Devendra Dewangan @ Chhotu @Bau Vs State Of Chhattisgarh

Radhakishan Agrawal, J

1. In this appeal filed under Section 374(2) Cr.P.C., the appellants have challenged the legality, validity and propriety of the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 21.01.2020 passed by the 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Rajnandgaon, C.G. in Sessions Trial No. No.20/2018, whereby and whereunder the appellants stand convicted and sentenced as under:-

 (All sentences were directed to run concurrently)

2. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on 03.02.2018 in between 5:30 pm to 10:00 pm at Rajiv Nagar, Basantpur, present appellants, in furtherance of their common intention, abducted the victim- Nishant, aged about 15 years, from lawful guardianship, wrongfully confined him in an abandoned place and demanded Rs.5,00,000/- from PW-2 Nilesh Choubey as ransom on the threat of causing death of the victim and also kept sharp edged knives without having a valid licence and thereby committed the aforesaid offences. Further case of the prosecution is that on 03.02.2018, PW-2 Nilesh Choubey lodged a missing report at Police Station Basantpur alleging therein that at about 5:30 pm, his nephew (victim) went to Pioneer Coaching Center situated at Anupam Chowk, Rajnandgaon and did not return to home till 10:00 pm. When he inquired about the victim from the Director of the coaching center namely Laxman Singh Sahu, he told him (PW-2) that at 6:45 pm, victim- Nishant left for his home. Then he inquired about the victim from his relatives over phone, but he did not get any information from them. On the report of PW-2 Nilesh Choubey, FIR (Ex.P-3) was registered against the unknown persons on the same day. During investigation, In-charge of Police Station, Basantpur got the information that some police personnel are chasing one Eco Maruti Van in Pulgaon Arjunda nearby Cheecha Village. Thereafter, police personnel along with PW-2 Nilesh Choubey and PW-7 Nohit Kumar Dewangan reached there and appellants namely Devendra Dewangan and Mojesh @ Monti Dewangan were nabbed by the police personnel. Thereafter, upon inquiry by the police, appellants Devendra Dewangan and Mojesh Dewangan disclosed the fact that they kidnapped the victim- Nishant with the help of other appellants namely Bhisham and Hemchand @ Mannu Banjare and confined him in a rented house situated at Risali, Bhilai. Thereafter, appellants were taken into custody vide Exs.P-13, 14, 15 & 16 respectively and victim-Nishant was rescued from the place of occurrence vide Ex.P-1. Memorandum statement of the appellant- Devendra Dewangan was recorded vide Ex.P-5, pursuant to which, maruti van having two numbers, one in front side showing No. CG04-HC-1830 and another from back side showing No.CG04-HC-1880, one mobile, SIM bearing registration Nos.9993359659 & 7898766114 and one knife were seized vide Ex.P-9, memorandum statement of appellant- Mojesh Dewangan was recorded vide Ex.P-6, pursuant to which, one knife and one OPPO company mobile with SIM were seized vide Ex.P-10, memorandum statement of appellant- Bhisham Sahu was recorded vide Ex.P-7, pursuant to which, one knife was seized vide Ex.P-11 and memorandum statement of appellant- Hemchand @ Mannu Banjare was recorded vide Ex.P-8, pursuant to which, two number plates bearing registration Nos.CG04-HC-1880 and CG04-HC-1830 and one knife were seized from the house of one Jagannath Prasad (PW-4) vide Ex.P-12. Spot maps were prepared vide Exs.P-19 & P-26. Victim was sent to Medical College Hospital, Rajnandgaon for medical examination vide Ex.P-32 where Dr. Y.K. Tiwari (PW-22) examined the victim and gave his report vide Ex.P-43, according to which, no external or internal injuries were found over the person of the victim. Vide Ex.P-2, test identification parade was conducted where victim- Nishant identified the accused persons/appellants.

3. Statements of the witnesses were recorded under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. After due investigation, the appellants were charge-sheeted before the jurisdictional criminal Court and the case was committed to the trial Court for hearing and disposal in accordance with law, in which appellants abjured their guilt and entered into defence by stating that they have not committed the aforesaid offences.

4. In order to bring home the offence, prosecution has examined as many as 22 witnesses and brought on record 43 documents {Ex.P-1 to P-43}. However, the appellants in their defence have examined none and not exhibited any document.

5. The trial Court after hearing counsel for the respective parties and considering the material available on record, by the impugned judgment convicted and sentenced the appellants as mentioned in para-1 of this judgment.

