JUDGMENT : Shree Chandrashekhar, J. This case is about abduction of two persons for ransom - one has survived the murderous assault and the other one is still traceless. 2. Long before, in the year 1971 the Law Commission of India made a recommendation for making kidnapping or abduction for ransom an aggravated form of the offence of kidnapping for ransom which was punishable with rigorous imprisonment upto 14 years and fine. The Parliament has shown considerable concern in dealing with the offence of kidnapping for ransom. By Act of 42 of 1993, section 364-A was inserted into the Indian Penal Code with effect from 22.05.1993 which has provided punishment of death. The death penalty is retained in the penal Statutes in very few countries in the world - India is one. There are 14 offences in the Indian Penal Code which are made punishable by death and as an alternative thereto imprisonment for life. The death penalty provided under section 364-A is remarkable in the sense that even in a case where the kidnapping has not resulted in the death of the victim the Courts for "special reasons" can award death penalty upon the accused. In Vikram Singh v. Union of India, (2015) 9 SCC 502 the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed that the instances of kidnapping for ransom must be dealt with in the harshest possible manner and an obligation rests on the Courts as well. 3. Six persons are said to have abducted Ravindra Kumar Singh @ Chhotu and Roshan Singh for ransom on 04.07.2010. Ravindra Kumar Singh who was running a stone crusher in village Badiha left home on 04.07.2010 with his nephew Roshan Singh for Manatu where Raj Kumar Singh @ Ajay had called him to provide labourers. Praveen Kumar Singh who is the brother of Ravindra Kumar Singh has stated in his fardbeyan which was recorded at 14:30 hrs. on 06.07.2010 at Sub-Divisional Hospital, Chhatarpur that the accused persons had confined Ravindra Kumar Singh and Roshan Singh in the forest adjoining Manatu- Chak Road and Rupees Twenty Lacs was demanded in ransom. On the same night at about 09:00 PM, Ravindra Kumar Singh called Babuwa Jee and asked him to pay ransom to the abductors for their release. on 06.07.2010 at Sub-Divisional Hospital, Chhatarpur that the accused persons had confined Ravindra Kumar Singh and Roshan Singh in the forest adjoining Manatu- Chak Road and Rupees Twenty Lacs was demanded in ransom. On the same night at about 09:00 PM, Ravindra Kumar Singh called Babuwa Jee and asked him to pay ransom to the abductors for their release. Text day, Babuwa Jee asked his Munshi to pay Rs.20,000/- to Binod Singh who on payment of ransom money assured that Ravindra Kumar Singh and Roshan Singh would be released. However, they were not set free and on further enquiry Binod Singh gave three mobile numbers being 9798111590, 8009908381 and 9471752769 and asked to talk about their release. Raj Kumar Singh answered the call of Pappu Pandit on mobile no. 9471752769 and told him that he was not involved in the occurrence and the next day around 11:00 AM a call came that Ravindra Kumar Singh was lying injured near Dagra Pahari. The informant along with Vikash Kumar Singh, Pappu Singh, Ranjit Singh and Anjan Singh immediately left for Dagra and with the help of local people his brother was brought to the village, where he narrated the entire story to him. The informant has further stated that his injured brother had disclosed name of the other accused persons, who in course of their talks were addressing each other by their name. On the basis of the fardbeyan of Praveen Kumar Singh, Naudiha Bazar P.S Case No.18 of 2010 was registered against Binod Kumar Singh, Uday Singh @ Birendra Singh, Bishundeo Singh, Raj Kumar Singh @ Ajay, Raju and Tufani under section 384, 386, 364-A, 324, 307/34 of the Indian Penal Code (in short, IPC) and section 27 of the Arms Act. After the investigation a charge-sheet was filed against Binod Kumar Singh, Uday Singh, Bishundeo Singh and Raj Kumar Singh who have faced the trial in Session Trial Case No.383 of 2011 on the charge under sections 384/34, 386/34, 364-A/34, 307/34 and 324/34 IPC as also under section 27 of the Arms Act, by the same order dated 04.10.2012. 4. In Session Trial Case No.383 of 2011, the prosecution has examined eleven witnesses - PW-8, Ravindra Kumar Singh is the injured eyewitness. Dr. 4. In Session Trial Case No.383 of 2011, the prosecution has examined eleven witnesses - PW-8, Ravindra Kumar Singh is the injured eyewitness. Dr. Rajesh Agarwal who has examined Ravindra Kumar Singh at 02:30 PM on 06.07.2010 at Sub-Divisional Hospital, Chhatarpur has found three lacerated wounds over his head, face and chest. In the cross-examination, the doctor has stated that he did not find any injury over temporal region of Ravindra Kumar Singh and the injuries had become so muddy that it was not possible to give a definite opinion about the weapon used for causing the injury. The learned Additional Sessions Judge-VII, Palamau at Daltonganj has held that the injured victim has given a vivid description of the occurrence and his testimony is sufficient to constitute the offence of abduction for ransom. The learned trial Judge has further held that the victim was cross-examined at length but the defence could not elicit anything substantial to demolish his testimony and, moreover, his evidence finds support from the medical evidence and on demand and payment of ransom he is supported and corroborated by Pappu Pandit besides other witnesses. 