Dhan Singh Dheemar vs State of Madhya Pradesh

Shri Gangele, J

Since both the Criminal Appeals i. e. Criminal Appeal No.50 of 2008 and Criminal Appeal No.167 of 2009 are arising out of the same judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 28th December, 2007, passed by learned Special Judge, Datia (MP) in Special Case No.93 of 2001, therefore, they are being heard together and disposed of by this common judgment. Both appellants Dhansingh Dheemer and Kallu Dheemer have been convicted u/s 364A of IPC read with Section 13 of M.P.Dakaiti Aur Vyapharan Prabhavit Kshetra Adhiniyam, 1981 [in short ''MPDVPK Act''] and sentenced to suffer life imprisonment with fine of Rs.10,000/- with default stipulation.

According to the prosecution story, on 06-01-2001 at around 7:30 O''clock in the night Shriram along with his son Raghvendra and brother Balram had been sitting in the veranda of his house. At that time, 10-15 unknown persons armed with guns came there and they had taken Balram, Raghvendra and Shriram along with them near Hanumanji temple. They had freed Balram and Raghvendra and took away Shriram with them. Majboot Singh, father of Shriram, lodged an FIR (Ex.P/1) at the police station in regard to abduction of his son Shriram. Hukum Singh brother of abductee Shriram, had gone to the accused persons with an amount of Rs.1 lac and he had given the aforesaid amount to accused Dhansingh Dheemar. Thereafter, accused persons released abductee Shriram. However, the accused persons further detained Hukum Singh. Then, father of Hukum Singh, again gave an amount of Rs.2 lacs to accused Dhansingh Dheemer and subsequently, Hukum Singh was also released.

The police conducted the investigation and arrested the accused persons. Hukumsingh identified accused Kallu Dheemar. Statements of the witnesses were recorded. After completion of investigation charge-sheet was filed in the committal Court against the accused persons. Learned trial Court, on the basis of allegations made in the charge-sheet, framed charge u/s 364A of IPC read with Section 13 of MPDVPK Act against the accused persons. Appellants- accused persons abjured their guilt and pleaded complete innocence.

In order to bring home the charge, the prosecution examined as many as 13 witnesses. The learned trial Court after appreciating and marshalling the evidence, convicted the appellants-accused and awarded the sentence, as stated above.

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of both the appellants have contended that the prosecution has failed to prove the offence against the appellants beyond reasonable doubt. Prima facie, no offence u/s 364A of IPC is made out against the appellants because there was no threat or force used by the appellants against the abductees. Hence, at the most, the offence, if any, made out against the appellants, is u/s 365 of IPC. In support of their contentions, learned counsel for the appellants relied on the judgment passed by Division Bench of this Court in the case of Surendra Singh @ Pappu Singh Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, 2006 (3) M.P. H. T. 486 (DB).

Contrary to this, Learned Panel Lawyer has contended that the appellants-accused had abducted two persons and they had also received ransom. They had kept both the abductees in illegal custody. The prosecution has proved the offence against the appellants-accused beyond reasonable doubt. In such circumstances, the learned trial Court has rightly held that the offence against the appellants-accused is proved beyond reasonable doubt. Hence, prayed for dismissal of both the appeals.

Perused the record of the learned trial Court.

Abductee Shriram (P.W.1) in his evidence, deposed that on 6th January, 2001 in the evening he was at his house. At that time, accused Kallu along with Dhansingh Dheemer, Pappu Bhadoriya came there and they had forcibly abducted his brother Balram and son Raghvendra and him. Thereafter, they had taken all of them outside the village. Ten-fifteen other persons were also along with the three accused persons. After discussion, the accused persons had taken him in a forest and he was kept there for a period of near about 26 days. He further deposed that the accused persons demanded Rs.5 lacs as ransom. His brother Hukum Singh had paid an amount of Rs.1 lac to accused Dhansingh Dheemar and thereafter the accused persons freed him from their detention and further detained his brother Hukum Singh. The accused persons further demanded an amount of Rs.2 lacs. When the aforesaid amount was paid, the accused persons freed his brother Hukum Singh. He further deposed that he was under detention. He had identified the accused persons. He further deposed that he had known accused Kallu earlier also. He further deposed that when he was abducted, the accused persons used the force and dragged him for a distance.

Majboot Singh (P.W.2) in his evidence, deposed that his son Shriram was abducted by the accused persons and on the same day, freed two persons Balram and Raghvendra. He lodged the FIR (Ex.P/1) at the police station. He further deposed that his son Hukum Singh had gone to the accused persons with an amount of Rs.1 lac and he had given the aforesaid amount to accused Dhansingh Dheemar. Thereafter, accused persons freed his son Shriram, however, the accused persons further detained his son Hukum Singh. Then, he had again given an amount of Rs.2 lacs to accused Dhansingh Dheemer and subsequently, his son Hukum Singh was also freed after some time.

