JUDGMENT Sudhir Kumar Saxena, J. – This appeal filed under Section 374 Cr.P.C. is directed against the judgement and order dated 1.8.2006 passed by Sri S.D. Paliwal, Special Judge (D.A.A.) Etawah in Special S.T. No. 01 of 2005 (State v. Jajment Singh and others) convicting the appellants under Section 364-A of the I.P.C. and sentencing them with life imprisonment in addition to fine of Rs. 10,000/- each and in default of payment of fine one year rigorous imprisonment has been ordered. 2. Heard Sri V.K. Agnihotri and Sri S.V. Singh, learned counsels for the appellants and learned A.G.A. for the State and gone through the record. 3. Briefly stated facts of the case are that Sarjan Singh informed police on 20.10.2004 that his cousin Sanjeet Kumar and Raj Kishore brother-in-law of his cousin brother were missing as they had gone to Agra for taking medicines but they did not come back. A missing report was lodged with the police station Jaswant Nagar, Etawah. On 27.10.2004 Sarjan Singh gave a detailed information to the effect that Sanjeet Kumar and Raj Kishore had gone to Agra on 19.10.2004 but did not return. On 26.10.2004 Anuj Kumar resident of Rukanpura P.S. Jaswantnagar approached him with a polythene bag which contained purse of Raj Kishore, some prescriptions, bills of medicines, photo of Raj Kishore and some other papers. Anuj Kumar informed that these things have been provided by Ram Adhar who found bag in his field of Bazra. Thereafter informant and other persons went to Kursaina and discussed the matter with Ram Adhar, who showed him the field from where the polythene bag was recovered. In the field damaged photo of Sanjeet Kumar was also found. Report of abduction was made against unknown persons and on the basis of report case was registered at Case Crime No. 201 of 2004 under Section 364-A IPC. On 4.11.2004 police recovered Sanjeet Kumar and Raj Kishore from the house of Jajment Singh, but were referred for medical examination by the police allegedly on 3.11.2004, as is apparent from majrubi chitthi. In the medical examination made on 4.11.2004 doctor found no visible injury on the part of the body. Complaint of pain was noticed in both arm and lower extremities of Raj Kishore. Pain over back of chest and gluteal region was noticed by doctor while examining Sanjeet Kumar. In the medical examination made on 4.11.2004 doctor found no visible injury on the part of the body. Complaint of pain was noticed in both arm and lower extremities of Raj Kishore. Pain over back of chest and gluteal region was noticed by doctor while examining Sanjeet Kumar. After investigation charge-sheet was submitted against accused Jajment Singh, Ram Bihari Shakya, Mohan Singh alias Krishna Mohan Singh, Sukhrani and Seema. Charge was framed on 2.3.2005 against Jajment Singh, Sukhrani, Seema, Ram Bihari Shakya and Mohan Singh alias Krishna Mohan Singh under Section 364-A Cr.P.C. 4. All the accused denied the charge and claimed to be tried. 5. Prosecution examined six witnesses namely Sanjeet Kumar P.W.-1, Sarjan Singh P.W.-2, Raj Kishore P.W.-3, Manoj Kumar Singh P.W.-4, Vidya Ram Yadav P.W.-5 and Sunit Kumar P.W.-6. 6. After prosecution evidence statements of all accused were recorded under section 313 Cr.P.C. in which they attributed false implication due to enemity. No evidence was led in defence. 7. After considering above material learned trial Judge heard the arguments of both the parties and passed the impugned judgement and order dated 1.8.2006 whereby he has convicted and sentenced appellants as above. Sukhrani and Seema have been acquitted. 8. Sanjeet Kumar P.W.-1 and Raj Kishore P.W.-3 are the victims and Sarjan Singh P.W.-2 is informant, Manoj Kumar Singh P.W.-4 is Head Constable who proved the Chik F.I.R., Vidya Ram Yadav P.W.-5 is witness of inquest of recovery while Sunit Kumar P.W.-6 is I.O., who proved investigation. 9. Sarjan Singh P.W.-2 proved the missing report as well as FIR. In cross examination he stated that he does not know when and from where Sanjeet Kumar and Raj Kishore were recovered. After abduction, letter for ransom was received after 15-16 days. He met the abductees in the police station but he did not meet any accused there. He denied having made false allegation and registered first information report due to enmity. This witness is not of much significance. 10. P.W.-1 Sanjeet Kumar is one of the abductee. He stated that he had gone to Agra on 18.10.2004 along with Raj Kishore. On 19.10.2004 he came to Kursaina from Agra by truck and then started walking towards his village. At about 8.30 P.M. four persons armed with country made pistols snatched Rs. This witness is not of much significance. 10. P.W.