5. PW-l and PW-2 were the cattle grazers of village Dagra. In the morning of 06.07.2010 they found Ravindra Kumar Singh writhing in pain beneath a Mahua tree inside the forest. They have deposed in the Court that on enquiry the injured person told them his name Chhotu Singh (nickname of Ravindra Kumar Singh). PW-l has stated that Ravindra Kumar Singh informed him that Raj Kumar Singh and Bishun were involved in the occurrence whereas PW-2 has stated that Ravindra Kumar Singh told him that Raj Kumar Singh, Tufani and Binod Singh had assaulted him. In the cross-examination, PW-l has stated that Ravindra Kumar Singh was speaking clearly. He had no previous acquaintances with Ravindra Kumar Singh and did not accompany him to the hospital. PW-3, PW-4, PW-5, PW-6 and PW-9 had gone to village Dagra on the information that Ravindra Kumar Singh was found injured in the forest adjoining village Dagra. PW-3 has clarified in the cross-examination that nick name of Ravindra Kumar Singh was Chhotu. He was acquainted with the family of Ravindra Kumar Singh and knew Roshan Singh since last one year. He has stated that when he reached Dagra he saw that the villagers were bringing Ravindra Kumar Singh from the forest. PW-3 has clarified in the cross-examination that nick name of Ravindra Kumar Singh was Chhotu. He was acquainted with the family of Ravindra Kumar Singh and knew Roshan Singh since last one year. He has stated that when he reached Dagra he saw that the villagers were bringing Ravindra Kumar Singh from the forest. He was conscious and told him that Raj Kumar Singh, Bishundeo Singh, Uday Singh, Raju and Tufani were involved in the occurrence and that they had forcibly taken him inside the forest for extracting ransom. PW-4 has deposed in the Court that on 05.07.2010 Ravindra Kumar Singh called Babuwa Jee to inform him that he and Roshan were abducted and the abductors were demanding ransom of Rupees Twenty Lacs and on their instructions Rs.20,000/- was sent to Binod Singh through Pappu Pandit. After the ransom money was paid Binod Singh assured that Ravindra and Roshan would be released ¼NqV tk,saxsa½] however, they did not reach home by the evening of 05.07.2010. Then, Pappu Pandit again asked Binod Singh about their release who assured that they would reach home by the next day morning. However, the next day morning an information came that a dead body was found in Dagra forest whereafter he along with Pappu Singh, Nawrej Khan and Ranjeet had gone to Dagra and there he found that the villagers were carrying Ravindra Kumar Singh on a cot. He told him that Raj Kumar Singh, Uday, Bishundeo, Tufani and Raju were involved in the occurrence. In his cross-examination, he has stated that Ravindra Kumar Singh who is his cousin brother ¼eesjk HkkbZ½ was engaged in crusher business; Ravindra Kumar Singh did not tell him where the occurrence had actually taken place, and; in his presence ransom was not paid to Binod Singh. PW-5 is another witness who had gone to Dagra and to whom Ravindra Kumar Singh said that Raj Kumar Singh, Tufani, Raju, Bishundeo and Uday had abducted them and Raj Kumar Singh had fired at him. He has further stated that on enquiry Ravindra Kumar Singh told him that Roshan Singh was killed. In his cross-examination, he has affirmed that Ravindra Kumar Singh and Roshan Singh left home in his presence and that Roshan Singh was living with Babuwa Jee with whom he was also staying. He has further stated that on enquiry Ravindra Kumar Singh told him that Roshan Singh was killed. In his cross-examination, he has affirmed that Ravindra Kumar Singh and Roshan Singh left home in his presence and that Roshan Singh was living with Babuwa Jee with whom he was also staying. With reference to his statement that he overheard the conversation when a call came to Babuwa Jee, he was cross-examined by the defence and he has stated that his statement in the Court is based on the information’s given by Ravindra Kumar Singh and also whatever he has seen himself. However, it appears that he did not tell the police that Ravindra Kumar Singh had revealed name of the accused who had fired at him. PW-6 is a neighbour of Babuwa Jee and he has stated in the Court that Ravindra Kumar Singh and Roshan Singh had gone to Chak-Manatu for arranging labourer. From Babuwa Jee he came to know that Ravindra Kumar Singh and Roshan Singh were abducted for ransom of Rupees Fifty Lacs and that the ransom amount was to be paid to Binod Singh. He has further stated that the ransom amount was paid to Binod Singh by Pappu Pandit. When an information came to Vikash Kumar Singh that Ravindra Kumar Singh was lying injured in the forest he had also gone there and seen Ravindra Kumar Singh drenched in blood with firearm injury on his left temple. He has further stated that Ravindra Kumar Singh told him that Raj Kumar Singh, Tufani, Uday Singh and Bishundeo Singh had abducted him and Roshan Singh and injured, him. He has admitted in his cross-examination that in his presence ransom was not paid to Binod Singh and he was not a, witness to abduction and firing. PW-7, Pappu Pandit who was working as Munshi of Babuwa Jee has deposed in the Court that Babuwa Jee gave him Rupees Twenty thousand and after he delivered the ransom money Binod Singh assured him that Ravindra Kumar Singh and Roshan Singh would be released. The victim who has examined himself as PW-8 has given a graphic description of abduction, demand of ransom and assault; and PW-9, his brother, has reproduced his fardbeyan in the Court. 6. PW-10, Dr. The victim who has examined himself as PW-8 has given a graphic description of abduction, demand of ransom and assault; and PW-9, his brother, has reproduced his fardbeyan in the Court. 6. PW-10, Dr. Rajesh Agarwal has found the following injuries on the person of Ravindra Kumar Singh @ Chhotu: (i) Lacerated wound at the occipital part of head 3"x ½" x ½" (ii) Lacerated wound at the left side of the face behind the ear 2" x ½" x ½" (iii) Lacerated wound at the left side of chest below clavicle 2 ½" x ½" x ½". 