Mangal Singh vs State Of U.P.
2024 Latest Caselaw 17434 ALL

Allahabad High Court

Mangal Singh vs State Of U.P. on 16 May, 2024

Author: Salil Kumar Rai

Bench: Salil Kumar Rai

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 


Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:88285-DB
 
Reserved on :-18.04.2024
 
Delivered on :- 16.05.2024
 

 
Court No. - 37
 

 
Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 626 of 2013
 

 
Appellant :- Mangal Singh
 
Respondent :- State of U.P.
 
Counsel for Appellant :- B.N. Singh,Ashok Kumar Tripathi,Manish Singh,Santosh Singh,Shamshad Ahmad,Sunita Chauhan
 
Counsel for Respondent :- Govt. Advocate
 
along with
 
Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 871 of 2013
 

 
Appellant :- Ram Saran
 
Respondent :- State of U.P.
 
Counsel for Appellant :- Lakashman Singh,Shamshad Ahmad,Sushil Kumar
 
Counsel for Respondent :- Govt. Advocate
 
Hon'ble Salil Kumar Rai,J.
 

Hon'ble Sameer Jain,J.

(Delivered by Hon'ble Sameer Jain,J.)

1. As both the appeals arise out of common judgment and order dated 17.01.2013 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Jalaun at Orai passed in S.T. No. 68 of 1999, therefore, they have been heard together and are being decided by a common judgment.

2. The present appeals have been filed by appellants Mangal Singh (appellant of Criminal Appeal No. 626 of 2013) and Ram Saran (appellant of Criminal Appeal No. 871 of 2013) against the judgement and order dated 17.01.2013 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Jalaun at Orai in S.T. No. 68 of 1999 by which learned trial court convicted the appellants for the offence under Section 364A IPC and awarded them life imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 1000/- each and in default one month additional rigorous imprisonment.

3. We have heard Sri Ashok Kumar Tripathi, learned counsel for the appellants and Ms. Manju Thakur, learned A.G.A.-I for the State and perused the record of the case.

Introductory facts

4. The prosecution story in nutshell is that on 30.05.1999, son of the informant Sanjeev Kumar @ Raja Bhaiya aged about 8 years was missing since 10:00 a.m. while he was playing in village but when after search, he could not be traced then on 31.05.1999, a missing report (Ex. Ka.1) was lodged by Govind Narayan (P.W. 2), the father of the boy. In the missing report, Govind Narayan (P.W. 2) also averred that appellant Mangal Singh informed him that he has taken his son upto the bridge.

5. The missing report lodged by Govind Narayan (P.W. 2) has been registered on 31.05.1999 at G.D. No. 15 at 17:00 hours and thereafter as per prosecution, on 01.06.1999 Govind Narayan (P.W. 2), the father of the boy, received a letter (material Ex. 1) and in the letter, it has been written that your son Sanjeev Kumar is in our possession and if you want to save his life, bring Rs. 1.5 lacs in the forest of village Paran near the temple. It is further written in the letter that if you inform the police then after committing the murder of your son his body will be thrown in river Jamuna. At the end of the letter dated 31.05.1999 the name of Chhote Pandit 'Dassu Samrat' was mentioned and date of the letter was mentioned as 31.05.1999.

6. After receiving the letter Govind Narayan (P.W. 2) handed over the same to the police of P.S. Sirsa Kalar and on the basis of missing report dated 31.05.1999 (Ex. Ka.1) on 01.06.1999 at G.D. No. 14 at 12:35 hours a case was registered against unknown persons under Section 364-A IPC and thereafter police started searching the abductee and during combing, police party found that five miscreants were sitting under the tree and when police party exhorted then they opened fire upon the police party and in the police encounter three miscreants were arrested but appellant Mangal Singh (appellant of Criminal Appeal No. 626 of 2013) managed to escape from the spot.

