Point of Law : There can be a number of innumerable possibilities which Court need not go into as it was for the prosecution to establish that the accused alone had committed the offence.

JUDGMENT :

1. The appellants have preferred these criminal appeals against the judgment dated 22.06.2016 passed by the Special Judge, SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Cases, Alwar in Sessions Case No.92/2013 whereby accused appellant – Nirbhay @ Natto has been convicted for the offence under Section 302/34 IPC and accused appellant – Anil Kumar has been convicted for the offence under Section 302 IPC and both were sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/- each, in default of payment of fine, to further undergo 1 year simple imprisonment.

2. Succinctly stated the facts of the case are that on 27.04.2013 complainant–Jagdish Prasad Verma submitted a tehriri report (Ex.P-1&2) at Police Station, Kathumar, District Alwar, upon which, an FIR bearing No.166/2013 has been registered for the offences under Section 364 IPC and Section 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST Act. It was submitted in the report that on 23.04.2013 his son Amit Verma, who is a Teacher in Government Senior Secondary School, Jodhpura (Kathumar) went on the motorcycle of the complainant and that he was called by Anil Kumar at Teetpuri Bus Stand. It is also mentioned in the complaint that at about 09:58 p.m., he received a message from his son’s mobile No.8058854429 that his son is with them and if he want to see him alive, then till 09:00 a.m., he has to arrange Rs.5 Lacs. It is also mentioned in the complaint that he did not take the matter seriously as it was received from his son’s mobile. On the next morning also, he received a missed call from his son’s mobile and upon waiting till evening of 24.04.2013, he lodged a missing person report (Ex.P-4) in the police station.

3. It is mentioned in the complaint that his son was abducted by Anil Kumar, Bobby, Rakesh, Dinesh and Sanjay and other three or more persons and that a ransom of Rs.5 Lacs was demanded from him. After receiving the complaint and concluding the investigation, the police submitted charge-sheet against the present accused appellants for the offence under Sections 364, 302, 120-B IPC and Section 3(2)(v) of SC/ST Act. Investigation was kept pending against co-accused-Bobby, Rakesh, Dinesh, Sanjay, Rahul Singh and Tinku @ Hemant under Section 173(8) Cr.P.C. Learned trial Court framed charges against the accused appellants for the offence under Sections 364, 302 IPC and Section 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST Act. As many as 21 witnesses were examined and 41 documents were exhibited on behalf of the prosecution and in defence, statement of complainant-Jagdish Prasad was exhibited as Ex.D-1. Explanation of the accused appellants was recorded under Section 313 Cr.PC. The trial Court after hearing both the parties vide its judgment dated 22.06.2016 acquitted the appellants for the offence under Section 364 IPC and Section 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST Act and convicted appellant-Nirbhay for the offence under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC and appellant–Anil Kumar for offence under Section 302 IPC.

4. It is contended by counsel for the appellant - Nirbhay that he was neither named in the FIR nor any of the witness except Investigating Officer has uttered his name in the evidence recorded before the trial Court. It is also contended that without there being an iota of evidence, the trial Court has convicted appellant – Nirbhay for the alleged offence.

5. It is contended by the counsel for appellant – Anil Kumar that as per the written report (Ex.P-2), a message was received on the same day when Amit went missing and the demand of ransom was also made on the same day and he also received a missed call from Amit’s phone on the next morning. However, in the missing person report (Ex.P-4), which was lodged on 24.04.2013, there is no mention about the names of the accused nor is there any mention about demand of ransom and missed call. It is also contended by the counsel for the appellant that the mobile phones were not seized and the call details have not been exhibited before the Court to establish t