7. The learned trial Judge has by an elaborate judgment convicted the appellants under sections 364-A/34, 307/34 and 324/34 IPC-Raj Kumar Singh @ Ajay was convicted also under section 27 of the Arms Act. Though we do not concur with the learned trial Judge on applicability of section 34 IPC insofar as conviction of Binod Singh under sections 307/34 and 324/34 IPC is concerned, we accord our approval to the findings recorded by him on involvement of all the appellants in abduction of Ravindra Kumar Singh and Roshan Singh for ransom. 8. The learned trial Judge has held as under: "7. Under the facts and circumstances of the case and after close examination of oral and documentary evidences as discussed above, I am of the considered view that the accused persons namely, Binod Singh, Uday singh @ Birendra Singh, Bishundeo Singh and Raj Kumar Singh @ Ajay @ Tigga in furtherance of their common intention in between 04.07.2010 to 06.07.2010 at village Dagra Pahari, P.S Naudiha Bazar, District-Palamau have committed an offence to wit, abduction of Ravindra Kr. Singh @ Chhotu and Roshan Singh and kept them in detention after such abduction and threatened to cause death and compel them to pay a ransom and assaulted Ravindra Singh @ Chhotu by inflicting injuries by means of firearms and Tanga with such intention and knowledge and under such circumstance, that if by that act they had caused the death of said Ravindra Kr. Singh @ Chhotu, they would have been guilty of murder and for that unlawful purpose, Raj Kumar Singh @ Ajay @ Tigga had used firearm. Singh @ Chhotu, they would have been guilty of murder and for that unlawful purpose, Raj Kumar Singh @ Ajay @ Tigga had used firearm. The broad facts and circumstances of the case would lead me to hold that the accused persons have committed an offence u/s 364A/34, 307/34, 324/34 of IPC as levelled against them and accused Ajay @ Raj Kumar Singh has also committed an offence under section 27(1) of the Arms Act. Therefore, the accused persons namely, Binod Singh, Uday Singh @ Birendra Singh, Bishundeo Singh and Raj Kumar Singh @ Ajay @ Tigga are found guilty for the offence u/s 364A/34, 307/34, 324/34 of IPC and accused Ajay @ Raj Kumar Singh is further found guilty for the offence under section 27(1) of the Arms Act and accordingly, they are convicted. The accused persons Binod Singh, Uday Singh @ Birendra Singh, Bishundeo Singh and Raj Kumar Singh @ Ajay @ Tigga are acquitted of the charge u/s 384/34 and 386/34 of the IPC and accused persons namely, Binod Singh, Uday Singh @ Birendra Singh, Bishundeo Singh are acquitted u/s 27(1) of the Arms Act." 9. In Criminal Appeal (D.B) No.499 of 2016, Binod Singh is the appellant and the other convicts, namely, Uday Singh @ Birendra Singh, Bishundeo Singh and Raj Kumar Singh @ Ajay @ Tigga have preferred Criminal Appeal (D.B) No.503 of 2016. The main contention of the appellants is that the victim is not a reliable witness and on material parts his testimony is not supported by other witnesses who have portrayed the incident on the basis of his information. The argument is that the victim has suppressed the real reason and genesis behind the occurrence and his testimony is so full of inconsistencies and contradictions that it is best to discard his evidence. Mr. Neil Abhijit Toppo, the learned counsel has relied on the decision in Bhimapa Chandappa Hosamani v. State of Karnataka, (2006) 11 SCC 323 to fortify his contention. 10. PW-4, PW-5 and PW-9 are relatives of the victim but they are not the eyewitnesses. PW-1, PW-2 and PW-6 are the independent witnesses and they have also not seen abduction and assault upon Ravindra Kumar Singh and Roshan Singh. 10. PW-4, PW-5 and PW-9 are relatives of the victim but they are not the eyewitnesses. PW-1, PW-2 and PW-6 are the independent witnesses and they have also not seen abduction and assault upon Ravindra Kumar Singh and Roshan Singh. Their testimony is important for the prosecution and we have no reason to think that these witnesses, some from another village, have come to the Court to give false evidence against the appellants. There is some discrepancy in the testimony of PW-3, PW-4, PW-5 and PW-6 who have not stated about involvement of all the appellants in the occurrence, but inconsistency in their evidence on this point is not material because on involvement of the appellants in the occurrence the victim himself has testified in the Court. Ravindra Kumar Singh has levelled specific allegation of complicity of all the appellants and described their respective roles in the occurrence. The testimony of PW-3, PW-4, PW-5 and PW-6 to whom Ravindra Kumar Singh has narrated the incident is corroborative in nature, relevant under section 157 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The corroborative value of their evidence lie in the fact that their statements before the police provided a live-link in the chain of events and lend support to the injured victim. PW-8, Ravindra Kumar Singh who is the surviving victim has narrated the story how he was misled and taken inside the forest by Raj Kumar Singh on a pretext of searching for labourers. He has deposed in the Court that inside the forest Raju, Uday, Bishundeo and Tufani joined Raj Kumar Singh, they tied him and Roshan Singh and told him that they would be released after paying Rupees Twenty Lacs. They forced him to talk to Babuwa Jee whom he asked to pay Rupees Twenty Lacs as ransom to the abductors and when Babuwa Jee expressed his inability to pay such huge amount, after negotiation the abductors agreed for Rs.20,000/-. The next day morning, PW-7 paid Rs.20,000/- to Binod Singh who then called Raj Kumar Singh and confirmed the payment. PW-8 has further stated that Raj Kumar Singh told Uday Singh that they should kill us because we had recognised them, and then, Raj Kumar Singh and Bishundeo Singh fired at Roshan Singh; Uday assaulted Roshan Singh on his leg; Raj Kumar Singh fired at him, and; Bishundeo hit him with a tanga. 