G.S. Sistani, J

1. Challenge in the present appeal, filed under Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, is to the judgment dated 27.8.2010 and order on sentence dated 30.8.2010 passed in Sessions Case No.140/2008, arising out of FIR No.58/2004, registered under Section 364A/420/120B/34 IPC, Police Station Mahipalpur, by which the appellant has been sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life for the offences punishable under Section 364A IPC and under Section 120B IPC. It was directed that the sentences would run concurrently. In addition thereto, the appellant was directed to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/-, each, for the offences and in default thereof simple imprisonment for six months, each.

2. The version of the prosecution, as noticed by the trial court, is as under:

“1. The case of the prosecution is that Ram Sanjivan, a blind man, was a distributor of ‘Amway’. He has a child namely Prateek aged 6 years, while Krishan Kumar (P.O) was a tenant of Ram Sanjivan in House No.294, Pocket-I, Phase-II, Sector-13, Dwarka, New Delhi.

2. It is further the case of the prosecution that accused Subhash, Krishan Kumar and Shishir Kumar entered into a criminal conspiracy to commit a crime and to compel Ram Sanjivan to deliver valuables and in pursuance thereof accused Shishir Kumar came to the house of Ram Sanjivan on 15.8.2004 and showed interest in obtaining distributorship of Amway by representing himself, as Abhay, and not Shishir Kumar, taking benefit of blindness of Ram Sanjivan. Ram Sanjivan in turn told him to come on 17.8.2004 as on that date, he would also call accused Krishan Kumar to his house, who is his senior.

3. Though accused Shishir Kumar was asked to come on 17.8.2004, but he visited the house of Ram Sanjivan on 16.8.2004 also, in the absence of Ram Sanjivan when wife of Ram Sanjivan refused his entry into the house. It is also the case of the prosecution that during his visit, not only inside the house but even outside the house of Ram Sanjivan, Shishir showed more interest in developing friendship with Prateek s/o.Ram Sanjivan, and on 18.8.2004, offered a sum of Rs.5/- to Prateek to purchase sweets from a shop, which act was not liked to, by the wife of Ram Sanjivan and she herself handed over a sum of Rs.5/- to Prateek to purchase toffee.

4. When Prateek went to the market, accused Shishir Kumar left the house on some pretext and followed Prateek and kidnapped him and took Prateek to a house where accused Subhash was also present, and thereafter he demanded a ransom of Rs. Thirty lacs for the release of the child of Ram Sanjivan in a safe condition, and at the time of demand so conveyed on telephone, accused Krishan Kumar was also present at the house of Ram Sanjivan.

5. On receipt of such a call, Ram Sanjivan became perturbed, when accused Krishan Kumar who remained at the house of Ram Sanjivan, asked Ram Sanjivan not to take the threat lightly and rather should make arrangements for payment of a sum of Rs.30 lacs as ransom to accused Shishir Kumar.

6. Not only accused Krishan Kuamar asked Ram Sanjivan to pay the ransom amount, despite the fact that Ram Sanjivan told him that he is not in a position to do so, but accused Krishan Kumar also told and suggested to Ram Sanjivan, as to the manner in which a sum of Rs.30/-lacs can be arranged, and asked Ram Sanjivan to collect title documents of his house NO.294, Pocket-I, Phase-II, Sector-13, Dwarka, and the ornaments in possession of his wife, and further told Ram Sanjivan that he will also help Ram Sanjivan by obtaining a sum of Rs.10 lacs from Vijender who was residing at Punjabi Bagh, with whom he had already invested a sum of Rs.5 lacs which he will ask Vijender to repay him, and he will ask Vijender to extend a loan to Ram Sanjivan to the tune of Rs.5 lacs. He also suggested that he will also take the ornaments of his wife worth Rs.4.5 lacs and the property of Ram Sanjivan will be sold to one Dinesh Kumar for a sum of Rs.13 lacs, and a further sum of R