-1 Sanjeet Kumar is one of the abductee. He stated that he had gone to Agra on 18.10.2004 along with Raj Kishore. On 19.10.2004 he came to Kursaina from Agra by truck and then started walking towards his village. At about 8.30 P.M. four persons armed with country made pistols snatched Rs. 150/- from Raj Kishore, beat them up, tied their hands and blindfolded them and after crossing the river took to village Veerampur and locked them in a room. They were not allowed to go outside the room and food was provided through a opening made in the wall of the room. They were addressing each other as Ram Bihari, Jajment Singh and Krishna Mohan. Krishna Mohan forced them to write two letters, one seeking ransom of Rs. 75,000/- and another demanding Rs. 4,00,000/- from their family. They remain entrapped in that room till 4.11.2004 when police rescued. Said house belonged to Jajment Singh, food were provided by two women Seema and Sukhrani. In the court he identified Jajment Singh, Seema, Sukhrani and Ram Bihari. In cross-examination he stated that his uncle Mahesh met with an accident at Saifai road. On that very day Dharmendra Singh Yadav has filed his nomination for Lok Sabha Mainpuri. Village Veerampur is about 10 kms. from his village. The house where they were lodged had two rooms. Police rescued them at about 12.00 P.M.. Public witnesses Fateh Singh and village Pradhan Vidya Ram Master both belong to Yadav community. Vidya Ram and Fateh Singh both had come separately. Vidya Ram came by Motorcycle and Fateh Singh with Jeep. They had also gone to police station, ransom letter was written after 7-8 days of abduction and had reached a day after his recovery. He went to police station with the letter. He did not know Jajment Singh and saw him for the first time during abduction and denied any dispute between Ram Bihari Shakya and Mohan Singh alias Krishna Mohan Singh and Jajment Singh regarding payment of she buffaloes. 11. P.W.-3 Raj Kishore another victim supports the prosecution case. He stated that Krishna Mohan got written one letter from him and another from Sanjeet and had taken away both the letters. This witness also pleads ignorance about the accused persons. 11. P.W.-3 Raj Kishore another victim supports the prosecution case. He stated that Krishna Mohan got written one letter from him and another from Sanjeet and had taken away both the letters. This witness also pleads ignorance about the accused persons. In cross-examination he stated that his statement was recorded when he had reached police station after police had taken them. P.W.-4 Manoj Kumar Singh is Head Constable. He proved the Chik FIR. P.W.-5 Vidya Ram Yadav is witness of recovery. He proved recovery memo. 12. I.O. P.W.-6 Sunit Kumar proved the investigation. He stated that on 4.11.2004 when police raided the house of Jajment Singh, he ran away from his house. The mother of Jajment Singh Sukhrani, his wife Seema and Ram Bihari Shakya were found at the house of accused Jajment Singh. From the house both the abducted persons were recovered. They identified Ram Bihari on the spot. Recovery memo was prepared on the spot (Ex.Ka-2). On 12.12.2004 Sanjeet Kumar had handed over the ransom letter along with one envelope. He clearly admitted that no identification parade was held for identifying Mohan and Jajment. He failed to give any reason for not preparing the map of the house from where recovery was made. He further stated that both the witnesses had come by their own motorcycles. 13. From the above discussions, it is apparent that the witnesses did not know the accused persons from before, since they were addressing each other by name, therefore, they disclosed the name to the police. No identification parade was held enabling the witnesses to identify the accused persons. No spot map where the abducted persons were kept was prepared. I.O. said that both the witnesses had come on their own motorcycles, while Sanjeet Kumar stated that one of the witness Vidya Ram came by motorcycle and witness Fateh Singh came by Jeep. There is no evidence that the house from which alleged recovery was made belongs exclusively to Jajment Singh. According to I.O. recovery was made from village Veerampur on the information given by informer. There is no evidence that the house from which alleged recovery was made belongs exclusively to Jajment Singh. According to I.O. recovery was made from village Veerampur on the information given by informer. Although the recovery is said to have been made on 4.11.2004 and they were medically examined at 4.30 and 4.35 p.m. respectively at District Hospital, Etawah but the letter for medical examination referred to C.H.C. Jashwant Nagar is said to have been written by Incharge Police Station Jashwant Nagar on 3.11.2004 and on 4.11.2004 the matter was referred to the District Hospital, Etawah for medical examination. 