JUDGMENT Mohammad Rafiq, J. - Since all these appeals arise out of a common judgment, therefore, they were heard together and are being decided by this common judgment. These appeals, except Appeal No. 243/2015 have been filed by the accused-appellants namely Manish Aggarwal; Ramesh Adwani @ Shambhu; Virender Singh @ Vijendra Singh; Ajay Dixit @ Bunty; Rajkishor Singh @ Sonu respectively, challenging judgment and order dated 12.01.2015 passed by the Court of Special Judge (Sati Prevention), Rajasthan & Additional Sessions Judge, Jaipur City, Jaipur (for short 'the trial court') whereby the aforesaid accused-appellants have been convicted and sentenced in the following manner: Name of Accused Section Sentence Rajkishor Singh @ Sonu 364A IPC Life imprisonment with fine of Rs. 5,000/-, in default of payment of fine to further undergo six months' simple imprisonment. 363 IPC Three years' rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs. 2,000/-, in default of payment of fine to further undergo three months' simple imprisonment. 343 IPC Six months' simple imprisonment. 328 read with 120B IPC Five years' simple imprisonment with fine of Rs. 5,000/-, in default of payment of fine to further undergo six months' simple imprisonment. Ramesh Adwani @ Shambhu 364A IPC Life imprisonment with fine of Rs. 5,000/-, in default of payment of fine to further undergo six months' simple imprisonment. 363 IPC Three years' rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs. 2,000/-, in default of payment of fine to further undergo three months' simple imprisonment. 343 IPC Six months' simple imprisonment. 328 IPC Five years' rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs. 5,000/-, in default of payment of fine to further undergo six months' simple imprisonment. Virender Singh @ Vijendra Singh 364A read with 120-B IPC Life imprisonment with fine of Rs. 5,000/-, in default of payment of fine to further undergo six months' simple imprisonment. 363 IPC Three years' rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs. 2,000/-, in default of payment of fine to further undergo three months' simple imprisonment. 343 read with 120-B IPC Six months' simple imprisonment. Ajay Dixit @ Bunty 364A read with 120-B IPC Life imprisonment with fine of Rs. 5,000/-, in default of payment of fine to further undergo six months' simple imprisonment. 363 read with 120-B IPC Three years' simple imprisonment with fine of Rs. 2,000/-, in default of payment of fine to further undergo three months' simple imprisonment. 343 read with 120-B IPC Six months' simple imprisonment. 5,000/-, in default of payment of fine to further undergo six months' simple imprisonment. 363 read with 120-B IPC Three years' simple imprisonment with fine of Rs. 2,000/-, in default of payment of fine to further undergo three months' simple imprisonment. 343 read with 120-B IPC Six months' simple imprisonment. Manish Aggarwal 364A read with 120-B IPC Life imprisonment with fine of Rs. 5,000/-, in default of payment of fine to further undergo six months' simple imprisonment. 363 read with 120-B IPC Three years' simple imprisonment with fine of Rs. 2,000/-, in default of payment of fine to further undergo three months' simple imprisonment. 343 read with 120-B IPC Six months' simple imprisonment. 328 read with 120B IPC Five years' simple imprisonment with fine of Rs. 5,000/-, in default of payment of fine to further undergo six months' simple imprisonment. All the sentences were ordered to run concurrently. 2. Criminal Appeal No. 243/2015 has been filed by the complainant Rajesh Jain assailing the aforesaid judgment and order passed by the trial court to the extent it acquitted accused-respondents namely Lalit Saxena and Pramod Mittal of the charge for offence under Sections 363, 364-A, 343, 328, 120 and 120-B IPC. 3. Facts of the case are that the complainant Rajesh Jain, father of the victim Mihir Jain, submitted a written report (Exhibit P-24) at Police Station Bajaj Nagar, Jaipur on 11.01.2008 alleging therein that his son Mihir Jain, a student of Class IV, came from Nirja Modi School by auto rickshaw. As soon as he alighted from the auto rickshaw out of his house at about 2.30-2.45 P.M., an unknown person stepped out from a white colour Maruti Zen car bearing registration number RJ 147C 1252 and pulled the boy along with his school bag, inside the said car and fled away. When the child screamed, the Principal and Vice Principal of Seedling School, who were passing thereby in another vehicle, saw this incident and informed the complainant's wife at his residence. His (complainant) wife informed him about the incident on phone. Thereafter, the informant immediately reached his house. Informant's son Mihir Jain was a fair complexioned 12 years old boy, about 4 feet in height, who was wearing school uniform and spectacles, has been kidnapped by unknown miscreants. 4. His (complainant) wife informed him about the incident on phone. Thereafter, the informant immediately reached his house. Informant's son Mihir Jain was a fair complexioned 12 years old boy, about 4 feet in height, who was wearing school uniform and spectacles, has been kidnapped by unknown miscreants. 4. On the basis of aforesaid written report, FIR No. (Exhibit P-166) was registered at Police Station Bajaj Nagar, Jaipur for the offence under Section 363 IPC and investigation commenced. Upon completion of the investigation, charge sheet was filed against accused-appellants and other accused persons Lalit Saxena and Pramod Mittal for the offence under Sections 363, 364A, 343, 328, 120, 120-B IPC in the Court of concerned Magistrate wherefrom it was committed to the Court of Sessions, Jaipur Metropolitan, Jaipur. Ultimately, the case was made over to the Court of Special Judge (Sati Niwaran) Rajasthan & Additional Sessions Judge, Jaipur City, Jaipur for trial. The trial court framed charges against the accused persons for offence under Sections 363, 364A, 343, 328, 120, 120- B IPC, which they denied and claimed to be tried. The prosecution in support of its case produced 68 witnesses and exhibited 213 documents as also 139 articles. Thereafter, all the accused persons were examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C., 1973 wherein they stated that they have been falsely implicated in the case by the police only in order to earn accolades. In defence, five witnesses were produced and 61 documents were exhibited. Upon completion of the trial, the trial court vide its judgment and order dated 12.01.2015 acquitted accused Lalit Saxena and Pramod Mittal of the charge framed against them, but convicted and sentenced the accused-appellants in the manner indicated above. 5. Mr. Shiv Kumar, learned counsel appearing on behalf of accused-appellant Virender Singh alias Vijendra Singh argued that the accused-appellant was arrested on 14.10.2010 and by then, statements of 10 prosecution witnesses had already been recorded by the trial court. Although, some of those witnesses were recalled but the prosecution dropped/ did not examine Narendra Mishra (P.W.4); Ashok Kumar Verma (P.W.5); Rajesh Sharma (P.W.8); Rajeev Mukheeja (P.W.11); Heeralal (P.W.12); Rajkumar (P.W.13); Dr. Yadvendra Singh (P.W.14); Rajesh Gandhi (P.W.15); Ramdhan Jain (P.W.16) against the accused-appellant. Even then, the trial court has illegally relied on these witnesses to convict the accused-appellant. Although, some of those witnesses were recalled but the prosecution dropped/ did not examine Narendra Mishra (P.W.4); Ashok Kumar Verma (P.W.5); Rajesh Sharma (P.W.8); Rajeev Mukheeja (P.W.11); Heeralal (P.W.12); Rajkumar (P.W.13); Dr. Yadvendra Singh (P.W.14); Rajesh Gandhi (P.W.15); Ramdhan Jain (P.W.16) against the accused-appellant. Even then, the trial court has illegally relied on these witnesses to convict the accused-appellant. Statements of aforesaid witnesses as also those of Rakesh Verma (P.W.41) and Vijay Kumar (P.W.67) were not put to the accused-appellant during his examination under Section 313 Cr.P.C., 1973 and yet the same have been illegally relied for recording finding of conviction against accused-appellant. Co-accused Lalit Saxena and Pramod Mittal have been acquitted by the trial court by the impugned judgment on the same set of evidence and therefore conviction of the present accused-appellant is wholly unjustified. The accused-appellant has been convicted for offence under Section 363 IPC solely on the basis of his identification by Beena Jain (P.W.17); Mihir Jain (P.W.18) and Ashok Kumar Sharma (P.W.5). Charge for offence under Section 363 read with Section 120-B IPC was framed against the accused-appellant though he has been convicted for offence under Section 363 IPC, which has seriously prejudiced his defence. Since the accused-appellant has been acquitted of the charge under Section 120, 120-B IPC, he could not have been convicted for offence under Sections 364A and 363 IPC with the aid of Section 120-B IPC. 6. The accused-appellant has been convicted for offence under Section 363 IPC only on the basis of his identification by Beena Jain (P.W.17); Mihir Jain (P.W.18) and use of a car in the commission of the offence of kidnapping and in reaching to this conclusion, the learned trial court has taken into consideration statements of Beena Jain (P.W.17); Mihir Jain (P.W.18) and Ashok Kumar Sharma (P.W.5); Ashok Khatik (P.W.1); Nand Kishore (P.W.2); Sitaram Bairwa (P.W.3) and Rani Huja (P.W.7). Ashok Khatik (P.W.1), auto driver has been declared hostile by the prosecution qua the accused-appellant. However, incriminating circumstances appearing in his statement have not been put to accused-appellant during his examination under Section 313 Cr.P.C., 1973 Ashok Kumar (P.W.5) was not examined by the prosecution against accused-appellant. Statement of Beena Jain (P.W.17) suffers from contradictions. Ashok Khatik (P.W.1), auto driver has been declared hostile by the prosecution qua the accused-appellant. However, incriminating circumstances appearing in his statement have not been put to accused-appellant during his examination under Section 313 Cr.P.C., 1973 Ashok Kumar (P.W.5) was not examined by the prosecution against accused-appellant. Statement of Beena Jain (P.W.17) suffers from contradictions. While on one hand she stated that she could not say that the man with slightly blackish colour was one of the two persons sitting in the Maruti Gen Vehicle parked outside her house but in later part of cross-examination, she stated that the person whom she identified in the Court was not the one, who was sitting in the said vehicle and they were not those two whom she identified. Statement of Mihir Jain (P.W.18) is also full of contradictions and does not inspire confidence. He stated that he indeed signed memo of test identification parade (Exhibit P-190). He did not disclose physiognomy, height, colour of the person whom he identified either before the Magistrate, Police or his mother and father. It is argued that Mihir Jain (P.W.18) no where in his statement mentioned that he saw the person, who picked him in the car. He did not state that he ever saw that person before. In fact, he wanted to convey that four persons were sitting in the car, which he had seen, but no where in his statement he stated that Virender Singh was one of them, who was sitting in the car. 7. It is argued that Hari Prasad (P.W.65), Investigating Officer, in his cross examination admitted that during investigation, no such evidence was received that accused Virender Singh had pulled Mihir Jain inside the car. He also admitted that at the time of preparation of memos (Exhibit P-192, P-195 and P-200), the accused-appellant was not kept 'baparda'. He even went to the extent of admitting that the site plan was prepared in the presence of Beena Jain and Mihir Jain and the accused-appellant was not kept 'baparda'. Therefore, holding of test identification parade was a mere eye wash as the accused-appellant had already been shown to these witnesses. It is argued that Karni Singh (P.W.60) stated that no mention was made in Exhibit P-192 by which fake number plate was seized, that the accused was kept 'baparda'. Therefore, holding of test identification parade was a mere eye wash as the accused-appellant had already been shown to these witnesses. It is argued that Karni Singh (P.W.60) stated that no mention was made in Exhibit P-192 by which fake number plate was seized, that the accused was kept 'baparda'. Similarly, the accused was not kept 'baparda' when the site plans (Exhibit P- 93, Exhibits P-194 and P-195) were prepared. Vidya Prakash (P.W.45), Investigating Officer admitted in his crossexamination that he had photograph and other complete details about accused Virender Singh at the time of filing of charge sheet. Virender Singh was arrested much after the charge sheet was filed. His photographs were published in newspaper prior to his arrest. In these circumstances, identification of the accused-appellant either in test identification parade or before the trial court would have no legal sanctity. Test identification parade of the accused-appellant is also conducted contrary to mandatory Rule 7.31 of the Rajasthan Police Rules, 1965 which inter alia provides that test identification parade should be conducted soon after the arrest of the suspect and the witness should have no opportunity to see the suspect beforehand. Beena Jain (P.W.17) has also admitted in her cross( 10 of 59) [CRLA-212/2015] examination that she had not disclosed the identifying characteristics or physical features of accused Virender Singh at any point of time to any person. Trial court has convicted the accused-appellant mechanically merely on the basis of surmises and conjectures in arriving at the conclusion that accused-appellant Virender Singh was the person who pulled the child inside the car. Beena Jain (P.W.17) only stated that one fatty person came out of car and she has not stated about colour of that person. Even otherwise, in the arrest memo of the accused-appellant, his colour has been mentioned to be fair complexioned which signifies that Virender Singh was not the person, who was mentioned as fatty and blackish. Hari Prasad (P.W.65), Investigating Officer in Exhibit P-191 had mentioned colour of the accused-appellant as wheaties and thin and did not mention him as black in colour or as a fatty person. 