JUDGMENT : C.Praveen Kumar, J. The accused (A-2) in Sessions Case No.280 of 2015 on the file of the learned Special Sessions Judge – cum – IV Additional District Judge, Guntur is the appellant herein. He was tried for the offences punishable under Sections 364-A and 506 I.P.C. 2. Vide judgment, dated 30.09.2015, the learned Sessions Judge convicted A-2 for the offences punishable under Sections 364-A and 506 I.P.C. and accordingly, sentenced him to suffer rigorous imprisonment for life and to pay fine of Rs.25,000/-, in default of payment of fine, to suffer simple imprisonment for a period of six months for the offence punishable under Section 364-A I.P.C.; and to suffer rigorous imprisonment for a period of three years and to pay fine of Rs.5,000/-, in default of payment of fine, to suffer simple imprisonment for a period of one month for the offence punishable under Section 506 I.P.C. The substantive sentences were directed to run concurrently. 3. As the legal aid granted to the appellant/A-2 was withdrawn vide letter, dated 16.03.2021, of the Secretary, A.P. High Court Legal Services Committee, Amaravathi, we requested Sri Narra Srinivasa Rao, learned counsel appearing for the appellant/A-1 in Criminal Appeal No.163 of 2017 to assist this Court for the appellant herein/A-2 as well, more so, since he has conducted the case on behalf of A-2 in the trial Court. 4. A-1 and A-3 to A-5 in Sessions Case No.461 of 2012 on the file of the learned Special Sessions Judge – cum – IV Additional District Judge, Guntur are the appellants in Criminal Appeal Nos.163 of 2017, 87 of 2016, 795 of 2015 and 923 of 2016. They were also tried for the offences punishable under Sections 364-A and 506 I.P.C. 5. They were also tried for the offences punishable under Sections 364-A and 506 I.P.C. 5. Vide judgment, dated 31.07.2015, the learned Sessions Judge convicted A-1 and A-3 to A-5 for the offences punishable under Sections 364-A and 506 I.P.C. and accordingly, sentenced them to suffer rigorous imprisonment for life each and to pay fine of Rs.25,000/-each, in default of payment of fine, to suffer simple imprisonment for a period of six months each for the offence punishable under Section 364-A I.P.C.; and to suffer rigorous imprisonment for a period of three years each and to pay fine of Rs.5,000/-each, in default of payment of fine, to suffer simple imprisonment for a period of one month each for the offence punishable under Section 506 I.P.C. The substantive sentences were directed to run concurrently. 6. The graveman of the charge levelled against the accused is that on 08.06.2012 evening, kidnapped one Pedaprolu Swetha (hereinafter, referred to as “the victim”) and demanded 3.00 crores from her father as ransom and threatened the victim with dire consequences. 7. The substance of the prosecution case is that P.W.1 is the father of P.W.2/victim. A-1 was working as a Driver with P.W.1. P.W.2, who is the daughter of P.W.1, was studying Post Graduation in E.N.T. at N.R.I. Medical College, Mangalagiri. P.W.3 is a Doctor practicing in Prasanthi Hospital, Governorpet, Vijayawada, who knows P.Ws.1 and 2. According to P.W.2, she used to go to the college in between 8.30 a.m. and 8.45 a.m. everyday and return home, by starting at the college, at 4.30 p.m. On 08.06.2012, she started from her house at about 8.45 a.m. to go to her college in her car driven by A-1. After completing the college, at about 4.30 p.m., she boarded the car to go home and when the car reached Y Junction on the Highway, four persons came near the car and stopped the car. It is said that all the four persons boarded the said car by using unlawful force and threatened P.W.2 stating that they would kill her if she raises cries. The accused also showed a knife and gagged her mouth with a cloth, apart from tying her hands and legs with a rope. The accused also closed her eyes with a cloth. It is said that the accused pushed her in the leg space of back seat of the car by bending her. The accused also showed a knife and gagged her mouth with a cloth, apart from tying her hands and legs with a rope. The accused also closed her eyes with a cloth. It is said that the accused pushed her in the leg space of back seat of the car by bending her. It is said that the accused drove the car in a high speed. After sometime, one of the accused picked up the cell phone from the bag of P.W.2, made a call to her father and gave an opportunity to P.W.2 to talk with him. She intimated to her father that their driver along with four culprits kidnapped her and is taking her elsewhere. At that stage, one of the culprits took the said phone from P.W.2 by using unlawful force and intimated to her father that if he fails to pay a sum of Rs.3.00 crores as lump sum, they would