Thahar @ Rambahadur vs State of M.P.

This appeal has been filed by the appellant-accused against the judgment dated 06.03.2007 passed by the Sessions Judge, Panna in Sessions

Trial No.123/2005 whereby the trial Court held the appellant guilty for commission of offence punishable under Section 364-A of the Indian Penal

Code and sentenced to life imprisonment with fine of Rs.200/-.

Prosecution case in brief is that on 12.02.2005 appellantaccused along with co-accused Ramsakha armed with rifles and mask on their face

came to Lakhkhu''s (Shivshankar) house, patwari ka purwa, village Ichauliya. They took Lakhkhu with them to show the way. At that time one

Kakku @ Ashok (PW-5) and Ramdeen (PW-14) came there. Hence, the accused persons also took these two persons along with them. On the

next date Kakku @ Ashok (PW-5) and Ramdeen (PW-14) came back but Lakhkhu did not return. The accused persons had assaulted Kakku

@ Ashok (PW-5) and Ramdeen (PW-14). They were given a letter by the accused persons which they handed over to Rani w/o Lakhkhu in

which the accused persons had demanded Rs.10,00,000/- as ransom for Lakhkhu. After 3-4 days, complainant party arranged Rs.50,000/- and

went to the kidnapers. Even after getting the said amount, Lakhkhu was not released by them and they demanded additional amount of

Rs.20,000/-. When Deshraj (PW-7) and Ramnath (PW- 13) went to give Rs.20,000/- to the kidnappers, they saw accused Thahar @

Rambahadur, therefore, they caught him and handed over to the police. Police seized a country made firearm and registered crime No.12/2005

against him in Police Station Dharampur, District Panna. After due investigation, charge-sheet was filed under Sections 364-A and 365 of I.P.C.

against the appellant and co-accused Ramsakha.

After committal of the case, charges under Sections 364-A and 365 of the Indian Penal Code has been framed by the learned Trial Court

against the appellant and the coaccused, the appellant and the co-accused abjured guilt and pleaded innocence and stated that they are falsely

implicated in the case.

After having considered the entire evidence on record, learned Trial Court found the appellant guilty for committing offence under Section 364-

A of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced as mentioned in paragraph 1 and acquitted coaccused Ramsakha of the charge.

The appellant challenged the findings of the learned trial Court on the grounds that they are bad in law and facts. The trial Court believed the

improbable prosecution story and erred in holding that the appellant is liable for committing the offence by appreciating the evidence of the

prosecution witnesses. Hence, the conviction and sentenced are liable to be set aside and appellant is liable to be acquitted of the charge levelled

against him.

Heard learned counsel for the parties at length and perused the record.

Learned Government Advocate for the respondent-State has contended that the appellant was rightly convicted and sentenced by the trial

Court as per the evidence on record.

The conviction of the appellant is mainly based on the testimony of Deshraj (PW-7) and Ramnath (PW-13). They caught the appellant with the

country made fire arm but we find no evidence against the appellant that he was involved with the persons who kidnapped Lakhkhu.

It is not in dispute that Lakhkhu was kidnapped by five unknown persons. Rani (PW-1) wife of Lakhkhu deposed that the said persons also

took four persons, i.e. Shankardeen, Kallu, Ramdeen and Ashok along with her husband. She has not identified the appellant and accused who

kidnapped her husband. Sukhlal (PW-2), Chunwad (PW-4), Kakku (PW-5), Kallu (PW-6), Ramdeen (PW-14), Luiya (PW-12) and

Shankardeen (PW-15) clearly stated that they did not see the appellant nor stated against him that he was involved with the persons who

kidnapped Lakhkhu from his house. They did not identify the appellant as culprit. Even then, they were not declared hostile by the prosecution.

Therefore, their version is treated as prosecution version.

Deshraj (PW-7) is the father-in-law of Lakhkhu and Ramnath (PW-13) who deposed that while searching Lakhkhu they met the appellant at a

hill. Both the witnesses stated that Luiya and Bahadur told them that appellant demanded Rs.20,000/- as ransom amount to release Lakhkhu.

Bahadur has not been examined by the prosecution. Luiya did not support the prosecution story. Deshraj (PW-7) and Ramnath (PW-13) also

deposed that when they met the appellant he claimed Rs.20,000/- to release Lakhkhu. As per aforesaid witnesses, appellant gave a letter for

ransom to Deshraj and fled away towards the forest they followed and caught him.

Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that there is a material omission in the police statement under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. and court

statement of both the witnesses. They have not disclosed the aforesaid fact to police during investigation.

In this regard, Dileep Pandey (PW-17), Sub Inspector denied that the appellant was caught by Deshraj (PW-7) and handed over to the

police. Similarly, he admitted that Deshraj (PW-7) had not stated about the letter which was given by the appellant to him which creates

reasonable doubt in favour of the appellant because Dileep Pandey (PW-17) deposed in court examination that letter Ex.P/1 was given by Rani

(PW-1) to him. Rani (PW-1) said that she received the letter from Ashok. This witness further stated that Deshraj (PW-7) never narrated the

name of the appellant in his police statement Ex.D/1. He never conducted identification parade of the appellant.

Except the statement of Deshraj (PW-7) and Ramnath (PW- 13) there is no evidence on record against the appellant. There is material

omission in the statement of both the aforesaid witness. Investigating Officer does not support their testimony. Both witnesses are related witness in

such circumstances, their testimony cannot relied upon to convict the appellant in such grievous offence. FIR (Ex.P/5) is not named against the

appellant. Surendra (PW-11), Head Constable stated that with Inspector, Khurshid Khan he went to the forest. They found that the appellant was

caught hold by villagers and Khurshid Khan recovered a country made fire arm (katta) from him. Only offence under Section 25/27 of the Arms

Act has been registered against the appellant. Khurshid Khan has not been examined by the prosecution nor other panch witnesses have been

produced. Thus, above facts are not proved against the appellant. There is no cogent and reliable evidence on record to connect the appellant with

the unknown kidnappers or the offence.

We are of the conclusion that learned trial Court wrongly convicted the appellant on the basis of weak type of evidence. There is a reasonable

ground in favour of the appellant. He is entitled to be acquitted.

Accordingly, the appeal is allowed. The impugned judgment of conviction and sentence is hereby set aside and the appellant is acquitted of the

charges.

Copy of this judgment be sent to the Court below for information and compliance alongwith its record.