JUDGMENT Vinit Kumar Mathur, J. - The instant criminal appeal has been preferred by the appellants to challenge the judgment dated 09.05.2012 passed by the Sessions Judge, Rajsamand in Sessions Case No. 33/2011 whereby the appellants have been convicted for the offences under Sections 364-A, 386 and 342 IPC and sentenced for life imprisonment for offence under section 364-A IPC, ten years rigorous imprisonment for offence under section 386 IPC and one year rigorous imprisonment for offence under section 342 IPC. 2. The prosecution story as unfolded in the written complaint (Ex.P.24) given by PW19 Hari Bhagwan on 21.12.2009 reveals that younger brother of Hari Bhagwan is Shiv Shanker. Somya S/o Shiv Shanker is seven years of age, is a student of Saint Pauls School. In the evening time, at about 05-07 pm, Somya goes for playing with his friends in the Mohalla located in front of Shiv Mandir, Dalal Shah Road. On 21.12.2009, in the evening where Somya had gone for playing at around 6:15 pm, one unknown person wearing a brown color Sweater and cream color trouser of around 25-26 years of age distributed Prasad to all the kids and after persuading Somya took him away from the street where he was playing. Somya was in brown color Trouser and blue color jacket with a cream color T-shirt having whitish color and stout body wearing blue color sleepers. This information was given by the kids who were playing with Somya to his mother who informed her husband Shiv Shanker on which he immediately came from factory and started searching for Somya but he could not find him. 3. On this written report, a formal FIR No.598/2009 at 09:00 pm on the same day i.e. on 21.12.2009 was registered and investigation was conducted. After the investigation, challan was filed by the police against the accused appellants. The charges under sections 363, 364A, 342 and 386 of IPC were framed against the appellants. The appellants denied the charges and prayed for trial. 4. The learned trial court convicted the appellants for the offences under sections 364-A, 386, 342 of IPC. Aggrieved of the judgment dated 09.05.2012, the present appeal has been preferred. 5. Heard learned counsel for the appellants as also learned Public Prosecutor and perused the record. 6. The appellants denied the charges and prayed for trial. 4. The learned trial court convicted the appellants for the offences under sections 364-A, 386, 342 of IPC. Aggrieved of the judgment dated 09.05.2012, the present appeal has been preferred. 5. Heard learned counsel for the appellants as also learned Public Prosecutor and perused the record. 6. PW18 Shiv Shanker who is father of Somya was informed by his wife on telephone at about 6:30 pm that Somya is missing, therefore, he rushed back immediately from his factory and called his brother Banti Bhaiya and his friend Deepak Badala. Thereafter, all of them started searching for Somya but all in vain. A report was lodged in the police. At around 8:00 pm, they received a telephone call of some unknown person who said that he has kidnapped his child and asked for ransom of Rs. 25,00,000/- (Twenty Five Lakhs) with caution not to inform the police. At about 10:15 pm, the kidnapper again called and asked whether arrangement of money has been made or not, on which, he said that almost entire money is arranged and remaining too will be managed within 10-15 minutes. Thereafter, at night, they did not receive any call and when he tried to call the same number, it was switched off. In the morning at 6:30 am, he received a phone call from the kidnapper who asked about money and instructed to bring the money and come to Rameshwar Mahadev. He along with his friend Deepak Badala after taking the money in a bag went to Rameshwar Mahadev by Car. After one and half hour, a phone call was received asking whether they had informed the police or not to which he replied in the negative on which he was asked to reach R.K. Hospital. On reaching R.K Hospital after two and half hours, again a phone call was received asking them to come at Nathdwara bus stand and from there to Umli Odan. When he reached Umli Odan, he was told to go towards Delwara and continue driving and not to disconnect the phone and follow the instructions. Then, he was asked to stop the car between the boards of Moon Light Marbles and Dharti Dhan Marbles. When he reached Umli Odan, he was told to go towards Delwara and continue driving and not to disconnect the phone and follow the instructions. Then, he was asked to stop the car between the boards of Moon Light Marbles and Dharti Dhan Marbles. From there, he was instructed to get out of the car and told that his friend should not step out of the car otherwise his son will be killed. He was instructed to walk towards Udaipur Road Mata Ji Temple. On the side of Mata Ji Temple, he was directed to climb on the hillock and thereafter, was asked to place the bag in between the two hills with the chain of the bag open. After putting the bag, he was asked to go back to his car and on being asked about his son, the kidnapper replied that he will receive his child fit and fine in one hour, He should reach the R.K. Hospital at the earliest. Thereafter, they asked that it will take one more hour for his child to reach home and when asked for giving custody of the child early, he was replied that his child is not a toy, he will get it. At around 9:15 pm, he received a phone call from his residence that Somya has reached his house and simultaneously, the kidnappers informed him that his son has reached back home. The ransom amount of Rs. 25,00,000/- (Twenty Five Lakhs) was in the currency notes of Rs. 500/- in 36 bundles and seven bundles of Rs. 1000/- . In the cross examination, nothing contrary to what he has stated in the examination in chief has been stated. 