SUBALAL Vs. STATE OF M P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this judgment both the Criminal Appeal No.168 of 2004 (Subalal Vs. State of M.P.) and Criminal Appeal No.255 of 2004 (Vijay @ Talwar and another Vs. State of M.P.) are being disposed of simultaneously by a common judgment, as the aforesaid appeals are arising out of the judgment dated 25.2.2004 passed by the Court of Special Judge (Dacoity Prabhavit Kshetra) Bhind (Shri J.M.Chaturvedi) in Special Case No.106 of 2001 convicting the accused persons under Section 364-A of IPC read with Section 11/13 of the M.P.D.V.P.K. Act and sentencing them to undergo life imprisonment and to pay fine of Rs.5000/- each with default stipulation mentioned in the impugned judgment.

(2.) Facts in brief of the case are that on the date of incident I.e. 23.9.2000 Pankaj Sharma (PW3) and Fodal Sharma (PW6) son and nephew respectively of complainant Ramprakash Sharma (PW1) went for grazing their cattle in the behad alongwith Surendra @ Chunni Singh (PW7) and other boys of village. When Pankaj, Fodal and Surendra @ Chunni Singh did not return, complainant along with the village people went to behad in their search where at about 9 PM one Hariram (PW4) was seen coming out of the behad who disclosed that at about 4 PM when Pankaj, Fodal, Chunni and other boys were grazing their cattles, about 10 unknown persons came their and kidnapped them and he (said Hariram) could only escape himself from their custody. Due to night, the oral report of the incident could be lodged at 7 AM on 24.9.2000 at Police Station Phoof Ex.P/1 where, Crime No.126 of 2000 for the offence punishable under Section 364A/34 of IPC was registered. During Investigation, spot map was prepared and statements of complainant Ramprakash Sharma, Lalu, Bhagwandas, Hariram Satyavir, Kamal, Raju and Pratham were recorded. After release of kidnapee Pankaj, Fodal and Surendra alias Chunni, their statements were also recorded. As per statements of the witnesses, the kidnapees were released by the accused after getting ransom of Rs.1,57,000/-. After investigation, a charge sheet was filed before the trial Court showing the accused persons as absconding.

(3.) The accused persons denying the charges had claimed to have been falsely implicated in the case.