Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

The appellant Rahul Rana challenges his conviction under Sections 364A/394/323/506 read with Section 120B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC, for short) by the impugned judgment dated 21st August, 1999.

2. By order on sentence dated 25th August, 1999, the appellant Rahul Rana has been sentenced as under:-

Section           Sentence                    Fine              In default of
                                                                payment of fine
364A, IPC         Imprisonment for life       Rs.1,00,000/-     SI for 1 Year





 394, IPC          RI for 10 years         Rs.50,000/-      SI for 6 Months

120B      r/w Imprisonment for life       Rs.50,000/-      SI for 6 Months
364A, IPC
120B      r/w RI for 10 years             Rs.50,000/-      SI for 6 Months
394, IPC

Separate sentences have not been awarded for the offences under Sections 323 and 506 IPC, observing that these were minor offences and the ingredients of these two offences were covered under Section 364A, IPC. The sentences are to run concurrently and benefit of Section 428 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C., for short) has been granted.

3. The impugned judgment also convicts co-accused Amit Yadav. The said Amit Yadav had filed Crl.A. No.569/1999 against the said conviction and was granted interim bail. He absconded. This appeal by Amit Yadav was dismissed in default by order dated 13 th December, 2000. Amit Yadav has been declared a proclaimed offender and his appeal has been consigned to record room.

"139. Till 16.9.95 the police was not aware of the involvement of any person in the offence of abduction of Rishi Sethi. It was only after the apprehension of the accused Amit Yadav on 16.9.95 at about 5 PM who was apprehended with the ransom money in the car used by him and driven by PW-14 Rakesh Sharma. After the recovery of ransom disclosure statement of accused Amit Yadav was recorded and it was during his statement Ex.PW10/A where accused Amit Yadav has mentioned the name of accused Rahul Rana involved with him for the abduction of Rishi Sethi and in that statement EX.PW10/A, he had also disclosed the place where Rishi Sethi was confined. Involvement of accused Rahul Rana as well as the place where Rishi Sethi was confined are the facts which were not in the knowledge of the police prior to the apprehension of the accused Amit Yadav and since recovery of Rishi Sethi has been effected in pursuance of the information disclosed by the accused recorded vide memo EX.PW10/A; disclosure statement to that effect is admissible and therefrom the involvement of accused Rahul Rana has come on record. Detailed disclosure statement made by accused Amit Yadav at R-63 Raj Kunj, Raj Nager, Ghaziabad, which is EX.P10/C discloses the detailed facts how the offence was planned and executed by him with the help of accused Rahul Rana. However, the disclosure statement is not sufficient to rely the involvement of accused Rahul Rana for the purpose of his involvement, unless same is corroborated on some account by other evidence on record. PW17 Sh. Kailash who was running a toy shop at 38, Hauz Khas, Arvindo Palace, New Delhi states that he knew accused Rahul Rana present in court. In his statement he states that about 2½ years back in the month of September, accused Rahul Rana purchased a toy pistol from his shop for Rs.60/- and that toy pistol has been used for threatening the victim Rishi Sethi. He identified the toy pistol EX.P.1 which was purchased from his shop.. PW22 Rishi Sethi on cross--examination seen the toy pistol EX.P1 states that it was the same which was used for threatening him. Not only this, PW41 Neeraj Bhatnagar, R/o.R-6/151, Raj Nagar, Ghaziabad states that he is running a travel agency with the name of Meghna Travels situated at R-10/114, Raj Nagar, Ghaziabad, UP during the period of September,1995 and he was knowing accused Amit Yadav and Rahul Rana since they were his regular customers. On 16.9.95 both accused persons came to his office and booked the Maruti Van no.DL-4C-D-7349 for Meerut and this Maruti Van has been driven by Naresh on 16.9.95 and duty slip for that purpose was also handedover to him. Ho had identified both accused persons who came for booking the said Maruti Van and he has also made entry in the booking register as well as the payment register. PW28 Naresh Kumar who was driver with Meghna Travels Agency, situated R-10/114, Raj Nagar, Ghaziabad, UP states that in the month of September, 1995 he was on duty on Maruti Van no.DL-4C-D-7349. On 16.9.95 his Maruti Van was booked by his owner for Meerut. As per prosecution case, this van has been used to carry both these accused persons to Meerut. However he has proved his signatures on the documents EX PW28/A pointing--out memo prepared by the police for pointing-out the place wherefrom the said taxi was booked. So from booking of the van by both accused persons on 16.9.95 in the morning and at the same time purchase of the toy pistol EX.P1 by accused Rahul Rana used for threatening victim Rishi Sethi on 12.9.95 at the time of abduction, as stated by PW41 Neeraj Bhatnagar and PW17 Kailash both public witnesses, respectively, I. find that prosecution has proved the overt act committed by accused Rahul Rana in agreement with accused Amit Yadav for the commission of crime u/s 364A, 394, 323, 506 IPC and accordingly, I find that prosecution has proved the reasonable ground for the Court to believe that two or more persons i.e. Amit Yadav and Rahul Rana were the members of the conspiracy to commit the crime and accordingly the first condition stands proved by the prosecution and contemplated by the Hon‟ble Supreme Court in the aforesaid- judgment.

147. Ld. Counsel for the accused Rahul Rana further contended that there is no evidence against the accused Rahul Rana; that he never threatened or caused hurt for the purpose of ransom, hence Section 364A IPC is not attracted at all. In view of the detailed discussion already undertaken while considering the ingredients of Section 364A IPC and the relevant and reliable evidence to prove the charge against the accused and the discussion, detailed above, in respect of the Section 10 of the Evidence Act, the entire evidence used to prove the evidence against the accused Amit Yadav has to be taken as evidence against the accused Rahul Rana. Hence this contention has also no substance or merit, at all. The same is rejected."