JUDGMENT :

S.K. Medhi, J.

The present appeals have been preferred against the common judgment and order dated 11.10.2018 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Yupia, West Sessions Divisions, Papumpare district, Arunachal Pradesh in Sessions Case No. 41/2014 (YPA) convicting the accused appellants under Section 364-A/34 of the Indian Penal Code. While Crl.Appln. No. 19 (AP) / 2018 is preferred by Shri Tapan Morang @ Topon Morang and Shri Santanu Morang, Crl.Appln. No. 01 (AP) / 2019 is preferred by Shri Rohit Morang and Shri Deep Jyoti Morang. By the impugned judgment and order, all the appellants have been convicted under Section 364-A IPC and sentenced to undergo life imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- in default of payment of fine to undergo further RI for one year.

2. Before going to the impugned judgment, the brief facts of the case may be stated in the following manner.

3. The criminal law was set into motion by lodging of an FIR before the Naharlagun Police Station on 14.10.2013 by one Koj Laji (PW 1) alleging, interalia, that one person named Rohit who was the former Counter Operator at Naharlagun had taken his Tata Sumo bearing No. AR-01-D-0608 on hire on 14.10.2010. Thereafter, he had received a call from the said Rohit on reaching Harmuti from the mobile phone of his driver stating that he had kidnapped the driver and taken away the vehicle. A demand of Rs.10,00,000/-(Rupees Ten Lacs) was made to be paid at Banderdewa, at 10:00 AM on 15.10.2013 failing which he will get dead body of driver (Mr. Mor Tapik) (PW 2). Accordingly, Naharlagun PS Case No. 129/2013 under Section 364 (A) read with 34 of the IPC was registered.

4. On receipt of the aforesaid information, a team of Police Personnel rushed to Assam and with the assistance of Assam Police of Laluk Police Station, they could apprehend accused Tapan Morang and Deep Jyoti Morang from their hideout at Meraguni and the rest of the accused namely Rohit Morang and Shantanu Morang were apprehended in Nepali Basti from where the victim Nor Tapik was also rescued and the vehicle was recovered. During the investigation it was revealed that Rohit Morang who was jobless had hatched a plan with the other accused who were from the same village to abduct a person for ransom and accordingly the present offence was committed. In the investigation, Call Data Records were also obtained to ascertain the connection between the accused persons with the offence. After investigation, charge sheet was filed thereafter the matter was committed to the learned Sessions Judge, West Sessions Division, Yupia as the offence was the Sessions triable one. Accordingly, the learned Sessions Judge framed charges which were denied by the accused persons.

5. To bring home the charges, the prosecution had adduced evidence by six numbers of witnesses. In this case, the defence side had also produced two numbers of witnesses. To examine the correctness of the impugned judgment and also as an Appellate Court, this Court is under the duty to examine the evidence afresh and re-appreciate the same if necessary.

6. The informant deposed as PW 1. He clearly stated that on 13.10.2013 Rohit Morang whom he knew from before had given a telephonic call to give his vehicle on hire which was accordingly given on 14.10.2013 at about 4:00 PM with Nor Tapik (PW 2) as the driver. However, at about 8:00 PM he had received telephone call from the mobile phone of his driver stating that the driver along with the vehicle was abducted with a demand for Rs.10,00,000/-(Rupees Ten lacs) as ransom to be paid on the following day i.e. 15.10.2013 at 11:00 AM at Banderdewa. Later, at about 3:00 PM the accused persons again called him to Laluk Tiniali and accordingly the PW 1 along with the Police Team have reached Laluk wherein certain telephonic exchange was made. As and when two of the accused persons could be met by the informant, they were arrested and taken to Laluk PS. The other two accused persons were subsequently arrested