8. Learned counsel further argued that the trial court has convicted the accused-appellant for the offence under Section 343 read with Section 120B IPC on the basis of driving licence of the accused-appellant and identification. 8. Learned counsel further argued that the trial court has convicted the accused-appellant for the offence under Section 343 read with Section 120B IPC on the basis of driving licence of the accused-appellant and identification. In fact, Mihir Jain no where in his statement stated that he saw the person, who picked him and pulled inside the car or Virender Singh saw the place where he was kept after kidnapping. He did not even state that the person, who pulled him inside the car, ever visited the place where he was kept. He also did not state that Virender Singh was one of the four persons, who were sitting in the car. Hari Prasad (P.W.65), Investigating Officer in cross-examination admitted that he did not get driving licence of Virender Singh checked to find out whether actually driving licence was in the name of the appellant Virender Singh. He even admitted that his investigation did not reveal that Virender Singh was in contact with the other accused either at the time of incident or after the incident, or he ever visited the room where Mihir Jain was detained from 11.01.2008 to 18.01.2008, when Mihir Jain was recovered. Learned counsel further submitted that the trial court has not given any finding as to the aspect of conspiracy against the accused-appellant Virender Singh. It has not been mentioned that what role was assigned to him to hatch up the conspiracy with the other accused. The trial court itself observed that the prosecution failed to prove that Lalit Saxena had any telephonic conversation either with Rajkishor or Virender Singh and even if it is assumed that they had a talk, it has not been proved that it was regarding the incident in question. Thus, the findings recorded by the learned trial court as to the conspiracy are based on surmises and conjectures. 9. Learned counsel argued that the trial court has recorded findings as to the offence under Section 364A IPC from page no. 50 to 63 of the impugned judgment where the roles of co-accused Ajay Dixit, Pramod Mittal, Manish Aggarwal, Lalit Saxena have been discussed but nothing about the role of the accused-appellant Virender Singh has been discussed, yet the trial court has mechanically convicted him for the offence under Section 364A read with Section 120-B IPC. 50 to 63 of the impugned judgment where the roles of co-accused Ajay Dixit, Pramod Mittal, Manish Aggarwal, Lalit Saxena have been discussed but nothing about the role of the accused-appellant Virender Singh has been discussed, yet the trial court has mechanically convicted him for the offence under Section 364A read with Section 120-B IPC. There is no evidence on record to show that the accused-appellant was aware of the plan of the other accused for the kidnapping of Mihir Jain on demand of ransom or that he was a part of such conspiracy. There is no evidence to the effect that the accused-appellant was seen in the company of other accused at any point of time either on or before 11.01.2008 or thereafter till 18.01.2008. That is why the trial court has acquitted the accused-appellant of the charge under Section 120-B IPC. The trial court has relied upon the statement of Rajiv Sukhija (P.W.11) to record finding of conviction against accused Virender Singh who was one of the 19 witnesses, examined prior to the arrest of the accused-appellant and was recalled after his arrest. However, the prosecution dropped the said witness against the accused-appellant Virender Singh. Accused-appellant did not have the opportunity to crossexamine Rajiv Sukhija and therefore his statement ought to be excluded from consideration against the accused-appellant. 10. It is argued that the trial court has concluded that demand of ransom was made through a short message service (SMS) by using mobile phone no. 99501-52300 on 16.01.2008 and prior to that there was no demand of ransom. This finding has been given at page no. 57 and 58 of the impugned judgment. Said message is alleged to have been sent to Mobile No. 9829012133 of Rajesh Jain, father of abducted boy. According to the message, demand of jewellery of Rs. 50,00,000/- and Rs. 50,00,000/- in cash was made and it was stated that return message be sent to that number by new phone but language of the message does not indicate that demand of ransom was accompanied by threat namely, "threats to cause hurt to such person" which is the essential ingredient of Section 364A IPC, which is missing in the present case. No finding has been recorded by the learned trial court that demand of ransom was coupled with a threat as per the requirement of Section 364A IPC. No finding has been recorded by the learned trial court that demand of ransom was coupled with a threat as per the requirement of Section 364A IPC. In fact, Rajesh Jain (P.W.19) was specifically asked in the cross examination whether he got any message from Mobile Nos. 9983150203 and 9929721283 for the demand of ransom or threat in connection therewith, he denied having received any such message either of ransom or threat from any of the abductors. Learned counsel referred to the statement of Manish Sharma, Inspector, Voice Logger Incharge, SOG, who admitted in cross-examination that on verification of the record no voice recording was made by him of the calls received from mobile no. 9983150203 and that he did not find any call having been received from this number by Rajesh Jain for demand of ransom. In fact, Hari Prasad (P.W.65), Investigating Officer has stated that he did not make any investigation that wherefrom mobile no. 9983150203 and 9929721283 were purchased and who purchased the same. No evidence has been produced by the prosecution suggesting that the accused-appellant was in possession of either of the aforesaid mobile phones. Calls were made from these mobile numbers by one Ramesh, Umesh and Kamlesh but neither of them was produced by the prosecution as a witness in the present case. 11. It is argued that the case of the prosecution is that call for demand of ransom was made on mobile of Manish Agarwal and voice of the same was heard by Rajesh Jain, from whom the said demand was made. Manish Sharma (P.W.54), Inspector, Voice Logger Incharge, SOG admitted that the conversation of Manish was being recorded but no such record of conversation has been produced in the Court, nor given to Hari Prasad, Investigating Officer. This could have been the best evidence to prove the factum of demand of ransom by the kidnappers. Accused-appellant Virender Singh was arrested on 14.10.2010 but the requisition for conducting his test identification parade was sent to the Magistrate concerned on 18.11.2010 and test identification parade was conducted on 19.11.2010. Ms. Amrita Choudhary (P.W.61), Magistrate, who conducted test identification parade of accused-appellant has been produced to prove the same. Obviously, the test identification parade was purposely delayed for facilitating completion of investigation. Ms. Amrita Choudhary (P.W.61), Magistrate, who conducted test identification parade of accused-appellant has been produced to prove the same. Obviously, the test identification parade was purposely delayed for facilitating completion of investigation. Mohinder Pal Singh Jadaun (P.W.58), Nodal Officer of Bharti Hexacom Limited (Airtel) stated that he could not say that when Sim No. 9929721283 was purchased. Form for obtaining sim (Exhibit P-203) could be procured from any shop where sims are sold by anyone. Exhibit P-203 does not contain address of the appellant, which is indicated on Exhibit P- 205. No documentary proof in support of the address given in Exhibit P-204 was given by the consumer. Learned counsel argued that the possibility that somebody else purchased sim in the name of Virender Singh vide Exhibit P-206 could not be ruled out. It is argued that according to the prosecution, aforesaid sim was purchased vide memo Exhibit P-203 to P-206 on 09.01.2008 whereas the prosecution has tried to set up a case that Lalit Saxena talked to the appellant on 07.12.2007 to 30.12.2007 and 23.11.2007 to 14.12.2007 which was impossible. It is argued that Mohinder Pal Singh Jadaun (P.W.58), Nodal Officer, Bharti Hexacom Limited (Airtel) failed to explain as to on what date and from which retailer aforesaid sim as purchased in the name of Virender Singh. 12. Learned counsel, in support of his arguments, relied upon the judgments in Somasundaram alias Somu vs. State represented by Deputy Commissioner of Police, (2016) 16 SCC 355; Sharad Birdhichand Sarda vs. State of Maharashtra, (1984) 4 SCC 116 ; Radhey Shyam vs. State of Rajasthan, 2014 (1) Apex Court Judgments 682 (S.G.); C. Muniappan & Others vs. State of Tamil Nadu, 2010 (Suppl.) Cr.L.R. (SC) 373; D. Gopalakirshnan vs. Sadanand Naik & Others, AIR 2004 SC 4965 ; Vijayan & Ranjan etc. vs. State of Kerala, 1999 (1) Apex Court Journal 488 (S.C.); Panda Nana Kare vs. State of Maharashtra, 1979 Cri.L.J. 640; Vishwanath Gupta vs. State of Uttaranchal, 2007 (2) WLC (SC) Criminal 66; Ravi @ Ravichandran vs. State represented by Inspector of Police, 2007 (2) WlC (SC) Criminal 272; Tarun alias Gautam Mukherjee vs. State of W.B., (2001) 10 SCC 754 ; Subhash vs. State of Haryana, 2011 (3) SRJ 164; S.K. Yusuf vs. State of West Bengal, 2011 (6) SRJ 6 . 13. Mr. 13. Mr. V. R. Bajwa, learned counsel appearing on behalf of accused-appellant Manish Aggarwal argued that the prosecution has failed to establish the guilt of the accused-appellant beyond all reasonable doubt. There are numerous in congruencies and gross embellishments in the testimony of various prosecution witnesses, rendering the same to be highly dubious, unworthy of credence for the purpose of establishing the charges levelled against the accused-appellant. The case of the prosecution entirely rests on circumstantial evidence. It could be read from various pieces of circumstantial evidence that they are compatible with the innocence of the accused and do not make out a proverbial chain so as to exclusively point at the guilt of the accused-appellant beyond reasonable doubt. The accused appellant was implicated by the prosecution with the aid of Section 120-B IPC, however, there is no substantial evidence to prove beyond reasonable doubt the involvement of the accused-appellant in the alleged crime by way of conspiracy with the main perpetrators of the crime. Though the incident in the present case is said to have taken place on 11.01.2008, the prosecution was completely indolent about any involvement of the accused-appellant till 16.01.2008. The appellant and his uncle Pramod Mittal were merely trying to help the complainant Rajesh Jain to find his son and come out of the crisis. Rajesh Jain happens to be closely known to Pramod Mittal as the abducted boy Mihir Jain and son of Pramod Mittal were friends and classmates. Pramod Mittal has already been acquitted by the learned trial court as it did not find the evidence against him to be trustworthy. It is argued that the stance of the prosecution that the kidnapped child in his court statement has stated that during his captivity, the appellant also at times used to visit the room in which he was kept captive in a box, is a blatant improvement/ embellishment in the entire case of the prosecution vis-a-vis the present appellant. This fact was never stated by the victim during investigation in his statement to the police. That was the reason for the investigating agency not to bother about subjecting the appellant to any kind of test identification parade during the course of investigation, at the hands of the victim. 14. This fact was never stated by the victim during investigation in his statement to the police. That was the reason for the investigating agency not to bother about subjecting the appellant to any kind of test identification parade during the course of investigation, at the hands of the victim. 14. Learned counsel further argued that it was not the case of investigating agency as disclosed from charge sheet that the accused-appellant was a visitor at the place of captivity during the period of captivity of Mihir Jain. A new case has been built up by the prosecution in the Court, in order to prove their charge against the appellant in trial. Such a blatant improvement in the case has to be logically met with rejection. Learned counsel referred to Exhibit D-7, order sheet dated 07.09.2009 of the trial court on which date, Beena Jain and Mihir Jain were present in the Court and the accused-appellants including present appellant were also present. Till that time, the accused-appellant was not kept 'baparda' and therefore it is quite sure that Beena Jain and Mihir Jain both saw the accused-appellant in the trial court. Therefore, no credence can be given to test identification parade. Further, no sanctity can be accorded to such an identification in the court for the first time. It is argued that the site plan of the room where Mihir Jain was kept captive in a box, squarely reflects the impossibility of Mihir Jain having at all the occasion to look at the visitors in the room. As per the site plan, the opening side of the box from where if at all Mihir Jain could have a chance to peep out through gaping hole, was facing opposite its door. It is argued that Rajesh Jain had already been contacted by alleged kidnappers on his mobile around 12th and 13th January, 2008. In such circumstances, the trial court endeavouring to built the case against the appellant that post 16th January, 2008, the kidnappers allegedly routed the demand of ransom through the phone of the present appellant, is neither here nor there and cannot be at all any scaffolding to prove the charge against the accused-appellant. 