Abhai Kumar, J. - (1.) This jail appeal has been preferred by the appellant from jail against the judgment and conviction dated 28.2.1996 passed by Additional Session Judge, Court No.VI in S.T. No.12 of 1994 (State of U.P. vs. Iqram) arising out of Case Crime No.185 of 1991, under Section 364 I.P.C., Police Station Kairana, District Muzaffar Nagar, whereby the appellant was convicted for 10 years rigorous imprisonment alongwith fine of Rs.5,000/- and in case of none payment of fine, he will further undergo one year additional rigorous imprisonment.
(2.) Brief facts of the case are as follows: On 30.10.1991 an FIR was lodged at Police Station Kairana, District Muzaffar Nagar in the night at 11.30 P.M. showing the incident of same day, wherein it has been stated that the brother of complainant Pradeep was at his shop alongwith his brother Arjun and one Madan Lal, then one person came to the shop for purchase of cigrate whereas his associates remained outside the shop. The person who was there to purchase the cigrate asked the name of brother of complainant and when the brother of complainant apprise his name as Pradeep, then it was inquired whether brother of complainant sales bombs and crackers and when node is given by brother of complainant, it is stated by that person that daroga ji is calling you and brother of complainant came out of the shop, three persons kidnapped Pradeep out of them one person with the help of gun point asked for silence from the rest of the person present there and they escorted the brother of complainant and went away from there. There was light of bulb and accuseds were clearly identified by the persons, who were in the shop. After two days of the incident, the police recovered the victim Pradeep from the field of sugarcane but could not arrest any of the accused on spot. The victim Pradeep was given in custody of complainant after recovery and in the statement of victim Pradeep, the complicity of the appellant is being shown. The victim was injured at the time of recovery. He was also medically examined after recovery. After investigation, the complicity of the appellant was found true by the investigating officer and accordingly he submitted the charge-sheet against the appellant.
(3.) During trial, the charge under Section 364 I.P.C. was framed against the appellant from which he denied and claimed trial. The prosecution in support of its case produced 5 witnesses, PW-1 Mukut Kumar, who is complainant of the case but he is not an eye witness of incident and at the time of incident he was in Jhijhana town and after receiving information regarding kidnapping from his brother Arjun and villagers, he got the FIR lodged. PW-2 is victim Pradeep Kumar who has supported the case of the prosecution and specifically stated that it was appellant who kidnapped him and kept him in sugarcane field, from where he was rescued by the police and during rescue operation fire was exchanged between the accuseds and police. The accused persons including the appellant fled away from the place of incident leaving behind the victim in the field. PW-3 Arjun, the brother of victim, who also supported the case of the prosecution and has corroborated the story of kidnapping and has clearly stated that he saw the appellant when he came to the shop of his brother Pradeep. This witness is also identified the appellant in the court. PW-4 Hariram initially investigated the case, whereas later on charge-sheet is being submitted by the inspector Rameshwar Dayal, the investigation done by the witnesses is being proved by him and in the statement it has been stated that inspector Rameshwar Dayal was posted with him and he has seen him writing and also recognizes his signature and handwriting of Rameshwar Dayal. PW-5 Dr. Naresh Kumar Sharma who conducted the medical examination of victim after he was recovered on 1.11.1991 and found as many as six injures are upon the victim. As per his statement, the injuries could have been caused by the butt of the gun as well as by friction. The injuries were said to have been caused 1 to 3 days ago. After the prosecution evidenced, the statement of appellant under Section 313 Cr.P.C. is being taken wherein a false implication due to enmity is being claimed but no oral or documentary evidence is not being given.;