JUDGMENT : S.S. Shinde, J. This Criminal Appeal takes an exception to the judgment and order dated 16/12/1999 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Pune in Sessions Case No. 181 of 1998 acquitting all the accused from the offences punishable under Sections 341, 364-A, 386 and 387 r/w 34 of the Indian Penal Code. 2. The prosecution story in nutshell is as under: The complainant - Paras Mishrilal Bamb (PW-1) is a Hotel Businesman, running a lodge by name surya villa at Koregaon park Pune. According to the complainant, on 27/05/1997 at about 8.45 pm after finishing his usual work at hotel Surya Villa Lodge, he went for a Errand on a Kinetic Honda in Koregaon Park Area alone. Thereafter he decided to go to his elder brother Jaykumar Bamb for a dinner, and therefore he went to the premises of Ramvilas Society on his aforesaid vehicle. According to him, when he reached at Building No.2 of Popular Height after passing through the burning Ghat Road, he saw a person abruptly approaching to his vehicle at the corner, and the said unidentified person obstructed his way and vehicle, and asked the complainant whether he was Mr. Paras. When the complainant answered it affirmatively, the said person physically brought the complainant down with force from the said vehicle and told the complainant that he was a policeman, and that the police officers are in blue Maruti Van which was parked at some distance, and he wanted to have search of the complainant's pocket, and asked the complainant to sit in the said Maruti Van. Thereafter the complainant was forced to sit in the Maruti Van. The said unidentified person who obstructed the complainant, took the Kinetic Honda Scooter of the Complainant and started driving ahead the said Maruti Van which was following him and started going towards Bund-garden square. At that time, the complainant asked those people as to where he was being taken. The persons in the said Maruti Van replied that he was being taken to Commissioner's Office. The complainant requested them to allow him to drop a message at his hotel, but they did not allow him, and the Maruti Van was brought to Band Garden Square. Thereafter the person who was driving Kinetic Honda Scooter passed through Yerwada Bridge, and the Maruti Van started proceeding towards Hotel Blue Diamond. The complainant requested them to allow him to drop a message at his hotel, but they did not allow him, and the Maruti Van was brought to Band Garden Square. Thereafter the person who was driving Kinetic Honda Scooter passed through Yerwada Bridge, and the Maruti Van started proceeding towards Hotel Blue Diamond. At that time there were three persons including the driver in the said Maruti Van. Two persons were sitting on the rear side. The complainant was forced to sit in between two persons and thereafter Maruti Van took a turn from the right side from Circuit House Square, and came on Crossing Road in Queens Garden area. There was a darkness, the Maruti Van was stopped there, and those persons demanded 25 boxes in sense they demanded a ransom of Rs.25,00,000/- (Twenty Five Lakhs). The complainant asked them about their identity, and requested them to take Maruti Van towards Commissioner's Office, upon which they told the complainant not to act too smart as nobody knows that he was brought in Maruti Van, and further told him that nobody could know even if he has been encountered. 3. According to the complainant, the person in Maruti Van asked him as to how much amount he would pay to them. The complainant told that he would pay nothing. Thereafter those people started threatening the complainant and, started Maruti Van and proceeded through Wadia College, Raja Bahadoor Mill, Engineering College, Bombay - One Highway and then was stopped at the left side in dark near Bombay Dyeing show room. During the said travel those people were asking the complainant as to how much he would pay to them. They told the complainant that they will take him to Bombay, and started beating him and pressing his neck. At that time all the goggle glasses of Maruti Van were closed, similarly the doors were also locked. After stopping the Maruti Van, they again asked for money, and when the complainant said no, the person sitting at the right side took out a weapon like chopper from the side of the seat, and put it on the neck of complainant and again asked him as to how much he would pay. 4. After stopping the Maruti Van, they again asked for money, and when the complainant said no, the person sitting at the right side took out a weapon like chopper from the side of the seat, and put it on the neck of complainant and again asked him as to how much he would pay. 4. The complainant under the fear told them that it was possible for him to pay Rs.10,000/-, upon which they again started beating the complainant, and uttered that he pays money to Munna Shaikh, Rafique Shaikh and had been behaving very smart. Thereafter they put the chopper on the person of complainant and threatened him, upon which the complainant agreed to pay Rs.1,00,000/-. At that time they again started moving Maruti Van slowly ahead, and started physically beating the complainant. When the complainant agreed to pay Rs.1,50,000/-, the person having chopper in his hand gave him ultimatum and demanded a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- without any further concession. Thereafter the complainant requested for water. According to