- (1.) This Cr. Appeal has been directed against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 12.2.2007 & 15.2.2007 respectively passed by the Addl. Sessions Judge, F.T.C. -I, Bokaro in connection with ST. No. 58/2004, corresponding to G.R. No. 1189/2002, arising out of Bokaro (Sadar) Chandankiyari (Bhojudih) P.S. Case No. 136/2002 whereby the appellant has been held guilty for the offence punishable under Sec. 364 -A read with Sec. 120 -B of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo R.I. for life and also to pay fine of Rs. 5,000/ -. The prosecution case, in brief, is that on 3.12.2002 at about 6:30 p.m. Rahul Kumar, aged 4 years, (son of the informant) had gone to play outside the house. In the meantime, electric supply was unfettered whereafter mother of Rahul Kumar came out of the house to search Rahul but he was not found. When the informant and his family members failed to find out Rahul Kumar, the matter was informed to Police Outpost. Lastly on 8.12.2002 a written report by Ashok Kumar Agrawal (father of Rahul) was lodged and on the basis of written report, Bhojudih P.S. Case No. 136/2002 dated 8.12.2002, under Sec. 364 -A of the Indian Penal Code against unknown accused was registered. In course of investigation, complicity of appellant was detected and then he was arrested and forwarded to jail custody. The Investigating Officer after due investigation submitted charge -sheet and accordingly cognizance was taken and the case was committed to the court of sessions and registered as ST. No. 58/2004. Charge under Ss. 364 -A/120 -B/34 of the Indian Penal Code against the appellant was framed to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. The prosecution in order to substantiate charge, examined altogether 10 witnesses including the I.O. The learned Addl. Sessions Judge considering the evidence and documents available on record held the appellant guilty for the offence punishable under Ss. 364 -A/120 -B of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced him as indicated above.
(2.) The appellant has assailed the impugned judgment on the ground that there was no eye -witness to the occurrence. Anuj Saw @ Amarjit Saw (P.W. 7) has been projected as an eyewitness after one and half months of the occurrence. The statement of P.W. 7 is neither reliable nor convincing. He says that he had seen the appellant picking up Rahul Kumar from the place of occurrence and also going in a 'Maruti' van. He has said that before boarding 'Maruti' van, the appellant had threatened him not to disclose the incident otherwise he would be killed. The conduct of P.W. 7 does not appear to be natural because he did not disclose about the occurrence to anyone. After 2 -3 days he had disclosed the incident to his mother but his mother did not inform anyone. Under what circumstances the Investigating Officer knew about this witness, has not been explained by the I.O. The informant has not been examined and, therefore, contention made in the written report has not been proved. Specific defence by the appellant has been taken that he has been implicated in this case with false allegation because he was in visiting term to the house of second wife of the informant. This fact has also been brought on record by the supervising authority in the supervision note but the I.O. had not conducted investigation in that line. Amar Rajgariya (P.W. 1) and Prakash Sharma (P.W. 6) are the persons of informant and they have deposed what was dictated to them. Their testimony is not reliable. The Investigating Officer has not done the investigation properly and did not take effort to find out the truth. I.O. has stated that he had gone to Puri in connection with investigation of present case and he had seen certain articles and he could learn that the appellant had purchased a boat which was given on lease to a boat sailor but he did not examine the person to whom the boat was given on lease. I.O. has stated that appellant had purchased T.V., Washing Machine etc. from ransom amount realized by him but no investigation has been done to find out as to from where and on which date those articles were purchased. The admitted fact is that the appellant was an employee of Indian Railway and he was receiving handsome salary and that was sufficient for him or his family members to live satisfactorily. There was no reason for the appellant to commit such offence. Learned Addl. Sessions Judge has wrongly held the appellant guilty by placing reliance on the statement of prosecution witnesses. The impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence are liable to be set aside.
(3.) Learned A.P.P. has opposed the argument and submitted that prosecution has brought clinching evidence on record to prove its case. P.W. 7 is an eyewitness, who had seen the appellant picking up the victim boy and going on a 'Maruti' van with his associates. When P.W. 7 raised objection, he was threatened. P.W. 7 has supported the aforesaid fact in his deposition in Court. Amar Rajgariya (P.W. 1) had seen the appellant taking away the ransom amount from the train. P.W. 1 has described the entire detail under which direction was given by the appellant and his associates to carry the ransom amount. As per the direction of kidnappers, P.W. 6 got down at Talgarhia Station and moved towards the direction but he did not get victim boy present over there. P.W.. 1 remained sitting in the train and he was watching the amount kept on the upper berth of Seat No. 89. At Chandrapura Railway Station when all the passengers got down, the appellant took the ransom amount kept in a bag and got down with his three associates. P.W. 1 had further seen the appellant and his associates boarding on a green coloured 'Maruti' van and thereafter they moved towards their destination. Therefore, prosecution witnesses have clearly stated that how the victim boy was picked up and how the ransom amount was realized by the appellant and his associates. The investigation was done by the Investigating Officer perfectly. Initially, considering safety of kidnapped boy, the family members did not disclose about the demand of ransom amount but the I.O. after taking them in confidence could able to take out a statement that the kidnappers had been making call for ransom. I.O. had gone to the extent of collecting materials against the appellant and had gone to Puri to the house of brother -in -law of the appellant. He could able to find out the boat sailor to whom the appellant had given the boat on lease and that boat was purchased for Rs. 60,000/ - just after the occurrence. Copy of lease agreement was also obtained from brother -in -law of the appellant. I.O. had taken statement of that boat sailor Kashi Rao. The learned Addl. Sessions Judge has rightly held the appellant guilty on the basis of evidence and documents available on record, particularly, evidence of P.W. 1, P.W. 6, P.W. 7 and P.W. 10. There is no merit in this appeal and the same is liable to be dismissed.;