggestion that he did not receive any telephonic call from appellant-Roshan Ali and that appellant-Roshan Ali never asked him over phone regarding financial condition and status of P.W.8. In the cross-examination at the instance of appellant-Virendra Jaiswal, P.W. 16 stated that the house in question at Shankaragada was a farm house and the said house consisted of two rooms besides a kitchen and bath room. He denied a suggestion that the culprits were no way involved in the commission of the offence of abducting and that he was deposing falsehood. He denied a suggestion that the culprits were no way involved in the commission of the offence of abducting and that he was deposing falsehood. A cautious analysis of evidence of P.W.16 shows that it was he who informed S.P. Rourkela about receipt of phone call from Roshan Ali on 28.1.2004 and 9.2.2004 from Nagpur. As per advice of S.P. Rourkela; on 9.2.2004 evening, he kept talking with Roshan Ali for 15 to 20 minutes, which led to his apprehension from Nagpur along with Rajan Mishra. It is important to note that on 9.2.2004, P.W.16 received the call in the evening at 7.30 P.M. Without picking up the said call, he informed S.P. Rourkela, who advised him to continue the conversation. After a short while Roshan Ali gave him a ring and then P.W.16 continued talking for 15 to 20 minutes. P.W.22 as we would see later, in the cross-examination, stated that he was directed to keep a watch on the booth between 7 P.M. to 8 P.M. and he apprehended Roshan Ali and Rajan Mishra at about 7.45 P.M. So this clearly corroborates the version of P.W.16. P.W.32 as we could see later also corroborates the version of P.W.16 as he stated that he received a phone call from DCP at about 7.40 P.M. on 9.2.2004 that culprits were contacting Rourkela for ransom from telephone booth in Munjer Chhak and accordingly, he sent subordinate officers P.Ws.22 & 31 to Munjer Chowk and by the time he himself reached the Chowk, one of the culprits had already been apprehended. In such background, evidence of P.W.16 cannot be ignored only because he was said to have been abducted earlier by some appellants. It is interesting to note that the defence never gave suggestion of enmity to P.W.16 as fairly admitted by Mr. Devasish Panda, learned counsel for one of the appellants. Police probably did not examine him on 28.1.2004 and 9.2.2004 as that would have given message to the culprits and they might have stopped ringing P.W.16. Even by 9.2.2004 other accused were at large. Atul Pandey was arrested only on 31.5.2004. Though the conduct of Roshan Ali in contacting P.W.16 to know about financial status of P.W.8 is little strange but the same cannot be totally ignored in this age of rising of daredevil crimes and abduction. Even by 9.2.2004 other accused were at large. Atul Pandey was arrested only on 31.5.2004. Though the conduct of Roshan Ali in contacting P.W.16 to know about financial status of P.W.8 is little strange but the same cannot be totally ignored in this age of rising of daredevil crimes and abduction. With regard to publication of photographs in newspaper as indicated earlier much importance cannot be attached to it as date of publication of such newspaper has not come out in the evidence. For belated examination of P.W.16 his evidence cannot be ignored in view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in AIR 2002 SC 3164 (Bodhraj @ Bodha and others v. State of Jammu & Kashmir). Further, P.W.33 as we would see later, in his evidence has made it clear that P.W.16 could not be examined earlier as he was not available. In any case, we should not forget that present one is not a case of circumstantial evidence. As indicated earlier, the core prosecution story, as described by the eye-witnesses, i.e., P.Ws.2, 7 & 8, remain undemolished relating to abduction, illegal confinement with common intention. P.W.17 is the A.S.I. of police of Shankargarh Police Station who rescued P.Ws.7 and 8 from the farm house of appellant-Virendra Jaiswal and it was he who arrested appellant-Virendra Jaiswal and also lodged plain paper F.I.R. vide Ext. 36. In his examination-in-chief, he stated that he knew appellant-Virendra Jaiswal and identified him in court. He also stated that he knew co-accused Abdul Karim, who was not present in Court. He stated that on 9.2.4004 he was working as A.S.I. of police having been attached to Sankaragada P.S. and in the absence of the O.I.C. he was in charge of the police station. On 9.2.4004 at about 9.00 P.M. in night while he along with other police staff were performing anti-naxal patrol duty, he got reliable information that appellant-Virendra Jaiswal had kept two persons confined in his farm house with an ulterior motive. On receipt of this information, he along with his staff came near the farm house of appellant-Virendra Jaiswal and guarded that farm house. He requested A.S.I. Sapan Choudhury to depute some police staff near to that farm house. After some time some police personnel of Balarampur P.S. came in a jeep near the farm house. On receipt of this information, he along with his staff came near the farm house of appellant-Virendra Jaiswal and guarded that farm house. He requested A.S.I. Sapan Choudhury to depute some police staff near to that farm house. After some time some police personnel of Balarampur P.S. came in a jeep near the farm house. Thereafter, he called some persons of that locality to come and remain physically present there. Five persons of that locality came there and accordingly he apprised them of the reason of search to be conducted in the farm house and accordingly he explained the matter to them. Thereafter, he prepared a Panchanama to that effect, which was marked as Ext.35. The door of the farm house was closed from inside. One constable Tikeswar knocked at the door and thereafter Virendra Jaiswal opened the door. Three other persons were also in that house besides Virendra Jiswal. They gave out their names as Abdul Karim @ Pandit, Swarmal Godadia (P.W.8) and Fransis Minz (P.W.7). Thus, P.W.7 and P.W.8 were rescued from the house. P.W.8 on being asked narrated that while he was coming in his Maruti Zen from Rajgangpur to Sundergarh on 24.1.2004 afternoon, on his way about 2 K.Ms before Sundergarh Town, he had a brief halt. As he came out from the Maruti Zen for urination and while he was urinating, by the side of the road, seven to eight miscreants came in a Bolero and forcibly abducted him and his driver (P.W.7) by taking them inside their Bolero and both of them were confined in that farm house. P.W.8 further gave out that he was abducted by the miscreants, who demanded ransom. On the basis of the information he received from P.W.8, he drew up plain paper F.I.R. then and there. After scribing the same, he sent it through a constable to the police station for its registration, which was marked as Ext.36. Head constable, Muralidhar Tiwari drew up formal F.I.R. which was marked as Ext.36/2. After rescue of P.W.7 and P.W.8, he started taking search of culprits, Virendra Jaiswal and Abdul Kayum @ Pandit. After scribing the same, he sent it through a constable to the police station for its registration, which was marked as Ext.36. Head constable, Muralidhar Tiwari drew up formal F.I.R. which was marked as Ext.36/2. After rescue of P.W.7 and P.W.8, he started taking search of culprits, Virendra Jaiswal and Abdul Kayum @ Pandit. The search resulted in the recovery of one country made revolver (M.O.IV) with six cartridges from Abdul Kayum @ Pandit so also 15 numbers of aluminium number plates containing the writings Mahendra and Mahendra and the letters from A to Z contained in one plastic container in seal like form and digit number "0" to "9" contained in another plastic container and a cash of Rs. 1500/-. All those articles including cash were seized by him from culprit-Abdul Kaiyum @ Pandit as per seizure list vide Ext. 37. The aluminium number plates contained in plastic container was marked as M.O.-IX and the metallic letters from A to Z contained in a plastic container was marked as M.O.-X and the metallic digits from "0" to "9" container in a plastic container was marked as M.O.-XI. Besides one 303 Bore country made pistol loaded with one cartridge (M.O.V), one charger clip containing four live cartridges and one Nokia made hand set mobile phone (M.O.-VIII) and cash of Rs. 1500/- were recovered from the possession of appellant-Virendrar Jaiswal and all these articles including the cash were seized as per seizure list marked as Ext. 38. Although these 11 cartridges were seized under two separate seizure lists, all these cartridges consisting 11 numbers were marked as M.O. VI. He also prepared spot map, which was marked as Ext. 39 and arrested both culprits Virendra Jaiswal and Abdul Kaiyum @ Pandit then and there at the spot and prepared the arrest memo, which were marked as Ext.40. Thereafter, both the culprits along with victims were brought to Shankaragada P.S. On 11.2.2004 both culprits Abdul Kaiyum @ Pandit and Virendra Jaiswal were forwarded before the J.M.F.C., Ambikapur in P.S. Case No.4 of 2004 under Sections 364A/34, I.P.C. On the point of jurisdiction, all connecting records of the case registered were transferred to the police of Sadar P.S. Sundergarh. The police of Sadar P.S. Sundergarh examined him in connection with this case twice, i.e. on 17.2.2004 and 25.2.2004. The police of Sadar P.S. Sundergarh examined him in connection with this case twice, i.e. on 17.2.2004 and 25.2.2004. In the cross-examination at the behest of Roshan Ali (appellant), Atul Pandey, Rajan Mishra (appellant), Md. Sidique (appellant), late Rajendra Prasad and Pradeep Srivastava, P.W.17 stated that he had not given any information to the police of Sundergarh P.S. after apprehending both the culprits (Virendra Jaiswal and Abdul Kaiyum) along with the victims. He further stated that he could not say how the police of Sundergarh Sadar P.S. became aware of such rescue of the victims from the farm house. Both these victims P.W.7 and P.W.8 were taken by the police of Sundergarh Sadar P.S. from Shankaragada P.S. The recovery of pistol from the possession of appellant-Virendra Jaiswal was not mentioned in the F.I.R. because the seizure of the same was made after scribing the F.I.R. He also stated that he had also recorded the statement of P.W.7 and P.W.8. He denied a suggestion that he had not produced the seized property before J.M.F.C., Ambikapur. The seized properties were kept in a malkhana in the police station for a period of one and half months after which all those properties were sent to the police of Sadar P.S. Sundergarh through constable No.65 Marianus Khalko. To a question put with regard to raiding the farm house, in the cross-examination P.W.17 stated that getting the information they came near the farm house and surrounded the farm house from all sides. Thereafter, he talked to the police of Balarampur P.S. over V.H. phone to depute some police staff. They waited for two to three hours after which the police personnel of Balarmpur reached there near the farm house. During this time no inmates from that farm house came out of that house. Since it was a naxal prone area and forest area, it was not possible to get search warrant within a very short span time. However, he stated that he had also asked the Shankaragada P.S. over V.H.F. to take steps for obtaining search warrant if at all it was possible. Although the police of Shankaragada P.S. made efforts to get search warrant but due to non-availability of the Magistrate, the same could not be obtained. There was no shout inside the farm house when they surrounded that house. There was no overt-act, any firing or anything in resentment to their action. Although the police of Shankaragada P.S. made efforts to get search warrant but due to non-availability of the Magistrate, the same could not be obtained. There was no shout inside the farm house when they surrounded that house. There was no overt-act, any firing or anything in resentment to their action. They searched both rooms of the farm house, which consisted of two living rooms, one toilet and one kitchen with adjoining verandha. P.W.17 further stated that he got credible information at village Haratoli pada at 10 P.M. in the night. No incriminating document relating to the demand of ransom was found in that house on search or from the possession of any of the culprits. Appellant-Virendra Jaiswal being a man of that locality was known to him two years prior to the date of raid of that farm house. He had seen the house of appellant - Virendra Jaiswal, but he had not entered inside his house much prior to the raid. From the villagers he could know about the house of appellant-Virendra Jaiswal. From villagers, he ascertained that farm house belonged to appellant-Virendra Jaiswal prior to raid. One Samaru Manasat had shown the farm house stating that it belonged to appellant-Virendra Jaiswal prior to raid. He also stated that he knew the family members of appellant-Virendra Jaiswal much prior to the date of raid. Appellant-Virenddra Jaiswal was having two brothers. He knew appellant-Virendra Jaiswal was married. He could not tell about his children. Appellant-Virendra Jaiswal, his two brothers and parents used to live in separate houses. The family members of appellant-Virndra Jaiswal did not stay and live in that farm house. He denied a suggestion that the farm house in question did not belong to appellant-Virendra Jaiswal. He further stated that before police of Sundergarh, he stated that 7 to 8 culprits had abducted P.W.7 and P.W.8; while in F.I.R. he has indicated that about 8 to 9 culprits abducted P.W.8. The discrepancy in his statement before Sundergarh Police and in his report was due to his lapse of memory. In the F.I.R. he had mentioned that P.W.8 was abducted for FHIROTI (ransom) but in the statement made before Sundergarh Police he stated that P.W.8 was abducted for huge amount. He also stated before I.O. that one revolver, one pistol etc. were seized from the culprits. In the F.I.R. he had mentioned that P.W.8 was abducted for FHIROTI (ransom) but in the statement made before Sundergarh Police he stated that P.W.8 was abducted for huge amount. He also stated before I.O. that one revolver, one pistol etc. were seized from the culprits. He stated that he had not disclosed before I.O. that before search he had called persons of the locality to come to the place of search and to remain physically present there and that he apprised them about the reason of their search. He denied a suggestion that he did not state before I.O. that constable knocked at the door of the farm house and that appellant-Virendra Jaiswal opened the door and three other persons were there inside that house and that P.W.8 told him that while going towards Sundergarh he was abducted on the road about 2 K.Ms. distance before Sundergarh. P.W.17 denied a suggestion that the farm house did not belong to appellant Virendra Jaiswal and that appellant-Virendra Jaiswal was not in that house at the time of raid and that nothing had been seized from appellant-Virendrar Jaiswal and he was deposing falsehood. In the cross-examination conducted on behalf of appellant-Virendra Jaiswal, P.W.17 stated that he had not properly sealed the seized properties. The J.M.F.C., Ambikapur had not put his initial on those papers, such as forwarding report, F.I.R., seizure list etc. He also stated that he had not given his personal search to the culprits and the witnesses. He denied a suggestion that all those papers were manufactured by him and that no forwarding report or other connecting papers were produced before the Magistrate, Ambikapur and nothing was seized from the possession of appellant-Virendra Jaiswal and that he was deposing falsehood. In the cross-examination on recall on behalf of Roshan Ali (appellant), Pradeep Srivastava and late-Rajenda Prasad, P.W.17 stated that he recorded the statements of P.W.7 and P.W.8 on 10.2.2004. P.W.7 stated before him that eight to nine culprits being armed with revolver abducted P.W.8 and he was also abducted and sat in their vehicle. The eyes of P.W.8 were covered with cloth and one of the culprits took away the key of his vehicle, remained at the spot and they were telling the names of Abdul Kayium and appellant-Virendra Jaiswal. P.W.7 did not state before him that he would not be able to identify the culprits if shown to him. The eyes of P.W.8 were covered with cloth and one of the culprits took away the key of his vehicle, remained at the spot and they were telling the names of Abdul Kayium and appellant-Virendra Jaiswal. P.W.7 did not state before him that he would not be able to identify the culprits if shown to him. In fact he did not put that question to him. P.W.7 did not state before him about their physical appearance. P.W.8 stated before him that nine persons were present, all of them were armed with revolver. They tied cloth on his face, eyes and in that condition they pushed him inside the vehicle. They dealt him slaps and fist blows and took away Rs. 45,000/- from him. P.W.8 did not state before him that the culprits took away a Titan wrist watch. P.W.8 stated before him that one of the culprits told over mobile phone addressing his boss that they had already picked up his father and what would be about his son. P.W.8 also stated before him that the culprits left his Maruti car at the spot, they took him to a house in the Bolero, opened the cloth from his face and eyes, assaulted him. Two of the culprits, namely, Virendra Jaiswal and Tipu @ Abdul Kayum were watching him. P.W. 8 did not state before him that he would be able to identify the culprits and in fact P.W.17 never asked P.W.8 about that. In course of his re-examination on recall, P.W.17 stated that P.W.7 and P.W.8 were not present when he reduced their statements into writing. He recorded their statements after about four to five hours of questioning them. In the cross-examination P.W.17 stated that he recorded the statements of P.Ws.7 and 8 relying on the statements of the said witnesses, which he remembered. This makes it clear that the facts stated in Paras-20 and 21 of the cross-examination by P.W.17 are based on his memory and not on what P.W.7 and P.W.8 told P.W.17 exactly when they were being examined. This will explain away the contradictions between the evidence of P.W.7 and P.W.8 on one side and P.W.17 on the other side. This makes it clear that the facts stated in Paras-20 and 21 of the cross-examination by P.W.17 are based on his memory and not on what P.W.7 and P.W.8 told P.W.17 exactly when they were being examined. This will explain away the contradictions between the evidence of P.W.7 and P.W.8 on one side and P.W.17 on the other side. In any case assuming that the culprits covered the face of P.W.8 there is nothing to show that situation was such that P.W.8 could not have seen the culprits prior to such putting of cloth over his eyes. Further again before P.W.17, P.W.8 made it clear that the culprits opened the cloth from his eyes after they took him to the house. Thus, he could have seen them all at that point. P.W.17 has also made a very important statement at para 3 of his examination-in chief, which remains un-demolished that P.W.8 stated before him that he was abducted by miscreants for extracting a huge amount. 