RAJBIR AND ORS. Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The above three appeals arise out of a common judgment dated 07.3.2012 and order on sentence dated 31.3.2012, by which all the appellants were sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life for the offence punishable under Sections 120-B/364-A and 368 IPC and to pay fine of Rs. 10,000/- each, in default thereof further simple imprisonment for four months each. In addition thereto, appellant Rajbir was also sentenced, for the offence punishable under Section 411 IPC, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years and to pay line of Rs. 2000/-, in default thereof simple imprisonment for fifteen days. The case of the prosecution is that the victim Om Prakash left his home on 26.10.2010 at about 9:00 p.m. informing his wife that he would return within 2-3 days. As the victim did not return, his wife lodged a report with the Police, which was recorded vide DD No. 27 on 31.10.2010 and subsequently on 4.11.2010, an FIR was registered on the statement of the wife of the victim (Nanhi). It is also the case of the prosecution that the wife of the victim, Nanhi received demands for ransom through mobile phone of her husband; and the kidnappers asked her to reach Dhaulpur petrol pump with the ransom money; upon which Nanhi and her son went to Dhaulpur on 5.11.2010 along with the police party. While appellants, Rajbir and Damodar came to collect the ransom money, they were apprehended. The motor cycle on which they came to collect the ransom money was also seized; the mobile phone of the victim was recovered from them and on interrogation, they named Neeraj and Bharat for having kidnapped and confined Om Prakash at Muraina. Thereafter on 9.11.2010 a police party was organised, they reached Muraina and recovered the victim, Om Prakash, from the appellant, Bharat @ Bharta. On 12.11.2010, Neeraj was also apprehended. The prosecution examined 15 witnesses in all, however, no evidence was led by the defence.

(2.) Counsel for the appellants submit that the appellants have been falsely implicated in the case. It is contended that the judgment is based on surmises and conjectures, there is no evidence which would point towards the guilt of the appellants and to the contrary there are material contradictions in the testimonies of the material witnesses being PW-1 (wife of the victim), PW-3 (neighbour), PW-14 and PW-15.

(3.) Counsel for the appellants submit that as per PW-1 the wife of the victim, her husband left the house on 26.10.2010. Counsel further submit that although in her testimony in court no date has been given but in the complaint made to the police being DD No. 27, it has been stated that her husband left the house on 26.10.2010 at about 9:00 p.m. While according to the victim PW-4, he had left the house on 27.10.2010. It is further submitted that as per the victim, he had made a phone call to his wife, informing her about his kidnapping on 29.10.2010, whereas surprisingly PW-1 did not inform the police either when DD No. 27 was recorded on 31.10.2010 or on 4.11.2010 when the FIR was registered that she had received a phone call on 29.10.2010 from her husband informing her that he had been kidnapped. Counsel for the appellants contend that this is a very vital piece of information, which was either withheld or no phone call was ever received, as surely in case a phone call with regard to kidnapping of her husband had been received, she-would have informed the police about the same.