JUDGMENT : Ritu Bahri, C.J. Appellant-Gurmit Singh @ Master has come up in appeal against the judgement and order dated 09.11.2012, passed by the learned 2nd Additional sessions Judge, Rudrapur, U.S. Nagar, Uttarakhand in Sessions Trial No.53 of 2007, whereby appellantGurmit Singh @ Master has been convicted for the offences under Section 364-A and 120B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as ‘IPC’). 2. The prosecution case in a nutshell is that a written complaint was given by complainant Dhanpat Mittal S/O Shri Ram Ratan Mittal, brother-in-law of the victim in police station, Sitarganj, U.S. Nagar stating that on 12.09.2006 at around 06:00 am, his brotherin-law (Behnoi) Gobinda had gone on his motorcycle to take care of his land at Visti Road, Village Tigri, but he has not returned and, hence, the complainant-Dhanpat Mittal made a request to search him. After this, a similar written complaint was given by another complainant-Mujahid Ali in Police Station Sitarganj that on 12.09.2006 at around 06:00 am his brother Shakir Ali @ Babbu Khan was called by Gobinda and took him on a motorcycle, when they did not come for a long time the complainant tried to contact on a phone but it was switched off, hence he made a request to search. Information was received from the family of Gobinda also that Gobinda has also not come till date. Therefore, a request was made to file a report of the incident and on the basis of the complaints, a missing case was registered. 3. The case was investigated by the police. During the Investigation, on 27.09.2006, the kidnapped Shakir Ali @ Babbu escaped from the custody of the kidnappers and reached a petrol pump, where he asked for a mobile phone and called his friend Narayan Singh Visht, resident of Kichha and informed the local police there. This petrol pump was of Akalgarh, Police Station - Bhadson, District Patiala, the local police went to the house with Shakir Ali @ Babbu at around 07:00 in the morning the next day from where Mahendra Singh and Gurumeet Singh were caught and then after interrogating them, the police also rescued Gobinda and a case was registered. 4. After Investigation, a Charge Sheet was presented against the accused persons. The charge sheet was filed against the accused persons under Section 147/148/307(149)/328/342/364A/368/120B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. 4. After Investigation, a Charge Sheet was presented against the accused persons. The charge sheet was filed against the accused persons under Section 147/148/307(149)/328/342/364A/368/120B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. Therefore, the case was committed to the Sessions court on 02.09.2007. After the charge-sheet, the following witnesses were examined for the purpose of proving the charges on behalf of the prosecution: i. P.W. 1 Dhanpat Mittal ii. P.W-2 Mujahid Ali iii. P.W-3 Gobind Kumar iv. P.W-4 Shakir Ali alias Babbu v. P.W-5 Smt. Sumitra Devi vi. P.W- 6 Shyam Sundar vii. P.W-7 Junaid viii. P.W-8 Const. Matloob Khan ix. P.W-9 Rizwan Khaw x. P.W-10 SI Bharat Singh xi. P.W-11 Const. Vinay Kumar xii. P.W-12 ASI Amar Singh Adhikari xiii. P.W-13 GB Pandey 5. After the prosecution concluded its evidence, the statement of accused Gurmit Singh @ Master was recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. in which the accused said that the case was being carried out falsely by giving false testimony by the witnesses. A defence witness, namely, DW-1 Dalveer Singh was produced and examined before the Court on behalf of the accused. 6. The Trial Court, after going through all the evidence and on the basis of the confessional statement made by the accused persons except Gurmeet Singh and Kuldeep Singh (who were facing trial separately), accepted the charges levelled against them in the Court. The Court, on the basis of the statement of confession made by the accused, observed that the fact is proved beyond doubt that PW3 and PW-4 were kidnapped by the accused Sukhdev Singh @ Ladi, Mukhtyar Singh @ Mukhi @ Ladi, Rajendra Singh @ Raju, Mahendra Singh, Gurmeet Singh, Ranjit Singh and Kuljeet Singh @ Kuljinder Singh S/O Sukhwinder Singh. The trial court considered further that whether the accused Gurmeet Singh @ Master was involved in the conspiracy of the alleged crime with other accused or not. The trial court after going through all the evidences and the statements of prosecution witness held that the accused Gurmeet Singh @ Master cannot be held guilty of conspiracy to commit a crime under sections 147/148/307(149)/ 323 of the Indian penal code, 1860 because he himself was not present at the time of doing crime and at the important places of crime where it occurs. The trial court on the basis of the statement of prosecution witnesses found Gurmeet Singh @ Master guilty of the charged Section 364A/120B of the Indian Penal code and acquitted him from all other charges. 