Prakash and Others vs State of Madhya Pradesh

G.D. Saxena, J.—The appellants/accused have preferred this appeal u/s 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1974 being aggrieved by a judgment dated 1st February 2002 in Sessions Case No. 202/99 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge Pichhore, district Shivpuri, convicting the appellants for commission of offence punishable u/s 364-A of I.P.C. for abducting Narendra Lodhi son of Ramdin Lodhi, aged 19 years and sentencing them to suffer life imprisonment with a fine Rs. 500/- each, in default of payment of which to suffer three months'' simple imprisonment. The facts material for adjudication of this case are that on 12th April 1999 at about 7 a.m., in the morning, Narendra Singh went to forest for collecting fruits/sweet flowers of Mahua (Basia latifolia). Near Pilgaon well, Narendra Singh was abducted by accused Dashrath Khangar, r/o village Rupanwara, Prakash Barhar, r/o Dabia, Sitaram Lodhi, r/o village Banota and Munga r/o village Rupanwara, who was subsequently taken in the forest. Munna and Ramjilal Lodhi tried to rescue the abductee, but the abductors above named raised a demand of Rs. One lac for release of the victim and also threatened that if the F.I.R. of the incident was lodged with the police, the abductee would be killed. The report of the incident was lodged by the complainant against the accused-persons. The abductee was released from custody. Investigation was set in motion and the charge sheet was filed before competent criminal court. On committal, the trial was commenced. On recording the evidence, the learned Trial Judge convicted the accused/ appellants and sentenced them accordingly, hence, this appeal.

The contention of the learned counsel appearing for the appellants is that the judgment under appeal is against the law and procedure and therefore same is liable to be set aside. It is submitted that to prove the guilt against accused the prosecution examined abductee Narendra Singh (PW-4), Ramdin (PW-3), complainant, Ramjilal (PW-1), Rajdhar (PW-6), Ghanshyam (PW-7), Munnalal (PW-8), P.R. Dohare (PW-9) Assistant Sub Inspector of the Police Station Pichhore, who is writer of the F.I.R., R.C.S. Bhadoria (PW-11), Town Inspector/In-charge of the police station Pichore, who investigated the incident and J.B.S. Gaharwar (PW-10), Head Constable. It is submitted by the learned counsel that the statements of above witnesses do not tally with each other. The complainant Ramdin (PW-3) was not an eye-witness to the incident and he received the information from other witnesses. However, in his court statement he explained the incident as if he was an eye-witness to the incident. It is further submitted by the learned counsel that the abductee is a disabled person being effected by polio disease, so it can not be presumed that he may accompany the dacoits in the forest. Material witness of the incident Vishal (PW-5) and Ghanshyam (PW-7) were declared hostile by the prosecution and they did not support the version of the case. But, due to political rivalry, the complainant implicated the accused in the present crime. In the light of the above submissions, learned counsel stated that the ingredients to attract the offence of kidnapping are not proved by the prosecution evidence so adduced before the trial court. It is thus prayed that by allowing the appeal, judgment under challenge may be set aside and the accused-appellants may be acquitted of the offence.

Per contra, the learned Panel Lawyer appearing on behalf of the respondent/State contended that the prosecution succeeded to prove the guilt against accused/appellants by adducing evidence and there is no infirmity or illegality committed by the trial court. Hence, it is prayed that by dismissing the appeal, the judgment of the trial court may be upheld.

Heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellants and the learned Panel Lawyer for the respondent/State. Also perused the record of the trial court and the law applicable to the present case.

The question for consideration in this appeal is whether the ingredients of offence of kidnapping for ransom are proved by the testimony of abductee and eye-witnesses, and/or whether the learned trial Judge has committed any illegality in placing reliance on the said materials before reaching at the conclusion.

The bare reading of Section 364-A of I.P.C., which is reproduced as under, indicates that kidnapping for ransom would be attracted when the kidnapper makes a demand to pay a ransom.

364-A. Kidnapping for ransom, etc. -Whoever kidnaps or abducts any person or keeps a person in detention after such kidnapping or abduction, and threatens to cause death or hurt to such person, or by his conduct gives rise to a reasonable apprehension that such person may be put to death or hurt, or causes, hurt or death to such person in order to compel the Government or [any foreign State or international, inter-governmental organisation or any other person] to do or abstain from doing any act to lay a ransom, shall be punishable with death or imprisonment for life and shall also be liable to fine.

The Abduction is defined in Section 362. The provision envisages two types of abduction i.e. (i) by force or by compulsion; and/or (ii) inducement by deceitful means. The object of such compulsion or inducement must be going of the victim from any place.