Abductee Hukum Singh (P.W.3) in his evidence, deposed that Shriram is his elder brother and he was abducted by the accused persons from his house. He had gone to the forest of Yebra and paid an amount of Rs.1 lac to accused Kallu and Dhansigh Dheemar. Thereafter, his brother Shriram was freed. However, the accused persons detained him and further demanded Rs. 2 lacs. Subsequently, his father Majboot Singh had paid an amount of Rs.2 lacs to the accused persons. Thereafter, after a period of 17 days he was released.

Rajaram (P.W.4) in his evidence, deposed that he was posted as Head Constable on 06.01.2001 at police station Pandokhar. He further deposed that complainant Majboot Singh had told him about abduction of his son Shriram.

Raghvendra (P.W.8) in his evidence, deposed that Shriram is his father and his father was abducted by the accused persons for a ransom. The accused were near about 10-12 in number. After receipt of ransom amount, the accused persons had freed his father Shriram.

Similar fact has been deposed by Balram (P.W.9) who is younger brother of abductee Shriram.

Nawab Singh (P.W.11) in his evidence, deposed that he had seen that the accused persons armed with guns. He further deposed that on the alleged date of incident at around 7:00-7:30 O''clock in the evening he went to irrigate the land. The accused persons also took him along with them. When he requested the accused persons, they freed him on the way and took teacher Shriram along with them.

Santosh Tiwari (P.W.12) in his evidence, deposed that he was posted as Tahsildar in Tahsil Bhind on 29-06-2001. He deposed that he had conducted the identification parade. In the identification parade, Hukum Singh identified accused Kallu Dheemar in sub-Jail Bhind. He prepared memo of identification vide Ex.P.6.

Investigating Officer S.D.Nayar (P.W.13) in his evidence deposed that he was posted as In-charge, Police Station Pandokhar on 06-01-2001. Complainant Majboot Singh had lodged FIR (Ex.P.8). On the basis of the aforesaid FIR, an offence u/s 364A of IPC was registered against the accused persons. On 14-08-2001, accused Kallu Dheemar was arrested vide arrest memo Ex.P.7. He further deposed that he had recorded statements of Hukum Singh Pal, Balram Pal, Raghvendra Pal, Babu Pal, Rajesh Shrivastava, Lakhan Bundela, Raicharan Kaurav, Balram, Dharmendra Kaurav, Santram Kushwah, Nawan Singh Jatav, Rajaram Pal, Bholaram Goud, Raja Tiwari, Naresh Sharma, Rakesh Pathak, Laxman Pal, Balaram Badhei, Mewalal Dhobi and Patiram.

From the evidence of abudctees P.W.1 Shriram and P.W.3 Hukum Singh, it is clear that the accused persons had abducted first Shriram for a ransom. The accused persons had taken an amount of Rs.1 lac from Hukum Singh and freed Shriram. The accused persons had further taken an amount of Rs.2 lacs from complainant Majboot Singh, father of abductees and subsequently, after payment of ransom, Hukum Singh was freed. They kept both the abductees in illegal detention for 26 days and 17 days respectively. At that time, the accused persons were also armed with deadly weapons and they had kept the abductees under detention in the forest. There was no possibility of the abductees to escape. Accused Kallu Dheemar was identified by abductee Hukum Singh in the identification parade conducted by Tahsildar Santosh Tiwari (P.W.12). The witnesses have clearly deposed that they have identified the accused who had kept them under detention.

To attract the provisions of Section 364A of IPC, it is necessary to prove the fact that kidnapping or abduction was made for the purpose of ransom and the abductees were kept by the accused under detention after such kidnapping or abduction.

19 In the present case, the aforesaid facts have been proved. Apart from this, intention of the accused after such kidnapping or abduction was threatening to inflict bodily injury or cause death of the abductees. The abductees were freed from the captivity of the accused persons after payment of ransom amount only. Looking to the evidence available on record, in our opinion, the learned trial Court has rightly convicted the appellants-accused u/s 364A of IPC read with Section 13 of MPDVPK Act and awarded proper sentence with fine, as stated above. Consequently, both the appeals preferred by appellants-accused Dhansingh Dheemar and Kallu Dheemar are hereby dismissed and the judgment of conviction and sentence, passed by learned trial Court is hereby confirmed.