IMPORTANT POINT
The court upheld the conviction under Section 365 IPC, emphasizing the importance of prompt FIRs and the admissibility of portions of hostile witness testimonies.

JUDGMENT :

(Nalin Kumar Srivastava, J.)

1. Present criminal appeal has been preferred by the appellants against the judgement and order dated 1.9.1992 passed by the IInd Additional Sessions Judge, Fatehpur in Sessions Trial No.82 of 1989 (State vs. Surajdin and others), convicting and sentencing the appellants for the offence punishable under Section 365 IPC to undergo one year’s rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 200/- with stipulation of default clause.

2. Brief facts of the case, as culled out from the record, are that five named accused persons Surajdin, Sri Narain, Lallu @ Ram Prasad, Ram Kishore and Shiv Shanker, who happens to be son-in-laws and close relatives of the informant, having grudge with the informant Smt. Laxmaniya on account of some land dispute came to her house on 2.12.1988 at about 6.00 a.m. when she alongwith her husband Ghasitey was warming before fire at the door of her house and made assault upon Ghasitey and abducted him in order to kill him. F.I.R. was lodged by Smt. Laxmaniya, wife of Ghasitey on 4.12.1988 at 9.15. a.m.

3. Investigation of the case proceeded. The Investigating Officer recorded the statements of the witnesses, inspected the spot and prepared site plan. Further, he arrested the accused Lallu and Surajdin and on pointing-out of Surajdin recovered Ghasitey from his (Surajdin) house in presence of Raghubir and Laxmi Narain and prepared recovery memo Ext. ka-5. He also recorded the statements of the recovery witnesses and thereafter handed over Ghasitey to the complainant by preparing the memo of supurdginama Ext. ka-7. After completing the investigation, charge-sheet Ext. ka-6 against the accused appellants was submitted. Concerned Magistrate took the cognizance and the case, being exclusively triable by Sessions Court, was committed to the Court of Sessions.

4. Accused persons appeared before the trial court and charge under Section 364 IPC was framed against them. Appellants denied the charge and claimed their trial.

5. Trial proceeded and to bring home the charge against the accused / appellants, prosecution has examined in all six witnesses, who are as follows:

1 Smt. Laxamaniya PW-1 (informant)

2 Ghasitey PW-2 (abductee)

3 Sheo Prasad PW-3

4 Sheo Narain PW-4

5 Laxmi Narain PW-5

6 S.I. Sitaram Shukla PW-6 (Investigating Officer)

6. In support of oral version, following documents were filed and proved on behalf of the prosecution:

1 Written report Ext. A-1

2 Chik F.I.R. Ext. A-2

3 Carbon copy of G.D. Ext. A-3

4 Site Plan Ext. A-4

5 Recovery Memo Ext. A-5

6 Charge sheet Ext. A-6

7 Supurdginama Ext. A-7

7. After conclusion of evidence, statements of accused appellants were recorded under Section 313 CrPC, wherein they pleaded their false implication and claimed the prosecution evidence to be false and concocted. Accused Surajdin denied that he had lodged any case before the Consolidation Officer in the name of Ghasitey raising objections in mutation proceedings. Further, since accused Lallu @ Ram Prasad committed default in appearance and his attendance could not be procured, his case was separated vide order dated 20.6.1992.

8. PW-1 – Smt. Laxmaniya, is the informant of the occurrence. She has supported the contents of the written report and also the entire prosecution case including the abduction of her husband.

9. PW-2 - Ghasitey is the abductee. He has stated the name of accused persons and the manner in which he was kidnapped by the miscreants.

10. PW-3 and PW-4 – Sheo Prasad and Sheo Narain, who, according to the prosecution version, are the witness of incident of abduction of Ghasitey by the accused persons but they did not support the prosecution version and therefore they were declared hostile by the prosecution.

11. PW-5 – Laxmi Narain is the recovery witness of the abductee but he denied that Ghasitey was recovered from the house of Surajdin on his pointing out. He was also declared hostile by the prosecution.

12. PW-6 Sub-Inspector Sita Ram Shukla, is the Investigating Officer of the case,