To prove the guilt against the accused, the prosecution examined Narendra Singh (PW-4), the abductee, who deposed that on 12th April 1999 at about 6-7 a.m., he was returning back to his home after collecting fruits/sweet flowers of Mahua (Basia latifolia). As he reached near Pilgaon well adjacent to his bricks-kiln, he met with Prakash and Dashrath. They told him to go with them. Then, Dashrath kicked him. They carried him at a well of Kiran. There he met with Mungaram having one cotton beg and Sitaram having Farsa. Dashrash at that time was having gun. Subsequently, one person named Ghanshyam appeared who uttered towards Dhashrath and thereafter all proceeded taking the victim towards village Dewari. By that time, Ramjilal, Munna, Ghanshyam and Sitaram reached there. Dashrath told Ramjilal (relation of victim) that after receiving a sum of Rs. 50,000/- as ransom, Narendra will be released from their clutches. Thereafter they proceeded to another place. Sitaram brought grain floor and thereafter the accused prepared the meal. After crossing Jhansi Road, the abductors stayed in night at forest. Thereafter, the accused spent three days in different places in forest near the bank of different river. The witness stated that accused Mungaram and others arranged food for them. After travelling for 16 hours, they reached near Mahrolli Siddhababa place. Thereafter the abudctors/dacoits met with police force and after exchange of firing, the dacoits fled away from the spot. The police rescued and recovered the abductee on the spot as per memo (Ex. P/1). Thereafter, he was brought to police station Pichore and handed over him to his father.

Ramjilal (PW-1) deposed that one year ago in the morning, the villagers informed him at his residence that his brother was abducted by Prakash and Dashrath. On the way, he met with Mewaram and Sitaram, the miscreants. He followed them up to village Kanchanpur. He saw that Mungaram and Sitaram were taking away his cousin brother. He asked them as to why did they capture him. Then Dashrath came to him and demanded Rs. One thousand or one thousand and five hundred for his release. As he tried to approach his brother, accused Dashrath threatened him to kill by shot. Thereafter he went to village Dewari and informed his uncle Ramdin Lodhi (PW-3). His uncle Ramdin (PW-3) went to Police Station at about 5 p.m. for lodging the report. Narendra was released after eight days. In cross-examination, the witness deposed that as he reached at boundary of the village Kanchanpur, he saw the miscreants. When he climbed on the hillock, at that time only Dashrath Singh accused was seen with the abductee while others were standing at some distance. On 10th November 2000, on his further re-examination, he specifically deposed that Narendra was abducted by accused Dashrath, Munga, Prakash and Sitaram. He further clarified that as he and Munna approached Dashrath to get released the abductee Narendra, Dashrath made a demand of Rs. One lac for release of Narendra and they were told that in the event of lodging the report with the police they have to face the consequences. This witness specifically denied the defence taken by accused Dashrath to the effect that in general election, accused Dashrath was polling agent of Bhaiyalal Lodhi, an unsuccessful candidate of BJP and the winning candidate of opposite party (Congress) was K.P. Singh and due to conspiracy of opponents, a false case of abduction of Narendra was lodged against accused Dashrath.

Ramdin (PW-3), father of the abductee deposed that on the day of incident, he was working in Rajghat Irrigation Project as an Assistant grade class-III and was posted at Khaniyadhana district Shivpuri. He stated his relative (Rajdhar) approached him on his headquarter at Khaniyadhana and informed that at about 7 a.m., when his son Narendra (PW-4) was returning after collecting Mahua fruits/sweet flowers from the forest, accused Dashrath and Prakash made capture of him and carried him away in the forest. Ramjilal (PW-1) and Munna followed for release of the abductee from accused in the forest. Accused Dashrath threatened them not to go near abductee Narendra and asked for satisfying the demand of ransom amount of Rs. One lac within four days and also threatened them that if the matter is reported to the police, the abductee will be killed. Thereafter, the witness went to his residence at village Rahi where his wife, Ramjilal and Munna informed that his son Narendra was taken away by accused Dashrath Khangar, Prakash Barahar, Sitaram Lodhi and Mungaram Kumhar. He returned back to his headquarter Khaniyadhana and went on his motorcycle to police Station Pichhore and lodged the FIR (Ex. P/2) at police station Pichhore. Police prepared the spot map (Ex. P/3) in his presence. The accused of this case are previously known to him. They are either residence of his village or near by places.

