SHER MOHAMMAD @ SHERA Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellant -Sher Mohammad @ Shera has preferred the present appeal to challenge the correctness of a judgment dated 20.05.2010 in Sessions Case No.1033/09 arising out of FIR No.533/05 registered at police station Keshav Puram. By an order dated 04.06.2010, the appellant was sentenced to undergo RI for five years with fine Rs.5,000/ - under Section 363 IPC; and RI for ten years with fine Rs.10,000/ - under Section 364 -A IPC.

(2.) ALLEGATIONS against the appellant, as set up in the charge - sheet, were that on 01.11.2005 he kidnapped Sanskar @ Shishu aged about four years, son of his employer Pramod Kumar Goyal, for ransom. Daily Dairy (DD) No.30 was recorded when missing person report was lodged and efforts were made to find out the child but in vain. On the statement of complainant - Pramod Kumar Goyal, First Information Report was lodged. The complainant suspected the involvement of his servant - Sher Mohammad @ Shera who used to take the child for a walk in the crime. The child was searched at the native village of the appellant but could not be traced. On 02.11.2005, Pramod Goyal received a call from phone No.05922 -262512 on his telephone No.9811239738 and the caller demanded Rs.1 lac from him to release the child. At about 01.30 p.m. Pramod Goyal again received a call from telephone No.5922 -265017 and the caller asked him to reach alone at Opposite New Collectorate Amroha with Rs.1 lac. During this conversation, the complainant identified the voice of the caller to be that of Sher Mohammad @ Shera. Thereafter, a trap team was laid and the appellant -Sher Mohammad @ Shera was apprehended at village Jalalpur Bagrau. He recovered the child from village Masibi which was about 5 km away. During investigation, statements of witnesses conversant with the facts were recorded. After completion of investigation, a charge -sheet was filed against the appellant; he was duly charged and brought to trial. The prosecution examined 14 witnesses to substantiate its case. In 313 statement, the accused denied his complicity in the crime and claimed innocence. He alleged that he was falsely implicated as his salary was not paid on demand by the complainant. After considering the rival contention of the parties and evaluating the evidence on record, the trial court by the impugned judgment held the appellant guilty for committing offences under Sections 363/364A IPC and sentenced him accordingly. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied, the appeal has been preferred.

(3.) SINCE the appellant, who has been produced in judicial custody pursuant to issuance of production warrant, has given up challenge to the findings on conviction under Section 363/364A IPC voluntarily in the presence of overwhelming evidence of the complainant coupled with recovery of the child, his conviction is affirmed. Nominal roll dated 07.04.2014 reveals that the period already undergone in custody is eight years, five months and four days besides remission for one year, five months and sixteen days. The unexpired portion of sentence was one month and ten days on that day. The sentence order dated 04.06.2010 reveals that the appellant was a young boy of 25 years and was working in a band party at the time of incident. He has a family comprising of widow aged mother, wife, five brothers and one married sister. He is a first time offender and is not involved in any other criminal case. No harm was caused to the child. His jail conduct was satisfactory. He has already served the substantial period of substantive sentence. As on 07.04.2014, the unexpired portion of sentence was one month and ten days. Considering these circumstances, the period already undergone by the appellant in this case is taken as substantive sentence and Sentence order is modified accordingly to that extent.