JUDGMENT Joshi, J. -- 1. By this common judgment being passed in Criminal Appeal No.61/2005, four other Criminal Appeals No. 83/2005, 86/2005, 87/2005 and 955/2017 are also being decided as each of them has been filed against the judgment passed by the trial Court in Sessions Trial No. 123/1999, decided by Additional Sessions Judge, Datia. 2. Four appellants Banmali, Bhagwan Singh @ Suresh, Ramesh and Pratap have filed relating appeals under section 374 of the CrPC against the judgment dated 30.11.2004 passed by Second Additional Sessions Judge, Datia in relating sessions trial, whereby appellant Pratap has been convicted under section 364A read with section 120B of the IPC, whereas other appellants Banmali, Bhagwan Singh and Ramesh have been convicted under section 364A of the IPC and each of them is sentenced to life imprisonment in the abovementioned offence but appellant Ramesh has been additional convicted under section 302/34 of the IPC and sentenced to life imprisonment. At the time of passing of judgment dated 30.11.2004, remaining appellant Jagdish was absconding and later on in relation to appellant Jagdish, judgment dated 30.3.2017 was passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Datia in Sessions Trial No. 123/1999, whereby appellant Jagdish has been convicted and sentenced under section 147 of the IPC to undergo one year RI with a fine of Rs. 500/- with default stipulation; under section 302/149 of the IPC to undergo life imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 25000/- with default stipulation and under section 364A of the IPC to undergo life imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 25000/- with default stipulation. By the impugned judgments it was directed that all the jail sentences of present appellants Ramesh and Jagdish to run concurrently. 3. It would be significant to mention here that by the judgment dated 30.11.2004 other tried co-accused persons, Prakash, Mohan, Janakdulari, Udaijeet, Phoolwati, Krishna Devi, Sunita Bai, Shanti, Bhuri @ Bharti, Rambabu, Manoj, Dhaniram, Bhola, Mangal, Bhanta, Rajesh, Hariom, Rambabu s/o Vrakhlal, Jugalkishore, Kailash, Betu Khan, Pappu @ Kailash, Kallu, Pappu @ Chaturbhuj, Lakhan, Mansharam, Vijayram, Chhote Nawab, Jagat Singh, Kunwar Pal, Prembai were acquitted by the trial Court and the acquittal of above-mentioned persons has not been challenged by the State. It would further be significant to mention here that prior to passing of the judgment one co-accused Chhotibai had died. 4. It would further be significant to mention here that prior to passing of the judgment one co-accused Chhotibai had died. 4. Undisputedly, present appellants Banmali and Ramesh are residents of village Khiriya Saheb, District Datia and all the three abductees Sughar Singh (since deceased), Shankar (PW3) and Suresh Kumar (PW4) are also residents of the same village. 5. Prosecution case in brief is that some days prior to the date of incident, residents of village Khiriya Saheb, Suresh (PW4), Shankar (PW3), Sughar Sigh and Ramgopal (PW6) had gone to attend the marriage in a village of Uttar Pradesh and on the date of incident, i.e., 6.2.1999 at 8.30 p.m. they came back by bus and got off the bus near the road to their village and a nalah for reaching their village. At the same time one man threw torch-light on the faces of above-mentioned persons and cautioned them for stopping and at the same time four miscreants, each armed with a gun, came from nearby field, who ordered them to sit down otherwise threatened to be shot dead. Miscreants asked appellant Banmali that ‘who are the persons belonging to Kurmi caste’, then appellant Banmali disclosed to the miscreants that Suresh (PW4), Shankar (PW3) and Sughar Singh belong to Kurmi caste, then miscreants took these three persons Suresh, Shankar and Sughar Singh with them and others were allowed to go to the village. Remaining persons returned to village Khiriya Saheb and intimated complainant Ram Sahai (PW5) about the abduction of Sughar Singh, Suresh and Shankar at the same time. On the same day at 21:15 hours complainant Ram Sahai (PW5) lodged FIR (Ex.P-8) at Police Station Bhander against four unknown miscreants which was recorded by Head Constable Biharilal (PW12). 6. According to the prosecution story, the miscreants took three abductees Sughar Singh, Shankar and Suresh Kumar to village Birgawan situated in the area of police station Shahjahanpur of District Jhansi (UP) and at village Birgawan miscreants got the house of appellant Pratap opened and kept all the three abductees in the house of Pratap. After sometime abductees were shifted to another house of appellant Pratap in the same village and in the same house appellant Pratap’s brother Udaijeet and ladies of their family Chhoti @ Bachchibai, Phoolwati, Shanti, Sunita and Krishna were also residing and these ladies were providing food to the abductees during their detention period. After sometime abductees were shifted to another house of appellant Pratap in the same village and in the same house appellant Pratap’s brother Udaijeet and ladies of their family Chhoti @ Bachchibai, Phoolwati, Shanti, Sunita and Krishna were also residing and these ladies were providing food to the abductees during their detention period. All the three abductees were kept in a closed room and they were compelled to answer the call of nature in the three pits dug in the