JUDGMENT : Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. The instant criminal revision application is directed against the judgment dated 19th June, 2004, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No.2, Deoghar, whereby in Sessions Case No. 196 of 1998, opposite party Nos. 2 to 5 were acquitted from the charges levelled against them under Sections 363, 366A, 368 and 120 (B) of the Indian Penal Code. 3. The instant application has a chequered history. Initially the petitioner preferred instant application against the judgment of acquittal on 05.08.2004 before this Court. Subsequently, by order dated 19.02.2007 this Court remitted the case to the trial court by setting aside the impugned order of acquittal. Relevant portion of the order passed by this Court dated 19.02.2007 is quoted herein below: “ …Accordingly, without giving any specific finding on the evidence on record, the matter is being remitted to the Trial Court by setting aside the Impugned order with a direction to the Trial Court to consider the materials and evidence on record afresh in its right perspective and pass a fresh Judgment in accordance with law after hearing the parties on the basis of the materials already on record within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.” 4. Pursuant thereto, the acquitted/accused persons challenged the order dated 19.02.2007 passed by this Court before the Hon’ble Apex Court in SLP (Crl.) No.2006 of 2007 which was further numbered, after leave was granted, as criminal appeal No. 356 of 2008 wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court, finding the High Court order without any reasoning, set aside the same and remitted it to this Court to dispose of afresh in accordance with law. Para 7 & 8 of the Hon’ble Supreme Court’s judgment is quoted herein below : “7. Even in respect of administrative orders Lord Denning M.R. in Breen v. Amalgamated Engineering Union (1971 (1) All E. R. 1148) observed “The giving of reasons is one of the fundamentals of good administration.” In Alexander Machinery (Dudley) Ltd. v. Crabtree (1974 LCR 120) it was observed: “Failure to give reasons amounts to denial of justice”. Reasons are live links between the mind of the decision taker to the controversy in question and the decision or conclusion arrived at”. Reasons substitute subjectivity by objectivity. Reasons are live links between the mind of the decision taker to the controversy in question and the decision or conclusion arrived at”. Reasons substitute subjectivity by objectivity. The emphasis on recording reasons is that if the decision reveals the “inscrutable face of the sphinx”, it can, by its silence, render it virtually impossible for the Courts to perform their appellate function or exercise the power of judicial review in adjudging the validity of the decision. Right to reason is an indispensable part of a sound judicial system, reasons at least sufficient to indicate an application of mind to the matter before Court. Another rationale is that the affected party can know why the decision has gone against him. One of the salutary requirements of natural justice is spelling out reasons for the order made, in other words, a speaking order. The inscrutable face of a sphinx” is ordinarily incongruous with a judicial or quasi-judicial performance. 8. Above being the position, the impugned order is clearly unsustainable and is set aside. The matter is remitted to the High Court to dispose of the revision petition afresh in accordance with law.” As a result, the aforesaid revision application came up for hearing and the same is being disposed of by this order. 5. The prosecution case in brief is that the complainant Rajesh Das son of Sri Santu Das resident of village Sarsa, P.S. Jasidih, District-Deoghar filed PCR Case No.46 of 1995 against the accused Balram Das, Sunil Das, Dhirendra Kumar Singh and Jitendra Kumar Singh mentioning therein that all the accused persons kidnapped his minor sister Sarita Kumari aged about 15 years as per her school certificate on 20.11.94 in the night when she was sleeping along with his mother. The complainant searched for her but when she remained traceless he gave information to the Jasidih police station and requested to take action against the accused persons but the police did nothing then he gave information to the superintendent of police, Deoghar but that also went futile and at last when he became disappointed due to inactivity of the police in this case he filed the complaint petition before the Court and on that the C.J.M., Deoghar directed to the O/C P.S. Jasidih to take necessary action and institute a case against accused persons and then Jasidih P.S. Case No.231 of 1995 was registered on 11.12.95 under Sections 364 / 366A/ 376/ 120 B of the Indian Penal Code against all the 4 accused persons and the charge of investigation of the case was given to S.I. Shanker Chaudhary. After investigation, the charge sheet was submitted