the complainant, the said persons had foced him to lie down in the Maruti Van and his throat was dried due to continuous beating and threats. It is alleged that as soon as the complainant agreed to pay Rs.2,00,000/- those people stopped Maruti Van, and one of them asked to bring one bottle of mineral water. Then the complainant was made to drink the water in the lying condition. Thereafter they again started Maruti Van and at that time they put cloth on the eyes of complainant and directed him to make a phone call and arrange for money to be paid in front of Residency club. After 10 minutes of travel, the Maruti Van was stopped near Telephone booth, and they directed the complainant to speak only in Marathi on telephone. The complainant got down from Maruti Van and gave a ring at Surya Villa Lodge on telephone No.624501 and told manager Rahul Mande to take Rs.2,00,000/- from Deepak Sheth and bring the same near Residency Club. The complainant further told his manager Rahul Mande to come alone. One person from Maruti Van had accompanied him in booth cabin and other was standing outside the telephone booth. After completing the phone call, the said person took him to Maruti van and other person paid call charges and returned to Maruti Van. The complainant further told his manager Rahul Mande to come alone. One person from Maruti Van had accompanied him in booth cabin and other was standing outside the telephone booth. After completing the phone call, the said person took him to Maruti van and other person paid call charges and returned to Maruti Van. Thereafter the Maruti Van started and after 20 minutes driving they reached near the Residency Club. At that time, those persons asked the complainant to lie down in Maruti Van and they put cloth on his face. When they reached near Residency Club, Rahul Mande was not seen there, and therefore, they took a round around the Residency Club Queens Garden area and at third round Rahul Mande was seen standing near the Residency Club. The complainant showed Rahul Mande, and accordingly they dtopped Maruti Van where Rahul Mande was standing, they opened the door of the Maruti Van, and physically snatched Rahul Mande in the Maruti Van, and asked him as to how much amount he had brought. Rahul Mande told them that he had brought Rs.2,00,000/-. Those people took possession of the cloth bag containing money and started Maruti Van and stopped the Maruti Van near Queens Garden road and directed Rahul Mande to go to in opposite direction, and not to look back. Accordingly Rahul Mande got down and went in opposite direction as per direction of the occupants of the Maruti Van. Thereafter Maruti Van started and the complainant was also dropped on the main road of Queens Garden area. At that time, the complainant asked them about his kinetic honda scooter, and their identity, upon which they told him that they would call him tomorrow and would sent his kinetic honda, they also told him that they wanted Rs.3,00,000/- within next few days. Thereafter the complainant tried to note down the number of the said Maruti Van while it was taking turn but the number plate was covered with dirt and therefore he could not see the number of the said Maruti Van. On the way he met Rahul Mande who was already dropped there. Thereafter they engaged a auto rickshaw and went to Surya Villa Lodge. When they reached Surya Villa Lodge it was about 11.30 pm. From there the complainant went to his home. He was too much frightened and mentally stressed on account of aforesaid incident. On the way he met Rahul Mande who was already dropped there. Thereafter they engaged a auto rickshaw and went to Surya Villa Lodge. When they reached Surya Villa Lodge it was about 11.30 pm. From there the complainant went to his home. He was too much frightened and mentally stressed on account of aforesaid incident. The complainant contacted his friend Rajendra patil on pager and when Rajendra Patil contacted him on phone he narrated the entire episode on the same day night. Rajendra Patil visited the complainant at that time also he narrated the entire episode to him. 5. According to the complainant the unidentified persons demanded a ransom of Rs.2,00,000/- from him and he handed over the same to them. As the complainant was too much frightened and mentally stressed, he could not lodge the report immediately to the police station and therefore on 29/05/1997 he went along with his brother to Bandgarden Police Station and lodged the report vide Exhibit 31 on 29/05/1997. Thereafter a complaint was registered at Bandgarden Police Station on the basis of description of the unidentified persons, who were in the Maruti Van, given by the Complainant vide CR No.154. During the course of investigation, PSI Satish Govekar visited the spot of the incident and spot panchanama was prepared. On the complained of complainant that he was assaulted during the incident, therefore he was referred to Sasoon Hospital for medical examination, Accordingly doctor examined the complainant and issued injury certificate, the same was seized by PSI Govekar. The IO issued a letter to RTO requesting him to supply the details about the owner of the Vehicle registered in the RTO having registration No. starts from MH-12. However, the RTO could not give any details about the said information. Thereafter PSI Govekar, on 12/06/1997 recorded the statement of Vishwas Yadav (PW-11) who stated the names of the accused