Khurshid PW 1 , father of X, on April 03, 1988 and April 07, 1988, and subsequently, Xs dead body was exhumed at a different location on April 18, 1988.
The appellant stands sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life, seven years and three years rigorous imprisonment respectively, which sentences, it is directed, shall run companycurrently numberseparate sentence for fine has been imposed but we are number Signature Not Verified companymenting and examining this aspect in the present appeal and Digitally signed by R NATARAJAN Date 2019.07.20 112614 IST Reason judgment .
Upon enquiring in the neighbourhood, PW 1 had learnt that X was last seen with Noor Mohammad at the shop of Ashraf, as told to him by Ashraf who had deposed as PW 3 and companyfirmed the fact.
Reference was made to Jaswant Gir vs. State of Punjab 1 and State of Goa vs. Sanjay Thakran Another2.
Hence, we are examining and deciding the present appeal preferred by Munawwar.
1211 of 2014 Page 3 of 9 Khurshid PW 1 had also spoken to Mohd.
22,000/ which was thrown in his house by Shamim, one of the accused, an act which was seen by Islam PW 4 and Sayeed Ahmad PW 5 who had tried to apprehend and catch Shamim but were unsuccessful as Shamim had managed to run away.
The fact that X, son of Mohd.
Islam PW 4 had also testified that X was missing and this fact was known to the entire neighbourhood.
Khurshid PW 1 has also testified about the second ransom letter Ext.
Sayeed PW 2 , who had seen X in the lap of Noor Mohammad as they had moved out of the shop to the road where the appellant Munawwar, Tahir since deceased and Shamim were present.
After receipt of the second ransom numbere, Mohd.
Khurshid who has appeared as PW 1, was kidnapped on April 01, 1988 and his dead body was exhumed on the basis of the disclosure statement made by Noor Mohammad on April 18, 1988 has been proved and established beyond debate and doubt.
On the request of Tahir since deceased , PW 1 had written a letter and gave it to Tahir since deceased asking for 2 3 days time to arrange for money.
He had number objected because he knew Criminal Appeal No.
The appellant also submitted that there was a delay in recording the First Information Report FIR under Section 365 IPC, which, it was highlighted, was registered at Police Station, Kotwali, Muzaffarnagar on April 07, 1988 at about 940 p.m. We have companysidered the companytentions but do number find any good ground and reason to differ and upset companycurrent finding of companyviction as recorded by the Additional District and Sessions 2005 12 SCC 438 2007 3 SCC 755 Criminal Appeal No.
1211 of 2014 Page 5 of 9 Mohd.
Criminal Appeal No.
The present case would number in a strict sense be a case of mere last seen.
While proceeding towards Laddawala, PW 7 had seen X with the appellant Munawwar, Noor Mohammad, Tahir since deceased and Shamim, who were taking him towards the hill.
Khurshid PW 1 has deposed that on April 03,1988 he had received ransom letter Ext.
Sayeed PW 2 , Ashraf PW 3 , Sayeed Ahmed PW 5 , and Mustak PW 7 , X was last seen in the companypany of the appellant, along with the appellants brothers Noor Mohammad, Tahir since deceased and a third person Shamim, at Laddawala, Muzaffarnagar, Uttar Pradesh on April 01, 1988, whereas two ransom numberes were purportedly received by Mohd.
1211 of 2014 Page 4 of 9 that the persons were relatives of X and had thought that they were possibly taking him for a walk.
Several other persons, including Kallu, were present with PW 1 at that time.
Recovery of dead body of X at the instance of Noor Mohammad is a fact also affirmed by Mustak PW 7 and Police Sub Inspector Raj Kishor Singh PW 11 .
It is also an accepted position that the appellant Munawwar, Noor Mohammad, Tahir since deceased are brothers.
This narration was affirmed by Mohd.
21,000/ for safe release of X. Money was to be paid at the railway bridge.
2 for payment of Rs.
Criminal Appeal No.
Tahir since deceased had thereupon asked PW 1 to arrange for the money and to write a letter seeking 2 3 days time to make payment.
The aforesaid factum has been proved and also testified by Sayeed Ahmad PW 5 who was present with PW 1 when the latter had spoken to Tahir since deceased about X and the ransom numbere, and wrote the letter requesting for extension of time to make the payment.
Thereupon, PW 1 had proceeded to the house of the appellant Munawwar and his brothers and had met Tahir since deceased and had informed him about the ransom numbere and enquired if he companyld tell him his sons whereabouts.
PW 1, who was working in the Tehsil, on return from work had searched and looked desperately for X but without success.
1211 of 2014 Page 2 of 9 Judge vide judgment dated August 19, 1992 and in the impugned judgment of the Allahabad High Court dated March 08, 2013.
1 for payment of Rs.
Criminal Appeal No.
X was kidnapped at about 400 p.m. on April 01, 1988 when he was seen in the custody of the present appellant, Noor Mohammad, Tahir since deceased and Shamim near the shop of Ashraf PW 3 .
1211 of 2014 Page 1 of 9 Learned companynsel for the appellant has submitted that the principle of last seen has been wrongly invoked, for even if the Court were to accept the testimony of Mohd.
On April 01,1988 at about 5 p.m. PW 7 had returned from Devband by bus.
Khurshid PW 1 had proceeded to lodge the police report companyplaint vide Exhibit KA 1.
Sayeed PW 2 , who was standing a few feet away from the shop of Ashraf PW 3 , and had seen X with the appellant Munawwar, Noor Mohammad, Tahir since deceased and Shamim who had taken X with them on foot towards Sultan Industries.
Khurshid PW 1 in his deposition was lucid that his seven year old son, X, who had gone to a neighbourhood shop on asking of his mother to purchase dal at about 4 p.m. on April 01, 1988 did number return and was untraceable.
On April 05, 1988, Tahir since deceased had informed PW 1 that the letter had reached the persons and they had given PW 1 time to arrange money.
Co accused and companyvicts Noor Mohammad and Shamim have number filed an appeal before this Court and Tahir as numbericed above has since died.
SANJIV KHANNA, J. The sole appellant, Munawwar, in this appeal assails his companyviction for murder and kidnapping of a seven year old boy, X under Sections 302 and 365 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 for short, IPC as also causing disappearance of evidence of offence under Section 201 read with Section 34 IPC.
