VINOD @ PARMOD Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellants had been convicted for the commission of the offences punishable under Sections 120-B IPC and 364/365/386/120-B of Indian Penal Code ('IPC' for short) by the learned Additional Sessions Judge vide judgment dated 28th August, 2001 and vide order dated 30th August, 2001 they had been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven years and also to pay fine of Rs. 5,000/- each and in default to undergo simple imprisonment of six months u/s 120-B IPC; rigorous imprisonment for seven years and also to pay fine of Rs. 5,000/- each and in default to undergo simple imprisonment of six months u/s 364 r/w Section 120-B IPC; rigorous imprisonment for three years and also to pay fine of Rs. 2,500/- each and in default to undergo simple imprisonment of three months u/s 365 IPC and rigorous imprisonment for seven years and also to pay fine of Rs. 2,500/- each and in default to undergo further simple imprisonment of six months u/s 386 r/w Section 120-B IPC. All the substantive sentences of imprisonment were ordered to run concurrently. Feeling aggrieved by the judgment of conviction dated 28th August, 2001 and order on sentence dated 30th August, 2001 the three convicted accused had filed separate appeals but since all of them were heard together they are now being disposed of by this common judgment.

(2.) The prosecution case as noticed by the trial Court in para no. 1 of its judgment is as under:-

(3.) The police then swung into action and found out during investigation that some persons, including the abducted person's driver, appellant Sanjay, had entered into a conspiracy to abduct PW-7 Jugal Kishore for ransom and after getting ransom of twenty lacs of rupees he was released on 29/7/91. The police suspected the involvement of appellant Sanjay and so he was arrested and then on his disclosure statement other accused were arrested. Test Identification Parade(TIP) of those accused was arranged by the police but they allegedly refused to participate in the TIP. On completion of investigation ten accused persons were charge-sheeted. After the trial began, two of them absconded and so they were declared proclaimed offenders and after trial five accused were acquitted by the trial Court while the three appellants were convicted.