Judgment

17-Aug-2021 Per G.S. Ahluwalia J.

1. By this Common Judgment, Cr.A. No.s 463/2008, 466/2008 and 482/2008 shall be decided.

2. All the three Criminal Appeals have been filed against the judgment and sentence dated 26-4-2008 passed by Special Judge, Datia in Special Sessions Trial No.58/2005 by which the appellants have been convicted and sentenced for the following offences :

3. According to prosecution story, on 22-7-2005 at about 23:30, the complainant Manohar Singh, lodged a missing person report that at about 7 P.M., his elder brother Ram Prakash Rajput had gone to see his cattle. At about 19:30, the cattle came back to the house, but his elder brother did not return. He tried to search for him, but could not get his whereabouts.

4. Although, the police had received the gum insaan report on 22- 7-2005, but the F.I.R. was registered on 9-8-2005 at 12:30.

5. Thereafter, the abductee Ram Prakash Rajput, returned back on his own. The police after recording statements of witnesses, arrested the appellants and after completing the investigation, filed the charge sheet against the appellants, namely, Bhaggu, Kailash, Ramcharan and Suresh for offence under Section 364-A/34 of IPC and under Section 11,13 of M.P.D.V.P.K. Act and supplementary charge-sheet was filed against appellant-Rajesh alias Babba for offence under Section 364-A/34 of IPC, under Section 11, 13 of M.P.D.V.P.K. Act and under Section 25, 27 of the Arms Act.

6. The Trial Court by order dated 28-11-2006, framed charges under Sections 364-A of IPC read with 13 of M.P.D.V.P.K, Act and under Section 346 of IPC against appellants Bhaggu, Kailash, Ramcharan, Suresh and by order dated 15/12/2006 against appellant Rajesh alias Babba.

7. The appellants abjured their guilt and pleaded not guilty.

8. The prosecution in order to prove its case, examined Ram Prakash (P.W.1), Manohar Singh (P.W.2), Om Prakash (P.W.3), Dr.

M.M. Shakya (P.W.4) and Raghvendra Singh (P.W.5).

9. The appellants did not examine any witness in their defence.

10. The Trial Court by the impugned judgment and sentence, convicted and sentenced the appellants for the offences mentioned above.

11. Challenging the judgment and sentence passed by the Court below, it is submitted that the appellants have been falsely implicated. There is nothing on record that any ransom was demanded or it was paid. Even the prosecution has failed to prove abduction for demand of ransom.

12. Per contra, the Counsel for the State has supported the findings recorded by the Court below.

13. Heard the learned Counsel for the parties.

14. Ram Prakash (P.W.1) has stated that on 22-7-2005 at about

7:30 P.M., he was going towards Bhitari Har (fHkVkjh gkj) for walking and on the way he saw his cattle. Therefore, he was coming back along with his cattle. He met with three persons. One was Rajesh Brar, another was Nandu and the third was unknown. They stopped this witness and Rajesh enquired as to whether he has any relative in Imaliya or not and when it was accepted by this witness by saying that his sister is married to Meharban Secretary, then he was stopped by them for smoking purposes. Thereafter, Babba Brar caught hold of his hand, whereas Nandu caught hold of his another hand, and third person pointed his gun towards him and took him towards Chhan Ke haar (Nku ds gkj). After crossing 1-2 fields, the hands of this witness were tied. Thereafter, they took towards village Kui. Thereafter, he was taken to Ratangarh forest area, where he was kept in captivity for 13 days and from thereafter, they shifted him to another place, where he was kept in captivity for 8 days. They demanded Rs.10 lakh for his release. On one day, when the appellants were sleeping, he