Back
2018 Supreme(Raj) 1885
IN THE HIGH COURT OF RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH
Mohammad Rafiq and Goverdhan Bardhar, JJ.
Virender Singh Alias Vijendra Singh - Appellant
Versus
State Of Rajasthan - Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 212 of 2015 with Criminal Appeal No. 135 of 2015 with Criminal Appeal No. 427 of 2017 with Criminal Appeal No. 244 of 2015 with Criminal Appeal No. 165 of 2015 with Criminal Appeal No. 243 of 2015
Decided On : 01-08-2018
For Appellants (In Appeal No. 135/2015 and in Appeal No. 243/2015 for accused-respondent-Pramod Mittal.): Mr. V.R. Bajwa with Mr. Amar Kumar & Mr. Gaurav Singh; for Appellants (In Appeal No. 165/2015): Mr. Santosh Kumar Jain with Mr. Ajay Singh; for Appellants (In Appeal no. 212/2015): Mr. Shiv Kumar with Mr. Pushpendra Sharma; for Appellants (In Appeal No. 243/2015): Mr. Rinesh Gupta for complainant Mr. Rajesh Jain; for Appellants (In Appeal No. 244/2015):Mr. Shyam Bihari Gautam; for Appellants and for accused-respondent (In Appeal No. 427/2017 - Lalit Saxena in Appeal No. 243/2015):Mr. Anshuman Saxena; Mrs. Sonia Shandilya, Public Prosecutor, for Respondents
Headnote:
Indian Panel Code,1860 - Sections 363, 364-A, 343, 328, 120 and 120-B –Criminal Procedure Code,1973 -Section 313 - Appeal Against Conviction - Appeal has been filed by complainant Rajesh Jain assailing the aforesaid judgment and order passed by the trial court to extent it acquitted accused-respondents - As soon as he alighted from auto rickshaw out of his house at about an unknown person stepped out from a white car bearing registration number and pulled boy along with his school bag said car and fled away - When child screamed Principal and Vice Principal of Seedling School who were passing thereby in another vehicle saw this incident and informed complainants wife at his residence - His wife informed him about incident on phone –Held, Trial court has rightly found Guilty of accused-appellants proved beyond reasonable doubt as various incriminating circumstances against them when joined together unerringly point towards their guilt and form a chain of circumstances for drawing an inference of their guilt and rule out every single hypothesis of their innocence - However charges against accused-respondents have not been proved by prosecution beyond reasonable doubt and there is no evidence on record that was aware of fact that was hand in gloves with other accused - In fact he was used by as a conduit to facilitate passing of ransom money to kidnappers in lieu of release - Appeal dismissed
JUDGMENT
Mohammad Rafiq, J. - Since all these appeals arise out of a common judgment, therefore, they were heard together and are being decided by this common judgment. These appeals, except Appeal No. 243/2015 have been filed by the accused-appellants namely Manish Aggarwal; Ramesh Adwani @ Shambhu; Virender Singh @ Vijendra Singh; Ajay Dixit @ Bunty; Rajkishor Singh @ Sonu respectively, challenging judgment and order dated 12.01.2015 passed by the Court of Special Judge (Sati Prevention), Rajasthan & Additional Sessions Judge, Jaipur City, Jaipur (for short 'the trial court') whereby the aforesaid accused-appellants have been convicted and sentenced in the following manner:
| Name of Accused | Section | Sentence |
| Rajkishor Singh @ Sonu | 364A IPC | Life imprisonment with fine of Rs. 5,000/-, in default of payment of fine to further undergo six months' simple imprisonment. |
|
| 363 IPC | Three years' rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs. 2,000/-, in default of payment of fine to further undergo three months' simple imprisonment. |
|
| 343 IPC | Six months' simple imprisonment. 328 read with |
|
| 120B IPC | Five years' simple imprisonment with fine of Rs. 5,000/-, in default of payment of fine to further undergo six months' simple imprisonment. |
| Ramesh Adwani @ Shambhu | 364A IPC | Life imprisonment with fine of Rs. 5,000/-, in default of payment of fine to further undergo six months' simple imprisonment. |
|
| 363 IPC | Three years' rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs. 2,000/-, in default of payment of fine to further undergo three months' simple imprisonment. |
|
| 343 IPC | Six months' simple imprisonment. |
|
| 328 IPC | Five years' rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs. 5,000/-, in default of payment of fine to further undergo six months' simple imprisonment. |
| Virender Singh @ Vijendra Singh | 364A read with 120-B IPC | Life imprisonment with fine of Rs. 5,000/-, in default of payment of fine to further undergo six months' simple imprisonment. 363 IPC Three years' rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs. 2,000/-, in default of payment of fine to further undergo three months' simple imprisonment. |
|
| 343 read with 120-B IPC | Six months' simple imprisonment. |
| Ajay Dixit @ Bunty | 364A read with 120-B IPC | Life imprisonment with fine of Rs. 5,000/-, in default of payment of fine to further undergo six months' simple imprisonment. |
|
| 363 read with 120-B IPC | Three years' simple imprisonment with fine of Rs. 2,000/-, in default of payment of fine to further undergo three months' simple imprisonment. |
|
| 343 read with 120-B IPC | Six months' simple imprisonment. Manish Aggarwal 364A read with |
|
| 120-B IPC | Life imprisonment with fine of Rs. 5,000/-, in default of payment of fine to further undergo six months' simple imprisonment. |
|
| 363 read with 120-B IPC | Three years' simple imprisonment with fine of Rs. 2,000/-, in default of payment of fine to further undergo three months' simple imprisonment. |
|
| 343 read with 120-B IPC | Six months' simple imprisonment. |
|
| 328 read with 120B IPC | Five years' simple imprisonment with fine of Rs. 5,000/-, in default of payment of fine to further undergo six months' simple imprisonment. |
All the sentences were ordered to run concurrently.
2. Criminal Appeal No. 243/2015 has been filed by the complainant Rajesh Jain assailing the aforesaid judgment and order passed by the trial court to the extent it acquitted accused-respondents namely Lalit Saxena and Pramod Mittal of the charge for offence under Sections 363, 364-A, 343, 328, 120 and 120-B IPC.
3. Facts of the case are that the complainant Rajesh Jain, father of the victim Mihir Jain, submitted a written report (Exhibit P-24) at Police St
