JUDGMENT Uday Umesh Lalit, J. - Leave granted. 2. This appeal challenges the final judgment and order dated 21.10.2020 passed by the High Court of Jharkhand at Ranchi in Criminal Appeal (DB) No.882 of 2012. 3. In the instant case, crime was registered pursuant to First Information Report No.148/2011 dated 12.03.2011 lodged with Sadar Police Station, District Hazaribagh, Jharkhand in respect of offence punishable under Section 364-A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 ("IPC" for short). 4. The crime was registered pursuant to the statement made by Vivek Vinayaka (PW1). The relevant portion of the statement was as under: "I give my statement voluntarily before the Sadar Police Station Incharge (Station House Officer) that Dr. Lalit Jain son of Late Gopi Lal Jain, resident of Subhash Marg, Police Station Sadar, District H. Bagh is my uncle. For the last number of years, at about 4.30 a.m. he used to go at a Lake for walk. Today i.e. on 11.3.11 in the morning, Dr. Lalit Jain, aged about 56 years, left the home at about 5 a.m. for walk at a Beach (Lake). We waited for him upto 7 a.m. When he did not return at home, we his family members, started enquiring from his friends etc. On enquiry it was learnt that today my uncle did not meet the persons with whom he used to walk. Relatives were also contacted but his whereabouts remained untraceable. At about 8.45 and 9.40 two phone calls were received from my uncle Lalit Jain's Mobile No. 9955500606, made by his kidnappers, on residence phone number 225019, according to which kidnappers have kidnapped Dr. Lalit Jain for ransom and the amount of Rs. 20 lakh (Rupees Twenty lakhs only) has been demanded by the kidnappers. Kidnappers made us to talk with uncle Lalit Jain on his mobile phone, during which uncle told that I am still alive and in pain. Kidnappers have threatened that in case the amount of ransom of Rs. twenty lakh is not paid, Dr. Lalit Jain will be killed. Uncle told on phone that at the time, he left the home in the morning, kidnappers forcibly took him in a vehicle and kidnapped him. We request the police administration that he may be got released without any harm to him." 5. On the same day, Dr. Lalit Jain was released from captivity. 6. Lalit Jain will be killed. Uncle told on phone that at the time, he left the home in the morning, kidnappers forcibly took him in a vehicle and kidnapped him. We request the police administration that he may be got released without any harm to him." 5. On the same day, Dr. Lalit Jain was released from captivity. 6. During the course of investigation, statements of one Masood Naiyyar (later examined as PW3 in the trial) and Dr. Lalit Jain (later examined as PW2 in the trial)) were recorded under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973("the Code" for short) on 14.03.2011 and 07.04.2011 respectively. 7. After completion of investigation, four accused persons, namely, Md. Raju, Md. Aslam, Babloo @ Manoj Kumar and Md. Noor were tried for the offence punishable under Section 364-A of the IPC in Sessions Trial No.556 of 2011 on the file of the 3rd Additional Sessions Judge, Hazaribag. 8. The prosecution examined Vivek Vinayaka, the informant, as PW1. His examination did not deal with anything substantial either as regards the identity of the accused involved or with regard to any other important facet of the matter. The victim Dr. Lalit Jain was examined as PW2. In his examination-in-chief, he stated that while he was held captive, the accused were referring to each other by certain names, namely, Noor, Aslam, Sonu and Babloo. However, in his cross-examination, the witness accepted that he had not seen the faces of the accused. Masood Naiyyar, who was examined as PW3, did not support the prosecution case. He went to the extent of denying having made any statement under Section 164 of the Code. He did not recognize or identify any of the accused. The Judicial Magistrates who had recorded the statements of PW2 Dr. Lalit Jain and PW3 Masood Naiyyar were independently examined as PWs 4 and 5 in the trial. 9. Considering the evidence on record, the Trial Court by its judgment and order dated 14.08.2012 found all the four accused to be guilty under Section 364-A of the IPC and by subsequent order dated 16.08.2012, the Trial Court imposed the punishment of rigorous imprisonment for life with imposition of fine in the sum of Rs. 5000/-, in default whereof the accused were directed to undergo further rigorous imprisonment of three months. 