NATTHI Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The applicant Natthi was charge-sheeted for having kidnapped a minor boy Lakho on 21st September, 1968 at about 4-5 P.M. from Mohalla Kishanpara, P. S. Firozabad with the intention to confine the boy wrongfully and thus having committed an offence punishable under Section 365 IPC. He was further charged that he having wrongfully confined the said boy with the purpose of extorting money from his father Ram Babu and thus committed an offence punishable under Section 347 IPC. He was further charge-sheeted for the offence under Section 25(1)(a) of the Arms Act for being in possession of a pistol. Along with the applicant Natthi, accused Maharaj Singh, Gulzari and Raj Vir Singh were also charged for the offence of kidnapping and wrongfully confining under Section 365 IPC and 347 IPC.

(2.) The case of the prosecution was that Lakho, who was aged about 5 years was the son of Shri Krishna (PW 3). On 21st September, 1968 the family members of the family of Shri Krishna found Lakho missing from the house. Shri Krishna and his brother Ram Babu made efforts to trace him but they failed in doing so. The fact that Lakho was missing from the house was even announced by loudspeaker in the city. When they failed to find Lakho a first information report was lodged with the police at P. S. Firozabad. It, however, appears that Lakho could not be traced till 2nd November, 1968 when at about 8.30 P.M. Natthi came to Ram Babu to the latter's shop and told him that he had got Lakho with him and that he could give back the boy provided he was prepared to pay Rs. 5000/- for that purpose. Ram Babu agreed to pay Rs. 5000/- to Natthi demanded by him as ransome. Ram Babu told this fact to his brother Shri Krishna and after making arrangement for the sum of Rs. 5000/- they were going to Meetna Ki Pulia with that sum in the hand when they met Sub-Inspector in the way who enquired about the whereabouts of the boy. It was thereupon that Shri Krishna and Ram Babu told the Sub-Inspector of their meeting Natthi and the fact that they were going to pay the amount of Rs. 5000/- to Natthi for getting back Lakho. Sub-Inspector, however, decided to go with them with a party to arrest Natthi. After having reached the spot, the Sub-Inspector and others who had accompanied Ram Babu and Sri Krishna concealed themselves behind the trees in the field. At about 5 P.M. the miscreants came with the boy and started talking about the ransome. The money was paid by Ram Babu to Natthi. Thereupon the police intervened and succeeded in arresting Natthi at spot with Rs. 3000/-. On a search being made the police also found a pistol from the folds of the Dhoti of Natthi. After investigation the police submitted a charge-sheet under Section 365 IPC as well as 25(1)(a) of the Arms Act against Natthi and 3 others, as mentioned above. It, however, appears that the Magistrate being of the opinion that the case was such which ought to be tried by the Court of Sessions committed the accused under Section 365 IPC. The case under Section 25 of the Arms Act was also committed to the Court of Sessions. After the receipt of the case the Assistant Sessions Judge modified the charges and splitted the same into one under Section 365 and 347 IPC. To prove its case the prosecution produced a number of witnesses. Natthi accused pleaded not guilty and asserted that he had been falsely implicated by the police. It was denied by him that he had demanded any ransom and that the sum of Rs. 3000/- was recovered from his possession not in the manner alleged by the prosecution. His case was that he was arrested from his house and that the sum of Rs. 3000/- was taken by the police from his house which he had obtained on loan.

(3.) After examining the case of the prosecution as well as the defence of the accused Natthi the learned Asstt. Sessions Judge, Agra found that the applicant as well as the 3 other accused persons were guilty of the offence punishable under Section 347 IPC. Hence each one of them were convicted and sentenced to R. I. for two years. He further found them guilty of having committed the offence under Section 25(1)(a) of the Arms Act. Since the view of the learned Sessions Judge was that the accused had not committed any offence under Section IPC therefore, he acquitted them of this charge. Aggrieved by the judgment of the learned Sessions Judge Natthi and others preferred two separate appeals before the leaned Sessions Judge. These appeals were decided by a common judgment dated 28th August, 1972. The learned Sessions Judge allowed the appeal filed by Maharaj Singh, Gulzari and Raj Vir Singh but dismissed that of the applicant. Hence this revision.