MULU Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal has been preferred by the accused/ appellant having being aggrieved by a judgment dated 13 th July 2001 of conviction and sentence delivered in Sessions Trial No. 61/2000 by the Special Judge (Dacoity) Bhind, convicting present appellant/accused Mullu for kidnapping one Jhalari Yadav, which is an offence punishable under Section 364-A of I.P.C. and sentencing him to suffer imprisonment for life with a fine of Rs. 500/- and in default to serve additional one month's rigorous imprisonment.

(2.) The facts, in short, just for deciding the case are that in the intervening night of 11 th and 12 th February 2000, abductee Jhalari Yadav had gone to his agriculture field at Achalpura, Police Station Mihona, district Bhind. At around 1-2 p.m., in night when he was sleeping, there some unidentified miscreants reached, who disturbed his sould sleep and after catching hold of his forearm compelled him to accompany with them to forest. In the morning, he identified the miscreants who kidnapped him and they were accused Mullu, absconded Mohkam Singh, Ramsnehi and Chhunna. The accused threatened him to cause death and against his will they confined him for a month in the forest, for recovery of ransom. After realization of the ransom amount, the accused released the abductee Jhalari Yadav. On 12 th February 2000, after abduction of Jhalari Yadav, a written report (Ex.P/2) was lodged by Bhanwar Singh (PW-4), his nephew against some unknown miscreants. The investigation was set into motion. Case-dairy statements of complainant and other material witnesses were recorded. Recovery memo of the abductee was prepared and thereafter on 28 th March 2000, his case diary statement was recorded. Sole accused(appellant) was arrested. After investigation, the charge sheet was filed before the criminal court. On committal, the trial was commenced. After recording evidence, the present accused-appellant was convicted and sentenced for commission of the alleged offence, hence this appeal.

(3.) The contention of the learned counsel appearing for the appellant is that the judgment under appeal is against the law and procedure and therefore same is liable to be set aside. It is submitted that to prove the guilt against accused the prosecution examined chance/eye-witnesses, namely, Jhalari Yadav (PW-1) the abductee, Jamuna Singh (PW-2), younger brother of abductee, Nahar Singh (PW-3), nephew of abductee Bhanwar Singh (PW-4), the complainant, S.B. Singh (PW-5), Sub Inspector of Police Station Mihona/the Investigating Officer, and Munna Singh (PW-6). It is submitted that the statements of above witnesses do not telly with each other and in specific circumstances, the written report was lodged against unknown miscreants by a witness Bhanwar Singh (PW-4). No test identification parade during investigation was conducted by the prosecution for identification of arrested accused. During investigation, no letter written by the accused or abductee or proof of delivery of ransom money was recovered. It is argued that the persecution case rests only on the testimony of interested witnesses Bhanwar Singh, Nahar Singh and Munna Singh, who did not support the prosecution version and were declared hostile. Therefore, as per learned counsel, the prosecution by evidence of these witnesses could not be able to prove its case beyond reasonable doubts. It is prayed that by allowing the appeal, judgment under challenge may be set aside and the accused-appellant be acquitted of the offence.