ORDER : Ved Prakash Sharma, J. This appeal has been preferred against the judgment and order dated 15.1.2013 rendered by Additional Sessions Judge, Bagli, Link Court Kannod, District Dewas in S.T. No.264/2011, whereby the appellant has been convicted under section 363 and 364-A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter, for short, "the IPC") and has been sentenced under section 364-A of the IPC to undergo life imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.1,00,000/- and in default of payment of fine amount, to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for 5 years. No separate sentence has been imposed under section 363 of the IPC. 2. The prosecution story, briefly stated, is that appellant - Laltaprasad Sakya was running a school in the name of New Saraswati Gyan Mandir School, Village Sukhedi. Adarsh Meena, P.W.1, the son of complainant - Ramhit Meena, P.W.2, was studying in the school run by the appellant and because of this, the appellant was having close acquaintance with complainant - Ramhit Meena, P.W.2. In the intervening night of 19th and 20th May, 2011, the appellant came to the house of Ramhit Meena, P.W.2 and informed him that his son Adarsh Meena, P.W.1, a 8 years' child, is required to appear in the examination for Navodaya Vidyalaya. Upon this, complainant - Ramhit Meena, P.W.2 brought back his son Adarsh Meena P.W.1 in the morning of 20th May, 2011 from his maternal uncle's house at Sukhwas to Village Sukhedi. Thereafter, when Ramhit Meena, P.W.2 went inside his house to take meals, the appellant went away his son from there on his motorcycle with Adarsh Meena (P.W.1). After some time, Ramhit Meena, P.W.2 contacted the appellant telephonically, whereupon, he informed him that he has dropped his son for exams at Naveen Computer Centre, Kannod. As per prosecution, thereafter, Ramhit Meena, P.W.2 went to Kannod in search of his son and not finding him there, again at around 3 pm., called the appellant on his mobile phone. After some time, Ramhit Meena, P.W.2 contacted the appellant telephonically, whereupon, he informed him that he has dropped his son for exams at Naveen Computer Centre, Kannod. As per prosecution, thereafter, Ramhit Meena, P.W.2 went to Kannod in search of his son and not finding him there, again at around 3 pm., called the appellant on his mobile phone. Allegedly, the appellant, in response, said that he is sending via SMS Account number of his account in State Bank of India and that, he should deposit money in the account and rest of the discussion shall be made later on and that, he should not cause any trouble to his men, as under : ^mlds vknfe;ksa dks ijs'kku er djuk ,ao mlds Hkkjrh; LVsV cSad ds [kkrk dz063056682570 dks og eSlst dj jgk gSa] ftlesa :i;s tek djk nsuk ,ao ckdh ckrsa ckn esa d:axkA* 3. As per prosecution, thereafter, Ramhit Meena, P.W.2 tried to trace out his son Adarsh Meena P.W.1 in the surrounding localities at Kannod and when he could not be traced out, at around 6 pm., Ramhit Meena (P.W.2) lodged First Information Report (Ex.P/3) with Police Station Khategaon regarding the incident expressing his suspicion about kidnapping of his son by the appellant for ransom. On the basis of FIR lodged by Ramhit Meena, P.W.2, a case for offence under section 363 of the IPC came to be registered against the appellant at Police Station Khategaon. Investigation ensued. Pratik Rai, P.W.6, the then SHO Khategaon, visited Village Sukhedi and prepared spot map (Ex. P/4). On 24.5.2011, at around 2.20 pm., vide recovery memo (Ex. P/1), Adarsh Meena (P.W.1) was recovered from the appellant from a place in front of Bhagwan Talkies, Agra. The appellant, who was present over there with Adarsh Meena (P.W.1), was also arrested vide arrest-memo Ex. P/5. Some documents as per seizure memo Ex. P/6 were also recovered from the appellant. As per prosecution, on the basis of disclosure said to have been made by appellant on 25.5.2011 at Police Station Khategaon vide disclosure memo Ex. P/15, a Hero Honda motorcycle bearing Registration No. MP-41-MB-2736 was seized from the appellant on 1.6.2011 along with cargo-receipt Ex. P/8. The details of the bank account of the appellant were procured vide Ex. P/9 from State Bank of India, Branch Khategaon. Apart this, call-details as per Ex. P/11 were also obtained. P/15, a Hero Honda motorcycle bearing Registration No. MP-41-MB-2736 was seized from the appellant on 1.6.2011 along with cargo-receipt Ex. P/8. The details of the bank account of the appellant were procured vide Ex. P/9 from State Bank of India, Branch Khategaon. Apart this, call-details as per Ex. P/11 were also obtained. After usual investigation, a charge-sheet was filed against the appellant before the competent Magistrate with regard to offence under section 363 and 364A of the IPC. In due course, the case was committed to the Court of Sessions. 