SUNIL PANCHAL Vs. THE STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These two appeals are directed against the common judgment dated 21.12.2006 passed by Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track) No. 1, Kota (for short "the trial court") whereby the trial court convicted the accused-appellants for offences under Sections 120-B, 364-A and 302, IPC and sentenced each of them as under:

(2.) Factual matrix of the case is that complainant Subrato Mukherjee (P.W.3) submitted a written report (Exhibit P-9) to S.H.O., Police Station Vigyan Nagar, Kota on 11.03.2005 inter alia alleging therein that his son Abhishek alias Akash aged nine years, who was student of Class III, had gone for playing with his friends at 5.30 p.m. on 10.03.2005 and did not return back. The police, on that basis, registered a missing person report No. 707 and entrusted the investigation to Harji Lal Yadav (P.W.22), Sub-Inspector of Police, who after investigation, submitted a written report (Exhibit P-49) stating that his enquiry has revealed that certain unknown persons with intention to extract ransom have abducted Abhishek alias Akash, which attracted offence punishable under Section 364-A, IPC. Police Station Vigyan Nagar, Kota therefore lodged regular FIR No. 123/2005(Exhibit P-50) for the aforesaid offence and commenced investigation. During investigation, dead body of Abhishek alias Akash was recovered at 8.00 p.m. on 14.03.2005. Police, after completion of investigation, filed charge-sheet against accused-appellants. Charges were framed against them under Sections 120-B, 364-A and 302, IPC. The accused-appellant denied charges and claimed trial. The prosecution produced 24 witnesses and exhibited 72 documents. Thereafter, the accused-appellants were examined under Section 313, Cr.P.C. wherein they pleaded innocence. Defence produced only one witness and exhibited five documents. The trial court on conclusion of the trial vide impugned judgment and order dated 21.12.2006 convicted and sentenced the accused-appellants in the manner as indicated hereinabove. Hence, these appeals.

(3.) We have heard Mr. V.R. Bajwa, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the accused-appellant Sunil Panchal; Mr. Asgar Khan, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the accused-appellant Arif Khan; Ms. Sonia Shandilya and Mr. Aladeen Khan, learned Public Prosecutor and Mr. Rinesh Gupta, learned counsel for the complainant.