7. Almost on the same lines, PW1 Deepak Badala deposed before the learned trial court stating that Somya is son of his friend Shiv Shanker and after he received the information that son of his friend is missing, he went to his house where his friend received a call that his son has been kidnapped and they are asking for Rs. 25,00,000/-as ransom and if the same is not paid, the kidnappers will kill the child. He accompanied Shiv Shanker in the car for delivery of the ransom amount to the place where the amount was placed/ delivered as narrated in the statement of PW18. 8. PW2 Smt. Soniya is wife of Shiv Shanker and mother of kidnapped child Somya. 25,00,000/-as ransom and if the same is not paid, the kidnappers will kill the child. He accompanied Shiv Shanker in the car for delivery of the ransom amount to the place where the amount was placed/ delivered as narrated in the statement of PW18. 8. PW2 Smt. Soniya is wife of Shiv Shanker and mother of kidnapped child Somya. She has stated that kids Nanu, Mahesh and Gagan with whom Somya was playing came to her house and informed that Somya has been taken away by one uncle. Thereafter, she looked for Somya in the nearby area and in the colony. Then she called her husband Shiv Shanker and he immediately came to the house and searched for the boy. 9. PW3 Girdhari Singh is a police constable and he is attesting witness of the memos prepared during the investigation including the recovery of motorcycle, mobile instrument etc. 10. PW4 Prahlad Singh is attesting witness of the money recovered from the house of Devi Lal and he has stated that an amount of Rs. 19,93,500/- was recovered from the house of Devi Lal from beneath his double bed. 11. PW11 Pawan Singh is a police constable working in the computer branch of S.P. Office, Rajsamand. He took out call details of the numbers given to him by the Superintendent of Police, Rajsamand. 12. PW15 Nanu is a 12 years old child who was friend of Somya and stated that he has identified Devi Lal and has stated that on that day, Devi Lal is the person who took Somya with him. He informed mother of Somya on that day that Somya has been taken away by some person. 13. PW16 Dharam Chandra is attesting witness of memo of recovery from the house of Devi Lal. 14. PW17 Gagan who is 10 years old child stated that he was given Prasad by one uncle while playing who then took away Somya in the lane of Veterinary Hospital. Thereafter, he went to Somya's mother and informed her. He has also identified the accused Devi Lal. 15. PW19 Hari Bhagwan is lodger of the FIR and has deposed almost on the same lines as stated in the complaint. In the cross examination also, nothing contrary to what has been stated in the examination in chief has been stated. 16. Thereafter, he went to Somya's mother and informed her. He has also identified the accused Devi Lal. 15. PW19 Hari Bhagwan is lodger of the FIR and has deposed almost on the same lines as stated in the complaint. In the cross examination also, nothing contrary to what has been stated in the examination in chief has been stated. 16. PW22 is Somya who was kidnapped has stated in his statement that while he was playing near the Shiv Mandir along with his friends, he was taken away by Devi Lal. On asking Devi Lal, he informed that he was in his father's factory but now he does not work there. He asked for his father's telephone number but since he was not knowing, he did not give the same then he went to his mother, took the telephone number and gave. After one month again, the same uncle came and he gave Prasad which was given to him and his friends. Thereafter, on the second day, when he came, he played with him and his friends. Then on the pretext of playing hide and seek, he took him in the lane of Veterinary Hospital where another person who was identified by him as Mahendra came on the motorcycle and took him away. He was taken to Railmagra and from the nearby shop, a bottle of water and biscuits were purchased. When he started weeping, they threatened that they will beat him up if he weeps then after going at some distance, they went to a temple and near that place, a small room (Kotri) was there which was locked. They broke open the lock and after putting him inside, locked the same. The next morning, Devi Lal gave him water bottle and biscuits. Again they locked the room and went away. Devi Lal came in the evening at 7-8 pm and took him to Railmagra Bus Stand and he was given Panipuri to eat then after paying Rs. 100/-, he made him to sit in the bus which was going to Kankroli. On reaching Kankroli, he got down and police persons took him to his house. He identified both Devi Lal and Mahendra and also identified the place where he was taken. Nothing contrary has been stated in his cross examination. 17. PW 23 Brij Madhuri was working as Judicial Magistrate, Devgarh in whose presence identification parade was conducted. On reaching Kankroli, he got down and police persons took him to his house. He identified both Devi Lal and Mahendra and also identified the place where he was taken. Nothing contrary has been stated in his cross examination. 17. PW 23 Brij Madhuri was working as Judicial Magistrate, Devgarh in whose presence identification parade was conducted. In her statement, she stated that both the accused persons were rightly identified by Somya, Nanu and Gagan. 18. The information under section 27 of the Evidence Act for recovery of the amount of Rs. 20,00,000/- minus Rs. 6500/- said to have been used by accused Devi Lal is Exp.38 and information for recovery of Rs. 5,00,000/- from Mahendra is Exp.39. Recovery of above said amount from Devi Lal is Exp.12 and Exp.14 is recovery from Mahendra. At the same time, recovery of black color mobile and Sim from Devi Lal is Exp.10. 