15. Learned counsel further argued that the police statements of important prosecution witnesses have been recorded with an inordinate delay, in spite of the witnesses being readily available to the investigating agency. 15. Learned counsel further argued that the police statements of important prosecution witnesses have been recorded with an inordinate delay, in spite of the witnesses being readily available to the investigating agency. In the circumstances, the version given out by such witnesses loom under a grave penumbra of doubt, which includes the star witness Mihir Jain. Number of other important prosecution witnesses have not been produced by the prosecution, for which an adverse inference in required to be drawn against it. It is argued that Rajesh Jain (P.W.19) has admitted in his statement that a new cell phone number was duly informed to Pramod Mittal around 12th and 13th January, 2008. In such circumstances, trial court has erred in law by taking exception to the fact that as to how new cell number of Rajesh Jain came to be known to Pramod Mittal and present appellant. The prosecution has failed to come out with any transcript or call details, reflecting out kidnappers directly speaking to the appellant, so as to show later's mens rea in the act of kidnapping and his actus reus vis-a-vis his involvement in kidnapping and seeking ransom. Otherwise also, as far as alleged call details are concerned, the documents through which prosecution has endeavoured to prove the same, have not been proved as per the provisions of Indian Evidence Act because mere exhibiting of a document is not proof of its contents. 16. It is argued that conviction of the accused-appellant on the theory of "may be true" is opposed to the principles of criminal jurisprudence, as before holding him guilty the prosecution has to discharge its onerous burden by showing the same to be proved beyond reasonable doubt as "must be true" is the essential prerequisite. It is argued that the role of Manish Aggarwal and Pramod Mittal as per the prosecution case starts from 16.01.2008, when as per the prosecution case Pramod Mittal contacted Rajesh Jain for the first time and informed him that his relative Manish Aggarwal has received a call from the kidnappers on his cell phone bearing number 9828156780. However, it has been brought out in the cross-examination of Beena Jain (P.W.17) and Chanda Mittal (D.W.3) that the two families were in contact from 11.01.2008 and call records have been exhibited as defence exhibits with regards to the same. However, it has been brought out in the cross-examination of Beena Jain (P.W.17) and Chanda Mittal (D.W.3) that the two families were in contact from 11.01.2008 and call records have been exhibited as defence exhibits with regards to the same. The Prosecution, in order to establish that the kidnappers called Manish Aggarwal on his cell phone, has relied on the statements of STD booth owners, however, no CDR or transcript of the calls made from STD to either Manish Aggarwal have been brought on record by the prosecution. And, in absence of CDR, the statements of the owners of STD examined by the prosecution cannot be relied on by the prosecution to conclude that calls were made by the abductors to Manish Aggarwal as all of them have stated that the fact of call made from their STD to Manish Aggarwal was informed to them only by the police. Therefore, the prosecution has completely failed to establish any calls between abductors and Manish Aggarwal; and, the learned trial court has wrongly concluded that from 16.01.2008 the kidnappers were contacting through Manish Aggarwal. Even though the voice logger, Manish Kumar Sharma (P.W. 54), had put the phone numbers under surveillance from 11.01.2008, but the transcripts produced by the prosecution are of only three days i.e 16.01.2008 to 18.01.2008; and that too only of the calls recorded of phone number 9982350057 (secret Cell number in the name of Bhawani Shankar used by Rajesh Jain). Thus, the prosecution has deliberately withheld evidence available with it and a presumption must be drawn against it in terms of Section 114 of the Evidence Act. In addition, prosecution cannot rely on the transcripts submitted as no certificate under Section 65-B of the Evidence Act has been submitted by the prosecution. 17. As far as the argument of the prosecution with regards to Section 106 of the Evidence Act about knowledge of cell number of Manish Aggarwal with the kidnappers is concerned, the argument is flawed as Section 106 of the Evidence Act cannot be applied against Manish for the knowledge of the kidnappers about his cell number of Manish as the same was in the special knowledge of the kidnappers. Furthermore, it is not the case of the prosecution that Manish Aggarwal had any specific knowledge about kidnappers' phone number. Furthermore, it is not the case of the prosecution that Manish Aggarwal had any specific knowledge about kidnappers' phone number. In addition, the prosecution has failed to bring any evidence to show calls from the cell phone number of Manish to the kidnappers and vice versa. The learned trial court has fallen into grave error by relying on the testimony of Rajesh Jain, with respect to Pramod Mittal informing Rajesh Jain about the call received by Manish Agarwal. Such a statement comes under the purview of hearsay evidence and therefore cannot be read against Manish Aggarwal. Moreover, Rajesh Jain (P.W.19) is not a reliable witness as his testimony is laden with various infirmities and contradictions which have been brought out during his cross-examination. The learned trial court failed to appreciate that calls were made from the phone numbers relating to Mihir's family to Pramod Mittal's house and other numbers; that Abhisekh and Mihir were friends and used to visit each other's house; that their families were known to each other; call was first made from phone number 9982350057 (Cell no. in the name of Bhawani Shankar used by Rajesh Jain) to Pramod Mittal on 12.01.2008 or 13.01.2008, and, therefore the said number was in the knowledge of Pramod Mittal; that from the transcripts of the recordings it is evident that Pramod Mittal refused Rajesh Jain offer to keep the ransom amount with himself; and, Pramod Mittal was bonafidely helping Rajesh Jain and his family. 18. It is argued that the trial court miserably failed to appreciate that Rajesh Jain (P.W.19) in his cross-examination has clearly accepted that the phone number 9982350057 (Cell no. in the name of Bhawani Shankar used by Rajesh Jain) was purchased by Rajesh Jain on 12.01.2008 and was provided to Pramod Mittal on either 12.01.2008 or 13.01.2008. Thus, the trial court has wrongly concluded that Manish Aggarwal was in constant contact with the kidnappers on the flawed premise that on 16.01.2008 the mobile number, 9982350057, was only known to the kidnappers. The trial court failed to appreciate that the kidnappers were all throughout trying to contact Abhisekh on the landline number of Pramod Mittal. Thus, the trial court has wrongly concluded that Manish Aggarwal was in constant contact with the kidnappers on the flawed premise that on 16.01.2008 the mobile number, 9982350057, was only known to the kidnappers. The trial court failed to appreciate that the kidnappers were all throughout trying to contact Abhisekh on the landline number of Pramod Mittal. Also, as per the transcript (Pg 1228 of Ex.D.10) of the call between Pramod Mittal and Rajesh Jain wherein Pramod Mittal informed Rajesh Jain about the call received by Manish Aggarwal, the kidnappers wanted to talk to Abhisekh's father and nothing has been stated with respect to ransom. As far as the evidence of identification of Manish Aggarwal by the victim Mihir is concerned, it is submitted that firstly even though Manish Aggarwal was arrested on 29.01.2008 still no test identification was conducted and no details of his facial features were recorded. Secondly, Manish Aggarwal was identified for the first time after around two years and that too when the possibility of Mihir having seen Manish before identification in court cannot be ruled out. Thirdly, from a close scrutiny of the site plan, the FSL report picture of the Box and statement of Mihir (P.W.18), it is clear that the ocular testimony of identification does not corroborate or rather is in contradiction to the other evidence as noted above. 19. The prosecution, despite admitting that cell phone of Manish was put on surveillance, has not produced any CDR or transcription of such calls. Therefore, adverse inference under section 114 of the Indian Evidence Act ought to have been drawn against the prosecution. It is argued that calls were made to Manish on his cell phone from STD PCO booths which has been proved by Rajesh Gandhi (P.W.15); Vijendra Singh (P.W.43); Dinesh Pal Singh (P.W.46) and Mahendra Singh (P.W.47), all of whom are STD PcO booth owners and pleaded ignorance as to who called Manish from their booths. Even the fourth call made on the landline of Pramod was also traced to STD PCO booth, owned by Abdul Majid (P.W.48) who too pleaded ignorance about the fact that who made telephonic call. Even though Nokia phone of Manish was seized and two cell phones of Pramod Mittal were seized on 29.01.2008 vide Exhibit P-51 and P-52 respectively but they were sealed 14 days thereafter on 12.02.2008 vide memo Exhibit P-53 and P-56 respectively. Even though Nokia phone of Manish was seized and two cell phones of Pramod Mittal were seized on 29.01.2008 vide Exhibit P-51 and P-52 respectively but they were sealed 14 days thereafter on 12.02.2008 vide memo Exhibit P-53 and P-56 respectively. No explanation for this enormous delay has been given by the prosecution. Transcription of the telephonic conversation done on the landline of Rajesh Jain and on phone of accused were placed on record vide Exhibit P-181 to P-189 but part of that was withheld and was not correctly transcribed. It was on the application of the appellant that he was provided complete transcription. It is argued that CDR transcript (Exhibit D-10 to Exhibit D-15 and Exhibit D-27 to Exhibit D-30) has been produced on record, perusal of which would reveal that there was lot of disparities and differences among them. Learned counsel submitted that Manish used to stay with his uncle Pradeep Mittal in his house and his son and Mihir Jain were friends and they used to attend each other's birthday party in their house. Photographs of birthday parties (Exhibit D-54 to D-57) would prove this fact. This fact is also proved by Beena Jain, mother of Mihir Jain. It is argued that the case of the prosecution is that kidnappers for the first time contacted Pradeep Mittal who told Rajesh Jain that he got phone call from the kidnappers on 16.01.2008 but this is falsified from the fact that kidnappers had directly contacted Rajesh Jain first by sending SMS on his cell phone and thereafter on his secret number 9982350057 from cell phone no. 995015200. If as per the prosecution Manish Aggarwal was the facilitator for demand of ransom between the kidnappers and the family of the abducted boy then why would they directly contact family of the abducted boy. It is therefore not believable that they would contact family of the abducted boy through Manish to make demand of ransom. In fact, Rajesh Jain has admitted that wife of Rajesh Jain Beena Jain had telephonic conversation with Pramod on 11.01.2008 and vice versa. Rajesh Jain has also admitted that he had telephonic conversation with Pramod on 13.01.2008 itself. It is, therefore, prayed that appeal filed by the accused-appellant Manish Aggarwal be allowed and appeal filed by complaint against acquittal of Pramod Mittal be dismissed. 20. Rajesh Jain has also admitted that he had telephonic conversation with Pramod on 13.01.2008 itself. It is, therefore, prayed that appeal filed by the accused-appellant Manish Aggarwal be allowed and appeal filed by complaint against acquittal of Pramod Mittal be dismissed. 20. Learned counsel, in support of his arguments, relied upon the judgments of the Supreme Court in Anvar P.V. vs. P.K. Bashir & Others, (2014) 10 SCC 473 ; Subash & Shiv Shankar vs. State of U.P., (1987) 3 SCC 331 ; Bhabwan Singh & Others vs. State of M.P., (2003) 3 SCC 21 ; Md. Sajid alias Raju alias Salim vs. State of West Bengal, (2017) 11 SCC 150 . Learned counsel, in support of his arguments in the appeal of complainant against acquittal of Pramod Mittal, relied upon the judgments of the Supreme Court in Darshan Singh vs. State of Punjab, JT 2010 (1) SC 306; Jodhan vs. State of M.P., JT 2015 (5) SC 133 and State of Tamil Nadu vs. Manikandan, JT 2015 (5) SC 430 . 