DHARAM PAL Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant is aggrieved by the judgment of the Additional Sessions Judge dated 19.9.1977 by which he was convicted under Section 368 and was sentenced to l1/2 year's of imprisonment. Brief facts necessary to dispose of the appeal are recapitulated as under:

(2.) According to the prosecution on 21.2.1975, Brij Mohan of Amod village alongwith others, conspired and kidnapped Manto, a boy of I/2 years, son of Rajinder Prashad from his lawful guardianship with a view to extract Rs.10,000/- from Rajinder Prashad, father of the boy. The actual kidnapping was carried out by Bin, and Kailash. Birj, and Kailash are absconding. Manto, the kidnapped boy, confined to Rori village from 21.2.1975 to 23.2.1975, was recovered from the house of Bhagwan Devi. She is the mother-in-law of appellant Dharampal's brother. The prosecution examined 15 witnesses in support of the prosecution case. I have carefully examined the evidence on record and in my considered opinion no interference is called for. Counsel for the appellant prayed that the appellant's sentence be reduced to the period already undergone.

(3.) Reliance has been placed on the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Sarup Chand v. State of Punjab, reported in 1987(1) Crimes 818. In this case the appellant was convicted by the Trial Court under Section 161, Indian Penal Code and under Section 5(l)(d) read with Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947. The conviction was upheld by the High Court. In appeal, Hon'ble the Supreme Court while maintaining the conviction had reduced the sentence to the period already undergone on the ground that six years have passed from the date of the incident and this is the first time the appellant had committed an offence.