Pappu @ Aslam vs State of Madhya Pradesh

A.K. Shrivastava, J.—The judgment passed in this appeal shall also govern the disposal of connected Criminal Appeal No. 30/2003 (Ramveer alias Fouzi Vs. State of M.P.) since both the appeals have arisen out of common judgment passed by learned Special Judge, District Bhind in Special Sessions Trial No. 61/2001 convicting the appellants u/s 364-A of IPC and thereby sentencing them to suffer life imprisonment with fine of Rs. 1,000/- each and in default to suffer six months'' further rigorous imprisonment. In brief the case of prosecution is that on 7/1/2001 Satyendra Singh (hereinafter called as "abductee") was sleeping nearby the tube-well in the night, at that juncture, 7-8 persons came and woke up the abductee. They enquired about the way of village Diviyapura. These miscreants under the false pretext to guide them carried the abductee with them. The other person Paansingh, who was also sleeping alongwith the abductee, when found that abductee has not come back, he informed the matter to Tahsildar, who lodged the report in the concerned police station. After the abductee was released from the clutches of the miscreants, his statement was recorded by the investigating agency.

The investigating agency after completing the investigation submitted the charge-sheet in the Special Court where all the accused persons including the present appellants were tried for the charges punishable u/s 364-A of IPC and also u/s 11 and 13 of the Madhya Pradesh Dacoity Awam Vyapaharan Prabhavit Kshetra, Adhiniyam.

The prosecution thereafter examined the witnesses. The defence of appellants is of false implication and the same defence they set forth in their statement recorded u/s 313 of Cr.P.C. and they also examined Girand Singh (DW-1) in defence.

The learned Trial Court found that the charge u/s 11 and 13 of the Madhya Pradesh Dacoity Awam Vyapaharan Prabhavit Kshetra, Adhiniyam is not proved, but found the charge u/s 364-A of IPC, against the appellant of present appeal as well as the appellant of connected Criminal Appeal No. 30/2003, to be proved and eventually, convicted them and passed the sentence to suffer life imprisonment and fine of Rs. 1,000/- with default stipulation.

In this manner this appeal and connected Criminal Appeal No. 30/2003 have been filed by the appellants.

The contention of Shri Barua, learned counsel for appellant of this appeal, as well as that of Ku. Shrivastava, learned counsel appearing for appellant in Criminal Appeal No. 30/2003, is that looking to the statement of the abductee, it would be unsafe to convict the appellants u/s 364-A of IPC. Learned counsel submit that his evidence is totally unreliable and, therefore, by allowing this appeal, since both the appellants are languishing in jail for last about 12 years, they be acquitted. In support of their contention learned counsel have placed heavy reliance upon the decision of Delhi High Court in Netra Pal Vs. The State (NCT of Delhi), .

On the other hand, Shri Pachori, learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent/State, argued in support of the impugned judgment and submitted that looking to the testimony of the abductee the offence has rightly been found proved by the learned Trial Court and, therefore, this appeal may be dismissed.

Having heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of appellant in this appeal as well as in connected Criminal Appeal No. 30/2003 and also learned Public Prosecutor for respondent/State, we are of the considered view that this appeal as well as connected Criminal Appeal deserve to be dismissed.

In the present case the abductee is Satyendra Singh Kushwah. According to him, he is well acquainted to appellant Ramveer and Kallu. In the night when he was sleeping nearby the tube-well five persons including the appellants came nearby him and asked him to guide them to go to Diviyapura. By identifying the appellant- Pappu alias Islam the abductee has stated that he is also being known by the name ''Kallu''. He has further stated that upon their insistence he guided them to the way of Diviyapura. According to him, three miscreants were going ahead to him and two persons were coming behind him. Thereafter, these persons carried him to dacoit gang of Rajjan Gurjar, who was making demand for ransom, but the amount of ransom was not paid. Although this witness was declared hostile in respect to amount of ransom and in para 4 he has denied the suggestion that to the present appellants dacoit gang paid Rs. 15,000/-, but in para 2 of his testimony this witness has stated that the demand of ransom of Rs. 5,00,000/- was made. The contention of learned counsel for the appellants is that because the amount of ransom, which has been stated by the abductee in his case diary statement (Ex.D/1), does not tally with that of the amount of ransom which has been said in the Court, therefore, it is not proved that the abductee was kidnapped for ransom. However, we are not impressed with the said submission because the factum of making demand of ransom is very much there although the amount which has been stated is different. According to us, when it has been stated by the abductee - Satyendra Singh Kushwaha (PW-1) that the demand for ransom was there and for that purpose only he was abducted, this would be the sufficient evidence to convict both the appellants u/s 364-A of IPC. According to us, there are three tests in order to arrest Section 364-A of IPC and they are: (1) that the accused must have kidnapped or abducted the person; (2) kept him under detention after such kidnapping and abduction; and (3) that the kidnapping or abduction was for ransom. In this regard we may profitably place reliance on the decision of Malleshi Vs. State of Karnataka, . According to us, all these three tests do tally in the instant case because under the false pretext to guide the miscreants including the present appellants to Diviyapura the abudctee was taken away by the appellants; he was also under detention since it has come in his testimony that the miscreants including the present appellants carried him; and the third ingredient is also proved because there is a specific evidence of the abductee that for ransom he was abducted. True, on the point of what actual amount of ransom was being asked this witness was declared hostile, but this has come in his testimony that indeed ransom was demanded. It is altogether insignificant that the amount of ransom could not be paid or what was that actual amount. According to us, when all these three essential ingredients are coexisting, the offence u/s 364-A of IPC has been proved. The decision of Delhi High Court in Netra Pal (Supra) placed reliance by the learned counsel for the appellants is not at all applicable in the present case because only intention to ask ransom was there in that case since a letter was written, but it was neither posted or handed over to the family members of the abductee nor they were ever contacted to pay ransom and, therefore, in that context if the Delhi High Court has found that making demand of ransom is not proved, it is altogether different from this case, therefore, it will not be applicable in the present case.

We have gone through the reasonings assigned by the learned Trial Court and we find that they are cogent and are based on correct appreciation of evidence. While delivering the judgment it has further been noted down by the learned Trial Court in para 28 that appellant Pappu alias Islam (appellant of this appeal) has also been convicted u/s 364-A of IPC in other case, but still the learned Trial Court has adopted leniency in awarding only punishment of life imprisonment. In this view of the matter, we do not find any merit in this appeal as well as in the connected Criminal Appeal No. 30/2003, both the appeals are hereby dismissed. Let a copy of this judgment be placed in the file of Criminal Appeal No. 30/2003 (Ramveer alias Fouzi Vs. State of M.P.).