9. An analysis of evidence of P.W.17 would show that on 9.2.2004 at around 9.00 P.M. he got reliable information that Virendra Jaiswal had kept two persons confined in his farm house with ulterior motive. He accordingly rescued P.W.7 and P.W.8 from that farm house and arrested Virendra Jiswal and Abdul Kayum @ Pandit @ Tipu. Thus, he corroborates the version of P.W.7 and PW.8 relating to their illegal confinement in the farm house of convict-appellant - Virendra Jaiswal. The evidence of P.Ws.2,7,8 and 17 prove common intention of appellants along with others in abducting P.W.7 and P.W.8 and subjecting them to illegal confinement for ransom. The minor contradictions in the version of P.W.17 and P.W.33 with regard to knocking of door at farm house prior to rescue, no way affects the quality of evidence of P.W.17. P.W.18 is a co-villager of appellant-Virendra Jaiswal, who is a witness to the Panchanama after the raid and seizure of fire arms and other materials. In his examination-in-chief P.W.18 stated that appellant Virendra Jaiswal was his co-villager. About 2 years back, in the month of Magha one day in the early morning at about 4 A.M. while he had gone for toilet, the police called him near the house of appellant-Virendra Jaiswal where they prepared a Panchanama in his presence and he signed the same. His signature was marked as Ext. 35/2. About 2 years back, in the month of Magha one day in the early morning at about 4 A.M. while he had gone for toilet, the police called him near the house of appellant-Virendra Jaiswal where they prepared a Panchanama in his presence and he signed the same. His signature was marked as Ext. 35/2. The police then entered inside that house and caught hold of appellant-Virendra along with his associate. Further on search, two persons one-Sethji and his driver were found inside the house. He could know the name of that Sethji to be Sawarmal Godadia as told by police. One revolver and one pistol along with cartridges and cash of Rs. 1500/- were seized from appellant-Virendra and his associates and those articles were seized under two separate seizure lists prepared by the police in his presence. One Daroga Police, namely, Chaturvedy of Shankaragada P.S. prepared the seizure lists. In the cross-examination on behalf of Roshan Ali (appellant), Atul Pandey, Rajan Mishra (appellants), Md. Sidique (appellant), late-Rajendra Prasad and Pradeep Srivastava, P.W.18 stated that on that date he saw the revolver and pistol for the first time in his life. One "Banduka" was seized from the possession of appellant-Virenddra Jaiswal and the other "Banduka" was seized from the possession of his associate. Besides a cash of Rs. 1500/- was also seized from each of them and no other things were seized. Cash only consisted of 100 denominations notes. Cash of Rs. 1500/- was recovered from the pant pocket of appellant-Virendra Jaiswal. He did not recollect from which side pocket of the pant of appellant-Virendra Jaiswal, the said cash was recovered. He could not give the name of the associate of appellant-Virendra Jaiswal. Three other persons were there in that house besides appellant-Virendra Jaiswal. Appellant-Virendra Jaiswal and his associate were together in one room and the rest two persons were in the other room. The seizure lists were signed by him near the house of appellant-Virendra Jaiswal. The seized properties were not sealed by the police in his presence. The police had not obtained his signature on the seized articles. No other document was prepared by the police save and except these three papers in which he signed at the spot. He denied a suggestion that he was deposing falsehood being tortured by the police. The seized properties were not sealed by the police in his presence. The police had not obtained his signature on the seized articles. No other document was prepared by the police save and except these three papers in which he signed at the spot. He denied a suggestion that he was deposing falsehood being tortured by the police. Thus P.W.18 had corroborated the version of P.W.17 relating to search, rescue of victim and seizure of revolver and pistol and other things. P.W.19 was the attendant of S.T.D. booth from where the appellants, Rajan Mishra and Roshan Ali were arrested. In his examination-in-chief P.W.19 stated that the booth belonged to one Dharemendra Joshi at Munjer Chowk. The number of telephone installed in that booth was 0712-2563746. While P.W.19 was performing his duty in the S.T.D. booth, on 9.2.2004 at about 7 P.M. two persons came to his booth to telephone. Out of these two persons while one was standing out side the other one telephoning from inside the booth and after finishing his talk over phone while he was leaving the booth, some police staff about five in number came to the booth and caught hold of these two persons. P.W.19 came to know from these two persons that they had come to the Booth to telephone in connection with the abduction of a person. He came to know this when the police interrogated them in his presence. The police collected the telephone bill from the booth. These two persons revealed themselves to be Rajan Mishra and Roshan Ali to the police in his presence. The police verified the telephone number of the STD booth and checked the same with the bill. About two to three months thereafter the Orissa Police (now Odisha Police) visited the telephone booth and seized the concerned telephone bearing number 0712-2563746 from the booth and prepared the seizure list vide Ext.43. On the same day after seizure, the seized telephone was released by the Orissa Police in the zimma as per zimanama marked as Ext.44. He was also examined by the Orissa Police in connection with this case and his statement was recorded. On the same day after seizure, the seized telephone was released by the Orissa Police in the zimma as per zimanama marked as Ext.44. He was also examined by the Orissa Police in connection with this case and his statement was recorded. In the cross-examination on behalf of Rajan Mishra (appellant), Atul Pandey and Shamim Sidique (appellant), P.W.19 stated that he used to perform his duty in that booth right from 8.30 am in the morning till 8.40 p.m. The aforesaid two persons had come to booth twice to telephone and they were caught by the police while they came for the third time. The police took away the telephone bill from the possession of that person who had come to telephone. P.W.19 denied the suggestion that the aforesaid two persons had never come to the booth and they had not telephoned from his booth and that he was deposing falsehood at the instance of the police. In the cross-examination on behalf of Roshal Ali (appellant), Pradeep Srivastava and late-Rajendra Prasad, P.W.19 stated that he could not give the name of the police station of his native place and tell specifically the total number of customers who had come to the booth to telephone on the said date. A great number of persons had gathered near the booth at the time of apprehension of these two persons by the police. P.W.19 could not say if that incident came up in the newspaper or not. He did not recollect whether the local police examined him or not in connection with the case. He had been examined by the Orissa Police about two to three months after apprehension of these two persons. The police did not prepare any seizure list. Though these two person had visited the booth twice prior to their apprehension, but P.W.19 did not know their names and addresses. He was not asked by the police to identify these two persons in any T.I. Parade. He denied the suggestion that no person by name Rajan Mishra was apprehended by the police from the telephone booth on that date. He said name of the other person was Roshan. But he could not tell his surname. He further denied the suggestion that he did not state before the I.O. that two persons had come to his S.T.D. Booth to telephone. He said name of the other person was Roshan. But he could not tell his surname. He further denied the suggestion that he did not state before the I.O. that two persons had come to his S.T.D. Booth to telephone. He denied the suggestion that he was deposing falsehood at the instance of the police and that no such persons were apprehended by the police from the booth. Thus P.W.19 corroborates the version relating to arrest of Roshan Ali and Rajan Mishra and proved seizures. P.W.20 was the Receptionist of Hotel Kamal at Sitawardi. In his examination-in-chief, P.W.20 stated that on 9.2.2004 while he was working as Receptionist in the Hotel Kamal at Sitawardi, at about 7 to 8 P.M., the police of Sitawardi police station came with two guests. These two guests were lodged in his hotel on 8.2.2004 in the morning. These two guests were Ramesh Agarwal and Dinesh Garg. P.W.20 identified these two persons in court as appellants Rajan Mishra and Roshan Ali. However, in the Hotel register they had signed as Ramesh Agarwal and Dinesh Garg. P.W.20 was told by the police that these two persons had abducted a person for ransom and have been apprehended from a S.T.D. booth at Munjer Chowk. The police verified the entry register maintained in the hotel and made his initial on the relevant entries and thereafter left the hotel along with these two persons. Two to four months thereafter some police personnel of Orissa came to the Hotel Kamal and seized the guest entry register in original as per seizure list under Ext.45. After seizure, the seized register was released in the zima of P.W.20 as per zimanama marked as Ext.46. In the cross-examination on behalf of Rajan Mishra (appellant), Atul Pandey and Shamim Sidique (appellants), P.W.20 stated that those two persons who came with the police to the Hotel were not covered with any cloth on their faces. Those two persons in the relevant guest entry register had signed with fake names. The police of Sitawari Police Station had only put their initials on the relevant entry of guest registers. The signatures put by these persons in the register were not clearly visible in the Xerox copy. The police of Sitawari Police Station have only verbally told about the implication of these two persons in the abduction case. P.W.20 had seen those two persons in the Hotel. The signatures put by these persons in the register were not clearly visible in the Xerox copy. The police of Sitawari Police Station have only verbally told about the implication of these two persons in the abduction case. P.W.20 had seen those two persons in the Hotel. P.W.20 denied the suggestion that these two persons whom he identified in the court were never lodged in Hotel Kamal and some other persons might have been lodged. In the cross-examination on behalf of Roshal Ali (appellant), Pradeep Srivastava and late-Rajendra Prasad, P.W.20 stated that he was getting his salary from the Hotel Kamal for rendering his service as Receptionist. He did not have any document with him that he was working as a Receptionist in the said Hotel. However, he denied the suggestion that he had never worked as a Receptionist at any point of time. The guest entry of the Hotel was not seized by the Sitawardi Police and it was seized by the Orissa Police. P.W.20 denied the suggestion that he had made no endorsement on the relevant entries of the register after the same was signed by these two persons, namely, Roshan Ali and Rajan Mishra. Those two persons were not known to P.W.20. He denied the suggestion that he deposed falsehood at the instance of the police and that the seizure list and guest entry register were all prepared and planted for the purpose of this case. He further denied the suggestion that these two persons were never lodged in the Hotel Kamal on 8.2.2004. Thus P.W.20 spoke about how Roshan Ali and Rajan Mishra stayed at the Hotel in Nagpur under assumed names and is a witness to seizure of documents of Hotel. P.W.21 was the Police Constable attached to Sitawardi Police Station. In his examination-in-chief, P.W.21 stated that on 3.6.2004, he was working as a Police Constable having attached to Sitawardi Police Station. On that day he had accompanied the Orissa Police to Munjer Chowk near a Kirana shop, having a S.T.D. P.C.O. booth where the police had seized one telephone set bearing No.2563746 from the telephone booth.There the police prepared the seizure list vide Ext.43. On the said date, P.W.21 had accompanied the Orissa Police near to Kamal Hotel. The Orissa Police seized the guest entry register of that Hotel in his presence as per Ext.45. On the said date, P.W.21 had accompanied the Orissa Police near to Kamal Hotel. The Orissa Police seized the guest entry register of that Hotel in his presence as per Ext.45. Rajan Mishra (appellant), Atul Pandey, Shamim Sidique (appellant), Pradeep Srivastava and late-Rajendra Prasad had declined to cross-examine P.W.21. In the cross-examination on behalf of Santosh Jha, P.W.21 stated that he was verbally directed by the Inspector of Police of Sitawardi Police Station to accompany with the Orissa Police and to assist them in the investigation. He stated about the telephone number seized by the Orissa Police, but he could not give the maker's name and number of the telephone set. He only signed the seizure list with regard to seizure of the telephone set in the telephone booth. He could not tell about the number of the registers seized by the police from Hotel Kamal. The appellant Virendra Jaiswal refused to cross-examine P.W.21. P.W.21 was cross-examined on recall by Rajan Mishra (appellant), Atul Pandey, Shamim Sidique (appellant) wherein P.W.21 stated that he could not tell about the special mark of identification on the seized telephone. There was no endorsement left on the register by the Sitawardi Police. It took about two hours to complete the seizure of the telephone set as well as Guest entry register from Kamal Hote. P.W.21 denied the suggestion that there was no such seizure, either of the telephone set from the S.T.D. booth or the guest entry register from Kamal Hotel. In the cross-examination on behalf of Roshan Ali (appellant), Pradeep Srivastava and late-Rajendra Prasad, P.W.21 stated that after seizure the seized telephone set was released in favour of the S.T.D. booth owner as per zimanama but he had not signed in that zimanama. Thus P.W.21 corroborated the version of P.W.20 and is a witness to seizure of S.T.D. Booth telephone and documents of Kamal Hotel. P.W.22 is the A.S.I. of Police of Sitawardi Police Station. In his examination-in-chief, P.W.22 stated that on 9.2.2004 as per direction of the Inspector of Police of Sitawardi Police Station (P.W.32) he proceeded to Munje Chouk near to a S.T.D. Telephone booth with Telephone number 2563746. This booth was installed in a part of Kirana Shop under the name and style "NEW MDHUR KIRANA STORE". In his examination-in-chief, P.W.22 stated that on 9.2.2004 as per direction of the Inspector of Police of Sitawardi Police Station (P.W.32) he proceeded to Munje Chouk near to a S.T.D. Telephone booth with Telephone number 2563746. This booth was installed in a part of Kirana Shop under the name and style "NEW MDHUR KIRANA STORE". P.W.22 along with his staff proceeded to that place and kept a watchful eye on the booth by standing outside at a little distance. He was specifically directed by the Police Inspector to catch hold of that person, who was making telephone call in the said booth. Immediately he caught hold of the person who was just leaving the booth after talking over telephone in the said booth. Another person was standing outside waiting for the person to whom P.W.22 caught hold. On being asked, the former told him that he was waiting for the other person. The person who was caught by him while coming out of the telephone booth, on being asked revealed his name as Roshan Ali and the person standing outside and waiting for the said person on being asked revealed his name as Rajan Mishra. These two appellants were identified by P.W.22 in the court. P.W.22 collected the telephone bill from the appellant-Roshan Ali. On being asked, the appellant Roshan Ali told P.W.22 that he had telephoned to Rourkela that he had abducted a SETH and in that connection he was talking over telephone for ransom. He further gave out that he had kept that SETH confined in a house at Haratoli of Sitawardi. After getting such information, brought both to Sitawardi Police Station and handed over to the Police Inspector. On the basis of information received from the appellants Roshan Ali and Rajan Mishra, P.W.22 along with the Police Inspector and other staff apprehended accused Pradeep Srivastava as he was implicated by these two appellants. On 15.2.2006, cross-examination of P.W.22 was declined by Rajan Mishra(appellant), Atul Pandey, Shamim Sidique(appellant), Roshan Ali (appellant), late Rajendra Prasad and Santosh Jha. However, P.W.22 was cross-examined on recall by Rajan Mishra (appellant), Shamim Sidique (appellant) and Atul Pandey on 7.8.2006. In the said cross-examination, P.W.22 stated that as per the instruction of the Police Inspector of Sitawardi Police Station (P.W.32) he kept watch over the S.T.D. booth from where the appellants Rajan Mishra and Roshan Ali were apprehended. However, P.W.22 was cross-examined on recall by Rajan Mishra (appellant), Shamim Sidique (appellant) and Atul Pandey on 7.8.2006. In the said cross-examination, P.W.22 stated that as per the instruction of the Police Inspector of Sitawardi Police Station (P.W.32) he kept watch over the S.T.D. booth from where the appellants Rajan Mishra and Roshan Ali were apprehended. Such direction was given in between 7 P.M. to 8 P.M. The distance between the S.T.D. booth and the police station would be less than half kilometre. The appellants Roshan Ali and Rajan Mishra were caught outside the booth, while they were just coming out of the booth after making payment of the telephone bill. The OIC did not give any hints about the feature and appearance of those persons. They did not call any outsider to remain present with them. The appellants Roshan Ali and Rajan Mishra were apprehended on that date at about 7.45 P.M. A telephone bill and some telephone numbers were obtained from them. The appellants were taken near to a Hotel where they were staying. P.W.22 denied the suggestion that the appellants were not apprehended by him from near the S.T.D. booth and that the appellant-Rajan Mishra was apprehended by him in Gandhibag from the house of Dillip Godwale. He denied the suggestion that the appellants have been falsely implicated in this case. In the cross-examination on behalf of Roshan Ali (appellant), Pradeep Srivastava and late-Rajendra Prasad, P.W.22 stated that he did not have any document with him to produce in the court to show that he was deputed by the OIC to guard the S.T.D. booth on the relevant date. Both the appellants were not known to him prior to their apprehension. He was examined by the Sundergarh Police about four months after the date of apprehension of the appellants. He came to know about the names of these two appellants at the police station. P.W.22 further stated that he had not heard the telephonic conversation made by the accused person in the telephone booth. But during interrogation at the police station, the appellants gave out that they had abducted two persons. P.W.22 heard this while the appellants disclosed before the IIC at the police station. However, P.W.33 in the cross-examination stated that though he had examined P.W.22, however P.W.22 did not disclose before him that the culprits abducted P.W.7 and P.W.8 for ransom. But during interrogation at the police station, the appellants gave out that they had abducted two persons. P.W.22 heard this while the appellants disclosed before the IIC at the police station. However, P.W.33 in the cross-examination stated that though he had examined P.W.22, however P.W.22 did not disclose before him that the culprits abducted P.W.7 and P.W.8 for ransom. An analysis of evidence of P.W.22 shows that it was he who apprehended Roshan Ali and Rajan Mishra at 7.45 P.M. from near telephone booth. This to a great extent corroborates the version of P.W.16, who stated that he was receiving call of Roshan Ali from Nagpur around 7.00 P.M. onwards on the same date. Keeping in mind the broad features of the case particularly the version of eye-witnesses P.Ws.2, 7 and 8, the contradiction between version of P.Ws.22 and 33 appears to be minor in nature. P.W.23 was working as Station Officer, Civil Line Police Station. The S.P. Bilaspur on receipt of a telephonic message from the S.P., Sundergarh, directed him to conduct raid of the house of the accused Santosh Jha, who was residing near the Wire House road in the rented house of Jatin Mishra. On 10.2.2004 during evening hours, he proceeded to that place being accompanied by some police staff. On reaching there, P.W.23 saw one Bolero and Mahendra jeep found parked inside the campus boundary of that house. The registration number of that Bolero was MP-21-D-2516 (metallic colour). Santosh Jha was then very much present. P.W.23 verified the documents of that Bolero and Mahendra Jeep. Thereafter the Bolero and Jeep were brought to the police station. In the cross-examination at the instance of Santosh Jha, P.W.23 stated that Orissa Police had not seized document from him in support of the proof of the fact that he was on duty at the police station on the relevant date. The Orissa Police although asked him some questions but did not record his statement. P.W.23 further stated that he seized the Mahendra jeep suspecting it to be a stolen vehicle as it had no valid document. Though P.W.23 had not effected any entry in the station diary book of Civil Line Police Station but there was entry in the book regarding the arrival of the Orissa Police and taking the Bolero Jeep from the Civil Line police station. Though P.W.23 had not effected any entry in the station diary book of Civil Line Police Station but there was entry in the book regarding the arrival of the Orissa Police and taking the Bolero Jeep from the Civil Line police station. P.W.23 further stated that he had entered this fact in the Roja Nancha (General Diary). He could not say whether the Orissa Police had seized the relevant documents relating to the recovery of the Bolero, etc. P.W.23 denied the suggestion that no such Bolero was recovered and brought to the police station from wire house line and that no such vehicle was seized by the police from the Civil Line Police Station. In the cross-examination on behalf of Roshan Ali, Pradeep Srivastava and late-Rajendra Prasad, P.W.23 stated that the Orissa Police was not with him when he conducted raid and made recovery of the Bolero. Accused Santosh Jha was staying in the rented house of Jatin Mishra. P.W.23 had not seized any document in support of the tenancy of the accused Santosh Jha. In the cross-examination on behalf of the accused Rajan Mishra(appellant), Atul Pandey and Shamim Sidique(appellants), P.W.23 stated that he had not mentioned in the General Diary that the S.P., Bilaspur got telephonic message from the S.P., Sundergarh in connection with the case in which he was directed to conduct raid. He had not obtained any search warrant before he proceeded there. Two outside witnesses were present with him along with other police staff. He denied the suggestion that he deposed falsehood. P.W.24 was working as a water pipe fitter. In his examination-in-chief, P.W.24 stated that he knew P.W.23, who was working as Station Officer of Civil Line Police Station. About two years back, he had gone to the Civil Line Police Station for getting his payment for fitting pipes in the Police Station. During his stay there, P.W.23 came to the Police Station with one Bolero vehicle. In the cross-examination on behalf of Santosh Jha (since acquitted), P.W.24 stated that Thakur Babu (P.W.23) told him that he had seized that Bolero from a place under Civil Line Police Station but he had not told him in connection with which case and from where he brought that vehicle to the police station. P.W.24 was not cross-examined by the rest of the culprits. P.W.25 is a witness to the arrest of Rajan Mishra and Roshan Ali. P.W.24 was not cross-examined by the rest of the culprits. P.W.25 is a witness to the arrest of Rajan Mishra and Roshan Ali. In his examination-in-chief, P.W.25 stated that about two years back, the police of Sitawardi Police Station apprehended two persons from near a S.T.D. Booth of Munje Chowk of MADHUR KIRANA SHOP. At the time of apprehension near the booth, they had given out their name as Ramesh Agarawal and Dinesh Garg. They had come to the booth to telephone and while leaving the booth, they were apprehended. The police seized the telephone bill along with some papers from that booth. The above noted two persons later disclosed their names as Rajan Mishra and Roshan Ali. The police had seized some documents and register of Kamal Hotel. In the register of Hotel Kamal, the appellants were named as Ramesh Agarwal and Dinesh Garg. They also gave out the names of some persons. Pradeep Srivastava was one of them as P.W.25 recollected. P.W.25 further stated that he was examined by the police and his statement was recorded. He came to know