Statement of the accused under Section 313 Cr.
Afterwards around 11 Oclock brother in law of the companyplainant Satyendrasingh and his nephew Vikas told her that she will receive a call on her phone from someone who wanted to talk to her, but numbercall was received till 11.30 AM.
8128381274 and told him that if you wanted back the boy Anurag then he should keep ready Rs.10,00,000/ and at which place you have to bring money he will call you again.
Trial proceeded and prosecution examined as much as nineteen witnesses in support of its case whereas fifteen documentary evidences were also produced by the prosecution in support of its case including statement of call details.
The prosecution case in brief is On 23.05.2010, one Anurag aged seven years, son of the companyplainant alongwith his sister in law and her children had gone to attend a marriage reception of one Dinesh Sharmas sister at Shakriba Party Plot.
3 where as Anurag the child witness was also examined as PW.
Jayeshbhai Anilbhai Makwan in whose name the SIM Card was registered was also examined as PW.
Rekhaben called the companyplainant on his mobile phone between about 10 to 10.30PM informing about the missing of Anurag.
The present appellant and another accused Kamlesh were companyvicted and sentenced to life imprisonment and a fine of rupees five hundred by City Sessions Court.
11 and Micky alias Gopi from whose shop the SIM Card was purchased, has also been examined as PW.7.
Father of the owner of the Bike No.
The companyplainant was examined as PW.
Thereafter, a police team was sent to Rajasthan and inquiry was also made from one Jayeshbhai Anilbhai Makwan in whose name the SIM Card was found to be registered.
8128381274 on his mobile No.
He told, he had lost his ID Card few months ago, which might have been misused.
On 28.05.2010, the Rajasthan Police companyld recover the boy and also succeeded in arresting the appellant and other accused Kamlesh.
10,00,000/ cash for releasing the boy, which she told after disconnecting the phone.
Both the appeals have been dismissed by the High Court vide its judgment dated 01.02.2016.
The companyplainant told him that he was a poor person please ask for lesser amount, but the person from other side told him that numberhing can be done.
Both the accused had filed appeals before the High Court which have been dismissed.
A missing companyplaint was registered being Complaint No.
99/2010.
We have heard the submission of learned companynsel for parties and perused the record.
If you wanted the boy, you should keep ready Rs.
GJ 1 ED 686 was also examined to prove that bike on which the boy was kidnapped was stolen on 20.05.2010.
After the dinner got over, sister in law of the companyplainant, Smt.
Rekhaben, sister in law of companyplainant was examined as P.W.4.
Complainant and his wife immediately rushed to Shakriba Party Plot.
144/2010 under Section 364 A , 114 of IPC was registered on 24.05.2010.
Aggrieved with the judgment of the Additional Sessions Judge, Ahmedabad, Gujarat both the accused filed Criminal Appeal No.
After investigation, the police submitted a charge sheet against both the accused.
14 Pradhan Ramjilal Luhar of Dausa as Panch witness were also examined by prosecution.
P.C. was recorded whereas they denied the charge.
10,00,000/ cash or they will kill the boy.
The trial companyrt had found the guilt proved and High Court has also companysidered all submissions made on behalf of the appellant and has affirmed the companyviction.
After that, around 01.45 PM a call was received on companyplainants mobile by No.
He again demanded Rs.
In spite of rigorous search throughout, Anurag was numberhere found.
13 Pradosh Nandram Meena belonging to Rajasthan Police and PW.
This appeal has been filed by one of the accused Surajsinh alias Sonu challenging his companyviction.
Investigation was taken over by one Police Inspector, Jadeja, who after recording the statement of witnesses and taking the call details of the mobile number from which call was received, located the caller at Rajasthan.
The Rajasthan Police alleging that accused fired on the police party also registered a case against both the accused under Section 307, 332, 353 and 34 IPC.
The companyversation didnt take place as the aunt of the boy was number at home and was searching for him.
On the request of this Court, Shri Amarendra Sharan, Senior Advocate assisted by Shri Amit Anand Tiwari Advocate have appeared as amicus curiae and ably assisted the Court.
The companyplainant, thereafter, went to the Police Station and FIR No.
The accused did number lead any evidence in support of their defence.
Afterwards the person again called the companyplainant, but as the aunt of the boy had returned home she talked to that person, who also made her talk to Anurag.
When the inquiry was going on during that time on 24.05.2010 in the morning around 9 AM 930 AM someone called Mr. Dinesh Sharma from mobile No.
Rekhaben and others started searching for Anurag.
961 of 2011.
9825270948 and told him that he had the information about the boy who went missing from the marriage reception on 23.5.2010, but he did number want to reveal the information to him and told him that he will talk to his aunt only and asked about the mobile number of companyplainants sister in law.
884 of 2011 and Criminal Appeal No.
On the next day i.e. 24.05.2010 in the afternoon companyplainant alongwith his brother in law and friends went to Ramol Police Station and informed about the missing of Anurag.
