Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2010 DIGILAW 171 (MP)

Pankaj S/o Ashok Jain v. State of M. P.

2010-02-09

S.K.SETH, S.L.KOCHAR

body2010
JUDGMENT : S. K. SETH, J. Appellant is in appeal against his conviction and sentence under sections 363 and 364-A of the Indian Penal Code awarded by the trial Court. Section 363 of the Indian Penal Code prescribes punishment for kidnapping any person from India or from lawful guardianship. Section 361 defines kidnapping of minor or a person of unsound mind. Object of this section is to protect the children of tender age from being abducted or seduced for improper purpose as well for the protection of the rights of parents and guardians having lawful charge or custody of minor or insane persons. Section 364-A deals with situation when kidnapping or abducting is for ransom. This has been inserted in the Indian Penal Code by the Criminal Laws (Amdt.) Act, 1993. 2. Appellant was tenant of Nandkishore (PW-1). On 17-10-2001 at about 6.00 p.m. he took Lucky son of Nandkishore (PW-1) with the promise that he will buy him toffees. When Lucky did not return home same night, and search was unfruitful. Nandkishore (PW-1) lodged FIR Ex.P/1 next day which set the investigation rolling. Next day Nandkishore received a telephonic call from appellant purportedly made from Ratlam demanding ransom of Rs. 10,00,000/- (Rs. Ten Lacs) for the safety of the boy. Again next day another call from appellant was received by Nandkishore saying that if the ransom amount was arranged; he would give further direction for the drop of the ransom money. Both calls were traced to a STD Booth of K. K. Dwivedi (PW-9) in Jhansi. He informed the Police Party that absconding accused Arjun was his tenant and present appellant was living with him. From the wife of Arjun Police learnt that both had gone to village Pahadgaon so the Police went there in search of them. The call was traced to Jhansi to STD Booth of (PW-9). Police party along with K. K. Dwivedi (PW-9) and wife of co-accused Arjun went to Pahadgaon village in search of culprits where appellant was nabbed by the police in presence of K. K. Dwivedi (PW-9) and the kidnapped boy was rescued and recovered. Thus after completing the investigation, Police filed charge-sheet for prosecution of the appellant. Since the other co-accused Arjun is absconding. 3. Now the question before us in this appeal is that on prosecution evidence, trial Court rightly convicted and sentenced the appellant. 4. Thus after completing the investigation, Police filed charge-sheet for prosecution of the appellant. Since the other co-accused Arjun is absconding. 3. Now the question before us in this appeal is that on prosecution evidence, trial Court rightly convicted and sentenced the appellant. 4. To bring home the guilt, prosecution examined Nandkishore (PW-1), father of the kidnapped boy Lucky; Kaushlyabai (PW-2), mother of the kidnapped boy Lucky, Ramkumar (PW-3), Sunil (PW-4) and Bholaram (PW-11), all close relatives of Nandkishore (PW-1). Co-tenants of Nandkishore, Ramesh (PW-5), Radheshyam (PW-6), N. K. Gujar (PW-7), who recorded the FIR Ex.P/1 Bhanwarsingh Jadon (PW10), the Investigating Officer and K. K. Dwivedi (PW-9). 5. At trial, appellant denied the charges but led no positive evidence in his defence. 6. We have heard rival submissions at length and also perused the evidence available on record. We may point out at this stage that the witnesses examined have supported the prosecution story. 7. On the scrutiny of record following facts emerge beyond pale of doubt :- I. Innocent boy of three and half years was enticed away by the appellant on the pretext to buy him toffees; II. Appellant deceived the mother of the boy by two local calls that he would be returning with the boy shortly; III. Appellant admitted that he as well as the absconding accused were tenant of Nandkishore. (See 313 statement of the appellant); IV. Appellant further admitted that he came and vacated the room taken on rent in Dilip Lodge, Sarvate Bus Stand, Indore. (See his 313 statement); V. STD call demanding ransom was traced to Jhansi through Caller ID and the register maintained in the STD Booth of PW-9; VI. Nandkishore is familiar with the voice of appellant and absconding accused Arjun; VII. Appellant was arrested at village Pahadgaon; VIII. Kidnapped boy was recovered at his instance; IX. Arrest of the appellant and recovery of boy at Jhansi is duly proved by the prosecution witnesses. 8. Thus, on prosecution evidence we are satisfied that the learned trial Judge rightly convicted the appellant under section 363 and 364-A of the Indian Penal Code. 9. Now coming to sentence trial Court awarded 5 years' RI under section 363 and under section 364-A with life imprisonment with fine of Rs. 1,000/- each under both sections with default stipulation. Learned trial Court rightly observed that accused does not deserve any sympathy. 9. Now coming to sentence trial Court awarded 5 years' RI under section 363 and under section 364-A with life imprisonment with fine of Rs. 1,000/- each under both sections with default stipulation. Learned trial Court rightly observed that accused does not deserve any sympathy. An innocent boy aged about three and half years' has been used as pawn for claiming ransom and had the appellant was not nabbed in time, God forbid, anything could happen to the child. Such persons are a menace to society and deserve punishment with a heavy hand. Thus we also do not find any infirmity in the sentences awarded by the trial Court. 10. Thus, we find no merit and substance in appeal, accordingly it is hereby dismissed.