SAURABH SACHDEVA Vs. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A First Information Report was lodged around 9:30 p.m. on 19th February, 2002 with the Kotwali Police Station, Dehradun. This First Information Report was lodged by the uncle of the victim. It was alleged in the First Information Report that his nephew, about 11 years old, used to go for tuition and used to return therefrom around 6:00 p.m. in the evening. It was alleged that on that day, he did not return at or after 6:00 p.m. and, accordingly, he was searched. In course of such search, the Mobike, by which he went to attend tuition was found abandoned on National Road. It was alleged that, thereafter, a call came to the mobile phone of his brother i.e. the father of the victim, from another mobile connection, when the father of the victim was asked to make arrangement for money holding out that the victim is in the custody of the caller. On the basis of this First Information Report, investigation started, which resulted in filing of a charge sheet, accusing the Appellants, before us, of kidnapping the victim for obtaining ransom.

(2.) THE victim was recovered at around 9:00 p.m. of 20th February, 2002 from a Maruti Car, which was parked outside the gate of Doiwala Sugar Factory Ltd. It was alleged that at or about the time, when the victim was thus recovered, the Appellants fired upon the police party, who ultimately apprehended the Appellants. It was alleged that such firing was aimed at the police party and the same was committed by using two country made pistols. It was alleged that the Appellants did so, while getting out from the self same Maruti Car, where the victim of kidnapping was found. In respect of the incident, that took place at around 9:00 p.m. of 20th February, 2002, a First Information Report was lodged with Doiwala Police Station, which was investigated upon and thereafter two charge sheets were filed, holding out that the Appellants are accused of committing crime punishable under Section 307 of Indian Penal Code and since, they were found in possession of illegal arms, they have also violated the provisions of the Arms Act. Upon acceptance of the police reports thus filed, charges were framed and those having been denied, trial commenced. One trial was conducted for proving three several charges framed against the Appellants, on the basis of three several charge sheets. On conclusion of the trial, the court below has upheld the contention of the prosecution and, accordingly, has appropriately awarded punishments to the Appellants. In the premise, each of the Appellants have filed three appeals, against the consolidated judgment and order. We have heard the parties on the three appeals and propose to dispose of the same by this common judgment and order.

(3.) AFTER the Appellants were apprehended and the illegal arms, empty shells, and cartridges were recovered, the victim boy was recovered from the car, when a mobile phone containing a sim -card was also recovered.