RAJOLE @ RAJARAM Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE aforesaid two appeals arise out of the impugned judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 3rd October, 2001 recorded in Special Sessions Trial No. 39/2001 by the Special Judge (Dacoity), Bhind (M.P.), convicting present appellants/accused Sattar Khan and Rajole @ Rajaram for kidnapping one Bhikaram, which is an offence punishable under Section 364-A of I.P.C. and sentencing them to suffer imprisonment for life with a fine of Rs.1,000.00, each, and in default to undergo additional six month's rigorous imprisonment. Since the judgment and order challenged in these appeals is one, they are herewith taken up together for hearing and decided by this common judgment.

(2.) THE facts, in short, just for deciding the case are that the complainant-Bhikaram used to carry out the work of wood-seller. On 20th December 2000, accused Sattar Khan promised the complainant that he would make available the firewoods to him at lowest rate provided the complainant would accompany him to his village. On his assurance, the complainant accompanied him to village Umari in a bus. From Umari, they went to village Mehndaghat. There the complainant and accused Sattar Khan met with accused Rajole, who gave a handwritten note to accused Sattar Khan. On asking by accused Sattar Khan, Bhikaram went on foot to village Katara in U.P. State. In village Katara, accused Sattar Khan contacted with proclaimed dacoit Ram Ratan Singh Gurjar (since absconded) and handed over the complainant to him for extracting the amount of ransom. During stay with gang of dacoits in the forest, the complainant was manhandled by the dacoits for demand of Rs. Three lacs for his release. Shrikrishana, father of abductee Bhikaram in case of missing of his son lodged the report at police station. During investigation, the case-diary statements were recorded. F.I.R. after inquiry was lodged on 2nd January 2001. The investigation was set in motion. The abductee Bhikaram was recovered on 26th January 2001 and accordingly his recovery memo (Ex.P/3) was prepared. His case diary statement was also recorded. Accused were arrested on different dates. After investigation, the charge-sheet was filed before the Special Court, Bhind. The trial was commenced. After recording evidence, the present accused-appellants were convicted and sentenced for commission of the alleged offence, hence this appeal.

(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/appellants by adducing cogent and reliable evidence and there is no infirmity or illegality committed by the trial court in awarding conviction and sentence against the accused. Hence, it is prayed that by dismissing the appeals, the judgment of the trial court be upheld.