MUKESH NAUTIYAL Vs. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is preferred under Sec. 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as Cr.P.C.), is directed against the judgment and order dtd. 21/12/2017 passed by learned Sessions Judge in Sessions Trial No.17 of 2015 State v. Mukesh Nautiyal and others whereby accused/appellant Mukesh has been convicted under Sec. 302 IPC and Sec. 201 IPC read with Sec. 120(B) of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as IPC). Appellant has been sentenced by the Session Judge for life and has been directed to pay fine of Rs.5,000.00. In default of payment of fine, appellant has been directed to undergo six months additional imprisonment. He has further been convicted under Sec. 201 IPC read with Sec. 120(B) I.P.C. and directed to undergo three years rigorous imprisonment and is directed to pay fine of Rs.2,000.00. In default of payment of fine, he has been further directed to undergo additional imprisonment for a period of three months. It is directed that both the sentences shall run concurrently.

(2.) We heard Mr. Rajendra Dobhal, Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. Sahilendra Nauriyal, Advocate for the appellant and Mr. Amit Bhatt, Deputy Advocate General for the State of Uttarakhand.

(3.) The prosecution story, in brief, is that on 5/7/2015, one Tota Lal lodged First Information Report in Thana Dharasu, District Uttarkashi stating therein that on 5/7/2015 at about 05:30 p.m. his son Pradeep Bharti, with his few friends, went out for a walk but his son did not return. He searched his son at different places but could not find him. On enquiry, he came to know that his son had some quarrel in the hotel of one Manveer Singh Negi at Nalupani. Thereafter the boys, who accompanied with his son, came back to their home but his son did not come back. His motor cycle no.9290 is standing on road at Nalupani. He apprehended that his son was abducted.