same room. The three abductees were kept at the appellant Pratap’s house for a period about two months till 6.4.1999 and during this period the ransom amount of Rs.2.00 lacs was demanded from the family members of the abductees and the abductees were beaten by the accused persons and it was threatened that if they cry and try to escape then they will be killed. During abductees’ detention period appellant Ramesh, resident of village Khiriya Saheb was visiting Pratap’s house and was intimating the abductors about happenings caused in village Khiriya Saheb and as ransom amount could not be received by abductors, then Ramesh suggested to other abductors that one of the abductees, Sughar Singh should be killed then ransom amount regarding two remaining abductees would be received promptly. In the night of 5.4.1999 at about 9:10 p.m. Sughar Singh was severally beaten by abductees and Sughar Singh’s legs and hands were caught hold, thereafter then his neck was twisted and compressed by appellant Jagdish, due to which Sughar Singh died, then the abductors fled away from Pratap’s house. 7. It was the prosecution’s case that at the time of murder of Sughar Singh, wife of Jagdish, Ramwati @ Janakdulari was also present at Pratap’s house. After murder of Sughar Singh, remaining abductees were locked in another room of Pratap’s house and in next morning both abductees Shankar and Suresh succeeded in escaping themselves from Pratap’s house and reached village Lidawara of District Jhansi (UP) and intimated the Pradhan of village, Ayodhya Prasad (PW8) about the incident. After murder of Sughar Singh, remaining abductees were locked in another room of Pratap’s house and in next morning both abductees Shankar and Suresh succeeded in escaping themselves from Pratap’s house and reached village Lidawara of District Jhansi (UP) and intimated the Pradhan of village, Ayodhya Prasad (PW8) about the incident. Ayodhya Prasad (PW8) through watchman of the village, intimated to police station Shahjahanpur (UP) and police from police station Shahjahanpur reached Pratap’s house and later on police of police station Bhander (MP) reached there and recovery memo of two abductees Shankar and Suresh (Ex.P-7) was prepared and after completing formalities of inquest enquiry regarding Sughar Singh’s dead body, it was sent for post mortem to Jhansi hospital, where Dr. Suresh Richariya (PW13) on 7.4.1999 conducted autopsy of the dead body of Sughar Singh and recorded his postmortem report (Ex.P-22). On 7.4.1999 Dr. D.S. Thakur (PW2) at Primary Health Centre Bhander medically examined abductees Suresh (PW-4) and Shankar (PW3) and recorded their MLC (Ex.P-2 and P-3, respectively). Spot-map (Ex.P-1) was prepared by Investigating Officer Saligram (PW11). After completing formalities of the investigation, charge sheet was filed before the Court of JMFC Bhander, who committed the arisen criminal case to Sessions Judge, Datia and Sessions Judge, Datia transferred the sessions trial to above-mentioned trial Court. 8. Present appellants and tried other co-accused persons denied the charges framed against them by the trial Court. Before the trial Court thirteen prosecution witnesses were examined. Therefore, present appellant Jagdish absented himself before the trial Court, so he was declared absconder. Firstly, judgment dated 30.11.2004 was passed by Second Additional Sessions Judge, Datia, whereby present appellants Banmali, Bhagwan Singh @ Suresh, Ramesh and Pratap were convicted and sentenced aforesaid and later on after arrest of absconding Jagdish on same evidence, separate judgment dated 30.3.2017 was passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Datia, who convicted and sentenced Jagdish as aforesaid. 9. Learned counsel for the different appellant vehemently contended that there were material contradictions between the evidence of two abductees Shankar (PW3) and Suresh (PW4) and even Shankar (PW3) was declared hostile by the prosecution in relation to some co-accused persons and similarly Chandra Prakash (PW7) and Ayodhya Prasad (PW8) were also declared hostile. 9. Learned counsel for the different appellant vehemently contended that there were material contradictions between the evidence of two abductees Shankar (PW3) and Suresh (PW4) and even Shankar (PW3) was declared hostile by the prosecution in relation to some co-accused persons and similarly Chandra Prakash (PW7) and Ayodhya Prasad (PW8) were also declared hostile. It was also contended that two brothers of abductee and deceased Sughar Singh, namely, Awadhlal (PW9) and Bhagwan Das (PW10) deposed that ransom money was demanded from them for release of abductee Sughar Singh, but there was no evidence regarding payment of ransom money to anyone. Therefore, placing reliance on the case of Rajjan v. State of Madhya Pradesh [2018(1) MPJR 225], it has been argued that the trial Court erred in convicting each appellant for offence punishable under section 364A and alternatively it is argued that at the most appellants could be convicted and sentenced only under section 365 of the IPC. Therefore, it is prayed that separate appeal filed by each appellant be allowed and each appellant be acquitted from the charge of relating offences. 