SHREE CHANDRASHEKHAR,J. - (1.) In presence of three persons, Rahul Kumar Pandey was abducted from his house by four unidentified abductors. On the basis of the written information of father of the victim boy who was abducted in the night of 27.05.2011, Piparwar P.S Case No.19 of 2011 was lodged on 28.05.2011 for the offence under sections 364-A and 392 of the Indian Penal Code, against unknown. Rajan Ganjhu, Narayan Kumar Munda, Nand Kishore Turi and Rauki @ Shatrughan Sao were arrested on 22.06.2011 and they suffered disclosure statements. By an order dated 17.05.2012 a common charge under sections 364-A and 392 of the Indian Penal Code was framed against them. Rajan Ganjhu and Narayan Kumar Munda jumped the bail at the stage of their examination under section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and were not apprehended by the time judgment in S.T. No. 45 of 2012 was delivered against Nand Kishore Turi and Rauki @ Satrughan Sao. In S.T. No. 45 of 2012, the appellants are convicted and sentenced to RI for five years with fine of Rs.1000/- each under section 392 of the Indian Penal Code and RI for life with fine of Rs.25000/- each under section 364-A of the Indian Penal Code with a default stipulation that they shall undergo further imprisonment of SI for three years on each count.
(2.) The learned Additional Sessions Judge-I, Chatra has recorded a finding that there is no material on record to infer enmity between the parties and false implication of the accused. The prosecution witnesses had sufficient time to observe the accused and there was sufficient light to identify them in the night. The learned trial Judge has further held that TIP chart which was laid in evidence and marked as exhibit-11 reflects that the victim boy identified Rajan Ganjhu who was in fatigues and Nand Kishore Turi who put sword on his head; recovery of currency notes at the instance of the accused matched with the description of ransom paid by the informant, and; minor omission by the prosecution witnesses and normal abrasions in their testimony pointed out by the defence are not sufficient to challenge their truthfulness.
(3.) The learned trial Judge has held as under : English Translation: "22. On perusal of the entire evidences available on the record of the present case, I find that the written report in this case was given by the father of the victim Rahul Kumar Pandey. The informant (the father of the victim) had lodged a case against the four criminals. During trial, out of the prosecution witnesses, P.W. No.1 Usha Devi has identified the accused Rajan Ganjhu in the court as the accused who committed the crime. Besides this, P.W. No.3, who is an eye-witness of this incident, has also identified the accused Rajan Ganjhu, Nand Kishore Turi and Narayan Kumar Munda in para 2 of his evidence. In addition to this, the other eye-witnesses of this incident, the victim, P.W. No.10 claimed to have, in his evidence, identified the accused Rajan Ganjhu, Narayan Kumar Munda and Rauki @ Shatrughan Sao. On that day, he has identified the accused Nand Kishore Turi who was present in the court whereas all other accused persons were on representation. All these witnesses are eyewitnesses of the incident, in front of whom, the accused persons abducted the victim Rahul Kumar Pandey and later released him after receiving the ransom money. There is no reason to disbelieve the evidences of these witnesses. There is minor contradiction in their evidences. On this basis, their evidences cannot be disbelieved. The defence through their cross-examination has also not proved the fact of enmity and their false implication. In such circumstance, no reason of false implication of the accused persons is available on record and all the prosecution witnesses of this case have identified the persons who were involved in the crime. Their identity is established because the main witness and victim of this incident in his evidence have identified all the accused clearly and all the other witnesses in whose presence the incident of abduction took place had sufficient time to identify the accused and there was also sufficient light to identify them. There is no force in the contentions of the defence that it was night time and some persons had covered their face and so in such circumstance it was not possible to identify them. On this ground, the evidences of prosecution witnesses could not be disbelieved. Also, other witnesses produced on behalf of the Prosecution are policewitness who have arrested the accused persons. Even on the basis of their evidences, the involvement of the accused persons in the occurrence is proved and also the ransom amount received from the informant has been recovered from the possession of the accused persons which has also been produced before the court, which are marked as Material Exhibit I to I/VI and their number tallied with the seizure list. The accused persons, in their confessional statement, have admitted that they received ransom amount and the said amount was recovered from their house at their instances which are proved by the prosecution witnesses in their evidences. Along with this, P.W. No.9, Tarun Kumar, who was posted as Judicial Magistrate in Civil Court, Chatra at the time of occurrence had conducted Identification Parade. The victim had identified accused Rajan Ganjhu and Anil Kumar Turi and the informant Anil Kumar Pandey had also identified Rajan Ganjhu. The said Identification Parade Chart has been marked as Ext.-11. Also, on perusal of Ext.-11, the Identification Parade Chart, it appears that the witness Anil Kumar Pandey had identified Rajan Ganjhu who was wearing fatigues and the victim Rahul Pandey has identified Rajan Ganjhu who was carrying the gun and Nand Kishore Turi as the person who made him to ride on the bike on pointing of sword. The evidence of prosecution witnesses is confirmed with the confessional statements of the accused persons and the Rupees recovered from their house at their instances. In the instant case, the uniform seized from the possession of accused persons has not been produced before the court, but only that very basis, the involvement of the accused persons in the occurrence could not be denied and only on that ground the evidence of prosecution witnesses could not be held doubtful. In this case sufficient evidence is available on record with respect to abduction of the victim Rahul Pandey and loot etc. of his mobile by the accused Rauki @ Shatrughan Sao and Nand Kishore Turi. The abduction of the victim by the accused persons for ransom is proved from the evidences of the prosecution. Because sufficient evidence of this matter is available on record that the accused persons, after abduction of the victim, released him after receiving ransom, it is proved that the accused persons abducted the victim Rahul Pandey for ransom and looted his mobile etc." ;