that one SETH of Sundergarh was abducted by the two miscreants. In the cross-examination on behalf of Roshan Ali (appellant), Pradip Srivastava and Rajendra Prasad, P.W.25 stated that when both the appellants Rajan Mishra and Roshan Ali gave informations to the police, he heard them. P.W.25 further stated that he knew P.W.22. He further stated that he had signed three documents, one at Munje Chowk, second one was at Kamal Hotel and the third one at the Police Station. The Orissa Police after four months interrogated him but they had not recorded his statement. He narrated about the incident which he had seen in the court for the first time. P.W.25 denied the suggestion that he had no knowledge regarding the apprehension of these persons by the Sitawardi Police Station. In the further cross-examination on behalf of Rajan Mishra (appellant) and Shamim Sidique(appellant), P.W.25 stated that it was 8 P.M. when the police apprehended these two persons. He was standing just in front of the S.T.D. booth by the side of the road. P.W.22 was in civil dress. P.W.25 denied the suggestion that he was not present there and he had not seen such apprehension of the accused persons by the police and that he deposed falsehood at the instance of P.W.22. He was standing just in front of the S.T.D. booth by the side of the road. P.W.22 was in civil dress. P.W.25 denied the suggestion that he was not present there and he had not seen such apprehension of the accused persons by the police and that he deposed falsehood at the instance of P.W.22. Further he denied the suggestion that accused Rajan Mishra was apprehended from Gandhi Bag from the residence of Dillp Godbole. A perusal of the evidence of P.W.25 shows that he is the witness to the arrest of Rajan Mishra and Roshan Ali and he corroborates the version of P.W.22 to a large extent. P.W.26 was the S.I. of Police attached to Sadar Police Station, Sundergarh. In his examination-in-chief, he stated that on 15.2.2004 he received a requisition from the IIC, Sadar Police Station, Sundergarh to proceed to Ambikapur to submit remand report in respect of the accused persons, namely, Virendra Jaiswal and Abdul Kayum, who were remanded to judicial custody by the J.M.F.C., Ambikapur in Shankargarh Police Station Case No.4/2004. He further visited the spot at Hartoli where the victim (P.Ws.7 and 8) were confined. On 17.2.2004, he proceeded to Shankargarh Police Station and examined P.W.17 and recorded his statement. Later he proceeded to the spot along with P.W.17 and prepared spot map, which was marked as Ext.48. The spot is the farm house of the appellant Virendra Jaiswal. P.W.26 took photographs of the farm house and spot. There were altogether nine numbers of photographs which were marked as Exts.49 to 49/8 series. Thereafter, he returned to the headquarters. On 28.5.2004, on the basis of request made by the IIC, Sadar Police Station, again P.W.26 proceeded to Bara Police Station in Allahabad with A.P.R. force to arrest the accused Atul Pandey. On 30.5.2004, he made a requisition to the Station Officer of Bara Police Station for apprehension of Atul Pandey, who was involved in Bara P.S. Case No.172 of 1997 under Section 307, IPC. Ultimately, P.W.26 arrested Atul Pandey on 31.5.2004. Thereafter, Atul Pandey was brought to Sundergarh along with the escort party and he produced Atul Pandey along with all documents before the IIC, Sadar Police Station, Sundergarh. On 8.6.2004, the IIC seized one sealed envelop containing two audio cassettes on production by the A.S.I. Balabhadra Pradhan and prepared seizure list vide Ext.32. Ultimately, P.W.26 arrested Atul Pandey on 31.5.2004. Thereafter, Atul Pandey was brought to Sundergarh along with the escort party and he produced Atul Pandey along with all documents before the IIC, Sadar Police Station, Sundergarh. On 8.6.2004, the IIC seized one sealed envelop containing two audio cassettes on production by the A.S.I. Balabhadra Pradhan and prepared seizure list vide Ext.32. In the cross-examination by Roshan Ali (appellant), Pradeep Srivastava and late-Rajendra Prasad, P.W.26 stated that the articles seized under Ext.32 were in sealed condition and he was very much present when the envelopes containing the audio cassettes were sealed. After recording of the voice in presence of the learned S.D.J.M., the A.S.I. collected it. P.W.26 further stated that at the time of voice recording of the appellant Roshan Ali and Rajan Mishra in presence of the learned S.D.J.M., Sundergarh, he was not present there. He came to know from P.W.33 and Sri Pradhan that the voice of these two appellants were recorded in presence of the learned S.D.J.M. He did not have any direct personal knowledge regarding such recording. He further stated that he received written requests from the IIC, Sadar Police Station in both the occasions to go to Shankargarh, Ambikapur for investigation. But these written requests were not readily available in the record. The said facts were entered in the Station Diary. He made a written prayer before the learned J.M.F.C., Ambikapur to take both the appellants on remand, but the office copy of the report since submitted to the IIC was not with him at present in order to produce the same in Court. P.W.26 further stated that he had not recorded the statement of any of the villagers at the time of his spot visit since no such villagers were available. He was accompanied to the spot by some of the police staff of Shankargarh Police Station, namely, P.W.17 and some others. Further P.W.26 stated that P.W.17 identified the spot to him stating that the same belonged to appellant Virendra Jaiswal. He denied the suggestion that he had never visited Ambikapur or Shankargarh and that no such photographs were taken by him in respect of the farm house and that being a subordinate officer working under P.W.33, he deposed falsehood at the instance of P.W.33. He denied the suggestion that he had never visited Ambikapur or Shankargarh and that no such photographs were taken by him in respect of the farm house and that being a subordinate officer working under P.W.33, he deposed falsehood at the instance of P.W.33. In the cross-examination on behalf of Virendra Jaiswal (appellant), P.W.26 stated that he examined P.W.17 and it is a fact that P.W.17 had not specifically stated before him that one constable knocked the door of the farm house and that accused Virendra Jaiswal opened the door and three other persons were there inside that farm house. But he had stated before him that two persons were inside the farm house and were guarded by two miscreants. In the cross-examination on behalf of Atul Pandey, Rajan Mishra (appellant) and Shamim Sidique (appellant), P.W.26 stated that to some extent he could understand Hindi. He could not answer to a question asked him in Hindi language but he could answer in English. He further stated that he had not enquired about the lodging of any F.I.R. by the police officer of Shankargarh Police Station relating to this case. He was not the full-fledged I.O. of this case. Besides P.W.17, he had not examined any other witness in connection with the case. Scope of his investigation was limited as it was as per direction of the I.O. in his requisition. He reiterated that he was not present when the voice of Rajan Mishra and Roshan Ali was recorded. He arrested Atul Pandey at 1.30 P.M. in the night on 31.5.2004. He denied the suggestion that local police had arrested Atul Pandey on 28.5.2004 and that he did not arrest Atul Pandey in that night and he has been falsely implicated in this case by his enemy Rajesh Garg. P.W.27 was working as A.S.I. of Police attached to Sadar Police Station, Sundergarh. In his examination-in-chief he stated that he knew P.W.26 and on the basis of requisition issued by the IIC, Sadar Police Station, he along with P.W.26 and APR force proceeded to arrest Atul Pandey. P.W.26 issued request to the Station Officer to assist them for arresting Atul Pandey. On that date, P.W.27 along with others in the company of the police staff of Bara Police Station proceeded to Bhundi and conducted raid on the house of the accused Atul Pandey and apprehended Atul Pandey from his house. P.W.26 issued request to the Station Officer to assist them for arresting Atul Pandey. On that date, P.W.27 along with others in the company of the police staff of Bara Police Station proceeded to Bhundi and conducted raid on the house of the accused Atul Pandey and apprehended Atul Pandey from his house. P.W.26 prepared the arrest memo in presence of the village headman-Dharampal Singh. The mother of Atul Pandey was very much present in the house at the time of apprehension and his mother was informed about the arrest of her son. In the cross-examination on behalf of Roshan Ali (appellant), Pradeep Srivastava and late-Rajendra Prasad, P.W.27 stated that he did not know the accused Atul Pandey prior to his arrest. Some villagers identified the house of Atul Pandey. Atul Pandey was not produced before any Magistrate of that area. The signature of mother of Atul Pandey was also obtained in the arrest memo. He denied the suggestion that he had not given any statement before the I.O. and he deposed falsehood. Thus P.W.27 corroborated version of P.W.26. P.W.28 was the Medical Officer, who examined P.Ws.7 & 8, appellant-Virendra Jaiswal and submitted his report. In his examination-in-chief, P.W.28 stated that while he was working as Medical Officer, on 10.2.2004, he examined P.W.7 on the requisition of Shankargarh Police. The injured complained of pain of his survical region, back portion and lower part of the back. He prepared the examination report which was marked as Ext.50.On the same date on police requisition, P.W.28 examined P.W.8 being identified by T. Yadav, Constable of Shankargarh Police Station, who complained of pain and tenderness on the left side of back lower part. He also complained pain over left side of the head and back portion of the head. P.W.28 prepared the examination report of P.W.8 which was marked as Ext.51. P.W.28 further stated that on 11.2.2004 on the police requisition, he examined Virendra Jaiswal, who was duly identified by T.S. Yadav and found simple injuries which could be caused by hard and blunt weapon. On the same date, P.W.28 examined Abdul Kayum (since absconding) and according to Mr. Patnaik, learned Additional Government Advocate Abdul Qayum has not faced trial. P.W.28 further stated that on 11.2.2004 on the police requisition, he examined Virendra Jaiswal, who was duly identified by T.S. Yadav and found simple injuries which could be caused by hard and blunt weapon. On the same date, P.W.28 examined Abdul Kayum (since absconding) and according to Mr. Patnaik, learned Additional Government Advocate Abdul Qayum has not faced trial. In the cross-examination on behalf of Roshan Ali (appellant), Pradeep Srivastava and late-Rajendra Prasad, P.W.28 stated that he was a Government Servant and due to non-availability of the forms the reports were prepared in plain papers, but on the basis of the requisition sent by the Police, he examined and issued injury report on the reverse side of the requisition. He had not found any external injury on the bodies of P.Ws.7 & 8. Further P.W. 28 stated that P.Ws.7 & 8 did not explain the circumstances in which they suffered pain and tenderness in their persons. P.W.28 denied the suggestion that he had never examined those persons on police requisitions and that they were not produced before him and that the medical examination reports for those persons exhibited in this case by him were fake documents. Above cross-examination was accepted by Atul Pandey, Rajan Mishra and Shamim Sidique. In the cross-examination conducted on behalf of Virendra Jaiswal (appellant), P.W.28 stated that he had not mentioned the O.P.D. Register number in the medical examination reports since they were produced in his residential office and not in the Hospital. P.W.28 also made it clear that the injuries found on the person of the appellant-Virendra Jaiswal under Ext.41 could also be possible by various reasons like fall, etc. and by hard and blunt object like lathi. Santosh Jha (since acquitted) declined to cross-examine P.W.28. P.W.29 was the S.D.J.M., Sundergarh, who conducted the T.I. Parades inside the Sundergarh Jail in respect of Rajan Mishra (appellant), Roshan Ali (appellant), Shamim Sidique(appellant) and Atul Pandey. She recorded the voice of the appellants Roshan Ali and Rajan Mishra. In her examination-in-chief, she stated that while she was working as S.D.J.M., Sundergarh, she conducted the T.I. Parades in respect of the appellants Roshan Ali and Rajan Mishra inside the District Jail, Sundergarh on 17.2.2004, i.e., within 7 days of their arrest. She recorded the voice of the appellants Roshan Ali and Rajan Mishra. In her examination-in-chief, she stated that while she was working as S.D.J.M., Sundergarh, she conducted the T.I. Parades in respect of the appellants Roshan Ali and Rajan Mishra inside the District Jail, Sundergarh on 17.2.2004, i.e., within 7 days of their arrest. In the first T.I. Parade (held at 10.45 A.M.) where identification of the appellant Rajan Mishra was taken up, Rajan Mishra alone was mixed with ten U.T.Ps and all were made to stand in a row. All those U.T.Ps. were of similar height, similar appearance, similar complexion and similar health with similar dress. The witnesses were called to that place one after another. All these witnesses were kept outside and the identification by each witness was done in absence of other identifying witness. The place of identification was not visible to the identifying witnesses. At first P.W.2 was called to identify the suspect. P.W.2 correctly identified the suspect Rajan Mishra. Thereafter the witness P.W.8 was called, who correctly identified the suspect Rajan Mishra and thereafter the witness P.W.7 on being called identified the said suspect. This T.I. Parade was conducted in presence of the Jailor and Bhadramani Naik, Superintendent of the District Jail. While identifying, P.W.2 explained before P.W.29 that he has seen the suspect at a close proximity at the spot while the suspects and others holding revolvers were dragging the victims into the Bolero jeep. The other two identifying witnesses, P.Ws.7 and 8 stated that they identified the suspect as they were abducted by him and others and were confined at Haratoli. The T.I. Parade was conducted observing all legal and procedural formalities. The T.I. Parade report was prepared after the T.I. Parade was over. This T.I. parade report was marked as Ext. 11/3 and the signature of P.W.29 was marked as Ext.11/4. The identifying witnesses P.Ws.2, 7 and 8 also signed in the report in presence of the Jail staff as stated earlier and the suspect and their signatures were marked as Exhibits 11, 11/1 & 11/2 respectively. The appellant Rajan Mishra also signed in the T.I. Parade report, which was marked as Ext.11/5. The signatures of Prasana Kumar Naik, Jailor and Bhadramani Sai, Superintendent of Jail were marked as Exts.11/6 and 11/7 respectively. The appellant Rajan Mishra also signed in the T.I. Parade report, which was marked as Ext.11/5. The signatures of Prasana Kumar Naik, Jailor and Bhadramani Sai, Superintendent of Jail were marked as Exts.11/6 and 11/7 respectively. On the same day, P.W.29 conducted the T.I. Parade in respect of the appellant Roshan Ali inside the District Jail premises after the T.I. parade of Rajan Mishra was over. The suspect Roshan Ali was mixed with ten numbers of the U.T.Ps. of the Jail having almost similar height, health, appearance, complexion and made to stand in a row before the identifying witnesses, namely P.Ws.2, 7 and 8, who were called to identify the said suspect. The appellant Roshan Ali was first identified by P.W.2, thereafter by P.W.8 and lastly by P.W.7 correctly. P.Ws.2, 7 and 8 while identifying the appellant Roshan Ali explained and gave similar statements which they had made while identifying the appellant Rajan Mishra. The Jail staff as named above, were present at the place and time of this T.I. Parade. This second separate T.I. parade report was prepared then and there, which was marked as Ext.9/3 and the signature of P.W.29 was marked as Ext.9/4. P.Ws.2, 7 and 8 also signed this report one after another in the presence of P.W.29 and in the presence of the Jail staff and the suspect which were marked as Exts.9, 9/1, and 9/2 respectively. The appellant Roshan Ali had also signed the T.I. Parade report which was marked as Ext.9/5 and the signatures of Prasana Kumar Naik, Jailor and Bhadramani Sai, Superintendent of Jail were marked as Exts.9/6 and 9/7 respectively. On 21.2.2004, P.W.29 conducted the T.I. Parade of the appellant Shamim Sidique, who was arrested on 13.2.2004, in which P.Ws.2, 7 & 8 were to identify the appellant Shamim Sidique. The said T.I. Parade was conducted inside the District Jail in presence of Jail staff with the observance of all legal and procedural formalities. The appellant Shamim Sidique was mixed up with 10 number of U.T.Ps. having almost similar height, appearance, complexion, dress and were all made to stand in a row. The identification by each witness was done in absence of the other witness. P.Ws.2, 7 & 8 while identifying the appellant Shamim Sidique one after the other offered the explanation, which they had offered at the time of identifying the appellants, Roshan Ali and Rajan Mishra. The identification by each witness was done in absence of the other witness. P.Ws.2, 7 & 8 while identifying the appellant Shamim Sidique one after the other offered the explanation, which they had offered at the time of identifying the appellants, Roshan Ali and Rajan Mishra. After the T.I. Parade in respect of the appellant Shamim Sidique was over, T.I. Parade report was prepared by P.W.29 in presence of the Jail staff, the appellant Shamim Sidique and the identifying witnesses, which was marked as Ext.10/3 and the signature of P.W.29 was marked as Ext.10/4, the signatures of P.Ws.2,7 & 8 in the report were marked as Exts.10,10/1 and 10/2 respectively and the signature of the appellant Shamim Sidique was marked as Ext.10/5. The signatures of Prasanna Kumar Naik, Jailor and Bhadramani Sai in the said T.I. Parade report were marked as Exts.10/6 and 10/7 respectively. While the first T.I. Parade was conducted at 10.45 A.M., the second T.I. Parade was conducted in between 11.30 A.M. and 12.30 P.M. On 5.6.2004, P.W.29 conducted the T.I. Parade in respect of the convict Atul Pandey (since absconding), who was identified by P.W.8. After the T.I. Parade was over, the T.I. Parade report was prepared by P.W.29 which was marked as Ext.18/1 and on the said report the convict Atul Pandey, the identifying witness P.W. 8 and Jail staff duly signed. In a similar process on 9.6.2004, Atul Pandey was identified by P.W.7. After the T.I. Parade was over, P.W.29 prepared the T.I. Parade report which was marked as Ext.16/1 and her signature was marked as Ext.16/2 and the convict Atul Pandey, P.W.8 and above mentioned jail staff duly signed on it. P.W.29 in his examination-in-chief further stated that when the appellant Roshan Ali was produced before her along with others, they had covered their faces with black clothes. Similarly, the appellants Shamim Sidique and Atul Pandey were produced before her in the court and their faces were also covered with clothes. On 8.6.2004 on the prayer of P.W.33, the voice test of the appellants Roshan Ali and Rajan Mishra was conducted by recording in audio cassettes in the Chambers of P.W.29, separately and these separate cassettes after recording were handed over to P.W.33. On 8.6.2004 on the prayer of P.W.33, the voice test of the appellants Roshan Ali and Rajan Mishra was conducted by recording in audio cassettes in the Chambers of P.W.29, separately and these separate cassettes after recording were handed over to P.W.33. In the cross-examination on behalf of Roshan Ali (appellant), Pradeep Srivastava and late-Rajendra Prasad, P.W.29 stated that the voice of the aforesaid appellants Roshan Ali and Rajan Mishra were recorded on the prayer of the I.O. (P.W.33) during course of investigation. The empty blank audio cassettes were supplied by the I.O. for recording. P.W.29 stated that she had no technical knowledge regarding tape recording of any voice. The I.O. appeared before P.W.29 with a tape recorder and he switched on the tape recorder and left her Chamber. Thereafter, these two appellants noted down a paragraph in their language which they recited before the tape recorder. P.W.29 had not prepared any report separately regarding that, but only she mentioned in the order sheet that the voice of these appellants were recorded in two audio cassettes separately. She also stated that she had not obtained the consent of these two appellants in writing. These appellants though did not object to recording of their voice, but they filed a petition stating that in the absence of their Advocate, such recording should be deferred to another date. But that petition was rejected. These two audio cassettes after recording were duly sealed. P.W.29 did not recollect whether she had signed on the paper seal. But both the cassettes bore the court seal. She had not obtained any memo in writing from these six accused persons that they had voluntarily agreed to record their voice, but they had signed in the order sheet in support of the recording. She denied the suggestion that she had not strictly followed the rules while recording the voice of the appellants. Vide order dated 12.2.2004 passed by P.W.29, she indicated that Roshan Ali (appellant), Rajan Mishra (appellant), Pradeep Srivastava and late-Rajendra Prasad were produced before her and their faces were covered with clothes. That portion of the order had not been written by her but it was written as per her dictation although the concluding para of the said order was written in her own hand. That portion of the order had not been written by her but it was written as per her dictation although the concluding para of the said order was written in her own hand. She also stated that the said order dated 12.2.2004 would indicate that the I.O. (P.W.33) had prayed for recording the confessional statements of the appellants but the