PARVAZE Vs. STATE OF UP

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ACCUSED appellants Parvez, Firoz alias Afroz and Sattu alias Satya Prakash have challenged the judgment and order dated 29.05.2000 whereby all the three accused have been convicted for the offence punishable under section 364 Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as "IPC") read with section 34 IPC and have been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of eight-year and fine of Rs. 4000/- each.

(2.) THE facts in brief are that Kallu (since missing) had been selling rickshaw on instalments. Whosoever used to purchase the rickshaw would either pay the instalment at the house of Kallu in Rampur or he would himself go and collect the instalments. On 24.07.1997 at about 8.00 a.m. accused appellants Parvez, Firoz alias Afroz and Sattu alias Satya Prakash came to the house of Kallu and asked him to accompany them to Udham Singh Nagar so that they could make payment of instalment. Even other persons, who purchased rickshaw from him, also wanted to make payment of their instalments. Relying on the statement of the accused appellants Parvez, Firoz alias Afroz and Sattu alias Satya Prakash, Kallu accompanied them. At about 9.00 a.m. he left the house and told his wife that he was going along with above mentioned persons to collect the instalments and would return in the evening. When he did not return in the evening, Saddique, brother of Kallu, along with Sazid Khan, Naeem and Safdar went to Kashipur to enquire about the whereabouts of his brother. At Kashipur, persons, who had paid the instalments to Kallu, informed the complainant that Kallu was seen by them collecting the instalments between 2.00 p.m. to 5.00 p.m. When complainant could not trace his brother, he went to police station of Udham Singh Nagar, who refused to record the first information report stating that his brother was allegedly abducted from Rampur so report should be lodged at police station Rampur. Thus, he went to police station Rampur, where he was told that report would be lodged at Kashipur. However, he submitted the written complaint (Exhibit Ka 1) on 04.08.1997 before Incharge Inspector, Police Station Kashipur narrating the above facts. He suspected the accused appellants for committing the murder of his brother. On the basis of the complaint (Exhibit Ka 1) chick FIR (Exhibit Ka 2) was recorded on 04.08.1997 at 2.30 p.m. Initially, the investigation was handed over to Sub Inspector S.D. Gupta, who recorded the statements of the complainant, Yaseen, Liyaqat, Shakeel and other witnesses. He also made inquiries from the mother and sister of Parvez accused. On 23.08.1997, he recorded the statement of Firasat Jahan, wife of Kallu. He submitted a report to Superintendent of Police on 23.08.1997 that this case pertains to Kashipur as occurrence took place at Kashipur, therefore, investigation be also conducted at police station Kashipur, District Udham Singh Nagar. THEreafter, the investigation was transferred to Kashipur and was conducted by PW8 SI T.C. Sharma. He arrested all the three accused on 31.12.1997. On completion of the investigation, he submitted the challan in the court and accused were chargesheeted under section 364 IPC read with section 34 IPC to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.

(3.) I have heard learned counsel for the appellants and learned AGA for the State and perused the entire evidence on record.