persons and the Maruti van used in the incident in question. Therefore IO took the search of the accused and visited the house of the relatives of the accused but he did not find the accused. He therefore recorded the statements of the relatives of the accused. On 09/08/1997 one Yogesh Gade on his own accord produced a Maruti Van bearing No. MH-12-P7344 and the same was seized under the seizure panchanama. He therefore recorded the statements of the relatives of the accused. On 09/08/1997 one Yogesh Gade on his own accord produced a Maruti Van bearing No. MH-12-P7344 and the same was seized under the seizure panchanama. The complainant identified the said Maruti Van which was used for kidnapping him for the purpose of demanding ransom. Thereafter the crime registered at Band Garden Police Station was transferred to the Crime Branch for further investigation. Thereafter PI Surendera Patil attached to Crime Branch arrested the accused person on 04/01/1998 and also seized from them one Yamaha Motor Cycle, keys, weapon Kukari and Khanjir. PI Patil handed over the accused persons and the articles seized from the accused to PSI Shinde, who arrested the accused on 05/01/1998 in the Transfer Crime No.154/97. Thereafter at the instance of accused No.1 cash of Rs.56000/- was recovered and was seized under seizure panchanama (Exh.46). A chopper was recovered at the instance of accused on 08/01/1998 and the same was seized under a panchanama (Exh.49). On 09/01/1998 the brother in law of accused No.1 namely Manik Jedhe (PW-10) produced the cash of Rs.40,000/- and a rado make watch which were seized under seizure panchanama (Exh.52). PSI Shinde visited the spot on of incident on 15/01/1998 and prepared a spot panchanama (Exh.77). Thereafter Test Identification Parade was conducted on 20/01/1998. After completing the investigation, a charge sheet came to be filed against the accused in the Court of JMFC, Pune on 04/04/1998. The learned JMFC committed the case to the Court of Sessions as the offence alleged against the accused were exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions. 6. Thereafter the charge came to be framed against all the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 364(A) and 387 r/w 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The charge was read over and explained to the accused. All the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. The defence of the accused was of total denial. The Respondents/Accused No.1 examined witnesses and also filed some documents including certificate issued by bank to show that the mother of PW-10 secured loan from the bank.. It is specifically denied that Rs.56,000/- were recovered at the instance of accused No.1 from the flat, and recovery of chopper at his instance is also denied. 7. The Respondents/Accused No.1 examined witnesses and also filed some documents including certificate issued by bank to show that the mother of PW-10 secured loan from the bank.. It is specifically denied that Rs.56,000/- were recovered at the instance of accused No.1 from the flat, and recovery of chopper at his instance is also denied. 7. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, Pune has recorded statements of accused under Section 313 of the Criminal procedure Code. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, after considering the material on record and the evidence adduced by the prosecution as well as the evidence adduced by Accused No.1 in defence, came to a conclusion that the prosecution has failed to establish the involvement of the accused persons in the incident and also failed to prove beyond reasonable shadow of doubt that the accused Nos.1 to 3 are amongst the accused persons who had committed an offence of abduction and demanded a ransom under threats. As stated herein above, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Pune by the impugned judgment and order, acquitted all the Respondents - accused for the offences punishable under Sections 341, 364-A, 386 and 387 r/w 34 of the Indian Penal Code. 8. We have heard the learned APP for the Appellant - State. None present for the Respondents-Accused. With the able assistance of the learned APP, we have also perused the grounds taken in the Appeal Memo, the evidence led by the prosecution as well as the evidence adduced by the accused No.1 in his defence, the documents produced on record, and the reasons recorded by the learned Additional Sessions Judge in the impugned judgment. 9. It is submitted by the learned APP that the learned Additional Sessions Judge, did not consider the evidence led by the prosecution in proper perspective. The learned Additional Sessions has failed to properly appreciate the evidence of complainant Paras Mishrilal Bamb. She submits that Test Identification Parade was conducted by Special judicial Magistrate, and in the said identification parade, according to the Special Judicial Magistrate, the complainant could identify accused Nos.1 and 2 and Rahul Mande could identify accused No.1 in the said identification parade. The learned Additional Sessions has failed to properly appreciate the evidence of complainant Paras Mishrilal Bamb. She submits that Test Identification Parade was conducted by Special judicial Magistrate, and in the said identification parade, according to the Special Judicial Magistrate, the complainant could identify accused Nos.1 and 2 and Rahul Mande could identify accused No.1 in