10. Per Contra, learned Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the respondent/State vehemently contended that the trial Court has properly and legally analyzed and appreciated the entire evidence available on record and conviction as recorded by the trial Court regarding each appellant is well founded and in accordance with law. It is also argued that under Article 141 of the Constitution of India, the law declared by the Hon’ble Supreme Court is law of the land and binding on all Courts. Apex Court in the case of Birbal Choudhary alias Mukhiya Jee v. State of Bihar [ AIR 2017 SC 4866 ], whose judgment was pronounced by the apex Court on 6.10.2017, has clearly held that in relation to offence punishable under section 364A of the IPC, actual payment of ransom is totally irrelevant. Therefore, dismissal of the relating appeal filed by relating appellant is prayed. 11. Shankar (PW3), Suresh (PW4) and Ramgopal (PW 6), all residents of village Khiriya Saheb, deposed that on the date of incident, i.e., 6.2.1999, they returned by a bus near their village in the night, after attending a marriage ceremony solemnized in Uttar Pradesh. Shankar (PW3) deposed that relating marriage was solemnized at village Vitar in the inlaws’ house of Awadhlal (PW9), real brother of Sughar Singh. Shankar (PW3) deposed that relating marriage was solemnized at village Vitar in the inlaws’ house of Awadhlal (PW9), real brother of Sughar Singh. This witness deposed that after leaving the bus when they started going towards village, five miscreants Shankar (died later on), Bhagwan Singh, Jagdish, Ramesh and Banmali came in front them and Shankar took him on gun point on his chest and ordered them to sit down and at the same time Sughar Singh enlightened torch, in whose light he identified above-mentioned miscreants. Thereafter, on asking of Shankar, Banmali identified him (Shankar-PW3), Sughar Singh and Suresh and separated them from their companions and allowed the companions to return to village and with two other abductees he was taken to village Birgawan where all the three abductees were kept at the house of appellant Pratap for a period about two months and during this period Ramesh was regularly visiting Pratap’s house at Birgawan and Ramesh wrote letters regarding ransom money and was giving information in relation to the happenings in the village and was telling to Shankar that if Sughar Singh be killed, then ransom money from remaining two abductees would be received promptly. Shankar clearly deposed that they were abducted for ransom money and they were threatened that if ransom money is not received then they would be killed. 12. Shankar (PW3), by his evidence did not support the prosecution’s case regarding remaining co-accused persons, therefore, he was declared hostile by the prosecution. 13. Suresh (PW4) deposed that after being got off the bus, accused Shankar threw torch-light over his face and ordered to sit down and at that time accused Shankar and his companions Jagdish, Bhagwan Singh and Ramesh, each was having a separate 12 bore gun, whereas Shankar (PW3) deposed that only accused Shankar was having gun. Suresh (PW4) deposed that within few seconds appellant Banmali Dheemar of their village came on spot and talked to accused Shankar and Banmali put his hands over his head and told to miscreants that they be taken away, thereafter Sughar Singh, Shankar (PW3) and he were taken to village Birgawan where with other two abductees he was kept for a period about two months. Suresh also deposed that appellant Jagdish was regularly visiting Pratap’s house during their detention period. 14. Suresh also deposed that appellant Jagdish was regularly visiting Pratap’s house during their detention period. 14. Ramgopal (PW6) deposed that with him Shankar (PW3), Suresh (PW4), Sughar Singh, Mathura Prasad and Ramkishore reached back to their village, and when they were proceeding towards their village, four miscreants each having a gun met them, who threw torch-light on them and ordered to stop otherwise threatened to shot dead and within few minutes Banmali came there and talked with miscreants separately and miscreants asked to Banmali as to who belongs to Kurmi caste then Banmali mentioned that Suresh, Shankar and Sughar Singh belong to Kurmi caste, thereafter miscreants abducted Shankar, Sughar Singh and Suresh, then after reaching the village he intimated to Ram Sahai (PW5) and Veer Singh that miscreants have abducted Suresh, Shankar and Sughar Singh. 15. Complainant Ram Sahai (PW5) deposed that Sughar Singh, Shankar and Suresh were abducted in the year 1999, who returned to village on the date 6th and Ramgopal after running reached his house and intimated him that near Pyarelal Dhobi’s land miscreants have abducted above-mentioned persons and at the same time Banmali was coming from Bhander, then miscreants asked Banmali as to which person belongs to Kurmi caste then Banmali disclosed names of Sughar Singh, Shankar and Suresh, who were abducted. Thereafter, with Veer Singh he reached Police Station Bhander and lodged FIR (Ex.P-8). The incident occurred on 6.2.1999 at 8:30 p.m. and FIR was lodged at 21=15 hours on same day, which materially corroborates the evidence of complainant. 