JUDGMENT :

Shree Chandrashekhar, J.

Birendra Mehta has challenged the judgment of conviction dated 4th September 2008 and the order dated 8th September 2008 of sentence of imprisonment for life and a fine of Rs. 50,000/-each under section 364 read with 120-B of the Indian Penal Code and under section 364-A read with section 120-B of the Indian Penal Code passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, FTC No.1, Palamau, Daltonganj in Sessions Trial No. 183 of 2007.

2. By virtue of an order passed in Complaint Case No. 486 of 2006, Hussainabad PS Case No. 126 of 2006 was lodged on 15th December 2006 against Sunil Pandey, Anil Pandey, Pintu Pandey and Sintu Pandey, all residents of village Baidhyabigha.

3. The aforementioned Complaint Case was lodged by Kanchan Devi wife of Upendra Mehta who was abducted in the evening of 21st January 2006 at about 06:30 PM from his house by the aforesaid four persons. After the investigation, a charge-sheet was laid in the Court against the appellant who is the brother of Upendra Mehta. While the investigation against the others remained pending, the appellant has faced the trial under sections 364/34 of the Indian Penal Code framed on 27th June 2007 which was altered vide order dated 21st August 2008 and charges under section 364 read with 120-B of the Indian Penal Code as well as under section 364-A read with 120-B of the Indian Penal Code were framed against him.

4. During the trial, the prosecution has examined four witnesses, out of whom PW1, PW2 and PW3 are the close relatives of the victim – PW4 is a formal witness.

5. The evidence produced by the prosecution to prove the charge under section 364 read with section 120-B of the Indian Penal Code has been dealt with by the learned trial Court in the following manner:

“12. Charge u/s 364 A read with 120 I.P.C. -From careful perusal of the paragraphs 1, 2 and 3 of the deposition of P.W.1 Tirath Mahto (father of the accused and the victim both), paragraph 1 and 2 of the deposition of P.W.2 Rajbanshi Devi (mother of the accused and victim both) and paragraph 1 and 2 of the deposition of P.w.3 Kanchan Devi (wife of the victim) it is clear that at about 6.30 P.M. on 21.1.2006 the accused Sunil Pandey, Anil Pandey, Pintu Pandey and Sintu Pandey (all not facing trial in this case) went at the house of the informant and at gun point abducted Upendra Mehta for ransom of Rs. ten lacs and threatened to kill the victim if hulla was made or information was given to the police.

13. But, from careful perusal of paragraphs 5, 6, 7, 49 and 10 of the deposition of P.W.1 Tirath Mahto it is clear that when Rs. three lacs by way of ransom was given by P.W.1 to accused Sunil Pandey, this accused Birendra Mehta was also along with that accused and had also gone with him and again he gave Rs. two lacs at that time also this accused Birendra Mehta had come to P.W.1 by motor cycle and this accused later on told to P.W.1 that the victim Upendra would return within a week and again when P.W.1 asked the accused Sunil Pandey, he told him that the entire ransom money was given to this accused Birendra Mehta.

14. Likewise paragraph 4 of the deposition of P.W. 2 Rajbanshi Devi also makes it clear that after Rs. three lacs was given to accused Sunil Pandey when he was again asked about not returning of the victim, he told that the entire ransom money was given to this accused Birendra Mehta.

15. In the same way from perusal of paragraphs 4 and 8 of the deposition of P.W.3 Kanchan Devi (informant of this case) it is clear that when P.W.1 gave Rs. three lacs by way of ransom to accused Sunil Pandey, this accused Birendra Mehta had also come along with accused and when Rs. two lacs was again given, at that time also this accused had come along with the accused Sunil Pandey and when P.W.1 asked the accused Sunil Pandey about not returning of the victim Upendra Mehta, he told that the entire ransom money was given to this accused Birendra Mehta.”

6. Similarly, the charge under section 36