To convict under Section 365 IPC, proof of wrongful confinement and abduction must be established; absence of victim's recovery negates conviction.

JUDGMENT :

ANISH KUMAR GUPTA, J.

1. Heard Sri Amit Daga, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Bihaan Pandey, learned counsel for appellant no.2; Sri Jitendra Kumar Rawat, learned counsel for appellant no.3; Sri Bhriguram Ji Pandey, learned counsel for appellant no.5; Sri Pankaj Kumar Shukla, learned Amicus Curiae on behalf of appellant no.4 and Sri D.P.S. Chauhan, learned AGA for the State.

2. The instant criminal appeal has been filed by the appellants against the judgment and order dated 21.08.1984 passed by the First Additional Sessions Judge, Jhansi in Sessions Trial No. 107 of 1982 (State of U.P. vs. Ram Narain and 11 others), whereby all the appellants herein were convicted for the offence under Section 365 I.P.C. During the pendency of the instant appeal the appellant no.1, namely Ram Narain, died and his appeal was abated vide order dated 19.02.2018.

3. The brief facts in the instant case are that on 09.06.1981 at 2:30 PM, the informant Raja Ram lodged an F.I.R. at Police Station- Kotwali, District- Jhansi, stating therein the informant and his son Govind Ram was implicated in a case of murder and were arrested. On 04.06.1981, the informant Raja Ram was released from the jail after the bail was granted by the High Court. When after release from the jail he reached at his house situated at New Basti, Jhansi, then he met his son Shiv Narain, who was aged about 19 years and one Kammad Kachi, the appellant no.5 herein at his house. The appellant no.5, Kammad Kachi informed that Ram Narain etc. who have falsely implicated the informant and his son are regretting their action and he has asked him to come to the village so that he can get a settlement of dispute so that son Govind Ram may also be released on bail. When the informant heard the aforesaid suggestion of the appellant no.5, then he reacted that since they are having too much enmity with the informant and his family members, therefore, they are trying to do some wrong things by inducing and cheating them. Then, he cautioned his son Shiv Narain not to go to the village.

4. On 05.06.1981, after attending the court of District Magistrate, he along with his other relatives went to the village- Datavli and when he came on 07.06.1981 at his house in New Basti, Jhansi, then, he came to know that his son Shiv Narain is not in the house. Then, he inquired about him in the neighbourhood. On inquiry, one Bhagirath and Lakhan Singh has informed that on Saturday 06.06.1981 at around 2:00 PM, they have seen Shiv Narain in the company of Kammod (appellant no.5) near Motor Stand as he was going towards Kachahri Chauraha. When they have inquired from them, then Shiv Narain told them that Kammod (appellant no.5) herein was carrying him to the village for settlement of the case. At that time, Shiv Narain was having cycle and was also having watch on his wrist. Next day, he went to the village to find out the whereabouts of Shiv Narain but he could not get any clue. Then, he continued to search for his son in various places. When he could not find him then came back to Jhansi at around 8:30 PM, hoping that he would have reached Jhansi. However, he has not reached their. Thereupon, the informant has expressed his apprehension that since he was having enmity with Ram Narain, Bhagwat, Gopal Das, Darale, they might have conspired with Kammad and would have called Shiv Narain to the village and since the informant and his elder son was in jail, Shiv Narain, victim son went to the village. Then, he apprehended that the aforesaid accused persons in collusion with other accused persons would have killed the victim, Shiv Narain. The matter be investigate