MANTU AND OTHERS Vs. STATE OF M P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These appeals under Section 374 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 has been preferred by accused/appellants being aggrieved by a Judgment dated 30 th November, 2004 in Special Sessions Trial No. 85/01, recorded by the Special Judge, Datia, (M.P.), holding thereby the accused guilty for commission of offence punishable under Sections 364-A of I.P.C. read with Section 13 of the MPDVPK Act and sentencing each one of them to suffer life imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 1,000/-, in default of payment of which they were further directed to undergo simple imprisonment of three-three months. At the time of pronouncement of the judgment, accused Laxman remained absent and hence, he was directed to be summoned through arrest warrant by cancelling his bail bonds.

(2.) In short, the facts giving rise to these appeals are that on 25 th Feb. 2001, complainant Banmali Kurmi (PW-2) lodged a report at P.S. Unnav, which was registered vide Ex.P/3. The crux of the report is that in village Bargua, five persons, namely Shri Prasad s/o Kishori, aged 30 years, Vanmali s/o Mannu Kushwaha, aged 35 years, Pragilal s/o Banmalilal, aged 35 years, Gaurishankar s/o Ghanshyam Kurmi, aged 33 years and Maharam s/o Banshilal Kurmi, aged 35 years were kidnapped by some unknown miscreants from the well of Mannu Kushwaha and Parmole Kushwaha in the night at around 12 o' clock. On the basis of the report, a Crime No.28/01 was registered and the investigation was set in motion. The police prepared spot-map vide Ex.P/1. After about 20 days of the abduction a ransom note was forcibly got written by one of the abductees and accused Laxman was sent with that ransom note to the Datia post office, probably for posting it or delivering it to somebody. Laxman was arrested on 25/3/2001 ie about 10 days after he had left with the ransom note. No ransom note was recovered from his person on the usual search following his arrest. Moreover, there is no evidence at all of the ransom note having been delivered by Laxman to anybody. The alleged ransom note was not recovered by investigation. Further, there is no explanation as to why he was arrested or surrendered. There is nothing to show that the name of Laxman or any other accused had come to light upto 25/3/2001, and if so how. During search on 25/4/01, three abductees namely, Shri Prasad Kushwaha, Maharam Kurmi and Vanmali were recovered after their getting released by the dacoit Munna Barar and handed over to their relatives by the police. There is no credible evidence of the ransom having been paid. Why they were freed by the accused without getting the ransom is not clear. The report Ex.P/ 2 was lodged. After their release on 25/4/2001 these abductees allegedly informed the police that at around 9-10 o' clock on 24/2/01, when they along with two others were irrigating their fields, they were abducted forcibly by Mantu, Hari, Putti, Sughar Singh Kallu and Laxman etc. One other person was also with the named accused. The abductees told to the police that the miscreants kidnapped them for the ransom. During investigation, Badam Singh, Laxman Singh and Kalyan Singh were arrested vide arrest-memos (Ex.P/4, P/5, and P/9). After investigation, charge-sheet was filed before the criminal court, having jurisdiction. After trial, the learned trial Judge convicted and sentenced accused as mentioned above, hence, these appeals.

(3.) The contention of the learned counsel appearing for the appellants is that the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence is against the facts and the evidence on record. It is further submitted that the prosecution evidence consisted with full of material contradictions and omissions and the same was not supported by the evidence of any independent witness. The prosecution has utterly failed to prove the case against the accused beyond reasonable doubts. Moreover, the Investigating Officer in this case has not been examined. In a case of this nature much turns upon how and when the complicity of each accused came to light. On the basis of the above premised submissions, it is contended that the impugned judgment under appeals is not sustainable in law. Hence, it is prayed that by allowing the appeals, the accused/appellants be acquitted of the charge.