7. As per prosecution, from the spot Akhil Kumar Shukla @ Chhote Pandit along with Ram Babu and Brijesh Prajapati was arrested and from the possession of Akhil Kumar @ Chhote Pandit one rifle, 315 bore and from the possession of Ram Babu one country made pistol, 315 bore and from the possession of Brijesh Prajapati one axe was recovered. As per the prosecution, the arrested accused informed the police that abductee Sanjeev Kumar @ Raja Bhaiya (P.W. 1) is in the custody of Ram Saran (appellant of Criminal Appeal No. 871 of 2013) and Ajay Kumar Mishra in village Iguri P.S. Kuthaud and after receiving information from the accused persons, police party proceeded towards village Iguri along with informant Govind Narayan (P.W. 2) and Sri Jagdish Prasad (P.W.4) and found that appellant Ram Saran (appellant of Criminal Appeal No. 871 of 2013) was holding the abductee inside the house of co-accused Ajay Kumar Mishra and from the possession of Ram Saran (appellant of Criminal Appeal No. 871 of 2013), abductee Sanjeev Kumar @ Raja Bhaiya (P.W.1) was recovered and appellant Ram Saran was arrested at 17:30 hours on 01.06.1999 and after recovery of abductee, recovery memo was prepared and it has been marked as Ex. Ka.2.

8. After recovery of abductee, his medical examination was conducted on 01.06.1999 at 06:30 p.m. at Primary Health Centre, Kuthaud, Jalaun at Orai and according to medical report of Sanjeev Kumar (P.W.1) no any external injury was seen on his body. After recovery of abductee, Investigating Officer conducted the investigation and filed charge sheet (Ex.Ka.5) on 08.07.1999 against Akhil Kumar Mishra @ Chote Pandit, Ram Babu, Ram Saran (appellant of Criminal Appeal No. 871 of 2013), Brijesh Kumar and Mangal Singh (appellant of Criminal Appeal No. 626 of 2013). After submission of charge sheet cognizance was taken and case was committed to the Court of Session. The trial court framed charges against the appellants and other accused persons on 11.11.1999 under Section 364-A IPC. Appellants did not plead guilty and claimed trial. It appears, during trial co-accused Akhil Kumar Shukla @ Chhote Pandit the alleged "Dasyu Samrat" absconded and thereafter could not be arrested, therefore, his case was separated from other accused including appellants.

9. During trial prosecution examined eight witnesses. Abductee Sanjeev Kumar was examined as P.W. 1. His father Govind Narayan, the informant, was examined as P.W. 2. Ram Charan, Jagdish Prasad, Jag Jeevan Ram, Hari Lal, Manoj Kumar and Dr. J.P. Sharma were examined as P.W. 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 and 8 respectively.

10. After the prosecution evidence, trial court examined appellants and other accused persons under Section 313 Cr.P.C. and thereafter Ram Sewak, Mool Charan, Gulzari, Ram Dhani and Mata Prasad were examined as defence witnesses as D.W. 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 respectively. Thereafter trial court convicted the appellants for the offence under Section 364-A IPC and acquitted two accused Ram Babu and Brijesh Kumar on the basis of evidence produced by the prosecution.

Submissions advanced on behalf of appellants

11. Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that prosecution failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt and there are material contradictions in the statements of the prosecution witnesses. He further submitted that however, as per abductee, Sanjeev Kumar (P.W.1), appellant Mangal Singh  (appellant of Criminal Appeal No. 626 of 2013) abducted him and confined him in the forest and from the possession of appellant Ram Saran (appellant of Criminal Appeal No. 871 of 2013), as per prosecution, the abductee was recovered but from the entire evidence adduced by the prosecution, it could not be reflected that Sanjeev Kumar (P.W.1) after kidnapping or abducting was threatened to cause death or hurt and, therefore, appellants cannot be convicted for the offence under Section 364-A IPC.

12. He further submitted that as per prosecution, Sanjeev Kumar (P.W.1) was kidnapped on 30.05.1999 and was recovered on 01.06.1999 but according to abductee (P.W.1), after his kidnapping, he was kept in village Iguri for three days and after three days, police recovered him and therefore, statements of abductee (P.W.1) is contrary to the prosecution case. He further submitted that as per the recovery memo (Ex.Ka.2), the abductee was recovered on 01.06.1999 at 17:30 hours but victim (P.W.1) in his statement stated that police arrived at spot at 04:00 a.m. in the morning and, therefore, statement of the victim completely belies the prosecution case.

13. Learned counsel for the appellants further argued that  Govind Narayan (P.W.2), the informant and father of abductee in his statement stated that he received a letter for ransom, which he handed over to the police and, however, the alleged letter has been proved by the Investigating Officer during his examination but surprisingly the alleged letter of ransom has not been produced before Govind Narayan (P.W.2) to prove its contents.

14. He further submitted that even as per the statement of Govind Narayan (P.W.2) the informant of the case, the firing was made after mid night and, therefore, the statements of P.W. 2 also demolishes the prosecution case that police arrested the accused persons on 01.06.1999 in the afternoon. He further submitted that the independent witness Jagdish Prasad (P.W.4) has been declared hostile as he did not propose to depose falsely against the appellants.