6. Learned counsel for the appellants would submit that the impugned judgment is per se illegal and contrary to the material available on record as the trial Court has not properly appreciated the oral and documentary evidence in its true perspective. There are material contradictions and omissions in the statements of the prosecution witnesses, which make the whole prosecution case doubtful. No independent witness has supported the prosecution case. The investigation carried out by the Investigating Officer (PW-19 Vinod Kumar Mandavi) is also suspicious as despite availability of other Police Officials, all the formalities of investigation like recording of memorandum, seizure memo and the statements of the witnesses etc. were done by the Investigating Officer (PW-19) only. It is further argued that the test identification parade of the appellants is also not in accordance with law as the police had already shown the appellants to the victim. Further, the witness to identification parade (PW-18 Ishwar Soni) has not supported the proceeding of test identification parade. They would further submit that medical evidence also does not lend any support to the prosecution case as no external or internal injury was found on the person of the victim. It is contented that the prosecution has not produced any report with respect to mobile No.7898306345 by which PW-2 Nilesh Choubey was first called and abused on 03.02.2018 and ransom was demanded. They would also submit that the whole prosecution case is suspicious and doubtful. On these premises, learned counsel for the appellants urged that appeal be allowed and the appellants be acquitted of the charges levelled against them.

Alternatively, for the sake of argument, it is submitted that there being no cogent and reliable evidence to show that any threat was extended for causing death of the victim in order to compel PW-2 Nilesh Choubey to pay the ransom, therefore, no offence under Section 364-A of IPC is made out against the appellants No.1 & 3 and at most, offence under Sections 363 of IPC can be made out. In support of above contention, reliance has been placed on the decisions of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matters of Shaik Ahmed vs State of Telangana (2021) 9 SCC 59, Ravi Dhingra vs State of Haryana (2023) 6 SCC 76 & Gireesan Nair and others vs State of Kerala (2023) 1 SCC 180.

7. Learned counsel for the State would support the impugned judgment and submit that the prosecution has brought home the offence against the appellants and has proved the case against the appellants beyond reasonable doubt since the victim had clearly identified the appellants as perpetrator of the crime in question and thus, the appellants have rightly been convicted and sentenced for the aforesaid offences. Therefore, the appeal deserves to be dismissed.

8. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record.

9. Admittedly, the conviction of the appellants is based on the statements of victim/PW-1 Nishant, PW-2 Nilesh Choubey and PW-7 Nohit Dewangan. Victim / PW-1 Nishant has stated in his examination-in-chief that he knew the accused-appellants who are present in the Court. He has further stated that at about 7:00 pm, while he was returning to his home from tuition centre, on way near Science College, one of the appellants was found standing near the red Maruti Van, then he asked his name, upon which the alleged tall man stated that his name is Hemchand Banjare. As soon as he was turning towards street, then the alleged tall boy lifted him and put him inside the van and the remaining three accused persons were sitting in the said van, out of which, one was on the driver seat, one was sitting next to him and another was behind him and he saw their faces. He has further stated that the accused person, who was on the driver seat, drove the car at speed and then covered his (victim) face. Thereafter, the accused persons took him to an abandoned place and confined him to a dark room, there they removed the cloth from his face as also from their faces. He has also stated that the accused persons enquired from him about the phone number of his father, but as he did not remember the mobile number of his father, he gave the number of his uncle (PW-2 Nilesh Choubey) and thereafter the appellants called his uncle (PW-2) on mobile and demanded Rs.5,00,000/- as ransom or else they will kill him. In cross-examination para 10, he states that while he was being abducted, he raised hue and cry, but nobody came to his rescue. Though in para 16, he admits that he had seen the appellants in the police station, however, in para 18 he states that he had seen the appellants while he was being abducted. Further in para 20, he says that the person who made him board the vehicle was not wearing any scarf and that the other accused persons were also not wearing scarfs and they cover their face later on. It is noteworthy to mention here that there is no rebuttal of the demand of ransom by the appellants in the cross-examination of this witness.