16. Awadhlal (PW9) deposed that Sughar Singh was his brother and for release of his brother after abduction, he talked with Mohan, Ramesh (appellant), Rambabu and Bhuri and above-mentioned persons informed him that if he would pay Rs. 2 lacs, then Sughar Singh would be released and he was trying to collect Rs. 2 lacs and in the meanwhile above-mentioned persons at three to four times asked him that whether ransom money has been arranged or not ? Awadhlal also deposed that above-mentioned persons arranged for his meeting with Jagdish, Shankar Lodhi, Ramesh Kori, Rambabu and Mohan and at the time of meeting, abovementioned miscreants warned him that ransom money should be arranged promptly, otherwise his brother Sughar Singh would be killed and as ransom money could not be arranged, his brother was murdered by miscreants. Awadhlal also deposed that above-mentioned persons arranged for his meeting with Jagdish, Shankar Lodhi, Ramesh Kori, Rambabu and Mohan and at the time of meeting, abovementioned miscreants warned him that ransom money should be arranged promptly, otherwise his brother Sughar Singh would be killed and as ransom money could not be arranged, his brother was murdered by miscreants. Awadhlal also deposed that Ramesh and Mohan were residents of his village and as his brother was in detention of miscreants, he had not disclosed the names of above-mentioned persons to the police. In cross-examination, Awadhlal deposed that only Ramesh and Mohan had demanded ransom money of Rs.2 lacs from him and during detention period of his brother he could not see his brother. He also deposed that as he was threatened by the miscreants, therefore, he did not disclose this fact to police timely. In cross-examination, he deposed that for meeting with miscreants he was taken to village Gulara, which is about 13-14 Kilometers away from his village and he reached Gulara by his motorcycle, which was being driven by Prakash. 17. Bhagwan Das (PW10), another brother of Sughar Singh, deposed that on the date of incident, 6.2.1999, prior to abduction at about 5 pm he saw accused persons Jagdish Jatav, Shankar Lodhi, Bhagwan Singh Lodhi, Rambabu Lodhi, Ramesh Kori, Banmali Dheemar in the agricultural land of village Khiriya Saheb, who were mutually talking that anyone should be abducted and he heard the conversation between above-mentioned accused persons from a distance of 50 paces and he returned from agricultural land to his house and about two hours later, he was informed that Sughar Singh, Shankar and Suresh have been abducted then he understood that the above-mentioned accused persons, who were mutually talking, have abducted and after abduction he sent his brother Ram Sahai to Bhander police station and and after abduction of his brother Sughar Singh, he received a letter from accused Mohan Rai and about one and a half months later Mohan Rai arranged his meeting with Shankar Lodhi, wherein Shankar Lodhi demanded Rs. 2 lacs as ransom money but as ransom money could not be arranged timely, his brother was murdered. He deposed in cross-examination that at the time of recording of his police statement he disclosed the fact that accused Mohan Rai gave him a letter of miscreants, wherein Rs. 2 lacs as ransom money but as ransom money could not be arranged timely, his brother was murdered. He deposed in cross-examination that at the time of recording of his police statement he disclosed the fact that accused Mohan Rai gave him a letter of miscreants, wherein Rs. 2 lacs were demanded and Mohan Rai arranged for his meeting with the miscreants but these facts are missing in his police statement (Ex.D-4) and as after abduction FIR was lodged against four unknown miscreants, Bhagwan Das (PW10)’s total evidence regarding hearing conversation between accused persons appears to be unbelievable and doubtful. 18. Much emphasis has been given by the learned counsel for the different appellant on facts that during investigation, no such letter demanding ransom money has been seized and proved, therefore, evidence regarding demand of ransom money given by these witnesses could not be believed. 19. In the present case there is evidence available onrecord of two abductees Shankar (PW3) and Suresh (PW4) that third abductee Sughar Singh was murdered at the appellant Pratap’s house situated at village Birgawan and it is clear from the evidence of Dr. Suresh Richariya (PW13) that on 7.4.1999 at District Hospital, Jhansi (UP) at 3:30 p.m. he started post-mortem of dead body of Sughar Singh son of Bhagat Kurmi, resident of village Khiriya Saheb, District Datia and found that rigor mortis has passed out from hands and legs of the dead body, abdomen was disturbed, eyes of the dead body were protruding, lips of the dead body were bluish, blisters were present on various places of dead body, an abrasion of size 5x2-1/2 cm was present on right knee, a lacerated wound of size 1-1/2 x 1 cm was present on front side of right leg about 19 cm below the knee and the bone of the neck from the front side was broken and a piece of cloth was found in oesophagus of deceased. Dr. Richariya opined that the deceased died due to asphyxia on account of strangulation. From the evidence available on record, it is proved beyond reasonable doubt that one of the abductees namely Sughar Singh was murdered at village Birgawan in a residential house, after two months from his abduction for want of ransom money. In such state of available evidence, no adverse inference could be drawn only due to non-seizure of letter demanding ransom money. 20. In such state of available evidence, no adverse inference could be drawn only due to non-seizure of letter demanding ransom money. 