15. He further submitted that from the ransom letter dated 31.05.1999, it reflects that it was written by Chhote Pandit "Dasu Samrat" and prosecution failed to prove any connection of the appellants with Chhote Pandit. He further submitted that there is no evidence on record, which can show that appellants were the members of the gang of Chhote Pandit. He further submitted that the prosecution case is completely mum in this regard.

16. He further submitted that learned trial court measurably failed to appreciate the evidence on record in its right perspective and accepted the prosecution case as gospel truth and committed grave irregularity and, therefore, conviction order passed against appellants is bad and appellants should be acquitted in this matter.

Submission advanced on behalf of State

17. Per contra, learned AGA opposed the submission made by learned counsel appearing on behalf of appellants and submitted that prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt and from perusal of the statement of the abductee (P.W.1) and his father (P.W.2), it is crystal clear that P.W.1 was abducted by appellants and other accused and after abduction, they also demanded ransom of Rs. 1.5 lacs and in this regard, they have written a letter to the informant (P.W.2), which is duly proved as material Ex.1 and thereafter next day abductee was recovered from the forest from the possession of appellant Ram Saran on the information furnished by other accused persons, who were earlier arrested by the police party.

18. She further submitted that it is a case under Section 364-A IPC, which is a very serious offence and if police would not have been arrived in time then the boy would not have been saved. She further submitted that in such type of serious matter, no leniency should be shown. She further submitted that both the appellants are active member of the gang of Chhote Pandit and, therefore, if in the ransom letter there was name of Chhote Pandit then it cannot be said that appellants were having no concern with the ransom letter as being active member of the gang of Chhote Pandit, appellants were equally responsible.

19. She further submitted that if there are some discrepancies in the statements of prosecution witnesses then merely on this basis entire prosecution case cannot be disbelieved and minor discrepancies are natural. She further submitted that learned trial court after analyzing entire prosecution case, rightly convicted the appellants and, therefore, the instant appeal filed by the appellants are devoid of merit and should be dismissed.

20. Having noticed the rival contentions and having perused the record of the case, before analyzing the prosecution evidence, it is necessary to briefly discuss the prosecution evidence adduced during trial.

Prosecution Witnesses

21. Abductee Sanjeev Kumar aged about 8 years has been examined as P.W. 1 and he stated in his examination-in-chief that last year he was abducted by the appellant Mangal Singh (appellant of Criminal Appeal No. 626 of 2013) and he was kept in forest. He further stated that three persons have taken him near the pipe in the afternoon and appellant Mangal Singh has taken him upto the pipe and he was kept in ruined building by the appellants, co-accused Chhote Pandit and Ram Babu, where they stayed for three days and thereafter police recovered him. P.W.1 further states, he stayed with appellant Ram Saran. He further stated that while accused persons were taking him from Iguri to Kuthaud, he did not raise any alarm. He further stated that one person provided him food while he was in confinement and police arrived at 4:00 a.m. in the morning after third day of abduction.

22. Informant Govind Narayan, the father of the abductee, has been examined as P.W.2 and he stated that his son was abducted on 01.05.1999 and when after search he could not find his son then he lodged a missing report. He proved the missing report as Ex.Ka.1. He further stated that he received a letter next day of the incident, which was handed over to the police and in the letter Rs. 1.5 lacs were demanded as ransom and this letter was in the name of Chhote Pandit "Dassu Samrat" and in the letter it is stated that after taking rupees, he should to come the forest of village Paran near temple and after money he will get his son. He further stated that after 2-3 days of receiving letter, an encounter of police and dacoits took place and in the encounter, Chhote Pandit, Ram Babu and one another accused were apprehended and on their information, from a ruined house, which belonged to Ajay Mishra, his son was recovered from the possession of appellant Ram Saran.

23. P.W.2 further stated that he also accompanied the police party and was present during recovery and he put his signature on the recovery memo (Ex.Ka.4). P.W.2 in his cross-examination stated that when his son was recovered then he was not present at spot. He further stated that the firing was made after mid night in the forest. He further stated in his cross-examination that except him no other person was called by the police at the time of recovery. He categorically stated that as incident of recovery was of night, therefore, he cannot provide details of the cloths, which were wore by the accused persons.

