JUDGMENT : S.K. Medhi, J. The present appeals have been preferred against the common judgment and order dated 11.10.2018 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Yupia, West Sessions Divisions, Papumpare district, Arunachal Pradesh in Sessions Case No. 41/2014 (YPA) convicting the accused appellants under Section 364-A/34 of the Indian Penal Code. While Crl.Appln. No. 19 (AP) / 2018 is preferred by Shri Tapan Morang @ Topon Morang and Shri Santanu Morang, Crl.Appln. No. 01 (AP) / 2019 is preferred by Shri Rohit Morang and Shri Deep Jyoti Morang. By the impugned judgment and order, all the appellants have been convicted under Section 364-A IPC and sentenced to undergo life imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- in default of payment of fine to undergo further RI for one year. 2. Before going to the impugned judgment, the brief facts of the case may be stated in the following manner. 3. The criminal law was set into motion by lodging of an FIR before the Naharlagun Police Station on 14.10.2013 by one Koj Laji (PW 1) alleging, interalia, that one person named Rohit who was the former Counter Operator at Naharlagun had taken his Tata Sumo bearing No. AR-01-D-0608 on hire on 14.10.2010. Thereafter, he had received a call from the said Rohit on reaching Harmuti from the mobile phone of his driver stating that he had kidnapped the driver and taken away the vehicle. A demand of Rs.10,00,000/-(Rupees Ten Lacs) was made to be paid at Banderdewa, at 10:00 AM on 15.10.2013 failing which he will get dead body of driver (Mr. Mor Tapik) (PW 2). Accordingly, Naharlagun PS Case No. 129/2013 under Section 364 (A) read with 34 of the IPC was registered. 4. On receipt of the aforesaid information, a team of Police Personnel rushed to Assam and with the assistance of Assam Police of Laluk Police Station, they could apprehend accused Tapan Morang and Deep Jyoti Morang from their hideout at Meraguni and the rest of the accused namely Rohit Morang and Shantanu Morang were apprehended in Nepali Basti from where the victim Nor Tapik was also rescued and the vehicle was recovered. During the investigation it was revealed that Rohit Morang who was jobless had hatched a plan with the other accused who were from the same village to abduct a person for ransom and accordingly the present offence was committed. During the investigation it was revealed that Rohit Morang who was jobless had hatched a plan with the other accused who were from the same village to abduct a person for ransom and accordingly the present offence was committed. In the investigation, Call Data Records were also obtained to ascertain the connection between the accused persons with the offence. After investigation, charge sheet was filed thereafter the matter was committed to the learned Sessions Judge, West Sessions Division, Yupia as the offence was the Sessions triable one. Accordingly, the learned Sessions Judge framed charges which were denied by the accused persons. 5. To bring home the charges, the prosecution had adduced evidence by six numbers of witnesses. In this case, the defence side had also produced two numbers of witnesses. To examine the correctness of the impugned judgment and also as an Appellate Court, this Court is under the duty to examine the evidence afresh and re-appreciate the same if necessary. 6. The informant deposed as PW 1. He clearly stated that on 13.10.2013 Rohit Morang whom he knew from before had given a telephonic call to give his vehicle on hire which was accordingly given on 14.10.2013 at about 4:00 PM with Nor Tapik (PW 2) as the driver. However, at about 8:00 PM he had received telephone call from the mobile phone of his driver stating that the driver along with the vehicle was abducted with a demand for Rs.10,00,000/-(Rupees Ten lacs) as ransom to be paid on the following day i.e. 15.10.2013 at 11:00 AM at Banderdewa. Later, at about 3:00 PM the accused persons again called him to Laluk Tiniali and accordingly the PW 1 along with the Police Team have reached Laluk wherein certain telephonic exchange was made. As and when two of the accused persons could be met by the informant, they were arrested and taken to Laluk PS. The other two accused persons were subsequently arrested from another location. The PW 1 could identify the accused persons who were arrested and at that time Deep Jyoti Morang who was standing on the dock was identified. He further said that the Rohit Morang was not present in the Court on that day. The other two accused Tapan Morang and Santanu Morang were also identified. 7. In the cross-examination, PW 1 had denied the suggestion that the driver was himself involved in his own kidnapping. He further said that the Rohit Morang was not present in the Court on that day. The other two accused Tapan Morang and Santanu Morang were also identified. 7. In the cross-examination, PW 1 had denied the suggestion that the driver was himself involved in his own kidnapping. It was also denied that only because of the delay on account of the driver in coming back with the vehicle, the FIR was lodged. The defence had also unsuccessfully made suggestion of previous enmity of the informant with Rohit Morang. 