JUDGMENT Per Virender Singh, J. The appeal on hand has been preferred by accused-appellant Bhaiya Shyam against the judgment of conviction dated 05-07-2008 and the order of sentence dated 10.07.2008 passed by 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Dhanbad in Sessions Trial No. 50 of 1997, whereby and where-under he has been found guilty u/s 364-A/411/120-B of the IPC. and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life and a fine of Rs.2000/- only, in default to pay fine, simple imprisonment for one month for the offence u/s 364-A IPC. He has been further sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years for the offence u/s 411 of the Indian Penal Code. Both the substantive sentences, however, have been ordered to run concurrently. 2. Prosecution story, as one finds from the Fardbeyan (initial statement) of one Pramod Kumar Jain, (elder brother of the victim) is that on 25.05.1996 Raj Kumar Jain ( for short ‘victim’), who had gone to his “Saurab Hard Coke” Bhatta at 10 A.M. in his Maruti Van No. BR-17-C 7050, did not return home till 2 P.M, while he normally used to leave the Bhatta at 1 P.M. for his home to take lunch, whereupon he and his family members became anxious for him. They started waiting for his arrival apprehensively. Meanwhile, at 6.30 P.M. somebody made a telephone call to his residential phone and made demand of money in lieu of the release of victim making aware about his abduction with his Maruti Van. Threatening was also extended on phone call to the effect, if any act of cleverness is shown by them, they will do away with his life. 3. On aforesaid allegations, Barwadda P.S. Case No.95 of 1996 was registered under Section u/s 364-A, 379 and 34 I.P.C. against unknown accused persons and investigation was undertaken. After completion of investigation thereof I.O. submitted charge-sheet for the offence under Section u/s 364-A, 379/34 I.P.C. against accused-appellant and seven others showing three of them in absconder column. Charge was framed against accused-appellant along with five others and their trial commenced in S.T.No.50/97, which resulted in conviction of accused-appellant, who was sentenced in the terms of the impugned judgment passed by 2nd Additional District & Sessions Judge, Dhanbad. 4. Learned counsel for appellant Mr. Charge was framed against accused-appellant along with five others and their trial commenced in S.T.No.50/97, which resulted in conviction of accused-appellant, who was sentenced in the terms of the impugned judgment passed by 2nd Additional District & Sessions Judge, Dhanbad. 4. Learned counsel for appellant Mr. Prabhat Kumar Sinha, assailing the impugned judgment submitted that TIP conducted in this case, on the face of it, appears to be farce exercise for the reasons that it has been conducted after four months. Learned Magistrate, who conducted the TIP, did not step into witness-box to prove TIP chart, not a single seizure witness as well as attesting witness to both seizure lists has come in the court to take oath, which also contends the prosecution case vis-a-vis recovery of alleged articles shown in this case by I.O. and it appears to be an attempt to complete all the planks of the investigation. Even otherwise the entire evidence available on the record, if seen collectively, is against all the accused and when rest five accused have already earned acquittal, evidence being so interconnected and intertwined, cannot be segregated qua the present appellant, the evidence of the wife of victim, who has been believed by trial court is neither here nor there and it does not appear to be probable that appellant would ask the wife of victim whether her husband had reached safely and when she asked appellant to disclose his name, he comfortably disclosed his name as Bhaiya Shyam. The learned counsel contended that the evidence brought by prosecution on the record, on face of it is most improbable, therefore deserves to be rejected outrightly. On the strength of aforesaid submission, learned counsel submits that even the appellant also deserves acquittal by extending benefit of doubt to him. 5. Per contra, learned A.P.P Mr. The learned counsel contended that the evidence brought by prosecution on the record, on face of it is most improbable, therefore deserves to be rejected outrightly. On the strength of aforesaid submission, learned counsel submits that even the appellant also deserves acquittal by extending benefit of doubt to him. 5. Per contra, learned A.P.P Mr. Sanjay Kumar Pandey submitted that delay in conducting TIP as well as