appellants declined to confess. The notices to the identifying witnesses were issued by the Court. P.W.29 further stated that it was a fact that none of the identifying witnesses had stated before her that the abduction was for ransom. It was a fact that the suspect Roshan Ali had complained before her that prior to his identification in the T.I. Parade his photographs were taken by the Journalist and were shown to the identifying witnesses. It was a fact that none of the identifying witnesses had stated about the physical descriptions of the suspects nor they had stated about the identity, complexion, appearance, etc. In the cross-examination at the instance of Rajan Mishra (appellant), Shamim Sidique (appellant) and Atul Pandey, P.W.29 stated that she selected those U.T.Ps. to be mixed with the suspect Rajan Mishra before the identifying witnesses were called one after another. She had verified the name and address of Rajan Mishra from the case record, but she had not mentioned the address of Rajan Mishra in the T.I. Parade report. She had also not mentioned the names and addresses of those U.T.Ps., who were mixed with suspect Rajan Mishra. She had not specifically stated in her report regarding dress put on by the suspect and U.T.Ps. so also about their complexion, height, etc. She further stated that it was a fact that Rajan Mishra has complained before her that his photographs were taken by some Journalist and the same were shown to the identifying witnesses before the T.I. Parade. P.W.29 further stated that no paper chits were affixed on the faces of the U.T.Ps. or the suspects mixed with the U.T.Ps. The appellant-Shamim Siddique had also complained before her that his photographs were taken at the Police Station and the police called the identifying witnesses and shown him to them and P.W.8 offered him money to admit his guilt to which he refused. P.W.29 denied the suggestion that no proper procedure had been followed at the time of conducting T.I. Parade. The appellant-Shamim Siddique had also complained before her that his photographs were taken at the Police Station and the police called the identifying witnesses and shown him to them and P.W.8 offered him money to admit his guilt to which he refused. P.W.29 denied the suggestion that no proper procedure had been followed at the time of conducting T.I. Parade. On 7.6.2004, the I.O. (P.W.33) made a request to record the voice of the appellants Roshan Ali and Rajan Mishra. The I.O. had prayed that these two appellants had contacted the son (P.W.1) of the victim (P.W.8) over phone and the particulars of the conversation since had been recorded. So it was necessary to record their voice for comparison. One or two cassettes contained the recording voice of these two appellants were produced before P.W.29. She could not recollect as to whether these cassettes produced before her were sealed or not and if the voice of the appellants were forcibly recorded by the police, which were produced before her. Two blank cassettes in sealed condition were produced before her by the I.O. and the seals thereof were broken, it was set on the tape recorder and played. P.W.29 found that it was fully blank. She did not caution the appellants that voice recording might go against them. Cross examination on behalf of Virendra Jaiswal and Santosh Jha was declined. An analysis of the evidence of P.W.29 makes one thing clear that proper procedure was followed during the T.I. Parades and Roshan Ali, Rajan Mishra and Shamim Siddique were duly identified by the identifying witnesses, namely, P.Ws.2, 7 & 8 within very short span after their apprehension by the police. With regard to the statement of the above appellants that their photographs were earlier taken or they were shown to the identifying witnesses, details of the same has not been given by them. Therefore, the core prosecution story with regard to T.I. Parade remains unshaken. It is important to note here that neither Roshan Ali nor Rajan Mishra nor Shamim Sidique has led defence evidence to prove their case that prior to T.I. Parade, their photographs were taken and shown to the identifying witnesses or that their photographs were published in the newspaper prior to holding of dates of T.I. Parade. It is important to note here that neither Roshan Ali nor Rajan Mishra nor Shamim Sidique has led defence evidence to prove their case that prior to T.I. Parade, their photographs were taken and shown to the identifying witnesses or that their photographs were published in the newspaper prior to holding of dates of T.I. Parade. Further, it is the positive evidence of P.Ws.2, 7 and 8 that prior to holding of T.I.Parades, photographs of none of the appellants were shown to them. In such background it can be safely said that the T.I. Parades were held in accordance with law and accordingly, Rajan Mishra, Roshan Ali and Shamim Sidique have been properly identified. P.W.30 was the Divisional Engineer, BSNL, who submitted the phone chart. In his examination-in-chief, P.W.30 stated that on 10.11.2004 one Kulamani Padihari was the Divisional Engineer to whom he succeeded. The report was submitted by Kulamani Padihari. It was written by Kulamani Padihari with whose handwriting and signature, P.W.30 was acquainted. This letter was marked as Ext.52. This letter/report contained a vivid chart of telephone calls consisting of 20 pages accompanying with the said letter. At page-19 of the chart 'incoming call' has been made from phone No.0712-2563746 (phone number of booth at Nagpur) to 9861027400 (phone number of P.W.16) on 9.2.2004 at 7.52 P.M. The duration of talk under the aforesaid call was 8 minutes thirty seven seconds. At the same page from the said telephone incoming call was made and the talk time under the aforesaid call was at 8.01 P.M. This successive call was made on the same date within a gap of one second. The duration of talk made in the subsequent call was 4 minutes and 31 seconds. Both the aforesaid calls related to one code number. These calls were made from Nagpur. These relevant entries are marked as Exts.52/2 and 52/3 respectively. In the cross-examination on behalf of Roshan Ali (appellant), Pradeep Srivastava and late-Rajendra Prasad, P.W.30 stated that the said Kulamani Padihari was alive and was serving in his department. Kulamani Padihari has not been examined. P.W.30 did not have any personal knowledge regarding correspondence if any made between the S.P. Sundergarh and Kulamani Padihari regarding the investigation of the case. Ext.52 was the xerox copy of the original letter. The telephone call chart annexed to the letter has not been certified by any authority. Kulamani Padihari has not been examined. P.W.30 did not have any personal knowledge regarding correspondence if any made between the S.P. Sundergarh and Kulamani Padihari regarding the investigation of the case. Ext.52 was the xerox copy of the original letter. The telephone call chart annexed to the letter has not been certified by any authority. P.W.30 was never examined by the I.O. in this case. He had not carried this letter along with the telephone call chart to the court but the same was available on record. He denied the suggestion that the letter and telephone calls chart were fake documents. In the cross-examination on behalf of Rajan Mishra (appellant), Shamim Sidique (appellant) and Atul Pandey, P.W.30 stated that the documents about which he stated in his evidence were the computerised documents prepared through electronic process. He had not obtained any certificate from his authority in support of the fact that the documents about which he stated were genuine and correct. He denied the suggestion that the documents relied and put in this case were false and fake. Rest of the accused person declined to cross-examine P.W.30. P.W.31 was S.I. of Police of Crime Cell under Sitawardi Police Station. In his examination-in-chief, P.W.31 stated that on 9.2.2004 in the evening hour, the Police Inspector of Sitawardi Police Station told him to remain alert to watch the telephone call in connection with abduction for ransom case that occurred in Orissa (now Odisha). Accordingly, he alerted police staff. At 7.40 P.M., the Police Inspector directed him to proceed to the telephone booth with telephone no. 2563746 and stated him to watch the telephone calls, which were being passed from the S.T.D. Booth to the Mobile No.9861027400. Accordingly, P.W.31 along with P.W.22 and two constables proceeded to New Madhu Kirana Store where the S.T.D. Booth was functioning at a portion of the grocery shop, which was situated at Munje Chowk. They all reached near the S.T.D. Booth at about 7.50 P.M. and kept watch on the booth. One person just after making payment of the telephone call was coming out of the booth where as the other miscreant was standing outside. P.W.31 immediately caught hold of that miscreant who came out of the booth and took him to his custody and the other staff caught hold of the another accused standing infront of that booth. One person just after making payment of the telephone call was coming out of the booth where as the other miscreant was standing outside. P.W.31 immediately caught hold of that miscreant who came out of the booth and took him to his custody and the other staff caught hold of the another accused standing infront of that booth. P.W.31 collected the telephone bill from the appellant Roshan Ali and on verification of the bill, the phone number of the S.T.D. booth along with mobile number provided to him were seen from that bill. Besides some papers were also found on search of the person of the appellant Roshan Ali containing some telephone numbers in those papers. That telephone bill along with three pieces of papers containing some telephone numbers and names were available in the case record, which were pasted in a paper. P.W.31 duly identified these papers. On being asked, both the appellants Roshan Ali and Rajan Mishra told that they along with accused Pandit, Virendra Jaiswal (appellant), Shamim (appellant), Pradeep Srivastava and others abducted a SETH from Orissa along with his driver and they kept them confined in the house of Virendra Jaiswal in Shankargarh, which was a farm house. On receipt of such information, P.W.31 immediately informed the Inspector and D.C.P. over telephone. From near that S.T.D. Booth P.W.31 brought these two appellants near to the Kamal Hotel, where they were staying as per their saying for verification. P.W.31 verified the relevant register of the Hotel Kamal and some documents. Thereafter, he produced both the appellants before the Police Inspector (P.W.32) along with the telephone bill and the chits recovered from the appellants from near the S.T.D. Booth. Thereafter, P.W.31 along with others proceeded near to the house of accused Pradip Srivastava situated at Rajnagar and apprehended the said accused from his house. Subsequently, these three accused persons were handed over to the Sundergarh Police. The Police Inspector Mr. Punikar (P.W.32) had effected necessary diary entry in the station diary book of Sitawardi Police Station in support of his deputing P.W.31 and others to near the S.T.D. booth and other assignment entrusted to them. The extract was marked as Ext.56. Subsequently, these three accused persons were handed over to the Sundergarh Police. The Police Inspector Mr. Punikar (P.W.32) had effected necessary diary entry in the station diary book of Sitawardi Police Station in support of his deputing P.W.31 and others to near the S.T.D. booth and other assignment entrusted to them. The extract was marked as Ext.56. In the cross-examination on behalf of Roshan Ali (appellant), Pradeep Srivastava and late Rajendra Prasad, P.W.31 stated that he identified the three accused persons in court to whom he had seen for the first time on the date of their apprehension. He had no occasion to see them in between this period. He further stated that whatever information he had received it was from the appellant Roshan Ali and Rajan Mishra and not from the accused Pradeep Srivastava. On the basis of the information received from the appellants, Roshan Ali and Rajan Mishra, he apprehended Pradeep Srivastava. P.W.31 further stated that he had not made any inquiry to cross-check the statement made by Roshan Ali and Rajan Mishra. He made it clear that he had not recorded the statement of the appellants Roshan Ali and Rajan Mishra but only produced them before the Police Inspector (P.W.32). P.W.31 further stated that from the telephone bill recovered from the possession of the appellant Roshan Ali, he became sure that Roshan Ali was making telephone call to Rourkela. He had taken personal search of the appellants Roshan Ali and Rajan Mishra. P.W.22 was very much present with him at that place. P.W.31 denied the suggestion that he had not stated before the I.O. i.e. P.W.33 that Roshan Ali was in possession of some paper chits containing some phone numbers from which it could be ascertained that the S.T.D. booth phone number tallied with the mobile number. P.W.31 denied the suggestion that he had never apprehended the appellants Rajan Mishra and Roshan Ali and accused Pradeep Srivastava and he did not recover any papers from their possession. In the cross-examination on behalf of Rajan Mishra (appellant), Atul Pandey and Shamim Sidique (appellant), P.W.31 stated that he was not called to identify the accused persons in any T.I. Parade and those accused persons were interrogated by the police inspector for a long time in the police station. He simply handed over the accused persons to the police inspector but no report in writing was submitted before him. He simply handed over the accused persons to the police inspector but no report in writing was submitted before him. He denied the suggestion that he had not prepared those documents at the instance of his superior officers and deposing falsehood at their instance. Further he denied the suggestion that the appellant Rajan Mishra was apprehended from Gandhi Bag from the house of one Dillp Godbole. Rest of the accused declined to cross-examine P.W.31. An analysis of the evidence of P.W.31 shows that it corroborates the evidence of P.W.22 and P.W.16 as the appellants-Roshan Ali and Rajan Mishra were apprehended at about the same time, just after when P.W.16 was talking with Roshan Ali. P.W.31 collected Telephone Bill (Ext.58), which contained booth telephone number and mobile number of P.W.16. With regard to contradiction between statement of P.W.31 and P.W.33 on P.W.31 not stating before P.W.33 that the papers seized from Roshan Ali contained phone numbers from which it could be ascertained that S.T.D. booth number tallied with mobile phone number, it can only be stated that this is not a serious contradiction as P.W.32 has proved Ext.58 seized from Roshan Ali, which is a telephone receipt containing both the above numbers. Though with regard to collection of telephone bill, there is a contradiction between the version of P.W.31 and P.W.32, however, such contradiction cannot be treated as major contradiction affecting core prosecution story as has been stated by eye-witnesses-P.W.2, P.W.7, P.W.8 and P.W.17 relating to abduction for ransom, illegal confinement of P.Ws.7 and 8 by the appellants with common intention. P.W.32 was the Officer-in-Charge of Sitawardi Police Station. In his examination-in-chief, he stated that on 9.2.2004, he received a telephonic direction at about 6.30 P.M. from the Deputy Commissioner of Police, Zone-I, Nagpur that some persons were telephoning from Nagpur to Rourkela for ransom and the number of the Telephone was 9861027400 (belonging to P.W.16). He was also directed to keep watch and to arrest the culprits. Again at about 7.40 P.M., he received information from the Deputy Commissioner of Police that the culprits were contacting Rourkela for ransom from a Telephone booth of Munje Chowk. Accordingly, P.W.32 directed P.W.22 and P.W.31 to surround the concerned telephone booth. Accordingly, P.W.22 detained a person outside the S.T.D. booth and another person was inside the booth. The said person was coming out of the Kiran Shop. He was also detained. Accordingly, P.W.32 directed P.W.22 and P.W.31 to surround the concerned telephone booth. Accordingly, P.W.22 detained a person outside the S.T.D. booth and another person was inside the booth. The said person was coming out of the Kiran Shop. He was also detained. P.W.32 asked those persons regarding the place and person to which they were contacting over phone. The two persons disclosed that they were telephoning to Rourkela for ransom of Rs. 3 crores since a very rich person (SETH) had been abducted. When P.W.32 asked their names, they disclosed their names as Roshan Ali (appellant) and Rajan Mishra (appellant). Roshan Ali further disclosed that they along with Virendra Jaiswal (appellant), Atul Pandey, Shamim Sidique (appellant), Pahilwan, late-Rajendra Prasad, Pradeep Srivastava and another two persons, the names of whom he could not recollect, had abducted one Seth, namely, P.W.8 along with his driver P.W.7. Roshan Ali further disclosed that after abducting P.W.7 and P.W.8 they had confined them in the farm house of Virendra Jaiswal (appellant) at Hartoli under Shankargarh Police Station. P.W.32 further stated that Roshan Ali had a telephone bill in his hand and P.W.32 took the same from him. Roshan Ali also disclosed that he was staying in Room No.108 of Kamal Hotel of Sitawardi. Thereafter, P.W.32 along with other staff proceeded to Kamal Hotel along with Roshan Ali and Rajan Mishra and verified the register of the said hotel regarding the occupants of Room No.108. On verification P.W.32 came to know that the names were falsely written as Ramesh Agarwal and Dinesh Garg. He went inside Room No.108 along with other police staff and took search of the room. He could not find any incriminating articles on search of the room. But on personal search of Roshan Ali, he recovered P.C.O. bill and some papers having some telephone numbers along with addresses which were marked Exts.58, 58/1, 58/2 and 58/3. Ext.59 is another document recovered from Roshan Ali. Exts.61 & 20 are the relevant seizure lists. Ext. 58 is very very important. A perusal of the same indicates that it contains the date of call, i.e., 9.2.2004 and the phone number of the S.T.D. booth as well as the mobile number of P.W.16. Thereafter, P.W.32 returned to the police station along with recovered documents and Roshan Ali and Rajan Mishra. Thereafter he informed the Deputy Commissioner of Police. A perusal of the same indicates that it contains the date of call, i.e., 9.2.2004 and the phone number of the S.T.D. booth as well as the mobile number of P.W.16. Thereafter, P.W.32 returned to the police station along with recovered documents and Roshan Ali and Rajan Mishra. Thereafter he informed the Deputy Commissioner of Police. Ext.60 is the bill of Hotel Kamal for room rent of Room No.108 was proved by P.W.32. On 10.2.2004, P.W.32 arrested Roshan Ali and Rajan Mishra and prepared arrest memo. Ext.61 is the seizure list in respect of the documents recovered from Roshan Ali and Ext.61/1 is the signature of P.W.32. On 11.2.2004, P.W.32 produced Rajan Mishra and Pradeep Srivastava and Roshan Ali in the court of J.M.F.C., 1st Class, Nagpur. According to the order passed by the Magistrate, he handed over the above persons to (P.W.13), IIC, Sundergarh Police Station. In the cross-examination on behalf of Roshan Ali (appellant), Rajendra Prasad and Pradeep Srivastava, P.W.32 stated that he did not know Roshan Ali and Rajan Mishra appellants before hand. He left the police station for Madhu Kiran Shop after about two minutes of the departure of P.W.22 and other police staff. The Deputy Commissioner of Police had informed him about the telephone number from which call was being made to Rourkela. He admitted that he did not hear any telephonic conversation by Roshan Ali and Rajan Mishra and did not see the above two persons while telephoning. He further stated that he did not talk over any telephone to contact the number of Rourkela to which the above two persons were contacting. Except the bills and documents which he seized he did not verify the telephone number of Rourkela. Except the self-identification of the above persons, he did not make any enquiry to ascertain their names. He verified from the Hotel that the above two persons Roshan Ali and Rajan Mishra had written their names falsely in the hotel register and the hotel keeper identified them. He did not verify the signatures of the occupants of Room No.108 from the hotel register and did not collect their signatures for verification by any expert. He did not take their specimen signatures. On 9.2.2004, Roshan Ali and Rajan Mishra were neither arrested nor kept inside the hazat. He did not verify the signatures of the occupants of Room No.108 from the hotel register and did not collect their signatures for verification by any expert. He did not take their specimen signatures. On 9.2.2004, Roshan Ali and Rajan Mishra were neither arrested nor kept inside the hazat. He did not make any list while taking personal search of the accused regarding ornaments, wrist watch used by them. He did not recollect if the above two persons had put on any such articles or not and did not verify the telephone numbers of the telephone bill recovered from Roshan Ali. He denied the suggestion that on 9.2.2004 he arrested one Ramesh Agarwal and Dinesh Garg later he had arrested Roshan Ali and Rajan Mishra and thereafter released Ramesh Agarawal and Dinesh Garg. Only basing on the confession of Roshan Ali, P.W.32 arrested accused Pradeep Srivastava. He admitted that he was examined by P.W.33 on 3.6.2004. He denied the suggestion that he did not state before the I.O. that the appellant Roshan Ali and Rajan Mishra were telephonining to Rourkela for ransom since they abduct a very rich person. He further denied the suggestion that he did not state before P.W.33 that after abducting P.Ws.7 and 8, they were kept confined in the farm house of Virendra Jaiswal at Haratoli of Shankargarh. P.W.32 denied the suggestion that he did not state before the I.O. (P.W.33) that the telephone bill vide Ext.58 was recovered from the appellant Roshan Ali and that Roshan Ali was staying