7. In the fact of the case, as per the statements of prosecution witnesses – Gobinda (PW-3), Shakir Ali (PW-4) and GB Pandey (PW-13), accused-Gurmit @ Master was involved in the conspiracy of kidnapping of PW-3 Gobinda and PW-4 Shakir Ali along with other accused for the purpose of obtaining ransom. PW-3 Gobinda, who was kidnapped stated that when he was kept chained and locked, he heard talking accused among themselves that Master Gurmeet Singh from Udra has come to Punjab. PW-4 Shakir Ali @ Babbu, who was also kidnapped, stated that accused Sukhwant Singh @ Ladi and his associates used to talk among themselves and say that “out of ransom amount, the share also has to be given to Gurmati Master of Udra Farm, Police Station- Amariya District- Pilibhit. PW-13 G.B. Pandey, who was the Investigating Officer in that case, stated that on 21.09.2006, he received the information through informer that at the house of Gurmit Singh Master of Village Udra of Pilibhit District, the people who committed this crime came in a Tata Sumo car and had dinner at the house of Gurmit Singh Master. When he raided the house of Gurmit Singh @ Master, he was found missing from the house. On the basis of the statement of these three prosecution witnesses, the Trial Court held that accused Gurmit Singh Master, along with other accused, was involved in a conspiracy to kidnap PW-3 Gobind Kumar and PW4 Shakir Ali alias Babbu for ransom, in furtherance of which kidnapped Gobind Kumar and Shakir Ali alias Babbu were abducted by other accused in an unlawful assembly, armed with deadly weapons and after the kidnapping, they were harmed by injecting drugs, kept them confined by hiding them in false confinement and threatened to kill them. An attempt was made and a demand was made for the ransom of the kidnapped and their family members. Thus, the offense alleged against accused Gurmeet Singh Master under section 364A/120B is proved beyond doubt. 8. An attempt was made and a demand was made for the ransom of the kidnapped and their family members. Thus, the offense alleged against accused Gurmeet Singh Master under section 364A/120B is proved beyond doubt. 8. The finding of the Trial Court needs to be interfered with by this Court because the learned Trial Court failed to observe that there is no reliable evidence in the file against accused-Gurmit Singh @ Master regarding his involvement in the crime. In the statement of PW-3 Gobinda Kumar, there is a statement of the accused coming to Punjab and in the statement of PW-4 Shakir Ali @ Babbu, there is a statement of giving the share of the ransom amount to accused-Gurmeet Singh @ Master, which according to the witnesses, they came to know through conversations among the accused. PW-13, who is the Investigating Officer, in his statement has stated that through the informants he came to know that accused Gurmeet Singh @ Master had given shelter to the other accused, but there is no evidence in the file to prove the said facts. Even the Section 161 CrPC was mentioned but it was refuted through affidavit Exhibit B-1. The witness was examined in the form of DW-1, in which he has confirmed the facts recorded in ExhibitB1. In such a situation, there is no reliable evidence in the file against the accused regarding his involvement in the crime. In absence of the evidence, the accused is liable to be acquitted. 9. As per the record, Exhibit-B1 is the affidavit given by DW-1 Dalveer Singh, who as per the Investigating Officer (PW-13) G.B. Pandey, had informed him on 27.09.2006 that he was known to Gurmeet Singh @ Master and that the persons, who were kidnapped, were at the house of Gurmeet Singh @ Master of Village Urda, Pilibhit district. These people, after committing the crime, had come in a Tata Sumo car and had dinner at his house. When the Investigating Officer visited the house of Gurmeet Singh @ Master, he was found missing from the house and, thereafter, he searched for him at various places. The statement of Dalvir Singh, recorded under Section 161 of Cr.P.C., was put-up before Dalvir Singh, which he refuted and he gave his affidavit Exhibit B1. When the Investigating Officer visited the house of Gurmeet Singh @ Master, he was found missing from the house and, thereafter, he searched for him at various places. The statement of Dalvir Singh, recorded under Section 