NAND KISHORE TURI Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In presence of three persons, Rahul Kumar Pandey was abducted from his house by four unidentified abductors. On the basis of the written information of father of the victim boy who was abducted in the night of 27.05.2011, Piparwar P.S Case No.19 of 2011 was lodged on 28.05.2011 for the offence under sections 364-A and 392 of the Indian Penal Code, against unknown. Rajan Ganjhu, Narayan Kumar Munda, Nand Kishore Turi and Rauki @ Shatrughan Sao were arrested on 22.06.2011 and they suffered disclosure statements. By an order dated 17.05.2012 a common charge under sections 364-A and 392 of the Indian Penal Code was framed against them. Rajan Ganjhu and Narayan Kumar Munda jumped the bail at the stage of their examination under section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and were not apprehended by the time judgment in S.T. No. 45 of 2012 was delivered against Nand Kishore Turi and Rauki @ Satrughan Sao. In S.T. No. 45 of 2012, the appellants are convicted and sentenced to RI for five years with fine of Rs.1000/- each under section 392 of the Indian Penal Code and RI for life with fine of Rs.25000/- each under section 364-A of the Indian Penal Code with a default stipulation that they shall undergo further imprisonment of SI for three years on each count.

(2.) The learned Additional Sessions Judge-I, Chatra has recorded a finding that there is no material on record to infer enmity between the parties and false implication of the accused. The prosecution witnesses had sufficient time to observe the accused and there was sufficient light to identify them in the night. The learned trial Judge has further held that TIP chart which was laid in evidence and marked as exhibit-11 reflects that the victim boy identified Rajan Ganjhu who was in fatigues and Nand Kishore Turi who put sword on his head; recovery of currency notes at the instance of the accused matched with the description of ransom paid by the informant, and; minor omission by the prosecution witnesses and normal abrasions in their testimony pointed out by the defence are not sufficient to challenge their truthfulness.

(3.) The learned trial Judge has held as under :