10. PW-2 Nilesh Choubey has stated that his nephew/victim had gone to pioneer coaching centre to study and daily he reaches the house between 7:00-7:15 pm, but on the date of incident, when he did not return to home, then he started searching, but did not find his whereabouts. He has further stated that at around 9:15 pm, he received a call on his mobile number (9827902926) from an unknown number and caller abused him filthily and when he asked the name of the caller, he disconnected the call. He has further stated that after lodging of FIR (Ex.P-3) in police station Basantpur, he again received a call from the same number and the caller demanded Rs.5,00,000/- as ransom for release of his nephew (victim) or else he (victim) would be killed. He has also stated in para 4 that during investigation, police caught two persons and informed him whereupon he along with his friend Nohit Dewangan (PW-7) went to village Cheecha and from there to Risali Bhilai where victim was confined and two persons who were keeping watch on the victim were also caught by the police and the victim was recovered from the possession of the accused persons. This witness has also proved the recovery panchnama Ex.P-1 which was recorded on 04.02.2018 at 6:30 pm, wherein it was stated that the victim (PW-1) was recovered from a room of second floor of house of one Jagannath Prasad as told by the accused persons- Devendra Dewangan, Mojesh Dewangan and Bhishma Sahu and at that time, the victim's face was covered with air pillow and his hands were tied from back side and his legs were also tied by cloth rope, which were opened in front of witnesses and then recovered the victim only after he recognised him. In cross-examination, this witness has denied all the adverse suggestions and has supported the version of the victim (PW-1).

11. PW-4 Jagannath, from whose house the victim was recovered, has stated that he knew the accused persons Devendra Dewangan and Bhisham Kumar Sahu. This witness has further stated that Devendra Dewangan, Bhisham and Rahul Raja used to live in his house on rent that is why he knew them.

12. PW-5 Nagendra Singh has stated that he did not know the accused persons present in the Court and adjacent to his shop, there is house of PW-4 Jagannath where three-four boys lived on rent and he never met those boys. He has further stated that it was about 2-3 months ago, police had come to the house of PW-4 Jagannath, then he came to know that child was probably kidnapped from Rajnandgaon and kept tied in that rented house. PW-6 Vinod Kumar has also stated the same facts as stated by PW-5 Nagendra Sigh.

13. PW-7 Nohit Kumar Dewangan has stated that during the course of investigation by the Police, the victim was recovered from the house where the accused persons were residing on rent. He has further stated that wherever proceedings were going on, this witness (PW-7) and PW-2 Nilesh Choubey have been made as witnesses in all the written documents and thus supported the prosecution story.

14. PW-19 Vinod Kumar Mandavi, Inspector, conducted the investigation and has stated that on 03.02.2018, PW-2 Nilesh Choubey has lodged a missing report of PW-1 victim, then a Crime No.66/2018 for an offence under Section 363 IPC has been registered in the FIR (Ex.P-1), upon such report, investigation took place and during course of investigation on 04.02.2018, the two accused persons namely Deverendra Dewangan and Mojesh Dewangan were caught from the said maruti van who told that in connivance with other co-accused persons Bhisham Sahu and Mannu Satnami, they have abducted the victim-PW-1. Thereafter, he recorded the memorandum statement of appellant- Devendra Dewangan vide Ex.P-5 on 04.02.2018 at 17:05 hours, pursuant to which, maruti van having two numbers, one in front side showing No. CG04-HC-1830 and another from back side showing No.CG04-HC-1880, one mobile, SIM bearing registration Nos.9993359659 & 7898766114 and one button knife were seized vide Ex.P-9 and also recorded the memorandum statement of appellant-Mojesh Dewangan vide Ex.P-6 on the same day at 17:25 hours, pursuant to which, one knife and one OPPO company mobile with SIM were seized vide Ex.P-10 and on the basis of memorandum statements of accused- Devendra Dewangan and Mojesh Dewanga, he recovered the victim on the same day at 6:30 pm from the house of PW-4 Jagannath vide Ex.P-1 recovery panchanama. Thereafter, he recorded the memorandum statement of appellant- Bhisham Sahu vide Ex.P-7, pursuant to which, one knife was seized vide Ex.P-11 and memorandum statement of appellant- Hemchand @ Mannu Banjare was recorded vide Ex.P-8, pursuant to which, two number plates bearing registration Nos.CG04-HC-1880 and CG04-HC-1830 and one knife were seized from the house of one Jagannath Prasad (PW-4) vide Ex.P-12.and thus has fully supported the prosecution case and his statement has duly been corroborated by statements of PW-2 Nilesh Choubey and PW-7 Nohit Kumar Dewangan.

15. PW-22 Dr. Y.K. Tiwari medically examined the victim vide Ex.P-43, wherein he did not notice any external or internal injury on the body of the victim and found that victim was mentally and physically fit.