24. Constable Ram Chandra has been examined as P.W.3 and he stated that on 01.06.1999, he was posted at P.S. Sirsa Kalar and he along with other police personnels also went to recover the abductee after receiving information that the gang of Chhote Pandit after abducting Sanjeev Kumar @ Raja Bhaiya (P.W.1) is present in the village of Paran and thereafter in police encounter three accused persons were arrested at 3-4 p.m. and two managed to escape and arrested accused persons were Akhil Kumar @ Chhote Pandit, Ram Babu and Brijesh Kumar. He further stated that appellants managed to escape from the spot and arrested accused persons informed that abductee Sanjeev Kumar (P.W.1) has been taken to village Iguri P.S. Kuthaud and after receiving information from the arrested accused persons they have arrived at village Iguri and after search, from the house of Ajay Kumar Mishra abductee Sanjeev Kumar (P.W.1) was recovered from the possession of appellant Ram Saran (appellant of Criminal Appeal No. 626 of 2013) at 05:30 p.m. in the evening. In his cross-examination he further stated that however the empty cartridges from the firing made by the police party were recovered but no recovery was made of the empty cartridges from the firing made by the accused persons.

25. Jagdish Prasad has been examined as P.W.4 and he was an independent witness but he stated that about 5-6 years before son of the informant was abducted and he did not know, who abducted the Sanjeev Kumar (P.W.1) and he identified the appellants and other accused persons in the Court and stated that they have not kidnapped the son of Govind Narayan (P.W.2) and after that he was declared hostile.

26. Retired S.I. Jagjeevan Ram has been examined as P.W.5 and he stated that he was the Investigating Officer of the present case and during investigation, informant Govind Narayan (P.W.2) handed over him a letter written by Chhote Pandit. He proved the alleged letter as material Ex.1 and this witness also proved that an axe alleged to have been recovered from the possession of co-accused Brijesh Prajapati as material Ex.2. P.W.5 further proved recovery of rifle and cartridges, which were recovered from the possession of Chhote Pandit as material Ex.3. He also proved one country made pistol and its cartridges alleged to have been recovered from the possession of co-accused Ram Babu as material Ex.4. This witness also proved four empty cartridges alleged to have been recovered from the spot after firing made by the appellants as material Ex.5.

27. In his cross examination P.W.5 stated that during investigation the ransom letter (Ex.1) was handed over to him by the informant Govind Narayan (P.W.2) and he cannot say that who wrote this letter. He further stated that he also cannot say that, who has given this letter to the mother of the informant. P.W. 5 reiterated the story of encounter of police party with the accused persons and recovery of abductee as narrated by P.W.3 constable Ram Chandra. He also categorically stated that three accused persons Chhote Pandit, Brijesh Prajapati and appellant Ram Saran were arrested at 3:00 p.m. and on their information, abductee was recovered from the house of Ajay Mishra along with co-accused Ram Babu. He further stated that the encounter took place at 15:05 hours and proved the recovery as Ex.Ka.5 and proved the recovery memo of the recovery of abductee as Ex.Ka.2. He further stated that the abductee was recovered at 17:30 hours. In his cross-examination P.W.5 further stated that the encounter with the accused persons and police party has taken place in afternoon at 03:00 p.m. P.W. 5 in his cross examination also stated that he did not verify the letter of ransom from any expert.

28. S.I. Hira lal Kashyap has been examined as P.W. 6 and he stated that on 15.06.1999 he was posted as S.O. at P.S. Sirsa Kalar and before him Sri Jagjeevan Ram S.O. was conducting the investigation but after his transfer he received the investigation and during investigation, he recorded the statements of witnesses and on the basis of evidence collected during investigation he submitted charge sheet on 08.07.1999. He proved the charge sheet as Ex.Ka.5. P.W.6 also proved site plan of the case as Ex. ka.6. In his cross-examination this witness stated that he did nor record the statement of any witness as earlier Investigating Officer has already completed the investigation including spot inspection and he only filed charge sheet.

29. Constable Manoj Kumar Singh has been examined as P.W. 7 and he proved the G.D. No. 15 dated 31.05.1999 at 17:00 hours and stated that the G.D. of the missing report has been prepared by him and he proved the G.D. as Ex.Ka.8. He also proved the G.D. No. 14 dated 01.06.1999 at 12:35 hours of case crime no. 78 of 1999 under Section 364-A IPC as Ex.Ka.9.