20. Similarly much emphasis has been given by the learned counsel for the different appellant on the fact that during investigation, after arrest of the relating accused no test identification parade was conducted by the prosecution regarding identification of abductors, though both the alleged abductees Shankar (PW3) and Suresh (PW4) deposed that after arrest of the accused persons they were shown to them at Police Station and they identified them. It is clear from the perusal of recovery memo (Ex. P/-) prepared by Shiv Mohan Prasad, S.H.O. of Police Station Shahjahanpur, District Jhansi (UP) that on 6.4.1999 at village Ladawara at the house of Village Chowkidar two abductees Suresh (PW4) and Shankar (PW3) were recovered and in the recovery memo itself it is recorded that both the abductees intimated to police officers that they were abducted on 6.2.1999 from Bhander area. Though Shiv Mohan Prasad could not be examined before the trial Court but Suresh (PW4) has proved his signature on recovery memo (Ex.P-7). Even the hostile declared Ayodhya Prasad (PW8), resident of village Lidhawara (UP) clearly deposed that Suresh and Shankar came near to him and infomed him that they were abducted by the miscreants, then he called watchman and handed over Shankar and Suresh to the relating watchman and later on, watchman called police in the village and Shankar and Suresh were handed over to the police by the relating watchman. Ayodhya Prasad was declared hostile on the point that whether names of abductors were disclosed to him or not, but from his total evidence, the evidence of abductees Shankar (PW3) and Suresh (PW4) is corroborated that on 6.4.1999 both abductees Suresh and Shankar were recovered by police officer of Police Station Shahjahanpur (UP). 21. It is clear from the evidence of Shankar (PW3) and Suresh (PW4) that they remained in detention for a period about two months with abductors and it is clear from their evidence that abductors have not covered their faces by clothes. If during investigation, test identification parade was not conducted then it could not be termed as a fault of the abductees. If during investigation, test identification parade was not conducted then it could not be termed as a fault of the abductees. Investigating Officer Saligram (PW11), the-then S.H.O. Police Station Bhander deposed in cross-examination that as the names of abductors were disclosed by the witnesses, therefore, no identification parade was conducted during the investigation. In the light of the decisions in the cases of Lambu @ Ramdayal v. State of Madhya Pradesh [2018(2) MPLJ (Cri) 138]; Ravi @ Ravicharan v. State, represented by Inspector of Police [ AIR 2007 SC 1729 ]; Santosh v. State of Madhya Pradesh [ 2018 (1) MPWN 14 , wherein decision has been reproduced in toto]; and, Bharat Singh v. State of Madhya Pradesh [2017(3) MPLJ (Cri) 142], it is clear that where abductees remained in custody of abductors for a sufficient long period, doc identification of appellants by abductees could not be doubted and the test identification parade during investigation is not a mandatory requirement in every case and where abductors were unknown to victims and there is no possibility of false implication, evidence of abductees cannot be discarded only due to want of test identification para during investigation. It is also well settled that the evidence given by a witness before the Court is the substantial evidence of the relating criminal case, therefore, doc identification of any accused in Court by prosecution witnesses is the substantial evidence of case and test identification parade conducted during investigation has only corroborative value. 22. It is clear from the total evidence of abductees Shankar (PW3) that only three accused persons Jagdish, Bhagwan Singh @ Suresh and Ramesh were known to him as Jagdish was often visiting the house of appellant Ramesh situated in his village. In para 11, Shankar clearly deposed that during his detention period by abductors, appellant Jagdish compelled him for writing letter regarding demand of ransom money. Another abductee Suresh (PW4) also deposed that appellant Jagdish was acquainted with him prior to the incident, as Jagdish was visiting appellant Ramesh’s house in their village and Jagdish was also seen by him in weekly market (haat) organised at Bhander. 23. Learned counsel for the appellant Pratap vehemently contended that it is clear from the evidence of both these abductees that both these abductees and their companion Sughar Singh were not initially abducted by Pratap. 23. Learned counsel for the appellant Pratap vehemently contended that it is clear from the evidence of both these abductees that both these abductees and their companion Sughar Singh were not initially abducted by Pratap. Therefore, it is argued that the trial Court erred in convicting Pratap for the offence punishable under section 364A of the IPC, but it is clear from the total evidence of both these abductees that just after their abduction with Sughar Singh, till next two months they were kept in the house of appellant Pratap situated at village Birgawan District Jhansi. 24. It would be apt here to reproduce the provision of section 364A of the IPC, which is as follows : “364A. Kidnapping for ransom, etc.