SUKHVIR Vs. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND
HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND
STATE OF UTTARAKHAND
Click here to view full judgement.
Alok Singh, J. -
(1.) NONE is appearing for the appellants. Mr. B.S. Parihar, Advocate is requested to appear in the present matter as Amicus Curiae. He has agreed to appear as Amicus Curiae. Copy of the paper book has been handed over to him. Having perused the paper book, so handed over to him, Mr. B.S. Parihar has agreed to argue the appeal today itself. During the arguments being advanced by Mr. B.S. Parihar, Amicus Curiae, Mr. Rajendra Singh Advocate has also appeared. Therefore, both of them are heard. Appellants, by way of present appeal, are assailing the judgment and order dated 28.04.2009 passed by Additional Sessions Judge/1st F.T.C., Roorkee, District Haridwar whereby both the appellants were found guilty for an offence punishable under Section 364 of I.P.C. and were sentenced to undergo R.I. for a period of seven years and to pay fine of Rs. 5,000/ -, failing which to undergo additional imprisonment for six months.
(2.) BRIEF facts of the present case inter alia are that Dev Pal (P.W. 2) has lodged a report with the police on 31st July, 1999 stating therein that on 17.06.1999, both the appellants came to his house and after telling his elder brother Vikram that they were going to Muzaffarnagar have taken along with them Vinod @ Kala; after two days appellant No. 1 - Sukhvir came back to the village; on being asked appellant No. 1 has informed Dev Pal (P.W. 2) that Vinod @ Kala had gone to her aunt (BUAJI) house in village Matheri; Having waited for 2 -3 days P.W. -2 went to Matheri to his sister's house to know whereabouts of Vinod @ Kala; However, he was told by his sister that Vinod @ Kala did not come to Matheri for last 2 -3 months; thereafter P.W. -2 went to other relatives to know the whereabouts of Vinod @ Kala; when appellant No. 1 was approached once again, he did not give any satisfactory answer and has absconded from that day from the village; P.W. -2 thereafter went to the village of appellant No. 2 - Jai Veer, however, appellant No. 2 was also not found at his residence; Mahipal Singh (P.W. 1) and Tejpal have also seen the appellants taking Vinod @ Kala along with them; on being asked by P.W. -1 and Tejpal, appellants told them that they were going to Muzaffarnagar; P.W. -2 informant has full suspicion on the appellants that they have kidnapped his son Vinod @ Kala. Having received First Information Report, Case Crime No. 204/1999 under Section 364 of I.P.C. was registered against the appellants. Having investigated the matter chargesheet was submitted. Learned A.C.J.M. has committed the trial to the court of Sessions. Charges were framed against the accused/appellants for an offence punishable under Section 364 of I.P.C. Both the appellants did not admit their guilt and claimed trial.
(3.) FROM the side of the prosecution Mahipal Singh (P.W. 1), Dev Pal (P.W. 2), Vikram Singh (P.W. 3) and Daya Ram Arya (P.W. 4) were examined. Statements of the accused/appellants were also recorded under Section 313 of Code of Criminal Procedure. Having perused entire material made available on the record, learned trial court was pleased to pass the judgment and order under appeal.;
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.