the said identification parade. The learned APP further submits that the amount of Rs.96,000/- and a chopper were recovered at the instance of accused which supports the case of the prosecution that the said money is the part of ransom money and the chopper recovered from accused No.1 was the same one which was used in the offence as there was no special mark or description. The learned APP further submits that the learned Additional Sessions Judge did not appreciate and/or rely upon the evidence of the complainant, panch witnesses and other evidence on record properly. According to the learned APP there is enough evidence to show that accused Nos.1 and 3 are the accused persons who had committed the offence of abduction and demanded a ransom under threats. She further submits that there is sufficient evidence and material brought on record by the prosecution to connect the accused with crime. She therefore submits that the impugned judgment and order passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge dated 16/12/1999 in Sessions Case No.181/1998 is not sustainable in law, and the same is liable to be quashed and set aside. 10. None present for the Respondent when the matter was taken up for final hearing. 11. To bring home the charge against the Respondents/Accused, the prosecution has examined in all 15 witnesses, and also relied upon the FIR, memorandum of panchanamas, statement of accused No.1 and the memorandum of Test Identification Parade and the medical certificate. It is an undisputed fact that the complainant Paras at the relevant time was residing at Abhang Apartment, Pune and was running Surya Villa Lodge at Koregaon Park, Pune with the help of his brother. It is also not in dispute that PW-10 Rahul Mande was working with the complainant as a Manager of the hotel. 12. It is an undisputed fact that the complainant Paras at the relevant time was residing at Abhang Apartment, Pune and was running Surya Villa Lodge at Koregaon Park, Pune with the help of his brother. It is also not in dispute that PW-10 Rahul Mande was working with the complainant as a Manager of the hotel. 12. It is required to be noted that PW-1 Paras Mishrilal Bamb, who is the complainant, PW-2 Deepak Mishrilal Bam, who is the real brother of the complainant and to whom the complainant narrated the entire episode on the day of incident, PW-3 Rajendra Pandurang Patil, who is the friend of the complainant and who visited the house of the complainant on receiving pager and PW No.4 Rahul Mande,who is the manager of the complainant and who, according to the prosecution, has brought the amount of ransom, are the star witnesses. Therefore we will deal with their evidence first. PW-1 Paras stated in his examination in chief that their family is a joint family and their business is joint. There are three shops run by them. He and his brother used to manage the affairs of Surya Villa Lodge. The telephone number of surya Villa Lodge is 624501. There are two managers namely Shailesh Nanaware and Rahul Mande. PW-1 stated that Rahul Mande is working with them since last 5 years. In addition to his work as manager, he has to perform many other duties like depositing telephone bills, looking after bank transactions, and to supply information to the Commissioner about the stay of the Foreigners. As stated in the foregoing paragraphs the complainant Paras (PW1) has stated the entire episode in his examination chief. He further stated that as he was in frightened mood he did not go out of the house for 2 days and on 29/05/1997 he lodged the report at Bundgarden Polcie Station. He stated that police gave him a yadi and referred to Sasoon Hospital for medical examination. Accordingly he went to the hospital and doctor examined him in a casualty and issued him injury certificate. In his examination in Chief, PW-1 stated that on 20/01/1998 identification parade was held at Central Jail. The same was conducted by the Magistrate. He stated that police gave him a yadi and referred to Sasoon Hospital for medical examination. Accordingly he went to the hospital and doctor examined him in a casualty and issued him injury certificate. In his examination in Chief, PW-1 stated that on 20/01/1998 identification parade was held at Central Jail. The same was conducted by the Magistrate. PW-1 was asked to take a view of the parade and he could identify accused Nos.2 and 3 from the identification parade He further stated in his examination chief that today accused Nos.2 and 3 who are present in the dock are the same to whom he had identified on 20/01/1998. He stated that his supplementary statement was recorded by IO on 20/01/1998. He further stated that Chopper Art. No.4 is the same by which he was threatened by accused No.1. In the cross examination, PW-1 admitted that there were no special identification marks on the person of the accused except mustache he has given description of the accused in FIR. He further stated that since last 5 years he and his brother Deepak look after the affairs of their hotel Surya Villa. He further stated that Bundgarden Chowk is a crowded area and there is a heavy traffic till 12 in the night. He stated that his supplementary statement was recorded only once after the identification parade was over. He further stated that he had no occasion to go to the STD booth from where he made a telephone call to his manager on the day of incident. The telephone booth was in one block of the