21. Mr. Anshuman Saxena, learned counsel appearing on behalf of accused-appellant Ramesh Adwani @ Shambhu, in addition of adopting arguments made by learned counsel for the appellants Virender Singh and Manish Aggarwal, argued that the conviction of the accused-appellant has been mechanically recorded by the trial court. Statements of prosecution witnesses suffer from various contradictions and it would not be safe to convict the accused-appellant on that basis. The prosecution witnesses suppressed genesis of the incident. Ingredients of offence under Section 364-A IPC; namely-abduction, ransom and threat are missing in the present case. The prosecution witness saw the accused-appellant much before the test identification parade was conducted, which rendered the entire exercise inadmissible in evidence. It is argued that the allegation that the appellant injected intoxicated medicine frequently to Mihir Jain has not been proved by any reliable and cogent evidence. The charge for offence under Section 328 read with Section 120-B IPC is not proved against the accused-appellant. The prosecution also failed to prove from the voice test of the appellant that he was talking to Ajay Jain or Pramod Mittal. Two articles allegedly belonging to accused-appellant Ramesh Adwani have been recovered from the room where the abducted boy Mihir Jain was allegedly detained. Mihir Jain (P.W.18) has stated that the accused used to call each other by different names such as Yusuf, Salim and Imran etc. Two articles allegedly belonging to accused-appellant Ramesh Adwani have been recovered from the room where the abducted boy Mihir Jain was allegedly detained. Mihir Jain (P.W.18) has stated that the accused used to call each other by different names such as Yusuf, Salim and Imran etc. but identity of the accused-appellant has not been fixed with reference to these different names. Therefore it could not be ascertained what name was given to the accused-appellant Ramesh Adwani. It is argued that Narendra Mishra (P.W.4) is a planted witness and has been produced to say that accused-appellant used to come to him to purchase medicines namely Fortwin, Phenergan injections and disposable syringe. However, the prosecution has failed to produce any prescription, in the absence of which such medicines could not have been given by the chemist. Neither any prescription, nor any bill of such medicines has been produced by the prosecution. The prosecution has failed to lift foot prints or finger prints of any of the accused from the place of occurrence or from the room where Mihir Jain was allegedly detained. Mr. Anshuman Saxena, learned counsel also appearing on behalf of accused-respondent Lalit Saxena opposed the appeal of the complainant against his acquittal and argued that the trial court has rightly examined the material on record and acquitted accused-respondent Lalit Saxena. Chain of circumstances qua accused-respondent Lalit Saxena is having many missing links and the same does not point towards the guilt of the accused-respondent and does not rule out every single hypothesis that may be compatible with the innocence of the accused-respondent Lalit Saxena. 22. Mr. Shyam Bihari Gautam, learned counsel appearing on behalf of accused-appellant Ajay Dixit @ Bunty apart from adopting arguments advanced on behalf of accused-appellants Virender Singh and Manish Aggarwal, argued that the trial court has not properly considered statements of prosecution witnesses and wrongly recorded finding of conviction of the accused-appellant. It is argued that Ashok Chauhan (P.W.29) and Dinesh Saini (P.W.31) have not stated anything against the accused-appellant. It is argued that Mihir Jain has not identified the accused-appellant, therefore, conviction of the accused-appellant has wrongly been recorded by the learned trial court. As per the evidence produced by the prosecution, no offence under Section 120B IPC is made out against the accused-appellant. The prosecution case entirely hinges on circumstantial evidence and there is no last seen evidence. It is argued that Mihir Jain has not identified the accused-appellant, therefore, conviction of the accused-appellant has wrongly been recorded by the learned trial court. As per the evidence produced by the prosecution, no offence under Section 120B IPC is made out against the accused-appellant. The prosecution case entirely hinges on circumstantial evidence and there is no last seen evidence. Therefore, the findings recorded by the trial court against the accused-appellant in connection with last seen is perverse and liable to be set aside. It is well settled law that seal put on the articles, recovered on the basis of information of the accused-appellant must be handed over to the independent witness. It is not the case of the prosecution that it was handed over to the independent witness. It is not the case of the prosecution either that seal put on the article, was handed over to the malkhana incharge. There is nothing on record to show that sample of the seal was sent along with letter and articles to FSL. Learned counsel for the accused-appellant argued that trial court has not considered those parts of statements of prosecution witnesses, which are favourable to the accused-appellants. The trial court has not afforded proper opportunity of hearing to the accused-appellant on the point of sentence as per provisions of Section 235 Cr.P.C., 1973 23. Mr. Santosh Kumar Jain, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the accused-appellant Rajkishor Singh @ Sonu in addition to adopting arguments advanced on behalf of accused-appellants Virender Singh and Manish Aggarwal, argued that the prosecution has completely failed to prove the guilt of the accused-appellant beyond all reasonable doubt. It is argued that while appreciating evidence in a criminal case, the court should keep in view the two cardinal principles that the guilt against the accused must be proved beyond reasonable doubt and that the burden on the accused is not so heavy to prove the plea taken by him as it lay on the prosecution. The burden can be discharged by the accused merely by showing the preponderance of probability in favour of the plea taken by him. There are several infirmities and contradictions in the statements of prosecution witnesses and no reliance can be placed on such statements. The prosecution witnesses have suppressed the genesis of the occurrence and not corroborated story of the prosecution. There are several infirmities and contradictions in the statements of prosecution witnesses and no reliance can be placed on such statements. The prosecution witnesses have suppressed the genesis of the occurrence and not corroborated story of the prosecution. FIR in the present case was lodged by the complainant after long delay and no explanation has been given regarding the said delay. The accused-appellant has not been named in the FIR and no description of the appellant has been given in the FIR. It is argued that the appellant was arrested on 18.01.2008 and he was lodged in jail on 29.01.2008 for test identification parade, which was conducted on 31.01.2008, i.e. after delay of 13 days. Therefore, no sanctity can be attached to such test identification proceedings in the eyes of law. It is argued that the site plan was prepared in the presence of witnesses but there are material differences and contradictions between the site plan and the presence of witnesses. There is no independent witness of the recovery, therefore, the alleged recovery of articles becomes doubtful especially when the police has already reached at site before recording the information under Section 27 of the Evidence Act. Ashok Kumar Sharma (P.W.1), auto driver has denied having seen the incident. Beena Jain (P.W.17) is a planted witness and she has been shown as eye witness but there are contradictions in her statement. It is argued that Rajkumar had not supported prosecution case and was declared hostile. He has categorically stated in his statement that identification was conducted after giving him slap. The accused-appellant was arrested at 3.15 P.M. and Mihir Jain was recovered at 4.15 P.M. Thus it is clear that at the time of recovery of Mihir Jain the appellant was not with the police. 24. Mr. Rinesh Gupta, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the complainant Rajesh Jain in Criminal Appeal No. 243/2015 argued that the trial court has failed to consider the fact that it was a planned abduction for the purpose of demand of ransom. Role was assigned to each and every accused person in connection with commission of offence. If the discussion made by the learned trial court in its judgment at page no. Role was assigned to each and every accused person in connection with commission of offence. If the discussion made by the learned trial court in its judgment at page no. 62 is considered, it would be clear that Lalit Saxena was the person, who was given duty to keep watch on the movement of Mihir Jain and to inform the main abductor in connection with progress related to the investigation. It has been proved that he was in conversation with the accused persons on mobile on various dates, specially during abduction of Mihir Jain. It is argued that charge for the offence under Section 120-B IPC was framed against Lalit Saxena, which is related to criminal conspiracy. He had an interaction with the main accused prior to the occurrence and even after the occurrence, which proves that he had hatched up criminal conspiracy of abduction of Mihir Jain and demand of ransom with other accused persons. However, trial court has failed to appreciate the role played by the accused-respondent Lalit Saxena and wrongly acquitted him of the charges framed against him. Learned counsel further argued that the trial court has discussed the evidence with regard to role of accused-respondent Pramod Mittal at Page Nos. 51, 52, 56, 57 and 60 of the impugned judgment. There is ample evidence against accused-respondent Pramod Mittal to show his involvement in the crime. He had a part in planning of abduction of Mihir Jain for the purpose of demand of ransom. His son Abhishek and Mihir Jain were good friends and studying in same school and same class. However, the trial court has acquitted Pramod Mittal on the basis of surmises and conjectures that both the families were known to each other. Statements of Rajesh Jain (P.W.19) and Vikram Singh (P.W.37) would show that accused Pramod Mittal was given work of collecting money and hand over the same to the main abductors after keeping watch on the movement of the appellant and investigating agency. He had direct involvement in abduction and in connection with demand of ransom. He along with other accused Manish Aggarwal accompanied aforesaid two witnesses. As per prosecution case, Pramod Mittal received calls on his mobile in connection with demand of ransom. He accompanied aforesaid two witnesses in the vehicle and waited for confirmation regarding payment. He had direct involvement in abduction and in connection with demand of ransom. He along with other accused Manish Aggarwal accompanied aforesaid two witnesses. As per prosecution case, Pramod Mittal received calls on his mobile in connection with demand of ransom. He accompanied aforesaid two witnesses in the vehicle and waited for confirmation regarding payment. All these facts indicate that he hatched up a criminal conspiracy prior to abduction of Mihir Jain and thereafter, he became mediator. Trial court has failed to consider participation of accused-respondent Pramod Mittal in the light of the fact that he was residing with Manish Aggarwal who has been convicted and whose participation has been proved. Learned counsel argued that trial court has not properly considered reply to the questions put to accused-respondents under Section 313 Cr.P.C., 1973 It is well settled law that reply given by accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C., 1973 is very important and conviction can be based on the same. The trial court has not properly scrutinised the evidence and other material on record which otherwise prove guilt of the accused respondents beyond reasonable doubt. It is, therefore, prayed that present appeal be allowed and accused-respondents Lalit Saxena and Pramod Saxena may also be convicted of the charges framed against them by the trial court. 25. Mrs. Sonia Shandilya, learned Public Prosecutor opposed the appeals filed by the accused-appellants Manish Aggarwal; Ramesh Adwani @ Shambhu; Virender Singh @ Vijendra Singh; Ajay Dixit @ Bunty; Rajkishor Singh @ Sonu and argued that Ashok (P.W.1); Nand Kishor (P.W.2); Sitaram (P.W.3); Ashok Kumar (P.W.5); Smt. Rani Huja (p.W.7); Smt. Beena Jain (P.W.17); Mihir Jain (P.W.18) are the eye witnesses of the incident and their evidence prove guilt of the accused-appellants beyond reasonable doubt. Accused Rajkihsor was driver of Maruti Zen Vehicle in which the accused persons kidnapped Mihir Jain and he was identified by Apoorv Sood (P.W.38); Heeralal Regar (P.W.12); Mihir Jain (P.W.18); Smt. Beena Jain (P.W.17). Moreover evidence proved that Ramesh Adwani injected Mihir Jain with sedatives so that he could not make noise or scream. Ramesh Adwani was identified by Narendra Mishra (P.W.14) and Mihir Jain (P.W.18). Virender Singh pulled Mihir inside the car when he came from his school and he has been identified by Smt. Beena Jain (P.W.17); Apoorv Sood (P.W.38); Mihir Jain (P.w.18). Ramesh Adwani was identified by Narendra Mishra (P.W.14) and Mihir Jain (P.W.18). Virender Singh pulled Mihir inside the car when he came from his school and he has been identified by Smt. Beena Jain (P.W.17); Apoorv Sood (P.W.38); Mihir Jain (P.w.18). Ajay Dixit arranged Sim cards which were used by the accused persons for making calls to demand ransom. He has been identified by Rajiv Sukhija (P.W.11). Manish Aggarwal received phone calls of kidnappers on his mobile and was also identified by Mihir when the box was opened to give him food. He has been identified by Mihir Jain. It is argued that the trial court has recorded a finding that the prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt that accused Rajkishor, Ramesh Adwani, Virender Singh confined the boy against his will for more than three days after kidnapping and committed offence punishable under Section 343 IPC. It has also been held that Ramesh Adwani injected the boy with sedative injection of Fortwin and Phenergan during the time when he was kidnapped and kept in confinement. All the accused persons were in contact of each other through cell phones. Threatening calls for ransom were received on the cell phone of Manish Aggarwal and Pramod Mittal when they were with Rajesh Jain and Vikram Singh, which proves offence punishable under Section 364A IPC. The trial court has recorded a finding regarding involvement of Manish Aggarwal on the basis that kidnappers repeatedly called at his number to make demand of ransom. Repeated phone calls from kidnappers on the cell phone of Manish Aggarwal coupled with his identification by victim himself are the incriminating material against Manish Aggarwal. Moreover, there was no document showing enmity, on the record between Rajesh Jain's family and Manish Aggarwal and Pramod Mittal. Why would then they make false accusation against them. It is argued that the prosecution has proved beyond reasonable doubt that all the accused persons hatched up a conspiracy to kidnap Mihir Jain (P.W.18) for ransom. Mihir Jain was kidnapped, sedated and brought to a house in Ghanshyam Vihar Colony, Jaipur where he was kept in detention. His parents were threatened by the accused with dire consequences, if the amount was not paid. Mihir Jain was kidnapped, sedated and brought to a house in Ghanshyam Vihar Colony, Jaipur where he was kept in detention. His parents were threatened by the accused with dire consequences, if the amount was not paid. Mihir Jain was recovered from the house in Ghanshyam Vihar Colony, where, Mihir was kept inside the box for eight days by the accused Rajkishor, Ajay Dixit, Ramesh Adwani, Manish Aggarwal and Virender Singh. The things done and said by the accused persons prior to and after the kidnapping of Mihir prove that they were all privy to the crime as conspirators as per section 10 of the Indian Evidence Act. All the incriminating circumstances form a chain so complete against the accused-appellants which points to their guilt beyond all reasonable doubt. It is, therefore, prayed that appeals filed by the accused-appellants may be dismissed and their conviction and sentenced awarded by the trial court may be affirmed. 