11. PW-8 has further stated that Raj Kumar Singh told Uday Singh that they should kill us because we had recognised them, and then, Raj Kumar Singh and Bishundeo Singh fired at Roshan Singh; Uday assaulted Roshan Singh on his leg; Raj Kumar Singh fired at him, and; Bishundeo hit him with a tanga. 11. The appellants were not known to PW-8 and he has deposed in the Court that he could gather name of the other abductors from their talks - Raj Kumar Singh was known to him. There may be several persons of the same name and it would be hazardous to identify a person with his name alone, but what is significant to note in this case is that the appellants were named in the fardbeyan and during the investigation their identity was established. Above all, PW-8 has identified the abductors in the dock as the persons who had abducted him and Roshan Singh. As a general rule the Court may act on the testimony of a single eyewitness to convict a person. In Namdeo v. State of Maharashtra, (2007) 14 SCC 150 the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that the Indian legal system does not insist on plurality of witness and it is open to a competent Court to fully and completely rely on a solitary eyewitness to record conviction. The law on identification of an accused for the first time in the Court is also well settled. The identification of an accused by a witness for the first time in the Court is considered a weak piece of evidence which should not be made basis for conviction of the accused without corroboration, unless the testimony of a solitary eyewitness is found cogent, consistent and convincing and it does not suffer from inherent improbability or inconsistency. It has been held that the identification parade or other evidence to the identification of an unknown accused is a rule of prudence and not an absolute rule. PW-8 has identified the appellants by face - face recognition is one of the recognized modes of identification of an accused. It is well accepted that physical features such as eyes, ears, lips and other features of the face are safe guides for identifying the accused. PW-8 has clearly stated that Raj Kumar Singh and Bishundeo Singh had fired at Roshan Singh and Uday Singh severed his leg. It is well accepted that physical features such as eyes, ears, lips and other features of the face are safe guides for identifying the accused. PW-8 has clearly stated that Raj Kumar Singh and Bishundeo Singh had fired at Roshan Singh and Uday Singh severed his leg. He has further stated that Raj Kumar Singh fired at his temple and Bishundeo Singh struck a tanga blow on him. He has admitted in his cross-examination that he was related to Babuwa Jee and staying with him; there is forest around Dagra, and; the abductors did not demand ransom from him rather they forced him to ask Babuwa Jee to pay ransom. On a suggestion by the defence why he did not intervene when Roshan Singh was assaulted, he has clarified that at that moment his hands and feet were tied and Roshan Singh was assaulted at a distance of about Twenty feet from him. The testimony of a victim of the crime should be accepted true and sufficient to record conviction of the accused, provided his evidence does not suffer from any infirmity or surrounded by suspicious circumstances. The intrinsic truthfulness in the testimony of PW-8 is reflected in the natural flow of his evidence. Some inconsistencies which have transpired in his testimony must be taken as normal abrasions in his evidence and there is no reason to approach his testimony with doubt. In his evidence, PW-8 has stated that Roshan Singh was assaulted and after he regained conscious he found him dead - the dead body of Roshan Singh has not been recovered. Ravindra Kumar Singh was a victim of abduction for ransom who must have undergone frightful moments fearing for his life while in confinement of the abductors. The bizarre happenings on 4th and 5th July 2010 would have generated diverse emotions in his mind and it is not unnatural that he would imagine a situation which he might not have actually seen. We would say that his statement that he saw the dead body of Roshan Singh is a stray statement made in the Court, which does not lead to anywhere. 12. Some argument was made on delay in registration of the First Information Report to contend that the actual manner of occurrence was suppressed by the prosecution and after due deliberations the appellants were implicated in the case. 12. Some argument was made on delay in registration of the First Information Report to contend that the actual manner of occurrence was suppressed by the prosecution and after due deliberations the appellants were implicated in the case. The importance of prompt lodging of an information with the police about commission of a crime cannot be undermined but at the same time this should be well remembered that the prosecution is not required to explain every kind of delay which might have occasioned on account of distance to the police station, hostile weather, relatives waiting return of the victim or any other cause of a similar kind. In Lalita Kumari v. Govt. of U.P. (2014) 2 SCC 1 the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed : "the object sought to be achieved by registering the earliest information as FIR is inter alia twofold : one, that the criminal process is set into motion and is well documented from the very start; and second, that the earliest information received in relation to the commission of a cognizable offence is recorded so that there cannot be any embellishment, etc. later". Ravindra Kumar Singh and Roshan Singh were abducted on 04.07.2010 and a demand for ransom was made the same evening. Next day, PW-7 has delivered the ransom money to Binod Singh who assured him that Ravindra Kumar Singh and Roshan Singh would be released. The family was apparently waiting their return. Next day, Ravindra Kumar Singh was found in injured condition and it was on the information disclosed by him that his brother gave the fardbeyan to the police at 14:30 hrs. the same day. The aforesaid events after Ravindra Kumar Singh and Roshan Singh were abducted clearly indicate why a report with the police was not made on the same day. In our opinion, there was no delay in lodging the First Information Report. In State of UP v. Nahar Singh, (1998) 3 SCC 561 a plea was raised that there was no explanation by the prosecution for delay in lodging the First Information Report. