Conviction for kidnapping for ransom set aside where no credible evidence linked the accused to the abduction plan.

Conviction for kidnapping for ransom and criminal conspiracy was found unsustainable where the prosecution relied mainly on suspicion, past employment, alleged threats and an anonymous ransom call, but produced no credible evidence linking the accused to the abduction or confinement of the children. Material witnesses gave no direct evidence of his participation, the children implicated other accused persons rather than him, and there was no reliable proof of any meeting or plan with co-accused. Criminal conviction cannot rest on conjecture or the gravity of the offence alone. The conviction was set aside and the accused was acquitted.

---

---

Issues: Whether the appellant's conviction for kidnapping for ransom and criminal conspiracy was sustainable in the absence of credible evidence linking him to the abduction of the children.

Analysis: The prosecution case against the appellant rested mainly on suspicion arising from his past employment with the complainant's family, alleged threats, and an anonymous telephone call. The material witnesses did not depose to any direct role played by the appellant in the kidnapping or confinement of the children. The children's evidence implicated other accused persons, but not the appellant. The call demanding ransom was anonymous and untraced, and there was no credible material showing that the appellant met the co-accused or participated in any plan to abduct the children. Criminal conviction cannot rest on conjectures, and gravity of the offence cannot substitute for proof.

Conclusion: The conviction of the appellant was not sustainable; the appeal was allowed and the appellant was acquitted.

---