26. We have given our anxious consideration to rival submissions and perused the material on record as also studied the cited precedents. 27. The manner, in which the incident took place, has been explained by Ashok Kumar (P.W.1); auto rickshaw driver, who as usual dropped the victim at his house from the school; Nand Kishore (P.W.2), driver of the car of Seedling School, who passed the place of incident at the relevant time; Sitaram (P.W.3), mason working in the house of the victim; Ashok Kumar Sharma (P.W.5), a passerby; Smt. Rani Huja (P.W.7), Principal of Seedling School, who also happened to pass thereby in the car of Nand Kishore (P.W.2) at the relevant time and Smt. Been Jain (P.W.17), mother of the abducted boy. Apart from this, Mihir Jain (P.W.18) has also explained the manner, in which he was kidnapped. 28. Ashok (P.W.1), auto rickshaw driver simply stated that he dropped Mihir Jain in front of his house, handed over his school bag and then went away straight from there. While going, he noticed a car coming from the front. Nand Kishore (P.W.2) has stated that he owned a personal Maruti Van, which was hired by Seedling School. Apart from dropping the students of the that school, he also used to take the Principal of that school (Madam) to the school and drop her. While going, he noticed a car coming from the front. Nand Kishore (P.W.2) has stated that he owned a personal Maruti Van, which was hired by Seedling School. Apart from dropping the students of the that school, he also used to take the Principal of that school (Madam) to the school and drop her. It was around 2.30-3.00 P.M., while he was going from Mahaveer Nagar-I towards Jaipur Hospital, Tonk Road, he noticed that an auto rickshaw dropped a child in front of his house. Suddenly, a white car came and stopped there. Madam stated that perhaps an accident had taken place. Then he stopped the car and saw that rear gate of Maruti Zen was opened and heard cry of the child. Madam stated that the child had been kidnapped and asked him to follow that car. They chased the car till Jaipur Hospital and thereafter the car turned towards Sanganer. Then Madam asked to return back to the house wherefrom the child was kidnapped. There, they found a woman crying, who told Madam that her son Mihir Jain had been kidnapped. They told that registration of Maruti Zen was RJ-14 7C 1252. 29. Sitaram (P.W.3) has stated that he was working as mason in the house of Rajesh Jain. He was repairing cement pots of the plants in his house. He noticed that son of Rajesh Jain had come from school in an auto rickshaw. Suddenly, a white colour car came there. Rear gate of the car opened and somebody pulled the child inside the car, who cried and they went away towards Ram Mandir. Mother of the child, who was there, upon seeing this, cried for help. Smt. Rani Huja (P.W.7) has stated that she was Principal of Seedling School for last 13 years. She noticed that a car suddenly overtook them from behind and stopped. She thought that some accident might have taken place. Suddenly, she saw that the child who alighted from an auto rickshaw was pulled by someone sitting on the rear seat of the car. She could see hand of the child only. Then driver of that car accelerated the speed and went towards Jaipur Hospital. She told driver of her car, Nand Kishore (P.W.2) that somebody had kidnapped the child and he should follow them. He followed the car up to Jaipur Hospital, which was on Tonk Road. She could see hand of the child only. Then driver of that car accelerated the speed and went towards Jaipur Hospital. She told driver of her car, Nand Kishore (P.W.2) that somebody had kidnapped the child and he should follow them. He followed the car up to Jaipur Hospital, which was on Tonk Road. That car then went towards Sanganer and disappeared. Then, they came back to the house wherefrom the child was kidnapped. She noticed a woman was crying there. Ashok Kumar Sharma (P.W.5) has also similarly stated that while he was coming from Durgapura Over Bridge towards Mahaveer Nagar on his motorcycle, he noticed that a car with registration number RJ-14 7C 1252 came there and stopped in front of House No. 310- 11. Someone sitting on the rear seat of the car opened the door and pulled the child, who had just alighted from an auto rickshaw of the school, inside the car. He followed that car up to some extent. A Maruti Van also followed that car up to Jaipur Hospital. That car moved in the direction of Sanganer on the wrong side of the road and then disappeared. He told about the incident to a traffic constable at Durgapura crossing. Then he made a telephonic call at police control room on 100 number. He could identify the person, who had pulled the child inside the car. He saw a blackish and fatty person. All the aforesaid witnesses were subjected to intensive cross-examination, but insofar as manner of incident and vehicle number are concerned, their testimony remained unshaken. 30. Rajesh Sharma (P.W.8) has stated that he had gone in his Maruti Zen RJ-14 7C 1252 to Bhilwara with his friend Nitish Sogani. They stayed there. While Nitish went to his house, he stayed at Ashoka Hotel there. He received phone call of a police officer at about 4.00 P.M. on 11.01.2008, who enquired about his location and about his car. Thereupon, he told that he was at Bhilwara and his care was also there. He was asked to go to nearest police station and report there. Accordingly, he went to police station where his car was checked. He received phone call of a police officer at about 4.00 P.M. on 11.01.2008, who enquired about his location and about his car. Thereupon, he told that he was at Bhilwara and his care was also there. He was asked to go to nearest police station and report there. Accordingly, he went to police station where his car was checked. Statement of this witness is significant because as per the case of the prosecution, the accused used a fake number plate, which was recovered at the instance of accused-appellant Virender Singh vide Exhibit P-192, according to which he had thrown that fake number plate behind a hotel in Pratap Nagar and the same was recovered in the presence of attesting witnesses Kailash Chand and Karni Singh. 31. Balraj Meena (P.W.9), Constable has proved that an information was received by him on phone of chowkin no. 2721940 at 3.10 P.M. on 11.01.2008 from Harish Jain that Mihir Jain son of Rajesh Jain has been kidnapped by 3-4 persons in the car in front of his house. Jal Singh (P.W.10), who was posted as Head Constable at Police Station Bajaj Nagar stated that an information was received from Balraj, Constable about kidnapping of Mihir Jain at about 3.12 P.M. on 11.01.2008, which was entered in Rojnamcha (Exhibit P-6), copy thereof was Exhibit P-6A. Vidhya Prakash (P.W.45), S.H.O., Police Station Bajaj Nagar, Jaipur has stated that he immediately reached house of Rajesh Jain on receiving information from Jal Singh, Head Constable and informed senior officers. He recorded statements of Rajesh Jain; Smt. Beena Jain; Shivin Jain; Ramdhan Jain; Smt. Trina Chaturvedi; Nand Kishore; Rani Huja; Ashok Kumar; Nikhil Barman, Sitaram Biarwa; Ashok Khatik; Sajjan Devi; Mohan Singh; Chotu Yadav; Ajay Sharma; Balraj and Jal Singh under Section 161 Cr.P.C., 1973 32. Rajeev Sukhija (P.W.11) has stated that he runs a mobile showroom from his house in Mansarover. He used to sell Nokia Mobile handsets and sim cards of Airtel Company, which he used to get from Aditya Tele Link, M.I. Road, Jaipur. A person came to his shop on 06.01.2008 around 5.30 P.M. and demanded two Airtel sims. On being required, he produced two original I.D. proofs; one was identity card and other was driving licence. He asked him to provide photo copy of the same and get the signatures of the person who wanted to take the sims. A person came to his shop on 06.01.2008 around 5.30 P.M. and demanded two Airtel sims. On being required, he produced two original I.D. proofs; one was identity card and other was driving licence. He asked him to provide photo copy of the same and get the signatures of the person who wanted to take the sims. He took original form as also original documents back with him and told that he would get the signatures of his uncle. That person came back after about 15-20 minutes. He gave two forms upon which photos were affixed and the same were signed also. There were two different photos and ID proofs were also different. When this witness asked for mobile, he gave him a mobile model no. 3230 of Nokia make. Then this witness inserted the sim in that mobile but noticed that lock of the sim slot was not in working condition. Thereupon that person stated that he would insert the sim in another handset which he was having at his house. Number of these two sims were 9950152300, which was issued in the name of Bane Singh and 9950153200 which was issued in the name of Bhagwan Singh. Entry whereof was made by him in his diary (Exhibit P-7), photo copy of which was Exhibit P-7A. Form issued in the name of Bhagwan Singh was Exhibit P-8 and photo copy of ID proof of Bhagwan Singh was Exhibit P-9. Another form issued in the name of Bane Singh was Exhibit P-10 and photo copy of ID proof of Bane Singh was Exhibit P-11. Original bill of these sims issued to this witness by M/s. Aditya Tele Links was Exhibit P-13 and registration certificate of shop of this witness was Exhibit P-14. All these documents were seized by the police. This witness identified accused-appellant Ajay Dixit in the court as that person, who had taken two sims from his shop and stated that he went to Central Jail, Jaipur for his test identification parade. Memo of test identification parade of Ajay Dixit is Exhibit P-15 in which he correctly identified him. This witness was subjected to detailed cross-examination wherein he stated that 8-10 persons were mixed up with accused-appellant Ajay Dixit at the time of test identification parade. He denied that the police ever showed him photographs of the accused Ajay Dixit. Memo of test identification parade of Ajay Dixit is Exhibit P-15 in which he correctly identified him. This witness was subjected to detailed cross-examination wherein he stated that 8-10 persons were mixed up with accused-appellant Ajay Dixit at the time of test identification parade. He denied that the police ever showed him photographs of the accused Ajay Dixit. He also told that the police also did not disclose him physiognomy and height of the accused beforehand. Rajeev Malik (P.W.26) stated that he was working as Director (Marketing) in Lotus Dairy Products Private Limited and Ajay Dixit was working as Zone Executive of the company. A sim of Airtel Company bearing no. 9829258079 was also issued in his name. 33. Heera Lal (P.W.12), who runs a tent house in the name of Heera Tent House at Baba Ramdev Kumbha Marg, Pratap Nagar, Jaipur, stated that two boys came to his tent house in November, 2007 around 11.00-12.00 A.M. and demanded mattresses. They told that they were earlier staying in Vaishali Nagar but now they have shifted to Pratap Nagar. They would work there for installation of mobile tower and wanted to hire mattresses etc. for 15 days. He gave them five quilts, five mattresses, five pillows, five sheets and five chairs. These people had also taken cover of quilts and pillows. One of them disclosed his identity as Rajkishor, who gave him a sum of Rs. 500/- as advance as against total amount of Rs. 1100/-. He sent all the aforesaid items in a rickshaw to House No. 104/32 but when these items were not received back after 15 days, he went there and found the house locked. He called Rajkishor on cell phone, who assured him that they were away somewhere for 3-4 days and would return back and that they would give him all his items with remaining amount of rent. After 3-4 days again he went there. Landlord told him that they have vacated the room. When he again called Rajkishor on his mobile phone, he told that they had now gone to Bikaner and would return back Jaipur and clear his dues around Makar Sankrati. When they still did not come back, he finally called Rajkishor and told him that if goods are not returned back, he would complain to the police. When he again called Rajkishor on his mobile phone, he told that they had now gone to Bikaner and would return back Jaipur and clear his dues around Makar Sankrati. When they still did not come back, he finally called Rajkishor and told him that if goods are not returned back, he would complain to the police. Rajkishor asked him not to approach the police and assured that they would clear his bills by 20th-21th January. After some time the police called him to Sector 22, Pratap Nagar, Jaipur where all his goods were lying. He narrated the entire incident to the police. Even this witness stated that he correctly identified Rajkishor in Central Jail, Jaipur in test identification parade (Exhibit P-16), whom he again identified in the Court as the one who had taken all the aforesaid items from his tent house. This witness was subjected to thorough cross-examination and he denied the suggestion that photograph of the accused Rajkishor was shown to him by the police beforehand. Registration certificate of tent house is Exhibit P-14; Slip of tent house is Exhibit P-18 and copy thereof is Exhibit P-18A containing signature of Rajkishor. He identified all the goods that were hired by the accused vide Exhibit P-19 and the same were also produced as separate articles. Ram Prasad (P.W.35), rickshaw puller has stated that he normally parks his rickshaw outside Heera Tent House and work for them. On 27.11.2007, he went to Sector 10 for delivery of five quilts, five mattresses, five pillows, five sheets and five chairs. Challan of the tent house was Exhibit P-17 which contained signatures of the recipient. Two boys met him in the house whom he handed over the items. On 25.01.2008, he was sitting at Heera Tent House at 10.00 A.M. Police brought a person with covered face on that day and prepared site plan of the place at his askance which was Exhibit P-41. Then they took him to Sector 16 at the tempo stand wherefrom he hired a Tata ASC to carry iron box. Apoorv Sood (P.W.38) stated that they had advertised in the newspaper for renting their house No. 104/32 situated at Kumbha Marg, Pratap Nagar, Jaipur. A broker introduced Rajkishor to his mother, who hired the house for monthly rent of Rs. 8200 and gave advance. He came back with stamp of Rs. Apoorv Sood (P.W.38) stated that they had advertised in the newspaper for renting their house No. 104/32 situated at Kumbha Marg, Pratap Nagar, Jaipur. A broker introduced Rajkishor to his mother, who hired the house for monthly rent of Rs. 8200 and gave advance. He came back with stamp of Rs. 100/- on which rent note was written. They stayed in the house for some time and vacated the same on 28th and 29th November, 2007 on the pretest that their tender for installation of mobile tower had been cancelled. Copy of the rent note was Exhibit P-43. He stated that he went to jail to identify Rajkishor and correctly identified him vide Exhibit P-16. 