16. PW-15 Komal Singh Dhruv, Nayab Tehsildar, conducted test identification parade vide Ex.P-2 wherein victim/PW-1 duly identified the accused persons. Further, PW-1 / victim- Nishant has clearly stated in para 16 of his cross-examination that he has identified the accused persons at Police Station itself and in para 18 of his cross-examination, he has admitted that police was present at the time of identification proceedings and in that situation, when the appellants were shown to PW-1 Victim, then such parade proceedings could not have been accepted as the victim had already seen them. However, when a question was put by the defence to PW-1 Victim in cross-examination para 18 that he has not identified the accused persons before identification proceedings, then PW-1 victim has clearly stated that he saw the appellants while he was being taken by the appellants in the van and also recognised them while giving statement before the Court even after 15 days of incident. It is relevant to note here that victim had seen the accused persons while he was kidnapped forcibly and as per the statement of PW-22 Dr. Y.K. Tiwari who has medically examined the victim/PW-1 vide Ex.P-43 found that victim was in a fit state of mind.

17. With respect to identification, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Malkhan Singh vs State of M.P. (2003) 5 SCC 746 has observed in para 16 as under:-

“16. It is well settled that the substantive evidence is the evidence of identification in court and the test identification parade provides corroboration to the identification of the witness in court, if required. However, what weight must be attached to the evidence of identification in court, which is not preceded by a test identification parade, is a matter for the courts of fact to examine. In the instant case, the courts below have concurrently found the evidence of the prosecutrix to be reliable and, therefore, there was no need for the corroboration of her evidence in court as she was found to be implicitly reliable. We find no error in the reasoning of the courts below. From the facts of the case it is quite apparent that the prosecutrix did not even know the appellants and did not make any effort to falsely implicate them by naming them at any stage. The crime was perpetrated in broad daylight. The prosecutrix had sufficient opportunity to observe the features of the appellants who raped her one after the other. Before the rape was committed, she was threatened and intimidated by the appellants. After the rape was committed, she was again threatened and intimidated by them. All this must have taken time. This is not a case where the identifying witness had only a fleeting glimpse of the appellants on a dark night. She also had a reason to remember their faces as they had committed a heinous offence and put her to shame. She had, therefore, abundant opportunity to notice their features. In fact on account of her traumatic and tragic experience, the faces of the appellants must have got imprinted in her memory, and there was no chance of her making a mistake about their identity. The occurrence took place on March 4, 1992 and she deposed in Court on August 27, 1992. The prosecutrix appears to be a witness on whom implicit reliance can be placed and there is no reason why she should falsely identify the appellants as the perpetrators of the crime if they had not actually committed the offence. In these circumstances if the courts below have concurrently held that the identification of the appellants by the prosecutrix in court does not require further corroboration, we find no reason to interfere with the finding recorded by the courts below after an appreciation of the evidence on record.”

18. In the matter of State of U.P. vs Boota Singh (1979) 1 SCC 31, the Supreme Court observed that the evidence of identification becomes stronger if the witness has an opportunity of seeing the accused not for a few minutes but for some length of time, in broad day light, when he would be able to note the features of the accused more carefully than on seeing the accused in a dark night for a few minutes.

19. In the light of aforesaid decisions coupled with the evidence of PW-1 and medical evidence, proved by Dr. PW-22 Dr. Y.K. Tiwari, it is quite vivid that since the victim/PW-1 has already seen and identified the accused persons while he was being lifted by the appellants forcibly, while taking him in van and while he was confining to the room, therefore, PW-1 victim proved the identification of appellants in Court. In view thereof, the test identification parade is of no use to the prosecution. Hence, the judgments relied upon by learned counsel for the appellants in the matter of Gireesan Nair (supra) being distinguishable on facts, are of no help to the appellants.

20. Furthermore, pursuant to the memorandum statement appellant-Devendra Dewangan vide Ex.P-5 on 04.02.2018 at 17:05 hours, maruti van having two numbers, one in front side showing No. CG04-HC-1830 and another from back side showing No.CG04-HC-1880, one mobile, SIM bearing registration Nos.9993359659 & 7898766114 and one button knife were seized vide Ex.P-9, as per memorandum statement of appellant- Mojesh Dewangan vide Ex.P-6 on the same day at 17:25 hours, one knife and one OPPO company mobile with SIM were seized vide Ex.P-10 and on the basis of memorandum statements of accused-Devendra Dewangan and Mojesh Dewangan, victim was recovered on the same day at 6:30 pm from the house of PW-4 Jagannath where he was confined and tied. Thereafter, memorandum statement of appellant- Bhisham Sahu was recorded vide Ex.P-7 on the same day at 6:50 pm, pursuant to which, one knife was seized vide Ex.P-11 and likewise, memorandum statement of appellant- Hemchand @ Mannu Banjare was recorded vide Ex.P-8 on 05.02.2018 at 9:15 am, pursuant to which, vide Ex.P-12, two number plates bearing registration Nos.CG04-HC-1880 and CG04-HC-1830 and one knife were seized from the house where victim boy was confined, during course of investigation. The Supreme Court on various occasions discussed law relating to how much information given under police custody can be proved in Court of law. In the matter of Harpal Singh alias Chota vs State of Punjab (2017) 1 SCC 734, it has observed by the Supreme Court in paras 53, 54 & 55 as under:-

