Sanjiv Khanna, J.

1. The appellant Rahul Rana challenges his conviction under Sections 364A/394/323/506 read with Section 120B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC, for short) by the impugned judgment dated 21st August, 1999.

2. By order on sentence dated 25th August, 1999, the appellant Rahul Rana has been sentenced as under :-

Section	Sentence	Fine	In default of payment of fine
364A, IPC	Imprisonment for life	Rs.1,00,000/-	SI for 1 Year
394, IPC	RI for 10 years	Rs.50,000/-	SI for 6 Months
120B r/w 364A, IPC	Imprisonment for life	Rs.50,000/-	SI for 6 Months
120B r/w 394, IPC	RI for 10 years	Rs.50,000/-	SI for 6 Months

Separate sentences have not been awarded for the offences under Sections 323 and 506 IPC, observing that these were minor offences and the ingredients of these two offences were covered under Section 364A, IPC. The sentences are to run concurrently and benefit of Section 428 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C., for short) has been granted.

3. The impugned judgment also convicts co-accused Amit Yadav. The said Amit Yadav had filed Crl.A. No.569/1999 against the said conviction and was granted interim bail. He absconded. This appeal by Amit Yadav was dismissed in default by order dated 13th December, 2000. Amit Yadav has been declared a proclaimed offender and his appeal has been consigned to record room.

4. We have heard the counsel for the appellant and the State, and have perused the trial court record. We proceed to examine the evidence and the contentions raised.

5. Rishi Sethi (PW-22), the victim, has deposed that he was kidnapped at about 07:00 p.m. on 12th September, 1995, when he was sitting on the driver’s seat in his car, which was parked near the residence of the Director of All India Institute of Medical Sciences (AIIMS). Three-four persons had confronted and pushed him to the front side seat of his car. He was forced to put his face down. He was beaten and they tried to strangulate him. A bandage was forcibly wrapped around his eyes. He became unconscious. When he regained consciousness, he was still in the car. He could not see as he was blindfolded throughout. Subsequently, he was taken to a room and confined there. There again, he suffered loss of consciousness because of the pain due to the injuries caused. On 16th September, 1995, he regained consciousness and found himself in his house. PW-22 claimed that he did not know how he reached his house. In his examination-in-chief, PW-22 could not identify the three-four perpetrators who had kidnapped, beaten and confined him in a room. He could not recollect anything about the place/location where he was. He, however, identified the car in which he was kidnapped as bearing No.DL7C-7777. PW-22 was unable to recognise the appellant Rahul Rana as well as the co-accused, Amit Yadav. On being cross-examined by the Public Prosecutor, he maintained his stance and denied as incorrect that Rahul Rana present in the court had dragged him to the rear seat or had given fist blows on his face. He denied the suggestion that while he was confined to a room, the appellant Rahul Rana had asked him to give telephone numbers of his near relatives which he was forced to furnish. He identified the hair brush, pen, shoes, purse, driving license, etc. and other articles which were there in his car when he was kidnapped. He also identified the car. After some initial hesitation, he identified the pistol (Ex.P-1) which was used to threaten him.

6. The deposition of PW-22 would establish and prove that he was kidnapped, the manner in which he was kidnapped, and that he was rescued. He hesitated and could not identify and affirm whether the appellant Rahul Rana was one of the perpetrators. On the question of Rahul Rana’s involvement, the prosecution, therefore, must rely on