4. The charges under section 363 and 364-A of the IPC were framed by the learned trial Court against the appellant, who abjured the guilt and claimed to be tried. The prosecution, in order to bring home the guilt, examined as many as 6 witnesses including Adarsh Meena (P.W.1), Ramhit Meena, P.W.2, Pratik Rai P.W. 6. Apart this, documents Ex. P/1 to P/15 were also marked as exhibits. The appellant did not adduce any oral or documentary evidence, however, police statement of Ramhit Meena, P.W.2 was marked as Ex. D/1 during his examination. 5. The incriminating circumstances appearing against the appellant in the prosecution evidence were put to him during his examination under section 313 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (hereinafter, for short, "the Code"). The appellant did not dispute that Ramhit Meena, P.W.2 and his son Adarsh Meena (P.W.1) were well acquainted with him because Adarsh Meena (P.W.1) had studied for 4 to 5 years in the school which was being run by him at Village Sukhedi. It was further not disputed by the appellant that Adarsh Meena (P.W.1) was taken by him from Village Sukhedi on 20.5.2011 and thereafter he had taken him to Agra. The appellant further did not dispute that he was having a mobile phone with Sim No.9753635965 issued in his mother's name and that, he had sent a SMS to Ramhit Meena, P.W.2 conveying his Bank Account No.63056682570. The appellant also did not dispute that Adarsh Meena (P.W.1) was recovered by the police vide Ex. P/1 on 24.5.2011 from near Bhagwan Talkies, Agra and that, he was also present on the spot. The appellant also did not dispute that he was arrested by police on 24.5.2011 and the documents vide seizure memo Ex. P/6 were recovered from his possession. Recovery of motorcycle was also not disputed by him. P/1 on 24.5.2011 from near Bhagwan Talkies, Agra and that, he was also present on the spot. The appellant also did not dispute that he was arrested by police on 24.5.2011 and the documents vide seizure memo Ex. P/6 were recovered from his possession. Recovery of motorcycle was also not disputed by him. The defence of the appellant has been that the complainant - Ramhit Meena, P.W.2 was well acquainted with him and at the request and asking of Ramhit Meena, P.W.2, his son Adarsh Meena (P.W.1) was taken by him (appellant) for coaching/tuition to Agra, where, brother of appellant was residing. It was further pleaded in defence that the school of appellant was operating well and that the appellant did not help Ramhit Meena, P.W.2 in opening a school and that, the appellant was lending money to the people, thus, causing loss to Ramhit Meena, P.W.2, therefore, Ramhit Meena, P.W.2 has falsely implicated him in this case. 6. The learned trial Court, on appreciation of evidence, vide the impugned judgment, found that the appellant kidnapped Adarsh Meena (P.W.1), a minor child of 8 years, from the lawful guardianship of his father Ramhit Meena, P.W.2 and that, he was kept in confinement so as to extort money from Ramhit Meena, P.W.2 by putting Adarsh Meena (P.W.1) in the fear of death. Accordingly, the appellant was convicted and sentenced, as stated herein above. 