kill P.W.2 and that if he informed the police, they would kill P.W.2. It is also stated that one of the culprits snatched away black beads chain of P.W.2. Her evidence also shows that after sometime, the culprits stopped the car elsewhere and talked in the car. After stopping the car, some of the culprits got down from the car and talked on cell phone and also with one another. The evidence of P.W.2 would show that she was carrying 5th month pregnancy and as she was feeling discomfort, vomited inside the case. The culprits provided some water to her. Her evidence also shows that after sometime, the cloth tied to her eyes was removed and even the rope tied to her hands and legs was removed. A-2 is said to have pointed out a knife on her stomach and threatened her stating that if she shouts, they would stab her. When the car stopped at a center in Pamarru, P.W.2 noticed some petty shops and NTR statue. She identified the said place, as she used to go to her native place Challapalli through that place. At that point of time, when A-1 stopped the car, some police personnel surrounded the car, in a fraction of seconds and A-1, A-2 and P.W.2 were taken to Pamarru Police Station while A-3 to A-5 escaped from the scene, who were later, apprehended. At that point of time, when A-1 stopped the car, some police personnel surrounded the car, in a fraction of seconds and A-1, A-2 and P.W.2 were taken to Pamarru Police Station while A-3 to A-5 escaped from the scene, who were later, apprehended. Law was set into motion by lodging a report in Mangalagiri Rural Police Station basing on which, a case in Crime No.112 of 2012, dated 08.06.2012, came to be registered. P.W.7, who received a copy of the F.I.R., recorded the statements of P.Ws.1 and 3 and then, visited the scene of offence at N.R.I. Junction, Chinakakani Village limits at Y junction where he prepared a rough sketch of the scene under Ex.P-6. At the scene, he examined the Security Guard of the N.R.I. Hospital as P.W.4. On receipt of information about the movements of the accused in this case, he summoned the mediators – P.W.5 and others to Mangalagiri Rural Police Station and along with police constables, rushed to Pamarru. P.Ws.1 and 3 also accompanied them in a separate car. At Pamarru main road near NTR statue, they observed the vehicle of the accused and when they reached the said vehicle, three of the accused from the car ran away while two of them were apprehended at the spot, who were identified as A-1 and A-2. The police brought P.W.1 to N.R.I. Centre where P.W.1 identified his daughter/victim (P.W.2). They observed that the culprits gagged the mouth of P.W.2 and also closed her eyes with a towel and tied her hands and legs. P.W.2 was handed over to P.W.1. The confessional statements of A-1 and A-2 were recorded separately, which lead to recovery of M.Os.1 to 4 and also arrest of A-3 to A-5 on identification by A-1 and A-2. After completing the investigation, charge sheet came to be filed against A-1 to A-5, which was taken on file as P.R.C.No.24 of 2012 on the file of the learned Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Mangalagiri. 8. On appearance of the accused, copies of the documents, as required under Section 207 Cr.P.C., were supplied to them. After completing the investigation, charge sheet came to be filed against A-1 to A-5, which was taken on file as P.R.C.No.24 of 2012 on the file of the learned Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Mangalagiri. 8. On appearance of the accused, copies of the documents, as required under Section 207 Cr.P.C., were supplied to them. As the offences are triable by a Court of Sessions, the case was committed to the Court of Sessions under Section 209 Cr.P.C. Accordingly, the same was made over to the Court of the learned Special Sessions Judge – cum – IV Additional District Judge, Guntur for trial and disposal in accordance with law. 9. Basing on the material available on record, charges, as referred to earlier, came to be framed, read over and explained to the accused in Telugu to which, they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 10. To substantiate its case, the prosecution examined P.Ws.1 to 7 and got marked Exs.P-1 to P-6 and M.Os.1 to 4. 11. At the time of commencement of trial, A-2 was absconding. In spite of his absence, the trial Court proceeded with the trial and allowed the learned counsel for A-2 to cross examine the witnesses. 12. After completion of the prosecution evidence, the case against A-2 was split up and renumbered as Sessions Case No.280 of 2015, in view of the pendency of Non-bailable Warrant. After separating the case against A-2, the trial Court proceeded against A-1 and A-3 to A-5 by recording their statements under Section 313 Cr.P.C., with reference to the incriminating circumstances appearing against them in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses to which they denied. No oral or documentary evidence was adduced on their behalf. 