SUMIT AGARWAL @ PRINCE, TILAK RAJ KAUSHIK, AMIT BHAGAT, OM PRAKASH @ KALU, SANDEEP BHAGAT Vs. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND
LAWS(UTN)-2013-4-105
HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND
Decided on April 10,2013

Sumit Agarwal @ Prince, Tilak Raj Kaushik, Amit Bhagat, Om Prakash @ Kalu, Sandeep Bhagat Appellant
VERSUS
STATE OF UTTARAKHAND Respondents

JUDGEMENT

- (1.) Mr. Vinod Sharma, Advocate, submitted that he was appearing on behalf of appellant Sumit Agarwal, but since he has now been engaged as the Government Advocate, it may not be possible for him to appear on behalf of appellant Sumit Agarwal. Mr. S.K. Agarwal, Senior Advocate, is appearing on behalf of other appellants. He is otherwise ready with the matter. We, accordingly, requested him to act as Amicus Curiae in respect of appellant Sumit Agarwal.
(2.) These appeals arise out of the same judgment. Accordingly, they are dealt with together.
(3.) A First Information Report was lodged by Satish Chandra Agarwal (PW2), where he alleged that his son, then about 8 years, namely, Harshit Agarwal (PW1) has been kidnapped at around 05:30 p.m. of 23rd August, 2003. On 30th August, 2003, PW2 received a letter, where a ransom demand of Rs. 40 lacs was made. The police was investigating into the incident. At about 10:30 p.m. of 9th September, 2003, police arrested appellant Sandeep Bhagat, appellant Amit Bhagat, appellant Om Prakash and appellant Sumit Agarwal, when victim was recovered. According to prosecution, those arrested people disclosed that it was Tilak Raj Kaushik, the other appellant, who was the scribe of the letter, by which, demand was made for ransom. On 10th September, 2003, appellant Tilak Raj Kaushik was arrested. From the vicinity of the place, from where the victim was recovered and appellants Sandeep Bhagat, Amit Bhagat, Om Prakash and Sumit Agarwal were arrested, a Santro car belonging to appellant Sandeep Bhagat and a motorbike belonging to the son of appellant Sandeep Bhagat were recovered. In the First Information Report, it was stated that a Maruti / Santro green-coloured car was used in the kidnapping. The recovered Santro car was a green-coloured car. On 15th September, 2003, appellants Sandeep Bhagat, Om Prakash and Tilak Raj Kaushik recorded statements under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Sample handwriting of appellant Tilak Raj Kaushik was obtained and the same was sent for obtaining opinion of the handwriting expert. Two reports were obtained pertaining to the sample handwriting of appellant Tilak Raj Kaushik and the handwriting appearing on the ransom letter. The latter report confirmed, in so many terms, that the sample handwriting of appellant Tilak Raj Kaushik matched with the handwriting appearing on the ransom letter. After the investigation was completed, a charge-sheet was filed, on the basis whereof, charges were appropriately framed.;


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