8. PW 2 is the vital witness, who is the victim of the abduction. In his examination PW 2 had stated that he met the four accused persons for the first time and could identify them. He narrated the entire incident how after dropping the passengers at Itanagar, accused Rohit Morang asked him to come to Harmuti. After reaching Harmuti and meeting Rohit, he was asked to walked along with Rohit for some distance and was asked to handover the key of the vehicle and his mobile handset and told him that some money was due from the owner of the vehicle. Rohit then tried his hands which he had resisted. Thereafter the vehicle was driven by Rohit himself and PW 2 was made to sit on the backside along with the three other accused persons whom were identified as standing on the Dock. Thereafter, Rohit removed PW 2's clothes and covered his face. The vehicle was taken away by two other boys and PW 2 had to walk along with the accused for about an hour whereafter the cloth over his head was removed and the accused persons told that they are members of a banned organization and also informed that the owner would pay a ransom of Rs.10,00,000/-(Rupees Ten Lacs) for release of the PW 2 and that of the vehicle. He also deposed that Rohit threatened him to kill with pistol if he had tried to escape. They had spent the night at a relative place and in the morning Rohit had again called his owner regarding the money which the owner replied that he was not in a position to gather Rs.10,00,000/-(Rupees Ten Lacs). He also deposed that Rohit threatened him to kill with pistol if he had tried to escape. They had spent the night at a relative place and in the morning Rohit had again called his owner regarding the money which the owner replied that he was not in a position to gather Rs.10,00,000/-(Rupees Ten Lacs). The rest of the incident were narrated in details by PW 2 where ultimately the police had arrived and arrested the accused and took the accused along with PW 2 initially to Laluk PS and later to Naharlagun. It appears from the recording of the evidence that since Rohit Morang was not readily available in the Court, a prayer was made that if there was requirement for further identification, PW 2 may be recalled and the said prayer was granted. Though, PW 2 was cross examined, his credibility could not be shaken. Further, the PW 2 though admitted that he was not physically assaulted, he had stated that he was threatened with a pistol if he had tried to escape. 9. PW 3 is the brother-in-law of the informant, who was present at the time of making the seizure of the vehicle and mobile handset and he is a witness to the said seizure. Similarly, PW 4 is also seizure witness. 10. PW 5 is the Constable who had accompanied the IO of the case and had arrested the four accused persons out of which two accused persons were arrested from the Nepali Basti. He also deposed that a Tata Sumo vehicle along with the RC papers and a mobile handset were seized and in the seizure memo he is also witness. It is noteworthy that in the cross examination, a query was made regarding identification of the accused. The PW 5 replied that though no identification parade was conducted just after the arrest as it was dark, when the accused was brought to the Laluk PS, an identification parade was conducted to identify the accused. 11. The IO deposed as PW 6. In his chief examination, PW 6 had narrated in details the investigation done with the help of the Assam Police of Laluk PS in which all the accused persons were apprehended and the victim driver and the vehicle were recovered. 11. The IO deposed as PW 6. In his chief examination, PW 6 had narrated in details the investigation done with the help of the Assam Police of Laluk PS in which all the accused persons were apprehended and the victim driver and the vehicle were recovered. He had stated that after thorough investigation and finding prima facie materials of involvement of the four accused persons, the charge sheet was filed. 12. In the statements under Section 313 of the CrPC, all the accused persons had denied their involvement and had adduced evidence through 2 nos.of DWs. 13. DW 1 is one Bhai Chetry in whose house the four accused persons along with the victim driver had come on 16.10.2013 at about 6:00 PM. He stated that all the five of them had come in a Sumo vehicle and had left on foot to see a drama and that Rohit's father and his father were friends. He however stated that other than Rohit, he did not see the other four persons before. However, in the cross examination, the DW 1 admitted that he did not know anything about the case. 14. DW 2 is one Smt. Manju Pegu, who deposed that on 14.10.2013 at about 7-8:00 PM the four numbers of accused along with a Tata driver came to her house as guest. They had come in one vehicle but since it was dark, she could not see the vehicle properly. All of them stayed back in the night and left on the next day. She did not see that anyone of them tying anyone else. There was no complain from the driver that he was ever kidnapped by the four accused persons. In her cross examination, DW 2 admitted that Rohit was her cousin, she could not say with certainty if the driver was kidnapped. In her re-examination, she deposed that the driver of the vehicle did not seem to be frightened at that time. 15. The learned Sessions Judge had formulated the aforesaid points for determination- i. Whether the accused persons Rohit Morang, Santanu Morang, Deep Jyoti Morang and Topan Morang had kidnapped, driver Shri Mor Tapik on 14.10.2013 for ransom. ii. Whether the four accused persons committed the offence in furtherance of the common intention. 