“53. It is no longer res integra that the “fact discovered” as envisaged under Section 27 of the Act, in consequence of any information received from a person in the custody of a police officer, embraces the place from which any object is produced and the knowledge of the accused as to this provided the information given relate distinctively to the fact, as had been held by the Privy Council in Pullukuri Kotayya and others vs. King Emperror, AIR 1947 PC 67. This enunciation, hallowed by time, has been oft quoted with approval by this Court in a plethora of subsequent pronouncements while interpreting the scope and purport of the above legal provision.

54. Amongst others in Bodhraj @ Bodha and Others vs. State of Jamu & Kashmir (2002) 8 SCC 45, it has been elucidated that the doctrine is founded on the principle that if any fact is discovered in a search made on the strength of any information obtained from a prisoner, while in the custody of a police officer, such a discovery is a guarantee that the information supplied by the prisoner is true. It had been held that the information may be confessional or non inculpatory in nature, but if it results in discovery of facts, it becomes a reliable information.

55. It is unnecessary, in view of such a settled propounded legal postulation to multiply authorities on the point. Suffice it to state in the backdrop of the state of law on the admissibility of the information of a person accused of any offence in the custody of a police officer so far as it relates distinctly to the fact thereby discovered, the irresistible conclusion in the facts of the case in hand is that the disclosures made by the accused persons leading to the recoveries and seizures are indeed relevant facts in support of the charge levelled against them.

21. From perusal of aforesaid decision coupled with the evidence brought by the prosecution, it is evident that at the instance of appellants seizure of articles was effected and recovery of victim was made vide Ex.P-1, which was supported from the statements of PW-19 Vinod Kumar Mandavi, Investigating Officer, PW-7 Nohit Kumar Dewangan and PW-2 Nilesh Choubey. Therefore, it is clear that the appellants, in furtherance of their common intention and in order to kill the victim, kept the sharp edged knives with them, if their demand of ransom was not fulfilled.

22. As regards the complicity of the appellants, from perusal of the statement of PW-1/victim, it is clear that on the date of incident, at about 7:00 pm, while he was returning to his home from tuition centre, on way near Science College, he was abducted by the appellants and kept him in an abandoned area. It is also clear that accused persons enquired from him about the phone number of his father, whereupon, he gave the number of his uncle (PW-2 Nilesh Choubey) and thereafter the appellants called his uncle (PW-2) on mobile and demanded Rs.5,00,000/- as ransom or else they will kill him. Further, from perusal of the evidence of PW-1/victim, it is manifestly clear that he had seen the appellants while he was being lifted by the appellants forcibly, while taking him in van and while he was confining to the rented room and thus the victim correctly identified them during trial. This apart, his evidence also finds corroboration from the evidence of PW-2 Nilesh Choubey who states that after the victim being kidnapped, he received a phone call demanding ransom of Rs.5,00,000/- or else the victim will be killed. During investigation, the police caught two persons Devendra Dewangan and Mojesh @ Monti Dewangan and at their instance, the police reached the place of occurrence, caught the other two accused persons namely Bhisham Kumar Sahu and Hemchand @ Mannu Banjare and rescued the victim. During this proceeding, this witness (PW-2) was accompanying the PW-19 Vinod Kumar Mandavi, I.O. and PW-7 Nohit Kumar Dewagan who have also supported the prosecution case. Nothing could be brought on record by the defence to show that the appellants/accused were implicated in this case on account of any previous enmity with the family of the victim.

23. When we consider the aforesaid evidence in the light of facts and circumstances of the case, it is evident that on the date of incident, victim was kidnapped by the appellants and being physically and mentally fit, the evidence (PW-1) inspires confidence and untrustworthy and also remains unrebutted by the defence. The trial Court, after appreciation of the evidence and material available on record, has rightly come to the conclusion that it was the present appellants, who in furtherance of their common intention, abducted the victim- Nishant from lawful guardianship, wrongfully confined him in an abandoned place and demanded ransom from PW-2 Nilesh Choubey on the threat of causing death of the victim.