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed that in the absence of cross-examination on the explanation of delay the Court ought to have believed and accepted evidence of the witness. In State of UP v. Nahar Singh, (1998) 3 SCC 561 a plea was raised that there was no explanation by the prosecution for delay in lodging the First Information Report. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed that in the absence of cross-examination on the explanation of delay the Court ought to have believed and accepted evidence of the witness. Section 146 of the Evidence Act provides an opportunity to the defence to question a witness to test his veracity and to shake his credit by injuring his character. One remarkable feature of this case is that the prosecution witnesses were not cross-examined by the defence on material aspects of the case. There was no cross-examination on the delay in registration of the First Information Report, abduction of Ravindra Kumar Singh and Roshan Singh for ransom, assault upon them and, more importantly, presence of the prosecution witnesses at the time and place when they found Ravindra Kumar Singh in injured condition and he narrated the incident to them. 13. The defence set up by the accused persons as reflected in the cross-examination of PW-3, PW-4, PW-5, PW-6 and PW-8 is twofold; (i) Roshan Singh has assaulted Ravindra Kumar Singh and fled away, and alternatively (ii) there was a fight between Ravindra Kumar Singh and Roshan Singh in which Roshan Singh died and Ravindra Kumar Singh was severely injured. PW-5 who is the cousin brother of victim has stated that on 05.07.2010 Ravindra Kumar Singh and Roshan Singh had left home for Manatu and in the night a ransom call came to Babuwa Jee. He has further stated that Pappu Pandit gave Rs.20,000/- to Binod Singh who in turn assured him that the abductees would return home by the evening and on the next day morning a call came to Vikash Kumar Singh that Ravindra Kumar Singh was lying injured in the forest. If the defence set up by the accused that it was Roshan Singh who assaulted Ravindra Kumar Singh and gone into hiding is to be accepted, there is no answer why Ravindra Kumar Singh and his family would not reveal identity of the assailant. Ravindra Kumar Singh was found lying injured in the forest by PW-l and PW-2 and on his disclosing his own identity an information was given to Vikas Kumar Singh. Ravindra Kumar Singh was found lying injured in the forest by PW-l and PW-2 and on his disclosing his own identity an information was given to Vikas Kumar Singh. The injuries on Ravindra Kumar Singh as would appear from the medical evidence were grievous and his condition was quite serious. He was first taken to Sub-Divisional Hospital, Chhatarpur and thereafter to Singh Medical at Varanasi where he was treated for about 18 days. Keeping in mind these circumstances, even assuming that under pressure of the family and friends Ravindra Kumar Singh has suppressed complicity of Roshan Singh, it is difficult to conceive that so many independent witnesses such as PW-l, PW-2, PW-3 and PW-6 would have agreed to give false evidence against the appellants. The alternative situation suggested by the defence that in the fight between Ravindra Kumar Singh and Roshan Singh, due to some family dispute, Roshan Singh was murdered by Ravindra Kumar Singh also seems impossible. Given the serious nature of the injuries suffered by Ravindra Kumar Singh, the defence has not suggested how he could have caused disappearance of the dead body of Roshan Singh. There was no suggestion by the defence to the investigating officer that he conspired with Ravindra Kumar Singh and helped him fabricate a false story of abduction for ransom and murderous assault. The defence set up by the accused was extravagant and fanciful. In a criminal trial, it is not necessary that the prosecution must have answered every hypothesis of innocence of the accused howsoever improbable it may be. 14. No doubt, the prosecution is required to produce cogent, clear and sufficient evidence to prove the guilt of an accused beyond reasonable doubt and the burden never shifts on the accused to prove his innocence. The position in law was explained by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Shambhu Nath Mehra v. State of Ajmer, AIR 1956 SC 404 by an illustration. The Court has observed : "if the sections were to be interpreted otherwise, it would lead to the very startling conclusion that in a murder case the burden lies on the accused to prove that he did not commit the murder because who could know better than he whether he did or did not". The Court has observed : "if the sections were to be interpreted otherwise, it would lead to the very startling conclusion that in a murder case the burden lies on the accused to prove that he did not commit the murder because who could know better than he whether he did or did not". It was held that section 106 of the Evidence Act cannot be construed in a manner to mean that the burden lies on an accused person to show that he did not commit the crime for which he was tried. But there is one exception to the general rule where section 106 of the Evidence Act comes into play and a reverse burden would