building. He admitted that one male and female were speaking with each other in the booth. He admitted that he was not taken in the booth by holding him, similarly he was not made to sit in the van by holding him. He stated that today he cannot tell the description of those persons who were standing in front of the booth. He stated that, he did not report to the person who was standing in front of the booth that he was kidnapped. He did not make any attempt to run away from the booth, similarly he did not make any attempt to make hue and cry to attract the attention of the people. He stated that, he did not report to the person who was standing in front of the booth that he was kidnapped. He did not make any attempt to run away from the booth, similarly he did not make any attempt to make hue and cry to attract the attention of the people. PW-1 further admitted that those persons were not wearing police uniform, and he did not ask the said person about his identity while he was obstructing his vehicle. He did not ask the said person about the name of the police officer and for the first time, he came to know that the occupants of the Maruti van were not the police persons as soon as they stopped the Maruti van near Queens Garden and demanded a ransom. He stated that the Maruti van was halted at three different places before he was taken to the telephone booth. He further stated that on 29/05/97 he gave description of the accused persons in the report. The description of the accused persons given by him in the report were correct. He further admitted that on 29/5/97 his fear was reduced in comparison to 27/5/97. He disclosed the age of the accused persons by guess. For the first time he came to know the names of the accused persons from the news paper. He stated that police did not record his supplementary statement after he came to know the names of the accused persons from the news paper. He stated that on 20/1/98 he and Rahul (Manager) went to Central Jail Pune. At the time of first round 13 to 14 persons were standing in the row, and he identified the accused while he was taking round from the distance of 5 to 6 feet from the row. He stated that he cannot tell the age of the persons who were standing in the row, so also the age and the description of the dummy persons, who were standing in the row. He stated that he was asked to touch the person to whom he identified in the parade. He stated that Accused No.1 was standing in between the persons who were standing at Serial Nos. 4 and 5. He admitted that he could not identify the person who were standing in between 4 and 5, because the said person bent down his neck. He stated that Accused No.1 was standing in between the persons who were standing at Serial Nos. 4 and 5. He admitted that he could not identify the person who were standing in between 4 and 5, because the said person bent down his neck. He stated that he did not make any complaint that the person who was standing in between Serial Nos. 4 and 5 bent his neck and he did not insist the officer to write that he identified the person who was standing in between serial Nos.4 and 5. He did not make any complaint about the officers to the superiors for not taking down his objections. He stated that he did not state the said fact in his supplementary statement before the police. He further stated that he did not make any complaint to the Court that he could not identify the person who was standing in the row as he had bent down his neck, similarly he did not make any complaint against the person who conducted the identification parade. He further admitted that though the chopper was pointed to him and touched to various parts of his body, it did not cause any injury to him. PW-1 also stated that the person who escorted them to the place of identification parade was present when the identification parade was held. PW-1 admitted that he lodged the report after consultation with his brother and his friend Rajendra Patil. He did not take any medical treatment on 27/05/1997 and 28/05/1997. He alone went to Bundgarden police station on 29/05/1997 to lodge the report. He stated that he was referred to the Sasoon hospital for medical examination and after the examination the doctor handed over him the injury certificate. He stated that he did not state in his report that he narrated the entire incident to his brother as soon as he went to his house, and he did not go out of the house for about 2 days as he was frightened. In his cross examination, a suggestion was given to PW-1 that he is deposing false that the accused are the same persons who demanded ransom, which suggestion has been denied by him. If the evidence of Paras Bamb (PW-1) is considered in its entirety, and in particular his cross examination, his conduct does not appear to be normal. In his cross examination, a suggestion was given to PW-1 that he is deposing false that the accused are the same persons who demanded ransom, which suggestion has been denied by him. If the evidence of Paras Bamb (PW-1) is considered in its entirety, and in particular his cross examination, his conduct does not appear to be normal. When the incident in question had taken place on 27/05/1997, there was no reason for him to lodge the report with police after two days of the incident i.e. on 29/05/1997. As per the prosecution case, the area where the alleged incident had taken place is a crowded area. It appears from the