AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Heard.
Learned Public Prosecutor has informed this Court that
accused respondents No.1 - Vijay Kumar and No.3 - Prakash @
Pappu have died.
A factual report of this effect prepared by the SHO, Police
Station Mahamandir, Distt. Jodhpur dated 20.6.2016 has been
produced on record. Along with the aforesaid report, a photo stat
copy of the death certificate of respondent No.1 - Vijay Kumar is also enclosed and the statements of son and mother of the
respondent No.3 - Prakash @ Pappu have also been produced,
wherein, they have stated that respondent No.3 Prakash @ Pappu
had died around two years back and they have not obtained his
death certificate.
Taking into consideration the factual report submitted by the
learned Public Prosecutor, the present appeal is abated qua the
respondents No.1 - Vijay Kumar and No.3 - Prakash @ Pappu.
The factual report be taken on record.
This criminal appeal has been preferred on behalf of the
appellant - State being aggrieved with the judgment dated
27.7.1993 passed by the Judge, Special Court, SC/ST (Prevention
of Atrocities) Act Cases, Jodhpur (for short ''the trial court'') in
Sessions Case No.130/92, whereby the trial court has acquitted
the accused respondents for the offences punishable under
Sections 363, 364, 365 and 120-B IPC.
Brief facts of the case are that Gautam Chand (PW-1) has
submitted a written report at the Police Station Mahamandir
stating that his son Manish is residing in Mahaveer Colony,
Jodhpur for the purpose of study. It is alleged that on 10.9.1988,
when his son Manish along with his neighbour''s son Veer Bahadur
went to purchase kite in the evening at about 6:30 to 7:00 PM,
then, one person came on bicycle and asked Manish to accompany
him and he will give him a kite. On this, Manish and Veer Bahadur
went along with that person on the bicycle, however, later on the
said person left Veer Bahadur near Hanuman Ji Ka Temple, Lal Maidan, Jodhpur and took away Manish with him. The complainant
has further stated that when his son Manish has not reached till
late night, then, he has got the news published in the daily news
paper ''Jalte-deep''. It is alleged that next morning, when his
brother Paras has opened his shop at Tinwari, he found a letter
there wherein, it was written that if he want his son Manish alive,
then make arrangement of Rs.2,20,000/-, otherwise, dead body of
Manish will be sent to them. It is further alleged by the
complainant that his son Manish is not missing and he has been
kidnapped.
On receiving this report, the Police Station Mahamandir has
registered an FIR No.169/88 on 11.9.1988 for the offences
punishable under Sections 363, 364, 365 and 120-B IPC. After
thorough investigation, the police has filed charge-sheet against
the accused respondents for the offences punishable under
Sections 363, 364, 365 and 120-B IPC and the trial court has
framed charges against them for the aforesaid offences.
To prove the charges against the accused respondents, the
prosecution has produced as many as 27 witnesses and has got
exhibited several documents. The statements of the accused
respondents were recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. and two
witnesses were produced in defence.
The trial court after taking into consideration the prosecution
as well as the defence evidence has acquitted the accused
respondents from the offences, for which, they have been
charged. Hence, this criminal appeal.
Learned Public Prosecutor has argued that the trial court has
grossly erred in acquitting the accused respondents from the
offence, for which, they have been charged because the
prosecution has proved the charges against the accused
respondents by producing cogent and reliable evidence. It is
submitted that from the statements of Manish (PW-4) and Veer
Bahadur (PW-6), it is clear that the accused respondents hatched
a conspiracy and thereafter abducted complainant''s son Manish for
the purpose of ransom.
Learned Public Prosecutor has further argued that the trial
court has not taken into consideration the said piece of evidence
in right perspective and has illegally disbelieved the same. It is
thus prayed that the impugned judgment passed by the trial court
be set aside and the accused respondents be convicted for the
offences, for which, they have been charged and be punished
suitably.
Heard learned Public Prosecutor, perused the impugned
judgment and carefully scrutinized the record.
The trial court has discussed the prosecution evidence in
detail and has come to the conclusion that it is an admitted
position that after apprehending the accused respondents, the
Investigating Agency has not conducted the test identification
parade of the accused persons who have allegedly abducted
Manish (PW-4). The trial court has observed that Manish (PW-4) in
his court statement has stated that he was taken on bicycle by
accused respondent Prakash @ Pappu and later on accused respondent Khinya Ram has joined him and thereafter both of
them took him to a house, where two ladies were also present.
The trial court has also observed that Manish (PW-4) has failed to
identify the accused respondents, particularly accused
respondents Prakash and Khinya Ram during recording of his
statement and has identified two other persons as above named
persons. After taking into consideration this aspect of the matter,
the trial court is of the opinion that when no test identification
parade was conducted by the Investigating Agency and Manish
(PW-4) has failed to identify the accused respondents in the court
and has identified some other persons in place of the accused
respondents, his testimony to the effect that the accused
respondents had abducted him, cannot be relied upon.
The trial court has also taken into consideration the
statement of Veer Bahadur (PW-6) and has observed that during
the course of investigation, no test identification parade of the
accused respondents was done by Veer Bahadur (PW-6), however,
before the court, he has identified respondent Khinya Ram and
has stated that the said respondent took away Manish on his
bicycle. However, his statement is contradictory from the
statement of Manish (PW-4) because he in his statement has
stated that he was taken away on bicycle by accused respondent
Prakash and he came to know his name when on the way, a
person called the respondent Prakash by his name. The trial court
has held that as per Manish (PW-4), he was taken away on bicycle
by respondent Prakash and Khinya Ram had joined them later on, then, the statement of Veer Bahadur (PW-6) cannot be relied that
Manish (PW-4) was taken away on bicycle by respondent Khinya
Ram.
The trial court has also taken into consideration the letters
said to have been written by the accused respondents Exs.P/66,
P/67 and P/71 and held that from the writings of the said letters,
it is not proved that the said letters were written by the
respondents for ransom. The trial court is of the opinion that
though the letters Exs.P/66, P/67 and P/71 and other documents
were sent for chemical examination to the FSL for the purpose of
identifying the hand writings, but the prosecution has failed to
prove that after recovery of the said letters, till they were sent to
the FSL, they were kept intact in a sealed condition. The trial court
has therefore not relied upon the said documentary evidence.
Having regard to the overall facts and circumstances of the
case, this Court is of the opinion that the prosecution has failed to
prove the charges against the accused respondents, for which,
they have been charged beyond reasonable doubt and, therefore,
the trial court has not committed any illegality in acquitting the
accused respondents from the charges levelled against them.
Resultantly, this criminal appeal being bereft of force is
hereby dismissed.