- (1.) The above criminal appeals have been filed against judgement and order dated 23.10.1997 passed by the Fist Additional Sessions Judge, Faizabad in Sessions Trial No. 356 of 1988, State vs. Radhey Shyam and others, whereby appellants Om Prakash, Sant Ram, Ramchandra Shukla, Radhey Shyam and Hausala Prasad Shukla have been convicted under sections 363 and 368 I.P.C. and sentenced to five years rigorous imprisonment and Rs. 500/- fine with default stipulation of three months imprisonment for each offence. The above mentioned appeals having arisen from the common judgement are being decided together and the judgment is being passed in criminal appeal No. 647 of 1997.
(2.) The factual matrix of the case is given as under:- Smt. Malti Devi daughter of Raj Kumar Pathak, R/o Village Pathak Ka Purwa, P.S. Pura Qalandar, District Faizabad on 09.04.1985 at 05:45 p.m. Submitted an oral information at P.S. Pura Qalandar that appellant Radhey Shyam and his brother appellant Om Prakash along with three others were making search of the houses in her village in order to kidnap her minor younger sister Km. Shashi. Appellant Radhey Shyam had kidnapped Km. Shashi in the past also and she was freed from his confinement hardly a week ago. The aforesaid information was entered in the General Diary of Police Station at Serial no. 29 at 05:45 p.m. Acting upon the aforesaid information a police party consisting of Shri Tulsi Ram Yadav, the then Station Officer of P.S. Pura Qalandar, C.P. Mahadeo Prasad and C.P. Rajendra Prasad Rai immediately proceeded to the place of occurrence along with Smt. Malti Devi and her brother Bhaskar Pathak in the police jeep. The police party was informed on the way in village Pandit Purwa that kidnappers had taken Km. Shashi away in a truck. Thereafter, the police party proceeded towards Darshan Purwa. On the way one Raj Kumar Singh of Village Firojpur met with the police party who informed that kidnappers had gone towards Gonda. The police party took Raj Kumar Singh with it for the help and went towards Ayodhya and when it reached near Hanuman Garhi in Ayodhya, the truck in question was found stationary near Hanuman Garhi Tiraha. The police party intercepted the truck by overtaking the jeep and made search of the truck in which Km. Shashi alongwith Kidnappers namely Radhey Shyam, Sant Ram, Ram Chandra Shukla and Hausala Prasad Shukla were recovered from the cabin of the truck. Km. Shashi told the police party that she was kidnapped from her home by the appellants and taken to Ayodhya in the truck from which she was recovered. The police party arrested the kidnappers and prepared the memo of arrest of appellants present on spot and recovery of Km. Shashi, i.e. Ext-Ka-1. After the aforesaid proceedings the police party came back to Police Station Pura Qalandar and lodged the report of kidnapping of Km. Shashi against the appellants. Km. Shashi was given in Supurdagi of her father.
(3.) The investigation of the case was under taken by S.I. Ram Awadh who recorded statements of kidnapped, members of the police party which arrested appellants and recovered the victim and other witnesses and submitted charge-sheet against the appellants namely Radhey Shyam, Sant Ram, Ram Chander Shukla, Om Prakash and Haushla Prasad Shukla under sections 363, 366 and 368 I.P.C. in the Court of the concerned Magistrate. The case of appellants being triable by the Court of Sessions, the concerned learned Magistrate committed the case to the Court of Sessions from where the case was transferred to the Court of Additional Sessions Judge which framed the charge against appellants under Sections 363, 366 and 368 I.P.C. which they denied and claimed to be tried. The prosecution examined 08 witnesses namely P.W.-1 Malti Devi, P.W.-2 Raj Kumar Pathak, P.W.-3 Km. Shashi, P.W.-4 Ram Raj Tiwari, P.W.-5 Ram Awadh Rai, P.W.-6 Dr. Meera Srivastava, P.W.-7 Dr. S.K. Srivastava and P.W.-8 Constable Rajendra Rai to prove the charge. Statements of appellants under section 313 Cr.P.C. were recorded in which they denied the prosecution case and stated that they had been falsely implicated due to enmity. They did not adduce any evidence in defence.;