deposition of PW-1 that though he had an opportunity to shout or appraise other persons when he got down from the Maruti Van and went to make a phone call to his manager Rahul Mande, however, he did not do that. The cross examination of PW-1 Paras Bamb, who is the complainant, would make it abundantly clear that the conduct of PW-1 is suspicious. It appears that after consultation with his brother and his friend, PW-1 did lodge the report after 2 days of incident. In his cross examination, PW-1 categorically admitted that he could not identify the person who was standing in between 4 and 5 because the said person bent down his neck. However, he did not make any complainant that the person who was standing in between Serial Nos. 4 and 5 bent his neck and he did not state the said fact in his supplementary statement before the police. Not making complaint or objection and not mentioning the said fact in the supplementary statement by PW-1, who is the businessman, raises serious doubt about the alleged identification parade. 13. The prosecution has examined Deepak Mishrilal Bamb as PW-2 who is the brother of PW-1 complainant. From the evidence of PW-2 Deepak, it appears that on 27/05/1997 the manager of Surya Villa Lodge namely Rahul Mande came to his house to collect Rs.2,00,000/-. PW-2 stated that he gave Rs.2,00,000/- to the said manager. It is relevant to mention that after the alleged incident PW-1 Paras Bamb met PW-2 Deepak Bamb in the said night of 27/05/1997 and narrated the entire episode to PW-2. However, for the reasons best known to both the brothers, no FIR was lodged till 29/05/1997. PW-2 stated that he gave Rs.2,00,000/- to the said manager. It is relevant to mention that after the alleged incident PW-1 Paras Bamb met PW-2 Deepak Bamb in the said night of 27/05/1997 and narrated the entire episode to PW-2. However, for the reasons best known to both the brothers, no FIR was lodged till 29/05/1997. Without any sufficient and plausible explanation for the delay in lodging the FIR, and the said delay creates doubt about the authenticity of the prosecution case. It is also stated by PW-2 Deepak that the entire episode was told by his brother PW-1 Paras to him. In his cross examination, PW-2 admitted that he did not feel it necessary to accompany with the manager Rahul Mande to go to rescue his brother. The said conduct of PW-2 appears to be abnormal. In his cross examination, it was asked to PW-2, whether the police officer conducted inquiry about unauthorized dealing in the foreign exchange. It appears that PW-2 used to keep hard cash in his house. He was further asked whether he had produced copy of income tax return before the police, in reply to the said question he stated that he did not produce the copy of the income tax return before the police. He further stated that, he did not disclose about the incident to any body till his statement was recorded by the police. PW-2 in his cross examination has categorically admitted that he did not feel it necessary to lodge report immediately as soon as his brother (PW-1) narrated the episode. He also admitted that he did not feel it necessary to consult with his brother Paras (PW-1) before handing over hard cash of Rs.2,00,000/- to Manager Rahul Mande during such odd hours. He stated that he noticed some abrasion on the chest and back of his brother Paras. He further stated that on that day they did not approach to any doctor for the treatment of his brother Paras, but they gave some home made treatment. He also stated that Mangaldas Police Chowky is at a distance of 5 minutes walk from Abhang Apartment. It is abnormal on the part of PW-2 about not disclosing the incident to anybody and not reporting the police if Mangaldas Police Chowky is at a distance of 5 minutes from Abhang Apartment i.e. their residence. He also stated that Mangaldas Police Chowky is at a distance of 5 minutes walk from Abhang Apartment. It is abnormal on the part of PW-2 about not disclosing the incident to anybody and not reporting the police if Mangaldas Police Chowky is at a distance of 5 minutes from Abhang Apartment i.e. their residence. It is also abnormal on the part of PW-2 that though he noticed some abrasions on the chest and back of his brother Paras (PW-1). There were some scratches on the face. They did not approach the doctor for treatment till his brother PW-1 was referred to Sasoon Hospital on 29/05/1997. PW-2 stated that Rajendra Patil came to their house at about 2.30 am on 28/05/1997. 14. The next witness examined by the prosecution is Rajendra Pandurang Patil (PW-3), who is the friend of complainant Paras (PW-1). In his examination in chief PW-3 stated that he made a telephone call on phone No.624501 and he was contacted with Paras Bamb. Paras Bamb narrated the entire incident to him on telephone on very same night and specifically told him that Rs.2,00,000/- were demanded by 4 persons and the same was given to them. PW-3 asked him to make a complaint. He stated that he went to the home of complainant at about 11.45 pm. However, his version before the Court is by way of omission, inasmuch as, in his cross examination in paragraph 3 he stated that, though complainant Paras (PW-1) made disclosure to this witness PW-3 about the incident of demanding Rs.2,00,000/- from PW-1, the same has not been mentioned by the police in his statement. It is noteworthy to mention that PW-3 did not notice any visible injury on the person of Paras. So far as the story of the prosecution regarding the injury suffered by complainant - Paras (PW-1) is concerned, it is highly suspicious as PW-1 Paras himself in his testimony admitted that though the chopper was pointed to him and touched to various parts of his body, it did not cause any injury to him whereas his brother Deepak (PW-2) stated that he noticed some abrasion on the chest and back of his brother Paras and some scratches on his brother's face, whereas PW-3 Rajendra stated that he did not notice any visible injury on the persons of Paras. 