JASRAM SINGH Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant has preferred the present appeal being aggrieved with the judgment of conviction and sentence dated 27/11/2004, passed by Special Judge under Madhya Pradesh Dacoity Vyapaharan Prabhabit Kshetra Adhiniyam [in short "MPDVPK Act''], Morena (MP) in Special Case No.75/2002, whereby the appellant has been convicted of offence under Section 364-A of IPC and Section 13 of MPDVPK Act and sentenced to life imprisonment with fine of Rs.1,000/- and three years' rigorous imprisonment respectively.

(2.) Facts of the case, in short, are that on 24/08/2002 the victim Anil Kumar Garg @ Tinku (PW2) who was son of Harish Chandra (PW4) took a scooter MP 06/G-3110 from one Rajesh Verma (PW7) on request that he would come back within two hours. However, thereafter Anil Garg did not come back. Raju Garg (PW1), brother of Anil tried to trace him. He rang up Rajendra Verma but he could not be traced. On 25/08/2002, Raju Garg (PW1), Rajendra Verma (PW7) Girraj Mangal (PW3) and Satendra went to village Kotwar with a jeep to know about the arrival of Anil Kumar to that village on the previous day. Thereafter, a missing report was lodged at Police Station Kotwali, Morena which was written in Rojnamcha Ex.P/3. Sub-Inspector B.S.Yadav(PW9) started the missing inquiry and found that the appellant Jasram Singh abducted the victim Anil Kumar Garg @ Tinku and managed to hand him over to one gang of Pappu @ Ramsevak Gurjar. Hence, on the basis of enquiry report, a crime was registered with a document Ex.P/6 on 26/08/2002. On 14/10/2002, an encounter took place between the police party and the gang of Pappu @ Ramsevak Gurjar, in which the victim Anil Kumar came towards the side of the police party and introduced himself so he was recovered. But some of the persons like Lalla Gurjar, Veera Pandit, Suresh Gurjar and Ramvaran Gurjar who took him in a jungle, were killed in the encounter. It was informed by Anil Kumar that he was kept in the jungle for 50-51 days. He was beaten; various parts of his body were burnt so that he would be forced to demand note of Rs.25 lacs to his father and brothers. The investigating officer arrested the appellant and after due investigation, the charge-sheet was filed before the Special Court.

(3.) The appellant abjured his guilt. However, no specific plea was taken by him and no defence evidence was adduced.