30. Dr. J.P. Sharma has been examined as P.W. 8 and he stated that on 01.06.1999 he was posted at P.H.C. Kuthaud and he examined Sanjeev Kumar (P.W.1) aged about 8 years at 06:30 p.m. and on the body of Sanjeev Kumar (P.W.1) no external injury was found. He proved the injury report of P.W.1 as Ex.Ka.10.

31. After recording the prosecution evidence trial court recorded the statements of the accused persons including appellants under section 313 Cr.P.C. Appellants and other accused persons denied the charges levelled against them and they stated that witnesses gave false statements.

32. Appellant-Ram Saran in his statement under section 313 Cr.P.C. stated that he is handicapped and police of P.S. Sirsa Kalar and Kuthaud apprehended him and his brother Ram Babu from the house and subsequently both were implicated in present false case.

33. Appellant Mangal Singh in his statement under section 313 Cr.P.C. stated that due to village partibandi and enmity he has been made accused in the present matter.

34. After recording the statements of the appellants and other accused persons trial court recorded the statement of D.W.1, D.W.2, D.W.3, D.W.4 and D.W.5, the defence witnesses. The brief discussion of defence evidence is also necessary before the conclusion.

Defence witnesses-

35. Ram Sewak has been examined as D.W.1 and he stated that appellant Ram Saran and co-accused Ram Babu were not the man of criminal nature and both have been falsely implicated by the police in the instant matter.

36. Mool Charan has been examined as D.W.2 and he stated that about 11 years before in the night police arrested appellant Ram Saran and accused Ram Babu from their house.

37. Gulzari has been examined as D.W.3 and he also stated that about 10-11 years before police apprehended the appellant Ram Saran and his brother Ram Babu from their house.

38. Ram Dhani has been examined as D.W.4 and he stated that police falsely implicated accused Akhil Kumar @ Chote Pandit.

39. Mata prasad was examined as D.W.5 and he stated that due to enmity, informant (P.W.2) implicated appellant Mangal Singh in this case.

Analysis-

40. In the present case on the basis of the prosecution evidence adduced during trial, trial court convicted the appellants for offence under section 364 A IPC, therefore, to analyse whether on the basis of prosecution evidence conviction of the appellants for offences under section 364 A IPC was permissible, it is necessary to go through section 364A IPC, which is quoted as under:-

"364A. Kidnapping for ransom, etc.-Whoever kidnaps or abducts any person or keeps a person in detention after such kidnapping or abduction1 and threatens to cause death or hurt to such person, or by his conduct gives rise to a reasonable apprehension that such person may be put to death or hurt, or causes hurt or death to such person in order to compel the Government or [any foreign State or international inter-governmental organization or any other person] to do or abstain from doing any act or to pay a ransom, shall be punishable with death, or imprisonment for life, and shall also be liable to fine."

41. Therefore, from perusal of Section 364 A IPC, it appears that following are the essential ingredients for offence under section 364A IPC-

(A) There should be a kidnapping or abduction of a person or the person is to be kept in detention after such kidnapping or abduction, and

(B) There should be a threat to cause death or hurt to such person or the accused by  their conduct gave rise to a reasonable apprehension that such person may be put to death or hurt or causes hurt or death to such person in order to compel any other person to do or abstain from doing any act or to pay a ransom.

42. From perusal of the section 364A IPC, it reflects that mere kidnapping or abduction and demand of ransom is not alone sufficient to convict an accused for offence under section 364 A IPC. It is also necessary for the prosecution to prove that after kidnapping or abduction the person in detention was under threat to cause death or hurt or conduct of the accused gives rise to reasonable apprehension that such person may be put to death or hurt.

43. The Apex Court in the case of Shaik Ahmed Vs. State of Telangana (2021) 9 Supreme Court Cases 59 examined the provision of 364 A IPC in detailed manner and observed that all the conditions enumerated in Section 364 A IPC must be fulfilled before recording conviction under section 364 A IPC and also observed that it is necessary before recording the conviction under section 364 A IPC to record the finding with regard to threatening to cause death or hurt or conduct of the accused gives rise to reasonable comprehension that victim may be put to death or hurt.

44. The Apex Court in the case of Ravi Dhingra Vs. State of Haryana and other reported in (2023) 6 Supreme Court Cases 76, after placing reliance on Shaik Ahmad (supra) and other judgements of the Hon'ble Supreme Court also observed that it is necessary for the prosecution to establish that victim was put to death or hurt and without establishing sufficient evidence in this regard, no conviction could be recorded for the offence under section 364A IPC.