34. Jagmohan Agarwal-II (P.W.55), Additional Civil Judge cum Judicial Magistrate No. 4, Jaipur City has proved test identification parade of Rajkishor, Ramesh Adwani and Ajay Dixit. Copy of the order sheet of the aforesaid proceedings was Exhibit P- 90 which contained his signatures. Memo of test identification parade of Rajkishore (Exhibit P-16) contained signatures of Apoorv Sood (P.W.38); Heera Lal Raigar (P.W.12), Raj Kumar Sharma (P.W.13) and Mihir Jain (P.W.18), who correctly identified him. Aforesaid witness also proved test identification parade memo of Ramesh Adwani (Exhibit P-3) containing signatures of Narendra Mishra (P.W.4), Raj Kumar Sharma (P.W.13), Mihir Jain (P.W.18) and Vijendra Singh Rathore (P.W.43), who correctly identified Ramesh Adwani. He has also proved test identification parade of Ajay Dixit (Exhibit P-15) and stated that he was correctly identified by Vijendra Singh Rathore (P.W.43) and Rajeev Sukhija (P.W.11). He forwarded proceedings of the test identification parade (Exhibit P-179) to Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division) cum Judicial Magistrate, No. 13, Jaipur City, Jaipur. In crossexamination this witness stated that due care was taken to mix up sufficient number of persons of similar physiognomy and features with the accused. 35. Amrita Choudhary (P.W.61), SDM, Jaipur East conducted test identification parade of Virender Singh, memo of which was Exhibit P-190 according to which Beena Jain (P.W.17); Apoorv Sood (P.W.38) and Mihir Jain (P.W.18) correctly identified Virender Singh in Central Jail, Jaipur. She sent the proceedings of the test identification parade vide letter dated 01.12.2010 (Exhibit P-197) to Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division) cum Judicial Magistrate, No. 13, Jaipur City, Jaipur. 36. Mihir Jain (P.W.18) was 13 years old when his statement was recorded. He has given detailed statement and then subjected to intensive cross-examination, but he remained unshaken. She sent the proceedings of the test identification parade vide letter dated 01.12.2010 (Exhibit P-197) to Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division) cum Judicial Magistrate, No. 13, Jaipur City, Jaipur. 36. Mihir Jain (P.W.18) was 13 years old when his statement was recorded. He has given detailed statement and then subjected to intensive cross-examination, but he remained unshaken. He has stated that on the fateful day, he alighted from auto rickshaw and received school bag back. Then he started towards his house and auto rickshaw forwarded, suddenly, a white colour car came and stopped near him. One person sitting on rear seat came out and pulled him inside the car. He covered his face and mouth and tide his legs and hands with rope. There were four persons in the car. One person was driving the vehicle. Another one was sitting by his side and two persons were at back seat. They initially moved towards Jaipur Hospital, Jaipur but then turned on the Tonk Road. One of them threatened him that if he would make noise, they would kill him. Then the vehicle stopped near a house where they locked him in a small room. They injected certain medicines at his buttock, after which he became unconscious. When he regained consciousness and wanted to go for answering call of nature, one of the persons opened his hands and legs and cover from the eyes and drag him to the toilet and then again brought him back to the small room. When he asked that he was feeling hungry, he got him roti and vegetable. He stated that accused told him that they had brought him at Haryana. One of them disclosed his identity as Yusuf, who called another person as Imran and asked him to carefully inject the medicines. The person, who used to administer him injection, then assured to be careful. He then called third person as Saleem and told him that if after administering injection, if this witness raises voice, then to kill him. Then they put him in an iron box, in which he felt quite difficult to breathe and there was no light inside. He asked the person whom they called as Yusuf to widen the tiny hole so that he could feel easy in breathing but then they put him inside the box and closed the same. Then they put him in an iron box, in which he felt quite difficult to breathe and there was no light inside. He asked the person whom they called as Yusuf to widen the tiny hole so that he could feel easy in breathing but then they put him inside the box and closed the same. Thereafter, they put a cardboard and small container ('dibbi') to keep the box slightly opened so that he could get some light and breathe easily. They used to give him biscuits to eat. Accused used to administer injections to him to remain in the room in the whole day and the person, who was called as Yusuf, would come in between. Mihir Jain further stated that Yusuf told him that he should take the injection in the night of 14th, as they go to sleep after taking drinks and if he raised voice, they would kill him. He then stated that they should not administer injection to him and that he would not make any voice. He could easily peep through the hole and see the faces of all these persons. In the night of 17th, three persons did not come but only one accused who used to inject him was there. He too went away somewhere in the morning of 18th. It was at about 10.00-11.00, this witness wanted to go to toilet. Then he by applying force opened the box. All the items lying at top of the box fell apart and thereafter he went to toilet and came back in the box. He suddenly heard sound of opening of room. He entered the box, but one of his legs remained outside. The persons came and entered the room. He started crying that they should not kill him. Then these persons told him that they were policemen. Mihir Jain in the Court has stated that he could identify these persons because whenever they would give him food and he consumed the food, the box would remain open and on other occasions when they would take him to toilet and bring him out of the box, they would remove cover from his eyes and thereafter again close his eyes. In between, he used to see their faces. He pointed at one of the accused saying that he used to give injection to him. In between, he used to see their faces. He pointed at one of the accused saying that he used to give injection to him. When trial court asked this accused to pronounce his name, he told his name as Ramesh Adwani. This witness then pointed at another accused, who was driving the car on the day of his abduction, who pronounced his name as Rajkishor. He then pointed his finger at third accused saying that he also one or two occasions came there and when he used to eat food, he saw him. This accused disclosed his name as Manish Aggarwal. Mihir Jain has stated that he identified first of aforesaid three accused during identification parade and his signatures are contained in memo Exhibit P-16. 37. Mihir Jain has been subjected to a very lengthy cross-examination and looking to the fact that he was hardly 13 years old, he has remained consistent in his crossexamination. He stated that he knew Abhishek since 2005. Width of the iron box, in which he was kept was 1 1 /2 feet; length was 41/2 feet and height thereof was 1 1 /2 to 2 feet. They started to keep him in the box from 12th January. The hole in the box was towards opposite side of the opening of the box. It's diameter was 1 c.m. In crossexamination, Mihir Jain further stated that he was not aware that Manish Aggarwal was elder brother of Abhishek. He did not deny the fact that he once talked Abhishek even after the incident when he received his call. They used to attend each others birthday party. He did not mention the name of any other person except the kidnappers in his police statement. When he was asked to explain that whether he saw the accused only through the hole in the box, he clarified that in fact, he saw the accused through the gap, which was created after putting cardboard and container ('dibbi') between the main box and its upper door. In fact, in the later part of his cross-examination he clarified that what he meant to convey by the word 'hole' was the gap which became available after putting cardboard scale and the container ('dibbi') in it. In fact, in the later part of his cross-examination he clarified that what he meant to convey by the word 'hole' was the gap which became available after putting cardboard scale and the container ('dibbi') in it. In further cross-examination, Mihir Jain has clarified that hole in the box was opposite of its opening and could accommodate ball pen point and in fact, was slightly bigger than that and on the opening side also there was a hole which could accommodate point of two ball pens together and still some place could be left. No doubt, this witness was subjected to cross-examination by all the advocates appearing on behalf of the accused persons separately and there are some deviations from his police statement and statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C., 1973 but then this Court has to appreciate the fact that this witness was hardly 12 years of age when his statement was recorded by the police and even then there is fair amount of consistency in his statement, except minor omissions here and there. This witness though missed out some facts mentioned in his police statement (Exhibit D-6), which was recorded after his recovery, but looking to his age and trauma which he faced, some minor omissions and deviations in his statement will have to be viewed in the light of the fact that Mihir Jain was a boy of 12 years of age and had recently undergone trauma of having been kidnapped and faced threat to his life for as long as seven days. Being a child witness, this witness was therefore entitled to some latitude. The trial court in this behalf, in our view, has not committed any legal mistake. 38. Smt. Beena Jain (P.W.17), mother of the abducted boy has stated that she was waiting for Mihir Jain in the lawn outside her house. She noticed a white color Maruti Zen car parked on the right side of their house. Two persons were sitting on the front seat. They were staring at her. Then auto rickshaw of school came and Mihir Jain alighted from auto rickshaw. Auto rickshaw driver gave him school bag. Even when he started walking towards the house, white colour car suddenly came and stopped in front of their house. Rear gate of the car was opened and one fatty person pulled Mihir Jain inside the car with his school bag. Auto rickshaw driver gave him school bag. Even when he started walking towards the house, white colour car suddenly came and stopped in front of their house. Rear gate of the car was opened and one fatty person pulled Mihir Jain inside the car with his school bag. That person once looked behind and the car rushed towards Ram Mandir. It was the same car which was parked at right side of their house. She cried for help. One Maruti Van chased the car. She came out of the house while crying. She saw two women sitting in the Van. When they came back, she told that abducted boy was her son Mihir. She telephoned her husband. The women sitting in the Van mentioned their identity to be Principal and Vice Principal of Seedling School. She went to the police outpost. She stated that she could identify the person, who came out to pull his son and also two persons sitting on front seat of the car. In fact, she went to jail and identified Rajkishor vide memo Exhibit P-23 and told that he was one of those three persons. She stated that for some time she was in the state of shock and could not react to situation. She admitted that Mihir and Abhishek were friends and used to attend each others birthday party. Sometimes Mihir and Abhishek also used to talk on phone. Name of Abhishek's mother was Chanda. She did not talk to Chanda after this incident. Her husband told that kidnappers had sent him message demanding ransom. Cell phone no. of her husband was 9829012133. In further cross-examination, she stated that the person whom she identified on 23.11.2013 was not very black and was slightly blackish towards wheatish in colour. 