7. In this appeal preferred under section 383 of "the Code", the conviction recorded against the appellant has been challenged on the ground that the learned trial Court has seriously erred in convicting the appellant without there being any evidence that Adarsh Meena (P.W.1) was kidnapped for ransom. It is submitted that though the appellant had communicated his bank account number to Ramhit Meena, P.W.2 by SMS, however, the same was in order to deposit fee due against Ramhit Meena (P.W.2) with regard to his son Adarsh Meena (P.W.1). The further submission is that Ramhit Meena, P.W.2 as well as Adarsh Meena (P.W.1) had admitted that the school which was being run by the appellant, is being run after the incident by the family members of Ramhit Meena, P.W.2, which shows that the complainant - Ramhit Meena, P.W.2 wanted to grab the school, in which, he ultimately succeeded by implicating the appellant in this case. It is also submitted that though the motorcycle of appellant was found near Bhagwan Talkies on 24.5.2011 itself when Adarsh Meena (P.W.1) was recovered by the police, still the discovery memo (Ex. P/15) regarding motorcycle was prepared on 25.5.2011 simply to create evidence with regard to seizure of motorcycle. The contention is that in the wake of serious anomalies present in the evidence, the conviction and sentence is unsustainable, hence, the appellant deserves to be acquitted. 8. Per contra, it is submitted by learned Public Prosecutor that the appellant, admittedly, had taken Adarsh Meena (P.W.1) out of the custody of his father Ramhit Meena, P.W.2 without his consent and that the child was recovered from the custody of the appellant. The appellant has failed to explain as to why the child was taken by him to Agra and kept in confinement. The submission is that the appellant has further not disputed that he had sent his account number by SMS to Ramhit Meena, P.W.2. This was done after kidnapping of Adarsh Meena (P.W.1), therefore, it can well be inferred, in absence of any details with regard to school-fee due against Adarsh Meena (P.W.1), that he was kidnapped for ransom. 9. We have given our anxious consideration to the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and have also carefully gone through the record. 10. The allegation that Adarsh Meena (P.W.1) was taken out of lawful guardianship of his father Ramhit Meena, P.W.2 has been found proved by the learned trial Court on the basis of ocular evidence of Adarsh Meena (P.W.1) and his father Ramhit Meena, P.W.2. As a matter of fact, the appellant has not disputed that Adarsh Meena (P.W.1) was taken by him on his motorcycle to Agra and subsequently, on 24.5.2011, he was recovered by the police vide Ex. P/1 from his custody. The defence of the appellant has been that he had taken the child to Agra for studies and that, this was done with the consent and approval of his father Ramhit Meena, P.W.2, who, however, has clearly denied in Para 16 the suggestion thrown upon him in this regard and has categorically stated in Para 3 that his son was taken out of his custody by the appellant without his permission. 11. 11. The stand of the appellant as to whether the child was taken by him to enable him to appear in the Navodaya Vidyalaya examination or in connection with his preparations for exams of Navodaya Vidyalaya is little dubious. In his examination under section 313 of "the Code", the appellant, in response to the second question has stated that he had taken the child for model exams while in response to the next following question, he says that he taken him to Agra for preparation of exams. It appears to be quite unusual that the parents from a rural background will send their 8 years old child to a distant place like Agra for preparation of exams pertaining to admission in Navodaya Vidyalaya. Apart this, there is nothing to indicate that Adarsh Meena (P.W.1) was sent by his parents along with elementary and essential clothing and other items of basic need including reading books, etc. Generally, parents from whichever social and economic background, will not send their kid to a distant place without providing essential elementary necessities like clothing, etc. Absence of such essentials being provided to Adarsh Meena (P.W.1) indicates towards hollowness of plea raised in this regard by the appellant. 12. Apart this, the appellant has taken the defence that some school fees with regard to child was due against Ramhit Meena, P.W.2 and that, he had sent his Bank Account number via SMS to him so that he can deposit the fees. Had it been so, why the appellant took the pains to take away the son of Ramhit Meena, P.W.2 for studies, to a distant place like Agra which necessarily would have involved huge expenses. The stand taken by the appellant in this regard is quite unpalatable. Further, the appellant has not placed before the Court any plausible material to demonstrate, even prima facie, that the child was taken to Agra for being admitted to some coaching or tuition school for his preparation because no details whatsoever with regard to coaching, tuition school, etc. have been given by the appellant on the point. In these circumstances, we do not have any hesitation in holding that Adarsh Meena (P.W.1) was taken by the appellant out of the lawful guardianship of his father Ramhit Meena, P.W.2 without his consent or approval. 