2023 Supreme(MP) 413
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
Rohit Arya and Avanindra Kumar Singh, JJ.
Saligram Gurjar v. State of M.P.
Criminal Appeal No. 8776 of 2022 (G);
Decided on 9.10.2023*
A.K. Jain for appellant; Dr. Anjali Gyanani, Public Prosecutor, for respondent/State.
Headnote:
Penal Code, 1860 -- S. 364 and 364A -- kidnapping for ransom -- appellant dock identified -- however, demand and payment of ransom not proved -- conviction u/s. 364A altered to conviction u/s. 364 -- sentence reduced from life imprisonment to 10 years RI. [Para 5
naM lafgrk] 1860 & èkkjk 364 rFkk 364d & eqfä&èku d¢ fy, O;igj.k & vihykFkÊ dh dBÄjs esa 'kuk[r dh xà & rFkkfi] eqfä&èku dh ek¡x rFkk lank; lkfcr ugÈ & èkkjk 364d d¢ vèkhu n¨"kflf) èkkjk 364 d¢ vèkhu n¨"kflf) esa ifjofrZr & naMkns'k vkthou dkjkokl ls ÄVkdj 10 o"kZ dk dB¨j dkjkokl fd;k x;kA ¼iSjk 5½
JUDGMENT
1. This Criminal Appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 30.5.2017 passed by Special Judge (under the MPDVPK Act), Shivpuri in Special Sessions Case No. 400047/2009 whereby the present appellant stands convicted under section 364A of the IPC read with S.11/13 of the Madhaya Pradesh Daikaiti Evam Vypharan Prabhavait Kshetra Adhiniyam (for brevity “MPDVPK Act”) and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life with a fine of Rs.500/- in default to suffer R.I. for one month.
2. Prosecution story, as found proved, is that on 24.2.2009, Govind Kushwaha (PW2) along with his son Vijay Singh (PW3), had gone on his Discover Bajaj Motorcycle to attend Bhandara (community feast) on the occasion of Shivratri at Baans Wali Nursery Gora. After eating at the Bhandara, they along with Chowkidar Bablu Yadav, returned for Shivpuri. Govind was on one motorcycle, whereas Vijay Singh and Bablu were on another motorcycle. They were waylaid by one miscreant who was armed with gun and asked them to stop. Accordingly, all the three persons stopped there. In the meanwhile, 3 more miscreants, who were hiding behind the bushes, also came there and took them about 50 meters inside the forest area along with their motorcycles. Thereafter, all the three persons were taken inside the forest area, after leaving their motorcycles at that place. When, the three abductees were being taken inside the forest area, at that time, Govind Singh and Vijay Singh saw that one person had come out of the bushes, who was identified by them as Harnam Singh. Thereafter, all the three abductees were compelled to move from one place to another. Thereafter, Vijay Singh was instructed to talk to his family members from his mobile. Accordingly, an information of abduction was given to Afaq Ahmed and then, the employees of forest department gathered. Thereafter, they went to the house of Govind Singh and later on, F.I.R. was lodged by Afaq Ahmed Siddique which was registered as Crime No.48/2009. The police prepared spot map on the instructions of Afaq Ahmed Siddique. During search, motorcycles were recovered, which were got identified. In the meanwhile, Govind Singh was released by miscreants with an instruction that he should wait for further instructions and phone. The recovery memo of Govind Singh was prepared on 26-2-2009. Thereafter, an information was received by Govind Singh, that an amount of Rs.10,00,000/- be paid for release of Vijay Singh and Bablu. Accordingly, Govind Singh, paid said amount. Thereafter, Vijay Singh and Bablu were also released. Their recovery memo dated 6.3.2009 was prepared. Coaccused Harkanth was arrested on 25.2.2009. On 13.3.2009, Harnam Singh was arrested and on 24.4.2009, Jagdish was arrested. The statements of the witnesses were recorded. The police after completing the investigation, filed the charge sheet for offence under sections 364A of I.P.C. and under section 11/13 of MPDVPK Act. Since, present appellant Saligram, as well as, Rajendra @ Gutta and Pappu were absconding therefore, charge sheet under section 299 of Cr.P.C. was filed against them. On 7.5.2011, the present appellant was arrested by SI Ramendra Singh Chauhan (PW15). As the other accused persons had already been tried and convicted vide judgment dated 11.3.2010 passed in S.T. No. 47/09, the present appellant after his arrest was tried separately leading to his conviction by the impugned judgment, as indicated above.
3. It is pertinent to mention that the FIR (Ex.P/3) had been filed against unknown persons. Co-accused Jagdish, Harkanth and Harnam Singh had challenged their conviction and sentence before this Court in Criminal Appeal Nos. 233/2010, 239/2010 and 281/2010 respectively and vide judgment dated 9.11.2021, appeals have been allowed by a co-ordinate Bench of this Court resulting into their acquittal. While recording acquittal of the appellants therein, the co-ordinate Bench of this Court, upon threadbare appreciation of evide