PAPPU Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) I have had the benefit of perusing the judgment of my learned brother R. S. Sodhi, J., by which the appeals filed against the judgment and order dated 31st August, 2000 and 21st September, 2000 of the Additional Sessions Judge, New Delhi in Sessions Case No. 102/ 97, arising out of FIR No. 480/95, Police Station, Ambedkar Nagar, are sought to be dismissed. The learned Additional Sessions Judge held the appellants guilty under Sections 364-A and 368, IPC and sentenced appellants Harnani Singh, Pappu and Vijender to life imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 10.000/- each and in default further rigorous imprisonment for three months each.

(2.) For the reasons and appreciation of evidence, as given hereinafter in the judgment, I am of the view that the prosecution has failed to prove the case beyond any reasonable doubt of kidnapping being for payment of ransom, so as to fall within Section 364-A, IPC. However, I find that the prosecution has proved the case for offence under Sections 365 and 368, IPC.

(3.) The prosecution's case may be briefly summarised as under :- One Lakhpat Singh vide his statement made on 29th July, 1995 Ex.PW2/A informed that the appellant accused Harnam Singh had taken his child Vinod on 28th June, 1995, after he returned home from School. Complainant Lakhpat Singh stated that when he returned home at 7.00 p.m., he was informed by his wife that Vinod had been taken by Harnam Singh, a cousin of the complainant. Lakhpat Singh searched for Vinod but could not trace him. Lakhpat Singh received letters firstly demanding ransom of Rs. 4 lacs and, thereafter, a sum of Rs. 2 lacs. Prosecution claims that on 15th September, 1995, child Vinod was recovered from the possession of appellants Harnani Singh, Pappu and Vijender and Parvati. The fourth accused Parvati is stated to have died during the proceedings. On the minor child being recovered from the possession of the accused persons, he was handed over to the complainant by the U.P. Police. The statement of the child was recorded under Section 164, Cr.P.C. by the Metropolitan Magistrate. Minor Vinod named the accused persons as the persons responsible for kidnapping and keeping him in illegal confinement. On the above allegations, appellants were charged and prosecuted for the offences under Section 364-A read with Section 34 and Section 368, IPC.