lie on the accused. An opportunity is provided to the accused when he is examined under section 313 CrPC to put forth a probable and acceptable defence excluding his involvement in the crime and to explain the incriminating circumstances proved by the prosecution against him. In Munish Mubar v. State of Haryana, (2012) 10 SCC 464 the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that it is obligatory on the part of accused when he is examined under section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to furnish some explanation with respect to the incriminating circumstances associated with him. In yet another decision, in Phula Singh v. State of HP, (2014) 4 SCC 9 the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed that : "if the accused has been given the freedom to remain silent during the investigation as well as before the Court, then the accused may chose to maintain silence or even remain in complete denial when his statement under section 313 CrPC is being recorded. However in such an event, the Court would be entitled to draw an inference, including such adverse inference against the accused as may be permissible in accordance with law". The examination of the appellants under section 313 CrPC is not wholly satisfactory but it is not perfunctory also. The important incriminating circumstances relied upon by the prosecution were put to them. With respect to some of the materials which were not brought to their notice, they have not shown any prejudice caused to them by not attracting their attention to a piece of evidence. The trial was conducted in their presence, the charges were spelt out clearly and the witnesses were fully cross-examined by the defence. With respect to some of the materials which were not brought to their notice, they have not shown any prejudice caused to them by not attracting their attention to a piece of evidence. The trial was conducted in their presence, the charges were spelt out clearly and the witnesses were fully cross-examined by the defence. A plea of violation of the principles of fair trial is not available to them and we hold that in the trial no prejudice was caused to the appellants. In the present case, a burden lies on the appellants to say what has happened to Roshan Singh after his abduction. In "Sucha Singh v. State of Punjab, (2001) 4 SCC 375 ” the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that the abductors alone could tell the Court as to what happened to the deceased after the abduction and if such information is withheld from the Court there is every justification for drawing an inference that the abductors are the murderers of the deceased. 15. The cross-examination of the investigating officer reflects that investigation in the case was sloppy and at times perfunctory. The investigating officer has not collected some important evidences which would have further strengthened the prosecution case. A call detail report to establish that calls were made on mobile phone nos. 9204441465 9470379895, 9798111590, 8009908381 and 9431752769 was obtained and laid in evidence vide Exhibit-5 but the mobile phones were not seized. Binod Singh made a confirmation call to Raj Kumar Singh which was not established and he was not present when the other appellants forced Ravindra Kumar Singh to make a call to Babuwa Jee for paying ransom. No one has seen Binod Singh receiving the ransom amount and PW-7 has admitted in the Court that at the time when Babuwa Jee gave him Rs.20,000/- and he delivered the money to Binod Singh no one was present there. Mr. Surendra Prasad Sinha, the learned counsel for Binod Singh has contended that in the aforesaid circumstances Binod Singh cannot be convicted either under section 364-A IPC or section 307 IPC. 16. The offence of kidnapping for ransom as defined under section 364-A IPC is attracted when it is proved that the accused kidnapped or abducted the person; kept him under detention after such kidnapping or abduction, and; the kidnapping or abduction was for ransom. 17. 16. The offence of kidnapping for ransom as defined under section 364-A IPC is attracted when it is proved that the accused kidnapped or abducted the person; kept him under detention after such kidnapping or abduction, and; the kidnapping or abduction was for ransom. 17. Section 364-A of the Indian Penal Code reads as under : "364-A. Kidnapping for ransom, etc.- Whoever kidnaps or abducts any person or keeps a person in detention after such kidnapping or abduction and threatens to cause death or hurt to such person, or by his conduct gives rise to a reasonable apprehension that such person may be put to death or hurt, or causes hurt or death to such person in order to compel the Government or any foreign State or international inter-governmental 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". 18. In the following manner, the learned trial Judge has dealt with the evidence of PW-7 and PW-8 on payment of ransom : "6 …………..The evidence of PW-8 Ravindra Singh regarding the payment of ransom amount to Binod Singh finds support by the evidence of PW-7 Pappu Pandit who has categorically stated that he was provided money by Bauwa Ji who instructed him to pay the said amount to Binod Singh of village Rudwa at his house and asked as to when Chhotu Singh would be relieved. This witness has further stated that he had made payment at the house of Binod Singh to Binod Singh and Binod Singh had confirmed to the assailants that he had received money and this witness again visited at the house of Binod Singh and asked about Ravindra Singh and Roshan Singh. Binod Singh had assured that they would come but in the next morning an information received on the mobile of Babuwa Ji that Ravindra Singh had sustained firearm injury and was lying in the jungle. This witness in his cross-examination has confirmed that he has made payment of Rs. 20, 000/- to Binoel Singh." 