13. On 14.09.2015 i.e., after recording the evidence of the witnesses in Sessions Case No.461 of 2012, A-2 was produced before the trial Court on execution of N.B.W. On 28.09.2015, P.Ws.1 to 3 in Sessions Case No.280 of 2015 were present before the trial Court and A-2 was also produced from District Jail, Guntur. The victim, who was examined as P.W.2 in the main case, identified A-2 in the open Court as one among the five persons who kidnapped her and put a knife on her stomach and threatened her stating that if she shouts, he would kill her. The victim, who was examined as P.W.2 in the main case, identified A-2 in the open Court as one among the five persons who kidnapped her and put a knife on her stomach and threatened her stating that if she shouts, he would kill her. After identification, learned counsel for A-2 filed a memo under Section 299 Cr.P.C. stating that the entire evidence recorded in Sessions Case No.461 of 2012 may be adopted and considered in this case against A-2 also and the learned Public Prosecutor also reported no objection. The said memo filed by A-2 was allowed and the trial Court proceeded with the said case by considering the evidence recorded in other case i.e., Sessions Case No.461 of 2012. After trial, all the accused were convicted by separate judgments. Against the said conviction and sentence, the aforementioned appeals are filed. 14. The procedure adopted by the trial Court, in our view, is totally contrary to law i.e., not only to the criminal jurisprudence but also to the provisions of the Criminal Procedure Code. The learned Sessions Judge could not have entertained cross examination of witnesses by the learned counsel for A-2 in the absence of A-2 in the box. Apart from that, the trial Court could not have proceeded against A-2 in the absence of A-2 in the box. 15. Issue identical to the case came up for consideration by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in A.T. Mydeen and another vs. Assistant Commissioner, Customs Department, 2021 SCC Online SC 1017. In the said case, the trial Court passed orders in two C.Cs i.e., in C.C.No.2 of 2003 and 4 of 2004 under the provisions of the Customs Act, 1962 acquitting all the six accused. The High Court recorded conviction of all the six accused and awarded sentence of one year and fine of Rs.50,000/- each, in default, to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for six months. Challenging the judgment of the High Court, Special Leave Petition was preferred before the Hon’ble Supreme Court. One of the main arguments advanced before the Apex Court was that the High Court erred in passing one common judgment in both the appeals arising out of two separate trials and two separate judgments, by considering the evidence of only one case and that too, without disclosing the evidence of which case being considered while recording conviction of al the six accused in both the appeals. Dealing with the said argument, the Hon’ble Supreme Court, after referring to Sections 273, 205, 299, 275, 276, 278 and 279 Cr.P.C. and Section 33 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 coupled with various judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, held as under:- “39. The provisions of law and the essence of case-laws, as discussed above, give a clear impression that in the matter of a criminal trial against any accused, the distinctiveness of evidence is paramount in light of accused’s right to fair trial, which encompasses two important facets along with others i.e., firstly, the recording of evidence in the presence of accused or his pleader and secondly, the right of accused to cross-examine the witnesses. These facts are, of course, subject to exceptions provided under law. In other words, the culpability of any accused cannot be decided on the basis of any evidence, which was not recorded in his presence or his pleader’s presence and for which he did not get an opportunity of cross-examination, unless the case falls under exceptions of law, as noted above. 40. The essence of the above synthesis is that evidence recorded in a criminal trial against any accused is confined to the culpability of that accused only and it does not have any bearing upon a co-accused, who has been tried on the basis of evidence recorded in a separate trial, though for the commission of the same offence. 