DINESH Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellants are accused 1 and 2 in S.C. No.128 of 2002 on the file of the Additional Sessions cum Fast Track Court No.1 , Erode and they were prosecuted for the offence under Sections 120(B) and 364 -A IPC and the 1st accused was found guilty for the offence under Section 363 I.P.C. read with Section 34 I.P.C. and sentenced to undergo three years Rigorous Imprisonment and the 2nd accused was found guilty under Section 363 I.P.C. and sentenced to undergo three years Rigorous Imprisonment. Aggrieved by the same, this appeal is filed.

(2.) LEARNED counsel for the appellants confined his arguments only to the question of sentence stating that the 2nd appellant/2nd accused is now aged 70 years and the 1st appellant/1st accused is now aged 40 years and even according to the prosecution case, there was no intention of kidnapping the son of P.W.1 and due to enmity and with the intention of teaching a lesson to P.Ws.1 and 2, who prevented the accused from selling their articles outside the house of P.W.1, they indulged in such act and admittedly no harm was caused to the child though the child was kept in the custody of appellant for four days and considering the above, the sentence may be reduced to the period of sentence already undergone. He submitted that the first appellant was in jail from 13.11.2001 to 30.01.2002 and the 2nd appellant was in jail from 13.11.2001 to 08.08.2002 and therefore, the sentence already undergone may be treated as sufficient sentence and they may be released.

(3.) I have gone through the evidence of prosecution witnesses and 313 statement given by the appellants and it is seen that the appellants are known to P.Ws.1 and 2 and also the child who was kidnapped. Though P.W.2 has deposed that he received calls from the appellants and they demanded ransom to send back the child, it is admitted that no harm was caused to the child and the child was rescued four days later when the child was taken in a two -wheeler by the appellants in a busy street. P.W.2 also admitted that he questioned the appellants and asked them to remove their cart in which they were doing business, which according to P.W.2 was causing hindrance to traffic and that was also spoken to by the appellants and due to the enmity and to teach a lesson to P.Ws.1 and 2, the appellants have committed the offence.