13. have been given by the appellant on the point. In these circumstances, we do not have any hesitation in holding that Adarsh Meena (P.W.1) was taken by the appellant out of the lawful guardianship of his father Ramhit Meena, P.W.2 without his consent or approval. 13. The question arises, whether Adarsh Meena (P.W.1) was kidnapped for ransom and whether an offence under section 364-A of the IPC is proved against the appellant beyond reasonable doubt ? Section 364-A of the IPC, which is apposite in this regard, runs as under :- "364-A. Kidnapping for ransom, etc. - Whoever kidnaps or abducts any person or keeps a person in detention after such kidnapping or abduction, and threatens to cause death or hurt to such person, or by his conduct gives rise to a reasonable apprehension that such person may be put to death or hurt, or causes hurt or death to such person in order to compel the Government or any foreign State or international inter-governmental organization or any other person to do or abstain from doing any act or to pay a ransom, shall be punishable with death, or imprisonment for life, and shall also be liable to fine." 14. A bare reading of Section 364-A makes it abundantly clear that to constitute an offence under this Section, following facts must be proved by the prosecution :- (i) Kidnapping or abduction of a person or keeping of such person in detention after kidnapping or abduction; (ii) Threatening to cause death or hurt to such person or giving rise to a reasonable apprehension by act or conduct that the person kidnapped or abducted may be put to death or hurt or causing hurt or death to such person in order to compel the Government or any foreign State or international inter-governmental organization or any other person to do or abstain from doing any act or to pay ransom. Thus, extension of threat to cause death or hurt to the person kidnapped or abducted or conduct on the part of an accused giving rise to reasonable apprehension that the kidnapped or abducted person may be put to death or hurt or causing hurt or death to such person to compel an act or omission or to pay an ransom is an essential ingredient to constitute an offence within the meaning of Section 364-A of the IPC. 15. 15. In the instant case, though Ramhit Meena, P.W.2 has deposed in Para 6 that on the very first day, the appellant asked through his mobile phone to deposit 13 Lakhs rupees in his bank account for the release of his child and that, the appellant also conveyed by SMS his bank account number in this regard and further threatened that he should not inform the police and also not put to trouble his men, however, there is a clear omission on this point in the FIR (Ex. P/3) lodged by him same day in the evening so also in his police-statement (Ex. D/1) said to have been recorded by the police on the same day, which is clear from Para 15 and Para 20 of the cross-examination of this witness. The omission in this regard being on the material aspect amounts to contradiction and, therefore, the statement of this witness on this point is rendered doubtful. 16. Adarsh Meena (P.W.1) too has deposed in Para 4 that the appellant asked his father on mobile phone to pay Rs.13,00,000/- for his release, however, firstly, this witness was not interrogated by the police during investigation; secondly, his statement is at variance on this point with the statement of Investigating Officer Pratik Rai P.W.6, who has deposed in Para 17 that the appellant was demanding Rs.10,00,000/- as ransom and that this was recorded by him in the case-diary. Though the appellant has not disputed that he conveyed his bank account number by SMS to Ramhit Meena, P.W.2, however, that by itself, in absence of specific evidence on the point that ransom of Rs.13,00,000/- was demanded by the appellant, cannot be made a basis to conclude that he demanded Rs.13,00,000/- from Ramhit Meena, P.W.2 by way of ransom. 