The prosecution must prove all elements of kidnapping for ransom, including demand for ransom and threats to life, to sustain a conviction under Section 364-A IPC.

JUDGMENT :

Rajendra Kumar Vani, J.

This appeal has been preferred against the judgment dated 02/12/2016 passed by the Court of Special Judge (Dacoity) Sheopur (M.P.) in Special Case No.38/2013 dacoity, whereby the appellant has been convicted under Section 364-A of I.P.C. read with Section 11/13 of M.P.D.V.P.K. Act and sentenced to undergo Life Imprisonment with a fine of Rs.5,000/- with default stipulation.

2. Prosecution case, in brief, is that on 01.10.2009, complainant Badri (PW-3) had lodged a report at Police Station that today at 4 am, his son Mukesh went to the field from home for starting bore. When he did not return home till 2 pm, they searched him but could not find him. On that report, missing person report was registered at Missing Person No.5/09 at Police Station Haja and matter was investigated. During investigation, on 11.10.2009, missing person Mukesh appeared at the police station and his statement was recorded. Mukesh stated in statement that on 01.10.2009 at 04:00 am, he went to field from home for starting bore and as soon as he entered into the Ghopa made on bore, four persons armed with guns came there and surrounded him and caught hold him and forcefully took him through the Ghoret forest to Kauno forest and kept him hostage and demanding from him three lakh rupees. Today, at 1 o'clock in the afternoon, one of the miscreants on his request took him towards nala to answer the call of nature. On finding opportunity, he ran away from there.

The further prosecution case is that the miscreants used to call each other by name. A miscreant used to apply tilak and was of short height and other miscreants used to call him Seva Mukhiya resident of Bhurapura Pachnaya, second miscreant was Kamal Singh Rawat R/o Gota, third miscreant was Siddhar @ Deva Banjara of gram Parvati Badoda, the fourth miscreant was of dark complexion with strong physique and was wearing an earring in his right ear, to whom the other miscreants used to call Pappu. He could not see one miscreant who used to bring flour and other articles for miscreants. After recording the statement of abductee, Shri R.B. Sharma (PW-5) registered the FIR (Exh P-9) at Crime No.113/2009 at Police Station Vijaypur. The matter was investigated. Upon completion of investigation including recording of statements, collection of evidence and necessary formalities, challan was filed. The charges were framed which appellant denied and claimed for trial. The learned Special Court after appreciating the evidence available on record, convicted and sentenced the present appellant, as mentioned above by the impugned judgment.

3. Being aggrieved by the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence, appellant has preferred the instant appeal.

4. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the Special Court has not appreciated the evidence placed on record in correct perspective. No incriminating article has been seized at the instance of appellant. The testimony of star witness of the prosecution Mukesh (PW-1) suffers from material contradictions and omissions. He changed the entire version of prosecution in his statement. Similarly, the statement of his father is also on the same footing. It is also submitted by counsel for appellant that the appellant is in jail since the date of his arrest and he has already suffered more than thirteen and a half years' incarceration (pre and post trial). The offence under Section 364-A of IPC is not made out because neither any demand of ransom in order to murder nor abduction in order to murder has been proved. At the most, the offence falls under Section 363 of IPC for which more than sufficient sentence has already been served by the appellant.

5. Per contra, learned counsel for the State by supporting the impugned judgment submits that the learned trial Court after appreciating the evidence in proper perspective has rightly convicted and sentenced the appellant. No interference is warranted in the impugned judgment of conviction