Kidnapping for ransom proof and appellate restraint on acquittal barred reversal where evidence remained unreliable.

In a prosecution for kidnapping a minor boy for ransom under Section 364-A read with Section 34 IPC, the child witness was found natural and trustworthy, but the prosecution failed to prove the ransom demand and alleged recovery through reliable independent evidence. The audio cassette relied on to support the demand was rejected because the voice was unclear and the complainant could not identify it, and the identification parade evidence was insufficient to disturb the acquittal. Applying the limited scope of appellate interference with an acquittal, the Court held that reversal was unwarranted because no perversity or manifest unreasonableness in the trial court's appreciation of evidence was shown.

---

---

Issues: Whether the prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt that the accused kidnapped the minor boy for ransom and thereby committed the offence under Section 364-A read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.

Analysis: The evidence of the child witness was accepted as natural and trustworthy, but the prosecution failed to establish the alleged ransom demand and the alleged recovery from the farm house by reliable independent evidence. The material relied upon for the ransom demand, including the audio cassette, was disbelieved because the voice was not clear and the complainant could not identify it. The identification parade evidence was also not found sufficient to displace the acquittal. In an appeal against acquittal, reversal is not warranted unless the trial court's appreciation of evidence is shown to be perverse or manifestly unreasonable, which was not demonstrated.

Conclusion: The prosecution did not prove the charge beyond reasonable doubt, and the acquittal was rightly sustained.

---