1

NON-REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL  No(s). 567  OF 2010

STATE OF HARYANA                                   Appellant(s)

                               VERSUS

SUNDER PAL AND ORS.                            Respondent(s)

J U D G M E N T

BANUMATHI, J.:

(1) Being  aggrieved  by  the  acquittal  of  the  respondents-

accused  under  Section  364-A  I.P.C.,  State  of  Haryana  has

preferred this appeal.

(2)  Case of the prosecution is that Complainant-Amit Kumar

son of Madan Mohan aged nine years was kidnapped on 29.05.1996

at around 01.30 pm when he went out to play.  On 02.06.1996,

accused-Yashpal came to Madan Mohan and demanded ransom amount

of Rs.10,00,000/-.  Madan Mohan, Sanjay Jain and Fakir Chand

decided not to report the matter to police and arranged a sum

of Rs.3,50,000/- in the denomination of Rs.500/-, Rs.100/- and

Rs.50/-.  First and the last note of the bundles were initialed

by Madan Mohan as 'MM'. On 03.06.1996, the currency of the

Rs.10,00,000/- was handed over to Yashpal and on 04.06.1996,

Yashpal brought back Amit Kumar and he was handed over to Madan

Mohan.  After enquiring from Amit Kumar (the victim boy) that

2

he was accosted by Virender and thereafter he was taken by

accused Vinod and Sohan in their motorcycle to Railway Station

Sona  Arjunpur  where  there  were  other  accused  namely  Pawan,

Pappu,  Jagbir,  Sunder  Pal  and  Vikas.  After  the  case  was

registered, the police carried out a raid and the accused were

apprehended and the cash was recovered from them under the

seizure memo.   

(3) Upon  consideration  of  the  evidence,  the  Trial  Court

convicted  all  the  accused  except  Virender  (who  was  not

traceable) under Section 364-A I.P.C. and sentenced them to

undergo  rigorous  imprisonment  for  life.   In  the  appeal

preferred  before  the  High  Court,  accused  –  Vikas  @  Vicky,

Yashpal, Vidya Sagar, Vishav Pal, Pawan Kumar, Sundar Pal and

Jagbir Singh were acquitted of all the charges by the High

Court.  However, the High Court affirmed the conviction of the

accused – Vinod and Sohan and also maintained the sentence of

imprisonment imposed upon them.

(4) We  have  heard  Mr.  Alok  Sangwan,  learned  Additional

Advocate General appearing for the appellant-State.  M/s. Nidhi

and J.P. Singh, learned counsel appearing for the respondents

and also perused the impugned judgment and the evidence and

materials on record.

(5) The main witness in the case is of Amit Kumar (PW-2), who

was the kidnapped boy, and in his evidence he has stated that

he was forcibly taken by the accused-Vinod, Sohan and Virender

3

(still absconding) and they made him to sit on the motorcycle

and then he was taken to Sona Arjunpur Railway Station.  Amit

Kumar (PW-2) further stated that he was subsequently taken to a

garden near to the said railway station where the other accused

–  Pawan,  Pappu,  Jagbir,  Sunder  Pal  and  Vikas  were  playing

cards.  From the evidence of Amit Kumar (PW-2), the High Court

held that the overt act is only attributed to Virender, Vinod

and Sohan who took Amit Kumar (PW-2) on the motorcycle.  So far

as other accused, as stated above, are concerned they were only

found playing cards near the Sona Arjunpur Railway Station and

there was no evidence forthcoming against them as to their role

in the kidnapping of Amit Kumar (PW-2) or that they were part

of the conspiracy to Kidnap Amit Kumar (PW-2).  The High Court

observed that apart from the evidence of Amit Kumar (PW-2) that

the above named accused were found playing cards near to the

Sona Arjunpur Railway Station from where Amit Kumar (PW-2) was

taken, there was no evidence against the said accused.  The

High Court held that the prosecution against the above named

accused  has  not  been  established  beyond  reasonable  doubt.

When the view taken by the High Court is a plausible view and

cannot be said to be suffering from any serious infirmity, we

do  not  find  any  ground  warranting  interference  with  the

impugned judgment.

(6) Learned counsel appearing for the respondents-accused have

stated that accused – Sunder Pal, Vidya Sagar and Yashpal have

passed away after the filing of this petition.  Learned counsel

4

for the State, Mr. Alok Sangwan submitted that he would verify

the same.

(7) We, however, considered the matter on merits, we do not

find any good ground warranting interference in the impugned

judgment.  In the result, the appeal is dismissed.

..........................J.                 (R. BANUMATHI)

..........................J.         (INDIRA BANERJEE)

NEW DELHI, OCTOBER 31, 2018.