in Room No.108 and that P.W.32 apprehended Rajan Mishra and Roshan Ali from Munjer Chowk and implicated them in a false case. In the cross-examination on behalf of Rajan Mishra (appellant), Atul Pandey and Shaim Sidique (appellant), P.W.32 denied the suggestion that when he received telephonic direction from the Deputy Commissioner of Police, P.W.22 and P.W.31 were not present in the police station. He gave oral direction to P.Ws.22 and 31 to proceed to Madhu Kiran Shop. No entry was made in the station diary when they left the police station. He denied a suggestion that Roshan Ali and Rajan Mishra were not apprehended and were not brought to the police station. He denied the suggestion that he apprehended Rajan Mishra from Gandhibag Mohala at Nagpur on 10.2.2004 from the house of Dillip Godbole due to the conspiracy of P.W.8. He denied a suggestion that Roshan Ali and Rajan Mishra were not apprehended and were not brought to the police station. He denied the suggestion that he apprehended Rajan Mishra from Gandhibag Mohala at Nagpur on 10.2.2004 from the house of Dillip Godbole due to the conspiracy of P.W.8. He denied the suggestion that he apprehended Dinesh Garg and Ramesh Agarawal, left them free and falsely showed the apprehension of the appellants Roshan Ali and Rajan Mishra. He admitted that he had taken photographs of accused persons after arrest. An analysis of evidence of P.W.32 would show that he is a witness to arrest of accused Roshan Ali and Rajan Mishra and seizure of documents. Most important document proved by him is Ext.58, which was seized from Roshan Ali. But P.W.33 has stated that neither P.W.31 nor P.W.32 stated him about seizure of Ext.58 from Roshan Ali. No doubt these reflect some contradictions, but taking a broad view of the matter and taking into account the timing of phone call to P.W.16 on 9.2.2004 and timing of apprehension of Roshan Ali and Rajan Mishra at Nagpur on the very same evening only show that it was these accused who were giving call to P.W.16 in his mobile number 9861027400 from the telephone booth. Prosecution has proved that the number of S.T.D. telephone booth from Nagpur to be 2563746. Here Ext. 58 assumes significance as the same contains both the telephone numbers. In such background as to who seized the same and this being not stated by P.Ws.31 and 32 to P.W.33 do not appear to be major contradiction vis-a-vis core prosecution story as revealed from the evidence of P.Ws.1, 2, 7, 8, 16 and 17. P.W.33 is the main Investigating Officer, who submitted charge sheet against the appellants. P.W.33 in his examination-in-chief had stated that he was the Inspector-In-Charge of Sadar P.S., Sundergarh on 24.1.2004. On that date at about 11 P.M., P.W.1, son of P.W.8 appeared at the police station and submitted a written report to him. Since the report revealed a cognisable case under Sections 342/365/307/34 of I.P.C. and under Section 25 of the Arms Act, he registered P.S. Case No.7 of 2004 on 24.1.2004 and took up investigation. The report submitted by P.W.1 was marked as Ext.1. Thereafter, he drew up formal F.I.R., which was marked as Ext.62. Since the report revealed a cognisable case under Sections 342/365/307/34 of I.P.C. and under Section 25 of the Arms Act, he registered P.S. Case No.7 of 2004 on 24.1.2004 and took up investigation. The report submitted by P.W.1 was marked as Ext.1. Thereafter, he drew up formal F.I.R., which was marked as Ext.62. He informed S.P., Sundergarh and sent messages to bordering police stations regarding the occurrence. He proceeded to the spot immediately which was at Karamdihi, Sundergarh. During his spot visit, he found one Maruti Zen Car bearing No.OR- 16A-5921 lying abandoned by the side of the road. He seized the car and prepared the seizure list under Ext.14/2. He sent requisition to the Scientific Officer, Rourkela to visit the spot. After visit by the Scientific Officer with regard to inspection of the car, P.W.33 seized one Sweater, Towel, one muffler, xerox copy of the R.C. Book of the said car and insurance certificate. He prepared two spot maps-one from where the car was found and the second the place from where P.W.8 and P.W.7 were abducted, which were marked as Exts.63 and 64. On 25.01.2004, P.W.33 examined the witnesses P.Ws.2, 3 and 4 and some other witnesses. P.W.2 identified him the spot from where P.W.8 and P.W.7 were abducted. P.W.33 also seized mobile phone of P.W.2 and prepared the seizure list. On the same date, i.e., on 25.01.2004, S.P. Sundergarh sent wireless messages to all S.S.Ps. of India and Commissioners of Police, Kolkata, Mumbai and Delhi. On 26.1.2004, different police teams of Sundergarh proceeded to different States. On 27.1.2004, he released the seized Maruti Zen car in the zima of one Raju Gardia, the driver of the informant along with other seized articles. On 28.1.2004, the informant-Rajesh Gadodia (P.W.1) disclosed before P.W.33 that a telephonic information was received by a friend of his father, Ram Bhagat Agarwal regarding confinement of his father-P.W.8 and the culprits were demanding Rs. 15 crore. P.W.1 also disclosed that the culprits would contact him in his land phone as stated by Ram Bhagat Agarwal. On the same date, P.W.1 disclosed P.W.33 that he received a fax message (Ext.2) written in Hindi by his father to give money for his release. On 29.1.2004, P.W.1 disclosed that he received threatening calls from the culprits three to four times to give money. On the same date, P.W.1 disclosed P.W.33 that he received a fax message (Ext.2) written in Hindi by his father to give money for his release. On 29.1.2004, P.W.1 disclosed that he received threatening calls from the culprits three to four times to give money. Accordingly, P.W.33 seized the telephone sets having numbers 220820 and 220840, a fax message dated 28.1.2004 written in Hindi and one cassette in which the conversation of the culprits was recorded by the informant, (P.W.1). The seized telephones and the fax belonged to P.W.1 and he was allowed to use the same. On 2.2.2004, P.W.1 disclosed before P.W.33 that the culprits were demanding Rs. 10 crore from him. On 8.2.2004, P.W.1 received another fax message (Ext.4) from his father which was written in Hindi. P.W.33 seized the same along with fax machine. On 9.2.2004 information was received by S.P., Sundergarh that the culprits have been apprehended at Nagpur and S.P., Sundergarh deputed two teams of police-one team to Nagpur and another team to Shankargarh Police Station in the State of Chhatisgarh. On 10.2.2004, it was learnt that the culprits-Roshan Ali (appellant), Rajan Mishra (appellant) and Pradeep Srivastava were arrested by the police of Sitawardi P.S., Nagpur in connection with Sitawardi P.S. case No.3 of 2004. Similarly, information was received that the culprits, Pandit @ Abdul kaiyum and Virendra Jaiswal (appellant) were arrested by Shankargarh P.S. vide Shankargarh P.S. Case No.4 of 2004 under Sections 364- A/342/34 I.P.C. and that P.W.8 and P.W.7 were rescued by Shankargarh police. On 10.2.2004, S.I., K.C.Bag of Rajgangpur P.S. proceeded to Bilaspur to seize the Bolero Jeep in which the culprits abducted P.W.8 and 7. On 11.2.2004 at 2 P.M. S.I., K.C. Bag of Rajgangpur P.S. arrived at Sadar P.S. Sundergarh along with the Bolero Jeep. It was learnt that culprit-Santosh Jha (since acquitted) was arrested by the Town Inspector, Civil Line Bilaspur in P.S. Case No.2 of 2004 under Section 379 I.P.C. P.W.33 further stated that the sub-inspector, K.C. Bag had already died. On the same day information was received that P.W.8 and P.W.7 have been brought to Rajgangpur by the Inspector-Fagua Singh of Town P.S. Sundergarh. Accordingly, he (P.W.33) proceeded to Rajgangpur on 11.2.2004 and examined P.W.7 and P.W.8 and released the seized telephones and fax machine, tape recorder in the zima of P.W.1. On the same day information was received that P.W.8 and P.W.7 have been brought to Rajgangpur by the Inspector-Fagua Singh of Town P.S. Sundergarh. Accordingly, he (P.W.33) proceeded to Rajgangpur on 11.2.2004 and examined P.W.7 and P.W.8 and released the seized telephones and fax machine, tape recorder in the zima of P.W.1. On the same day, he went to Rourkela and examined late Rajendra Prasad (since acquitted) in his house. He arrested late Rajendra Prasad and seized one Bajaj Boxer motor cycle. On 12.2.2004, P.W.13 returned to Sadar P.S. Sundargrh with Roshan Ali (appellant), Rajan Mishra (appellant) and Pradip Srivastava. On the same date, he seized a Titan wrist watch from appellant-Roshan Ali and according to him the said watch belonged to P.W.8. On the same day at about 5 P.M. he forwarded the above culprits to court after recording their statements. During examinations of Roshan Ali, Rajan Mishra and Pradeep Srivastava, P.W.33 came to know that Shamim Ahamad Sidique, Atul Pandey, Birendra Jaiswal, Pandit @ Abdul Kaiyum, late-Rajenda Prasad and Santosh Jha were also involved in commission of crime. He made prayer before the S.D.J.M. Sundergarh for holding T.I. parade of the appellants-Roshan Ali and Rajan Mishra inside the jail. He also prayed before the S.D.J.M. to issue production warrant in respect of the culprits - Pandit @ Abdul Kaiyum and Virendra Jaiswal who were detained in Central Jail, Ambikapur. On 15.2.2004, he deputed P.W.26 to Ambikapur to handover the remand report and to proceed to Shankargarh P.S. for the purpose of investigation. On 15.2.2004, he handed over the seized Titan wrist watch to P.W.8. The inspector, C.S. Mohanty brought the culprit-Shamim Mohamad Sidique from Allahabad and produced before him. P.W.33 examined the said culprit on 16.2.2004, seized his mobile phone and arrested him on the same day at 8 P.M. On 17.2.2004, P.W.33 forwarded culprit-Samim Mohamad Sidique to the court of S.D.J.M., Sundergarh and gave requisition for holding T.I. parade. On 18.2.2004, he visited hotel - Bishnu palace at Jharsuguda and seized the Entry Register, visitor cards dated 17.1.2004. In the said visitor cards, the names of the culprits-Rajan Mishra (appellant), Shamim Ahmad (appellant), Abdul Kaiym, Virendra Jaiswal (appellant) and Atul Pandey were there. On 18.2.2004, he visited hotel - Bishnu palace at Jharsuguda and seized the Entry Register, visitor cards dated 17.1.2004. In the said visitor cards, the names of the culprits-Rajan Mishra (appellant), Shamim Ahmad (appellant), Abdul Kaiym, Virendra Jaiswal (appellant) and Atul Pandey were there. On 18.2.2004, S.I.-R.K. Giri (P.W.26) returned from Shankargarh P.S. and produced the copy of the F.I.R. of Shankargarh P.S. Case No.4 of 2004 and the map of the place, where P.W.8 and P.W.7 were confined. On 22.2.2004, P.W.33 gave requisition to P.W.26 to proceed to Bilaspur for the purpose of investigation. On 24.2.2004, P.W.26 returned to Sadar P.S., Sundergarh and produced the copies of the case record of Civil Line P.S., Bilaspur Case No.2 of 2004 under Section 379 I.P.C. in which Santosh Jha (since acquitted) was arrested. He requested Station Officer, Shankargarh P.S. for transfer of P.S. Case No.4 of 2004 on the point of jurisdiction. On 25.2.2004, he arrived at Shankargarh P.S., examined the I.O. of Shankargarh P.S. Case No.4 of 2004 and visited Harageon, Haratoli where P.W.7 and P.W.8 were confined in the farm house of appellant-Virendra Jaiswal. On the same day, he received reliable information that the appellant-Atul Pandey was available in his house at Bara and sent wireless message to the Station Officer, Bara P.S. for apprehension of the said culprit. On the strength of production warrant issued by S.D.J.M., Sundergarh, the culprits-Abdul Kayum and Virendra Jaiswal were produced from Central Jail, Ambikapur. On 17.3.2004, P.W.33 examined some witnesses at Bilashpur. On 29.3.2004, P.W.13 produced before him the supplementary case diary and the documents of Sitawardi P.S. On 2.4.2004, he received the case record of Shankargarh P.S. Case No.4 of 2004. He also seized one country made pistol, five nos. of ammunitions, one Nokia Mobile phone, Rs. 1500/-, one country made revolver, six nos. of ammunitions, some aluminium tin plates in which Mahindra and Mahindra Engine number and chasis number were written, two small plastic Diba containing alphabets and digits being produced by the constable-M. Khalko of Shankargarh P.S. He identified the seized articles marked as M.Os. IV to XI. On 10.5.2004, Santosh Jha (since acquitted) was brought from Central Jail, Bilaspur on the strength of production warrant, who was examined by him. On 28.5.2004, he deputed P.W.26 and other police staff to Bara P.S., Allahabad for apprehension of appellant-Atul Pandey. On 30.5.2004, P.W.33 examined P.W.16 and two others. IV to XI. On 10.5.2004, Santosh Jha (since acquitted) was brought from Central Jail, Bilaspur on the strength of production warrant, who was examined by him. On 28.5.2004, he deputed P.W.26 and other police staff to Bara P.S., Allahabad for apprehension of appellant-Atul Pandey. On 30.5.2004, P.W.33 examined P.W.16 and two others. On the same date, P.W.33 seized a mobile phone bearing No.9861027400 of Kedarnath Kedia (P.W.16), which was later released in zima of P.W.16. On 31.5.2004, P.W.26 and his staff returned to Sadar P.S. Sundergarh along with appellant-Atul Pandey from Bara P.S. area. P.W. 33 further stated that he examined Atul Pandey. On 1.6.2004, P.W.33 forwarded Atul Pandey to court with a prayer before the S.D.J.M., Sundergarh for holding T.I. Parade. On 2.6.2004, S.P. Sundergarh gave requisition to the Chief Vigilance Officer, C.J.M.T., Bhubaneswar and Manager, Reliance Telecom Ltd. Kharvelnagar, Bhubaneswar to supply the call chart of mobile phone No.986127400 and some other telephones. On 3.6.2004 at Nagpur he examined P.W.32 and his staff. He visited the telephone booth from where the appellants Roshan Ali and Rajan Mishra were contacting P.W.16. On the same day, P.W.33 seized the telephone bearing No.2563746 of New Madhu Kirina Store, Munje Chowk Nagpur. He kept the phone in zima of its owner. On the same date i.e., 3.6.2004 at 3.30 P.M. he seized the Entry Register of hotel Kamal, Nagpur in which the names of Ramesh Agarwal and Dinesh Garg were entered on 8.2.2004. He kept the register in zima of the hotel receptionist (P.W.20). On 4.6.2004, S.P., Sundergarh sent requisition to Vigilance officer, P.G.M., Telecom District, Nagpur to supply the call chart and ownership of P.C.O. bearing No.0712-2563746 for 8/9.2.2004. On 5.6.2004, the S.D.J.M., Sundergarh forwarded the seized arms and ammunitions to Dy.Director, R.F.S.L., Ainthapalli, Sambalpur for examination. On 6.6.2004, he made a prayer to the S.D.J.M., Sundergarh to record the sample voice of appellants-Roshan Ali and Rajan Mishra. On 8.6.2004, the sample voice of the appellants-Roshan Ali and Rajan Mishra was recorded by the S.D.J.M., Sundergarh (P.W.29) in separate cassette. Ext.67 is the transcript of the telephone voice of the above two culprits. On 6.6.2004, he made a prayer to the S.D.J.M., Sundergarh to record the sample voice of appellants-Roshan Ali and Rajan Mishra. On 8.6.2004, the sample voice of the appellants-Roshan Ali and Rajan Mishra was recorded by the S.D.J.M., Sundergarh (P.W.29) in separate cassette. Ext.67 is the transcript of the telephone voice of the above two culprits. On the same day at 2.00 P.M., P.W.33 seized one sealed envelope in which the sample voice of the appellants-Roshan Ali and Rajan Mishra were recorded in the cassette and sent by the S.D.J.M. Sundergarh through the C.S.I. On 9.6.2004, on his requisition, the S.D.J.M., Sundergarh sent the sample voice cassette of the culprits and the cassette seized from P.W.1 earlier to C.F.S.L., Chandigarh. P.W.33 had also made a prayer to the District Magistrate, Sundergarh to sanction prosecution under the Arms Act. On 9.6.2004, P.W.33 filed charge sheet against the culprits under Sections 364A/342/395/120-B/34 I.P.C. and under Sections 25/27 of the Arms Act. In the cross-examination on behalf of Rajan Mishra (appellant), Atul Pandey and Shamim Sidique(appellant), P.W.33 stated that he was not at the police station from the time of incident at 4.30 P.M. till registration of the F.I.R. at 11 P.M. On 24.01.2004, he had made station diary entry at 4.50 P.M. on getting V.H.F. about the occurrence. An information was given to him that some persons lifted an elderly person at the point of pistol and took away him towards Rourkela in a Bolero Jeep. P.W.33 further stated in the cross-examination that he went outside to verify the incident but he could not get any clue. He admitted that he did not inform P.W.1 that prior to lodging of the F.I.R., he had already received information over V.H.F. and made station diary entry. He did not reflect the fact in the case diary and he also contacted P.W.3 over phone to Town P.S. He ascertained about the spot from the witnesses during investigation and prepared the spot map at 0.15 a.m. on 25.1.2004. He examined P.W.7 and P.W.8 after they were rescued. He had taken P.W.7 and P.W.8 to the spot and they identified the spot to him. He denied a suggestion that he prepared the spot maps at the instance of P.W.1. He accompanied the Scientific Team of D.F.S.L., Rourkela to the spot. He examined P.W.7 and P.W.8 after they were rescued. He had taken P.W.7 and P.W.8 to the spot and they identified the spot to him. He denied a suggestion that he prepared the spot maps at the instance of P.W.1. He accompanied the Scientific Team of D.F.S.L., Rourkela to the spot. He examined P.W.2, who stated that three to four persons on the point of revolver forcibly took away an aged person wearing Dhoti and made him to sit in a Bolero Jeep. P.W.7 told him about the distance of the spot where his master got down to attend the call of nature as 3 K.M.s from Sundergarh. P.W.7 did not state before him that the culprits left the Maruti Car about 3 to 4 K.M.s. away on the road from the place of abduction. In the cross-examination, P.W.33 further stated that neither P.W.7 nor P.W.8 described before him the physical features of the culprits regarding their colours and height. He again said that P.W.8 stated about the age of the culprits and also the height before him. When asked by P.W.33, P.W.8 disclosed before him that he was proceeding to Sundergarh on the date of occurrence in connection with some official work. He examined P.W.16 on 30.5.2004. P.W.33 has explained that P.W.16 could not be examined earlier as he was not available. P.W.33 also stated that P.W.16 was abducted in the year 2002 and some of the culprits of this case were involved in his abduction. He denied a suggestion that he had implicated Roshan Ali (appellant), Atul Pandey, Rajan Mishra (appellant) and Virendra Jaiswal (appellant) in this case falsely after they were apprehended in the case of abduction of Kedarnath Kedia (P.W.16). He also denied a suggestion that the culprits were shown to P.W.16. However, he admitted that he did not examine any witness regarding the voice recording of the culprits when they demanded money over telephone from P.W.1. After seizure, the telephone set and the voice recorder were not sealed. He denied a suggestion that the photographs of the appellants, namely, Roshan Ali, Rajan Mishra were taken by him and shown to the witnesses. He also denied a suggestion that the photograph of appellant-Shamim Sidique was taken at the police station and shown to the witnesses and that P.W.8 offered Rs. 1.00 lakh to appellant-Shamim Sidique if he turned to be an approver. He also denied a suggestion that the photograph of appellant-Shamim Sidique was taken at the police station and shown to the witnesses and that P.W.8 offered Rs. 1.00 lakh to appellant-Shamim Sidique if he turned to be an approver. He denied a suggestion that the culprits were innocent and had been falsely implicated by him. In the cross-examination on behalf of culprits-Roshan Ali (appellant), Pradip Srivastava and Late Rejendra Prasad, P.W.33 stated that during investigation and when appellant Roshan Ali was in custody, P.W.8 lodged an F.I.R. against appellant-Roshan Ali under Sections 294/506 I.P.C. P.W.33 denied a suggestion that due to enmity, he filed a number of false cases against the culprits. Pradeep Srivastav and Late Rajendra Prasad were not put to T.I. parade as there was no direct evidence against them with regard to abduction of P.Ws.7 & 8 demanding any ransom from P.W.8 or his son. The Collector, Sundergarh who sanctioned the prosecution under the Arms Act was not cited as witness. The seized weapons were kept inside police station in Malkhana after the seizure till they were sent for expert's opinion. The Malkhana register of the P.S. would show the custody of the arms inside the Malkhana. The Malkhana register has not been seized. P.W.33 denied a suggestion that neither any arms nor any M.Os/ammunitions had been seized by him. He further stated in the cross-examination that neither P.W.7 nor P.W.8 stated before him about the name of the culprit nor gave description of the culprit, who took away the wrist watches and the cash from them. No cash has been seized from culprits-Roshan Ali (appellant), Rajan Mishra (appellant), Shamim Siddique (appellant) and Atul Pandey. He did not seize any cash memo of the Titan watches. No T.I. parade has been conducted in connection with the seized watch. He denied a suggestion that there was no such seizure of any watch and the seizure list had been manufactured. The culprits were not known to P.W.7 and P.W.8 prior to the date of incident. The Scientific Officer inspected the Maruti Zen car and submitted the report. He did not mark any impact or violence on the seized Maruti Car and did not find any tyre mark of the Bolero vehicle at the spot. The culprits were not known to P.W.7 and P.W.8 prior to the date of incident. The Scientific Officer inspected the Maruti Zen car and submitted the report. He did not mark any impact or violence on the seized Maruti Car and did not find any tyre mark of the Bolero vehicle at the spot. P.W.33 further stated that he examined the informant on 24.1.2004, i.e., on the date of filing of F.I.R. but he did not record the statement of P.W.1 separately under Section 161 Cr.P.C. But he had mentioned this fact in the case diary. He gave requisition to the BSNL Department to ascertain the land line number and