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,

2

Datia in Special Sessions Trial No.58/2005 by which the appellants

have been convicted and sentenced for the following offences :

Appellants

Conviction

under

Section

Sentence

All Appellants 364-A IPC read with

Section

13

of

M.P.D.V.P.K. Act

Life Imprisonment and

fine of Rs.10,000/- in

default 2 years R.I.

All Appellants 346 of IPC

1 year R.I.

(All sentences to run

concurrently)

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

3

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

4

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 ran

away. While talking to each other, the appellants were calling