JUDGMENT Virender Singh, C.J. - In all, eight accused namely, Abdul Razak, Md. Bashir, Md. Kasim, Siraj Mian, Md. Kayum, Ibrahim Mian, Md. Latif and Md. Mustakim faced the trial for charge under Sections 364, 379, 342 and 323 IPC for allegedly kidnapping Sohar Mian (P.W.-6) on 02.04.1988 and theft of his cycle. The information in this regard was given to the police by Md. Maksood (P.W.-5), the son of Sohar Mian. On the same day, the victim was recovered from the house of Ibrahim Mian where Abdul Razak, Ibrahim Mian and Md. Mustakim were also present. Admittedly, the other five accused persons were not present there. 2. It so happened that during the trial, the matter was compromised between both the sides. Md. Razak is closely related to the victim Sohar Mian. His daughter is married to the son of Sohar Mian. The root cause for the occurrence is that daughter of Abdul Razak was deserted by her in-laws and she was staying with her father. The compromise-deed effected between the parties was accepted by the learned trial court and the offence under Sections 323 and 342 IPC for which all the accused were charged was compounded. Offence under Section 379 IPC is otherwise not proved as held by the learned trial court and all the accused persons were convicted for the charge under Section 364 IPC by the learned trial court vide impugned judgment dated 20.02.1992. Aggrieved thereof, the instant appeal has been filed. 3. During the pendency of the appeal, appellants Md. Kasim, Ibrahim Mian, Md. Latif and Md. Mustakim died. The instant appeal thus, stood abated qua them vide order dated 02.03.2009. It now survives qua appellants Abdul Razak, Md. Bashir, Siraj Mian and Md. Kayum. 4. Heard learned counsel for both the sides and perused the records minutely. 5. Not only, after appreciating the entire evidence in its right perspective, we are of the considered view that ingredients of offence under Section 364 IPC are conspicuously missing in the present case and on account of the rift between the parties the present case has been lodged for settling score, even otherwise as per the prosecution case none of the accused, when intercepted the victim (Sohar Mian), was armed with any weapon. The case set up by the prosecution is that the victim was on his bicycle and all the accused intercepted him and took him to the house of Abdul Razak. He was ultimately recovered from the house of Ibrahim Mian in the presence of Abdul Razark, Ibrahim Mian and Md. Mustakim. Md. Maksood (P.W.-5), who happens to be the first informant was not the eye-witness to the occurrence and the other so-called eye-witnesses to the occurrence have otherwise not supported the case of the prosecution. The case of prosecution is thus, resting on the statement of the victim which is otherwise of a very weak character on account of certain inherent flaws crept in his statement. He is the most interested witness in this case. Taking into account the totality of the facts and circumstances, at best offence under Section 342 IPC qua accused Abdul Razak, Ibrahim Mian and Md. Mustakim can be said to be made out. Out of these three, two persons are already dead. The other accused persons were not present at the place from where the victim was recovered. The fact of the matter is that offence under Section 342 IPC for which Abdul Razak can at the most be fastened with liability, already stands compounded by the learned trial court itself. 6. Regard being had to the entire factual situation in the case in hand, the instant appeal deserves to be allowed qua Abdul Razak, Md. Bashir, Siraj Mian and Md. Kayum. Ordered accordingly. The appellants are discharged of liability of their respective bail bonds. Appeal allowed.