fax number of P.W.1 but he did not receive any intimation. P.W. 33 further stated that he did not send the xerox copy of the fax messages under Exts.2 and 4 to any Handwriting Expert. According to him, the information received in writing in fax would immediately evaporate unless the xerox copy of the same was kept. Again, he stated that copy of the information in a fax would evaporate after about 7-10 days. P.W.33 did not seize the original information sent through fax. He did not investigate from which number and place the information was sent to the informant. He seized Exts.2 and 4 on 29.1.2004 and 8.2.2004 respectively. He denied a suggestion that the informant (P.W.1) had no land line phone or any fax machine and that Exts.2 and 4 were manufactured documents. On 25.1.2004, the F.I.R. was despatched to the court of S.D.J.M., Sundergarh. On 27.1.2004, F.I.R. was received in the court of S.D.J.M., Sundergarh. P.W.33 further stated in the cross-examination that P.W.1 presented the written F.I.R. and he could not say who scribed the F.I.R. While he received the V.H.F. message from P.W.3, the name of P.W.2 was not disclosed to him as an eye-witness to the occurrence. The VHF message was limited to the information that one aged person was abducted in a Bolero Jeep by some culprits. P.W. 33 further stated that after getting V.H.F. message, he proceeded to the spot at about 5 P.M. on 24.1.2005. After visiting the spot, he did not find any clue of the case. He also examined some neighbouring witnesses of the Bazar and he did not get any clue. While he examined P.W.3, he came to know that P.W.2 was an eye-witness to the occurrence. After visiting the spot, he did not find any clue of the case. He also examined some neighbouring witnesses of the Bazar and he did not get any clue. While he examined P.W.3, he came to know that P.W.2 was an eye-witness to the occurrence. Accordingly, he examined P.W.2 on 25.1.2004 and went to the spot along with P.W.2. He denied a suggestion that he examined P.W.2 on 24.1.2004 and stated that the date of examination of P.W.2 under Section 161 Cr.P.C. has been wrongly noted by him as "24.1.2007" instead of "25.1.2004". He denied a suggestion that Ext.1 was not the real F.I.R. and the F.I.R. has been suppressed and that he cited P.W.2 as a witness to fabricate the case. He denied a suggestion that the statements of P.W.1 and P.W.2 have been manufactured by him. When he seized the tape recorder and the cassette, he cited P.W.6 and another as witnesses. After seizure, the tape recorder and the cassette were neither wrapped nor sealed. The cassette was with him at the police station Malkhana. Prior to sending the cassette to Chandigarh for expert's opinion, the culprits were already apprehended. He could not say if Pitter Kulu and P.W.6 were the employees of the P.W.1. A police team was deputed to rescue P.Ws.7 and 8 from Chattisgarh. On 11.2.2004, he examined P.W.8. Prior to his examination, no police officer of Orissa had examined them. The case diary revealed that P.W.7 and 8 narrated the incident before P.W.17 of Shankaragarh P.S. prior to his examination. It also revealed from case record that P.W.17 examined the above two persons and recorded their statements. He denied a suggestion that the earlier statements of P.W.7 and P.W.8 recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. have been suppressed. He had seen the place from which P.W.7 and P.W.8 were rescued. The place of confinement was the farm house of appellant-Virendra Jaiswal. He did not seize any document regarding ownership of the farm house. He denied a suggestion that the farm house did not belong to appellant-Virendra Jaiswal. He could not say who were the neighbouring persons of the said farm house. He did not seize the original of Exts.2 and 4 written by P.W.8. The seizure witnesses in Ext.19 regarding seizure of the wrist watch, namely, P.Ws.9 and 10 were serving as Gram Rakhis. He could not say who were the neighbouring persons of the said farm house. He did not seize the original of Exts.2 and 4 written by P.W.8. The seizure witnesses in Ext.19 regarding seizure of the wrist watch, namely, P.Ws.9 and 10 were serving as Gram Rakhis. The wrist watch was seized on 12.2.2004 from appellant-Roshan Ali who was arrested on 10.2.2004. P.W.13 along with another S.I. Sanjib Mohanty had gone to Nagpur to bring Roshan Ali, Rajan Mishra and Pradeep Srivastava. They did not examine any witnesses. P.W.33 examined the witnesses of Nagpur on 3.6.2004 and by the said date P.W.7 and P.W.8 were already rescued. He did not give any requisition to the S.D.J.M., Sundergarh for any voice identification parade of the culprits. However, the voice recording of culprits was made in presence of the S.D.J.M., Sundergarh before submission of charge sheet. The sample voice of appellants-Roshan Ali and Rajan Mishra was recorded on 8.6.2004 and on 9.6.2004 and the sample voice cassette was sent for the expert's opinion. He further stated that he knew appellant-Virendra Jaiswal by name when he examined P.W.7 and P.W.8. There was no statement either by P.W.7 or P.W.8 specifically that appellant-Virenddra Jaiswal was demanding ransom. He did not re-examine P.W.7 and P.W.8 after the T.I. Parade. No arms or ammunitions were seized from appellant-Roshan Ali. He denied a suggestion that the cassette sent to Chandigarh along with the sample voice cassette of appellant-Roshan Ali and Rajan Mishra was a manufactured one and that the same cassette containing the voice of the above two appellants recorded before the S.D.J.M., Sundergarh was never sent to Chandigarh. He denied a suggestion that P.W.16 and the witnesses from Nagpur were all procured to suit the case. He also denied a suggestion that the photographs of the appellants-Roshan Ali and Rajan Mishra were shown to the identifying witnesses P.W.7 and P.W.8. He denied a suggestion that his investigation was perfunctory. Thereafter, at paras-36 to 40 of his deposition, he referred to various facts not stated before him by P.Ws.1, 2, 7, 8, 17, 22, 31 and 32. In the cross-examination on behalf of Virendra Jaiswal (appellant), P.W.33 stated that P.W.26 prepared the spot map of the farm house where P.Ws.7 and 8 were in confinement. In the cross-examination on behalf of Santosh Jha (since acquitted), P.W.33 stated that he examined Santosh Jha on 10.5.2004. In the cross-examination on behalf of Virendra Jaiswal (appellant), P.W.33 stated that P.W.26 prepared the spot map of the farm house where P.Ws.7 and 8 were in confinement. In the cross-examination on behalf of Santosh Jha (since acquitted), P.W.33 stated that he examined Santosh Jha on 10.5.2004. He denied a suggestion that he filed charge sheet against Santosh Jha without proper investigation. P.W.33 was subjected to reexamination on recall on 8.2.2007, wherein P.W.33 stated that the Balestic Expert's report was sent to the court of S.D.J.M., Sundergarh regarding examination of the seized arms after filing of the charge sheet. In the cross-examination on behalf of Roshan Ali (appellant), Pradeep Srivastava and late-Rajendra Prasad, P.W.33 stated that the report of the Balestic Expert was forwarded by the S.D.J.M., Sundargrh to the Sessions Court. He could not say the name of the General Manager, BSNL, Rourkela as he had no acquaintance with him. The fax message did not contain the P.S. number, G.R. case number of this case. He denied a suggestion that Ext.71 is a manufactured document. There was no cross-examination on behalf of rest of the culprits. An analysis of evidence of P.W.33 reveals that he conducted the investigation more or less in a fair manner. With regard to non-registration of F.I.R. immediately after receiving the V.H.F. message, he has stated that from the V.H.F. message, the name of P.W.2 was not disclosed to him as an eye-witness to the occurrence. It was limited to the information that one aged person was abducted in a Bolero Jeep by some culprits. After getting V.H.F. message, he proceeded to the spot at 5 P.M. but did not find any clue of the case though he examined some neighbouring witnesses of the Bazar. Further, his evidence reveals that on 24.1.2004 from 4.30 P.M. to 11 P.M., P.W.33 was not there at the police station. Therefore, after receipt of F.I.R. under Ext.1 at 11 P.M. he registered the F.I.R., and thereafter took up the investigation. This seems a satisfactory explanation of registration of F.I.R. at 11 P.M. and broad probabilities are that after receipt of F.I.R. under Ext.1 he examined P.W.3 and from him he came to know about P.W.2 as an eye-witness to the occurrence. Accordingly, P.W.33 examined P.W.2 on 25.1.2004 as has been stated by him at para- 26. This seems a satisfactory explanation of registration of F.I.R. at 11 P.M. and broad probabilities are that after receipt of F.I.R. under Ext.1 he examined P.W.3 and from him he came to know about P.W.2 as an eye-witness to the occurrence. Accordingly, P.W.33 examined P.W.2 on 25.1.2004 as has been stated by him at para- 26. So far as delay in sending the F.I.R. to the S.D.J.M. Court, it has to be remembered that P.W.33 received the F.I.R. at 11 P.M. on 24.1.2004 and started investigation and para-25 of his deposition reveals that F.I.R. was despatched to S.D.J.M. court on 25.1.2004 and same was received by S.D.J.M. on 27.1.2004. It may be noted here that 26.1.2004 was a National Holiday being Republic Day. So far as contradictions are concerned, as has been indicated in Paras-36 to 40 of the cross-examination of P.W.33, all these have been dealt with individually while analysing the evidence of the witnesses of P.Ws.1, 2, 7, 8, 17, 22, 31 and 32. These contradictions no way affect the core prosecution version of abduction for ransom and confinement of P.Ws.7 and 8 with common intention of appellants. With regard to non-examination of P.W.16 immediately, P.W.33 has stated that delay was on account of nonavailability of P.W.16. On behalf of defence, appellant-Roshan Ali examined only one defence witness, namely, Khaleda Parken. She stated in her examination-in-chief that appellant-Roshan Ali was a resident of Jugsalai, Jamshedpur, who was her close neighbourer. In the year 2004 on 24.1.2004, appellant-Roshan Ali was called to her school for hoisting the National Flag on the occasion of "Republic Day". On 9.2.2004 at about 12 A.M. Maharashtra Police came to her hamlet and took away appellant-Roshan Ali. Later on, she came to know from newspaper that appellant-Roshan Ali had been implicated in this case. In the cross-examination D.W.1 admitted that she did not have any document regarding the proprietorship of the school in question. She denied a suggestion that there was no such school of which she was the proprietor. Further in her cross-examination, she admitted that she did not give any invitation letter to appellant-Roshan Ali for the Republic Day. She admitted that the appellant-Roshan Ali was not holding any elected post on the above date but he was a respectful person. She denied a suggestion that there was no such school of which she was the proprietor. Further in her cross-examination, she admitted that she did not give any invitation letter to appellant-Roshan Ali for the Republic Day. She admitted that the appellant-Roshan Ali was not holding any elected post on the above date but he was a respectful person. She further stated that her house and the house of appellant-Roshan Ali were within a distance of about 25 meters and the school in question was situated within the compound of appellant-Roshan Ali's house. She denied a suggestion that appellant-Roshan Ali did not go for flag hoisting on the above date and that she was deposing falsehood as the school situated within the premises of appellant-Roshan Ali's residence. The evidence of D.W.1 is highly contradictory in nature and not trustworthy. The overall scanning of the evidence as discussed and analysed above would show that the core prosecution story relating to abduction for ransom by the appellants has been proved by the prosecution. The same would be clear from the evidence of P.Ws.1, 2, 7, 8, 16, 17, 22 & 32. The evidence of other prosecution witnesses except P.W.12 also broadly support the core prosecution story as pointed out by P.Ws.1, 2, 7, 8, 16 & 17. Though the prosecution witnesses have been subjected to lengthy cross-examination however, we are satisfied that the core prosecution story relating to abduction for ransom by the appellants in pursuance of their common intention remains un-demolished. With regard to illegal confinement of P.Ws.7 and 8 at Hartoli in the farm house of the appellant-Virendra Jaiswal enough material has come out from the evidence of P.Ws.7, 8 and 17 relating to the same. Here also their versions relating to illegal confinement at the hands of the appellants remain un-demolished. The factum relating to confinement, as stated by P.W.8 and amply corroborated by P.Ws.7 and 17, clearly implicates all the appellants. Thus, prosecution has clearly made out a case under Sections 364A/34 and 342/34, IPC against the appellants. However, we are of the view that with regard to the charge framed under Section 120-B, IPC, the evidence on this point, as has come out from the mouths of P.Ws., more particularly, P.Ws.11, 20, 22 and 32, is not satisfactory to prove the said charge. However, we are of the view that with regard to the charge framed under Section 120-B, IPC, the evidence on this point, as has come out from the mouths of P.Ws., more particularly, P.Ws.11, 20, 22 and 32, is not satisfactory to prove the said charge. Except for the fact that two of the appellants, namely, Rajan Mishra and Roshan Ali operated during certain period from Nagpur and some other persons were staying in a hotel at Jharsuguda, no conclusive evidence exists indicating a meeting of minds of the appellants and others prior to the date of occurrence. The evidence relating to concert among conspirators and transmission of thoughts for committing unlawful act is not that clinching and thus is not beyond reasonable doubt. P.W.11 has also not identified any of the accused though according to Entry Register of Bishnu Palace Hotel, Jharsuguda; 3 to 4 persons stayed there from 17.1.2004 to 19.1.2004, which included appellant-Shamim Siddique. The evidence of P.W.20 relates to a period after the conspiracy was over. The learned Sessions Judge has mainly relied on Roshan Ali's confession before P.Ws.22 and 32 to rope in Section 120-B, IPC completely forgetting that under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, his statement that he along with others have abducted a Seth from Odisha was not admissible in evidence. Even the alleged statement of Roshan Ali was never put to him during his examination under Section 313, Cr.P.C. 10. Now we will discuss point-wise submissions made by the learned counsel for the appellants as has been noted earlier. 11. With regard to the 1st submission of Mr. D. Panda, learned counsel for the appellant-Rajan Mishra, where he doubted the timing of lodging of F.I.R. by P.W.1 under Ext.1 on the basis of time factor in travelling the distance from Rajgangpur to Sundergarh, it may be noted here that there exists no evidence about the exact distance from Rajgangpur to Sundargarh. Further, P.W.1 in his evidence stated that he received the call from Deepak Sharma at about 10.30 P.M. Thus, the same indicates an approximate timing. Morever one cannot ignore the mental condition of P.W.1 when he received the message over telephone. Further, in any case, it is well settled that F.I.R. is not an encyclopaedia of facts relating to a particular offence. Morever one cannot ignore the mental condition of P.W.1 when he received the message over telephone. Further, in any case, it is well settled that F.I.R. is not an encyclopaedia of facts relating to a particular offence. Moreover, in the background of core prosecution story of abduction and illegal confinement remaining un-demolished on the basis of versions of the eye-witnesses, nothing much turns on such argument. Similarly, the point raised by Mr. Panda in delay in despatch of F.I.R. may at best be a procedural irregularity but the same cannot in any way demolish the core prosecution story as indicated earlier. F.I.R. under Ext. 1 was registered at 11 P.M. on 24.1.2004, sent to court on 25.1.2004 and was received at the court on 27.1.2004. Such delay can not be described as unusal as 26.1.2004 was a holiday being Republic Day. Further there is nothing to show that the accused has been prejudiced by such delay. With regard to the 2nd submission of Mr. Panda relating to non-establishment of charge of criminal conspiracy, we are inclined to accept such submission of Mr. Panda. He is right in his submission that no credible evidence is available beyond reasonable doubt to the effect that before 24.1.2004, i.e., the date of occurrence, the appellants conspired to abduct P.W.8 for ransom and confined him till ransom was paid. As we have indicated earlier the fact that P.W.11 failed to identify the accused, who stayed in the Hotel also helps the defence in this regard. Further, the evidence of P.W.20 relates to a stage after the conspiracy was over. Accordingly, we do not agree with the finding of the learned Sessions Judge on this point. We reiterate our reasonings on this issue, given a little earlier. With regard to the 3rd submission of Mr. Panda, that there is nothing to show that the appellant-Rajan Mishra was a party to the illegal confinement of P.Ws.7 & 8, we are unable to accept such contention inasmuch as P.W.7 has clearly stated that the persons, who committed the crime, were eight in numbers and he identified Shamim Sidique (appellant), Rajan Mishra (appellant), Atul Pandey and Roshan Ali (appellant) in the T.I. Parade and in the court. He also identified Virendra Jaiswal in the court. He also identified Virendra Jaiswal in the court. He stated that all the miscreants eight in number, who brought him and P.W.8 to the place of confinement, came inside the room where P.W.8 was sitting on the cot and all of them talked to P.W.8 for sometime. Two hours thereafter they took P.W.7, which obviously included Rajan Mishra, to the other room of the said house and confined him in that room by locking the door from outside. P.W.8 remained confined in the room in which he was talking with the culprits. P.Ws.7 and 8 remained confined there for 17 days. Similarly, P.W.8 in his evidence while identifying Roshan Ali, Rajan Mishra, Shamim Sidique, Atul Pandey and Virendra Jaiswal, who were present in the court, stated that these culprits being armed with Revolver in their hands forcibly dragged him and P.W.7 into the Bolero and after the Bolero stopped at the end of a five hours drive, these culprits took them (P.W.7 and P.W.8) from Bolero forcibly inside a tile roofed house in which they were confined for 17 days. Therefore, the submission of Mr. D. Panda, learned counsel on this account fails. With regard to the 4th submission of Mr. Panda on intrinsic contradictions in the evidence of P.Ws.2, 7, & 8 with regard to their description of commission of offence of abduction and identification of Rajan Mishra in the T.I. Parade as well as in court, it may be noted that a perusal of evidence of P.Ws.2, 7 & 8 would show that they corroborate one another in material aspect relating to abduction of P.Ws.7 & 8. P.W.2 as well as P.W.7 & P.W.8 have stated that P.Ws.7 & 8 were forcibly taken to Bolero at Pistol point. The contradiction with regard to being dragged either while urinating or from inside Maruti Car, according to us, is a minor contradiction and no way demolishes the version relating to abduction of P.Ws.7 & 8. Moreover, P.W.2 has witnessed the incident as a passer-by. With regard to identification in T.I. Parade, Mr. Panda raised the various objections like the identifying witnesses not stating the specific part played by Rajan Mishra and about identifying features. Moreover, P.W.2 has witnessed the incident as a passer-by. With regard to identification in T.I. Parade, Mr. Panda raised the various objections like the identifying witnesses not stating the specific part played by Rajan Mishra and about identifying features. In this context, law is well settled as per the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in (1976) 3 SCC 454 (State of Andhra Pradesh v. K. Venkata Reddy and others) that non-stating of specific part played by the culprit in crime would not render the evidence of such identification inadmissible. He also attacked the same saying that P.W.32 in his cross-examination has admitted that he had taken photograph of the appellants Rajan Mishra and Roshan Ali after their arrest. Thus, holding of T.I. Parade had no meaning. In this context, Mr. Panda also relied on the deposition of P.W.16 to the effect that he also admitted to have seen the photographs of all these four appellants in newspaper. In such background, he submitted that once photographs of the appellants were taken and published in the newspaper, there was no point in holding the T.I. Parade vis-a-vis the appellant-Rajan Mishra. He also took exception to not putting Virendra Jaiswal, Pradip Srivastava and late Rajendra Prasad to T.I. Parade. No doubt P.W.32 has stated about taking of photographs and P.W.16 has stated about seeing all the photographs in the newspaper but there is no evidence on record to show that prior to conducting the T.I. Parade, such photographs were published in the newspaper or that such photographs were handed over to the Orissa Police and shown to P.Ws.2, 7 & 8. In such background, the submission of Mr. Panda on this point has no legs to stand. With regard to not putting Virendra Jaiswal, Pradeep Srivastava and late-Rajendra Prasad to T.I. Parade, we would say that there was no point in putting Virendra Jaiswal to T.I. Parade as he remained there at Hartoli with P.Ws.7 and 8 guarding them and was caught red handed during rescue operation. So far as Pradeep Srivastava (since acquitted) and late-Rajendra Prasad (since acquitted) are concerned, P.W.8 in his evidence has clearly stated that these two were not involved in abducting him or P.W.7 and that he never saw these two persons in the place of confinement or anywhere and for the first time P.W.8 saw these two persons standing in the court. Similarly, P.W.7 