The central legal point established in the judgment is that the elements of Section 364-a of IPC were clearly made out, and the prosecution had sufficiently proved the case against the appellants.

JUDGMENT

Sarang V. Kotwal, J. - Both these appeals arise out of the same Sessions Case challenging the same impugned judgment and order, therefore, are being decided by this common judgment. For the sake of convenience, the appellants in these appeals are referred to by their original status in the trial Court wherever necessary.

2 The appellant in Criminal appeal No.52/2019 i.e. arvindersingh Shrisatyadevsing Patel was the original accused No.1 and the appellant Shivbahadursingh avdarsingh Patel in Criminal appeal No.1294/2018 was the original accused No.2 in Sessions Case No.508/2013. at the conclusion of the trial, the learned additional Sessions Judge, Pune vide his judgment and order dated 23.3.2018 convicted both the appellants for commission of offence punishable under Section 364-a read with 34 of IPC. They were sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- each and in default to suffer S.I. for 15 days. The appellants were given set off for the period they had undergone as under-trial prisoners under Section 428 of Cr.P.C. There was one more accused i.e. accused No.3 Rajkumarsing Dadansing Patel. He was acquitted from all the charges faced by him. No information is placed on record to suggest that said acquittal order has been challenged by the State.

3 Heard Shri Nitin Sejpal, learned counsel for the appellant in Criminal appeal No.52/2019, Shri Satyavrat Joshi, learned counsel for the appellant in Criminal appeal No.1294/2018 and Smt. G.P. Mulekar, learned aPP for the State.

4 The prosecution case is that, on 10.2.2013 a boy aged 13 years named Subhash was abducted by the accused from Fursungi, District-Pune. He was taken to Madhya Pradesh. In the meantime, phone calls were made to the father and uncle of the abducted boy for the ransom amount. They were threatened. Subhash's uncle and father approached the police. a trap was laid and on 15.2.2013, the victim was rescued from Satna. at that time he was present with accused No.1 arvindersingh. accused No.1 was arrested at the spot. The investigation revealed that other accused including accused No.2 were also involved in the offence. They were also arrested. The investigation was carried out. Charge-sheet was filed. The case was committed to the Court of Sessions.

5. During trial, the prosecution examined six witnesses.

PW-1 ashokkumar Singh was father of the victim.

PW-2 Dr. Vinodkumar Singh was PW-1's brother.

PW-3 Subhash Singh was the victim himself.

PW-4 Geeta Singh was the wife of PW-2.

PW-5 Surendrasingh was the pancha in whose presence the boy was rescued.

PW-6 aPI Narayan Pawar was the investigating officer who had gone to Madhya Pradesh.

after recording the evidence and the statements of the accused under Section 313 of Cr.P.C., the learned Judge convicted and sentenced the appellants as mentioned earlier. The defence of the accused was of total denial.

7 Learned counsel Shri Sejpal appearing for accused No.1 arvindar Singh submitted that, at the highest, it can be a case of mere abduction. The ingredients of Section 364-a are not made out. The offence could be that under Section 363 of IPC, for which the sentence may extend to maximum seven years; or it could be a case punishable under Section 365 of IPC, where also the maximum sentence is seven years.

8 Shri Sejpal further submitted that, on merits, there are too many loop holes in the prosecution case. The call data record is not produced by the prosecution. No police officer from Satna, Madhya Pradesh or any other independent witness from Satna is examined. The accused No.1 arvindrasingh was a near relative of PW-4 and, therefore, it was not possible that the victim would not have named him. He submitted that the victim i.e. PW-3 has failed to identify the accused No.1 in the Court.

9 Learned Counsel Shri Satyavrat Joshi appearing for accused No.2 Shivbahadursingh also adopted the same arguments. In addition, he submitted that the ransom call was not proved. He submitted that no test identi