PRAMOD KUMAR Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS Revision is directed against an order dated 5-2-77 passed by Sessions Judge, Dehradun, confirming the conviction and sentence recorded against the applicant (Pramod Kumar) under Section 363, I. P. C.

(2.) THE person alleged to have been kidnapped in this case was a boy named Anil Kumar. He lived with his father (Tara Chand) in Mohalla Khurburra, Dehradun. The applicant worked as a driver of one Lakshmi Chand Garg who was a neighbour of Tara Chand. He, therefore, knew Anil Kumar very well. Co-accused Netrapal often visited the applicant and, therefore, he also came to know Anil Kumar. At the relevant time (Jan. 1974) Anil Kumar was a student, but he was not well off in his studies. In his spare time, which he had enough at his disposal, he often met the applicant and co-accused Netrapal. It is said that both these persons often persuaded Anil Kumar to leave his house with cash and ornaments and enter into a business partnership with Netrapal's maternal uncle in District Etah. He succumbed to their persuasion and it is said that on 19-1-74 he left his house with some ornaments of his mother and went to the shop of co-accused Netrapal. There he found the applicant also. It is further said that the applicant took the ornaments from Anil Kumar and asked him to come again after about 2 or 3 hours. Accordingly, he returned to the shop of Netrapal at about 6 p. m. It appears that at that time he was carrying his books with him. The applicant and Netrapal asked him to go to his house and keep his books there so that nobody could suspect that he had disappeared. Anil Kumar agreed to this thing and allegedly left for his house in the company of the applicant. The applicant did not go with him to his house but stayed in the way. Anil Kumar left his books at his house and then proceeded towards Hanuman Chowk. Near Hanuman Chowk he found the applicant and co-accused Netrapal. It is alleged that both of them took Anil Kumar to Saharanpur by taxi. The applicant left co-accused Netrapal and Anil Kumar at Saharanpur and he himself returned to Dehradun. From Saharanpur Netrapal took Anil Kumar to Moradabad by train and from there to Atrauli in District Etah by bus. They reached Atrauli on the night of 24-1-74 and stayed there with a relation of Netrapal. It is averred that at Atrauli Netrapal sold some ornaments brought by Anil Kumar and out of the sale proceeds of those ornaments opened a Bank Account there. Anil Kumar inquired from Netrapal about the partnership business in regard to which he had spoken to him earlier, but Netrapal gave no satisfactory reply to him about it. When Anil Kumar again inquired from him about it, he threatened him with serious consequences. Netrapal kept Anil Kumar at Atrauli for about 2 months and then took him to Secunderabad. From Secun-derabad he took him to Delhi. The applicant met both of them at Delhi. After some time Netrapal brought Anil Kumar to Dehradun and kept him at his house for a few days. At Dehradun Netrapal was said to have asked Anil Kumar to bring more money and ornaments from his relations as there was shortage of funds. He refused to oblige him whereupon, it is averred that both Netrapal and the applicant again took him to Atrauli. The applicant left them there and returned to Dehradun. At Atrauli, Anil Kumar again raised the question of business partnership, but Netrapal as usual tried to put him off on one pretext or the other. Anil Kumar felt suspicious about the conduct of Netrapal and left for Dehradun. The matter was then reported to the police and eventually the applicant as also Netrapal were sent up to stand their trial under Section 363, I. P. C.

(3.) BOTH the accused of the case pleaded not guilty and repudiated the truth of the allegations made against them. They attributed their false implication due to enmity,