IMPORTANT POINTS
Appellate court has full power to review, reappreciate and reconsider the evidence while hearing appeal against acquittal.
Acquittal of co-accused is no ground for acquittal of main accused.
Minor discrepancies cannot result in rejection of the evidence as a whole.
Denial by accused under section 313 Cr PC is liable to be ignored if he does not cross examining prosecution witnesses on the point.
Not explaining circumstances within exclusive knowledge of accused goes against him.

JUDGMENT

Dipak Misra, J.

The present appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence recorded by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in Criminal Appeal No. 245-DB of 1998 whereby the Division Bench has reversed the decision rendered by the learned Additional Sessions Judge (II), Jind wherein the learned trial Judge had acquitted the appellant and the co-accused, Joginder of the charges leveled against him under Sections 363/109/364-A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (‘IPC’ for short).

2. The facts which are requisite to be stated for disposal of the appeal are that Jaivir Singh, informant, PW-1, was residing jointly along with his two brothers at village Ikkas. His younger brother, Jagbir Singh, was an employee at Railway Police. The accused-appellant, Vinod Kumar, a resident of Bijwasan, had come to the village of PW-1 in the month of May, 1996 and worked as a domestic help in the house of Jagbir Singh. Jagbir Singh had four children and he had employed two servants one of whom was the present appellant. After working for four months in the house of Jagbir Singh, Vinod Kumar, as the prosecution story unfurls, kidnapped Anand, the 3 ½ year old son of Jagbir Singh and Smt. Santosh, PW-2, on 24.09.1996. He was seen along with Anand by Harpal, PW-3, who had enquired from Vinod Kumar where he was proceeding with the child to which the reply was that he had to purchase shoes for Anand and medicine for himself from Jind. The mother, PW-2, searched for the child but did not find him, but found a letter, Exhibit P3, which was addressed to her father-in-law, Manphul. The said letter was written by Vinod informing that he was taking Anand with him and would only release him on payment of ransom of Rs.1 lakh. She immediately brought the letter to the notice of her father-in-law who sent Jaivir to the police station and Jaivir, in turn, lodged an FIR. After the criminal law was set in motion, the Investigating Officer proceeded to village Ikkas, where the house of Jagbir Singh is situate, prepared the site plan, seized two other letters, Exhibits P1 and P2, written by Vinod, vide Memorandum Exhibit PB which was attested by Santosh, PW-2, and her father-in-law, Manphul. Thereafter, the investigating team, went to village Bijwasan in search of Vinod Kumar but did not find him in the village. Thereafter, Jaivir informed the Investigating Officer that Vinod Kumar had appeared in some examination at Village Beri. From the teachers of the school they came to know that Vinod Kumar was a student of the said school but had not attended the school for the last seven months. They also came to know that father’s name of Vinod Kumar was one Om Prakash, who is a resident of Village Dhansa. As the prosecution story further undrapes, the investigating team proceeded to village Dhansa and photograph of Vinod Kumar was shown by Om Parkash and the said photograph was that of the appellant who was employed by Jagbir as a servant. On the next day, SHO Police Station, Jind, PW-13, along with other members of the investigating team came to know that Anand had been recovered from the custody of Vinod Kumar. The accused-appellant was formally arrested on 26.9.1996. Eventually, he was produced before the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, PW-11, Jind along with the letters and before the learned Magistrate, he admitted that the letters were written by him and, accordingly, his statement was recorded by the learned Magistrate. The Investigating Officer, after recording the statements of other witnesses under Section 161 CrPC and completing the formalities, laid the chargesheet under Section 364-A read with Section 109 IPC against both the accused persons, namely, Vinod Kumar and Joginder before the learned Magistrate, who in turn, committed the matter to the Court of Session.

3. Both the accused persons pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

4. The prosecution, to substantiate its case, examined 13 witnesses.