HIGH COURT OF CHHATTSSGARH AT BtLASPUR Sinaie Bench : Hon'bje Shri Dilip Raosaheb Deshmukh, J. Criminal Appeal No.993/2007 Satyaprakash @ Saphedram Satnaml and another versus State of Chhattisgarh JUDGMENT Post for pronouncement of judgment <^-03-2009 Sd/- Dilip Raosaheb Deshmukh Judge •{r~ F' V ..< H3GHCQURTPFCHHATTISGARHATBSLASPUR Sinaie Bench : Hon'bie Shri DJIJD Raosaheb Deshmukh. J. Cnminai Appeal No.993 of 2007 Appellants (Jnjail) Satya Prakash @ Saphedram Satnami, S/o Nehar Sai (wrongly mention in order sheet Nohar Sai), aged about 30 years, R/o Viiiage Kapu, Tahsii Dharamjalgarh, Poiice Station: Kapu, District Raigarh (C.G.) Prasanna Kumar Verma S/o Shri Rathram Verma, aged about 20 years, R/o Viiiage Sonpur, Poiice Stetion Kapu, Tahsil Dharamjaigarh, District Raigarh (C.G.) State of Chhattisgarh, Through Poiice Station Sarangarh, Police Chowkj Kosir, District Raigarh (C.G.) Memorandum of Appeai under Section 374(2) of the Code of Crlmjnai PrQcedyre presenj:: Shri Sanjay Agrawai, counsei for the appeilant No.1. Shri Bharat Rajput, coynsel for the appdiant No.2. Shri Sameer Behar, Panel Lawyer for the Stats/respondent. versus Res.pondent f^-: JUDGMENT (Deiivered on Tfe^ day of March,2009) This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 30-10-2007 by the Additionai Sessions Judge, Sarangarh, District Ralgarh in Sesslons Case No.131/2005 whereby the appellants Satyaprakash and Prasanna Kumar Verma were convicted under Sectlons 450, 364 read with Section 34 of S.P.C. and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for five years and fine of Rs.3,000/- r hNI ^ each under Section 450 of the I.P.C. and rigorous imprisonment for five years and pay fine of Rs.3,000/" each under Section 364 read with Section 34 of i.P.C. In default of payment of fine, the appeliants have to undergo additional rigorous imprisonment for six months cn each count. Sentences have been ordered to run concurrently. Co-accused Diiip Kumar, Rajesh Kumar Kurre, Chandraglri and Ratan Lakda were acquitted by the iearned Addltiona! Sessions Judge from both the abovementioned charges. 2. Prosecution case in short is that 8 persons Including the present appeliant committed house trespass on 28-06-2005 at 11 P.IVI. m the house of Vedram Lahre, P.W.8 and after putting him in danger of being murdered took him at Gun point to the house of appeiiant Satyaprakash fromwhere he was rescued by police soon after F.I.R. was lodged by Vimla Bai, P.W.7 at Poiice Station Sarangarh. 3. Prosecutlon was launched against six persons. Prosecutlon examined as many as 19 witnesses. The leamed Addltlonal Sessions Judge heid that the prosecution had failed to prove recovery of any katta or knife from the appeliants. It also heid that the evidence ied by the prosecution was not sufficient to convict co- accused Diiip Kumar, Rajesh Kumar Kurr®,Chandragiri and Ratan Lakda, and acquitted them. Conviction of the appellants rests on the testimony of Vedram Lahre, P.W.8 and his wife Vimia Bai, P.W.7 that the appellants had abducted Vedram Lahre on the point of a Katta from his house at about 11 P.M. on 28-06-2005. F.i.R. was iodged 35 minutes after the occurrence by Vimia Bai, P.WJ at -:~%- h^. ^ ^ Poilce Station Sarangarh. Vedram Lahre was rescued by the police from the house ofappeiiant-Satyaprakash soon afterthe iodging of the F.J.R. 4. Shri Sanjay Agrawai, iearned counsel for appellant No.1 and Shri Bharat Rajput, learned counsei for appellant No.2 argued that the prosecution evldence that the appellants had abducted Vedram Lahre on the point of a Katta was not rellabie because the prosecutlon had failed to prove recovery of any katta or knife from the appellants. Refemng to the testimony of Vedram Lahre, P.W.8, it was further arguod that the requisite intention to commit murder of Vedram Lahre or to create an apprehension In his mind that he wouid be putin danger of bejng murdered was lacking in the case and the offence committed by the appeiiants did not travel beyond Sections 451 and 352 ofthe I.P.C. itwas urged thatthe appellants ¥/ere aged 30 and 20 years and had no criminal antecedents. It was therefore argued that the appellants were undergoing sentence since 30-10-2007 i.e., about one year and four & half months and had also suffered incarceration during triai for 37 and 28 days respectiveiy. Learned counsel for both the appeliants prayed that in the circumstances mentioned above, sentence awarded to the appellants by the learned Additional Sessions Judge should be reduced to the sentence aiready undergone bythe appellants. 