19. PW-7 and PW-8 are the witnesses who were directly involved in demand and payment of ransom - PW-8 is the victim. Ravindra Kumar Singh and Roshan Singh were taken inside the forest by the accused persons. This witness in his cross-examination has confirmed that he has made payment of Rs. 20, 000/- to Binoel Singh." 19. PW-7 and PW-8 are the witnesses who were directly involved in demand and payment of ransom - PW-8 is the victim. Ravindra Kumar Singh and Roshan Singh were taken inside the forest by the accused persons. The offence of "abduction" as defined under section 362 IPC provides that if a person is induced by any deceitful means to go from any place it would amount to abduction. They were tied and confined inside the forest and threatened to pay ransom. Under the threat, Ravindra Kumar Singh had called Babuwa Jee and asked him to pay ransom and Pappu Pandit has paid Rs.20,000/- to Binod Singh at village Rudwa. The evidence of Ravindra Kumar Singh alone is sufficient to hold the appellants guilty under section 364-A IPC. On his abduction and demand of ransom, the kind of evidence he has tendered leaves no room for any doubt and that in itself is sufficient to record conviction of the appellants under section 364-A IPC without any corroboration though-there is ample independent evidence to corroborate his version of the occurrence. PW-7 was working as Munshi under Babuwa Jee and his evidence in the cross-examination that he was staying in the house of Babuwa Jee is quite significant to test the veracity of his evidence. He is a truthful witness who has fairly admitted in his cross-examination that no one was present at the time of payment of ransom money to Binod Singh. His evidence on payment of ransom money to Binod Singh is sufficiently corroborated by other prosecution witnesses who have also spoken about demand and payment of ransom money - the victim has clearly stated in his evidence that he was forced to make call to Babuwa Jee for ransom. PW-9 who lodged a report with the police and the other witnesses have stated that Babuwa Jee told them about the abduction and demand of Rupees Twenty Lacs as ransom, and payment of Rs.20,000/- to Binod Singh through Pappu Pandit. Babuwa Jee was not produced during the trial and therefore evidence on demand of Rupees Twenty Lacs is hearsay to some extent. Babuwa Jee was not produced during the trial and therefore evidence on demand of Rupees Twenty Lacs is hearsay to some extent. Even so, what the other prosecution witnesses have stated about abduction, demand of ransom and payment to Binod Singh are consistent with the testimony of PW-9 and later part of his testimony that a call came to Vikash Kumar Singh and he had gone to village Dagra along with others and rescued his brother are completely in tune with evidence of the other prosecution witnesses. Another issue which was highlighted by the learned counsels for the appellants is that there is no direct evidence to confirm that the victim informed Babuwa Jee about abduction and asked him to pay ransom. True, to that extent the evidence of PW-4, PW-5, PW-6, PW-7 and PW-9 can be said to be hearsay but this gap in the prosecution case would not affect credibility of the case against the appellants that they abducted Ravindra Kumar Singh and Roshan Singh, demanded ransom and assaulted them. The contents of the ransom call made to Babuwa Jee cannot be said to be proved but Babuwa Jee received a call from Ravindra Kumar Singh is established as a fact from the evidence of PW-4, PW-5, PW-6, PW-7, PW-8 and PW-9 [refer, Subramaniam v. Public Prosecutor, (1956) 1 WLR 965 : "Evidence of a statement made to a witness who is not himself called as a witness mayor may not be hearsay. It is hearsay and inadmissible when the object of the evidence is to establish the truth of what is contained in the statement. It is not hearsay and is admissible when it is proposed to establish by the evidence, not the truth of the statement but the fact that it was made. The fact that it was made quite apart from its truth, is frequently relevant in considering the mental state and conduct thereafter of the witness or some other persons in whose presence these statements were made."]. There is no suggestion by the defence that Ravindra Kumar Singh and Roshan Singh had any animosity with any of the accused persons. Except Raj Kumar Singh, others were unknown to Ravindra Kumar Singh and the other prosecution witnesses and the investigating officer also had no reason to falsely implicate the appellants in the case. There is no suggestion by the defence that Ravindra Kumar Singh and Roshan Singh had any animosity with any of the accused persons. Except Raj Kumar Singh, others were unknown to Ravindra Kumar Singh and the other prosecution witnesses and the investigating officer also had no reason to falsely implicate the appellants in the case. In the cross-examination, the prosecution witnesses have stood to their grounds and their evidence that Ravindra Kumar Singh and Roshan Singh had left home on 04.07.2010 for Manatu where Raj Kumar Singh had arranged labourers; that PW-1 and PW-2 did find Ravindra Kumar Singh in the forest, and; that PW-3, PW-4, PW-5, PW-6 and PW-9 had visited village Dagra and picked up the injured Ravindra Kumar Singh, has remained intact. As held in Malleshi v. State of Karnataka, (2004) 8 SCC 95 , the offence of abduction is a continuing offence. In abduction/kidnapping several persons may be involved each playing their own assigned role and there can be no definite manner how the demand has to be made and who pays the ransom is not a determinative fact. The abduction of Ravindra Kumar Singh and Roshan Singh for ransom was executed in a planned manner and Binod Singh who was acting as a conduit has received the ransom amount. After