16. 15. The learned Sessions Judge had formulated the aforesaid points for determination- i. Whether the accused persons Rohit Morang, Santanu Morang, Deep Jyoti Morang and Topan Morang had kidnapped, driver Shri Mor Tapik on 14.10.2013 for ransom. ii. Whether the four accused persons committed the offence in furtherance of the common intention. 16. After discussing the evidence and the materials on record, the learned Sessions Judge came to a finding that the offence was proved beyond all reasonable doubt and accordingly, held the appellants guilty of under Section 364-A of the IPC. Accordingly, all the accused persons were sentenced to undergo life imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/-in default of payment of fine to undergo further period of RI for one year. 17. We have heard Shri Pritam Taffo, learned Amicus Curiae appearing for the appellants. We have also heard Shri G. Tado, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State of Arunachal Pradesh and Shri A. Tatak, learned counsel for the informant. The materials placed before this Court have been carefully examined. 18. Shri Taffo, the learned Amicus Curiae submits that both the investigation and subsequently, the trial stood vitiated for lack of identification of the appellants. He submits that except for Rohit, who was identified in the dock by PW 1, the rest of the accused persons were not identified to be the persons involved. So far as Rohit is concerned, his identification was also done on the Dock. It is argued that the accused appellants not being identified at any stage before the judgment, the present appeals need to be allowed. 19. The learned Amicus Curiae argued that there were inconsistencies in the statements of the witnesses with those made before the police under Section 161 of the CrPC. It is argued that while in the statement under Section 161 CrPC, PW 2, the alleged victim, had stated that he was made to call his owner from his mobile phone and was directed to tell that he was abducted with a demand of Rs.10 lacs for his release. It is argued that while in the statement under Section 161 CrPC, PW 2, the alleged victim, had stated that he was made to call his owner from his mobile phone and was directed to tell that he was abducted with a demand of Rs.10 lacs for his release. However it is pointed out that the owner of the vehicle who is the informant while deposing as PW 1 had stated that he did receive a call from his driver mobile phone when he was informed that his driver was abducted along with the vehicle, he could not identify the voice on the telephone and he said that it was not the voice of accused Rohit Morang. 20. According to the learned Amicus Curiae, the charges was not able to be proved beyond all reasonable doubt and therefore, the impugned judgment is not sustainable in law and accordingly, the accused persons deserve to be acquitted. 21. In support of his submission with regard to identification, the learned Amicus Curiae has relied upon the decision of the Kishori Prasad Singh Vs. Sanjib Baishyaand Anr. reported in 2018 (1) GLT 740 and paragraph 24 of the judgment was pressed into service which is extracted hereinbelow- "24. From a careful analysis of the evidence on record, what immediately comes to the fore is the very poor investigation carried out in this case. No TIP was conducted. Just because PW3 and PW4 had stated that they would not be able to identify the culprits, could not be the ground for not holding TIP. That apart, after mobile handsets were recovered, the Investigating Officer ought to have gathered the call detail records and an analysis of the same could have thrown significant light into the case. That was not done." 22. However, a close scrutiny of the aforesaid case law would reveal that the appeal was against an order of acquittal and the Hon'ble Division Bench was guided by the settled law that the presumption of innocence of an accused stands fortified by an order of acquittal by the learned Trial Court and simply because another view is plausible, the view taken by the learned Trial Court of acquittal is not liable to be altered. 23. On the other hand, Shri G. Tado, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, Arunachal Pradesh submits that in the instant case, the charge has been proved beyond all reasonable doubt. 23. On the other hand, Shri G. Tado, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, Arunachal Pradesh submits that in the instant case, the charge has been proved beyond all reasonable doubt. To specifically meet the argument made on behalf of the appellant regarding the inconsistencies in the prosecution case, the learned APP submits that the judgment itself has discussed that aspect of the matter and in this regard attention of this Court has been drawn to paragraphs 67 and 68 of the judgment which reads as follows: "67. In reference to this case, this Court would like to state that on minor type of contradictions the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of State of UP Vs. Bhagwan, AIR 1997 SC 3292 : (1997) 1 SCC 19 made the following observations that: "minor discrepancies in the evidence of the eye witnesses are immaterial unless they demolished the basic case of the prosecution". 