39. Rajesh Jain (P.W.19), father of the abducted boy and the complainant has stated that after his son Mihir was abducted, he received phone call on 12th and 13th January, 2008 on his cell phone no. 9829012133 and the caller told him that if he wanted safety of the child, he should stay away from the police and the media and then the phone was disconnected. Then they sent a message on his mobile on 16th January from cell phone no. 9950152300, which initially mentioned, "Happy birthday Mamma" and then stated that Rs. 50 lacs in cash and jewellery of Rs. Then they sent a message on his mobile on 16th January from cell phone no. 9950152300, which initially mentioned, "Happy birthday Mamma" and then stated that Rs. 50 lacs in cash and jewellery of Rs. 50 lacs should be arranged and he should sent a message on the said number from a new mobile phone. Thereupon, he used cell phone having no. 9982350057, which was taken by him in the name of his maternal uncle Bhawani Shankar and then messaged on cell phone no. 9950152300 on 16.01.2008 requesting kidnappers to make Mihir to talk to him. When no answer was received for about 20-25 minutes, he again repeated same message. He then again received message on 17.01.2008 on the said new number, which mentioned, "Come Anniversary at February; Baba Birthday 18 April, Papa Birthday 20 April; Papa give money, I am O.K.". This message was received at 5.43 P.M. on 17.01.2008. He again sent a message on that number that kidnappers should make Mihir to talk to him so that he could assure that Mihir was fine and money was ready. Earlier to this, on 16th evening he received a phone call on that number from one Pramod Mittal, father of Abhishek, who told that son of his brother-in-law had received a call on his cell phone from the kidnappers. Kidnappers had asked him that he should come to the house of Rajesh Jain and make him to talk to them. Pramod Mittal told that he was residing in Shyam Nagar and whether can they meet. He suggested that they could meet at Narayan Niwas at Gopalpura By-Pass. Rajesh Jain agreed. He along with police inspector Vikram Singh who was in civil dress went there. Pramod Mittal had come there in his Alto Vehicle. He came and sat in the car of Rajesh Jain. There was one more person with him. Both sat on the rear seat. Pramod Mittal introduced another person as Manish Aggarwal, son of his brother-in-law. He explained that Mihir was not aware of cell phone of Manish Aggarwal and it is known, who gave the cell number of Manish to kidnappers. Pramod Mittal stated that he was only trying to help him (Rajesh Jain). His name should not be mentioned to the police. Then Rajesh Jain assured him that his name will not be mentioned to police. Pramod Mittal stated that he was only trying to help him (Rajesh Jain). His name should not be mentioned to the police. Then Rajesh Jain assured him that his name will not be mentioned to police. After some time a phone call was received on the mobile phone of Manish Aggarwal around 8.30 P.M. Pramod Mittal talked to the caller but phone was disconnected. Pramod Mittal told that it was kidnappers' phone and that they would call him after sometime. After sometime, when again call was received on the cell phone of Manish, Pramod Mittal after saying hello handed over the cell phone to Rajesh Jain. Caller at the other end asked him to hand over jewellery worth Rs. 40 lacs and cash of Rs. 10 lacs to this person (Pramod Mittal). Rajesh Jain insisted the kidnapper for talking to Mihir. Thereupon the kidnapper told that he (Rajesh Jain) could hear tape recorded voice of Mihir but Rajesh Jain insisted on directly talking to Mihir Jain. Thereupon, kidnapper assured that he could talk to Mihir after half an hour and then phone was disconnected. They waited for some time. Pramod Mittal assured that the kidnappers will call and in the meantime, he should arrange for jewellery and the money. 40. Rajesh Jain (P.W.19) further stated that then they came back to his house at Mahaveer Nagar. Pramod and Manish were sitting in the car outside the house. He and Vikram Singh came inside the house and talked to office staff Bhawani Shankar Agarwal, Rajendra Agarwal and Sameer Jain to come to his office and arrange for jewellery. He then went to the house of his friend Alok Jain, who was residing at Mukta Nagar and brought Rs. 10 lacs and then went towards Johari Bazar. Bhawani Shankar Agarwal had by then arranged the jewellery and handed over the same to him outside the office of Jewellers Association. Then, they started towards Gopalpura. At that time, Vikram Singh, Pramod Mittal and Manish Aggarwal were with him. Pramod Mittal on the way was insisting Rajesh Jain to handover the bag to him thereupon he (Rajesh Jain) told that bag was safe in his hands. On the way Rajesh Jain told Pramod Mittal that why so far kidnappers had not called. At that time, Vikram Singh, Pramod Mittal and Manish Aggarwal were with him. Pramod Mittal on the way was insisting Rajesh Jain to handover the bag to him thereupon he (Rajesh Jain) told that bag was safe in his hands. On the way Rajesh Jain told Pramod Mittal that why so far kidnappers had not called. Pramod Mittal told that since Mihir was not a small child, kidnappers could find it difficult to bring him to STD PCO and make him to talk to Rajesh Jain, especially if he (Mihir) starts crying. Pramod Mittal told him that he (Rajesh Jain) should hand over bag containing jewellery and money to him and he would ensure that Mihir talks to his son Abhishek and then only he would hand over the bag to kidnappers and take the custody of Mihir. Thereupon, he (Rajesh Jain) told Pramod Mittal that Abhishek was too young to identify voice of Mihir and this might result in going money in wrong hands. They moved towards Narayan Niwas. There, Mittal was looking at the back seat of the car and suddenly asked to stop the car. Vikram Singh, who was in the wheels stopped the car. Then Mittal got down from the car and went towards the back side. He noticed a van and then came back and said that probably they were police personnel and chasing them. Thereupon, they came back to his house at Mahaveer Nagar and changed the car. Pramod Mittal then suggested to go to Vaishali Nagar via Shyam Nagar. On the way, he enquired from Rajesh Jain that if the police and media ask him as to how he got his son freed, Rajesh Jain told him that he would tell them that somebody had dropped Mihir outside the house. Then they moved towards New Sanganer Road where Mittal asked to stop the car near Dhanwantari Chikitsalaya. There they waited for half an hour. When no phone was received, he (Rajesh Jain) asked Mittal to call on the phone number of kidnappers. Mittal then informed that the said mobile number was lying switched off. It was around 12 in the night. They came back to his house at 1.30 A.M. and waited for call of kidnappers till 5.30 in the morning. Pramod Mittal twice went to answer the call of nature outside the house despite his (Rajesh Jain) insisting to use the bathroom. It was around 12 in the night. They came back to his house at 1.30 A.M. and waited for call of kidnappers till 5.30 in the morning. Pramod Mittal twice went to answer the call of nature outside the house despite his (Rajesh Jain) insisting to use the bathroom. Then Pramod Mittal and Manish went saying that they would again contact him (Rajesh Jain), if they receive any call from the kidnappers. He called Pramod Mittal on 4 to 5 occasions on 17th who told him that kidnappers have yet not called him and enquired from him (Rajesh Jain) that whether he had informed the police because he (Mittal) was feeling that somebody was following him. Thereupon he (Rajesh Jain) assured him that he had not informed the police. Rajesh Jain further stated that he called Pramod Mittal at 12 in the mid night of 17th stating that his wife was getting restless and he (Rajesh Jain) was ready to hand over the bag containing jewellery and cash to him (Mittal) and Pramod Mittal should give the same to the kidnappers after ensuring that Mihir talks to Abhishek. Thereupon, Pramod Mittal told him that it would have already been done if he had earlier handed over the bag to him. And then he (Pramod) said that now, he himself was frightened and disconnected the call. He again called Pramod Mittal in the morning of 18th January that whether he received any phone call from the kidnappers, Pramod Mittal told that he did not receive any phone call. Then in the evening around 4.00 P.M. he received phone call of Shri P.K. Singh, Inspector General of Police who informed that Mihir had been recovered. Then he along with his wife went on the given address of 158, Ghanshyam Vihar Colony, 200 Feet Express Bypass, Ajmer Road, near Karni Hotel and took custody of Mihir Jain vide memo Exhibit P-25. 41. Vikram Singh (P.W.37) is Sub Inspector of the Police and was given duty to stay in civil uniform with Rajesh Jain during crucial period. He in his detailed statement has corroborated what was stated by Rajesh Jain. He too has stated that Pramod Mittal from his cell phone 9828549440 told Rajesh Jain on his cell phone 9982350057 that kidnappers told Manish Aggarwal on his cell phone that he should ensure that Rajesh Jain talk to them. He in his detailed statement has corroborated what was stated by Rajesh Jain. He too has stated that Pramod Mittal from his cell phone 9828549440 told Rajesh Jain on his cell phone 9982350057 that kidnappers told Manish Aggarwal on his cell phone that he should ensure that Rajesh Jain talk to them. Thereupon, Rajesh Jain told Pramod Mittal that he could come to his house, but then Pramod Mittal and Rajesh Jain decided to meet at Narayan Niwas. Pramod Mittal told him that Manish Aggarwal was with him. Rajesh Jain then in turn stated that his close friend Sanjeev Jain was also with him in the car. By doing this, Rajesh Jain wanted to hide identity of Vikram Singh as police personnel and mentioned his name as Sanjeev Jain. They went to Narayan Niwas in Maruti Zen car of Rajeev Jain, a friend of Rajesh Jain. On the way, they received a phone call from Pramod Mittal enquiring as to when they would come. This witness stated that Rajesh Jain had not in the past ever met Pramod Mittal and Manish Aggarwal. When no call was received by Pramod Mittal, Rajesh Jain asked him to call back the kidnappers on the cell phone from which they called Manish. In between Pramod Mittal kept suggesting Rajesh Jain that he should give the money and get his son. Pramod Mittal told him that kidnappers invariably call from different STD PCO booths and he was surprised that how and from where they got their numbers. Sometimes, they call on their landline phone and sometimes on cell hone of Manish Aggarwal. Suddenly call was received on cell phone of Manish. Manish gave his cell phone to Pramod Mittal. Pramod said hello to the caller and after sometime the phone was disconnected. Pramod Mittal even stated that kidnappers would call again after some time. Rajesh Jain then enquired from Pramod Mittal about cell number from which call was received. Pramod Mittal then told him that there was no point in giving the number as the kidnappers must have called from STD PCO. Pramod Mittal enquired from Rajesh Jain that whether he had informed the police, Rajesh Jain assured him that he had not done anything like that as he wanted that his son safely returned back to him. Then Vikram Singh also stated that how Rajesh Jain arranged for a sum of Rs. Pramod Mittal enquired from Rajesh Jain that whether he had informed the police, Rajesh Jain assured him that he had not done anything like that as he wanted that his son safely returned back to him. Then Vikram Singh also stated that how Rajesh Jain arranged for a sum of Rs. 10 lakhs and jewellery of Rs. 40 lakhs and kidnappers told Rajesh Jain that he should give all this to Pramod Mittal but Rajesh Jain insisted that they should at least make Mihir to talk to him. Kidnappers told him that he could hear tape recorded voice of Mihir. Pramod Mittal insisted that he (Rajesh Jain) should give money and jewellery to him and that he would give it to the kidnappers only after his son Abhishek talks to Mihir. 