while identifying Atul Pandey and four appellants-Rajan Mishra, Roshan Ali, Shamim Sidique and Virendra Jaiswal in the court on 29.9.2005 never identified Santosh Jha, Pradeep Srivastava or late Rajendra Prasad though they were present in the court. In such background, putting these persons to T.I.Parade would have served no purpose. The decision cited by Mr. Panda as reported in AIR 2010 SC 3000 (Siddanki Ram Reddy v. State of Andhra Pradesh) is factually distinguishable and is of no help. Similarly, with regard to 5th submission of Mr. Panda that the reasons for which the appellants were acquitted of the charges under Section 395, IPC should also have been the reasons for the trial court to disbelieve the other charges against him, we refuse to accept such a submission simply because as per the analysis made earlier of the evidence, more particularly, of P.Ws.1, 2, 7, 8, 16 & 17 there exists enough material against the appellants to bring home charges against them relating to Sections 364A/34, IPC and Sections 342/34, IPC. With regard to sixth and seventh submissions of Mr. Panda that the evidence of P.Ws.7 & 8 should have been discarded with regard to Rajan Mishra's complicity in the alleged abduction and demand of ransom on account of inherent contradictions in the evidence of P.Ws.7 and 8 and the fax messages under Exts.2 and 4 should have been ignored as a person like P.W.8 who can only understand Hindi and cannot speak it correctly cannot be expected to write letters in Hindi, it is reiterated here that as per the earlier analysis made, the evidence of P.Ws.1, 2, 7, 8, 16 & 17 make it clear that Rajan Mishra was a party to the alleged abduction and demand of ransom. The evidence of these witnesses along with other prosecution witnesses clearly show he along with other appellants had a common intention to abduct P.W.8 for ransom and therefore presence or otherwise of P.W.7 at the time of demand of ransom is not a major contradiction as the ransom was not demanded only once but on several occasions. P.W.7 earlier had made it clear in his deposition that eight culprits committed the crime which included Rajan Mishra. P.W.7 earlier had made it clear in his deposition that eight culprits committed the crime which included Rajan Mishra. In his evidence, he had made it clear that after confining them at Hartoli, these miscreants were persuading P.W.8 to write letters to his son (P.W.1) to arrange a huge amount of money or cash so that P.W.8 could be released failing which they threatened to kill both P.Ws.7 and 8. Similarly, P.W.8 in his evidence has stated that six culprits armed with revolver abducted him and P.W.7 and they took him and P.W.7 to the place of confinement and in the court he identified the culprits by name which included Rajan Mishra. According to him, during the period of confinement these culprits were regularly coming to him and threatened him to give Rs. 15 crores to relieve him from wrongful confinement. They also forced him to write letters to P.W.1 and threatened to kill him, if he failed to write according to their dictation. In such background, it cannot be said that the appellant Rajan Mishra was not a party to the demand of ransom as because there exists no evidence that he made phone calls personally demanding ransom. Much has been made by Mr. Panda with regard to ability of P.W.8 to write letters in Hindi which were communicated to P.W.1 through fax messages under Exts. 2 and 4 on the ground that person who can only understand Hindi and cannot speak Hindi correctly and properly cannot be expected to write letters in Hindi. In this context, it is important to note here that no question has been put to P.W.8 in cross-examination with regard to his ability to write in Hindi. Merely because a person cannot speak Hindi correctly and properly cannot ipso-facto lead to a conclusion that he cannot also write in Hindi. Nothing prevented the defence to cross-examine P.W.8 on this aspect which they have not done. Further, it is in the evidence of P.W.8 that he was forced to write these letters as per dictation. In Paragraph-5 of his deposition he stated that the culprits threatened to kill him if he failed to write according to their dictation. Nothing prevented the defence to cross-examine P.W.8 on this aspect which they have not done. Further, it is in the evidence of P.W.8 that he was forced to write these letters as per dictation. In Paragraph-5 of his deposition he stated that the culprits threatened to kill him if he failed to write according to their dictation. Also the fact that P.W.1 identified the messages under Exts.2 and 4 to be in the handwriting of his father (P.W.8) would also show that P.W.1 who must have earlier acquaintance with the handwriting of his father in Hindi, identified correctly. The culprits forced P.W.8 to write as they knew his handwriting would carry more weight with his son, who could identify his father's handwriting. Conceding for a moment but not admitting that the demand for ransom was not conveyed to P.W.1 even then the appellants including Rajan Mishra cannot get benefit as the law is well settled that there is no straitjacket formula that the demand for payment has to be made to a person, who ultimately pays. After making the demand to the abducted person merely because the demand cannot conveyed to person who is supposed to make payment does not take away the offence out of purview of Section 364A, IPC. In such a case, it is to be seen what was the object of abduction. This has ben laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Malleishi v. State of Karnataka (2004) 8 SCC 95 . The very fact that he was a party to the abduction and immediately thereafter the fax messages containing demand of ransom were received by P.W.1 would make it clear that Rajan Mishra along with rest of the appellants were party to the demand of ransom. With regard to the eighth submission of Mr. The very fact that he was a party to the abduction and immediately thereafter the fax messages containing demand of ransom were received by P.W.1 would make it clear that Rajan Mishra along with rest of the appellants were party to the demand of ransom. With regard to the eighth submission of Mr. Panda that his client Rajan Mishra has been made a scapegoat in place of Ramesh Agarwal and Dinesh Garg because in his statement recorded under Section 313, Cr.P.C., Rajan Mishra clearly took such a stand and the same should not have been brushed aside lightly by the learned trial court; it may not be out of place to indicate here that both Rajan Mishra and Roshan Ali were apprehended from nearby the telephone booth at Nagpur pursuant to the direction of Deputy Commissioner of Police, Nagpur to keep a close watch of the said booth as at that time calls were being made from that telephone booth to Rourkela in the mobile number of P.W.16. P.W.16 has clearly stated that Roshan Ali was enquiring about the financial condition of P.W.8 - obviously, under the circumstances to decide about the quantum of demand. P.W.22 & P.W.32 through telephone receipt-Ext.58 have proved that on 9.2.2004 in the evening such a call was made from that telephone booth to mobile number of P.W.16. Ext.58 is the relevant receipt seized from Roshan Ali showing the telephone number of STD booth at Nagpur and the mobile number of P.W.16. Rajan Mishra was caught along with Roshan Ali near the STD booth at Nagpur. There they disclosed their names to be Roshan Ali and Rajan Mishra. Further, as per P.W.20, these two persons were staying in the Hotel Kamal in the assumed name of Ramesh Agarwal and Dinesh Garg. In such background, it is not open for Mr. Panda to contend that Rajan Mishra has been made a scapegoat. The evidence of P.Ws. 1, 2, 7 & 8 and P.W.22 & P.W.32 clearly establish his culpability in committing the crime under Sections 364A/34, IPC and 342/34, IPC. With regard to the 9th submission of Mr. In such background, it is not open for Mr. Panda to contend that Rajan Mishra has been made a scapegoat. The evidence of P.Ws. 1, 2, 7 & 8 and P.W.22 & P.W.32 clearly establish his culpability in committing the crime under Sections 364A/34, IPC and 342/34, IPC. With regard to the 9th submission of Mr. Panda, that the evidence of P.W.2 being a chance witness is of no value; we cannot accept the same in view of authoritative pronouncement of Hon'ble Supreme Court on the said issue in the case of Rana Pratap and others v. State of Haryana reported in (1983) 3 SCC 327 . There it has been held as under; "We do not understand the expression 'chance witnesses'. Murders are not committed with previous notice to witnesses; soliciting their presence. If murder is committed in a dwelling house, the inmates of the house are natural witnesses. If murder is committed in a brothel, prostitutes and paramours are natural witnesses. If murder is committed in a street, only passersby will be witnesses. Their evidence cannot be brushed aside or viewed with suspicion on the ground that they are mere chance witnesses'. The expression 'chance witnesses' is borrowed from countries where every man's home is considered his castle and every one must have an explanation for his presence elsewhere or in another man's castle. It is a most unsuitable expression in a country whose people are less formal and more casual. To discard the evidence of street hawkers and street vendors on the ground that they are 'chance witnesses' even where murder is committed in a street is to abandon good sense and take too shallow a view of the evidence." In such background, we cannot ignore the evidence of an eyewitness like P.W.2 by dubbing him a chance witness, particularly when his version has been well corroborated by P.Ws.7 & 8. With regard to the last submission of Mr. With regard to the last submission of Mr. Panda that since the appellant-Rajan Mishra stands on the same footing like Pradeep Srivastava, he also should have been acquitted of all the charges; we refuse to accept such submission because while Rajan Mishra was identified by P.Ws.2, 7, & 8, however, Pradeep Srivastava despite being present in the court was not identified by P.W.7 and moreover P.W.8 made it clear that Pradeep Srivastava had no role to play in the abduction and he had never seen him either in the place of confinement or anywhere else. 12. Now we will deal with the submissions of Mr. Y. Dash, learned Senior Advocate ably assisted by Ms. Bharati Dash and Mr. Rajee Ray, Advocates, who appeared on behalf of the appellant Shamim Sidique and Virendra Jaiswal. With regard to their 1st submission that Ext.1 is hit by Section 162, Cr.P.C. as the same is not the first information with regard to occurrence that took place on 24.1.2004 and that the first information has been suppressed which was given by P.Ws.2 and 3, it can only be said that it is well settled by Hon'ble Supreme Court in AIR 2003 S.C. 4414 (Damodar v. State of Rajasthan) that any telephonic information about commission of a cognisable offence, irrespective of the nature and details of such information cannot be treated as first information report. If the telephonic message is cryptic in nature and the officer in charge, proceeds to the place of occurrence on the basis of that information to find out the details of the nature of the offence then it cannot be said that the information which had been received by him on telephone shall be deemed to be an FIR. The object and purpose of giving such telephonic message is not to lodge the first information report but to make the officer in charge of the police station to reach the place of occurrence. The object and purpose of giving such telephonic message is not to lodge the first information report but to make the officer in charge of the police station to reach the place of occurrence. On the other hand, if the information given on telephone is not cryptic and on the basis of that information the officer in charge is prima facie satisfied about the commission of a cognisable offence and he proceeds from the police station after recording such information to investigate such offence then any statement made by any person in respect of the said offence including about the participants shall be deemed to be a statement made by a person to the police officer in the course of investigation covered by Section 162 of the Code. In this case, P.W.33 in the cross-examination has made it clear that the VHF message received by him was limited to the information that one aged person at point of Pistol was abducted in the Bolero by the culprits. After receiving such VHF message, P.W.33 only made station diary entry and proceeded to the spot. After visiting the spot, he did not find any clue to the case despite examining some neighbouring witnesses of the Bazar. He further made it clear that VHF message did not disclose that P.W.3 was an eye-witness to the occurrence. Thus, it appears, he received a very cryptic message, which as per settled principle of law as indicated above cannot be treated as an F.I.R. and accordingly, it cannot be said that Ext.1 is hit by Section 162, Cr.P.C. With regard to the 2nd submission of Mr. Dash that there exists material contradictions with regard to prosecution story if one carefully goes through the depositions of P.Ws.2, 7 & 8; it is needless to say that as pointed out earlier there exists minor contradictions in their depositions without affecting the core prosecution story which clearly reflects P.Ws.7 and 8 were abducted by a number of culprits which included Rajan Mishra, Shamim Sidique, Virendra Jaiswal and Roshan Ali with a common intention to extract ransom. In order to extract ransom they confined P.W.8 at Hartoli in the farm house of Virendra Jaiswal. Thus, there does not exist material contradictions in the versions of P.Ws.2, 7 & 8 with regard to core prosecution story. With regard to the submission of Mr. In order to extract ransom they confined P.W.8 at Hartoli in the farm house of Virendra Jaiswal. Thus, there does not exist material contradictions in the versions of P.Ws.2, 7 & 8 with regard to core prosecution story. With regard to the submission of Mr. Dash regarding violation of principles of natural justice as circumstances appearing against his clients from deposition of P.Ws.7 & 8 not being put to them while recording their statements under Section 313, Cr.P.C.; a perusal of evidence of P.Ws.7 & 8 and statements of appellants Shamim Siddique and Virendra Jaiswal under Section 313 Cr.P.C. do not show any substantial incriminating circumstances against them being not put to them. Both Shamim Sidique and Virendra Jaiswal have been put questions on the basis of the evidence of P.Ws.7 and 8. Therefore, it cannot be stated that his clients have been greatly prejudiced. With regard to the 3rd submission of Mr. Dash that when the statements made by P.Ws.7 & 8 are very inextricably mixed up and it is not possible to separate the grain from the chaff and therefore, the appellants-Shamim Siddique and Virendra Jaiswal ought to have been acquitted of all the charges as they have been acquitted under Section 395, IPC. In this context, he relied a decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in (2007) 9 SCC 589 (Jakki @ Selvaraj and another v. State represented by I.P. Coimbatore). An analysis of the evidence of P.Ws.7 and 8 would show that so far as their allegations relating to involvement of Virendra Jaiswal and Shamim Sidique are concerned, there exists cogent evidence with regard to their participation in abduction for extracting ransom as well as in illegal confinement of P.Ws.7 and 8 with common intention. Such evidence cannot be said to be inextricably mixed up or any confusion exists on such evidence. Therefore, it cannot be said that in the present case, it is not possible to separate the grain from chaff and accordingly the decision cited by Mr. Dash would be of no help to his clients. Rather in the said decision it has been made clear that even when the testimony of a witness is discarded on part vis-a-vis some accused, that cannot be per se the reason to discard his evidence in to. With regard to submission of Mr. Dash would be of no help to his clients. Rather in the said decision it has been made clear that even when the testimony of a witness is discarded on part vis-a-vis some accused, that cannot be per se the reason to discard his evidence in to. With regard to submission of Mr. Dash regarding Pradeep Srivastava, analysis of evidence would show that unlike Pradeep Srivastava, there exists solid evidence against appellants-Virendra Jaiswal and Shamim Sidique as stated by eye-witnesses like P.Ws.2, 7 & 8. Thus, appellants-Virendra Jaiswal and Shamim Sidique are not similarly placed as Pradeep Srivastava. With regard to the 4th submission of Mr. Dash raising doubt relating to writing of letters under Exts.2 & 4 in Hindi by P.W.8, the same has already been dealt with while dealing with the 6th submission of Mr. D. Panda, learned counsel for the appellant-Rajan Mishra. Therefore, there is no need to discuss the same here again. With regard to the 5th submission of Mr. Dash, taking exception to non-examination of Rambhagat Agarwal, Deepak Sharma and Prabin Patra, it can safely be said that it is the quality of evidence that matters not the quantity. Here the prosecution has proved its case with regard to charges under Section 364A/34 & 342/34, IPC beyond reasonable doubt. The same would be clear from the versions of all the P.Ws. barring P.W.12 with special emphasis on the evidence of P.Ws.1, 2, 7, 8, 16, 17, 22 and 31. Moreover this is not a case of circumstantial evidence. The star witnesses in this case are eye-witnesses are like P.Ws.2, 7 & 8. Rambhagat Agarwal, Deepak Sharma and Prabin Patra were never eye-witnesses to the crime of abduction for ransom or illegal confinement. So nothing turns in favour of the defence on account of their non-examination. With regard to 6th submission of Mr. Dash that not putting Virendra Jaiswal and Rajan Mishra to T.I. Parade was fatal and since photographs of the appellants - Shamim Sidique and Virendra Jaiswal were published in the newspaper as stated by P.Ws.2 and 16, such publication clearly defeated the object of holding the T.I. Parade, we would only that such contention has been answered by this Court while answering the 4th submission of Mr. Panda and accordingly, we do not want to discuss the same here again. However, we accept the last submission of Mr. Panda and accordingly, we do not want to discuss the same here again. However, we accept the last submission of Mr. Dash taking exception to conviction of the appellant Shamim Sidique and Virendra Jaiswal for having committed the offence under Section 120-B, IPC for reasons which have already been given by us earlier and again while dealing with second submission of Mr. Panda. In such background, there is also no necessity of repeating the same. 13. Now we will deal with the contention of Mr. Mohapatra, learned counsel for the appellant-Roshan Ali. With regard to the 1st submission of Mr. Mohapatra that the trial court has committed illegality by considering the hearsay evidence of P.W.1, in Paragraphs-2, 7 and 8 of the judgment in violation of Section 60 of the Indian Evidence Act, we would observe that paragraph-2 of the judgment only refers to the FIR story and different things done by the police officer during course of investigation. There, no inference has been drawn with regard to the culpability or otherwise the appellant Roshan Ali. In Paragraph-7, the trial court has only analysed the evidence of P.W.1 and has come to a finding that P.W.1 corroborated his version made in the F.I.R. Further in Paragraph-7, the learned Sessions Judge has not jumped into a conclusion relating to the culpability of Roshan Ali or any other appellants. In Paragraph-8 there is a discussion relating to the statement of one Rambhagat Agarwal as relied on by P.W.1 and demand of ransom and so also the fax messages written by his father (P.W.8) marked as Ext.2. There also learned Sessions Judge has not jumped into any conclusion relating to guilt of appellant-Roshan Ali. Probably the appellant here has taken exception to P.W.1 relying on the version of Deepak Sharma, Prabin Patra and Rambhagat Agarwal without they being examined in the case. On this, it may be said that it is up to the prosecution to decide as to whom to examine and whom not to examine. Further, the present case is not a case based on circumstantial evidence but is based on versions of the eyewitnesses like P.Ws.2, 7 and 8 supported by other prosecution witnesses barring P.W.12. Therefore, to say that on the basis of analysis made in Paragraphs-2, 7 and 8 of the judgment, the learned Sessions Judge has convicted the appellant Roshan Ali is not correct. Therefore, to say that on the basis of analysis made in Paragraphs-2, 7 and 8 of the judgment, the learned Sessions Judge has convicted the appellant Roshan Ali is not correct. With regard to second submission of Mr. Mohapatra to the effect that since none of the eye-witnesses like P.Ws.2, 7 and 8 had ever named Roshan Ali during investigation, conviction of Roshan Ali is bad in law; we would say that a perusal of evidence of P.Ws.2, 7 and 8 would make it clear that the appellant Roshan Ali was named as one of the culprits by all these three eye-witnesses. Mr. Mohapatra further submitted that identification of Roshan Ali by P.W.8 in the T.I. Parade was a farce because as per evidence of P.W.8, he knew him before as he had lodged a case against him. Such contentions of Mr. Mohapatra have no legs to stand. P.W.8 in the cross-examination by Roshan Ali stated that while identifying the accused in jail, accused-Roshan Ali of this case abused him and threatened him. Such deposition is to be read along with the deposition of P.W.33 in the cross-examination at Paragraph-20 where he stated that during investigation and when accused Roshan Ali was in custody, P.W.8 lodged a case under Section 506, IPC and the said case ended in acquittal. A conjoint reading of the same leads to the inference that the appellant-Roshan Ali abused P.W.8 when he was being identified by him in this case. Therefore, it may not be proper to say that P.W.8 has seen Roshan Ali prior to T.I. Parade. However, conceding for a moment but not admitting that P.W.8 had seen him earlier even then Roshan Ali cannot escape as P.Ws.2 and 7 also identified Roshan Ali in the T.I. Parade as being culprit involved in the crime. His identification in T.I. Parade by P.Ws.2 and 7 is free from any defect. With regard to the photographs being taken by P.Ws.32 and P.W.16 seeing the photographs in the newspaper, already that part has already dealt with while dealing with the 4th submission of Mr. Dash, learned Senior Counsel. Therefore, the same may not be discussed here again. In this context, it may be noted that the decisions cited by Mr. With regard to the photographs being taken by P.Ws.32 and P.W.16 seeing the photographs in the newspaper, already that part has already dealt with while dealing with the 4th submission of Mr. Dash, learned Senior Counsel. Therefore, the same may not be discussed here again. In this context, it may be noted that the decisions cited by Mr. Mohapatra reported in (1998) SCC (Crl) 1527 (Ravindra @ Ravi Bansi Gohar v. State of Maharashtra and others), 1970 CrLJ 1149 (Budhsen and another v. State of U.P.), 1977 CrLJ 173 (Sri Ravindra Kumar Dey v. State of Orissa) and AIR 2007 SC 1729 (Ravi @ Ravichandran v. State represented by Inspector of Police) are also distinguishable on facts. In (1998) SCC (Crl) 1527 (Ravindra @ Ravi Bansi Gohar v. State of Maharashtra and others), photographs of accused were shown to identifying witnesses like P.W.2 and P.W.12, who also happened to be Constables. They also had opportunity of seeing accused in lock up. Further in that case conviction was based only on identification of P.Ws.2 and 12. So facts are different in that case. In the case reported in 1970 CrLJ 1149 (Budhsen and another v. State of U.P.), T.I. Parade was held in a casual manner as described in Paras 9, 12 and 14 of the judgment unlike the present case. The nature of evidence of identifying witnesses there was peculiar with strong indication of such witnesses having seen the accused earlier. 