P. PAPA RAO Vs. THE STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Cr. Appeal has been directed against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 12.2.2007 & 15.2.2007 respectively passed by the Addl. Sessions Judge, F.T.C. -I, Bokaro in connection with ST. No. 58/2004, corresponding to G.R. No. 1189/2002, arising out of Bokaro (Sadar) Chandankiyari (Bhojudih) P.S. Case No. 136/2002 whereby the appellant has been held guilty for the offence punishable under Sec. 364 -A read with Sec. 120 -B of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo R.I. for life and also to pay fine of Rs. 5,000/ -. The prosecution case, in brief, is that on 3.12.2002 at about 6:30 p.m. Rahul Kumar, aged 4 years, (son of the informant) had gone to play outside the house. In the meantime, electric supply was unfettered whereafter mother of Rahul Kumar came out of the house to search Rahul but he was not found. When the informant and his family members failed to find out Rahul Kumar, the matter was informed to Police Outpost. Lastly on 8.12.2002 a written report by Ashok Kumar Agrawal (father of Rahul) was lodged and on the basis of written report, Bhojudih P.S. Case No. 136/2002 dated 8.12.2002, under Sec. 364 -A of the Indian Penal Code against unknown accused was registered. In course of investigation, complicity of appellant was detected and then he was arrested and forwarded to jail custody.

(2.) The appellant has assailed the impugned judgment on the ground that there was no eye -witness to the occurrence. Anuj Saw @ Amarjit Saw (P.W. 7) has been projected as an eyewitness after one and half months of the occurrence. The statement of P.W. 7 is neither reliable nor convincing. He says that he had seen the appellant picking up Rahul Kumar from the place of occurrence and also going in a 'Maruti' van. He has said that before boarding 'Maruti' van, the appellant had threatened him not to disclose the incident otherwise he would be killed. The conduct of P.W. 7 does not appear to be natural because he did not disclose about the occurrence to anyone. After 2 -3 days he had disclosed the incident to his mother but his mother did not inform anyone. Under what circumstances the Investigating Officer knew about this witness, has not been explained by the I.O.

(3.) Learned A.P.P. has opposed the argument and submitted that prosecution has brought clinching evidence on record to prove its case. P.W. 7 is an eyewitness, who had seen the appellant picking up the victim boy and going on a 'Maruti' van with his associates. When P.W. 7 raised objection, he was threatened. P.W. 7 has supported the aforesaid fact in his deposition in Court. Amar Rajgariya (P.W. 1) had seen the appellant taking away the ransom amount from the train. P.W. 1 has described the entire detail under which direction was given by the appellant and his associates to carry the ransom amount. As per the direction of kidnappers, P.W. 6 got down at Talgarhia Station and moved towards the direction but he did not get victim boy present over there. P.W.. 1 remained sitting in the train and he was watching the amount kept on the upper berth of Seat No. 89. At Chandrapura Railway Station when all the passengers got down, the appellant took the ransom amount kept in a bag and got down with his three associates. P.W. 1 had further seen the appellant and his associates boarding on a green coloured 'Maruti' van and thereafter they moved towards their destination. Therefore, prosecution witnesses have clearly stated that how the victim boy was picked up and how the ransom amount was realized by the appellant and his associates.