— Whoever kidnaps or abducts any person or keeps a person in detention after such kidnapping or abduction and threatens to cause death or hurt to such person, or by his conduct gives rise to a reasonable apprehension that such person may be put to death or hurt, or causes hurt or death to such person in order to compel the Government or any foreign State or international inter-governmental organisation or any other person to do or abstain from doing any act or to pay a ransom, shall be punishable with death, or imprisonment for life, and shall also be liable to fine.” 25. It is clear from the above-mentioned provision enacted by the legislature that actually kidnapper or abductor and similarly a person, who keeps such abducted person in detention or threatens to cause death or hurt to such abductee, or by his conduct gives rise to a apprehension that such person may be put to death or hurt for compelling others to do or abstain from doing any act or to pay a ransom, shall be punishable with the aid of section 364A of the IPC. 26. Much emphasis has been given by the learned counsel for the appellants that actual payment of ransom money is an essential ingredient for constituting the offence punishable under section 364A of the IPC, but it is clear from the above-mentioned provision enacted by legislature that payment of ransom money is not an essential ingredient of offence punishable under section 364A of the IPC, as previously some terrorists hijacked a plane with passengers and compelled the Government to release some detained terrorists in a foreign country. In such a situation even in absence of delivery of any ransom money, the culprit would be guilty for offence punishable under section 364A of the IPC. 27. On above-mentioned point we seek guidance from para 31 of the judgment rendered by the apex Court in the case of Birbal Choudhary alias Mukhiya Jee (supra), which is as follows : “31. It has also come on record that Exhibit-8 dated November 27, 2007 is the letter written by PW17 during confinement signed by PW20 also asking PW5 to pay the ransom amount and secure their release. The demand for ransom stands established from the conversation between PW5, when the accused Jawahar Koiry and Suresh Koiry identified themselves calling from the mobile phone number 9430029994, sent to establish contact with the abductors and made the demand for a ransom of Rs. 50 lakhs and further stated that they were sending the ring of PW17 and a letter from them (Exhibit-8) in proof of their confinement to claim ransom. Exhibit-8 stated that PW5 should at the earliest arrange to have them released. The mobile forensic evidence brought on record during investigation by necessary reports from the telephone authorities in the manner provided for in section 63(b) of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 of the conversation on November 28, 2006 of a call made from the aforesaid number shows that a call was made from it on mobile no. 9934848065 of PW21, clearly proves that a demand for ransom was in fact made. Even otherwise, it is not the defence of the appellants that there existed any enmity between the victims and the appellants for false implication. Once the abduction has been established, surely the abductors did not do so in such planned organized manner with smooth flawlessness discussed, to play hide and seek games or only to scare the victims out of a business dispute or for any other reason to force them to desist from a particular course of action. An act of abduction in the present manner is the result of meticulous planning of the logistics with separate roles assigned to the individual players. The demand for ransom, therefore, clearly stands established. That it was actually paid or not is irrelevant.” (Emphasis supplied) 28. An act of abduction in the present manner is the result of meticulous planning of the logistics with separate roles assigned to the individual players. The demand for ransom, therefore, clearly stands established. That it was actually paid or not is irrelevant.” (Emphasis supplied) 28. In the light of the clear and binding law laid down by the apex Court, it is clear that for an offence punishable under section 364A of the IPC, kidnapping or abduction should be for compelling any person or any Government or State to do or abstain from doing any act or to pay ransom, but for constitution of offence punishable under section 364A of the IPC, actual payment of ransom is not required at all. 29. It is clear from the evidence of both abductees Shankar (PW3) and Suresh (PW4) that due to delay in receiving ransom money, at the nstigation of appellant Ramesh, one of the abductees namely Sughar Singh was murdered in Pratap’s house situated in village Birgawan and trial Court has convicted appellant Jagdish under section 302/149 of the IPC in reference to murder of Sughar Singh and both abductees Shankar (PW3) and Suresh (PW4) have categorically deposed that Jagdish played main role in murder of Sughar Singh by twisting or compressing his neck which, according to medical evidence, is found to be cause of homicidal death. Appellant Ramesh has been convicted by the trial Court for offence punishable under sections 364A and 302/34 of the IPC. Other appellants appear to be fortunate that their acquittal under section 302 of the IPC with relating other offences has not been challenged by the prosecution by filing appeal against their acquittal under section 302 of the IPC regarding murder of Sughar Singh. 