HARI CHAND Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision petition has been filed by Hari Chand, petitioner (convict) against the judgment and order dated 16.8.1997 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Hisar whereby the appeal of the petitioner against the judgment dated 13.6.1996 and order dated 15.6.1996 passed by the learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Fatehabad has been dismissed with the modification in the quantum of sentence.

(2.) THE petitioner along with Gaya Prasad and Prabhu Sahani (non-petitioners) was charged for the offence under Sections 363, 342 and 120-B Indian Penal Code ('IPC' for short) in case FIR No. 595 dated 14.8.1994 registered at Police Station, Fatehabad. Sunita Devi, complainant on 14.8.1994 made a statement before Banwari Lal, Sub Inspector alleging that she is living at Lajpat Nagar, Fatehabad in the house of Dharam Pal, Manager along with her son Himmat Singh aged about seven years who was studying in second class in a private school. Gaya Prasad (non-petitioner) resident of the same village to which the complainant belongs used to ply rickshaw in Fatehabad and her brother Ram Bahadur was employed with the State Warehouse at Fatehabad and he was living with her. Gaya Prasad (non-petitioner) used to visit the complainant and her brother Ram Bahadur. Gaya Prasad demanded a loan of Rs. 200/- from Ram Bahadur to which he refused. On 12.8.1994 at about 6.30 p.m. while the complainant was lying on a cot after an injection had been given as she was not feeling well and her son Himmat Singh was playing outside, Gaya Prasad came with bananas and gave one to Himmat Singh. She thought that Gaya Prasad had taken her son to the bazar but when Gaya Prasad and her son did not return back, she informed her brother Ram Bahadur and they searched for Himmat Singh in the nearby villages but could not trace him. In this manner Gaya Prasad had kidnapped Himmat Singh on the basis of which afore-stated FIR was registered. The allegations against the petitioner are that Himmat Singh son of the complainant was recovered from his custody along with Gaya Prasad and Prabhu Sahani. The learned trial Magistrate after considering the evidence and material on record convicted the petitioner as also Gaya Prasad and Prabhu Sahani (non-petitioners) for the offences under Sections 120-B, 363 and 342 IPC on 13.6.1996 and vide order dated 15.6.1996 sentenced the petitioner and the other two accused to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years and to pay a fine of Rs. 250/- each under Section 363 IPC. The other two accused as also the petitioner were also sentenced for the offence under Section 120-B IPC to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year for the offence under Section 342 IPC. In respect of all the three sentences each of the convicts were directed to pay fine of Rs. 250/- each and in default of payment of fine, the convicts were to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months. The sentences were ordered to run concurrently with the sentence of three years rigorous imprisonment.

(3.) SHRI R.S. Randhawa, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has contended that the petitioner was not involved in the case and he did not abduct or kidnap the boy Himmat Singh and the only finding recorded against the petitioner is that Himmat Singh was recovered from the custody of the petitioner as also Gaya Prasad and Prabhu Sahani. He has also stated that the petitioner is first offender and, therefore, he is liable to be granted the benefit of probation.