MEHTAB ALAM LALAI CHOUDHARI Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Appellant being aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 6 th July, 2004 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Greater Bombay, has preferred this appeal. By the said judgment and order, the Sessions Judge was pleased to convict the Appellant for the offence punishable under Section 364-A of Indian Penal Code and sentenced him to suffer rigorous imprisonment for life and pay fine of Rs.5,000/-, in default to suffer further rigorous imprisonment for six months. The trial court also convicted the Appellant for the offence punishable under Section 365 of I. P. C. and sentenced him to suffer rigorous imprisonment for five years and to pay fine of Rs.2,000/- in default to suffer further rigorous imprisonment for three months. Both the sentences were directed to run concurrently.

(2.) The prosecution case in brief is as under-

(3.) The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Appellant submitted that the trial court had erred in convicting the Appellant for the offence punishable under Section 364-A of the I. P. C. It is submitted that the prosecution has not established all the ingredients of Section 364-A of I.P.C., and therefore, the Appellant was entitled to be acquitted for the said offence. It is submitted that in the event this Court comes to the conclusion that the Appellant was responsible for abducting the son of the complainant, then at the highest, Appellant could be convicted for the offence punishable under Section 365 of the I.P.C. In support of the said submission, the learned counsel has relied on the Division Bench judgment of this Court in the case of Philips Fadrick D Souza & Anr. Vs. State of Maharashtra & Anr., 2008 AllMR(Cri) 2830. Reliance is also placed on the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Vishwanath Gupta Vs. State of Uttaranchal, 2007 CrLJ 2296.