non-discloser of the specific role played by accused in the witness box by victim is not per se fatal in the facts and circumstances of case in terms of section 9 of the Indian Evidence Act; Section 291-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure does not require the Magistrate, who conducted TIP to be examined to prove TIP chart; there be sufficient evidence on record to prove seizure of incriminating articles in the case at hand as such non-examination of seizure list witnesses is not fatal for the case of prosecution; it is not only the evidence of the wife of victim, upon which learned trial judge has placed reliance rather the order of conviction is based on the right appreciation and full application of judicial mind on the entire evidence in totality, moreover, the evidence of the wife of victim cannot be brushed aside on hypothetical ground because her statement in vernacular that “Mujhe yaad nahi ki maine police ko bataya ki phone karane wala apana naam Bhaiya Shyam bataya tha” does not defy her version about the discloser of the name of caller as Bhaiya Shyam disclosed by none else but caller himself; and finally, the accused-appellant can never seek his entitlement of acquittal only because the other five accused persons have been acquitted in same trial as such the appeal is devoid of any merit and deserves to be dismissed. 6. During course of the trial, altogether 11 witnesses were examined by the prosecution. (a) P.W.1-Shailendra Kumar Sinha (2) P.W.2-Vashishth Singh and (3) P.W-3-Shyam Nandan Yadav are employees of the victim, have stated that on the day of occurrence, one person had come in Bhatta and inquired about the time of arrival as well as departure of victim. On being inquired, said person disclosed his name as Kishor/KK. (a) P.W.1-Shailendra Kumar Sinha (2) P.W.2-Vashishth Singh and (3) P.W-3-Shyam Nandan Yadav are employees of the victim, have stated that on the day of occurrence, one person had come in Bhatta and inquired about the time of arrival as well as departure of victim. On being inquired, said person disclosed his name as Kishor/KK. (b) P.W-4 Baldeo Pandey is beetle shop owner, has stated that on the day of abduction of Ram Kumar Jain, he had noticed one white Ambassador Car parked ahead of his shop and near the bhatta of Ram Kumar Jain. (c) P.W-5 Satyabhama Jain is the wife of victim, has stated that on 25-05-96, when her husband did not come at lunch time from his 'Sourabh Coke Industries', she became anxious about it, meanwhile, she received a telephone call and came to know that her husband was kidnapped. Cash Rs. 50 lakh was demanded having given threat to the life of her husband by kidnappers. She further received telephone calls of kidnappers several times on 26 & 27 May 96 and finally on 27-05-96 one person again made a call at about 10 A.M. and asked whether her husband reached at home or not on, whereupon she asked the name of caller, who told his name as Bhaiya Shyam in slow voice. Her husband arrived on 27-05-96 at home at about 11/11.30 A.M. She noticed the marks of violence including charring marks caused by cigarette on his person. She has also unveiled that on repeated demand of cash under life threat through telephone calls made by kidnappers, her husband went with a suitcase on 28-05-96 in between 7 P.M. to 7.30 P.M. and came back after some time. During cross-examination she has affirmed her version earlier stated during examination-in-chief regarding kidnapping, telephone calls made by kidnappers, injuries noticed by her on person of her husband. (d) P.W-6 Surendra Kumar Jain is the informant of the case has supported the contents of his fardbeyan (Ext-2) recorded by police. He also has stated that his brother (victim) arrived back on 27-05-96 and he had noticed injuries on his person. (d) P.W-6 Surendra Kumar Jain is the informant of the case has supported the contents of his fardbeyan (Ext-2) recorded by police. He also has stated that his brother (victim) arrived back on 27-05-96 and he had noticed injuries on his person. (e) P.W-7-Raj Kumar Jain is victim and key witness of the case, has stated that on the date of occurrence at about 1 to 1.30 P.M. when he was returning to his home, four persons out of six seated in a Ambassador Car alighted, entered into his Maruti Van (BR-17C-7050) and abducted him. They started subjecting him to torture by charring his arm, chick and shoulder with a burning cigarette. They also caused cut injuries on his arm with knife at the time of putting demand of cash Rs. 50 Lakhs as ransom. On the next day, they again