Back
MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT AT JABALBUR BENCH
Rakesh Saksena, T.K. Kaushal, JJ.
Manoj & Ors. - Appellant
Versus
State of Madhya Pradesh - Respondent
Cr.A.No.496-2002, Cr.A.No.598-2002, Cr.A.No.724-2002, Cr.A.No.1366-2005
Decided On : 22-02-2011
Kidnapping - Indian Penal Code - 364A, 364, 386, 120-B
Fact of the Case:
The appellants were convicted for kidnapping a minor and demanding ransom. The victim was recovered after being held captive for a day, and the accused were arrested and charged.
Finding of the Court:
The court found the evidence of the victim and other witnesses to be credible, leading to the conviction of two appellants for conspiracy and kidnapping. However, one appellant's conviction was reduced to a lesser charge, and an accused was acquitted due to lack of evidence.
Issues: The main issue was the credibility of the witnesses and the involvement of each appellant in the kidnapping and ransom demand.
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on the testimony of the victim and other witnesses, as well as legal principles related to conspiracy and kidnapping, to reach its decision.
Final Decision: Two appellants were convicted for conspiracy and kidnapping, one appellant's conviction was reduced to a lesser charge, and an accused was acquitted due to lack of evidence.
JUDGMENT :
Three appellants viz. Manoj, Banti @ Purushottam and Dilip have filed appeals against the judgment dated 22nd March, 2002 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Jabalpur in Sessions Trial No.84/2001 convicting them under sections 364A read with section 120-B, 364 read with section 120-B and 386 read with section 120-B of the Indian Penal Code and sentencing them to imprisonment for life with fine of Rs.1000/-, rigorous imprisonment for 10 years with fine of Rs.1000/- and rigorous imprisonment for 5 years with fine of Rs.1000/- on each count, respectively. State has also filed Criminal Appeal No. 1366/2005 challenging the impugned judgment of acquittal of accused/respondent Amit Kumar Patel of the aforesaid charges. Since all the aforementioned appeals arise out of the common judgment passed by the trial Court, this judgment shall govern disposal of all the said appeals. (3) Cr.A.No.496/2002 Cr.A.No.598/2002 Cr.A.No.724/2002 Cr.A.No.1366/2005.
2. In short, prosecution case is that appellant Dilip was working as driver of Dr.B.K.Panshe. He used to go to drop and pick up Parijat Panshe, 10 year old daughter and Nachiket Panshe, son of Dr.B.K.Panshe from the school. Parijat Panshe was a student of Class-VI in Christ Church Girls Senior Secondary School, Jabalpur. In the morning of 25.9.2000 Dilip left both of them at school. At about 1:00 p.m. on the same day, Dilip obtained the key of the car from Lata Kashyap, assistant of Dr.Panshe for fetching Parijat and Nachiket from school, but did not bring them back. From the telephone call of Nachiket, Lata Kashyap came to know that Dilip did not go to school to pick up Parijat. Dr.Panshe and his wife went to school and searched her. On not finding Parijat there, they lodged a report about her missing at police station, Madan Mahal. In the meanwhile, Lata Kashyap received a telephone call from Dilip informing her that Parijat was with him and she would be released only after a ransom of Rs.5 lacs was paid. On getting knowledge of this fact, Dr. Panshe lodged the report Ex.P/1 at police station, Omti. On the next day i.e. on 26.9.2000 Parijat was recovered from the forest of Shahpura. She was taken to police station Shahpura by head constable Mishrilal and a report Ex.P/21 was recorded in the Roznamcha. All the documents recorded by station officer of police station, Shahpura were transmitted to police station, Omti where the case was registered. During investigation, car was seized and accused were arrested. After completion of investigation, charge sheet was filed and the case was committed for trial.
3. During trial, accused abjured their guilt and pleaded false implication. Mainly the defence of accused Dilip was that he was falsely implicated in the case under a conspiracy hatched by Dr. B.K. Panshe (PW-1) and other employees of his hospital. (4) Cr.A.No.496/2002 Cr.A.No.598/2002 Cr.A.No.724/2002 Cr.A.No.1366/2005.
4. Learned Additional Sessions Judge, after trial and upon appreciation of the evidence adduced in the case, held accused Dilip, Manoj and Banti guilty and convicted and sentenced them as mentioned above, however, finding the evidence insufficient against accused/respondent Amit Kumar Patel, acquitted him of all the charges. Another accused Netram, who was charged under sections 212 and 216 of the Indian Penal Code, was also acquitted. Aggrieved by their conviction, appellants Manoj, Banti and Dilip have filed the instant appeals. State has also filed the appeal against the impugned judgment challenging the acquittal of accused Amit Kumar Patel.
5. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties.
6. Learned counsel for the accused/appellants, however, submitted that the trial Court gravely erred in placing implicit reliance on the evidence of Parijat Panshe (PW-16), Dr.B.K.Panshe (PW-1), Lata Kashyap (PW-13) and Dr.Smt.Manik Panshe (PW-14) and failed to consider that the evidence of Parijat Panshe was doubtful and appellants were falsely implicated. Learned counsel
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