19. The counsel for the appellants on the basis of entire discussions has submitted that the boy was found missing on 21.12.2009 and was received back on 22.12.2009 at his own. Since the boy Somya has come back at his own, therefore, it cannot be said that he was kidnapped or abducted by the accused-appellants. He has further submitted that the money i.e. ransom amount of Rs. 25,00,000/- was taken by PW18 Shiv Shanker and PW1 Deepak Badala at different places on the instructions being given on mobile phone. Nobody has seen as to who has actually given the instructions, therefore, it cannot be presumed that the present appellants are the persons who have instructed PW1 and PW18 for delivering the ransom amount at the place asked for. He has further relied upon the statements of defence witnesses DW1 Mahendra Barwa and DW2 Dev Kishan and tried to build up a story that money was placed in their house by the police itself and the same was recovered for falsely implicating the appellants in the present case. 20. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor submits that in the present case, evidence is writ large, as identification and statement of Somya (PW22) along with the identification being done by PW15 Nanu & PW17 Gagan clearly establish the fact that the appellants are involved for the offences alleged against them. 20. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor submits that in the present case, evidence is writ large, as identification and statement of Somya (PW22) along with the identification being done by PW15 Nanu & PW17 Gagan clearly establish the fact that the appellants are involved for the offences alleged against them. He has further stated that as per the statement of PW1 and PW18, money was taken to the place where they were instructed on the telephone by the accused persons. The call details further crystallize the fact of payment and delivery of the ransom amount. Recovery of the amount thereafter i.e. on 24.12.2009 to the tune of Rs. 25,00,000/- i.e. Rs. 24,93,500/- from the accused persons corroborates the story of prosecution. Therefore, the judgment of conviction passed by the trial court is absolutely justified in the present set of facts and therefore, requires to be upheld. 21. In view of the detailed facts noted by us in the preceding paras, we are of the opinion that the statement of Somya clearly and categorically establishes that the appellants kidnapped him for ransom. The amount asked for i.e. Rs. 25,00,000/- was taken by PW18 who is father of Somya and his friend PW1 Deepak Badala on the very next day to different places and then finally was delivered at the place between the two hills near the temple on the instructions given on mobile phone by the appellants. This entire exercise of taking money in a bag and delivering the same at the place being instructed on telephone by the accused appellants shows involved of the accused appellants in the crime in question. Not only this, we find that same money was recovered on 24.12.2009 i.e. merely after two days of delivery from the accused persons after they had given the information under section 27 of the Evidence Act. Recovery of mobile phone and Sim Card further establishes the fact that on the night of 21.12.2009 and throughout the day of 22.12.2009, the appellants forced the parents of Somya to either pay the amount of ransom asked for or they will kill the boy who is in their possession. 22. Recovery of mobile phone and Sim Card further establishes the fact that on the night of 21.12.2009 and throughout the day of 22.12.2009, the appellants forced the parents of Somya to either pay the amount of ransom asked for or they will kill the boy who is in their possession. 22. Recovery of money from the accused persons was not explained by them as to from where that money had come as they are not affluent persons and they are otherwise also not so rich who can explain the fact or the source of having such a huge amount lying in their house. Therefore, it can safely be said that the ransom amount which was paid by the family of Somya had been recovered from the accused appellants. 23. Identification of Devi Lal and Mahendra was done by PW17 Gagan, PW15 Nanu and PW22 Somya in the presence of PW23 Brij Madhuri who supported the fact of identification having been done without any doubt by these witnesses. 24. Other witnesses of recovery being PW3 Girdhari Singh, PW14 Daulat Singh, PW16 Dharam Chandra and PW4 Prahlad Singh have deposed and supported the recovery of articles. The accused Devi Lal and Mahendra were also arrested on the very next day i.e. on 23.12.2009, therefore, in all these circumstances, we are of the view that unflinching evidence and recovery of money which was paid as ransom to the accused appellants clearly brings home the prosecution story to be proved beyond all reasonable doubts and therefore, the learned trial court was fully justified in convicting the accused appellants for the charges leveled against them vide judgment dated 09.05.2012. 25. We are also of the view that kidnapping a kid for ransom is required to be dealt with iron hands as the innocent kids who are of tender age unnecessarily made to suffer the vigor of kidnapping and abduction at the hands of kidnappers like the accused appellants and in case, the family is not in position to fulfill their demand, in most of the cases, the innocent kids are more often than not, are murdered /killed. Therefore, a strict view in such matters is warranted for the peace and tranquility of the society. We do so. 26. In view of whatever stated above, we are not inclined to interfere in the judgment dated 09.05.2012 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Rajsamand. Therefore, a strict view in such matters is warranted for the peace and tranquility of the society. We do so. 26. In view of whatever stated above, we are not inclined to interfere in the judgment dated 09.05.2012 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Rajsamand. The appeal, thus, fails and is hereby dismissed.