Research › Search › Judgment

Uttarakhand High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 85 (UTT)

IRFAN v. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND

2015-02-26

ALOK SINGH, SERVESH KUMAR GUPTA

body2015
JUDGMENT Hon’ble Alok Singh, J. (Oral) Present appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 01.10.2010, passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge/1st F.T.C., Haridwar, in Session Trial No. 310 of 2000, whereby appellant Irfan was held guilty for the offence punishable under Section 364-A I.P.C. and was sentenced to undergo life imprisonment. 2.State has also preferred connected appeal being Government Appeal No. 8 of 2011 against the same very judgment and order, whereby other two co-accused Arjun Bijalwan and Nawraj were acquitted. 3.Brief facts of the present case, inter alia, are that on 13.01.2000 at about 11.00 A.M., PW1 Devendra Kumar Sharma, the then S.H.O. Doiwala, District Dehradun has received secret information that one person was kidnapped and being kept hostage in sugarcane field of PW5 Om Prakash by some miscreants; having received secret information, he alongwith PW3 A.S.I. Shri Raj Kumar Tyagi and other police personnel rushed towards the spot, and took PW5 Om Prakash Kambhoj and PW6 Subhash Chandra alongwith the police party as independent witnesses. Police party surrounded the sugarcane field of PW5 Om Prakash Kambhoj and gave lalkara to the miscreants whereupon miscreants fired at the police party, however, police party was able to enter into the sugarcane field and found PW4 Rajeev Lochan Sharma laying tied with rope in the grip of appellant Irfan while two other miscreants were successful in absconding from the spot; police party took PW4 Rajeev Lochan Sharma as well as Irfan / appellant to the police station where PW4 Rajeev Lochan Sharma got registered his F.I.R. which was registered as Case Crime No. Nil under Section 364-A I.P.C. and was later on transferred to Police Station Kankhal, District Haridwar where same was registered as Case Crime No. 4 of 2000. 4.It is stated in the F.I.R. by PW4 Rajeev Lochan Sharma that accused Arjun was tenant in one of the room in his House 20 New Vishnu Garden, Police Station Kankhal, Haridwar at the rate of Rs. 4.It is stated in the F.I.R. by PW4 Rajeev Lochan Sharma that accused Arjun was tenant in one of the room in his House 20 New Vishnu Garden, Police Station Kankhal, Haridwar at the rate of Rs. 1000/- per month.; in the evening of 12.01.2000, he took dinner alongwith accused Arjun and thereafter both of them went to their respective room to sleep; On 13.1.2000 at about 4:00 A.M., accused Arjun, Nawraj and Irfan came to his room and told him to come with them to go to Dehradun; on this, PW4 Rajeev Lochan Sharma told accused that he could go in the morning; on this, all the three accused overpowered him and his mouth was tied with cloth and he was pushed in the Maruti Van No. UP10B 4334 belonging to accused Arjun and his hands and legs were also tied with the rope and he was taken to village Bullawala sugarcane field; accused Arjun and Navraj left the sugarcane field to bring the food leaving PW4 Rajeev Lochan Sharma in the custody of accused Irfan; after almost four hours, both of them came back on foot, meanwhile, police party surrounded the sugarcane field; on this, all the three accused started firing upon the police party, however, police party was successful in entering into the sugarcane field wherefrom he was recovered from the custody of appellant Irfan, however, other accused Arjun and Navraj were successful in absconding from the spot. 5.Having investigated the matter, police submitted chargesheet against all the three accused for the offence punishable under Section 364-A I.P.C. 6.Learned Trial Court, vide impugned judgment and order, was pleased to acquit the co-accused Arjun Bijalwan and Nawraj for the offence punishable under Section 364-A I.P.C. However, accused/appellant Irfan was held guilty for the offence punishable under Section 364-A I.P.C. and was sentenced to undergo life imprisonment. 7.Feeling aggrieved by the said judgment and order, appellant as well as State preferred present appeals. 8.We have heard Mr. R.K.S. Verma, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. A.S. Gill, learned Deputy Advocate General assisted by Mr. Milind Raj, learned Brief Holder for the State and have carefully perused the record. 7.Feeling aggrieved by the said judgment and order, appellant as well as State preferred present appeals. 8.We have heard Mr. R.K.S. Verma, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. A.S. Gill, learned Deputy Advocate General assisted by Mr. Milind Raj, learned Brief Holder for the State and have carefully perused the record. 9.From the side of the prosecution, statement of PW1 Devendra Kumar Sharma, SHO Doiwala, PW2 Manoj Kumar, PW3 ASI Raj Kumar Tyagi, PW4 Rajeev Lochan Sharma, PW5 Om Prakash Khambhoj/victim, PW6 Subhash Chandra, PW7 S.I. Gita Ram Sharma, PW8 Constable Chandra Bhan Singh, PW9 Diwan Singh, PW10 S.I. Manju Singh and PW11 S.O. Naresh Chandra were recorded and thereafter statement of the accused appellants were also recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. 10.As per the statement of PW1 Devendra Kumar Sharma SHO Doiwala, he has received secret information while he was in Police Station to the effect that someone was kidnapped and was being kept in the sugarcane field of PW5 Om Prakash Kambhoj whereupon he alongwith PW3 A.S.I. Raj Kumar Tyagi and other police personnel rushed towards the spot and PW5 Om Prakash Kambhoj, owner of the sugarcane field and PW6 Subhash Chandra had joined police party as independent witness. When police party surrounded the sugarcane field, miscreants started firing at the police party, however, police party was able to save them from the gun shot and later on were successful in entering into the sugarcane field wherefrom PW4 Rajeev Lochan Sharma was recovered from the custody of accused Irfan. 11.On the other hand, PW5 Om Prakash Kambhoj stated that PW4 Rajeev Lochan Sharma was crying from the sugarcane field ‘bacho-bacho’. On this, people gathered on the spot and all of them entered into the sugarcane field and found PW4 Rajeev Lochan Sharma in the custody of appellant Irfan and thereafter police was informed and police came to the spot and both of them were handed over to the police party. 12.There is a major contradiction in the version of PW1 Devendra Kumar Sharma as well as PW5 Om Prakash Kambhoj. PW6 Subhash Chandra and PW7 S.I. Gita Ram also did not support the prosecution story. Therefore, entire prosecution story becomes doubtful. 13.Not only this, PW4 Rajeev Lochan Sharma states that whatever PW1 Devendra Kumar Sharma has asked him to write in the F.I.R., he has given that version. PW6 Subhash Chandra and PW7 S.I. Gita Ram also did not support the prosecution story. Therefore, entire prosecution story becomes doubtful. 13.Not only this, PW4 Rajeev Lochan Sharma states that whatever PW1 Devendra Kumar Sharma has asked him to write in the F.I.R., he has given that version. 14.In view of the above, we are of the considered opinion that prosecution has failed to prove the prosecution story beyond doubt. 15.Consequently, Criminal Appeal No. 249 of 2010 is hereby allowed. Impugned judgment and order convicting and sentencing the appellant is hereby set aside. 16.Appellant stands acquitted from the charge leveled against him. 17.Appellant is on bail. He need not to surrender. His personal bonds are cancelled and sureties stand discharged. 18.Consequently, Government Appeal No. 8 of 2011 filed by the State Government against the acquittal of other accused Arjun Bijalwan and Nawraj stands dismissed. 19.Let copy of the judgment alongwith L.C.R. be sent back to the lower court for information and compliance.