SINOD SHAH Vs. STATE OF MEGHALAYA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This criminal appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 23.10.2008 passed by the learned Judge. Fast Track Court, Shillong in FTC (S) Case No. 24 of 2007 convicting the appellant under Section 364-A IPC and sentencing him to undergo life imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 1,000/-

(2.) The case of the prosecution is that on 13.5.2005, a report was lodged by one Birendra Dudhoria of Paltan Bazar, Shillong with the Officer-in-Charge of Lumdiengjri Police Station stating therein that his cousin, namely, Arihant Dudhoria, aged about 16 years old, s/o Malchand Dudhoria, was found missing on 11.5.2005 at about 5.30 pm from his shop at Paltan Bazar. The written report of this incident was stated to be preceded by verbal report on 12.5.2005, for which G.D. Entry No. 304 dated 12.5.2005 had been made. A regular case, namely, Lumdiengjri Police Station Case No. 51(5)05 under Section 364-A IPC was accordingly registered and investigated into. On completion of the investigation, the police filed charge sheet against three persons, namely, Ram Naresh Rai, Ram Prakash Rai and Shinod Shah to stand the trial for the offence punishable under Section 364 IPC. On commitment, the learned Judge, Fast Track Court proceeded with the case against the appellant herein only as the other two accused absconded, which had earlier resulted in splitting up of the case under Section 317 (e) CrPC by the learned Sessions Judge after declaring them as proclaimed absconders. The learned Judge, Fast Track Court then framed the charge under Section 364-A IPC against the appellant, to which he pleaded not guilty whereupon the trial proceeded with. In the course of trial, the prosecution examined as many as nine witnesses and exhibited documents and material objects to bring home the charge against the appellant. No evidence was adduced by the appellant in his defense. At the conclusion of the trial, the trial Court convicted and sentenced the appellant in the manner indicated earlier. The trial Court formulated the following three points for determination of the case:

(3.) On the first point, the learned Judge recorded the finding that as there was no challenge to the testimony of the victim (PW 8) that he was abducted by two men on his way home from Police Bazar on 11.5.2005 while walking through a by lane, it was established that he was kidnapped/abducted. We have perused the examination-in-chief and cross-examination of PW 8 and the depositions of PW 3 and PW 4 in juxtaposition and have no reason to agree with her finding. The finding of the trial Court with respect to the second point so formulated, namely, the demand of ransom to the tune of rupees one crore for the release of PW 8 on the un-rebutted evidence of PW 3 and PW 4, cannot also be faulted with. PW 3 is the father of the victim while PW 4 is his cousin brother. In his evidence, PW 4 testified that PW 3 woke him up the next morning at around 6-6.30 A.M. telling him that his call to the number of Arihant (PW 8) was responded by another person who demanded one crore from him and then told him to talk his son after ten minutes and that after ten minutes, PW 3 rang up Arihant's phone again when he was present, and the call was responded with hello only and the line got cut off. In our opinion, the statement of PW 3 has been fully corroborated by PW 4 that a demand of rupees one crore as ransom money was made to him for the release of PW 8. As rightly pointed out by the trial Court, the aforesaid statements of PW 3 and PW 4 were not denied by the defense in cross-examination.