RAJU AND ORS Vs. STATE OF RAJ.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) - The appellants Raju, Rajendra, Madan Lal, Hansraj, Rama @ Ramlal and Govind filed this appeal against the judgment dated Jan. 28, 2006 of Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track) Jhalawar in Sessions Case No. 81 of 2005 whereby the accused appellants were convicted for offence under Sections 364/368 to suffer 10 years Rl and fine of Rs. 5000 in default of payment of fine to further undergo three months RI, under Sec. 323 Penal Code to suffer 6 months SI and fine of Rs. 100 and in default to further undergo 10 days SI, under section 4/25 Arms Act to suffer one year Rl and fine of Rs. 200 in default of payment of fine to further suffer 15 days R.l.

(2.) Brief facts of the case are that on March 24, 2005 Mahaveer Prasad (PW. 10) lodged a report (Ex.R 9) at Police Station Jhalrapatan that his son Rahul Kumar aged 11 years gone on a Mini Cycle at 6.30 p.m. did not return house and, therefore, he lodged the report for searching his son. This report was lodged at 9.30 p.m. on March 24, 2005. Again at 11.15 p.m. on March 24, 2005 Mahaveer Prasad lodged another report (Ex.P. 11) that his relatives also searched his son but they did not search him and they have come to know that some unknown persons taken away his son Rahul and concealed him to an unknown place. Again request was made for searching him. On this report the police registered a case under Sec. 365 Penal Code and started investigation. After completion of investigation, the police filed challan before the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate Jhalawar who committed the case to the Court of Sessions Judge Jhalawar. Sessions Judge Jhalawar transferred the case to the court of Additional Sessions Judge Fast Track Jhalawar. The trial court after hearing the accused appellants framed charge under Sections 364, 365, 368, 323 Penal Code and 4/25 of the Arms Act. The accused appellants denied the charge and claimed to be tried. In support of its case the prosecution examined 20 witnesses and exhibited 27 documents. The accused appellants were examined under Sec. 313 Crimial P.C. and in defence they produced two witnesses. After hearing both the parties, the trial court vide judgment and order dated Jan. 28, 2006 convicted and sentenced the accused appellants as indicated above.

(3.) Mr. S.S. Hasan learned counsel appearing for the appellant Madan Lal, Mr. Chetan Jain learned counsel appearing for the appellant Raju and Mr. Ajay Singh, learned counsel appearing for the appellants Rajendra, Hansraj, Rama @ Ramlal and Govind argued that the accused appellants have been falsely implicated in this case and they deserve acquittal. According to the statement of Rahul Soni (PW. 20) no case is made out against the accused appellants. The appellants have not committed any offence relating to kidnapping or abduction. Rahul was not kidnapped or confined by them. No test identification parade was conducted by the police even after request application by the accused appellant Ram Lal but his application was rejected by the trial court. Against this order of the trial court rejecting the application for identification parade, a revision petition was filed by the accused Ram Lal and during pendency of the revision petition the trial court completed the trial and convicted and sentenced the accused appellants. The learned counsel submitted that there are material contradictions and inconsistencies in the testimony of the prosecution witnesses, but the trial court wrongly convicted the accused appellants. No weapon was recovered from any accused appellants and, therefore, no case under Sec. 4/25 Arms Act is made out. As per the statement of PW. 17 Narpat Singh SHO the appellants Raju, Rajendra and Madan were found on river to protect their vegetables. Thus their presence is natural. The other accused appellants Hansraj, Rama @ Ream Lal and Govind were not present at the river and they were arrested from their own house lateron. Thus the appellants are entitled to be acquitted in the instant matter.