Judgment:
Oral Judgment:
1. Heard.
2. The appellant has been convicted by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Akola for the offence punishable under Section 506-II of the Indian Penal Code and was sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for a period of three years and to pay fine of Rs.Two Thousand, in default to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one year. The appellant was tried for the offences punishable under Sections 364 and 506-II of the Indian Penal Code. The appellant has been acquitted of the offence punishable under Section 364 of the Indian Penal Code.
3. The incident in question had occurred on 8th July, 1998 at the house of the complainant Pratap. The appellant had come there and he had threatened the complainant and his family members and had allegedly taken away his father Dashrath to Akola on a scooter. Father of the complainant did not return for 2-1/2 months. The appellant had allegedly threatened the complainant and his family members that if any of the family members attempted to rescue father of the complainant he would be killed.
4. On the basis of report of the complainant first information report was registered on 9th July, 1998. After completion of investigation chargesheet was filed in the Court of Magistrate.
5. When the case came up for hearing before the Additional Sessions Judge, the Additional Sessions Judge framed charge for above stated two offences. The appellant pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
6. The prosecution had examined in all five witnesses in support of its case. P.W. 1 is son of victim Dashrath, P.W. 2 is victim Dashrath himself, P.W. 3 is neighbour of the complainant, P.W. 4 is also neighbour of the complainant and P.W. 5 is Investigating Officer.
7. It appears from the evidence of P.W. 2 that he had taken loan from the appellant and the appellant had come to demand the loan amount. There was some altercation between the appellant and P.W. 2. P.W. 1 only has stated that the threats were extended by the appellant that if P.W. 1 and others attempted to rescue P.W. 2, they would be killed. There are two other eyewitnesses to the incident i.e. P.W. 3 and 4. They have not supported the version given by P.W. 1. It was, therefore, not safe on the part of the learned trial Judge to convict the appellant for the offence punishable under Section 506-II of the Indian Penal Code, particularly when the appellant has been acquitted of the offence punishable under Section 364 of the Indian Penal Code.
8. If story regarding the alleged abduction is not accepted there was no reason to accept the theory of criminal intimidation. The learned trial Court himself was not very certain as to whether such threats were extended by the appellant. What is stated in the judgment is '...it is desirable to convict the accused in respect of offence punishable under Section 506(II) of the I.P.C.'. That itself indicates that the learned trial Judge himself was not certain about the reliability of the evidence adduced by the respondent. Hence, the appeal deserves to be allowed. Hence, I pass the following order.
i. The appeal is allowed.
ii. The conviction of the appellant for the offence punishable under Section 506-II of the Indian Penal Code is set aside. The appellant is acquitted of the said charge.
iii. His bail bonds shall stand cancelled.
iv. Fine, if any, paid by the appellant shall be refunded to him.
The appeal accordingly stands disposed of.