R.S. Chauhan, J. - (1.) AGGRIEVED by the judgment dated 8.3.2006, passed by the Additional Sessions Judge No. 2, Kishangarh Bas, Camp Tijara, District Alwar, the appellants Kalua, Arif and Jafroo have approached this Court. By the said judgment, the learned Judge had convicted the appellants as under: - - Appellant - Kalua: U/s. 364 IPC - to undergo life imprisonment, to pay a fine of Rs. 2,000/ -, and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo one year's S.I. U/s. 376 IPC - to undergo life imprisonment, to pay a fine of Rs. 2,000/ -, and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo one year's S.I. U/s. 302 IPC - to undergo life imprisonment, to pay a fine of Rs. 5,000/ -, and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo two years' S.I. U/s.201 IPC - to undergo two years' R.I., to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/ -, and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo six months' S.I. Appellant -Arif: U/s. 364 IPC - to undergo life imprisonment, to pay a fine of Rs. 2,000/ -, and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo one year's S.I. U/s. 302 IPC - to undergo life imprisonment, to pay a fine of Rs. 5,000/ -, and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo two years' S.I. U/s. 201 IPC - to undergo two years' R.I., to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/ -, and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo six months' S.I. Appellant - Jafroo - U/s. 364 IPC - to undergo life imprisonment, to pay a fine of Rs. 2,000/ -, and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo one year's S.I." All the sentences were ordered to run concurrently. The learned Judge has acquitted all the three appellants for the offence under Section 368 IPC.
(2.) THE brief case of the prosecution is that Akhtar Ali (P.W.2) submitted a written report (Exhibit -P/6) before SHO, Police Station Bhiwadi, 24.3.2005. The report when translated in English, reads as under: - - "To SHO, Police Station Bhiwadi,Rajasthan. Subject: For the purpose of lodging a report. Sir, It is submitted that my daughter (the name of daughter is not being revealed, in order to protect her identity), aged about five years, on 17.3.2005, around 5 o'clock, my daughter suddenly disappeared from my house. In relation to this, my wife, Smt. Meena had lodged a report for the missing child on 18.3.2005 with the Police Station Bhiwadi. Subsequently, we have been searching for the child both here and in village Aurangabad. We have some information that two boys from our village, Arif and Jafroo, who used to stay here and who owe some money to us, have taken away my daughter. I suspect that it is these persons, who have enticed my daughter away. Kalua S/o. Liyakat Meo, is also involved in kidnapping of my daughter. Sd/ - Akhtar Ali S/o. Chhida Khan Caste Fakeer, aged 37 years, r/o Khanoda, District Bulandshahar, Police Station Aurangabad, presently resident of Ganshyam Gurjar, Harchandpur, Bhiwadi, Police Station Bhiwadi, District Alwar (Raj.)" On the basis of this report (Exhibit -P/6), the police chalked out a formal FIR (Exhibit -P/7), namely FIR No. 85/2005, for the offences under Sections 363 IPC. The police started the investigation. During the course of investigation, the Police apprehended the three accused -appellants. Upon an information given by Arif (Exhibit -P/24) under Section 27 of the Evidence Act, a human skeleton was recovered by Recovery Memo (Exhibit -P/11). With the recovery of the skeleton, the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC was added. After completion of the investigation, the Police filed a charge -sheet against Kalua for the offences under Sections 363, 368, 302, 201 and 376 IPC; against Arif, it filed a charge -sheet for only offences under Sections 363, 368, 302, 201 and 120 -B IPC. But against Jafroo, it filed a charge -sheet for the offences under Sections 363, 368 and 120 -B IPC. Subsequently, the case was transferred to the court of Sessions Judge No. 2, Kishangarh Bas, Camp Tijara, District Alwar. By order dated 18.8.2005, the learned Judge framed the charges against Kalua for the offence under Sections 364, 368, 376, 302 and 201 IPC; against Arif and Jafroo, the learned Judge framed the charges for the offence under Sections 364, 368, 302 and 201 IPC.
(3.) IN order to prove its case, the prosecution examined fourteen witnesses, and submitted twenty -eight documents. The defence did not examine any witness on its behalf. But did submit a single document. After completion of the trial, the learned Judge convicted and sentenced the appellants as aforementioned. Hence this appeal before this Court.;