Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Both criminal appeals have been preferred by appellants, namely, Punjab Singh and Ramuji @ Ramjilal Gurjar from jail, challenging the judgment of conviction and sentence dated 11.01.2018 passed by Special Judge (MPDVPK Act, 981) Sabalgarh, District Morena (MP) in Special Sessions Trial No.200014 of 2015, by which they have been convicted under Section 364-A of IPC r/w Section 11/13 of MPDVPK Act and have been sentenced to Life Imprisonment with fine of Rs.2,000/- with default stipulation. (2) Prosecution case, in brief, is that complainant Hakim Rawat (PW1) lodged a report at Police Station Pahadgarh, District Morena on 22.05.2008 to the effect that he along with Sriniwas (PW7) and Jailal had gone to Dhangibaba from his village to perform ''jaat''. In the midst to quench their thirst, they went to near Ishwara Kherkai drainage where they met six miscreants in the attire of military out of which, one miscreant was wearing red shirt and black pant. They were all having guns and Ramswaroop (PW8) of Jhakhoda was also sitting on the ground with them. The head of miscreants, who has fair complexioned having beard and spots on his face, got all of them to the drainage. There was one miscreant of wheatish complexion whose one of the fingers of right hand was cut. All injured were assaulted by means of sticks (dandas). They were all enquired about their address, field and property. The head of miscreants told "they are taking Jailal and Sriniwas with them against which you have to bring Rs.2 lac as ransom amount to Pagara Dam on 24.05.2008. On the basis of this, Police Station Pahadgarh registered Crime No.57 of 2008 under Section 364-A of IPC r/w Section 11/13 of MPDVPK Act. After report, the matter was investigated and spot map was prepared by police. Statements of witnesses were recorded. Police, after completion of investigation and other formalities, filed charge sheet under Section 364-A of IPC r/w Section 11/13 of MPDVPK Act before the competent Court.

(5) Learned counsel for the appellants contended that the judgment passed by the Trial Court is contrary to law. The Trial Court has not properly appreciated the evidence of prosecution witnesses. There are major contradictions and omissions in evidence of the prosecution witnesses. Except complainant Hakim (PW1), most of the material witnesses including abductee Sriniwas (PW7) did not support the prosecution story and turned hostile and they also did not identify the accused miscreants. There is no recovery of alleged ransom amount. Neither any alleged deadly weapon has been seized from the possession of miscreants. As per opinion of doctor, no grievous injury is found on the body of the abductees. Since no offence under Section 364-A of IPC r/w Section 11/13 of MPDVPK Act is made out, therefore, the appellants are entitled for acquittal and the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence deserves to be set aside. Learned counsel for the appellants has also drawn attention of this Court towards the judgment dated 24th March, 2022 passed where-under on the same set of evidence present accused Punjab Singh has been acquitted by this Court in CrA No.454 of 2010 (Punjab Singh vs. State of MP) and also the judgment dated 21 st April, 2022 passed in CRA No.556 of 2011 (Punjab Singh vs. State of MP) by which Punjab Singh has also been acquitted of on same set of charges levelled against him.

(18) PW12 Kishan Singh Rathor who is the IO in the matter, probed the matter, recorded the statements of witnesses on the basis of their memorandum and other formalities also.

(19) So far as the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant that the basic ingredients of Section 364-A IPC are lacking is concerned, it is needless to mention here provisions of said Section as under:-

''364A. 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 organization or any other person to do or abstain from doing any act or to pay a ransom, shall be punishable with death, or imprisonment for life, and shall also be liable to fine." (20) From bare perusal of provisions of aforesaid Section, it appears that there are three stages in this Section, one is the kidnapping or abduction, second is threat of death coupled with the demand of money and lastly, when the demand is not met, then causing death. After noticing the statutory provisions of said Section, this Court found that the essential ingredients to convict the accused under Section 364A of IPC which are required to be proved by prosecution are lacking in the present matter. Except complainant Hakim (PW1), most of the material witnesses including one of abductees namely Sriniwas have been turned hostile and they did not support the prosecution case. Further, the prosecution has utterly failed to prove its case in regard to demand of ransom amount as well as recovery of ransom amount from the the accused and there is no recovery of deadly weapon from the possession of accused at their instance. No documentary evidence has also been produced by prosecution regarding payment of ransom amount to any of the accused persons. Prosecution has not been able to demonstrate beyond reasonable doubt that neither appellant had participated or involved in commission of abduction or kidnapping nor had caused any injury to anybody or has given threat to cause death or hurt to the persons like abductees in detention after such abduction. As the rescue of the abductees from the captivity of miscreants has also rendered doubtful by another circumstance that no one from the abductees received any serious injury in the incident in question, therefore, the essential ingredients of Section 364-A of IPC are lacking. Hence, we are of the considered opinion that the Trial Court has not properly analyzed the evidence available on record and committed an error in convicting the appellants accused for the charged offences.

(21) After analyzing and re-appreciating the evidence of most of material witnesses available on record, it appears that the prosecution has utterly failed to prove its case beyond all reasonable doubt and the appellants must get benefit of doubt thereof. As a consequence therefore, both the criminal appeals (CRA No. 1212 of 2018 and 1216 of 2018) stand allowed. The impugned judgment of conviction and sentence dated 11.01.2018 passed by Special Judge (MPDVPK Act, 1981) Sabalgarh, District Morena (MP) in Special Sessions Trial No. 200014 of 2015, by which they have been convicted under Section 364-A of IPC r/w Section 11/13 of MPDVPK Act and have been sentenced to Life Imprisonment with fine of Rs.2,000/- with default stipulation is hereby set aside. Appellants Ramuji alias Ramjilal Gurjar and Punjab Singh Gurjar are acquitted of charges levelled against them. Since appellants Ramuji alias Ramjilal Gurjar and Punjab Singh Gurjar are reported to be in jail, therefore, they be set at liberty forthwith unless their detention is required in connection with any other case.