Vishal Singh (PW-5) deposed that he knows all the accused prior to the incident and also acquainted with the abductee Narendra Singh. He saw Narendra was going with two persons. However, he denied the involvement of accused in the incident of abduction of Narendra. He was declared hostile by the prosecution. But this witness admitted that abduction was committed. Rajdhar (PW-6) deposed that in year 1999 witness Ramjilal (PW-1), at about 11 to 12 p.m., in noon informed that accused Dashrath, Sitaram, Prakash and Mungaram abducted Narendra. On the basis of said information, he went to Ramdin, father of Narendra to village Kali Pahari where the father of abductee was on pedestal journey sponsored by the department. Then he and Ramdin reached at Police Station Pichhore for lodging report. Ramjilal also informed that miscreants made a demand of Rs. One lac as ransom for release of abductee Narendra. Ghasnshyam (PW-7) in his deposition did not support the prosecution version hence he is declared hostile. Munnalal (PW-8) who accompanied witness Ramjilal for rescuing the abductee Narendra from custody of abductors, supports the statement of Ramjilal (PW-1).

P.R. Dohare (PW-9) stated that on 12th April 1999 he was posted as an Assistant Sub Inspector at Police Station Pichhore. He wrote the F.I.R. (Ex. P/2) lodged by Ramdin Lodhi and registered Crime No. 93/99 for offence u/s 364 and 365 of I.P.C. against accused Dashrath, Prakash, Mugaram and Sitaram.

Jitendra Bahadur Singh Rana (PW-10), Head Constable posted at Police Station Pichhore stated that on 14th July 2000 he arrested formally accused Dashrath son of Pahlu Khangar in civil court premises at Pichhore vide arrest memo (Ex. P/6). After arrest he made search of house of accused Dashrath by memo (Ex. P/7), in the presence of witnesses.

R.C.S. Bhadoria (PW-11), Town Inspector and In-charge of the Police station Picdhore stated that on 13th April 1999, he took the investigation from P.R. Dohare (PW-9), A.S.I. of Police Station Pichhore. He prepared spot map on 13th April 1999 and also recorded statements of witnesses Ramdin, Ramjilal, Ghanshyam, Vishal Singh, and Rajdhar on the spot. On 16th April 1999, he arranged encounter for rescue of abductee Narendra and after his rescue, he prepared the recovery memo (Ex. P/1). Thereafter, he recorded his case diary statement. He arrested accused Prakash and Sitaram and prepared their arrest memos. In cross-examination, he admitted that in previous election, looser candidate was Bhaiyalal Lodhi of BJP and winning candidate was K.P. Singh belonging to ruling party (Congress). However, he did not remember that accused Dashrath was polling agent of Bhaiyalal Lodhi and during election process he made serious objection about the forged voting for ruling candidate. He also did not remember that under undue pressure, 22 false cases were registered against accused Dashrath.

In the light of the aforesaid discussions on the factual and legal aspects of the matter, the prosecution case stands established from the ocular and other evidence on record. As per evidence of Narendra, the kidnapee, on the day of incident at about 7 a.m., in the morning when he was coming back after collecting Mahua fruits/sweet flowers from forest, accused Dashrath and Prakash met him at Pilgaon well and compelled him to return back in forest and also kicked him. They took him to well of Kiran. There two accused Mungaram and Sitaram met them. Mungaram was having a cotton beg whereas accused Dashrath was having a short gun and accused Sitaram was having Farsa in his hand. They reached near village Dewari where Ramjilal, Ghanshayam and Munna reached there for his rescue from the accused. Accused Dashrath demanded a ransom amount of Rs. 50,000/- for release of Narendra. The version of the kidnapee is well supported by witnesses Ramjilal (PW-1).

The next oral contention of the accused/appellants is that the abductee Narendra Singh is a disabled person on account of polio attack in childhood and as such he could not be able to walk with adbuctors so fast up to long distance. The situation appears to be true from statement of Ramjilal (PW-1) and recovery memo (Ex. P/1). But on minute observation of the evidence as appeared before the trial Judge, despite there being admitted fact that abductee was disabled by polio attack, no suggestion in this regard was put to any of the witnesses nor proved. No attempt was made to rebut such apprehension. Even no ground was mentioned in appeal memo. On the contrary, the evidence led by the prosecution is to the effect that the abductee had gone to forest for collecting the Mahua fruits/sweet flowers which clearly shows that the abductee despite of suffering from such a disease was able to walk and in the event of danger was capable to accompany the miscreants. So, the argument put forth by the appellants'' learned counsel has no substance and is hereby rejected.