68. In the case of Sunil Kumar Sambhudayal Gupta (Dr.) and others Vs. State of Maharashtra (2011) 4 SCC 324 , while dealing with the issue of materials contradictions, the Court held : "30. While appreciating the evidence, the Court has to take into consideration whether the contradictions / omissions had been of such magnitude that they may materially affect the trial. Minor contradictions, inconsistencies, embellishments or improvements on trivial matters without affecting the core of the prosecution case should not be made a ground to reject the evidence in its entirety. The trial court, after going through the entire evidence, must form an opinion about the credibility of the witnesses and the appellate court in normal course would not be justified in reviewing the same again without justifiable reasons." 24. The learned APP submits that in the instant case, the victim of the abduction had himself adduced evidence as PW 2. The said PW 2 was continuously with the accused persons for almost two days and therefore, the question of any lacuna in the prosecution case in identifying the accused cannot arise. 25. In support of his submissions, the learned APP has placed reliance upon the following case laws- i. Malleshi Vs. StateofKarnataka [ (2004) 8 SCC 95 ]; ii.Chaman & Anr. Vs. State of Uttaranchal [ (2008) 17 SCC 431 ]; iii. Prithipal Singh & Anr. Vs. State of Punjab [(2012)1SCC10]. 26. In the case of Malleshi (supra), the entire offence of Section 364 A has been explained. StateofKarnataka [ (2004) 8 SCC 95 ]; ii.Chaman & Anr. Vs. State of Uttaranchal [ (2008) 17 SCC 431 ]; iii. Prithipal Singh & Anr. Vs. State of Punjab [(2012)1SCC10]. 26. In the case of Malleshi (supra), the entire offence of Section 364 A has been explained. For ready reference, the relevant paragraphs is extracted hereinbelow- "7. Section 364-A deals with "kidnapping for ransom, etc." This section reads as follows: "364-A. 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 intergovernmental 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." 12. To attract the provisions of Section 364-A what is required to be proved is : (1) that the accused kidnapped or abducted the person; (2) kept him under detention after such kidnapping and abduction; and (3) that the kidnapping or abduction was for ransom. Strong reliance was placed on a decision of the Delhi High Court in Netra Pal v. State (NCT of Delhi) to contend that since the ransom demand was not conveyed to the father of PW 2, the intention to demand was not fulfilled." Further, in paragraph 15 of the said judgment, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has laid down that only because the demand could not be conveyed, the same does not take away the offence out of the purview of the Section and what is required to be seen is the object of kidnapping or abduction. The essence of abduction is to cause to stay in isolation and demand for ransom. 27. In the case of Chaman (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court explained the implication of Section 34 on the principle of joint liability in commission of a criminal act. It has been explained that the true contents of Section 34 are that if two or more persons intentionally do an act jointly, the position of law is just the same as if each of them has done it individually by himself. It has been explained that the true contents of Section 34 are that if two or more persons intentionally do an act jointly, the position of law is just the same as if each of them has done it individually by himself. 28. In the case of Prithipal Singh(supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court has explained the concept of evidence of a sole eye witness. For better understanding, the relevant paragraph being paragraph 49 is extracted hereinbelow- "EVIDENCE OF THE SOLE EYE-WITNESS : 49. This Court has consistently held that as a general rule the Court can and may act on the testimony of a single witness provided he is wholly reliable. There is no legal impediment in convicting a person on the sole testimony of a single witness. That is the logic of Section 134 of the Evidence Act. But if there are doubts about the testimony, the court will insist on corroboration. In fact, it is not the number or the quantity, but the quality that is material. The time- honoured principle is that evidence has to be weighed and not counted. The test is whether the evidence has a ring of truth, is cogent, credible and trustworthy or otherwise. The legal system has laid emphasis on value, weight and quality of evidence, rather than on quantity, multiplicity or plurality of witnesses. It is, therefore, open to a competent court to fully and completely rely on a solitary witness and record conviction. Conversely, it may acquit the accused in spite of testimony of several witnesses if it is not satisfied about the quality of evidence." 29. By referring to the Section 134 of the Evidence Act, the learned APP has submitted that it is the quality of the evidence and not the number and evidence is to weighed and not counted. The learned APP has accordingly submitted that the impugned judgment does not call for any interference. 30. Shri A. Tatak, learned counsel has appeared for the informant and has supported the case of the prosecution. He has submitted that the impugned judgment does not suffer from any infirmity and the appeal ought to be dismissed. 