10. 5000/-, in default whereof the accused were directed to undergo further rigorous imprisonment of three months. 10. Being aggrieved, the convicted accused preferred four different criminals appeals including Criminal Appeal (DB) No.882 of 2012 preferred by the present appellant. 11. The High Court affirmed the order of conviction and sentence passed by the Trial Court and dismissed the appeals. While dealing with the submission that PW2 Dr. Lalit Jain had not identified any of the accused, the High Court observed as under:- "Next it was contended that PW-2 did not tell the name of the abductors when he called home and to the police immediately after his release. This submission has been made overlooking the fact that PW-2 made calls to home for arranging the ransom amount at the instance of the abductors and in their presence he could not have revealed their identity. Though conduct of PW-2 was not natural, there is no rule of law that only the unusual behaviour of a witness of a crime is enough to reject his evidence. PW-2 was sick and he was released by the abductors showing some sympathy on him on a bargain that he would pay the ransom amount. He must have been in a terrible state of mind and, therefore, it is not unusual and surprising thathe did not disclose name of the abductors to the police soon after his return to home. He had just saved his life, many things might have been going through his mind and thinking about his next course of action. It is quite natural that he would not rush to the police and tell the name of the abductors." 12. In this appeal preferred by the original accused no.2, we have heard Mr. Ansar Ahmad Chaudhary, learned counsel in support of the appeal, and Mr. Rajiv Shankar Dvivedi, learned counsel for the State. 13. Mr. Chaudhary, learned counsel for the appellant submits;- "a. The victim had not identified any of the accused. Even in his statement under Section 164 of the Code, no assertion to that effect was made and the witness accepted in his cross-examination that all the while the faces of the accused were covered. b. PW3 Masood Naiyyar did not support the case of the prosecution and, as such, the theory that it was in his car that Dr. Even in his statement under Section 164 of the Code, no assertion to that effect was made and the witness accepted in his cross-examination that all the while the faces of the accused were covered. b. PW3 Masood Naiyyar did not support the case of the prosecution and, as such, the theory that it was in his car that Dr. Lalit Jain was forcibly taken by the accused, could not be supported by any material on record. c. PW3 Masood Naiyyar also did not recognize any of the accused. d. No Test Identification Parade was conducted. e. The car which was allegedly used for forcibly taking PW2 Dr. Lalit Jain was never produced during trial. 14. Mr. Rajiv Shankar Dvivedi, learned counsel for the State on the other hand submits that the entire matter wasconsidered by the High Court in great detail and the concurrent view taken by the Trial Court and the High Court did not call for any interference. 15. The material on record clearly indicates the complete failure on part of the prosecution witnesses to identify the assailants. The important witness, going by the case of the prosecution, would have been PW3 Masood Naiyyar. According to the prosecution, it was his car that was used by the accused in the instant crime. He did not support the case of the prosecution. The car was not produced before the Trial Court at any stage. There was nothing on record to establish that PW2 Dr. Lalit Jain was in captivity of the accused. The explanation given by the High Court, as quoted above, in the absence of any identification by the witness does not carry the matter further. 16. There is thus nothing substantial on record which could be relied upon to return a finding of guilt against the accused. The subsidiary material, such as, certain calls stated to be ransom calls made by the accused being received by PW1 informant would not by itself be sufficient to sustain the finding of guilt against the accused. We thus give benefit of doubt to the appellant. 17. Allowing the appeal, we set-aside the judgments and orders passed by the High Court and the Trial Court and acquit the appellant of the charge levelled against him. The appellant be set at liberty forthwith unless his custody is required in connection with any other matter.