RAM BARAN Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) APPELLANTS Ram Baran and Surender Kushwaha as also the third co -accused Megh Raj who has since died and for said reason appeals filed by him have been disposed of as having abated, suffered trial in two FIRs being FIR No. 30/2002 PS Vikaspuri and FIR No. 36/2002 PS Keshav Puram. Pertaining to the first FIR No. 30/2002 Ram Baran and Surender Kushwaha have been convicted vide impugned judgment and order dated 30.4.2005 for the offence punishable under Section 364A/34 IPC and the offence punishable under Section 365/34 IPC. Pertaining to FIR No. 36/2002 they have been convicted vide impugned judgment and order dated 10.8.2005 for the offence punishable under Section 364A/34 IPC and for the offence punishable under Section 395/34 IPC. The sentences imposed are to undergo imprisonment for life in both cases for the offence punishable under Section 364A IPC. They have been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for five years for the offence punishable under Section 365/34 IPC and Section 395/34 IPC. Needless to state, the sentence to undergo rigorous imprisonment for five years in each case has been directed to run concurrently.

(2.) THE four appeals are being disposed of by a common judgment for the reason the prosecution alleges against the appellants that they along with co -accused Megh Raj had abducted Anil Suri pertaining to whom FIR No. 30/02 is the concerned FIR and had also abducted Suraj Bhan and his son Manoj Kumar pertaining to whom FIR No. 36/02 is the concerned FIR. According to the prosecution this fact dawned when Suraj Bhan was set free to arrange the ransom amount to secure the freedom of his son Manoj and he told the police that the appellants and their co -accused had abducted not only him and his son but even Anil Suri.

(3.) IT is thus apparent that except for the evidence pertaining to missing person complaints being lodged; ransom calls being demanded and the two FIRs being registered, there is complete commonality of evidence for the reason Suraj Bhan and his son Manoj who claim to have been abducted by the appellants and their co -accused Megh Raj have deposed that when they were in the custody of the captors even Anil Suri was held captive by them.