30. It is also argued that under compulsion of dacoits or abductors, innocent villagers keep the abductees at their houses and provide them food so such villagers, who keep the abductees in their houses or provide them food, could not be convicted under section 364A of the IPC. Such argument appears to be attractive but is without any substance. Appellant Pratap under his examination conducted by the trial Court under section 313 of the CrPC has not stated anything wherefrom it could be inferred that under any compulsion of abductors, he kept three abductees at his house for a long period of two months. 31. Such argument appears to be attractive but is without any substance. Appellant Pratap under his examination conducted by the trial Court under section 313 of the CrPC has not stated anything wherefrom it could be inferred that under any compulsion of abductors, he kept three abductees at his house for a long period of two months. 31. Both the above-mentioned abductees have categorically deposed that during their detention period, resident of their village appellant Ramesh was regularly visiting at Pratap’s house at Birgawan (UP) and once Ramesh came with his wife at Pratap’s house. It is clear from the evidence of both the abductees that on the date of incident with Sughar Singh they were abducted by Shankar (later on died), Bhagwan Singh, Ramesh and Jagdish and thereafter kept at appellant Pratap’s house. Therefore, in the light of the above-mentioned referred decisions of apex Court, we are of the considered opinion that the conviction recorded by the trial Court of present four appellants Bhagwan Singh @ Suresh, Ramesh, Pratap and Jagdish is totally justified and is in accordance with law being based on proper and legal analysis and appreciation of entire evidence available on record and trial Court did not err in convicting four appellants Bhagwan Singh @ Suresh, Ramesh, Pratap and Jagdish for the relating offences. In view of this, above-mentioned four appeals separately filed by appellants Bhagwan Singh @ Suresh, Ramesh, Pratap and Jagdish appear to be without any substance. 32. So far as appellant Banmali is concerned, it appears that in relation to him, the evidence of both the abductees Shankar (PW3) and Suresh (PW4) and some other witnesses is substantially deviated from the prosecution’s case and version initially given in prompt FIR (Ex.P-8) lodged by Ram Sahai (PW5), real brother of deceased abductee Sughar Singh. 33. 32. So far as appellant Banmali is concerned, it appears that in relation to him, the evidence of both the abductees Shankar (PW3) and Suresh (PW4) and some other witnesses is substantially deviated from the prosecution’s case and version initially given in prompt FIR (Ex.P-8) lodged by Ram Sahai (PW5), real brother of deceased abductee Sughar Singh. 33. Complainant Ram Sahai (PW5) though was not an eye-witness to the abduction occurred on the date of incident, i.e., 6.2.1999, but he clearly deposed that just after abduction, Ramgopal (PW6) after running reached his house and intimated him that when he was returning with Sughar Singh, Shankar and Suresh to the village after leaving the bus, two or three miscreants came by the side, who threw light of their torch and at the same time appellant Banmali was coming from Bhander, then the miscreants asked Banmali that who belongs to Kurmi caste then Banmali disclosed names of Sughar Singh, Shankar and Suresh; thereafter miscreants took the three abductees with them after abduction, but in crossexamination Ram Sahai fairly admitted in para 2 that he has mentioned in his FIR that miscreants have taken Banmali on their gun point and have asked him that who belongs to Kurmi caste ? Ram Sahai (PW5)’s FIR is proved by its scribe Head Constable Biharilal (PW12), who clearly deposed in cross-examination that report by complainant Ram Sahai was lodged against unknown miscreants. In the FIR scribed by Head Constable Biharilal (PW12), it is clearly mentioned that on the date of incident at 8:30 p.m. residents of complainant’s village Ramkishore Kurmi, Mathura Prasad Kurmi, Ram Kumar Kori, Banmali Dheemar, Suresh Kurmi and Shankar Kurmi, who had gone to attend a marriage ceremony in Uttar Pradesh got off the bus jointly. Therefore, it is clear from the report that appellant Banmali had gone with three abductees and other persons of his village Khiriya Saheb to attend a marriage solemnized in Uttar Pradesh and returned from UP with the abductees and other persons from the same bus. Therefore, the evidence given by the complainant Ram Sahai (PW5) that at the time of abduction of three persons, Banmali returned from Bhander, is contrary to his FIR and is also falsified by his FIR. 34. Therefore, the evidence given by the complainant Ram Sahai (PW5) that at the time of abduction of three persons, Banmali returned from Bhander, is contrary to his FIR and is also falsified by his FIR. 34. Ramgopal (PW6) deposed that when he left the bus with abductees then suddenly appellant Banmali came there and talked with miscreants and miscreants asked Banmali that who belongs to Kurmi caste, but it is clear from the evidence of complainant Ram Sahai (PW5) that incident of abduction was firstly intimated to hm by Ramgopal (PW6), who was an eye-witness to the incident of abduction, and if appellant Banmali had not left the bus with the abductees, then relating fact could not have found place in prompt FIR. 35. One of the abductees Shankar (PW3) deposed that firstly appellant