KHALIL Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE matter has come up for disposal of the bail application, but we are of the opinion that as Mr. Dhankar, learned Counsel for the accused -appellant has not very seriously challenged the conviction of the accused -appellant on merits under Section 386 IPC and rightly so and has submitted that the accused has already undergone more than fives years' imprisonment and that will meet the ends of justice.

(2.) ONE Smt. Shakuntala Devi lodged on April 17, 1981 in Police Station, Shastri Nagar, Jaipur that her son Ashok, about 9 years has not returned since after noon of December 10, 1980. He (Ashok) had gone to purchase Patang at Ramnagar Circle. A report was lodged by the Smt. Shankuntala about the missing of her son Ashok in Police Station, Shastri Nagar, Jaipur on December 10, 1980 itself. A search was made for the missing boy and on December 22, 1980 a letter demanding a ransom of Rs. 20,000/ -was received. That letter is said to have been written by Raju, who was Conductor on the tempo of her husband. On December 10, 1980 Raju alias Sharafat Hussain had come to the house of Smt. Shakuntala Devi in the morning at about 8.00 a.m. and said that he should be kept again as Conductor of Tempo of Smt. Shakuntala Devi or else it would not be good for her. Raju is said to have written three letters demanding ransom (Firoti) and out of fear of death she did not inform the police about it and an amount of Rs. 10,000/ - is said to have been paid to have been paid to a person at Agra sent by Raju, but Ashok did not return and later on could not be traced. A charge -sheet has been filed earlier against Sharafat Hussain and others and so far as the accused -appellant is concerned, he was only arrested later on and a charge -sheet was filed against him for offences under Sections 364, 365, 368, 386 and 120B, IPC.

(3.) WE have been taken through the statement of Pratapsingh, PW 2 and he has made categorical statement that when went to the jungle the accused appellant was also there and when he (Pratap Singh) told the accused -appellant and Sharafat Hussain that he could not make arrangement for the money immediately, it was the accused appellant who had placed the barrel of the gun on his chest and said as to why he has arrived there if he had no money with him. In our opinion, the learned Sessions Judge on the evidence of Pratap Singh so far as offence under Section 386 IPC against the accused -appellant is concerned, cannot be perverse and the learned Sessions Judge had arrived at the right conclusion.