payment of ransom money, he had called Raj Kumar Singh and assured PW-7 that the abductees would be released soon. In Birbal Choudhary v. State of Bihar, (2018) 12 SCC 440 the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that the person who has received ransom amount is equally liable under section 364-A IPC. We find that there is abundance of connecting materials from which complicity of Binod Singh in the occurrence is fully established. It was contended that the intention to murder cannot be inferred on the part of the appellants and it is difficult to accept that after receiving the ransom money they would have left Ravindra Kumar Singh alive had they intended to destroy evidence against them. The prosecution witnesses have seen injuries on Ravindra Kumar Singh and the doctor who has examined him found three lacerated injuries on him, one was on the occipital region. Though in his cross-examination the doctor has stated that he did not find any injury on the temporal region, the evidence of Ravindra Kumar Singh is very clear on this aspect. The prosecution witnesses have seen injuries on Ravindra Kumar Singh and the doctor who has examined him found three lacerated injuries on him, one was on the occipital region. Though in his cross-examination the doctor has stated that he did not find any injury on the temporal region, the evidence of Ravindra Kumar Singh is very clear on this aspect. He has stated that Raj Kumar Singh suggested that the abductees should be killed because they were identified. He has further stated that after receiving the gunshot and tanga blow he fell on the ground and closed his eyes and that was the reason the abductors thinking that he had died left him at the place of occurrence. The appellants present there had done their best. 20. However, on the prosecution's own evidence Binod Singh cannot be convicted for the offence of attempt to murder or for voluntarily causing hurt by dangerous weapon, with the aid of section 34 IPC. He was not present at the place of occurrence when Ravindra Kumar Singh and Roshan Singh were assaulted by the others and there is no evidence on record that there was a prior meeting of mind between Binod Singh and the other appellants. To rope in an accused with the aid of section 34 IPC, it must be established by cogent evidence that he shared common intention and at the time when the final act was accomplished he was there, may be not at the actual spot. In Surendra Chauhan v. State of MP., (2000) 4 SCC 110 the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that under section 34 IPC a person must be physically present at the actual commission of the crime for the purpose of facilitating or promoting the offence, the commission of which is the aim of the joint criminal venture. The law on the applicability of section 34 IPC was delineated in Shreekantiah Ramayya Munipalli v. State of Bombay, AIR 1955 SC 287 wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed as under: "23. …….The essence of the misdirection consists in his direction to the jury that even though a person "may not be present when the offence is actually committed" and even if he remains "behind the screen" he can be convicted under section 34 provided it is proved that the offence was committed in furtherance of the common intention. …….The essence of the misdirection consists in his direction to the jury that even though a person "may not be present when the offence is actually committed" and even if he remains "behind the screen" he can be convicted under section 34 provided it is proved that the offence was committed in furtherance of the common intention. This is wrong, for it is the essence of the section that the person must be physically present at the actual commission of the crime. He need not be present in the actual room; he can, for instance, stand guard by a gate outside ready to warn his companions about any approach of danger or wait in a car on a nearby road ready to facilitate their escape, but he must be physically present at the scene of the occurrence and must actually participate in the commission of the offence in some way or other at the time the crime is actually being committed……" 21. Finally, we would conclude the discussion with an observation that silence of the appellants during examination under section 313 CrPC to the incriminating materials put to them would seal their fate. The involvement of the appellants in the occurrence to the extent indicated hereinabove is clearly brought out in the prosecution evidence and the charge under section 364-A/34 IPC is established against all the appellants beyond any reasonable doubt. The charges under section 307/34 and 324/34 IPC are also proved against the appellants, namely, Raj Kumar Singh @ Ajay @ Tigga, Bishundeo Singh and Uday Singh @ Birendra Singh. Though the firearm was not recovered and the medical witness has not rendered an opinion on the nature of the firearm used, we find that the prosecution evidence is sufficient to hold Raj Kumar Singh @ Ajay @ Tigga guilty under section 27 of the Arms Act. 22. In the result, the conviction and sentence of Binod Singh under sections 307/34 and 324/34 IPC are set-aside while maintaining his conviction under section 364-A/34 IPC and, accordingly, Criminal Appeal (D.B.) No.499 of 2016 is partly allowed, however, Criminal Appeal (D.B.) No. 503 of 2016 is dismissed. 23. Let a copy of the judgment be transmitted to the Court concerned and the concerned Jail Superintendent. 24. Let the lower Court records be sent to the Court concerned forthwith. 23. Let a copy of the judgment be transmitted to the Court concerned and the concerned Jail Superintendent. 24. Let the lower Court records be sent to the Court concerned forthwith. Ratnaker Bhengra, J.- I agree Appeal No. 499/16 partly allowed and Appeal No. 513/16 dismissed