on 24.2.1996 against the accused Balram Das, Sunil Das, Dhirendra Kumar Singh and Jitendra Kumar Singh under Sections 364/ 366A/ 376/ 468/ 120B/34 IPC. On 11.07.2000, the charges against all the above noted 4 accused persons were framed under Sections 364/ 366A/ 368 and 120B I.P.C. to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. After trial, they were acquitted from the charges levelled against them. 6. Mr. Nilendu Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner/informant submits that all the prosecution witnesses supported the prosecution case. Even allegation of kidnapping is supported by all the prosecution witnesses. He further submits that the impugned order clearly transpires that the victim Sarita Kumari was a minor as she is below 18 years of age at the time of occurrence and the trial court has further framed a question as to whether Sarita Kumari was kidnapped from her father’s lawful guardianship by the opposite parties. In this regard, learned counsel referred to para 29 of the trial court’s judgment and submits that after the aforesaid finding given in para 29, the learned trial court has misdirected itself in acquitting all these petitioners, as such the impugned order may be set aside. Para 29 of the trial court’s judgment, which has been heavily relied by the learned counsel for the petitioner, is quoted herein below : “29. Para 29 of the trial court’s judgment, which has been heavily relied by the learned counsel for the petitioner, is quoted herein below : “29. P.W. 1 Nazim Mahra, P.W. 2 Santu Das, P.W. 3 Uttam Kumar, P.W. 4 Kalwati Devi, P.W. 5 Rajesh Das, P.W. 6 Tuna Devi and P.W. 7 Rinku Kumari all are hearsay witnesses and C.W. 1 Sarita Kumari herself is the only eye witness being victim of the case and all the hearsay witnesses have deposed on the information having come to know from C.W. 1 Sarita Kumari. Whereas C.W. 1 Sarita Kumari has nowhere stated that she narrated the same to all these hearsay witnesses and therefore, the evidence of P.W.1 Nazim Mahra, P.W. 2 Santu Das, P.W. 3 Uttam Kumar, P.W.4 Kalawati Devi, P.W. 5 Rajesh Das, P.W. 6 Tuna Devi and P.W. 7 Rinku Kumari all being hearsay cannot be admissible. On the point of kidnapping C.W.1 Sarita Kumari has deposed in the Court and has stated in her statement recorded u/s 164 Cr.P.C. that she was taken away from her house to Dhanbad, again to Bakura, then Aasansole and at last sold in Muradabad and the same is corroborated from her recovery that was made by P.W. 9 Bharat Prasad, ASI police from Muradabad on 13.06.96. Thus this is also proved and established by evidence that minor Sarita Kumari was kidnapped from the lawful guardianship of her father.” Learned counsel further submits that only on the ground that all the prosecution witnesses were hearsay witnesses, the learned trial court acquitted the opposite parties. 7. Per contra, Mr. Jitendra Shankar Singh referred to the subsequent paragraphs of the same judgment and submits that since there was no eye witness in this case and the evidence of hearsay witnesses were discarded on the ground mentioned in the order itself, the court below examined the informant’s sister / victim and finally came to the conclusion that the deposition of the informant’s sister was not sufficient to prove the charges against the accused persons. He further referred to the judgment passed in the case of K. Ramakrishnan Unnithan v. State of Kerala reported in (1999) 3 SCC 309 wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court has held that in cases of appeal against acquittal, the High Court should not interfere solely because a different plausible view may arise on the evidence. He further referred to the judgment passed in the case of K. Ramakrishnan Unnithan v. State of Kerala reported in (1999) 3 SCC 309 wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court has held that in cases of appeal against acquittal, the High Court should not interfere solely because a different plausible view may arise on the evidence. He further relied upon on the judgment passed in the case of Lalit Kumar Sharma and others Versus Superintendent and Remembrancer of Legal Affairs, Govt. of W.B. reported in AIR 1989 SC 2134 wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court has held that the appellate court should be slow in interfering with the orders of acquittal unless there are compelling reasons to do so. Relying upon the aforesaid two judgments Mr. Singh contended that in the instant case since there is no error or perversity in the order and the learned trial court after giving specific reasons for not accepting the deposition of the sole eye witness-cum-victim, acquitted these petitioners. Thus, the instant revision application is fit to be quashed and set aside. 8. