Allahabad High Court
Pappu Alias Yogendra Alias Jugendra vs State Of U.P. on 8 July, 2020
Equivalent citations: AIRONLINE 2020 ALL 1585
Bench: Govind Mathur, Saumitra Dayal Singh
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD Reserved Chief Justice's Court Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 2352 of 2010 Appellant :- Pappu Alias Yogendra Alias Jugendra Respondent :- State Of U.P. Counsel for Appellant :- Sushil Kumar, Bipin Kumar Tripathi, Imran Mabood Khan, Janardan Pd. Tripathi, R.K. Saxena Counsel for Respondent :- Govt. Advocate Hon'ble Govind Mathur, Chief Justice Hon'ble Saumitra Dayal Singh, J.
(As per Hon'ble Govind Mathur, C.J.) Learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track, Court No. 3, Aligarh by the judgment impugned dated 03.04.2010 recorded conviction of the accused-appellant for commission of an offence punishable under Section 364-A Indian Penal Code and awarded sentence to undergo life term imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 10,000/- and further to undergo six months simple imprisonment in the event of default in payment of fine.
The factual matrix of the case is that on 30.01.2003, a first information report was lodged at Police Station Chharra, Aligarh at the instance of one Sri Rampal Singh S/o Bheem Sain with assertion that on 29.01.2003 at around 11:00 P.M., certain miscreants abducted two persons, namely, Nem Singh S/o Hubb Lal and Anokhe Lal S/o Bheem Sain from Village Roomamai, accordingly, a case for investigation of an offence under Section 364 Indian Penal Code was registered against unknown persons. On 11.02.2003, on having some information, a police team proceeded for search and on the way encountered a jeep wherein abducted persons too were present. The hands and legs of the victims were fastened with chain. After having exchange of gunshots between the accused and the police team, both the victims were escaped from the captivity of accused persons. The accused were apprehended thereafter.
After completing the investigation, a police report as per Section 173 Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 was filed before the competent Court against five persons including the present appellant. The matter, being sessions triable, was committed to the Court of Sessions. Learned Sessions Judge, Aligarh transferred the matter for its adjudication to learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track, Court No. 3, Aligarh. Learned Additional Sessions Judge vide order dated 17.03.2008 framed two charges against the accused-appellant for commission of offence under Sections 364-A and 120-B Indian Penal Code. On denial of the charges, trial commenced as desired by the accused.
The prosecution supported its case with the aid of evidence adduced by nine witnesses (PW-1 to PW-9) and the documents exhibited (Exhibit Ka-1 to Ka-6). After completing the prosecution evidence, an opportunity was given to the accused-appellant to explain adverse and incriminating circumstances available in prosecution evidence against him. The accused-appellant termed the entire evidence false and concocted. No evidence was adduced in defence.
The trial Court after considering the material available held only the accused-appellant guilty for the charge relating to offence punishable under Section 364-A Indian Penal Code and recorded conviction, but acquitted him from the charge relating to offence punishable under Section 120-B Indian Penal Code. The trial Court mainly relied upon the statements given by the captive victims, namely, Nem Singh (PW-2), Anokhe Lal (PW-3) and the Investigating Officer Ved Pal Singh (PW-6).
In appeal, the argument advanced by learned counsel for the appellant is that, even by accepting the prosecution story in entirety, no case is made out for commission of offence under Section 364-A Indian Penal Code. It is asserted that the ingredients to constitute an offence under Section 364-A Indian Penal Code are conspicuously absent in the instant matter.
While meeting with the argument advanced, learned Additional Government Advocate submits that the evidence adduced by the victim captives and further from the fact that the gunshots were exchanged between the accused and the police party, it is evident that an offence punishable under Section 364-A Indian Penal Code was committed.
We have looked into the entire evidence available on record. The most important witnesses in the instant matter are Nem Singh (PW-2) and Anokhe Lal (PW-3) who were said to be abducted by the accused-appellant.
As per Shri Nem Singh (PW-2), on 29.01.2003, he alongwith Anokhe Lal (PW-3) was at his tube-well. At about 11:30 P.M., miscreants came there and hurled abuses. On gunpoint, he and Anokhe Lal were abducted and they were taken to some sugarcane field by a jeep travelling overnight. The miscreants administered injection on buttocks of Anokhe Lal, in result, he fell asleep. After 10-11 days, the accused were deliberating that police were having certain information about their location. An effort then was made to change the location. While changing the hideouts, a police team encountered them and, at that time, fire-arm shots too were exchanged. Ultimately, the police team successfully got this witness and Anokhe Lal enlarged from captivity. In cross-examination also, this witness reiterated whatever stated in his examination-in-chief.
Shri Anokhe Lal (PW-3), the another captive, also narrated the facts in tune of the facts stated by Shri Nem Singh (PW-1).
Pertinent to notice that these two witnesses nowhere stated about any threatening given to them by the accused-appellant to cause death or hurt and even there was no reasonable apprehension to put these persons to death or hurt. No material is available on record to establish that the accused-appellant had any intention to get something done by keeping the victims under captivity.
Shri Ved Pal Singh (PW-6) narrated all the steps taken by him during the course of investigation, being the Investigating Officer. This witness, in quite detail, has referred whatever steps taken by him to recover the abducted persons, but he has not said anything about the demand of ransom by the accused-appellant. This witness also not disclosed any fact pertaining to any threat to the life of Nem Singh and Anokhe Lal.
It would also be appropriate to state that on being enlarged from the captivity of the accused-appellant, Nem Singh and Anokhe Lal were subjected to medical examination and their injury reports are available on record. The injury reports do not disclose any serious injury to these persons except certain very minor bruises.
In view of whatever stated above, we are satisfied that the facts of the case does not constitute commission of any offence punishable under Section 364-A Indian Penal Code. The evidence available on record, however, establishes abduction of Nem Singh and Anokhe Lal with intent to cause them to be secretly and under wrongful confinement that amounts to an offence described under Section 365 Indian Penal Code.
Accordingly, the appeal deserves to be accepted in part. The appeal, hence, is partly allowed. The conviction of the accused-appellant under Section 364-A Indian Penal Code is set aside, however, he is convicted for an offence under Section 365 Indian Penal Code. Accordingly, the sentence awarded by the trial Court is also modified from life term imprisonment to imprisonment for a term of seven years. The accused has already undergone imprisonment for a period of more than seven years, hence, he be released from State custody forthwith, if not otherwise required. The fine imposed by the trial Court shall remain intact.
Order Date :- 8.7.2020 Shubham (Saumitra Dayal Singh, J.) (Govind Mathur, C.J.)
Judgment delivered by Hon'ble Saumitra Dayal Singh, J. under Chapter VII Rule 1 (2) of the Allahabad High Court Rules, 1952.