45. Similarly Supreme Court in the cases of William Stephen Vs. The State of Tamil Nadu and Ors, Manu/SC/0143/2024 and Neeraj Sharma Vs. State of Chattisgarh (2024) 3 Supreme Court Cases 125 also observed that mere demand of ransom after kidnapping is not sufficient for recording the conviction under section 364A IPC, it is also necessary for the prosecution to prove other essential ingredients of the section including the fact that victim after kidnapping was under threat to life.

46. Therefore, it is necessary to analyse the fact that whether abductee Sanjeev Kumar (P.W.1) of the present case after abduction was under threat to cause death or hurt or the accused persons by their conduct gave rise to a reasonable apprehension that abductee was put to death or hurt.

47. From the statement of abductee i.e. victim (PW-1) it could not be reflected that after kidnapping he was ever put under threat to life. Even from other prosecution evidence also this fact could not be reflected.

48. Further, as per prosecution abductee (P.W.1) was recovered on 1.6.1999 and was immediately sent for medical examination on the same day but his medical report shows that he did not sustain any external injury and therefore, his injury report also did not indicate that after alleged kidnapping he was having any threat to even cause hurt.

49. Further, even from entire prosecution evidence it is also not reflected that conduct of accused including appellants gives rise to reasonable apprehension that abductee (P.W.1) might be put to death or hurt.

50. Therefore, from the above discussion it is apparent that prosecution failed to prove the essential ingredients of Section 364A IPC.

51. Further, for recording conviction under section 364 A IPC it is also necessary to prove the demand of ransom. In the present matter, however, PW-2, the informant i.e. father of the victim stated that he received a letter of ransom and he handed over the same to the police and however PW-5, Jagjeevan Ram, one of the Investigating Officer also proved the alleged ransom letter given to him by the informant (PW-2) as material exhibit-1 but surprisingly the alleged ransom letter has not been proved by PW-2 the informant who gave the alleged ransom letter to PW-5, the Investigating Officer. Neither the alleged letter was placed before him at the time of recording of his evidence. Record further suggests that even the letter of ransom has not been even read over to the informant (PW-2), therefore, we are of the view that prosecution failed to prove even the alleged demand of ransom and therefore, this essential ingredient of Section 364 A IPC also could not be established by the prosecution.

52. Further, after perusing the entire prosecution evidence we find that there are material contradictions in the statements of the prosecution witnesses. It is necessary to discuss some of them.

53. As per the statements of victim (PW-1) and his father (PW-2), the encounter of police with the miscreants i.e. appellants and others has taken place in the midnight and victim also stated that he was recovered by the police at 4:00 A.M. in the morning but from the recovery memo (exhibit Ka-2) it reflects that the abductee was recovered on 1.6.1999 at 17:30 hours and encounter took place in the afternoon. PW-3 Ram Charan the police constable who accompanied the police party and Jagjeevan Ram PW-5, the Investigating Officer in their statements also categorically stated that the police encounter took place in the afternoon on 1.6.1999 and recovery was made at 17:30 hours, therefore, with regard to the police encounter and the time of recovery of abductee, there are material contradictions and statements of abductee (P.W.1) and his father, the informant (P.W.2) completely demolishes the prosecution case in this regard, therefore, in our considered view, it is not safe to accept the prosecution case with regard to the police encounter and recovery of abductee after noticing such material contradictions in the statements of the prosecution witnesses.

54. Therefore, from the discussion we are of the consistent view that prosecution has been miserably failed to prove its cases beyond reasonable doubt.

55. Consequently, the instant appeals are allowed.

56. The judgement and order of conviction as well as sentence recorded by Additional Sessions Judge, Jalaun at Orai vide order dated 17.1.2013 in S.T. No. 68 of 1999 under section 364 A IPC against the appellants, is hereby set aside.

57. The appellants Mangal Singh and Ram Saran are hereby acquitted of all the charges for which they have been tried for.

58. Both the appellants are reported to be in custody. They are directed to be released forthwith, if, they are not wanted in any other criminal case.

59. The appellants will fulfil the requirement of section 437 A Cr.P.C. to the satisfaction of the trial court, at the earliest.

60. Let the copy of this order/judgement and the original record of the court concerned be transmitted to the trial court concerned forthwith for necessary information and compliance.

61. The office is further directed to enter the judgement in compliance register maintained for the purpose of the Court.

Order Date :- 16.05.2024

KK Patel/ Ankita