demanded money thereafter they tied his legs with a rope and hanged him on a hook thereafter at 11.00 P.M. they covered his face with a towel and took him to Hazaribagh. On 27th at about 9.30 A.M. abductors released him on his assurance to give them cash Rs.5 Lakhs. They took away his Maruti Van one golden bracelet, two rings and one thousand cash. On 28-5-96 the abductors made a telephone call and threatened to him to kill his son in case he would not give assured amount whereupon he went and handed over cash Rs.5 lakh to them near railway station. After one and half month his Maruti Van was recovered from the house of Shyam Bhaiya. He further has deposed that he had identified the room where he was kept after abduction, when police took him there. He had participated in TIP twice and identified one accused in each TIP. He had identified Bhaiya Shyam in TIP. He also has identified Bhaiya Shyam, who was present in court at the time of his deposition. During cross-examination he has stated that it is not true that he had seen accused after his arresting and before identifying him in TIP. He has also described the vivid details of the manner of his abduction, torture subjected to him, release of him at the hands of abductors on assurance to give them Rs.5 lakh and delivery of cash Rs.5 lakh to abductors near railway station in the answers to the questions put by learned defence counsel during cross-examination. He has also described the vivid details of the manner of his abduction, torture subjected to him, release of him at the hands of abductors on assurance to give them Rs.5 lakh and delivery of cash Rs.5 lakh to abductors near railway station in the answers to the questions put by learned defence counsel during cross-examination. (f) P.W.8 is Sudhir Pandey, has stated that his statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. was recorded before Magistrate and proved his signature on the said statement as Ext-1 but during cross-examination he has stated that he had given his statement in duress because torture as well as extreme pressure was mounted on him by police and thus he tried to dilute his testimony stated in examination-in-chief. (g) P.W-9 is investigating officer, has proved and exhibited fardbeyan of the informant (exhibit-2), forwarding report on fardbeyan (exhibit 2/1), the formal F.I.R (exhibit-3) requisition for sending victim-Raj Kumar Jain for medical treatment (exhibit-4), the seizure list for the recovery of Maruti Van bearing No. BR-14C-7050 of the victim (exhibit-5) and T.I.P. chart dated 27.09.1996 in which accused Bhaiya Shyam was identified (exhibit-6/1) by victim. He has described the first place of occurrence as the place from where victim was kidnapped and second place of occurrence as the house of Bhaiya Narendra (relative of Bhaiya Shyam) situated in Village-Daru, wherein the victim was taken and kept after abduction. He further has added that on being searched, one towel of Maruti Van of the victim was recovered for which seizure list (exhibit-7) was prepared. He has further deposed that the victim identified the room where he was kept after abduction and by showing a Hook on the roof he told that the accused persons tortured him by hanging on the same hook. He has further deposed that he went at the house of Bhaiya Shyam, made search of his house and seized one insurance paper of Vehicle No. BR-13A-0723, engine no. 924763 and chases no. 957412. Seizure list has been proved and marked as exhibit-7/1. He further has deposed that the engine /chassis/ registration numbers found on insurance paper be the same as the engine /chassis/ registration number of the Maruti Van of the Victim. During lengthy cross-examination nothing has been elicited to shake the testimony of this witness. 924763 and chases no. 957412. Seizure list has been proved and marked as exhibit-7/1. He further has deposed that the engine /chassis/ registration numbers found on insurance paper be the same as the engine /chassis/ registration number of the Maruti Van of the Victim. During lengthy cross-examination nothing has been elicited to shake the testimony of this witness. (h) P.W.10 is Inspector of Police Ashok Kumar, has stated that during investigation of Dhanbad P.S. Case No. 435 of 1996 he came to know about concealment of one Maruti van belonging to Raj Kumar Jain victim of Govindpur (Bawada) P.S. Case No.95 of 1996 in the house of Bhaiya Shayam @ Rajesh Sinha. For taking the assistance of Hazaribagh (M) police for the recovery of said Maruti Van, he had written an application (exhibit-8) to Officer-in-Charge