PUNJAB SINGH Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal has been preferred under Section 374 of the Criminal Procedure Code 1974 by the accused/ appellant having being aggrieved by a judgment dated 3rd July, 2004 delivered in Sessions Trial No. 55/2000 by the Special Judge (Dacoity) Bhind, convicting the present appellant/accused for kidnapping Hemant Sharma and demanding a ransom, which is an offence punishable under Section 364-A of I.P.C. and sentencing him to suffer life imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 5,000.00 (Rs. Five thousand only) and in default to suffer additional two years' rigorous imprisonment

(2.) THE facts, in short, just for deciding the case are that on 28th May 2000, Hemant Sharma went to visit his elder uncle Rambharose Sharma at Bhind. On 1st June 2000, he was returning back to his residence at Gwalior alongwith Jaijeet Dixit and Karu on a motorcycle via route Ambah-Porsa. It is alleged that in the mid-way at village Dhora, he was taken away on a motorcycle by Jaijeet Dixit in the forest where the abductee for demand and recovery of ransom, was handed over to accused Panjub Singh and his companions (Dacoit Gang). A report of missing was lodged by his mother Prabha Sharma to police personnel posted at Gwalior. The F.I.R. was lodged on the report of missing person and Crime No. 225/2000 was registered against the accused. The investigation was set in motion. The letters sent by the accused for making ransom demand were seized from Smt. Prabha Sharma. Absconded accused Punjab Singh (appellant) was arrested and thereafter the supplementary charge- sheet was filed before the criminal court. On committal, the subsequent sessions trial against the present accused/appellant was commenced. After recording evidence, the learned trial Judge recorded conviction against the accused for kidnapping Hemant Sharma which is an offence punishable under Section 364-A of I.P.C. and sentenced him for life, hence this appeal is filed.

(3.) PER contra, the learned Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the respondent/State contended that the prosecution succeeded to prove the guilt against accused/appellant by adducing evidence and there is no infirmity or illegality committed by the trial court in awarding conviction and sentence against the accused. It is also contended that the abductee was in the custody of the gang of dacoits for a longer period, therefore, the abductee-witness has rightly identified the culprit in court-identification. Latches on the part of investigation in not conducting the identification parade in case of accused, who was arrested after lapse of sufficient period will not affect the prosecution case. Hence, it is prayed that by dismissing the appeal, the judgment of the trial court be upheld.