31. The learned APP has accordingly submitted that the impugned judgment does not call for any interference. 30. Shri A. Tatak, learned counsel has appeared for the informant and has supported the case of the prosecution. He has submitted that the impugned judgment does not suffer from any infirmity and the appeal ought to be dismissed. 31. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the materials on records, what is required to be examined is as to whether the conclusion reached by the learned Trial Court leading to conviction are based on evidence and other materials. This Court is also required to meet the grounds raised by the learned Amicus Curiae while assailing the judgment. 32. So far as the first ground raised by the learned Amicus Curiae regarding lack of identification, the materials before this Court do not support the said ground. The PW 5, who was a Constable and had all along being with the IO at the time of investigation was asked a specific question in the cross examination regarding the identification as in the chief examination the said PW 5 had identified all the accused on the dock. In the said cross examination, the PW 5 categorically stated that in fact an identification parade was also conducted to identify the accused at Laluk PS. The said argument is also not acceptable inasmuch as PW 2 the victim had identified the accused persons on the dock itself and so far as Rohit Morang is concerned, his involvement is otherwise established by the elaborate deposition of the said PW 2 along with that of the PW 1, PW 5 and PW 6. 33. This Court has also noticed that in the present case the crucial and most important witness is PW 2 who is the victim itself of the abduction. The said PW 2 in his deposition has elaborately narrated the entire situation which lasted for almost two days when he was continuously with the accused appellants. The records also disclosed that in the investigation, the Police had also taken out the Call Detail Records (CDR) to establish the calls made to PW 1 from whom the demand was made for release of the PW 2. 34. This Court has also observed that though two numbers of DWs were adduced from the side of the defence, their version did not support the defence. 34. This Court has also observed that though two numbers of DWs were adduced from the side of the defence, their version did not support the defence. The DW 1 had clearly stated in the cross examination that he knew nothing about the case. So far as DW 2 is concerned, though she had stated that she was not aware as to whether PW 2 was kidnapped or not, she had proved the fact that the said PW 2 was brought by the accused appellants to her house where they had spent the night. 35. As has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cases referred above, actual payment of the ransom is not necessary to bring home the allegation of Section 364-A and what is needed is the demand for such ransom which has been adequately proved in the trial by the evidence of PW 1 and PW 2. The version of the IO as PW 6 is consistent with the other evidence. 36. Much emphasis was given by the learned Amicus Curiae regarding alleged inconsistencies of the deposition of PW 2 with the statement of the PW 1 made under Section 161 of the CrPC. Though as an Appellate Court, we are not required to re-look at the statements under Section 161 CrPC as the proper stage for defence in a given case of inconsistencies is to confront the witness with such statement. However, in the instant case, the alleged inconsistency is not of the same witness but versions of one witness as PW and the statement of another witness under Section 161 CrPC. Moreover, on perusal thereof, the inconsistencies appear to be a very minor and trivial one with regard to the person who had made the call for ransom. There is however no inconsistency with the use of the mobile handset which is that of the PW 2. This Court is of the view that the so-called inconsistency regarding who had made the call for ransom would be wholly inconsequential when there is no manner of doubt regarding the demand for ransom. 37. As observed above, what is of crucial importance in this case is that the victim of the abduction had himself deposed as PW 2 which was unshaken. In the said deposition, PW 2 had directly implicated the accused appellants. 37. As observed above, what is of crucial importance in this case is that the victim of the abduction had himself deposed as PW 2 which was unshaken. In the said deposition, PW 2 had directly implicated the accused appellants. The ingredients of Section 364-A of the IPC as explained by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Malleshi (supra) having fully met in the present case, this Court is of the view that the conclusion arrived at by the learned Trial Court cannot be said to be erroneous or unjustified. Accordingly, the present appeals are dismissed. 38. No order as to cost. 39. Before parting, this Court would like to place on record the appreciation towards the learned Amicus Curiae, Shri P. Taffo as well as the learned Additional Public Prosecutor, AP, Shri G. Tado for assisting the Court. As a token of appreciation, Shri Taffo is entitled to an honorarium of Rs.7500/-(Rupees Seven Thousand and Five Hundred) to be paid by the State Legal Services Authority, Arunachal Pradesh.