of Hazaribagh (M) Police Station. With the assistance of Hazaribagh (M) police he raided the house of Bhaiya Shyam and recovered one Maruti Van thereafter seizure list (Ext-5) was prepared and on being opened the dickey of the Van one number plate bearing No. BR-17C-7050 was recovered. He has proved his signature (exhibit 5/1) on exhibit-5 i.e. seizure list. (i) P.W.11 is sub inspector of police Sanjay Kumar Rana of Hazaribagh (M) police station, has stated that he had assisted the officer-in-charge of Dhanbad police station during raid conducted in the house of Bhaiya Shyam, where one Maruti Van was recovered. In dickey of the said Maruti Van one number plate bearing No. BR-17C-7050 was also recovered and seizure list was prepared in his presence and he had put his signature on it (exhibit 5/2). 7. From the above oral evidence as well as documentary evidence, we are of the considered view that prosecution has been able to prove the offence of abduction as well as recovery of theft articles in the case on hand beyond all reasonable doubts. 8. So far as the complicity of accused-appellant is concerned, the following pieces of evidence are exclusively stating at him:- i. Victim had participated in TIP and identified Bhaiya Shyam in jail. Here it is trite to mention here that the very purpose of TIP is to test the observation, grasp, memory, capacity to recapitulate what a witness has seen earlier. But T.I.P. provides corroboration to the identification of witness in court. (T.I.P. chart dated 27.09.1996 has been proved and exhibited as-6/1). ii. Here it is trite to mention here that the very purpose of TIP is to test the observation, grasp, memory, capacity to recapitulate what a witness has seen earlier. But T.I.P. provides corroboration to the identification of witness in court. (T.I.P. chart dated 27.09.1996 has been proved and exhibited as-6/1). ii. Victim has also identified Bhaiya Shyam, who was present in court at the time of his deposition. It is well settled position of law that the substantive evidence is the evidence of identification in court. iii. The wife of victim has stated that on 27th at 10 A.M. one call was received by her and caller asked her whether Jain shahab reached at home, whereupon she asked the name of caller thereupon he replied (in vernacular) “Bhaiya Shyam bol raha hun”. Her testimony has been found reliable on the test of cross-examination. Disclosure of the name by caller does not appear improbable for three reasons (i) the victim was already released (ii) natural spontaneity of reply after release of victim (iii) no any contradiction in terms of section 145 Indian Evidence has been taken from her previous statement recorded u/s 161 Cr.P.C on this point during cross-examination. iv. From the house of Bhaiya Shyam, police (P.W-10) recovered one Maruti Van thereafter seizure list (Ext-5) was prepared and on being opened the dickie of the Van, the number plate bearing No. BR-17C-7050 was also recovered. v. P.W-9 (I.O.) went at the house of Bhaiya Shyam, made search of his house and seized one insurance paper of Vehicle No. BR-13A-0723 bearing engine no. 924763 and chassis no. 957412. vi. On comparison of Seizure (exhibit-7/1) prepared for recovery of insurance paper with seizure list (exhibit-5) prepared for the recovery of Maruti Van with its number plate, it is apparent that the engine/chassis /registration numbers found on insurance paper be the same as the engine /chassis/ registration number of the Maruti Van of the Victim. vii. The statement of Sudhir Pandey recorded u/s 164 Cr.P.C. (Ext-1) also transpires the complicity of Bhaiya Shyam. Although he tried to dilute his testimony during cross-examination, but even after that Ext-1 bears its corroborative value. 9. After meticulous rescanning the prosecution case in its right perspective, we are of the considered view that the prosecution has, no doubt, been able to prove its case beyond the shadow of any reasonable doubt vis-a-vis complicity of accused-appellant. Although he tried to dilute his testimony during cross-examination, but even after that Ext-1 bears its corroborative value. 9. After meticulous rescanning the prosecution case in its right perspective, we are of the considered view that the prosecution has, no doubt, been able to prove its case beyond the shadow of any reasonable doubt vis-a-vis complicity of accused-appellant. Therefore, his conviction and sentence as recorded by trial court vide impugned judgment deserves to be upheld. Ordered accordingly. 10. The net result is that the appeal on hand stands dismissed.