PINTU ALIAS BITTU Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) -This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 8.6.2005 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 1, Ghaziabad whereby the appellant is convicted under Section 364, I.P.C. and sentenced to undergo R.I. for 10 years and a fine of Rs. 5,000. In default of payment of fine further S.I. for 6 months. The appellant is further convicted under Section 302, I.P.C. and sentenced to undergo life imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 10,000 and in default of payment of fine further S.I. to one year. The appellant is further convicted under Section 201, I.P.C. and sentenced to undergo R.I. for 5 years and a fine of Rs. 2,000 and in default of payment of fine further S.I. of 3 months.

(2.) BRIEF facts of the case as mentioned in the first information report lodged by Abdul Ali at P.S. Garhmuketshwar, Ghaziabad are that on 3.2.2003 his servant Pintu took away his grandson Jaid at about 4.30 p.m. on cycle on the pretext of showing him helicopter and thereafter he did not return. He had announced in the neighboring area and also searched with the help of his friends and acquaintance but he could not be found out. At about 5.30 p.m. on 4.2.2003 his brother Mustaq and Meharban told him that he had seen Pintu taking Jaid alongwith him on cycle towards field. They had seen him on 3.2.2003 at about 5.00-5.15 p.m. and he is confirmed that his grandson is abducted by Pintu for committing his murder. At the time of going from the house Jaid was wearing blue Paint and green striped shirt and jacket. He was also wearing shocks and white plastic shoes. The report was registered at P.S. Garhmukteshwar at 6.45 p.m. The distance of the police station was 2 Kms. The report was registered by Head Constable Yashpal Singh Tomar at 6.45 p.m. which is Ext. Ka-1. He had prepared the Chik No. 32 of 2003 which is Ext. Ka-4. He had also prepared the G.D. entry No. 46. Copy of G.D. entry is Ext. Ka-6.

(3.) AFTER the submission of charge-sheet, the case was committed to the Court of Sessions and in usual manner the Sessions Judge had framed charges under Sections 364, 302 and 201, I.P.C.