- (1.)In S.C. No. 9 of 1992 (S.C. 69/92 OCC), the petitioner was tried by the Asst. Sessions Judge, Bhanjanagar for offences under Ss. 364/384/511, IPC was made out, but an offence under S. 363 IPC has been made out against the petitioner and accordingly, he was held guilty of the said offence and was sentenced to undergo R.I. for a five years. Aggrieved by his conviction and sentence the petitioner field an appeal before the 1st Addl. Sessions Judge, Ganjam, Berhampur being criminal appeal No. 25/93 (129/92 ODC), Vide judgement dated 7-9-1993, the learned Addl. Sessions Judge affirmed the conviction under S. 363, IPC recorded by the trial Court, but reduced the sentence of 5 years imposed by the trial Court to R.I. for six months. The learned Addl. Sessions Judge however further also held that an offence under S. 384 read with S. 511, IPC was also made out and accordingly convicted the petitioner for the said offence and sentenced him to undergo R.I. for 15 days. Both the sentences were to run concurrently. Aggrieved by the appellate order, the petitioner (accused) has preferred this revision.
(2.)The prosecution story is that P.W. 8, Hitesh Kumar Chawada is the younger son of Hiralal Jairam (P.W. 2) and at the time of incident was aged about 9 years. He was a student of Class-III at the Government Junior Maulika Bidyalaya situate near the P.W.D., Main Road. On 9-l l-1991 at about 1-15 p.m. when P.W. 8 was going home for lunch, the petitioner on seeing him enquired about the son of Hiralal Jairam. On being told by P.W. 8 that he is the son of Hiralal Jairam, the accused told him that his father had met with an accident and asked the boy to accompany him. Accordingly, P.W. 8 accompanied the petitioner on his cycle. On the way P.W. 5 Ganesh Singh who is known to P.W. 8 then enquired as to where he was going. On there being no response, P.W. 5 went away. As P.W. 8 did not come home for lunch, his parents got worried and P.W. 2 went in search of his son P.W. 8 (Nitesh Chawada). He was not found in the school premises. On the way P.W. 2 met P.W. 5 who informed him that he had seen the accused (petitioner) with P.W. 9 on his cycle and going towards Bellaguntha check gate.
(3.)According to the prosecution, the accused took P.W. 8 to a house in village Tamarada. The accused left P.W. 8 in the house and went away saying that he would return by about 4 p.m. P.W. 8 (Nitesh Chawada), however, managed to escape from the house and on the way he met a person who took him to the Canara Bank where he was identified by Sarat Chandra Nayak and Bidyuta Rath as being the youngest son of P.W. 2. When Bidyuta Rath was taking P.W. 8 on his motorcycle, he saw P.W. 2 near the check gate in a police jeep. So the said Bidyuta Rath (P.W. 4) restored P.W. 8 to the custody of P.W. 2. Thereafter written report about the incident was lodged by P.W. 2 with the police. It is mentioned in the report that he (P.W. 2) was informed by Ganesh Singh (P.W. 5) and Premananda Sadangi (P.W. 7) that the accused had kidnapped his son P.W. 8. On the basis of his report, a case was registered against the petitioner who was apprehended and after due investigation a charge sheet for offences under Ss. 364/384/51l, IPC was filed against him.It may be mentioned that an anonymous letter demanding a ransom of Rs. 20,000/- for releasing P.W. 8 is also said to have been found by P.W. 2 near his gate. This letter was seized by the police and was produced during trial and marked M.O.I. In order to prove its case, the prosecution examined 11 witnesses. The plea of the petitioner-accused is one of denial. However, no defence evidence was adduced.