Banmali on the scene of occurrence came with other abductors Shankar, hagwan Singh, Jagdish and Ramesh, and all these four persons just came in front them jointly, but Shankar’s abovementioned evidence is contradicted on this point by another abductee Sursh (PW4) and another eye-witness Ramgopal (PW6). Suresh (PW4) deposed that four gunmen, namely, Shankar, Jagdish, Bhagwan Singh and Ramesh came in front them and at the same time their villager appellant Banmali Dheemar came on spot and talked with abductor Shankar but it is clear that regarding role of Banmali, Shankar (PW3)’s evidence is contradicted by the evidence of Suresh (PW4) and Ramgopal (PW6) and it is clear that appellant Banmali has not appeared on scene of occurrence with other abductors, otherwise Banmali would have been named in the FIR, who was the resident of same village Khiriya Saheb. 36. It is true that all the three eye-witnesses Shankar (PW3), Suresh (PW4) and Ramgopal (PW6) deposed in one voice that on the scene of occurrence Banmali identified three abductees as persons belonging to Kurmi caste on asking by the miscreants, but it is clear from the total evidence of the complainant Ram Sahai (PW6) and his prompt report (Ex.P-8) that one of the four abductors/miscreants took Banmali Dheemar on gun point and compelled him to disclose as to which persons belong to Kurmi caste, then Banmali mentioned three persons (abductees) as persons belonging to Kurmi caste. Therefore, it is clear from the evidence that though regarding the role of appellant Banmali, both the abductees Shankar and Suresh and other eye-witnesses Ramgopal (PW6) and complainant Ram Sahai (PW5) have tried to deviate from the original prosecution story initially disclosed in FIR, but it is clear that their evidence that at that time Banmali was returning from Bhander or Banmali suddenly came on spot or Banmali came with four unknown abductors prima facie appears to be exaggeration and improvement firstly introduced in their Court evidence whereas it is clear from the prompt FIR that Banmali has returned to village after attending marriage with three abductees and other persons of same village and after being taken him on gun point by one of the miscreants, he was compelled to disclose or identify the persons belonging to Kurmi caste. 37. Similarly the evidence of these witnesses that Banmali talked with miscreants secretly or Banmali was with the abductors from beginning, appears to be a work of high imagination of these witnesses. Appellant Banmali is a resident of of their village and both abductees Shankar (PW3) and Suresh (PW4) have deposed nothing regarding appellant Banmali’s visiting house of Pratap at village Birgawan and similarly there is no evidence available on record against appellant Banmali regarding his negotiation with the family members of the abductees regarding demand of ransom money. 38. In above-mentioned state of unbelievable, improved and exaggerated version regarding the role of present appellant Banmali, the evidence of all these witnesses appears to be unnatural and unreliable and even contradicted by the prompt FIR (Ex.P-8). In all these established facts and circumstances, we are of the considered opinion that the conviction and sentence recorded by the trial Court against appellant Banmali does not appear to be proper and legally justified and in all these facts and circumstances, in our considered opinion, appellant Banmali was entitled for benefit of doubt and his conviction and sentence as recorded by the trial Court appears to be erroneous and unjustified. The appeal filed by the appellant Banmali appears to be worthy of acceptance. 39. The appeal filed by the appellant Banmali appears to be worthy of acceptance. 39. Consequently, Criminal Appeal No. 61/2005 filed by appellant Banmali is allowed and his conviction and sentence as recorded by the trial Court is set aside and Banmali is acquitted from the charge of section 364A of the IPC, but remaining other four Criminal Appeals No. 83/2005, 86/2005, 87/2005 and 955/2017 filed by appellants Bhagwan Singh @ Suresh, Ramesh Kori, Pratap Ahirwar and Jagdish respectively are dismissed and conviction and sentence as recorded by the trial Court against each of these appellants Bhagwan Singh @ Suresh, Ramesh, Pratap and Jagdish are hereby affirmed. 40. On going through the record of Criminal Appeal No. 61/2005, it reveals that appellant Banmali’s jail sentence was suspended by this Court vide order dated 27.4.2007 but since he failed to appear before the Registry of this Court for sufficient long period, therefore, his suspension order was recalled on 4.5.2016 and thereafter on his arrest he was sent to jail vide order dated 29.11.2017 and since then he is in jail. Appellant Banmali be released forthwith if not required in any other case. Appellant Jagdish of Criminal Appeal No. 955/2017 is in jail and is serving his sentence. He be intimated with the result of his appeal through relating Jail Superintendent. Appellant Bhagwan Singh @ Suresh of Criminal Appeal No. 83/2005, appellant-Ramesh of Criminal Appeal No. 86/2005 and appellant Pratap of Criminal Appeal No. 87/2005 are on bail after suspending their jail sentence by this Court. They are directed to immediately surrender before the trial Court to serve out their remaining jail sentence. With a copy of this judgment record of the trial Court be sent back immediately.