41. It is also an undisputed proposition of law that in a criminal appeal against conviction, the appellate court examines the evidence recorded by the trial court and takes a call upon the issue of guilt and innocence of the accused. Hence, the scope of the appellate Court’s power does not go beyond the evidence available before it in the form of a trial Court record of a particular case, unless section 367 or section 391 of Cr.P.C. comes into play in a given case, which are meant for further inquiry or additional evidence while dealing with any criminal appeal. 42. In the present controversy, two different criminal appeals were being heard and decided against two different judgments based upon evidence recorded in separate trials, though for the commission of the same offence. 42. In the present controversy, two different criminal appeals were being heard and decided against two different judgments based upon evidence recorded in separate trials, though for the commission of the same offence. As such, the High Court fell into an error while passing a common judgement, based on evidence recorded in only one trial, against two sets of accused persons having been subjected to separate trials. The High Court ought to have distinctly considered and dealt with the evidence of both the trials and then to decide the culpability of the accused persons.” 16. While considering the question of prejudice caused to the accused when one case is remanded to the trial Court, it is observed in para Nos.43 and 44 of the said judgment as under:- “43. There is one more angle to be considered i.e. whether to remand one case to the High Court for fresh decision i.e. the case in which the evidence was not considered and we may proceed to decide the other case here. We find, if we adopt such a procedure, then no fruitful purpose would be served and in fact, it would be an exercise resulting in complications and contradictions and even conflicts. If we proceed to hear one appeal wherein the evidence has been considered by the High Court and we agree with the same, then it would influence the High Court in deciding the other matter on remand. Further, even if we could hold back this appeal and await decision of the High Court in the matter which we remand, then also the High Court would not be able to take an independent decision and would be influenced by the judgment as we would be entertaining one appeal. Moreover, if we allow one of the appeals which we are holding back, then, nothing may remain for the High Court to decide. 44. There is another reason why we are inclined to send back both the matters to the High Court which is fundamental. We find that the learned single Judge of the High Court has apparently not adopted the correct procedure prescribed under law and therefore, the judgment of the High Court needs to be set aside. Once a common judgment is set aside for one appeal, it cannot be upheld for another appeal. We find that the learned single Judge of the High Court has apparently not adopted the correct procedure prescribed under law and therefore, the judgment of the High Court needs to be set aside. Once a common judgment is set aside for one appeal, it cannot be upheld for another appeal. There cannot be a severance of the judgment particularly when it arises in a criminal case, where the rights of the accused are as important as the rights of a victim. Therefore, it would be in the fitness of things and in the interest of the parties that the matters are remanded to the High Court for a fresh decision in accordance with law and in light of the discussion and observations made above.” 17. Situation though not identical to the case referred to above, but we feel that the case on hand is still worse than the one dealt with by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. In the instant case, very very strangely, the learned Sessions Judge makes P.W.2 identify A-2 after splitting the case without an oath or entering into the witness box. The proceedings of trial Court which are placed before us nowhere indicate the same. Further, very strangely, the learned Sessions Judge accepts the application filed by A-2 requesting the trial Court to proceed with the case basing on the evidence recorded in the earlier case, while deciding the case of A-2 also. It is well established principle of law that no evidence can be recorded when the accused is not present in the Court. The judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court referred to earlier, in fact, finds fault with such practice being followed. Without referring to any provisions of Criminal Procedure Code, the learned Sessions Judge simply accepted the memo filed by the learned counsel for A-2, adopted the evidence recorded in the absence of A-2 against A-2 and delivered judgment, which, in our view, is contrary to the fundamental principles of criminal jurisprudence. In that view of the matter, we feel that it is a fit case where the matter has to be remanded back to the trial Court for proceeding afresh against A-2. 