The essential elements of the offence under Section 364-A IPC must be met to establish guilt. The statement of a co-accused is inadmissible as evidence and cannot be relied upon to establish guilt.

V.K. Bali, J.-Harbhan on 06.06.2002 went from his home to sell vegetables in the market of Govindgarh. No trace of him has been found till date.

2. Rahis and Natthi Singh, appellants herein, were tried under Section 364/A IPC - kidnapping for ransom, Section 365 IPC - kidnapping or abduction with an intent to secretly and wrongfully confine a person and under Section 384 IPC - for extortion. Resultant, trial culminated into their conviction under Section 364A read with Section 120-B IPC for which they were sentenced to life as also to pay fine of Rs. 1,000/-and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo SI for six months. They were also held guilty under Section 365 IPC and sentenced to undergo RI for seven years as also to pay fine of Rs. 1,000/-and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo SI for a period of six months. They have also been held guilty under Section 384 IPC and sentenced to undergo R.I. for three years as also to pay fine of Rs. 1,000/-and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo SI for six months. This order of conviction was recorded against them on 211.2003 and 211.2003 by the

Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track), Kama.

3. It is significant to mention here that the police, after investigation, had filed challan under Section 173 (2) CrPC for offences under Section 365 and 384 IPC. The matter was being tried before the Magistrate, who after recording statements of four prosecution witnesses though that the appellants should also be tried for offence under Section 364-A IPC for which he took cognizance read with Section 120B IPC and on 28.04.2003 committed the case to the Court of Sessions, which framed charges under Section 364-A read with 120-B, Section 365 and Section 384 IPC.

4. Prosecution version was disclosed for the first time by father of hapless young boy Harbhan on 14.07.2002 when he lodged a written report before the concerned police official. In the FIR lodged by him, he stated that his son Harbhan had gone from village Rauf in the morning on 06.06.2002 like everyday routine to sell vegetables in the market of Govindgarh. After selling vegetables, when he was coming back to his village Rauf , persons of Rauf and neighbouring villages, who too used to go in the morning to their shops noticed him on the track of Kaithwada but his son did not reach his house and disappeared between the track of Kaithwada and village Rauf . He and his family members tried to locate Harbhan amongst their relatives and at other places but could find no clue of him. They then discussed the issue amongst family members and with Natthi on 09.06.2002 when he told him and others that Harbhan had been kidnapped and further that whereabouts of his son were in his notice. He (Natthi) further asked the complainant not to report the matter to police or else he would not get his son and if he would eke out an amount of Rs. 1.25 lacs towards ransom in lieu of return of his son, then on his (Natthis) guarantee, his son would be brought back. As per the version of Natthi, he passed on amount of Rs. 1.25 lacs to him as ransom at the shop of Pooran in village Kaithwada in presence of Vishram, Shivram Ramswaroop and Paramlal. Natthi continued to desist them from lodging the report to the police. Natthi misled them about the return of Harbhan from the kidnappers in lieu of ransom and now he was saying that neither the kidnappers were returning Harbhan nor the ransom amount of Rs. 1.25 lacs. The first informant further stated that Natthi used to say that he would not be able to bring back his son if he was to lodge report to the police and it might also cause hurt to his son and because of fear, he could not lodge the report earlier. Now that he was making report, legal action should be taken.

5. During the course of trial, Babu, father of Harbhan, was examined as PW-1. He deposed in tune with the FIR lodged by him. He also stated that Natthi had made demand of money in presence of Paramlal, Shivram, V