MEHTAB KHAN Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These two appeals have been filed against the common judgment dated 3.8.2010 passed by Special Judge, Satna in S. T. No.03/2009. Both the appeals have been heard together and a common judgment is being passed.

(2.) Prosecution story in brief is that Shivratan Yadav has three sons namely Bala Prasad Yadav, Rajkumar Yadav and Rajaram Yadav. On 3.12.2006 Buffalo of his brother was not traceable, hence to search aforesaid buffalo his brother Munna Yadav, his son Bala Prasad Yadav and brother-in-law (Samdhi) had gone to the forest of Seha, at about 5.00 O'clock in the evening Munna Yadav told him that when they were searching the buffalo in the forest five persons armed with guns had catch hold Munna Yadav, Bala Prasad Yaadav and him. Munna Yadav ran away from their custody. However, they had taken Balaprasad to Chanda Mine. He told him that all the accused persons were armed with gun. They had beaten him and his son Bala Prasad Yadav. They had left him and directed to inform the father of Bala Prasad Yadav that if he wants release of his son he would pay ransom of Rs.20,000/-, failing which they would kill his son. Complainant Shivratan Yadav along with other persons informed the aforesaid incident at S. A. F. Camp Kathwariya. The case was registered, abductee was recovered, he was medically examined. Accused persons were arrested, during encounter Rajababu was died. From possession of Mazid Khan cartilage was seized. After investigation the police filed the charge sheet before the Court and thereafter case was transferred to Special Court. During trial appellants abjured the guilt. Special Court held guilty the appellants for commission of offence punishable under Section 364-A of IPC and awarded sentence of life with fine of Rs.10,000/- each.

(3.) Learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that the judgment passed by the trial Court is against the law. The evidence of identification of the appellant is not proper. Appellants were shown to the witnesses before identification parade. It is further submitted by the learned counsel that there is no evidence of ransom. Hence, the appellants are liable to be acquitted from the alleged charge and prayed for allowing the appeal.