5. On the other hand, Shri Sameer Behar, Panel Lawyer for the State argued in support of the Impugned judgment. 6. Having heard rival submissions, i have perused the record. Vedram Lahre, P.W.8 has admitted that the appeliant-Prasanna 'r.: © .^' Kumar Verma did not accompany the appellant-Satyaprakash to his house after they forcibly took him from his house in a Marshal! Jeep at about11 P.M.on 28a-06-2005.The Marshall Jeep was not seized during investigation. He admitted in para 4 that after seating him in the Jeep, the appellant-Satyaprakash had told him that he wouSd not assau!t him and their behaviour was only as a token of resentment because he did not vlsit thelr house for seeing the boy for the marriage of his daughter. In para 7, Vedram Lahre deposed that Satyaprakash and he went to a canal where he freshened up. Satyaprakash offered-tea which he refused. Thereafter, he accompanied Satyaprakash on his motorcycie towards basti and teiephoned his house that he was absoiutely fine and a vehscje should be sent to take him home. Thereafter, they v^ent to a shop v^here Satyaprakash had purchased a Lungi and Banyan for him. He thereafter applied oii to his hair because he was having a headache and was disturbed. In para 11, he also admitted that the appeiiants did not bother him in any manner after taking him from the house. He also admitted that brother of the appeltant- Satyaprakash had gone to see his daughter, a prospective bride before the occurrence. He also admitted that he could not identify the person who had put the katta cn hls body in the house. 7. The above admlssions by Vedram Lahre, P.W.8 leave no room for any doubt that the requislte intention of committing murder or dispositlon of Vedram Lahre in a manner so as to cause an apprehension of being murdered is completely !acking in the prosecution evidence. From his testimony, it can aiso not be Inferred that he was wrongiy confined in the house of Satyaprakash. The fact that Vedram Lahre was allowed to make a teiephone cali to hls house to call a vehicle to go home shows that he was not under wrongful confinement in the house of Satyaprakash. The Marshali Jeep mentioned in the F.I.R. was aiso not seized during investigation. Vedram Lahre, P.W.8 further admitted in hls testimony that he could not identify the person who had put the katta cn his body in the house. At the most, it can be said that the appellants Satyaprakash and Prasanna Kumar Verma had used criminai force in an attempt to keep Vedram Lahre in wrongfu! confinement. Once both the appellants took Vedram Lahre out of his house, appeliant Prasanna Kumar Verma ieft their company and it appears that Vedram Lahre was not under wrongful confinement thereafter. Therefore, in my considered opinion, the offence committed by the appeliants wouid not travei beyond Section 357 ofthe I.P.C. 8. In the result, the appeal is partiy allowed. Convlction of the appeilants under Sections 450 and 364 read with Section 34 of the j.P.C. is set aside. The appejlants are convicted under Section 357 of the I.P.C. The offence under Section 357 of the I.P.C. is punishabie with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to one year, or with fine which may extend to one thousand rupees, or wlth both. Sentence awarded to the appellants is therefore modified and instead the appellants are sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay fine of Rs.1,000/- and in default to undergo simple imprisonment for three months. During trial, the appeliant-Satyaprakash was in jail from 30-06-20C® to 05-08-2005 and the appeliant-Prasanna Kumar Verma was in jail from 30-06-2005 to 27-07-2005. Besides both appellants are undergoing sentence from 30-10-2007. The appeliants have thus already undergone the sentence being awarded to them by thls Court, and therefore, shaii be set at iiberty forthwith if not required jn any other casej Sd/- Dilip Raosaheb Deshmukh Judge ( -—^ Tumane ^