161 of Cr.P.C., was put-up before Dalvir Singh, which he refuted and he gave his affidavit Exhibit B1. In the Trial Court record, Exhibit B1 is at Page 32, in which he has denied that he ever gave the statement under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. to the police and he is not aware as to how this statement was recorded by the police people and he does not know accused Sukhdeo Singh alias Ladi, Mukhtyar alias Ladi, Raju alias Rajendra Singh, Kulvindar Singh and Ranjeet Singh, who had kidnapped Govind Lala. Even in his statement, while appearing as DW1, at Page-290 of the record, he stated that on 27th September, 2006, he did not give any evidence under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. to the police. He also denied that he was aware of whatever was happening in the house of Gurmeet Singh and he was not aware of every incident which took place in his house. 10. Keeping in view the abovesaid evidence given by Dalvir Singh while appearing as DW1 and his affidavit Exhibit B1, the only evidence against Gurmeet Singh is the oral evidence given by PW-3 Gobind Kumar and PW-4 Shakir Ali alias Babbu, and as far as Gurmeet Singh @ Master is concerned, he has been acquitted of the charges under Sections 147, 148, 149, 307 and 328 of IPC, as he was not present at any stage when PW-3 Gobind Kumar and PW-4 Shakir Ali alias Babbu were kidnapped. He did not participate in the kidnaping of PW-3 and PW-4. With respect to his involvement in the kidnapping, the only oral evidence is of PW-3 Gobind Kumar and PW-4 Shakir Ali alias Babbu and the only question remains to be decided in the present Appeal is whether the two oral evidence given by PW-3 Govind Kumar and PW-4 Shakir Ali alias Babbu can be made even basis to convict Gurmeet Singh @ Master. 11. Apart from the abovesaid evidence, the only evidence against Gurmeet Singh is that when he was arrested, he, in his disclosure statement, admitted his crime. 11. Apart from the abovesaid evidence, the only evidence against Gurmeet Singh is that when he was arrested, he, in his disclosure statement, admitted his crime. The question is, whether the above said disclosure statement and the oral evidence can be made basis to convict Gurmeet Singh @ Master. 12. A reference, at this stage, can be made of the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Manoj Kumar Soni vs. State of M.P. 2023 SCC OnLine SC 984, wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court observed as under:- “24. The law on the evidentiary value of disclosure statements of co-accused too is settled; the courts have hesitated to place reliance solely on disclosure statements of co-accused and used them merely to support the conviction or, as Sir Lawrence Jenkins observed in Emperor v. Lalit Mohan Chuckerburty, to “lend assurance to other evidence against a co-accused”. In Haricharan Kurmi v. State of Bihar, this Court, speaking through the Constitution Bench, elaborated upon the approach to be adopted by courts when dealing with disclosure statements: 13. …In dealing with a criminal case where the prosecution relies upon the confession of one accused person against another accused person, the proper approach to adopt is to consider the other evidence against such an accused person, and if the said evidence appears to be satisfactory and the court is inclined to hold that the said evidence may sustain the charge framed against the said accused person, the court turns to the confession with a view to assure itself that the conclusion which it is inclined to draw from the other evidence is right. 25. In yet another case of discrediting a flawed conviction under Section 411, IPC, this Court, in Shiv Kumar v. State of Madhya Pradesh overturned the conviction under Section 411, declined to place undue reliance solely on the disclosure statements of the co-accused, and held: 24. …, the disclosure statement of one accused cannot be accepted as a proof of the appellant having knowledge of utensils being stolen goods. The prosecution has also failed to establish any basis for the appellant to believe that the utensils seized from him were stolen articles. The factum of selling utensils at a lower price cannot, by itself, lead to the conclusion that the appellant was aware of the theft of those articles. The prosecution has also failed to establish any basis for the appellant to believe that the utensils seized from him were stolen articles. The factum of selling utensils at a lower price cannot, by itself, lead to the conclusion that the appellant was aware of the theft of those articles. The essential ingredient of mens rea is clearly not established for the charge under Section 411 IPC. The prosecution's evidence on this aspect, as they would speak of the character Gratiano in Merchant of Venice, can be appropriately described as, “you speak an infinite deal of nothing.” [William Shakespeare, Merchant of Venice, Act 1 Scene 1.] 