Pradeep Nandrajog, J. (Oral):-

1. Vide impugned judgment and order dated 31.05.2007, the appellant has been convicted for the offences punishable under Section 368 IPC and Section 364-A IPC.

2. For the offence punishable under Section 364-A IPC, the appellant has been sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and for the offence punishable under Section 368 IPC he has been sentenced to undergo RI for 4 years.

3. In sustaining the conviction of the appellant, the learned trial Judge has accepted the testimony of the victim Babble PW-6. The learned trial Judge has held additionally that the testimony of HC Richhpal Singh PW-1, Ct. Nathu Ram PW-3, Ct.Sohanbir Singh PW-4, Mukesh Kumar PW-7 (the brother of Babble) and SI Satyender Pal Singh Tomar PW-8 establishes that the victim i.e. Babble was rescued from the clutches of the appellant.

4. The only question before us which we need to consider is, whether the witnesses of the prosecution are credible witnesses.

5. At the outset, it may be noted that for the first time, Mukesh Kumar PW-7 reported that his brother Babble PW-6 was kidnapped on 03.09.2005 when his statement Ex.PW-7/A was recorded at the police station by ASI Sunita PW-2 and based thereon FIR Ex.PW-2/B was registered and investigation was assigned to SI Satyender Pal Singh Tomar PW-8.

6. In his statement Ex.PW-7/A Mukesh Kumar stated that his brother Babble was missing since 19.08.2005 and that on 23.08.2005 he received a telephone call from Rajesh @ Bhura who was staying next to their residence demanding Rs.5 lacs to release his brother under threat of killing his brother. He informed that he did not tell the police because he was threatened that if he did so, life of his brother would be in danger.

7. As claimed by the police officers names whereof have been noted hereinabove, SI Satyender Pal Singh Tomar immediately formed a raiding party and reached village Dabua, District Farukhabad,UP and were able to locate the place where the victim had been kept in custody. The victim was found tied and was rescued. The appellant was apprehended at the spot.

8. Rajesh @ Bhure and his family members were declared as Proclaimed Offenders.

9. Let us have a look to the testimony of Babble PW-6, the victim. He deposed that his sister Sudesh was married in Village Kotluwali. Bhure, nephew of the appellant was residing as a tenant in a room in their house and on Raksha Bandhan day asked him to accompany to his native village. He went with Bhure to village Dabua. Appellant met them in the said village. He was taken to a hut in a forest. He was ill fed. On asking as to why he was ill treated by them, Bhure told him that he would extract ransom from his mother. Babble told them that he would leave for his house on which they tied him with a rope. He was taken to a STD booth and was forced to make a telephone call to his mother. He rang up Mobile No.9818284728 belonging to his brother. The police came on a Sunday along with his brother and rescued him.

10. On being cross-examined, he stated that once before, may be 3 or 4 years prior, he had gone to village Bewar with Bhure. He stayed with Bhure for 12-13 days and used to roam around in the village.

11. Thereafter, we find considerable confusion in the testimony of Bhure for the reason he has referred to vagabonds being present and his being scared of them but it is not clear whether he has referred to vagabonds being present when he went to village Bewar 3 or 4 years ago or when he was kidnapped. For the benefit of the reader of this judgment we think it appropriate to quote verbatim of what Babble has deposed.

12. After deposing that 3-4 years prior he had gone to village Bewar with Bhure, he deposed: “Bewar is at a distance of about 60-70 kms from village Dabua. Bhure took me along with him on the pretext of visiting his village. In village Dabua, Bhure and his family members lives in a katcha house. The hut, where I was kept in the forest was at a distance of about 15 Kms from village Dabua. I w

Click Here to Read the rest of this document