Rita Roy (PW 1) deposed that the appellant had come to her house on 03.03.16 at 7.30 p.m.. He enquired whether he would bring tea or not. When she replied in the affirmative, he went to the tea stall to bring tea. After taking tea, the appellant took away her younger son Ayush stating that he would purchase chips but they did not return. The aforesaid deposition of PW 1 is in stark variation to the earlier statement made by her to police which was treated as FIR. In the FIR she stated that appellant came on 03.03.2016 at 8 p.m.. The appellant had come to her house with a packet of chips and gave it to Ayush. Thereafter, the appellant left her house. Upon finishing the chips, Ayush followed the appellant saying he would urinate. Thereafter, Ayush was untraceable. Thus, there is clear dichotomy in the evidence of PW 1 in court and her version in the FIR with regard to manner and circumstance in which the child left the house. If the FIR is to be believed, the appellant had not taken away the child stating that he would purchase chips as deposed by PW 1 in court. Hence, I am constrained to hold that evidence of PW 1 does not establish that the appellant had taken away the child from her residence on the excuse of purchasing chips. On the other hand impression gathered from the FIR is that child left the house stating that he would urinate soon after the appellant had gone. Hence, kidnapping of the child cannot be said to be established through the evidence of PW 1. Evidence of other witnesses namely,