42. Apart from the evidence against the accused Rajkishor; Ramesh Adwani; Ajay Dixit and Virender Singh, who were identified by witnesses including Mihir Jain (P.W.18) and Smt. Beena Jain (P.W.17), learned trial court has convicted Manish Aggarwal only on the premise that Mihir also identified him as the one who used to visit in the room where he was detained and saw him at times when the accused would take him out of the box to eat food. This coupled with the fact that accused used to frequently call on the cell phone of Manish Aggarwal, proves that he was in constant touch with the accused. Manish Aggarwal then persuaded his uncle Pramod Mittal whose son Abhishek was friend with Mihir to contact Rajesh Jain, but the learned trial court did not find any case proved against Pramod Mittal as he acted out of enthusiasm only, to help Rajesh Jain to recover his son Mihir by paying the ransom. However, during all this time, kidnappers number of times called Manish Aggarwal on his cell phone, which proved that he was the link between the accused and Rajesh Jain and was working to facilitate transfer of ransom ultimately to the accused by using Pramod Mittal as a conduct. However, during all this time, kidnappers number of times called Manish Aggarwal on his cell phone, which proved that he was the link between the accused and Rajesh Jain and was working to facilitate transfer of ransom ultimately to the accused by using Pramod Mittal as a conduct. Exhibit P-181 to Exhibit P189 are the transcripts of the calls made by the accused, which show that repeated calls were made by the accused from different places on the cell phone of Manish Aggarwal, who involved his uncle Pramod Mittal to mediate between the kidnappers and Rajesh Jain and ensure that money was passed on to the kidnappers in lieu of release of Mihir Jain. 43. There is no substance in the argument that message that was received by Rajesh Jain from the kidnappers demanding ransom was not accompanied by threat and therefore ingredients of Section 364-A IPC were not satisfied. In fact, first phone call that Rajesh Jain received was to the effect that if he wanted safety of his son, he should stay away from police and media and it was followed by another Sms demanding sum of Rs. 50 lacs and jewellery of Rs. 50 lakhs and asking him to reply by sending SMS to that number from a new number. It is thereupon that Rajesh Jain used a new number and send a message to kidnappers asking them to arrange his conversation with Mihir. On 17th January, he received yet another message of the kidnappers again asking for money. When Rajesh Jain insisted for making him to talk to Mihir it is at this stage that accused routed through Manish Aggarwal, who involved his uncle Pramod Mittal and then whatever transpired has been narrated in detailed by Rajesh Jain and Vikram Singh. Section 364A IPC inter alia provides that whoever kidnaps or abducts any person in order that such person may be murdered or may be so disposed of as to be put in danger of being murdered, shall be punished with imprisonment for life or rigorous imprisonment for a term which may extend to ten years and shall also be liable to fine. It is thus clear that not only kidnappers or the abductors could have detained the person but after such kidnap or abduction, such person may be put to death or hurt in order to pay ransom. It is thus clear that not only kidnappers or the abductors could have detained the person but after such kidnap or abduction, such person may be put to death or hurt in order to pay ransom. Not only therefore the threat but also reasonable apprehension that such person may be put to death or hurt may also attract ingredients of Section 364A IPC. The evidence in the present case overwhelmingly prove that there was reasonable apprehension in the mind of family of the abducted boy Mihir Jain that if they did not meet the demand of the kidnappers, they might cause death of abducted boy or hurt him. 44. In the present case, accused-appellant Rajkishor has been identified by Apoorv Sood (P.W.38), Heeralal Raigar (P.W.12) and Mihir Jain vide Exhibit P-16 and Smt. Beena Jain (p.W.17) vide Exhibit P-23. Rajkishor was the one who was driving Maruti Zen car when Mihir was kidnapped. He took mattresses, quilts, pillows, chairs etc. from Heera Tent House. Mihir was first taken to House No. 22, 10C, Pratap Nagar, Jaipur which was rented to Sagar Singh and identified by Rajkishor. Maruti Zen car used in kidnapping was recovered from the house of Rajkishor along with driving licence. Mihir Jain was first taken in House No. 104/32, Pratap nagar, which had been taken on rent by Rajkishor vide rent deed (Exhibit P-43). Apoorv Sood (P.W.38) has proved that this house was let out by his mother Smt. Kanchan Sood to Rajkishor. Heeralal (P.W.12), who runs tent house has proved that Rajkishor along with one other person had come to his shop to take sheets, pillows, quilts, chairs etc. Exhibit P-17 and 18 are the bills of Heera Tent House. Exhibit P-19 is the memo of identification of material taken on rent from Heera Tent House. It has been mentioned in the documents that the goods were taken by the accused to House No. 104/32, Pratap Nagar, Jaipur. These goods were recovered at the instance of accused-appellant Rajkishor. Driving licence of Rajkishor was recovered from Maruti Car seized from his house. Exhibit P-35 is the recovery memo of Maruti Zen Car No. RJ14 7C 9119 and driving licence of Rajkishor. Exhibit P-84 is the disclosure statement of Rajkishor about house at Ghanshyam Vihar where the mattresses, pillows etc. were brought along with iron box in which Mihir Jain was taken there. Exhibit P-35 is the recovery memo of Maruti Zen Car No. RJ14 7C 9119 and driving licence of Rajkishor. Exhibit P-84 is the disclosure statement of Rajkishor about house at Ghanshyam Vihar where the mattresses, pillows etc. were brought along with iron box in which Mihir Jain was taken there. Exhibit P-42 is the disclosure statement of Rajkishor about tempo stand from where he shifted Mihir from House No. 22/10C on 12.01.2008. Exhibit P-34 is the recovery memo of box, mattresses, quilts and other things from the place where Mihir Jain was recovered. Three sim cards were recovered from the house of Ghanshyam Vihar Colony vide Exhibit P-54, out of which one was of Hutch Company and two were of Idea Company, which were sent to FSL after seal. Mobile handset of Rajkishor was recovered vide Exhibit P-57 and sent to FSL against receipt (Exhibit P-61). 45. Accused-appellant Ramesh Adwani has been identified by Narendra Mishra (P.W.4) and Mihir Jain (P.W.18). Narendra Mishra (P.W.4) has identified accused Ramesh Adwani as the one who came to his shop to purchase Fortwin and Phenergan injections and disposable syringes. He told that he needed this medicines for his mother, who was a mental patient. Narendra Mishra (P.W.4) stated that he was a chemist and running his medicines shop in the name of Shiv Shakti Medical Store in Pratap Nagar. A boy came to him on 7th and 8th January, 2008 with a prescription on which Fortwin and Phenergan injections as also disposable syringes were prescribed. He took 4 Fortwin and 4 Phenergan injections with 4 disposable syringes. On enquiry, he told his name to be Ramesh Adwani and told that he was a private practitioner. He returned back on 8th January, 2008 with another prescription of 8 Fortwin, 8 Phenergan and 8 disposable syringes. On enquiry, he stated that earlier given medicines were dropped somewhere. Mihir Jain also identified him during test identification parade. He was the one who administered injection of Fortwin and Phenergan to kidnapped boy. Injury reports of Mihir Jain (Exhibit P-94, 94A, 94B and 94C) clearly indicate that he was administered aforesaid injections several times. It is also proved that injuries found on the person of Mihir Jain were caused by needles. FSL reports of the syringe and injections (Exhibit P-112 and P113) prove presence of promethazine (fenargon) and Pentazocine (narcotic analgesic) drug. Injury reports of Mihir Jain (Exhibit P-94, 94A, 94B and 94C) clearly indicate that he was administered aforesaid injections several times. It is also proved that injuries found on the person of Mihir Jain were caused by needles. FSL reports of the syringe and injections (Exhibit P-112 and P113) prove presence of promethazine (fenargon) and Pentazocine (narcotic analgesic) drug. Used syringe and Phenergan and Fortwin injections were recovered vide memo Exhibit P-38 from house of Ghanshyam Vihar Colony wherefrom Mihir Jain was recovered. Ajeet Jain (P.W.40) is the Drug Controller Jaipur who inspected shop in the name of M/s. Shiv Shakti Medical Store Sanganer owned by Narendra Kumar Mishra (P.W.4), who told him that injections of Fortwin and Phenargan were sold by him without any bill along with disposable syringes to the accused. 46. Accused-appellant Virender Singh has been identified by Smt. Beena Jain (P.W.17), Apoorv Sood (P.W.38) and Mihir Jain (P.W.18) vide Exhibit P-190. He played active role in catching hold of victim and pulling him inside the car. Broken number plate of RJ14 7C 1252 was recovered at his instance vide memo Exhibit P- 192 and site plan of which was Exhibit P-193. Identification report of accused-appellant Virender Singh (Exhibit P-190) has been proved by Smt. Amrita Choudhary (P.W.61), SDM, Jaipur (East). Exhibit P-123 is Certificate under Section 65B (4)(c) of the Evidence Act of CDR of mobile no. 9983150203 belonging to Virender Singh and Exhibit P-208 is certificate under Section 65(4) (c) of the Evidence Act of mobile numbers 9950152300, 9950153200, 9829258079, 9929721283, 9784989978 and 9784596291 of Rajkishor, Ajay Dixit, Virender Singh, Sagar Singh. Vibhor Rastogi (P.W.57), Nodal Officer of Vodafone Company has proved call details of mobile no. 9828549440 of Pramod Mittal; 9828156780 of Manish Aggarwal and 9982350057, secret number which was issued in the name of Bhawani Shankar, maternal uncle of Rajesh jain. He proved certificate Exhibit P-123 in respect of CDR of mobile no. 9983150203 issued in the name of Virender Singh and certificate Exhibit P-208 in respect of CDR of Rajkishor, Ajay Dixit, Virender Singh, Sagar Singh. Mohinder Pal Singh Jadaun (P.W.58) Senior Manager, Airtel Company has proved CDR of cell phone no. 9950152300 and 9950153200, which were provided by Ajay Dixit to the accused and cell phone no. 9829258079 in the name of Lotus Dairy and allotted to Ajay Dixit and 9929721283 issued in the name of Virender Singh. 47. Mohinder Pal Singh Jadaun (P.W.58) Senior Manager, Airtel Company has proved CDR of cell phone no. 9950152300 and 9950153200, which were provided by Ajay Dixit to the accused and cell phone no. 9829258079 in the name of Lotus Dairy and allotted to Ajay Dixit and 9929721283 issued in the name of Virender Singh. 47. Accused-appellant Ajay Dixit has been identified by Rajiv Sukhija (P.W.11) vide Exhibit P-15. He facilitated the crime by providing Sim cards to other accused persons by using ID of Bhagwan Singh and Bane Singh. Messages of ransom were sent from these sim numbers 9950153200 and 9950152300. Ajay Dixit identified the place of recovery of Mihir Jain. He obtained aforesaid sim cards from Rajiv Sukhija (P.W.11), who identified him in test identification parade. He gave disclosure statement about sending material of tent house to the house at Ghanshyam Vihar Colony. Rajeev Sukhija (P.W.11) stated that Ajay came to his shop and purchased aforesaid two sim cards. This witness also identified Ajay Dixit in the Court during recording of his statement. Rajeev Malik (P.W.26) verified that the accused gave him his mobile number being 9829258079. 48. Yogendra Kumar Joshi (P.W.24) Investigating Officer has proved all the stages of investigation and the steps taken by the police in nabbing the kidnappers. Ashok Chauhan (P.W.29) S.H.O., Police Station Shipra Path from whose jurisdiction ultimately Mihir Jain was recovered from the house of Ghanshyam Vihar Colony and proved recovery memo of Mihir Jain. R.K. Chaturvedi (P.W.33), Assistant Director of the Regional Forensic Science Laboratory, who was posted as Senior Scientific Officer and Mobile Forensic Unit, Jaipur City, Jaipur at the relevant time inspected the room in which abducted boy Mihir Jain was kept captive and has proved photographs of the room (Exhibit P-97 to Exhibit P-108), Exhibit D- 31 and inspection report (Exhibit P-96). Alok Shrivastava (P.W.39), Inspector of Police has lifted chance prints from the room where Mihir Jain was kept captive by the accused. They were developed as Exhibit P-33. Sample of finger prints of Rajkishor and Ramesh Adwani were taken. Chance finger prints taken from the room matched with index finger of right hand of Rajkishor (S-1) and also matched with middle finger of right hand of Ramesh Adwani (S-2), report of which was Exhibit P-138 and the same has been proved by aforesaid witness. Sample of finger prints of Rajkishor and Ramesh Adwani were taken. Chance finger prints taken from the room matched with index finger of right hand of Rajkishor (S-1) and also matched with middle finger of right hand of Ramesh Adwani (S-2), report of which was Exhibit P-138 and the same has been proved by aforesaid witness. Rajesh Dureja (P.W.42) is the call logger, who had put cell phone number 9829012133 of Rajesh Jain on which one SMS was received from cell phone no. 9950152300. Another phone no. 9950153200 was also found. Both these numbers were found to have run on three different IMEIs. First IMEI was found to have run on cell phone no. 9887052779 in the name of Ganeshpati and 9887763998 in the name of Rajendra. Second IMEI was found to have run on cell phone no. 9983150203, 9929721283 in the name of Virender Singh and 9887069905 in the name of Lalit Saxena. Third IMEI was found to run on cell phone no. 9829258079 issued in the name of Lotus Dairy Limited which was allotted to Ajay Dixit. Phone No. 9784596291 of Rajkishor and 9784989978 of Sagar Singh were found to be in contact with suspect IMEI numbers. This witness has proved transcription and conversation of cell phone of Rajesh Jain; Manish Aggarwal; landline phone of Rajesh Jain, cell phone of Manish Aggarwal and landline phone of Pramod Mittal. 49. In view of above discussion, the learned trial court has rightly found the guilt of the accused-appellants proved beyond reasonable doubt as various incriminating circumstances against them when joined together unerringly point towards their guilt and form a chain of circumstances for drawing an inference of their guilt and rule out every single hypothesis of their innocence. However, charges against the accused-respondents Pramod Mittal and Lalit Saxena have not been proved by the prosecution beyond reasonable doubt and there is no evidence on record that Pramod Mittal was aware of the fact that Manish Aggarwal was hand in gloves with the other accused. In fact, he was used by Manish Aggarwal as a conduit to facilitate passing of the ransom money to the kidnappers in lieu of release of Mihir Jain. Evidence against Lalit Saxena has also been found to be sketchy and fell short of proof of reasonable bout against him. In fact, he was used by Manish Aggarwal as a conduit to facilitate passing of the ransom money to the kidnappers in lieu of release of Mihir Jain. Evidence against Lalit Saxena has also been found to be sketchy and fell short of proof of reasonable bout against him. Both the accused-respondents Pramot Mittal and Lalit Saxena in our view have been rightly acquitted by the trial court. 50. In view of above, we do not find any merit in the appeals filed by the accused-appellants as also by the complainant, all of which are hereby dismissed. Judgment and order dated 12.01.2015 passed by the trial court is affirmed. 51. Office is directed to place a copy of this judgment on record of each connected appeal.