The next submission of the learned counsel for the appellants is that there are material contradictions and omissions in the FIR and the court-statement of the complainant which makes the prosecution story doubtful. The Hon. Apex Court in the case of Mahesh Vs. State of M.P. (2011) 9 SCC 324 has held:-

We find that the aforesaid first information report was submitted by PW 1 who was not an eye-witness to the incident. Although it has come in evidence that he was informed about the incident by PW 2, PW 4 and PW 5 immediately on his reaching the place of occurrence of the incident, yet since he was not the eyewitness to the incident, he may not have stated the said fact in the first information report for which it cannot be said that the entire prosecution case should falter. Besides, it is an established law that so far as the first information report is concerned, it is only a report submitted informing the police about the commission of the crime. It is not required that the said first information report should contain a detailed and vivid description of the entire incident. Further, it cannot be expected from the informant, especially, when the informant is a relative of the injured/deceased to give each and every minute detail of the incident in the first information report. Therefore, PW 1 who had filed the information with the police not being an eyewitness, it cannot be said that non-mentioning about the role played by the present appellants in the first information report would be in any manner fatal to the case of the prosecution.

Next submission of the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants/accused is that the crime only against main abductor Dashrath appeared and proved and so far as accused Prakash is concerned he was only accompanying the main abductor. He did not have a vital role either in abduction or in subsequent incident for demanding the ransom amount from Ramjilal or in threatening the abductee or Ramjilal to cause death of the abductee, in case of non-payment of demanded ransom amount. Likewise, other accused Mungaram and Sitaram have not played such role at the time of confinement of the abductee in the forest and in demanding the ransom amount or in threatening the abductee and his relation. Therefore, according to the learned counsel, the offence against these three accused is not proved from the evidence on record.

In Suman Sood @ Kamal Jeet Kaur Vs. State of Rajasthan, , the Hon. Apex Court held:-

We have upheld the said conviction as according to us, both the Courts were right in drawing an inference that she must be presumed to be aware of kidnapping of Rajendra Mirdha and in detaining him. She was all throughout present in the said house and was very well aware that the victim had been kidnapped and was kept at a secret place. Because of these circumstances, we have negatived the argument of the learned counsel for Suman Sood

In the present case also accused Prakash accompanied the main accused Dashrath since time of abduction of Narendra Singh while he was returning to his house from forest, after collecting Mahua fruits/flowers. Another accused Sitaram having Farsa in hand and accused Mungaram with cotton beg joined the main accused Dashrath and Prakash after abduction of Narendra Singh and remained with accused Dashrath in the forest, till release of the abductee after search operation by the police on the spot. Therefore, the participation of the remainders with accused Dashrath in commission of the alleged crime can not be denied in the light of the decision in the case of Suman Sood (Supra).

Lastly, the contention of the learned counsel for the appellants/accused is that due to active participation of the accused in general election on behalf of the opposite party of existing ruling member, the enmity developed and therefore they had been falsely implicated by the Investigating Agency. The father of the abductee was in a govt. job. Therefore, neither the abductee nor his father can be said to have formed any inimical terms with the accused.

Thus, the abduction of the victim by present accused stands fully established from the evidence on record. The first description of the alleged abductors figures in the depositions of the victim as well as the complainant. Having remained closeted with the abductors for eight days in the forest, the victim had ample opportunity to identify the features and facial of the accused. This, to the Court, is a perfectly natural conduct and lends great credibility to his evidence and identification. The trauma and agony of the victim surely led to the identification and features of the abductors being etched in the minds of the victim in the form of an imprint when he stated that he could clearly identify them.

The evidence of Ramjilal (PW-1) and Munnalal (PW-8) is of affirming witnesses who are fully corroborating the victim and the complainant in material particulars for the mode and manner and alleged confinement of the victim by the accused in the forest. They are persons who informed the complainant about abduction of his son and were stated to have followed the abductors and shown the police party the place of abduction where the victim was kept in confinement and was finally released. They have given a graphic description of the place where the victim was kept during the confinement by the accused by geographical description including identifying land marks during police investigation.

The demand for ransom stands established from the conversation made between the accused Dashrath and Ramjilal and Munnalal, when the accused made the demand for a ransom of Rs. One lac. An act of abduction in the present manner is the result of meticulous planning of the logistics with separate roles assigned to the individual players. The demand for ransom, therefore, clearly stands established. Whether it was actually paid or not is irrelevant. The factual scenario of the planned logistics of the abduction after premeditation and design with smoothness of execution of a well planned operation were all such factors which are found germane and basis by the learned trial court for holding the appellants guilty for the alleged offence. This Court, therefore, finds no error in the conviction of the appellants u/s 364A in its entirety. Accordingly, the appeal preferred by the appellants/ accused are hereby dismissed. The appellants No. 1, 3 and 4, namely, Prakash, Mungaram and Sitaram, who are on bail, shall surrender to their bail bonds or shall be arrested to undergo the remainder of their sentence.