Point of Law : As to rule of proof of a fact by documentary evidence, it is settled principle that so long as original exist and is available, it being best evidence, must be produced.

JUDGMENT :

Sunita Agarwal, J.

1. Heard Sri Vishnu Kumar Sahu, learned counsel for the appellants Jay Prakash @ Bhure and Virendra, Sri Vishnu Shanker Gupta, learned counsel for the appellants Munnilal Prajapati and Lajja Ram, Sri Rajesh Kumar Mishra, learned counsel for the appellants Shrikant and Sarvesh @ Macchar and Sri Rupak Chaubey, learned A.G.A. for the State.

2. These appeals are directed against the judgments and orders dated 13.04.2007 and 28.4.2007 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge/ Fast Track Court no.2, Kanpur Dehat in S.T no.204 of 2006 arising out of Case Crime no.17 of 2002 under Section 364A IPC, P.S-Sikandra, District-Kanpur Dehat.

3. The appellants herein (six in number) have been convicted under Section 364A IPC and sentenced for life imprisonment with fine of Rs.10,000/-The default punishment is five years additional simple imprisonment for each of the appellants. Four appellants Lajjaram, Shrikant, Jay Prakash @ Bhure and Munnilal Prajapati have also been convicted under Section 377 IPC for seven years rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs.2000/-with the default punishment of one year simple imprisonment. All the sentences are to run concurrently.

Introduction:-

4. The first information report of the incident, occurred on 20.01.2002 at about 7-7:30 p.m, was lodged on 21.01.2002 at 6.15 am by Shripal @ Pappu s/o Ramsewak Pal reporting therein that his brother Yashpal Singh aged about 29 years had been abducted in order to commit his murder by some miscreants while he and his brother Yashpal (victim) were coming to their house in village Maheshpur from the Government Parag Dairy, Village-Hariharpur. It was averred therein that near the Hariharpur wali bambi ki puliya on the western side, 5-6 persons were standing, the first informant and his brother were on two cycles and his brother (victim) was fifteen paces ahead of him. Three-four unknown persons caught his brother and started beating him. He and his brother had seen the miscreants in the torch light clearly and they all were wearing pant, shirt and sweater. The miscreants first caught his brother, beaten him by kicks and fists and when the first informant intervened he was also beaten. His brother then told him to run away and the informant ran away from the place of the incident to save his life. His brother Yashpal, however, had been abducted by the unknown miscreants and the first informant had an apprehension that they might kill his brother out of enmity. The first informant further states that he alongwith villagers made all possible efforts to search his brother but his whereabouts could not be known. In the written report, the first informant stated that he could identify the miscreants if they were brought before him.

5. On the basis of the written report, P.W-3, Ram Chandra the Head Moharrir posted at the police station concerned registered the first information report and proved that the Check report was prepared in his handwriting and bears his signature, it was exhibited as Exhibit Ka-1. The G.D entry at Rapat no.7 dated 21.01.2002, at 6.15 a.m, was also proved by P.W-3 from the original GD brought in the Court and filing of the carbon copy thereof, marked as Exhibit Ka-2.

6. On a suggestion to this witnesses, he categorically stated that before submission of the written report no oral or telephonic information about the incident was recieved in the police station and no police personnel went to the spot prior to the lodging of the first information report. The Investigating Officer Mahipal Singh Tomar (P.W-6) was present in the police station when the report was lodged.

7. The Investigating Officer P.W-6 stated that the investigation was received by him on 21.01.2002 and after copying the Check report, G.D, the statements of the first informant and other witnesses were recorded. The inspection of the site was made on the pointing out of the first informant and the site plan had been proved as Exhibit Ka-5, being in his handwriti