22. We shall now, consider each and every circumstance individually and later on the cumulative effect of all the circumstances would be considered.
(a) Whether Praveen and Jitendra were taken away by appellant Gappe @ Vimlesh and he handed them to Lalla and Dinesh?
Praveen (P.W.2) has stated that he along with Jitendra, Parmal, Ravi and Santosh had gone to the house of one Prakash to attend an invitation. They went to Itawah Toll Tax booth, from where he, Jitendra and Satosh got separated from others. They attended the function and came back to Itawah Toll Tax booth. The appellant Gappe came on a motor cycle and asked that if they want to have a mobile, then they should go along with him and thereafter he and Jitendra went along with Gappe on his motor cycle and asked Santosh to go back to his house and they would follow him soon. On the way, they met with a boy Munesh. All the four persons reached near Quwari Bridge where two persons were standing along with arms. Praveen and Jitendra were handed over to them and thereafter Gappe and Munesh came back. Thus, an important aspect of the matter is that Santosh was accompanying Praveen and Jitendra, when they went along with Gappe.
Similarly, Jitendra (P.W.2) has stated that he, Praveen and Santosh came back from the house of Prakash Baghel and reached Indira Gandhi Square, Itawah Road, where he met with appellant Gappe. Gappe told that if they want a mobile, then he can get the same from Ater Road. Thereafter he along with Praveen sat on the motor cycle of Gappe and went to Petrol Pump situated at Ater Road. From there, the appellant Gappe talked to some one from Public Telephone Booth Thereafter, the appellant Gappe took them to a place near Para Village, where they met with Munesh who also sat on the motor cycle. They went towards a well, where they met with Dinesh who was having 12 bore gun. Gappe and Dinesh had a talk and Munesh was sent back by Dinesh. Thereafter Dinesh and Lalla came back and thereafter the hands of this witness and Praveen were tied. Gappe was sent back. An important aspect of the matter is that this witness has also stated that he, Praveen and Santosh came back from the house of Prakash Baghel and when they reached Indira Gandhi Square, Itawah Road, they met with Gappe.
Thus, from the evidence of Praveen (P.W.2) and Jitendra (P.W.3), it is clear that Santosh (P.W. P.10) was along with them, when they went along with Gappe.
Santosh (P.W.10) has stated that Praveen and Jitendra had gone to attend the invitation given by Prakash and thereafter they did not return back. Their whereabouts were not known and this witness felt that they might have gone to the house of some relative but could not get any information. Thereafter, this witness thought, that Praveen and Jitendra must have gone somewhere in search of job. Thus, it is clear that Santosh has not stated that he had also gone to the house of Prakash Baghel along with Praveen and Jitendra, and while coming back, the abductees, Praveen and Jitendra, went along with the appellant Gappe @ Vimlesh
Thus, if the evidence of Praveen (P.W.2) and Jitendra (P.W.3) is considered along with the evidence of Santosh (P.W.10), then it is clear that Santosh has not supported the evidence of Praveen (P.W.2) and Jitendra (P.W.3) to the effect that he was along with the abuctees, till they met with Gappe. If the evidence of Praveen (P.W.2) and Jitendra (P.W.3) is considered, then it would be clear that their evidence on this issue is not trustworthy, because it is not the case of the prosecution that Santosh at any point of time had informed. Rambaran Singh (P.W.1) about the fact that Praveen (P.W.2) and Jitendra (P.W.3) had gone along with Gappe, otherwise, there was no reason for Rambaran (P.W.1) of not disclosing this fact in his Gum Insaan Report, Ex. P.6.
It was further stated by Praveen (P.W.2) and Jitendra (P.W.3) that they had gone along with Parmal (P.W. 9) and Ravi Yadav (P.W.13) to attend the function in the house of Prakash Baghel, but Parmal (P.W.9) and Ravi Yadav (P.W. 13) have not supported the prosecution case, and they have turned hostile. They were cross examined by the Public Prosecutor, however, nothing could be elicited from their evidence, which may support the prosecution story.
Thus, the evidence of Praveen (P.W.2) and Jitendra (P.W.3) to the effect that when they met with Gappe at Itawah Road, Santosh (P.W.10) was also with them, is not trustworthy.
Praveen (P.W. 2) has not stated in his evidence, that while they were going along with Gappe on his motor cycle, Gappe had a talked with someone from a Public Telephone Booth, whereas Jitendra (P.W.3) has stated that Gappe had talked to some one from Public Telephone Booth.
Further, it is the evidence of Praveen (P.W.2) that when they reached near Quwari bridge, they found that two armed boys were standing to whom Praveen and Jitendra were handed over by Gappe, whereas Jitendra (P.W.3) has stated that when they reached near a well, they found that Dinesh was standing there with 12 bore gun. Gappe had a talk with him. Thereafter, Lalla and Dinesh came back. Thus, it is clear that there is a discrepancy in the evidence of Praveen (P.W.2) and Jitendra (P.W.3) with regard to the manner in which they were handed over to Dinesh and Lalla.
Thus, this Court is of the considered view that the prosecution has failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that while Praveen (P.W.2) and Jitendra (P.W.3) were coming back from the house of Prakash Baghel, they met with Gappe who asked that whether Praveen (P.W.2) and Jitendra (P.W.3) wants a mobile or not and thereafter took them on his motor cycle and handed over them to Dinesh and Lalla.