15. 15. The next witness is Rahul Chandrakant Mande (PW-4), who as stated herein above is the Manager of the complainant (PW-1) and who, according to the prosecution, has brought Rs.2,00,000/-. In his examination in chief PW-4 has stated details about the post on which he was serving as a manager and about the nature of his work and how long he was associated with PW-1 and PW-2. In so far as actual incident is concerned, he stated that on 27/05/97 at about 10.30 pm he was watching the TV, at that time he heard a telephone ring and he lifted the receiver, Paras Bamb was speaking with him. He told PW-4 to go to his house and collect Rs.2,00,000/- from Dipak Bamb and asked PW-4 to come with money near Residency Club. The said currency notes put in one plastic bag, and the said plastic bag was again put in cotton bag and the said cotton bag was handed over to PW-4. Accordingly after collecting the money PW-4 went to the said club in autorickshaw. He tried to search PW-1 Paras Bamb. When he was near the said Residency Club, one Maruti Van of blue colour came there. One unknown person from the said van pulled PW-4 inside the van. The said unknown person took a cotton bag containing cash from him. Thereafter the van was taken in one lane and PW-4 was asked to get down from the van and, he was asked by accused to go towards opposite direction of the van, and then said van went away. The Maruti van was driven towards the main road. PW-4 tried to see the registration number of the van, but he could not notice as there was dust on the number plate. Thereafter PW-4 started going towards the main road where he met Paras Bamb on the main road. Then both of them went to Surya Villa Lodge in a autocikshaw and reached at 11.30 pm. He stated that paras Bamb narrated him the entire incident as soon as they reached to Surya Villa Lodge. It is surprising to note that PW-4 also did not bother to lodge a complaint with police. He stated that his statement was recorded by police on 29/05/1997. After collecting the money PW-4 went to the said club. He stated that paras Bamb narrated him the entire incident as soon as they reached to Surya Villa Lodge. It is surprising to note that PW-4 also did not bother to lodge a complaint with police. He stated that his statement was recorded by police on 29/05/1997. After collecting the money PW-4 went to the said club. In his examination in chief, PW-4 stated that he was not knowing the names of the occupants of the Maruti van except Paras Bamb, and therefore, he gave description of those persons in his statement before the Police. However, he stated that the accused persons to whom he identified in the identification parade are not present in the Court today. It appears that he turned hostile and was cross examined by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor. However, nothing useful to the prosecution case has been elicited from his cross examination. 16. If the evidence of all the aforesaid four witnesses is read in its entirety, it does not inspire confidence so as to form the basis to convict the Respondents/Accused. It is clear from the evidence of complainant Paras (PW1) that he could not identify accused No.1 amongst three dummies. Though prosecution claims that Yogesh was the owner of the said Maruti Van and he was examined as PW-7, nevertheless deposition of Yogesh (PW-7) is not useful to the prosecution as both the witnesses i.e. PW-1 Paras Bamb and PW-4 Rahul Mande have stated in their evidence that, they did not see the number of the said Maruti Van. 17. So far as alleged recovery is concerned, the prosecution has examined PW-10 Manik Premlal Jedhe. In his examination in chief PW-10 has stated that, Accused No.1 is the husband of his sister. He has stated that, on 04/01/1998 police and accused No.1 came to his house. Police asked him to hand over the money if the accused No.1 had kept any money with him. PW10 told the police that accused No.1 had not kept any money with him. PW-10 was taken to the office of police commissioner and he was asked to sit in the office. He was in the office for 2 days. The police threatened him to involve him in a case if he failed to pay the amount. PW-10 further stated that on account of threats his brother and his mother handed over cash of Rs.56,000/- to PW-10 on 07/01/1998. He was in the office for 2 days. The police threatened him to involve him in a case if he failed to pay the amount. PW-10 further stated that on account of threats his brother and his mother handed over cash of Rs.56,000/- to PW-10 on 07/01/1998. Then the said cash was handed over by PW-10 to police officer Shri Shinde. PW-10 stated that the police asked him to bring Rs.40,000/- within two days and he was allowed to go to house. On 08/01/1998 he again handed over a cash of Rs.40,000/- to police officer Mr. Shinde. It appears that this witness (PW-10) has also turned hostile and cross examined by the Additional Public Prosecutor. However, nothing useful has brought on record from his cross examination. He denied the suggestion in his cross examination that, accused No.1 Ravi Pardeshi had kept with him Rs.1,00,000/-. In his cross examination PW-10 stated that his mother sold 3 gunthas of land and on 08/01/1998 he received the amount of Rs.27,000/- from bank. Therefore the alleged recovery of said currency looses its importance in the light of evidence of PW-10. 