Surendra Vikram Singh Rathore, J. - (1.) SINCE all the aforesaid criminal appeals arise out of a common judgement, hence these are being disposed of together.
(2.) UNDER challenge in the aforesaid criminal appeals is the judgment and order dated 20.07.2007 passed by Additional Sessions Judge/Special Judge (E.C. Act), Hardoi, in Sessions Trial Nos. 887 of 2004 (State v. Amar Singh and Dinesh) and 409 of 2006 (State v. Jhagalley), arising out of Case Crime No. 204 of 2004, Police Station Kotwali Shahar, District Hardoi, whereby all the appellants were convicted and sentenced as under: "302/34 IPC - Imprisonment for life and fine of Rs. 5,000/ - with default stipulation of one year's rigorous imprisonment. 364 A IPC Imprisonment for life and fine of Rs. 5,000/ - with default stipulation of one year's rigorous imprisonment. 201 IPC 3 years' rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs. 2,000/ - with default stipulation of 6 months' additional imprisonment." All the sentences were directed to run concurrently. In this case, charge sheet was also filed against one Kamal @ Kamallu but during pendency of the trial, he claimed himself to be a juvenile and therefore vide order dated 27.10.2006, his case was separated.
(3.) THE case of the prosecution was that on 16.02.2004, complainant Raees Ahmad informed through a typed application addressed to Superintendent of Police, Hardoi, that his son Anas Ahmad, aged about 10 years, had gone to Exhibition/Ram Leela Maidan on 15.02.2004 at about 06:00 PM. When he did not come back for a long time then the complainant, his father and other neighbours tried to search him out but whereabouts of his son could not be traced out. Then on 16.02.2004, at about 08:00 AM, he gave an information at police out post Sadar regarding missing of his son. Thereafter, on the same day in between 01:30 -02:00 PM the complainant received a phone call whereby the caller said that he is calling from Sikandara, Kanpur and his name is Nirbhaya Gurjar. He has purchased his son and there is no need to search him and made a demand of Rs. 5,00,000/ - as ransom within six days and he also asked to call again after six days to tell the date, time and place where the ransom amount was to be delivered. He also asked him not to inform the police. After receiving this phone call, the complainant got an application typed on 16.02.2004, addressed to Superintendent of Police, Hardoi. On the basis thereof, an order was passed to inquire and to take necessary action. Thereafter on 17.03.2004, the SHO, on the basis of the material collected during inquiry, directed to register a case and on the basis of his direction, the first information report of this case was registered on 18.03.2004 at 09:20 AM. As per the Chik Report, the distance of police station from Ram Leela Maidan was about two furlong. This first information report was registered at Crime No. 204 of 2004 against Nirbhaya Gurjar. It transpires from the perusal of the record that during investigation, the complainant met DIG and IG Police at Lucknow and on their directions, the STF was informed that the son of the complainant has been kidnapped and ransom is being demanded through phone call. So the STF came into action and on the information received by secret informer that abductee from Hardoi is present with accused Amar Singh and his other companions in the house of sister of the father of appellant Amar Singh in Gram Lalpur, Police Station Bilhaur, District Kanpur Nagar. On this information, the SO, Bilhaur along with STF team went to the said place where only appellant Amar Singh was arrested and from his Pant, a receipt of PCO whereby a phone call was made on 20.03.2004 at 10:56:02 hours at Phone No. 0585232509 was recovered. A diary was also recovered in which aforesaid number was mentioned. He also informed that abductee has been killed and his dead body has been thrown into a bore well. Arrest of accused Amar Singh was made on 22.03.2004. On the said date, the dead body could not be seen in the bore well but the SO, Bilhaur, experienced foul smell coming out from the said bore well. The Investigating Officer of this case was accordingly informed who also inspected the place of occurrence on 22.03.2004 and thereafter he went back and on 29.03.2004, the dead body is alleged to have been recovered in the presence of the complainant with the help of Supervisor of Jal Nigam named Udai Narain. Accused Amar Singh, while in police custody also disclosed that on 01.03.2004, they had received Rs. 75,000/ - from the complainant at Makanpur bridge. He also disclosed that some letters demanding ransom were also got written by them through the abductee. The complainant also supported that he had paid ransom of Rs. 75,000/ - but he was demanded additional Rs. 1,00,000/ -, which he could not manage. He has stated that at the time of delivery of ransom amount one person took him below the bridge wherefrom he was followed by another accused and taken to a place at some distance where two accused were also present. They counted the money in the light of torch. He had recognized the culprits. During investigation, it also came into light that one Shakeel Ahmad had seen the abductee going in the company of Kamal @ Kamallu in the evening of 15.02.2004. The police after investigation, filed charge sheet against all four persons, out of which three were arrested and charge sheet against accused Jhagalley was filed in absconding. Since Jhagalley was not arrested by that time so his case was separated and the case against three accused persons namely Amar Singh, Dinesh and Kamal @ Kamallu was committed for trial. During pendency of the trial, accused Kamal @ Kamallu claimed himself to be a juvenile and therefore vide order dated 27.10.2006, his case was separated. Accused Jhagalley was subsequently arrested and his case was committed subsequently. Both the cases were tried together and by the impugned judgment, all the three appellants were convicted.;