18. In that view of the matter, we feel that it is a fit case where the matter has to be remanded back to the trial Court for proceeding afresh against A-2. 18. Coming to the appeals filed by A-1 and A-3 to A-5, i.e., Criminal Appeal Nos.163 of 2017, 87 of 2016, 795 of 2015 and 923 of 2016, Sri Narra Srinivasa Rao, learned counsel for A-1, and Sri Challa Srinivasa Reddy, learned counsel for A-3 to A-5, tried to contend that the evidence of P.W.2 cannot be relied upon to base a conviction under Section 364 I.P.C. The learned counsel took us through the contents of the F.I.R. and the evidence on record to show that there are number of discrepancies in the evidence of P.W.2 to doubt the participation of the accused in the commission of the offence. It is further pleaded that the identification of accused for the first time in Court cannot be accepted. Learned counsel for the appellants further tried to contend that in the absence of test identification parade, identification of the accused has no value. 19. However, the same is opposed by Sri Soora Venkata Sainath, learned Special Assistant Public Prosecutor, contending that the judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court clearly indicate that test identification parade is only to help the investigating agency to trace the culprits and it is not a substantial piece of evidence. He further submits that there is no reason for P.W.2 to speak falsehood against the accused. In that view of the matter, he submits that when the evidence of P.W.2 gets corroboration from the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 3, the conviction and sentence imposed by the trial Court warrants no interference. He took us through the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Shaik Ahmed vs. State of Telangana, (2021) 9 SCC 59 , which clearly indicate as to when and under what circumstances, Section 364-A I.P.C can be invoked. In other words, he would contend that if Clauses (i) and (ii) of Section 364-A I.P.C. are satisfied, the same is sufficient to invoke the said provision against A-1 and A-3 to A-5 as well. In other words, he would contend that if Clauses (i) and (ii) of Section 364-A I.P.C. are satisfied, the same is sufficient to invoke the said provision against A-1 and A-3 to A-5 as well. In other words, his argument appears to be that the evidence of P.W.1 in chief itself would disclose that there was kidnap and threat by the accused, which is sufficient to convict under Section 364-A I.P.C. Apart from that, learned Public Prosecutor also took us through the evidence of P.W.2 in detail to contend that their participation in the commission of the offence stands established. 20. We do not want to deal with the evidence adduced by the prosecution at this stage for the reason that any finding given in the appeals filed by A-1 and A-3 to A-5 may influence or pressurize the trial Court while dealing with the appeal against A-2. Therefore, instead of remanding all the appeals back to the trial Court, we feel that the appeals filed by A-1 and A-3 to A-5 shall be held back in this Court, till the remand case is dealt with by the trial Court against A-2 within the time fixed and thereafter, forward a copy of the said judgment to this Court. 21. Having regard to the above, Criminal Appeal No.1829 of 2018 (arising out of Sessions Case No.280 of 2015) filed by A-2 is remanded back to the trial Court for fresh disposal in accordance with law. However, Criminal Appeal Nos.163 of 2017, 87 of 2016, 795 of 2015 and 923 of 2016 filed by A-1 and A-3 to A-5 are adjourned by three (3) months making it clear that no applications for bail shall be entertained from any of the accused. The trial Court is directed to dispose of Sessions Case No.280 of 2015 (Criminal Appeal No.1829 of 2018) filed by A-2 within a period of three (3) months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment and to thereafter, forward the copy of the judgment to this Court forthwith. The Registry shall then list all the appeals including the one filed by A-2 (Criminal Appeal No.1829 of 2018) along with the judgment on remand, for disposal in accordance with law. 22. The Registry shall then list all the appeals including the one filed by A-2 (Criminal Appeal No.1829 of 2018) along with the judgment on remand, for disposal in accordance with law. 22. Accordingly, Criminal Appeal No.1829 of 2018 arising out of Sessions Case No.280 of 2015 is remanded back to the Court of the learned Special Sessions Judge – cum – IV Additional District Judge, Guntur. Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, in this Criminal Appeal shall stand closed.