1977 CrLJ 173 (Sri Ravindra Kumar Dey v. State of Orissa) is totally irrelevant to the present case. In AIR 2007 SC 1729 (Ravi @ Ravichandran v. State represented by Inspector of Police) there the photographs of the culprits were published in newspaper Dinakaran on 16.8.1993 and the T.I. Parade was held on 24.8.1993. In the present case, there exists no such evidence. With regard to the 3rd submission of Mr. Mohapatra relating to mis-appreciation of the evidence of P.W.16 as he was examined on 30.5.2004, i.e., much after the incident and rescue of P.Ws.7 and 8 and that his version with regard to Roshan Ali ought not to be believed as he admitted earlier that he was abducted by Roshan Ali himself; our response would be that such submissions are without any legal basis. Law is well settled that a mere delayed examination does not destroy the evidentiary value and will not affect the prosecution case as enunciated in AIR 2002 SC 3164 (Bodh Raj @ Bodha and others v. State of Jammu and Kashmir). However, P.W.33 in the cross-examination has also indicated that he could not examine P.W.16 as he was not available. Similarly because he was abducted earlier by Roshan Ali would not be a ground to throw out his evidence as the fact situation in its totality shows his version relating to receiving telephone call from Nagpur from Roshan Ali at Rourkela ultimately led to apprehending Roshan Ali from the booth from which the telephone was coming to his mobile. Telephone receipt under Ext.58 that was seized from Roshan Ali operates as a bridge connecting Roshan Ali's conduct through STD booth at Nagpur to the mobile calls received by P.W.16 in his mobile at Rourkela. Therefore, we cannot shut our eyes to the evidence of P.W.16, who all through out from the beginning kept the police personnel in loop which ultimately resulted in DCP, Nagpur supervising the operation through P.Ws.22 and 32 leading to apprehension of appellant Roshan Ali and Rajan Mishra from Nagpur. Further, it is important to note here that while cross-examining P.W.16, no suggestion was given from the side of Roshan Ali that P.W.16 was deposing against him on account of enmity. With regard to the 4th submission of Mr. Mohapatra that the version of P.W.2 should not have been believed as he has given a totally contradictory version of abduction, we would say that though there exists minor contradiction regarding modus operandi of abduction, however, all the three eye witnesses, namely, P.Ws.2, 7 and 8 have deposed that both P.Ws.7 and 8 were taken to Bolero on pistol point. Therefore, such contradiction as highlighted by Mr. Mohapatra as to from which place the victims-P.Ws.7 and 8 were dragged, is only a minor contradiction which does not affect the core prosecution story relating to abduction by the appellant-Roshan Ali along with others with common intention of demanding ransom. With regard to 5th submission of Mr. Therefore, such contradiction as highlighted by Mr. Mohapatra as to from which place the victims-P.Ws.7 and 8 were dragged, is only a minor contradiction which does not affect the core prosecution story relating to abduction by the appellant-Roshan Ali along with others with common intention of demanding ransom. With regard to 5th submission of Mr. Mohapatra that though P.W.2 claimed himself to be an eye-witness, it was strange that P.Ws.7 and 8 - the victims never whispered anything about his presence in their evidence and accordingly the evidence of P.W.2 carried no value; we would say that such a submission ignores the basic human conduct in a crisis like situation. The situation at the time of abduction for P.Ws.7 and 8 was grave one for them. Then they were being dragged to Bolero by six persons on the point of pistol when P.W.2 witnessed the incident. In such background, their minds must have been preoccupied by fear for their lives and they must be thinking about how to save themselves. With regard to the submission of Mr. Mohapatra that P.W.2 had not identified P.Ws.7 and 8, it can only be said that the same is not true. P.W.2 in his evidence made it clear that the gentleman who was forcibly taken into the Bolero was wearing one Dhoti and Punjbani of white colour. P.W.33 in his evidence at Paragraph-18 has also stated that P.W.2 stated before him that on the point of Revolver the culprits took away the aged person, who was wearing Dhoti. P.W.8 in his examination-in-chief at Paragraph-3 has also stated that on the date of occurrence he was wearing a Dhoti and Punjabi. From this it cannot be said that P.W.2 had not identified P.W.8 in any manner. In any case core prosecution story relating to abduction by Roshan Ali along with others at Pistol point as stated by P.W.2 has been corroborated by P.Ws.7 and 8. The 6th submission of Mr. Mohapatra was there was no prosecution evidence to connect Roshan Ali with demand of ransom for release of P.Ws.7 and 8 as P.W.1 had not identified the persons, who made calls to him and there existed no evidence as to from which telephone, calls and messages had come. Further, P.W.33 did not send fax messages to any handwriting expert and have not seized the original letters sent through fax, which did not reveal any name. Further, P.W.33 did not send fax messages to any handwriting expert and have not seized the original letters sent through fax, which did not reveal any name. It is once again reiterated here that analysis of evidence of both P.Ws.7 and 8 would show that there is enough material to connect Roshan Ali with demand of ransom. P.W.7 identified Roshan Ali in the T.I. Parade as well as in the court as one of the eight culprits who committed the crime. According to him eight culprits took him in the Bolero, which ultimately reached a tile roofed house at Hartoli. There those culprits told P.W.8 to write letters to his son (P.W.1) to arrange a huge amount for their release. Abduction took place on 24.1.2004. On 28.1.2004 as per P.W.16 he received the phone call from Roshan Ali who wanted to know the financial condition of P.W.8. Similarly, P.W.8 in his evidence indicated clearly that Roshan Ali was one of the culprits who along with others abducted him and his driver and they demanded Rs. 15 crores and kept them confined in two separate rooms. The culprits forced him to write letter to P.W.1 by giving dictation as to what to write for ransom. These culprits, which obviously included Roshan Ali threatened to kill him if he failed to write as per their dictation. Accordingly, he wrote Exts.2 and 4. Thus, it is clear that Roshan Ali along with others abducted P.Ws.7 and 8 and kept them in illegal confinement with common intention to extract ransom. PW.16 had made it clear that it was Roshan Ali who had contacted him from a telephone booth which was ultimately found to be situated at Nagpur and as per the timing given by P.W.16 and P.W.22, in the evening of 9.2.2004 after the phone conversation between Roshan Ali and P.W.16 was completed, he was apprehended at Nagpur by P.Ws.22 and 31. So far as P.W.1 is concerned he has received Exts.2 and 4 which he deposed to be in the writing of his father. These two exhibits were also identified by P.W.8 to be in his own handwriting containing demand of ransom. In any case this is not a case of circumstantial evidence because as indicated earlier it is a clear case of eyewitnesses identifying and deposing against Roshan Ali about his conduct and culpability. These two exhibits were also identified by P.W.8 to be in his own handwriting containing demand of ransom. In any case this is not a case of circumstantial evidence because as indicated earlier it is a clear case of eyewitnesses identifying and deposing against Roshan Ali about his conduct and culpability. Non-seizure of original Exts.2 and 4 from the custody of the appellants cannot in any way weaken the case of the prosecution in the light of deposition made by eye-witnesses P.Ws.2, 7 and 8 and other attending circumstances in support of the version of the eye witnesses. Ext.58 seized from Roshan Ali and proved by P.W.32 also connects the booth telephone with the mobile telephone number of P.W.16. Therefore, there exists no doubt about the complicity of the appellant Roshan Ali in committing the offence under Section 364A/34, IPC. With regard to collection of voice samples, we need not deal with Mr. Mohapatrra's submission as the learned Sessions Judge has not relied on such evidence. With regard to 7th submission of Mr. Mohapatra regarding non-examination of Rambhagat Agrawal, Prabin Patra, Deepak Sharma and Sudhir Das being fatal to the prosecution case, we make it clear that this aspect of the matter has been taken care by us while examining 5th submission of Mr. Y. Dash, learned Senior Advocate. Therefore, we do not want to repeat the same version while refuting the 7th submission of Mr. Mohapatra. In this context, though Mr. Mohapatra relied on the decisions of the apex Court reported in AIR 1954 SC 41 (Purnendu Nath Tagore v. Administrator General of West Bengal) and (2007) 1 SCC (Cri) 744 (Ritesh Chakravarti v. State of Madhya Pradesh), however, the said decisions are factually distinguishable. AIR 1954 SC 41 (Purnendu Nath Tagore v. Administrator General of West Bengal) lays down that when a material witness is withheld, adverse inference should be drawn. There, one top ranking police officer Ghulam Afzal Biabani though present at the scene of occurrence was not examined. So the Hon'ble Supreme Court noted that this has greatly prejudiced the accused. But here no eye-witness has been withheld. In (2007) 1 SCC (Cri) 744 (Ritesh Chakravarti v. State of Madhya Pradesh) one S.K. Bajpai despite being eyewitness was not examined by prosecution. This greatly prejudiced the accused. With regard to 8th and 10th submissions of Mr. So the Hon'ble Supreme Court noted that this has greatly prejudiced the accused. But here no eye-witness has been withheld. In (2007) 1 SCC (Cri) 744 (Ritesh Chakravarti v. State of Madhya Pradesh) one S.K. Bajpai despite being eyewitness was not examined by prosecution. This greatly prejudiced the accused. With regard to 8th and 10th submissions of Mr. Mohaptra, that Roshan Ali has been convicted under Section 120B, IPC without any proper evidence against him and by relying on his alleged confessional statement before P.Ws 22, 31 and 32; we accept this contention of Mr. Mohapatra for reasons stated earlier with regard to contention raised by Mr. D. Panda, learned counsel for Rajan Mishra on the same issue. With regard to 9th submission of Mr. Mohapatra that there exists no evidence to convict Roshan Ali under Sections 342/34, IPC, we reject such submission as there exists enough evidence which would be clear from a perusal of evidence of P.Ws.7 and 8. P.Ws.7 and 8 not only identified Roshan Ali in the T.I. Parade and also in the court but as indicated earlier both have said that he was one of the culprits who took active part in abduction and bringing them to the tile roofed house at Hartoli. P.W.7 in his evidence stated that all the culprits, which obviously included Roshan Ali brought them to that place inside the house and confined them there. During Confinement the miscreants which obviously included Roshan Ali persuaded P.W.8 to write letters to his son to arrange a huge amount of cash for their release. P.W.8 also stated that after the Bolero moved for about 5 hours, it stopped in the road in an isolated place. Thereafter, the culprits which obviously included Roshan Ali took them from Bolero to a tile roofed house with a mud compound wall forcibly and they demanded huge amount. P.W8 further stated that he and P.W.7 were kept in two separate rooms of that house for a period of 17 days. During this period of confinement, the culprits were regularly coming to him and threatening him to pay huge amount for release from the wrongful confinement. With regard to 11th submission of Mr. P.W8 further stated that he and P.W.7 were kept in two separate rooms of that house for a period of 17 days. During this period of confinement, the culprits were regularly coming to him and threatening him to pay huge amount for release from the wrongful confinement. With regard to 11th submission of Mr. Mohapatra that Roshan Ali has been seriously prejudiced for bringing Exts.58/1, 58/2, 58/3 and Ext.59 on record, which were never seized from his possession and no copy of seizure list was ever prepared, we refuse to accept such contention as such contention is not factually correct. Exts.58, 58/1, 58/2, 58/3 and Ext.59 were seized vide Ext.61 dated 9.2.2004 and Ext.20 dated 29.3.2004. Ext. 61 has been signed by Roshan Ali and P.W.32. Thus those records were seized by P.W.32 and P.W.33 in course of investigation. Ext.61 shows those were recovered from the possession of Roshan Ali and the same has been reitereated in Ext.20. With regard to no questions being put about the above noted documents to Roshan Ali under Section 313, Cr.P.C it can be said that though about these documents PW.32 has deposed in his evidence but while cross-examining him on behalf of Roshan Ali no question has been put on the above noted documents. Though the documents under Exts.58/1, 58/2, 58/3 and Ext.59 has not been specifically indicated in the statement of Roshan Ali recorded under Section 313, Cr.P.C., however, question nos. 11, 12, 19 would show that the questions were put to him on his telephone calls to P.W.16 from Nagpur. The above noted exhibits mainly contain the various telephone numbers seized by P.W.32 from Roshan Ali. Thus it cannot be said that Roshan Ali was totally unaware of the reasons for such examination, which obviously was based on such exhibits. Thus in the facts and circumstances, it cannot be said that any prejudice has been caused to Roshan Ali on this account. Further, even if we ignore the above noted documents, then also Roshan Ali can not go scot free as his role in abducting and confining P.W.7 and P.W.8 for ransom is well established from the evidence of eye-witnesses like P.Ws.2, 7 & 8. With regard to the 12th submission of Mr. Further, even if we ignore the above noted documents, then also Roshan Ali can not go scot free as his role in abducting and confining P.W.7 and P.W.8 for ransom is well established from the evidence of eye-witnesses like P.Ws.2, 7 & 8. With regard to the 12th submission of Mr. Mohapatra that though P.W.8 has stated that all the eight persons were very much present and they were talking with him during the period of two hours and threatening that if ransom would not be paid, his children and family members would be killed and finished and though Santosh Jha, Pradeep Srivastava and late-Rajendra Prasad were acquitted, however, Roshan Ali has been convicted. In this context, a careful reading of evidence of P.W.8 would show that at para-21 he has referred to the eight accused persons however, in para-23 he has made it clear that out of the eight accused persons, who had abducted him, five accused persons were present in the court. He further stated that the accused persons like Pradeep Srivastava, late-Rajendra Prasad and Santosh Jha were not involved in abducting him and they had no role to play in abducting him or his driver. He also made it clear that he did not see these three persons in the place of confinement or anywhere and for the first time he saw those three persons namely, Santosh Jha, late Rajendra Prasad and Pradeep Srivastava in the court only. Moreover, P.W.7 though identified Shamim Sidique, Atul Pandey, Rajan Mishra, Virendra Jaiswal and Roshan Ali in the court, however he also did not identify Santosh Jha, Rejendra Prasad and Pradip Srivastava despite their presence in the court. Therefore Roshan Ali is not similarly placed as that of three persons who have been acquitted. Also in such background not carrying out of T.I. Parade with regard to Santosh Jha, Pradeep Srivastava and late-Rajendra Prasad in no way weakens the prosecution case. Had they been put to T.I. Parade, no fruitful purpose would have been served in the above noted background. With regard to the last submission of Mr. Mohapatra that all the documents exhibited in the case being unauthenticated xerox copies, the court below has gone wrong in relying on such xerox copies, such submission is not factually correct. A perusal of exihibits would show that there exists xerox copies only of Exts.2, 4, 52 and 71. With regard to the last submission of Mr. Mohapatra that all the documents exhibited in the case being unauthenticated xerox copies, the court below has gone wrong in relying on such xerox copies, such submission is not factually correct. A perusal of exihibits would show that there exists xerox copies only of Exts.2, 4, 52 and 71. The xerox copies of Exts.2 and 4 no way weakens the case of the prosecution as the original of the same may have been destroyed by the culprits which were in their possession. Taking a board view of facts namely, the circumstances under which Exts.2 and 4 were despatched, i.e., in the background of abduction and demand of ransom and that P.W.8 has owned up his own handwriting as appearing from Exts.2 and 4 and the fact that handwriting appearing in Exts.2 and 4 have been identified by P.W.1 as the handwriting of P.W.8, no exception can be taken in the circumstances for making use of xerox copies of fax messages demanding ransom in the background of immediate and recent abduction. With regard to Ext.47, it shows the name of Ramesh Agarwal and Ramesh Garg in the Register of Hotel Kamal at Sitawardi, even if we ignore the same, it will no way weaken prosecution case as after being apprehended Rajan Mishra and Roshan Ali had revealed their true identities at Nagpur and moreover they were correctly identified in the T.I. Parades and in the court by eye-witnesses like P.Ws.2, 7 & 8. With regard to Ext.52, the appellant can not raise any objection now as it was admitted in evidence by the trial court without any objection. With regard to Ext. 71 containing some phone numbers, even if we ignore the above noted exhibit then also no benefit can accrue to Roshan Ali as he has been implicated by eye-witnesses like P.Ws.2, 7 and 8 of committing the crime of abduction along with others with common intention to extract ransom from P.Ws.7 and 8 by keeping them under illegal confinement. 14. With regard to submissions of Mr. J.P. Patnaik, learned Additional Government Advocate, since we have accepted most of his submissions except his submission with regard to Section 120B, IPC, we will deal with the decision cited by him on this issue. 14. With regard to submissions of Mr. J.P. Patnaik, learned Additional Government Advocate, since we have accepted most of his submissions except his submission with regard to Section 120B, IPC, we will deal with the decision cited by him on this issue. Earlier, we have made it clear in course of analysis of evidence and submission of learned counsel for the appellants regarding deficiency of evidence on this issue. Now coming to decision cited by Mr. Patnaik, learned Additional Government Advocate, i.e., (2010) 3 SCC 56 (Vikram Singh and others v. State of Punjab), we would say that particular case is factually distinguishable. In that case unlike this case, all the accused were apprehended from a single spot. Similarly decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in (2012) 1 SCC 406 (Akram Khan v. State of West Bengal) is also factually distinguishable. 15. For all these reasons, while we uphold the conviction of the appellants under Sections 364A/34, IPC and 342/34, IPC we acquit the appellants of charges under Section 120B, IPC. Since we are upholding the conviction of the appellants under Sections 364A/34, IPC and 342/34, IPC, we also uphold the sentences awarded by the learned Sessions Judge, Sundargarh with regard to the above noted offences and make it clear that all the substantive sentences are to run concurrently and U.T.P. period be set off. 16. Before concluding, we want to make it clear that the analysis made by us in the present appeals and findings given on different aspects shall in no way affect and influence disposal of CRLA No.523 of 2007 filed by Atul Pandey, which is pending before this Court and future trial, if any, of Abdul Kayum @ Pandit @ Tippu. Accordingly, the CRLAs are partly allowed. Final Result : Allowed