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and after going through the impugned judgment passed by the learned trial court it appears that though the court has admitted the fact that the sister of the informant was minor and below 18 years at the time of occurrence, however, it has discarded the evidence of all other prosecution witnesses, inasmuch as, they were hearsay witnesses; but critically examined the deposition of the victim /sister of the informant. For better appreciation of the case para 30 & 31 of the trial court’s judgment is quoted herein below : “30. On the point of the role and participation of the accused persons in the kidnapping of Sarita Kumari the oral evidence of P.W. 1 Nazim Mahra, P.W. 2 Santu Das, P. W. 3 Uttam Kumar, P.W. 4 Kalawati Devi, P.W. 5 Rajesh Das, P.W. 6 Tuna Devi and P.W. 7 Rinku Kumari has already been discarded being hearsay and on the point of the participation of the accused persons in her kidnapping she is the only eye witness who can tell and prove the same. 31. It is pertinent to mention here that when Sarita Kumari was recovered from Muradabad her statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. (Ext. 31. It is pertinent to mention here that when Sarita Kumari was recovered from Muradabad her statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. (Ext. 2) was recorded by the Magistrate immediately on 13.6.96 in which she has stated that one and half year ago Balram Das had taken her away from her house at Sarsa on the enticement of her marriage to Dhanbad and left her at the house of one Ratan Singh and stayed two days. Ratan’s wife told her that she was sold by Balram and in this course Sunil Das was also with him and there was none else where as on 18.7.2002 when she was examined by the Court as a Court witness she stated in her deposition that in the night of 20.11.94 Balram and Sunil both went at her house and on their enticement of marriage and telling, she sat with Jitendra Singh and Dhirendra Singh on a motorcycle who took her to Jasidih. Balram and Sunil were not there. Jitendra and Dhirendera took her to Dhanbad by train and they sold her in the hands of one Ratan Singh and returned overnight. She has also stated that under Section 164 Cr.P.C. she stated the magistrate that Jitendra and Dhirendra took her to Dhanbad. Thus, regarding the part of accused persons the statement of Sarita Kumari recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. is quite contradictory to her deposition subsequently recorded by the Court and in such a situation now it has to be seen as to what is the legal position.” 9. After going through the aforesaid paragraphs it is evident that the learned trial court has rightly came to the conclusion that the version of the informant’s sister/victim is not trustworthy, inasmuch as, when Sarita Kumari was recovered from Muradabad, in her statement u/s 164 Cr. P.C. recorded by the Magistrate on 13.6.96, she had stated that one Balram Das alluring her on pretext of marriage, took her away from her home at Sarsa to Dhanbad and left her at the house of one Ratan Singh. During this course of event, they were accompanied by one Sunil Das as well. After staying there for 2 days she was told by the wife of Ratan Singh that she has been sold by Balram Das. During this course of event, they were accompanied by one Sunil Das as well. After staying there for 2 days she was told by the wife of Ratan Singh that she has been sold by Balram Das. But the said victim in her deposition stated before the learned trial court as C.W.1 that Balram Das along with Sunil Das went to her house and allured her on pretext of marriage. Thereafter, falling prey to their enticement, upon their instruction she went to Jasidih on a motorcycle with one Jitendra Singh and one Dhirendra Singh who further took her to Dhanbad by train and sold her to one Ratan Singh and during this course of event Balram Das and Sunil Das were not accompanying them. 10. By going through the aforesaid different statements made by the same girl i.e. the statement of Sarita Kumari recorded under Section 164 Cr. P.C. and her deposition, subsequently recorded by the trial court, it clearly transpires different facts and surmises of the fold of events along with the roles of persons involved. 11. In the case of Sunil Kumar Sambhudayal Gupta (Dr) and others Versus State of Maharashtra reported in (2010) 13 SCC 657 , the Hon’ble Apex Court has held that where the omissions amount to a contradiction creating a serious doubt about the truthfulness of a witness which amounts to improvement of prosecution case, those types of evidences should be discarded. For brevity, paragraphs 31, 32, 33 and 37 of the aforesaid judgment is extracted herein below : “31. Where the omission(s) amount to a contradiction, creating a serious doubt about the truthfulness of a witness and the other witness also makes material improvements before the court in order to make the evidence acceptable, it cannot be safe to rely upon such evidence. 