24. So far as the contention of learned counsel for the appellants that Section 364-A of IPC is not made out against the appellants No.1 & 3, is concerned, before proceeding with the matter, it would be apt to reproduce the provisions contained in Section 364-A of IPC:-

“364-A. Kidnapping for ransom, etc.- Whoever kidnaps or abducts any person or keeps a person in detention after such kidnapping or abduction 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 organisation 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.”

25. We may now look into section 364A to find out as to what ingredients the Section itself contemplate for the offence. When we paraphrase Section 364-A following is deciphered:-

(i) “Whoever kidnaps or abducts any person or keeps a person in detention after such kidnapping or abduction”

(ii) “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,

(iii) or causes hurt or death to such person in order to compel the Government or any foreign State or international intergovernmental organisation or any other person to do or abstain from doing any act or to pay a ransom”

26. The first essential condition as incorporated in Section 364A is “whoever kidnaps or abducts any person or keeps a person in detention after such kidnapping or abduction”. The second condition begins with conjunction “and”. The second condition has also two parts, i.e., (a) threatens to cause death or hurt to such person or (b) by his conduct gives rise to a reasonable apprehension that such person may be put to death or hurt. Either part of above condition, if fulfilled, shall fulfill the second condition for offence. The third condition begins with the word “or”, i.e., or causes hurt or death to such person in order to compel the Government or any foreign State or international inter-governmental organisation or any other person to do or abstain from doing any act or to pay a ransom”. Section 364A contains a heading “kidnapping for ransom, etc.” The kidnapping by a person to demand ransom is fully covered by Section 364A.

27. From the facts and circumstances of the case, the evidence brought by the prosecution, in particular the statements of PW-1 / Victim, PW-2 Nilesh Choubey, PW-7 Nohit Kumar Dewangan and PW-19 Vinod Kumar Mandavi, it is clear that appellant Nos. 1 Devendra Dewangan @ Chhotu @ Bau and appellant No.3 Mojesh @ Monti Dewangan actively participated along with the other appellants in the aforesaid crime and when they were caught by the police, at their instance, appellant No.2 Bhisham Kumar Sahu and appellant No.4 Hemchand @ Mannu Banjare were nabbed, which shows their common intention to kidnap the victim and to make a ransom call, though the call numbers received by PW-2 Nilesh Choubey were not shown, however, the statements of PW-1 victim and PW-2 Nilesh Choubey show the demand of ransom. It is pertinent to mention here that there is no rebuttal of the demand of ransom by the appellants in the cross-examination of PW-1 / Victim and the recovery panchnama (Ex.P-1) also shows the condition of the victim-PW-1 whose face was covered with air pillow and his hands were tied from back side and his legs were also tied by a cloth rope at that time, which shows that the appellants forcibly abducted the victim in order to obtain ransom. Therefore, it is proved that on the date of incident, appellant Nos. 1 & 3 with the help of co-accused persons, in furtherance of their common intention, abducted the victim, wrongfully confined him in an abandoned place and demanded ransom from PW-2 Nilesh Choubey on the threat of causing death of the victim, if their demand is not fulfilled. For the present, presuming that if their demand is fulfilled, even then they would have killed the victim boy-PW-1 as he, in a fit state of mind, identified them while he was being taken by them in van. Thus, there is every possibility that the victim's life was in danger in the hands of the appellants as they tied the victim with ropes and veiled his face by a pillow cover and on the strength of knives, they made a threat call to PW-2 Nilesh Choubey, all these acts of the appellants would show that every time victim was under the fear and threat of death.

28. In view thereof, we are of the considered opinion that ingredients contained in Section 364-A of IPC are fully attracted in this case and that there is nothing on record to show as to how the ingredients of Section 364-A of IPC are not attracted against the appellant Nos. 1 & 3. Hence, in the given facts and circumstances of the present case, the decisions relied upon by learned counsel for the appellants in the matters of Ravi Dhingra (supra) & Shaik Ahmed (supra) being distinguishable on facts, are of no help to the appellant Nos. 1 & 3 and the contention raised by the learned counsel for the appellant Nos.1 & 3 is hereby rejected.

29. In view of the aforesaid discussions, we are of the considered view that the findings recorded by the trial Court are based on proper appreciation of the evidence and material available on record, which do not call for any interference by this Court.

30. In the result, the appeal being without any substance, is liable to be and is hereby dismissed.