PRAKASH AND OTHERS Vs. STATE OF M P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellants/accused have preferred this appeal under Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1974 being aggrieved by a judgment dated 1st February 2002 in Sessions Case No. 202/99 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge Pichhore, district Shivpuri, convicting the appellants for commission of offence punishable under Section 364-A of I.P.C. for abducting Narendra Lodhi son of Ramdin Lodhi, aged 19 years and sentencing them to suffer life imprisonment with a fine Rs. 500/- each, in default of payment of which to suffer three months' simple imprisonment.

(2.) The facts material for adjudication of this case are that on 12th April 1999 at about 7 a.m., in the morning, Narendra Singh went to forest for collecting fruits/sweet flowers of Mahua (Basia latifolia). Near Pilgaon well, Narendra Singh was abducted by accused Dashrath Khangar, r/o village Rupanwara, Prakash Barhar, r/o Dabia, Sitaram Lodhi, r/o village Banota and Munga r/o village Rupanwara, who was subsequently taken in the forest. Munna and Ramjilal Lodhi tried to rescue the abductee, but the abductors above named raised a demand of Rs. One lac for release of the victim and also threatened that if the F.I.R. of the incident was lodged with the police, the abductee would be killed. The report of the incident was lodged by the complainant against the accused-persons. The abductee was released from custody. Investigation was set in motion and the charge sheet was filed before competent criminal court. On committal, the trial was commenced. On recording the evidence, the learned Trial Judge convicted the accused/ appellants and sentenced them accordingly, hence, this appeal.

(3.) The contention of the learned counsel appearing for the appellants 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 abductee Narendra Singh (PW-4), Ramdin (PW-3), complainant, Ramjilal (PW-1), Rajdhar (PW-6), Ghanshyam (PW-7), Munnalal (PW-8), P.R. Dohare (PW-9) Assistant Sub Inspector of the Police Station Pichhore, who is writer of the F.I.R., R.C.S. Bhadoria (PW-11), Town Inspector/Incharge of the police station Pichore, who investigated the incident and J.B.S. Gaharwar (PW-10), Head Constable. It is submitted by the learned counsel that the statements of above witnesses do not telly with each other. The complainant Ramdin (PW-3) was not an eye-witness to the incident and he received the information from other witnesses. However, in his court statement he explained the incident as if he was an eye-witness to the incident. It is further submitted by the learned counsel that the abductee is a disabled person being effected by polio disease, so it can not be presumed that he may accompany the dacoits in the forest. Material witness of the incident Vishal (PW-5) and Ghanshyam (PW-7) were declared hostile by the prosecution and they did not support the version of the case. But, due to political rivalry, the complainant implicated the accused in the present crime. In the light of the above submissions, learned counsel stated that the ingredients to attract the offence of kidnapping are not proved by the prosecution evidence so adduced before the trial court. It is thus prayed that by allowing the appeal, judgment under challenge may be set aside and the accused-appellants may be acquitted of the offence.