32. The discrepancies in the evidence of eyewitnesses, if found to be not minor in nature, may be a ground for disbelieving and discrediting their evidence. In such circumstances, witnesses may not inspire confidence and if their evidence is found to be in conflict and contradiction with other evidence or with the statement already recorded, in such a case it cannot be held that the prosecution proved its case beyond reasonable doubt. 33. In such circumstances, witnesses may not inspire confidence and if their evidence is found to be in conflict and contradiction with other evidence or with the statement already recorded, in such a case it cannot be held that the prosecution proved its case beyond reasonable doubt. 33. In case, the complainant in the FIR or the witness in his statement under Section 161 CrPC, has not disclosed certain facts but meets the prosecution case first time before the court, such version lacks credence and is liable to be discarded. 37. While deciding such a case, the court has to apply the aforesaid tests. Mere marginal variations in the statements cannot be dubbed as improvements as the same may be elaborations of the statement made by the witness earlier. The omissions which amount to contradictions in material particulars i.e. go to the root of the case/materially affect the trial or core of the prosecution case, render the testimony of the witness liable to be discredited.” 12. Thus, the law is now well settled that minor contradictions can be discarded; nonetheless the discrepancy in the evidence of eye witness if found to be not minor in nature can be a good ground for disbelieving and discrediting their evidence. It is true that the statement made by the witness under Section 164 Cr. P.C. is not substantive evidence. However, such statements can be used to corroborate or contradict the statement made by the witness in court in the manner provided under Section 145 and 157 of Evidence Act. However, where two types of statements, one recorded under Section 164 Cr. P.C. and the other in the court are not consistent, the witness making such statement cannot be held to be reliable. Reference can be made to the case of Bhajan Singh v. State of Punjab reported in AIR 1977 SC 674 . 13. Now coming back to the instant case, the statement of Sarita Kumari recorded under Section 164 Cr. P.C. and the other in the court are not consistent, the witness making such statement cannot be held to be reliable. Reference can be made to the case of Bhajan Singh v. State of Punjab reported in AIR 1977 SC 674 . 13. Now coming back to the instant case, the statement of Sarita Kumari recorded under Section 164 Cr. P.C. and her deposition recorded by the trial court transpires different facts and also different sequence of events along with the roles of persons involved, cannot be said to be reliable at all and the learned trial court has rightly rejected the evidence and came to the conclusion that the prosecution has failed to produce any reliable and convincing evidence on the point of the participation of the accused persons in the commission of offence in the present case which can be able to prove and establish that the minor Sarita Kumari was kidnapped from the lawful guardianship by the accused persons. 14. Further, reference may be made to the judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Lalit Kumar Sharma (supra) wherein the Hon’be Apex Court has held that the power of an appellate Court to review evidence in appeals against acquittal is as extensive as its powers in appeals against convictions, but that power is with a note of caution that the appellate Court should be slow in interfering with the orders of acquittal unless there are compelling reasons to do so. 15. Reference may also be made to the judgment rendered in the case of K. Ramakrishnan Unnithan v. State of Kerala (supra) wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court has observed that if there are two plausible views, appeal against acquittal should not be entertained. 16. At the cost of repetition, the statement of victim recorded under Section 164 Cr. P.C. and deposition before the court emerges diverse facts and also dissimilar sequence of events along with the characters of persons involved, cannot be said to be dependable at all and the learned trial court has rightly rejected the evidence of the sole eye witness. 17. In view of the aforesaid discussions and judicial pronouncement, no error has been committed by the court below in acquitting the opposite parties/accused persons and the instant application is liable to be dismissed. 18. Ordered accordingly. 19. Let the copy of this order be communicated to the court below. 20. 17. In view of the aforesaid discussions and judicial pronouncement, no error has been committed by the court below in acquitting the opposite parties/accused persons and the instant application is liable to be dismissed. 18. Ordered accordingly. 19. Let the copy of this order be communicated to the court below. 20. Let the lower court record be sent back to the court concerned forthwith.