14. According to Sanjeet Kumar, Krishna Mohan forced him to write the alleged ransom letter for Rupees 4 lacs and another letter of ransom for Rs. 75,000/- from Raj Kishore. These letters, which formed the basis for the prosecution story and are crucial for attracting Section 364-A IPC, were given to I.O. on 12.12.2004, i.e., more than 38 days after the recovery. Sanjeet Kumar in his statement stated that he had written the letter after 7-8 days of abduction. They were abducted on 19.10.2004, so the letter might have been written on 26th or 27th October, 2004. The letter which was given to S.I. contains a demand of Rs. 4,00,000/-. The recovery was made on 4.11.2004 but letter was handed over to I.O. after more than a month. There is no explanation given by the prosecution for withholding this letter. According to the prosecution it might have been written on 26th or 27th October, 2004 but has been given to police on 12.12.2004, therefore, the obvious question arises as to where this letter remained during all this period. 15. Submission is that accused persons belonged to Kachhi caste. Ramesh Singh Shakya contested 2002 Vidhan Sabha election on B.S.P. ticket from Jaswant Nagar. Shivpal Singh Yadav had also contested the said election. Submission is that in order to scare the voters of Kacchi (Shakya) community over the said Vidhan Sabha seat, false story of abduction was made against the accused persons. We do not go into the submission regarding motive for false implication but we find that there is no evidence of identification against Jajment Singh, who had not been identified at all. The accused persons belonged to different village and different caste and they were not put up for identification before victims. We do not go into the submission regarding motive for false implication but we find that there is no evidence of identification against Jajment Singh, who had not been identified at all. The accused persons belonged to different village and different caste and they were not put up for identification before victims. Letter of ransom had been given to police after more than a month of recovery, as such the possibility that the same was prepared for the purpose of this case, cannot be said to be without any basis. Recovery memo (Ex.Ka-2) has not been satisfactorily proved. Although two letters are said to have been written but only one letter has been brought on record. Sanjeet Kumar in his statement makes reference of two letters got written, one by him for Rupees 4 Lacs and another for Rs. 75,000/- by Raj Kishore, another victim. They further stated that they did not know the accused persons since before, when police rescued them, name of accused persons were given by the police at the police station. The accused have no criminal history. For attracting Section 364-A ransom call is essential. Informant, admittedly has not been contacted by any body for ransom either in person or through phone call. Letter is not in the handwriting of any accused. It is alleged that ransom letter has been delivered by postman after recovery of victims, but same has been given to the police after more than a month of recovery. One victim says he wrote two letters while other one says that two letters were written, one by each victim. No contact point is mentioned in the letter. 16. In these circumstances, prosecution case of demand of ransom is absolutely without any basis and is rejected. 17. Sarjan Singh P.W.-2 stated that he has given the ransom letter to police which was delivered to him after 15-16 days of the abduction (Ex.Ka-6). This is quite contrary to the version given by Sanjeet Kumar, who says that letter was delivered a day after the recovery and was given to police by himself (Sanjeet Kumar). I.O.P.W.-6 Sunit Kumar has also stated that the letter was handed over to him by Sanjeet Kumar. The Trial Judge has not given a serious thought to the story regarding the letters which are the basis for the prosecution. 18. I.O.P.W.-6 Sunit Kumar has also stated that the letter was handed over to him by Sanjeet Kumar. The Trial Judge has not given a serious thought to the story regarding the letters which are the basis for the prosecution. 18. The testimony of Sanjeet Kumar and Raj Kishore does not inspire confidence. According to Sanjeet Kumar four persons had waylaid them. Prosecution is silent about the fourth person. Sukhrani and Seema have not been found involved in the crime by the trial court. 19. In view of the above discussions, we are of the view that the impugned judgement and order of conviction and sentence recorded by the trial court cannot be upheld. The appeal deserves to be allowed. 20. Appeal is allowed. Impugned judgement and order dated 01.08.2006 passed by trial court is set aside and accused appellants are acquitted of charges levelled against them. 21. Accused Jajment Singh, Ram Bihari Shakya and Mohan Singh alias Krishna Mohan Singh are in jail. They will be released immediately if not wanted in any other case. Record be sent back. Appeal allowed.