JUDGMENT :

Vikas Budhwar, J.

1. This is an appeal under Section 378(3) Cr.P.C., 1973 (hereinafter referred as ‘Cr.P.C., 1973’) at the behest of State of U.P. instituted against the judgment and order of acquittal dated 19.2.2022 passed by Additional District and Sessions Judge, Hapur in Sessions Trial No. 56 of 2008 (State of U.P. vs. Kuldeep and another) arising out of Case Crime No. 01 of 2007, under Section 364 and 34 IPC, Police Station Hapur Dehat, District Hapur.

2. The factual matrix of the case as worded in the appeal are that the proceedings purported to be under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. was instituted before the learned Magistrate, which transformed into lodging of first information report as Case Crime No. 01 of 2007, under Section 364 IPC, Police Station Hapur Dehat, District Hapur with an allegation that the informant, who happens to be the father of the victim, Indrajeet Singh, aged about 15 years was called upon and taken away by the accused herein, who are two in number being Kuldeep s/o Mahendra and Mahendra s/o Phool Singh and one Saurabh, who happened to be the resident of Mohalla Bheem Nagar under Police Station Hapur Dehat, District Hapur. On 2.4.2007 while offering an employment as a Cleaner of a Tempo Carrier while providing him food and lodging and an amount of Rs. 3,000/- per month the informant on the assurance and with confidence that life, liberty and security of the victim, Indrajeet Singh, would be safeguarded by the accused herein allowed the accused to take away his son. As per the version contained in the first information report in question the son of the informant even after lapse of one month did not come back to his house and thereafter not only queries regarding the whereabouts of the victim was made at the instance of the prosecution but also constant search was made. Even infact as the per the first information report search of the victim was made from 3.5.2007 till 10.5.2007, however, the accused herein on one pretext or the other avoided presence of the victim. On the other hand, the accused herein apprised the parents of the victim that the victim was living with one Kuldeep and assured that when Kuldeep will come back with informant’s son, then he would bring the victim to his parent’s place. In the first information report it was also alleged that in a well planned design his son has been abducted. Pursuant to the lodging of the first information report and registration of Case Crime No. 01 of 2007 in the concerned police station, Investigating Officer was nominated to conduct investigation and thereafter site plan was also prepared and the statements of the witnesses were also recorded.

3. To bring home the charges the prosecution produced following witnesses, namely:-

4. Consequent to the investigation so conducted by the Investigating Officer charge-sheet was submitted under Section 364 IPC read with Section 34 IPC, the case was committed to sessions, the charges were read over to the accused herein. The accused herein denied the charges and claimed to be tried.

5. In the proceeding under Section 313 Cr.P.C. the accused pleaded innocence and rather non-guilty and also came up with the stand that they are innocent and they have been falsely implicated in the said case.

6. Thereafter, the trial commenced and accordingly by virtue of the order dated 19.2.2022 the court of Additional District and Sessions Judge, Hapur in Session Trial No. 56 of 2008 acquitted the accused under Section 364 and 34 IPC.

7. Challenging the acquittal order now State of U.P. is before this Court assailing the order dated 19.2.2022 passed by Additional District and Sessions Judge, Hapur in Sessions Trial No. 56 of 2008 (State of U.P. vs. Kuldeep and