SURENDER KUMAR Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The two appellants in the present case, Surender Kumar and Prakash Chand were convicted for committing the offence of kidnapping for ransom under Section 364-A IPC, by the Learned Additional Sessions Judge, through judgment dated 29.7.2000 in SC No. 239/96. They were sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and fined Rs. 10,000/-each. In case of default in the payment of fine, each had to further undergo simple imprisonment for a period of three months, this through the order on sentence dated 31.8.2000. It is against this judgment and order on sentence, that the present two appeals are made.

(2.) The prosecution had alleged that on 22.1.1995, at about 9 P.M., when Vikas Arora and Rajiv Chhabra were sitting in a Maruti Car (No. DBG 7811), near the Auto Stand at Nehru Nagar, the Appellant Prakash Chand , accompanied by Surender Kumar , the second appellant in this case, asked him for a lift, following which they entered the car forcibly. They then made him drive the car to Ashram, and when Vikas Arora asked them to get off, he threatened them with death. He was made to drive till Suraj Kund, where they stopped, near a dhaba. It was alleged that Prakash took the car keys from him and took them to an empty room in the Dhaba. There he demanded that Vikas Arora tell them the telephone number of his father so that they could convey this ransom demand to him, threatening them with death if they did not comply. He also told them that if their father did not give the money, they would be killed. It was alleged that the threat was overheard by someone who informed the Police. The Police arrived within some time, and took Parkash and Surinder with them. The car keys were taken from Prakash and given back to Vikas Arora. The appellants were taken to police station Okhla, where they were handed over to SI Amrit Kumar. On the basis of these allegations, the FIR was registered. The Appellants were arrested. After conclusion of investigations, they were charged with committing the offences. A charge under Section 364A IPC was framed against both the accused. They denied guilt, and claimed trial.

(3.) In the trial, the prosecution examined 8 witnesses and the Court recorded the statements of the accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C. After perusing the evidence brought on record, the impugned judgment found the appellants guilty of the crime under Section 364A IPC.