37. A presumption of fact under Section 114(a), Evidence Act must be drawn considering other evidence on record and without corroboration from other cogent evidence, it must not be drawn in isolation. The present case serves as a perfect example of why such a presumption should have been avoided by the Trial Court. Manoj's conviction, solely relying on the disclosure statements made by himself and the other coaccused, does not suffice to warrant a presumption under Section 411, IPC. It would not be unreasonable to presume that a goldsmith, who has to deal in ornaments and jewelleries on a day-to-day basis, would obviously be in possession of a significant quantity of ornaments at his shop. Given the circumstances, such a presumption drawn under Section 114(a) stands vitiated. 38. At this juncture, even if we assume the veracity of the claim that the items sold to Manoj were indeed stolen articles, it would not be sufficient to attract Section 411, IPC; what was further necessary to be proved is continued retention of such articles with a dishonest intent and knowledge or belief that the items were stolen. No evidence worthy of consideration was adduced by the prosecution to prove that Manoj had retained the articles either with dishonest intent and with knowledge or belief of the same being stolen property. 13. In the present case, after the disclosure statement made by Gurmeet Singh @ Master, no recovery of any evidence has been effected by the Investigating Officer. Hence, the only evidence, which has been made basis to convict Gurmeet Singh @ Master is the oral evidence given by PW-3 Gobind Kumar and PW-4 Shakir Ali @ Babbu. 14. 13. In the present case, after the disclosure statement made by Gurmeet Singh @ Master, no recovery of any evidence has been effected by the Investigating Officer. Hence, the only evidence, which has been made basis to convict Gurmeet Singh @ Master is the oral evidence given by PW-3 Gobind Kumar and PW-4 Shakir Ali @ Babbu. 14. Applying the law laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of Manoj Kumar Soni (supra) to the facts of the present case, apart from the oral evidence of two witnesses, i.e. of PW-3 Gobind Kumar and PW-4 Shakir Ali @ Babbu, there is no direct evidence to link Gurmeet Singh @ Master with the crime. Even pursuant to his disclosure statement, no evidence has been collected to establish that he was involved in the kidnapping of PW-3 Gobind Kumar and PW-4 Shakir Ali @ Babbu. 15. Apart from the above evidence, the Court under Section 114 of the Evidence Act cannot presume the existence of certain facts. For ready reference, Section 114 of the Evidence Act reads as under:- “114. Court may presume existence of certain facts. —The Court may presume the existence of any fact which it thinks likely to have happened, regard being had to the common course of natural events, human conduct and public and private business, in their relation to the facts of the particular case. 16. Hence, merely on account of the oral evidence given by the two witnesses and the fact that the Investigating Officer PW-13 G.B. Pandey had recorded the statement of Dalvir Singh under Section 161 of Cr.P.C., which this witness refuted by giving an affidavit Exhibit B1 at Page 32 of the record that the statement was never given by him that Gurmeet Singh had confided him; he had been kidnapped and that he had taken any money for ransom. No evidence is there to presume the existence or commission of crime by Gurmeet Singh @ Master. Even the punishment has been awarded by presuming the facts under section 114 (a) of the Evidence Act the same must be drawn considering other evidence on record and without corroboration from other cogent evidence, it must not be drawn in isolation. Therefore, the conviction of the accused Gurmeet Singh @ Master needs to be set-aside as it is not proven by any piece of evidence and leading doubt. Therefore, the conviction of the accused Gurmeet Singh @ Master needs to be set-aside as it is not proven by any piece of evidence and leading doubt. It is not proven beyond reasonable doubt and therefore, this Court set-asides the conviction of the accused. 17. The appeal is, hereby, allowed on the basis of the discussion above. 18. Pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of accordingly.