The judgment emphasizes the requirement to establish essential ingredients of the offence beyond reasonable doubt, especially in cases involving coercion and threat.

JUDGMENT :

Sadhana S. Jadhav, J.

1. The appellant is convicted for the offence punishable under section 364-A of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life and to pay fine of Rs. 10,000/- i.d. to suffer further R.I. for one year by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Nashik vide Judgment and Order dated 21st August, 2017 in Sessions Case No. 191 of 2016. The appellant is also convicted for the offence punishable under section 363 of the Indian Penal Code, but no separate sentence is awarded. Hence, this appeal.

2. Such of the facts necessary for decision of this appeal are as follows:

(i) On 10th April, 2016 one Sampat Baban Porje(P.W.1) lodged report at Upnagar Police station alleging therein that on 9/4/2016 at about 6.30 p.m. he was informed by his mother Tarabai that their servant Raju and his friend Ramkisan had taken his son Prasad aged 5 and half year old to buy chocolate and have not returned for long time. Hence, the complainant has searched for his son, but could not find him anywhere and therefore, he was constrained to lodge a report. It is stated in the FIR that he has also searched for Raju and Ramkisan. That on the basis of the said report, Crime No. 144 of 2016 for the offence punishable under section 363 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code.

(ii) After competition of investigation the charge sheet was filed on 13/6/2016.

3. At the trial, the prosecution examined as many as 7 witness to bring home the guilt of the accused. The prosecution has placed implicit reliance on the following witnesses :

(i) P.W.1 Sampat Porje is the complainant.

(ii) P.W. 5 Danaji Porje, the elder brother of the complainant.

(iii) P.W.6 Vijay Davange, the maternal cousin of the complainant.

(iv) P.W. 7 Nivant Jadhav, the PSI, Upnagar Police Station Nashik.

4. According to P.W. 1, the accused No. 1 was working in his cattle shed for milching his cattle, whereas the accused No. 2 Ramkisan was doing the same work with Vilas Porje. His cattle shed is adjacent to his house. That both the accused had taken away Prasad alongwith them under the guise of purchasing chocolate and did not return till 8.30 p.m. That the salary of accused No. 1 was Rs. 8000/- per month and that the accused was demanding Rs. 20,000/- as an advance. P.W. 1 was informed by his nephew Rutik that he had seen Prasad in the company of both the accused proceeding towards Nasik Road Railway station in an autorickshaw. He had inquired with accused Raju. At that time, Prasad was fast asleep. Therefore, P.W. 1 called upon accused No. 1 and inquired about him, upon which Raju replied that he would return home after reaching Ramkisan at the railway station.

5. According to P.W. 1, his brother-in-law Samadhan had called upon the accused No. 1. In reply, the accused No. 1 had demanded Rs. 25,00,000/-, failing which Prasad would be killed. Police had then been to Jabalpur and other peripheral areas alongwith Viju, the maternal cousin of the complainant, in search of Prasad. P.W.1 was unable to give the cell phone number of Samadhan Tanaji Shirsat, the person who called upon the accused No. 1 as well as the cell phone number of the accused.

6. P.W.5 Dhanaji Porje happens to be the elder brother of the complainant. He was acquainted with accused No. 1 as he was serving with his younger brother. According to him, when he learnt about missing of Prasad, he called upon the accused No. 1 at about 9 to 10 p.m. on the same day and he was informed by accused No. 1 that they had been to Indira Nagar and would return after having seen of his relative. The accused No. 1 had not returned and had later switched off his mobile. P.W. 5 had accompanied P.W. 1 to Upnagar Police station for lodging the report. On the same day, in the midnight he was able to contact accused No. 1. Accused No. 1 had asked P.W. 5 to reach Jabalpur with Rs. 25,00,000/- for releasing Prasad. The said conversation had taken place between P.W. 5 and accused No. 1 in the presence of police officer and hence