Hrishikesh Roy JUDGMENT
Surya Kant, J.
1. These petitions, which were heard through video conferencing, have been filed by Satish and Vikky @ Vikendra alias Virendra, seeking special leave to appeal against a common order dated 28.04.2017 of the Allahabad High Court through which their appeal against conviction Under Section 364-A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter, "IPC") and consequential sentence of life imprisonment, was turned down.
Facts
2. The undisputable facts of the case are that on the evening of 12.06.2002, when one Vishal Sarawat (the victim) was on his way to meet a friend, he was stopped by an acquaintance-Ramvir Rana who asked him for a lift to his house. The unsuspecting victim walked into Ramvir's house where he was threatened with a pistol and forcibly administered tablets by the present Petitioners and one Ashok. Vishal was subsequently coerced to write a letter dated 04.07.2002 to his father, seeking a ransom of Rs. 2 crores. In the meanwhile, the victim's father-Nepal Singh (the complainant) filed a missing report with the police regarding his son. Vikky telephoned the victim's father on 10.07.2002, pretending to be one 'Shekhar'. He exhorted him to seek help of Ramvir as an intermediary and cautioned him against approaching the police. After a series of correspondences, the ransom was renegotiated to Rs. 32 lakhs, which was physically brought by the complainant to Ramvir's home on 14.07.2002. Both the Petitioners were present in the house, with Vikky having counted the ransom money. Upon assurance that his son would be safely sent back home by that evening, the complainant passed on information to the police who immediately raided the house. Ramvir was arrested, Vishal was rescued and Rs. 31.70 lakhs were recovered. Although the police witnessed them talking to Ramvir and Vishal (victim); Ashok, Satish and Vikky managed to escape from the spot. They were, however, subsequently arrested on 16.07.2002 and charged for the offence of kidnapping for ransom.
3. The case was, after investigation, committed to the Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court-I, Ghaziabad. Eleven witnesses deposed on behalf of the prosecution, which included the victim, complainant, bystanders, and various police officers. In addition, one witness was called by the Court itself. Incriminating voice recordings, Call Detail Records, seized ransom money, and a revolver recovered at the instance of Vikky were also brought on record. The Accused denied all charges and examined three defence witnesses.
4. Placing reliance on a wealth of electronic evidence, the trial Court held that the charge Under Section 364-A Indian Penal Code had been proved beyond reasonable doubt against all Accused, and additionally charge Under Section 25 of the Arms Act, 1959 was also held to have been established against Ashok and Vikky. Life imprisonment and fine of Rs. 10,000 (or six months imprisonment in lieu thereof) was awarded to each Accused for the crime of kidn........