Decided on September 19,2002

JAIPAL Appellant


- (1.)The appellant was tried by the additional sessions judge (II) Jind for the offence punishable under section 363a/ 364a IPC. Having been found guilty the appellant was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 5000/- in default of payment of fine to further undergo RI for six months. His appeal before the High Court of Punjab and Haryana having failed the appellant is before us in this appeal.
(2.)The prosecution case briefly stated is that the appellant was working as an agricultural labourer in the fields of Ganga bishan, PW. 10. On 28th of April, 1994 he abandoned his work and went away without informing anybody. On the same day the family of PW. 10 found his grandson by name Varinder alias Bintu aged about 5 years was missing from their house. His family members having searched for missing child for two days in various places in the neighbouring districts ultimately lodged a complaint on 30th April, 1994 in Safidon police station. On investigation it was found that the appellant while working in the fields of pw. 10 had given his name as Rajbir and jagbir though his actual name is Jaipal and also he had not given his true and correct address of his permanent place of residence. It is the further case of prosecution that during the course of investigation they came to know that the appellant had kidnapped another child and on the basis of the information supplied by the family members of that child they went to the village of the appellant and searched for the appellant. Having failed to apprehend the appellant they contacted the brother of the appellant, Hari singh who later on produced the appellant before the police. After interrogation they came to know that the appellant in connivance of his minor son, Vinod kumar had kidnapped the said child on 28th April, 1994 and the appellant had written a ransom letter with the help of his minor son, Vinod Kumar on 28th April, 1994 demanding a sum of Rs. 65,000/- which was received by the family members of the kidnapped child on 4th May, 1994. It is also the case of the investigating agency that the child was found on the basis of the disclosure statement made by the appellant on 4th May, 1994 wherein he had stated that he had sent the boy in a train which was going from meerut to Delhi. On further investigation the police came to know that the child was abandoned at old Delhi railway station and was picked up by the constable at railway platform. Unable to trace the family of the child the railway police kept the child in a aftercare home at old Delhi railway station. The child was recovered on 28.10. 1995 from the said aftercare home. On completion of investigation the appellant was charged for the offence as stated above. In support of the prosecution case pw. 10 and PW. 4 the grandfather and father of the child respectively had stated that the appellant when employed had given his name as Rajbir and Jagbir and on 28 April, 1994 while working he returned to the house on a pretext of taking bath and when these witnesses returned to their house they found that varinder alias Bintu was missing from the house and as stated above after a prolonged search the child was recovered based on the disclosure statement made by the appellant. The prosecution has also relied on the ransom letter received by PW. 4 which was proved by the handwriting of the son of the appellant as stated above. The prosecution also relies upon the evidence of PW. 9, the police constable which establishes the fact that based on the disclosure statement the investigating agency deputed him to investigate in railway stations in the route from Meerut to Delhi to trace the child consequent upon which the child was ultimately recovered on 28 October, 1995. It is based on this evidence the learned additional sessions judge came to the conclusion that the prosecution has established the fact that the appellant was working in the field of PWs. 4 and 10 during which time he had given a false name and on 28 April, 1994 he was missing from the place of his work on the same day the child was kidnapped. Learned additional sessions judge also relied on the recovery on disclosure statement made by the appellant as exhibit PK as also the learned sessions judge took note of the fact that the appellant was not available for the investigating agency in spite of their search and it is only at the instance of the appellant's brother that he could be arrested.
(3.)From the above material on the record the learned additional sessions judge found the appellant guilty and sentenced him which has been affirmed by the High Court.

Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.