17. Ramhit Meena, P.W.2 has deposed that after missing of his child, he contacted various persons in order to find out his son. Ramkaran, P.W.5 claims himself to be one of his acquaintance to whom Ramhit Meena, P.W.2 narrated the tale regarding kidnapping of his child, however, this witness has not stated that Ramhit Meena, P.W.2 told him about the demand of ransom allegedly made by the appellant. In the wake of aforesaid infirmities in the prosecution evidence, it becomes reasonably doubtful that any ransom, as such, was demanded by the appellant from Ramhit Meena (P.W.2) for the release of Adarsh Meena (P.W.1). 18. In the wake of aforesaid infirmities in the prosecution evidence, it becomes reasonably doubtful that any ransom, as such, was demanded by the appellant from Ramhit Meena (P.W.2) for the release of Adarsh Meena (P.W.1). 18. Even if it is accepted for the sake of argument that the appellant asked Ramhit Meena, P.W.2 over mobile phone to deposit money in his bank account, details of which were conveyed to him via SMS, still there is nothing to indicate that the appellant extended any threat to cause death or hurt to Adarsh Meena (P.W.1) or that he conducted in a manner so as to give rise to a reasonable apprehension that Adarsh Meena (P.W.1) may be put to death or hurt. Here, reference can be made to the testimony of Adarsh Meena (P.W.1), who has deposed in Para 24 that he was made to stay in a residential locality and not a secluded place and that he never complained to any inhabitant of the locality that the appellant has enticed away him or has subjected to beating. No doubt, this witness has deposed that he was beaten many a times by the appellant and that marks of beating were there on his body, however, Ramhit Meena, P.W.2 in Para 25 of his cross-examination has clearly stated that he did not find any injury on the person of Adarsh Meena (P.W.1) when he was recovered by the police. Therefore, the statement of Adarsh Meena (P.W.1) that he sustained injury on his body becomes doubtful. 19. From the aforesaid analysis, appraisal and appreciation of evidence, though it is proved beyond reasonable doubt that Adarsh Meena (P.W.1), a 8 years old child, was removed by the appellant from the lawful guardianship of his father Ramhit Meena, P.W.2 without his permission or consent and was thereafter taken to Agra, however, it is not proved beyond reasonable doubt that he was kidnapped for ransom or that he was either threatened to be killed or subjected to hurt or was in fact put to hurt or that the appellant conducted in a manner so as to create reasonable apprehension of his death or hurt. Therefore, offence under section 364-A of the IPC is not made out against the appellant, hence, the contra finding recorded by the learned trial Court without adverting to the aforesaid legal and factual aspects of the case, in such premises, cannot be upheld. Therefore, offence under section 364-A of the IPC is not made out against the appellant, hence, the contra finding recorded by the learned trial Court without adverting to the aforesaid legal and factual aspects of the case, in such premises, cannot be upheld. 20. In view of the aforesaid, this appeal is partly allowed. The conviction of the appellant is maintained under section 363 of the IPC. He is acquitted with regard to offence under section 364-A of the IPC conferring benefit of doubt upon him. As he was sentenced under section 364-A of the IPC, therefore, learned trial Court in view of Section 71 of the IPC, did not impose separate sentence against him under section 363 of the IPC. However, in view of the aforesaid, the appellant has to be appropriately sentenced under section 363 of the IPC, which is a smaller offence of 364-A of the IPC. 21. Regard being had to the aforesaid, considering the facts and circumstances of the case, imposition of rigorous imprisonment for 7 years and a fine of Rs.10,000/- (Ten Thousand) against the appellant for offence under section 363 of IPC will meet the ends of justice. The appellant is sentenced accordingly. Out of the fine amount, a sum of Rs.5,000/- shall be paid to Adarsh Meena (P.W.1) as compensation under section 357(1) of the IPC. The appeal stands partly allowed in the aforesaid terms. Let a supersession warrant be issued in conformity with the aforesaid.