SAMBHAR SINGH Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present appeal preferred u/s. 374(2) Cr.P.C. assails the judgment dated 28th June, 2008 passed in SST No. 7/2005 rendered by Special Judge, Datia (M.P.) convicting and sentencing the appellant for offence punishable u/S. 364-A IPC and S. 13 of the MPDVPK Act to life imprisonment alongiwth fine of Rs. 25,000/- with default sentence of further RI of one year.

(2.) The bare facts giving rise to the present case are that on 7/11/2004 at about 4 pm complainant Rajendra Prakash Chaturvedi alongwith his brother Radhaballabh and nephew Chhotu @ Bhura @ Radhakishan Chaturvedi (Abductee) was cutting grass and making bundles of the cutting grass at their agricultural fields. Abductee Chhotu went to the nearby water tank to drink water when two miscreants wielding firearms came to the spot and caught hold of the abductee. Close on heels, two more miscreants armed with weapons followed by one more miscreant who was also armed with weapon came to the spot and started forcibly taking away Bhura. When Radhaballabh PW-1 tried to intervene, the miscreants fired in the air which frightened Radhaballabh who gave up the pursuit. However, Rajendra Prakash and Radhaballabh followed the abductors from a safe distance. However, the pursuit was unsuccessful as miscreants alongwith abductee disappeared into the sugarcane field. The complainant Rajendra thereafter reported the matter to the police which led to lodging of Dehati Nalish Ex.P/1 followed by registration of Crime No. 150/04 u/S. 364-A IPC and Sec. 11/13 of the MPDVPK Act. FIR was lodged vide P/6. During investigation, recovery of certain empty cartridges were made vide Ex.P/4. However, on 29/11/2004 during encounter with the police, the abductors released the abductee from captivity and fled. Charge-sheet was filed on 24/3/2005. Later the appellant was arrested. Thereafter on 13/1/2006 other co-accused Umrao and Hemraj were declared absconders whereas the other co-accused Hazrat Rawat and Ramesh Luhar were reported killed in the police encounter.

(3.) The appellant thus was left alone to be tried, who abjured guilt and sought trial by pleading that he has been falsely implicated in the case.