18. It is an admitted position that the alleged identification parade has been conducted after about 6 months of alleged incident. The Trial Court had considered the time gap between the arrest of the accused and conducting the identification parade. It is observed by the Trial Court that identification parade had taken placed approximately 6 months after the incident and 15days after the actual arrest, and on three different dates before the identification parade the accused persons were taken to the Court for remand purposes, and therefore, the complainant had opportunity to see the accused in the interregnum. It has also come in the evidence of PW-1 Paras Bamb that he read the names of the accused in the news paper before the accused were put in the identification parade. The Trial Court had opportunity to see the demeanor of the accused. The Trial Court observed that the features given by the complainant (PW-1) in the FIR about the suspected accused are not at all similar in respect of the accused in the dock. The Trial Court therefore opined that the possibility of showing the accused persons before holding an identification parade cannot be ruled out altogether. 19. The Trial Court observed that the features given by the complainant (PW-1) in the FIR about the suspected accused are not at all similar in respect of the accused in the dock. The Trial Court therefore opined that the possibility of showing the accused persons before holding an identification parade cannot be ruled out altogether. 19. After considering the evidence adduced by the prosecution and the material placed on record, the Trial Court has come to a conclusion that the prosecution has established the incident of demanded a ransom, however, the prosecution has failed to prove beyond reasonable shadow of doubt that the accused Nos.1 to 3 are amongst the accused persons who had committed the offence of abduction and demanded ransom under threats. The Trial Court further observed that the evidence brought on record creates a doubt about identification of real culprits, and if two views are possible the view which is favourable to the accused should normally be adopted by the Court. In this regard, a useful reference could be made to the judgment of Supreme Court in the matter of Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v/s. State of Maharashtra, (1984) 4 SCC 116 . In said Sharad Birdhichand Sarda's case (supra) the Apex Court has considered the aspect as to when the benefit of doubt can be given. The Apex Court in paragraph 162 and 163 of the said judgment has observed as under :- "162 Moreover, in M.G. Agarwal's case (supra) this Court while reiterating the principles enunciated in Hanumant's case observed thus: If the circumstances proved in the case are consistent either with the innocence of the accused or with his guilt, then the accused is entitled to the benefit of doubt. "In Shankarlal's (supra) this Court reiterated the same view thus: "Legal principles are not magic incantations and their importance lies more in their application to a given set of facts than in their recital in the judgment". 163. We then pass on to another important point which seems to have been completely missed by the High Court. It is well settled that where on the evidence two possibilities are available or open, one which goes in favour of the prosecution and the other which benefits an accused, the accused is undoubtedly entitled to the benefit of doubt. In Kali Ram v. State of Himachal Pradesh, this Court made the following observations. It is well settled that where on the evidence two possibilities are available or open, one which goes in favour of the prosecution and the other which benefits an accused, the accused is undoubtedly entitled to the benefit of doubt. In Kali Ram v. State of Himachal Pradesh, this Court made the following observations. "Another golden thread which runs through the web of the administration of justice in criminal cases is that if two views are possible on the evidence adduced in the case one pointing to the guilt of the accused and the other to his innocence, the view which is favourable to the accused should be adopted This principle has a special relevance in cases where in the guilt of the accused is sought to be established by circumstantial evidence." 20. If the prosecution case is considered in its entirety, an irresistible conclusion is that the prosecution has not proved its case beyond reasonable doubt against the Respondents/Accused. The Trial Court has taken a plausible view on the basis of the evidence available on record. The findings recorded by the Trial Court appear to be in consonance with the evidence brought on record. There is no perversity as such in the findings recorded by the Trial Court. Hence there is no merit in the present Criminal Appeal. The Criminal Appeal stands dismissed. Bail bonds of the Respondents/Accused, if any, shall stand cancelled.