STATE Vs. RAKESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Through this petition the Petitioner/State seeks leave to appeal against the impugned judgment and order of the Ld.Addl.Sessions Judge dated 09.04.2010 in SC No.32/2010 by which the Respondents were acquitted of the charge of having committed offence punishable under Sections 120B/363/364A/365/344 IPC.

(2.) Prosecution had alleged that Himanshu, a young boy aged about 2-1/2 years, and son of the informant PW-1 Sarvesh, was playing outside his house on 02.03.2007. The parents later noticed that he did not return home around 3.00 P.M. PW-1Sarvesh,the father of Himanshu searched, but could not find him. Therefore, he went to the police station and lodged a report which became bedrock of the case. It was alleged that for a considerable period there was no movement in the case when on 20.03.2007 the photocopy of a handwritten note was thrown outside the house of the abducted boy's parents demanding a ransom of '30,00,000/-. This was handed over to the police by PW-1. PW-1 Sarvesh further stated that on 01.04.2007, he received a ransom call on his mobile phone, which was followed by another call and similar calls were received subsequently on 03.04.2007 and 05.04.2007. It was alleged by the prosecution that the police acting on the basis of the mobile phone call details procured during the course of investigation went to village Dehliya Pooth, Aliganj, Etah, UP on 17.04.2007 to the house of Amar Singh at about 12.10 P.M. They claimed to have arrested the accused Deepu, Rakesh, Raj Kishore, Mahesh and Jitender. It was alleged that Himanshu was recovered from their custody from the premises of the said Amar Singh. The accused were interrogated and other accused were also arrested. After conclusion of investigation, the accused were charged for committing the offences. Three accused were discharged; one was juvenile and therefore, referred to the competent authority in that regard i.e. the Juvenile Justice Board. Some accused were declared as proclaimed offenders and one of them was subsequently arrested and made to stand trial by separate proceedings.

(3.) After considering the evidence led by the prosecution in the form of testimonies of witnesses as well as the documentary evidence, the Trial Court concluded that the case made out against the accused had not been proved beyond reasonable doubt. They were accordingly acquitted.