MITHILESH Vs. STATE OF M.P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellants/accused have filed this appeal under Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1974 against a Judgment dated 11th June 2004 recorded in Special Sessions Case No. 16/2003 by the Special Judge (Dacoity), Sheopur (M.P.) convicting the present accused/ appellants for abducting Omprakash, Subhash, Santosh and others for extracting the ransom amount, under Section 364 -A of I.P.C., read with section 11/13 of the MPDVPK Act and sentencing them to suffer imprisonment for life with a fine of Rs. 1,000/ - each, in default of payment of which to suffer additional three month's rigorous imprisonment.

(2.) THE facts, in short, just for deciding the case are that on 19th November 2002 at about 9 p.m., in night, the complainant Naresh Kumar accompanied with other farmers belonging to villages Sarasram and Bhenta loaded their vegetables items viz. tomatoes and green chili crops in several buckets in a hired matador, driven by Brijpal and owned by Kailash Parihar for going to Morena for the purpose of selling the said items in vegetable market. As said matador reached near Dudhai bridge, some miscreants by putting stones on the road got stopped the vehicle. Two miscreants having firearms were standing on the spot as guards. As the matador was stopped, the miscreants forced the passengers to come out. The miscreants who were six in numbers then tied their hands by mufflers from their back and compelled them to go inside the forest. There they manhandled them and asked their castes, income and properties. Thereafter the miscreants released some of the persons excepting three, namely Omprakash, Santosh and Subhash. So, the F.I.R. was lodged by the complainant Naresh Kumar. It is alleged that after releasing the other captured persons, the miscreants compelled those three persons to go with them in the forest of village Jakhodi to extract the money for their release. On next day morning, when the miscreants were sleeping, one of abductees, Omprakash taking advantage of the moment, escaped from the spot and reached at nearby village where with the help of local villagers he informed the incident to the police. The police then arranged encounter at large scale. Miscreants became afraid and anticipating presence of the police at large scale, they released the rest two captured persons. The investigation was set into motion. Case -dairy statements of the complainant and other material witnesses were recorded. Recovery memo of the abductee was prepared and thereafter on 28th March 2000, his case diary statement was recorded. Mithilesh was arrested on 3rd March 2003. Test Identification Parade was conducted on 25th April 2003 by Naib Tahsildar Jora district Morena. Another accused Kamlesh was formally arrested on 27th February 2003 and TIP was conducted on 20th April 2003 by Naib Tahsildar Morena (M.P.). After investigation, the charge sheet was filed before the Special Judge. 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.) 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 abductees/eye -witnesses, namely, Naresh Kumar (PW -1), the complainant, Omprakash (PW -2), Vijayapal (PW -3), Santosh Dhakad (PW -4), Subhash Chandra Dhakad (PW -6) Chimman Singh Jadon (PW -5), Uttam Singh Rajoria (PW -7), the Investigating Officer. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the appellants that the statements of above witnesses do not telly with each other and under specific circumstances, the F.I.R. was lodged which was against unknown miscreants by an abductee Naresh Kumar (PW -1). It is further submitted that the TIP was conducted at belated stage. Accused Mithilesh was identified by only one of the abducees. During investigation, no demand of ransom from abductees or other persons related to abductees was made by the accused. The persecution case rests only on the testimony of interested witnesses, who did not even support its version. Therefore, as per learned counsel, the prosecution by evidence of these witnesses could not be able to prove its case beyond reasonable doubts. Ultimately, it is prayed that by allowing the appeal, judgment under challenge may be set aside and the accused -appellants may be acquitted of the alleged offence.